Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2024-09-10 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 September 10, 2024 9:00 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 – June 20, 2024 (Accept) 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (2 minutes per person) see call in number above 6. WORKING SESSION A. Ethics Training (60 minutes) B. AEA Overview (90 minutes) C. Share Point Board Access (10 minutes) 7. COMMITTEE REPORTS - NONE 8. OLD BUSINESS – NONE 9. NEW BUSINESS – A. Resolution 2024-05 Amending AEA Bylaws B. Election of Officers C. Resolution 2024-06 Banking Services Resolution D. Resolution 2024-07 Federal Grant Awards E. Resolution 2024-08 – Authorizing acceptance of GRIP 3, Round 1 Grant Award F. Resolution 2024-09 – Accepting Solar For All Grant Award G. Resolution 2024-10 – Transfer of Craig-Klawock Tie Line H. Resolution 2024-11 – Transfer of Shungnak-Kobuk Tie Line I. Resolution 2024-12 – Amendment to Bond Resolution J. Resolution 2024-13 – Authorizing Purchase of Capacity on Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) – (pending) K. Meeting schedule (Quarterly – July, October, January, April) L. Sub-committee Assignments (Budget & Audit, and Personnel) 10. DIRECTOR COMMENTS (30 minutes) A. AEA FY 2025 Budget B. Audit Update - process C. National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Plan D. Denali Commission Awards E. Community Outreach F. Articles of Interest G. Next Regularly Scheduled AEA Board - TBD 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION – Discuss confidential financial matters related to the FY26 budget 12. BOARD COMMENTS 13. ADJOURNMENT Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 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. We will unmute callers individually in the order the calls were received. When an individual is unmuted, you will hear, “It is now your turn to speak.” Please identify yourself and make your public comments. 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG Alaska Energy Authority BOARD MEETING MINUTES Thursday, June 20, 2024 Anchorage, Alaska 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pruhs called the meeting of the Alaska Energy Authority to order on June 20, 2024, at 8:30 am. 2. ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS Members present: Chair Dana Pruhs (Public Member); Albert Fogle (Public Member); Julie Sande (Commissioner DCCED); Adam Crum (Commissioner DOR (Arrived 8:46 am)); Bill Vivlamore (Public Member); and Randy Eledge (Public Member). Members absent: Vice-Chair Bill Kendig (Public Member). A quorum was established. 3. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Fogle requested that the topic of personnel matters is added to the executive session on the agenda. There was no objection. MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Fogle to approve the agenda with the added topic of personnel matters to the executive session. Motion seconded by Mr. Vivlamore. The motion to approve the agenda with the added topic of personnel matters to the executive session passed without objection. 4. PRIOR MINUTES – May 15, 2024 MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Fogle to approve the prior minutes of May 15, 2024. Motion seconded by Mr. Vivlamore. The motion to approve the minutes of May 15, 2024 passed without objection. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (2 minutes per person) There were no members of the public online or in-person who requested to comment. 6. NEW BUSINESS - None Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 8 7. OLD BUSINESS - None 8. DIRECTORS COMMENTS A. FY 2025 Budget Executive Director and Secretary-Treasurer Curtis Thayer discussed the FY 2025 Budget update included in the Board packet. He noted that the Governor has not yet signed the operating budget. Mr. Thayer discussed that the Governor’s original requested amount for the Renewable Energy Grant Fund Program (REF) was $5 million, and the Legislature passed the total of $14,310,158 for the REF, providing funding for seven projects. Additionally, the Governor’s original budget did not include funding for Port Electrification, even though last year, funding was provided at $5 million. The Legislature passed funding for Port Electrification this year in the amount of $10 million. The funding source is from the commercial vessel passage head tax on cruise ships. The Legislature wants AEA to continue the port electrification efforts. All other budget items remained the same. Chair Pruhs asked Mr. Thayer when the Governor will sign the budget. Mr. Thayer indicated that the Governor is reviewing the budget. It will need to be signed before the effective date of July 1, 2024. Mr. Eledge asked if the Governor can strike through individual budget line items. Mr. Thayer agreed and reiterated the only two changes were the previously discussed increases passed by the Legislature. There were no other comments or questions. B. IIJA Update i. IIJA Tracker Mr. Thayer discussed the included IIJA/IRA Funding Opportunities tracker sheet that is updated and provided to members on a weekly basis. The $62 million Solar for All award will partner with Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC). AEA will focus on community solar projects and AHFC will focus on low-income housing projects. There is no match required for the award. Mr. Thayer discussed that the Governor’s budget includes federal receipt authority for many of the IIJA/IRA programs that currently do not have the federal receipt authority box marked on the tracker sheet. Mr. Fogle asked what the GO notation stands for. Mr. Thayer explained that GO stands for Governor’s Office approved. All requests for federal funding go through the Governor’s Office, including programs that AEA partners with other resources like AHFC or Department of Transportation (DOT). Mr. Fogle asked for Mr. Thayer’s opinion as to how likely AEA is to win the award for the Dixon Diversion Measure. Mr. Thayer indicated that this is his favorite project because of its benefits, but he does not have an idea of the likelihood of an award. He noted that the Dixon Diversion project would displace 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas, which is 7.5% of the unmet needs in 2030. The geotechnical work on the project has been funded and will begin Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 8 today at Bradley Lake. There were no other questions. ii. GRIP 3, Round 1 – HVDC Line Mr. Thayer introduced Jim Mendenhall, Program Manager, and asked him to comment on the GRIP 3, Round 1 update. Mr. Mendenhall discussed that work continues to prepare the submissions for Department of Energy (DOE). They are expected to make their award by August 1, 2024. Mr. Mendenhall reviewed the listed plans and statements that have been submitted. He discussed that the Sample Terms and Conditions were received yesterday and are being reviewed by legal counsel. AEA will continue its efforts regarding the stability analysis of the transmission assets, including a preliminary project budget, schedule, and work plan. Weekly check-in meetings are scheduled. Mr. Mendenhall advised that the Round 2 package was submitted in April and a determination is anticipated to be released in August. Mr. Eledge asked which awardees have requested clarifications and waivers related to the Davis Bacon Act as referenced in paragraph three of the memorandum. Mr. Mendenhall explained that approximately 58 awardees received GRIP projects. Many of those projects are completed by the power companies that pay on a two-week basis, rather than a weekly basis. The reference is not related to AEA project awardees and Mr. Mendenhall does not believe AEA will have such an issue. Mr. Thayer reiterated that after the legal review is concluded, the final Terms and Conditions will be presented to the Board for approval. There were no other questions. iii. Solar for All Update Mr. Thayer introduced Audrey Alstrom, P.E. Director – Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency, and asked her to provide the Solar for All (SFA) update. Ms. Alstrom discussed that AEA, in partnership with AHFC, submitted a $100 million application last fall to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) SFA program. In April, AEA received notification of the selection for a $62.4 million grant of which 50% is for the AHFC residential program and 50% is for the AEA community program. AEA has provided the EPA with additional required paperwork and AEA has completed the EPA required training. Updates to the work plan and budget are ongoing. AEA will have 90 days to finalize the scope of work after EPA provides the conditional award. One of the requirements of the award is for the homeowners’ electricity bill to be reduced by 20%. The details of how to track and report this information is still being determined. Additionally, benefits of the program must impact disadvantaged populations. Ms. Alstrom discussed that funds have been set aside for workforce development and training in collaboration with the Alaska Municipal League, the Alaska Workforce Partnership, and Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP). Mr. Eledge asked if battery storage is included in the residential solar system. Ms. Alstrom agreed, and noted the program includes the solar infrastructure, storage, and any necessary upgrades to facilities to accept and integrate solar into their system. Mr. Eledge asked about the risks involved with battery storage. Ms. Alstrom discussed that ACEP will be addressing those types of technical details during the process. There were no other questions. Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 8 iv. Communities Taking Charge Accelerator (CTCA 3214-1810) Concept Paper Ms. Alstrom informed that a preliminary application was submitted, however it was determined that the project goals were already being funded by other sources. Staff will continue to review whether a full application will be submitted. Mr. Eledge discussed the third paragraph of the Empowering Alaska: Planning Innovative EV Charging solutions for All report regarding outside cold weather charging issues. He asked if the Biden Administration or the federal government can impose any penalties on the state if the infrastructure goals are unable to be met due to Alaska’s unique circumstances. Ms. Alstrom responded that no penalties have been communicated and she does not believe anything extra will be imposed on Alaska. The Biden Administration’s goal is for the entire United States. Each state gets to apply for their specific needs. Mr. Eledge discussed the Administration’s decision to utilize unions and union-based training facilities. He asked if the University of Alaska has been contacted to assist in training. Ms. Alstrom agreed that contact with the University is ongoing regarding how the University could support training for the electric vehicles (EV) industry, and particularly EV infrastructure charging stations. Funding is an issue to consider. There were no other questions. v. Defense Community Infrastructure Program – White Paper Mr. Thayer listed staff members who are currently on well-deserved vacations. He will provide their updates today. Mr. Thayer advised that the included Defense Community Infrastructure Program White Paper is based on last year’s application from Golden Valley Electrical Association (GVEA) requesting $10.2 million for a substation upgrade to benefit Eielson Air Force Base (AFB). GVEA would provide the cost match. Funding eligibility is only for state and local governments, and GVEA was directed to reapply this year utilizing a pass-through grant with AEA. The application has been submitted. C. Renewable Energy Grant Fund (REF) update Mr. Thayer indicated that the REF Round 16 approved 24 projects totaling $32 million. The House and Senate increased the original budgeted line item from $5 million to $14.3 million, thus funding the top seven ranked projects. The Governor is expected to sign the legislative appropriation. The funded projects are listed on Attachment A above the orange line. The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) recommended that the unfunded projects be resubmitted to the Legislature as a Round 17 for potential funding. There were no questions. D. Power Project Fund Update Mr. Thayer reviewed the Loan Dashboard Report for the Power Project Fund included in the packet. There are 15 outstanding loans and no loan delinquencies. The loan program totals $40.6 million. The outstanding loan amount is $31.5 million, with loan commitments at $5.4 million, and the uncommitted cash balance at $3.6 million. There were no questions. Alaska Energy Authority Page 5 of 8 E. Owned Assets Update Mr. Thayer reviewed the Owned Assets Update. There are no significant changes to the Intertie update. GVEA applied for and has been tentatively selected for $22 million of 40101(d) funding to augment work to the Intertie. The funding is awaiting DOE approval. The Intertie Operating Committee (IOC) made the recommendation for the funding and has a forefront role in the process. Mr. Thayer discussed the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project required project work with Chugach Electric Association (CEA) continues to focus on design and permitting for the Soldotna to Sterling section. He explained the planned phase approach for the upgrade work. Mr. Thayer reported that the Dixon Diversion Project studies have begun, including focus on fisheries, drilling, hydrology, and raising the height of Bradley Lake dam. Workers are currently housed at the Bradley Lake facility and the consultant provides their food. Mr. Thayer will submit the details and particulars of the housing contract to members. Mr. Thayer discussed the recent government and legislative visitors who toured Bradley Lake. Mr. Thayer reviewed the update on the AEA-owned rural transmission lines built previously by Alaska Power Association (APA). The Shungnak-Kobuk Tieline Transfer Agreement has been submitted to Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) and NANA Regional Corporation for their review. The Craig-Klawaok Tieline Transfer Agreement with Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) has been signed by AEA. AEA legal is drafting additional documents. The Bethel-Oscarville Tieline is expected to be transferred to GCI contingent on resolving Native Allotment easement issues. Mr. Eledge asked if the statement in the report is accurate that Oscarville is completely dependent on the tieline for power. Mr. Thayer explained that Oscarville has back-up generation. Chair Pruhs inquired as to the decision-making process for AEA to transfer the State ownership tieline assets to both non-profit and for-profit entities. He compared this to AEA’s ownership of urban assets that are not being transferred to the co-ops that utilize the asset. Mr. Thayer explained that the particular lines are fully depreciated, and AEA recently found out that AEA owns the lines. There is no value to AEA for owning the lines. The value of the lines is for the communities and were supposed to be transferred to the communities 30 years ago. However, Mr. Thayer is unaware of any documents from 30 years ago indicating this. He noted that staff will conduct additional research to determine if there are historical hard copy documents referencing when the transfer should have occurred or why the transfer did not occur. Chair Pruhs commented that there must be historical documents or directives to transfer the lines, otherwise the process would not be underway. Chair Pruhs requested additional information regarding the rationale and benefit to the State of transferring the rural lines, but not transferring the urban line. Mr. Thayer requested Kent Sullivan, General Counsel AEA, to comment. Mr. Sullivan explained his understanding is that in the communities where the transfers are occurring, there is only one entity that can accept the transfer. He noted it would be difficult for AEA to maintain the lines. Chair Pruhs noted that AEA is not currently maintaining any of the lines and that the utilities are maintaining the lines. Chair Pruhs asked if AEA is setting a dividing precedence between urban and rural Alaska regarding the Alaska Energy Authority Page 6 of 8 transfer of State owned assets. Mr. Sullivan indicated that he does not have an answer to Chair Pruhs’ question, as it is likely connected to a policy issue. Chair Pruhs requested that prior to any transfers occurring in rural Alaska, that an analysis is conducted indicating that there are no ramifications to the transfers and whether the same rationale of transferring assets in rural Alaska applies to transferring assets in urban Alaska. Chair Pruhs reiterated the importance of creating a documented audit for reference that outlines the policy decision and delineates the rationale for transferring the assets. Commissioner Crum supported Chair Pruhs’ request for an investment thesis documenting defensible reasons for moving forward in such a manner. Mr. Eledge asked if the information regarding AEA’s fully depreciated assets is updated to the digital library. Mr. Thayer agreed. Mr. Eledge requested that staff generate a list of AEA’s fully depreciated list and provide it to the Board members to ensure necessary compliance. Mr. Thayer agreed. Mr. Thayer explained that staff is following through with the Board’s directives at the time the line ownership was revealed last year and the year before. This information was previously presented to the Board and is not new. One of the reasons for the GCI transfer is to assist with broadband access in Bethel and Oscarville. Mr. Thayer highlighted that when APA became AEA, by statute, the lines should not have been owned. However, the lines are still on the books today. Mr. Thayer noted that Mr. Mendenhall previously discussed the Strategic Asset Plan and its development. The plan will include suggested upgrades to generation, transmission, and the size of the line. The plan should be completed within 18 months. This is a collaborative effort with the utilities. Additionally, when the new Board is established in July, regular legislative updates are anticipated to be presented to work on different budget requests and possible bonds. There were no other questions. F. Legislative Update Mr. Thayer noted that he provided a recent legislative update to Board members outlining House Bill (HB) 307. The bill must go through legal review. There are 27 sections in the bill, of which 11 of the sections apply to AEA. Mr. Thayer gave an overview of the sections. He noted that AEA employees are classified exempt service on par with AIDEA. AEA is subject to Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) jurisdiction for the purposes of open access transmission tariffs. A new AEA Board will be created and the transition for the new AEA Board is delineated. The Commissioners of Revenue & Commerce may designate a deputy to attend AEA Board meetings. The AEA Board process will be defined. AEA employees are exempt. The Railbelt Transmission Organization (RTO) will be added to AEA’s powers and duties. AEA will be allowed to acquire battery or energy storage systems. For the purposes of the RTO, AEA is subject to RCA authority. Mr. Thayer commented that many of the 27 sections are recommendations from the Governor’s Energy Task Force from December. G. Community Outreach Alaska Energy Authority Page 7 of 8 Mr. Thayer discussed the extensive and ongoing community outreach. H. Articles of Interest The articles of interest are included in the packet. Mr. Fogle inquired as to the results of the Sustainable Energy Conference. Mr. Thayer indicated that the Sustainable Energy Conference was effective with over 1,000 attendees over the four days. AEA and AIDEA participated on various panels. Mr. Fogle believes the Alaska focus was successful and he believes the Governor was pleased with the outcome of the 3rd annual conference. Next year’s 4th annual conference is in the planning stages. There were no other questions. I. Next Regularly Schedule AEA Board Meeting - TBD Mr. Thayer noted that the next AEA Board meeting date is to be determined. MOTION: A motion was made by Mr. Fogle to enter into executive session to discuss confidential information related to Battery Energy Storage Systems, the HVDC Line, potential legislation, and personnel matters. This is supported by the Open Meetings Act, AS 44.62.310, which allows a board to consider confidential matters in executive session. In this case, the Board believes that these are subjects which would have an adverse effect on the finances of AEA or are protected by law, due to the rules protecting personal privacy and certain business information. Motion seconded by Mr. Vivlamore. A roll call was taken, and the motion to go into executive session passed unanimously. 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 9:33 am – Discuss confidential information related to Battery Energy Storage Systems, the HVDC Line, and personnel matters. The Board reconvened its regular meeting at 11:16 am. Chair Pruhs advised that the Board did not take any formal action on matters discussed while in Executive Session. 10. BOARD COMMENTS Mr. Fogle expressed appreciation to Mr. Thayer and staff for their efforts in providing today’s information. He acknowledged that HB307 passed, which splits the AEA and AIDEA Boards. Mr. Fogle believes it is a good policy to develop a transition plan for the new AEA Board and the dissolution from the AIDEA Board. Mr. Thayer agreed and noted a transition plan is underway. Mr. Eledge expressed appreciation to Mr. Thayer and staff for working diligently and for successfully meeting the short-fused deadlines imposed. Commissioner Crum acknowledged the ongoing work of staff in managing the different federal program funding sources and providing information over the last couple of years. He is excited about the strategic asset planning and expressed appreciation to the staff for leading the effort. Alaska Energy Authority Page 8 of 8 Chair Pruhs stated that this meeting is likely his last AEA Board meeting due to the passage of HB307. He thanked Mr. Thayer, Jennifer Bertolini, AEA, and AEA staff for their efforts and assistance during his 11-year tenure. Chair Pruhs noted that he has attended every in-person meeting during that time and hopes that AEA is in a better place than it was 11 years ago. Chair Pruhs expressed appreciation to fellow Board members. He believes the Board members have added value and considerable progress for AEA. He thanked Board members for their confidence in him as Chair. Mr. Thayer expressed appreciation to Board members. He commented that when he joined AEA five years ago, the AEA budget was $20 million, and it was questionable if AEA would continue to function. Mr. Thayer commented that the budget has grown 2,700% in five years. He acknowledged that the Board-driven initiative of the inventory assessment and 3D modeling during Covid has provided a better understanding of rural Alaska and the issues. Mr. Thayer highlighted major events addressed by AEA’s Board in the last five years, including growing the PCE Program by 50%, growing the dormant REF fund to a $50 million program, addressing Covid challenges, navigating the Swan Lake fire and purchasing the line with AIDEA’s financing, facilitating bonding of $166 million for the Railbelt, contributing to the Governor’s Energy Task Force, navigating the IIJA funding of over $700 million, with over $1 billion pending, and growing the staff from 25 employees to the potential of 75 employees. Mr. Thayer commented on what he has learned and emphasized that the employees are the backbone of AEA. He feels fortunate that he gets to lead this team of hard-working experts. Mr. Thayer thanked the Board members for their time and effort, and believes that working together over the last five years has proved advantageous for AEA. He will miss collaborating with members. Commissioner Sande thanked staff for their diligent work. She indicated that she and Commissioner Crum maintain the honor of continuing their service on the new AEA Board. Commissioner Sande expressed appreciation to Board members for their volunteer service and for taking time away from their businesses and their families to work on behalf of Alaskans. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business of the Board, the AEA meeting adjourned at 11:25 am. _______________________________________________ Curtis W. Thayer, Secretary EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS ACTTRAININGAEAMATT STINSONOPINION, APPEALS, AND ETHICS SECTIONDEPARTMENT OF LAW PUBLIC OFFICER•A public employee•A member of a board or commission•YOU MISUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION•The Grand-daddy of them all. •AS 39.52.120 MISUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITIONCan’t use position for personal gain, or to give unwarranted benefit or treatmentto another person; (hiring a friend who is unqualified);Can’t use your position to secure other employment or contracts; (I’ll do this for you if you give me a job when I leave);Can’t use your position to accept or solicit outside compensation; (no tips for doing your job). MISUSE OF OFFICIAL POSITION•Can’t use state resources to benefit a personal or financial interest, and•Can’t take or withhold official action on matters in which you have a personal or financial interest, unless…•It’s an insignificant interest (less than $5,000 in a business), or interest possessed generally by public at large, or action would have insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter. BASIC PREMISE – CONFLICTS OF INTEREST•Avoid substantial and material conflicts of interest.•The basic premise of the Act.•You and your immediate family members may not benefit financially or personally from your position and actions as a state officer.•You may not confer unwarranted benefits on others. $$ FINANCIAL INTEREST $$•An interest held by you or an immediate family member which includes involvement or ownership in a business, including property, or a professional or private relationship that is the source of income or from which you have received or expect to receive income. •Also means holding a position in a business, such as officer, director, trustee, partner, employee, or a position of management. PERSONAL INTEREST•An interest held by you or your immediate family, including membershipin any organization – fraternal, nonprofit, charitable, for profit, political – from which you derive a benefit.•“Membership” broad definition: not just voting member, even advisory, on the rolls. BENEFIT•Anything that is to your advantage or self-interest, or from which you gain financially, including dividend, pension, salary, acquisition, agreement to purchase, transfer of money, deposit, loan, promise to pay, grant, contract, lease, money, goods, services, privileges, patronage, advantage, advancement, or anything else of value. •Very broad definition: If you like it, it’s a benefit. IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBER•Spouse•Cohabitating Conjugal partner•Children, step-children•Parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles•Parents-in-law, brother and sister-in-law•That’s your family OFFICIAL ACTION•Giving advice, participating, assisting, making a recommendation, making a decision, approving, disapproving, voting, or other similar action by a public officer. HOWEVER…•The Act does recognize that independent pursuits should not be discouraged.•Public officers are pulled from society. •Some minor and inconsequential conflicts of interest are unavoidable.•Such as…. STOCKS AND BONDS•If your ownership interest or value in a company is less than $5,000, it is presumed to be insignificant. HELD BY LARGER CLASS OF PERSONS•Your personal or financial interest in a matter is also presumed to be insignificant if it is held generally by the public at large, or by a larger class of persons. •Example: PFD INSIGNIFICANT OR CONJECTURAL•If your action or influence would have insignificant or merely conjectural effect on a matter, the conduct is not prohibited.•Example: using work phone to check on babysitter or make a personal call. (But not managing your rental unit.)•Mere appearance of impropriety not enough, needs to be an actual conflict. GIFTS •Can’t accept or solicit a gift if that gift is intended to influence your action or judgment in your official duties.•Gifts are money, services, loans, travel, entertainment, hospitality, lunch, a place to stay, tickets to an event…. GIFTS •All gifts from lobbyists are presumed to be improper (unless they are an immediate family member, or long-time family friend…but even that is risky.) GIFTS •A gift worth more than $150 to you or your immediate family must be reported if:•You could take official action that would affect the gift-giver, or•The gift is being given to you because of your position as a public employee. GIFTS•A gift of an amount less than $150 should still be disclosed if one could “reasonably infer from the circumstances” that the gift was intended to influence your action or judgment.•When in doubt, DISCLOSE! GIFTS•Any gift received from another government, regardless of value, must be disclosed. This includes foreign, federal, state, municipal, and tribal governments. GIFTS, ETHICS ACT, FAMILY•You must report a gift that a family member receives if it would be reportable if you received it. INFORMATION•AS 39.52.140•A current or former public officer may not disclose or use information gained in the course of official duties that could in any way result in a benefit to the officer or their immediate family member, if the information has not been publicly disseminated, or is confidential by law. NON-PUBLIC AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION•It is only publicly disseminated if follows 9 AAC 52.070:•Newspaper, broadcast, press release, newsletter, legal notice, non-confidential court filing, published report, agency’s website, Alaska Online Public Notice System, public speech, public testimony. •NOT just if discoverable under FOIA request. POST STATE EMPLOYMENT, 39.52.180•After leaving state service•Two-year restriction on•A matter•For compensation•In which you participated personally and substantially•Through the exercise of official action •(each phrase subject to interpretation and analysis; all must be met) WHAT’S THE MATTER?•“Matter” includes case, proceeding, application, contract, determination, proposal or consideration of a legislative bill, a resolution, a constitutional amendment, or other legislative measure, or proposal, consideration, or adoption of an administrative regulation. AS 39.52.180(a)•“Matter” does not include the general formulation of policy. 9 AAC 52.100•Construed narrowly (a continuation or Part 2 not the same matter). DON’T TAKE IT PERSONALLY•For purposes of AS 39.52.180(a), routine processing of documents, general supervision of employees without direct involvement in a matter, or ministerial functions not involving the merits of a matter under consideration by an administrative unit do not constitute personal or substantial participation in a matter by a public officer. 9 AAC 52.100 MAKE IT OFFICIAL•“Official action” means advice, participation, or assistance, including, for example, a recommendation, decision, approval, disapproval, vote, or other similar action, including inaction, by a public officer. AS 39. 52.960(14) POST-STATE EMPLOYMENT EXCEPTIONS•Can contract with former agency.•Can get public interest waiver (approved by your agency and the Attorney General).•AS 39.52.180(b)(c) POST-STATE EMPLOYMENTOne-Year Bar on Lobbying•(1) governor;•(2) lieutenant governor;•(3) head or deputy head of a principal department in the executive branch;•(4) director of a division or legislative liaison within a principal department in the executive branch;•(5) legislative liaison, administrative assistant or other employee of the Office of the Governor or Office of the LieutenantGovernor in a policy-making position;•(6) member of a state board or commission that has the authority to adopt regulations, other than a board or commission namedin AS 08.01.010;•(7) member of a governing board and executive officer of a state public corporation.•may not engage in activity as a lobbyist under AS 24.45 for a period of one year after leaving that position. This subsection does not prohibit service as a volunteer lobbyist described in AS 24.45.161(a)(1) or a representational lobbyist as defined under regulations of the Alaska Public Offices Commission. MISUSE OF INFORMATION•AS 39.52.140•Applies to current and former public officers •A public officer may not: •disclose or use information gained in the course of, or by reason of, the officer's official duties that could in any way result in the receipt of any benefit for the officer or an immediate family member, if the information has not also been disseminated to the public.•disclose or use, without appropriate authorization, information acquired in the course of official duties that is confidential by law. IMPROPER INFLUENCE IN STATE GRANTS, CONTRACTS, LEASES, OR LOANS.•Ordinary rule under the Ethics Act is found in AS 39.52.150.•The Ethics Act prohibits you and members of your immediate family from receiving certain state grants, contracts, leases, and loans.•Neither you nor any member of your immediate family may attempt to acquire, receive, apply for, be a party to, or have a personal or financial interest in a state grant, contract, lease, or loan if you may take or withhold official action affecting the award, execution, or administration of that grant, contract, lease, or loan. IMPROPER INFLUENCE IN STATE GRANTS, CONTRACTS, LEASES, OR LOANS.•The Ethics Act prohibits you and members of your immediate family from receiving certain state grants, contracts, leases, and loans.•Neither you nor any member of your immediate family may attempt to acquire, receive, apply for, be a party to, or have a personal or financial interest in a state grant, contract, lease, or loan if you may take or withhold official action affecting the award, execution, or administration of that grant, contract, lease, or loan. IMPROPER INFLUENCE IN STATE GRANTS, CONTRACTS, LEASES, OR LOANS.•Some exceptions: •You and your family members may have interests in competitively solicited grants, contracts, and leases, unless•you work for the administrative unit awarding the grant, contract, or lease;•you work for the administrative unit for which the grant, contract, or lease is awarded; or•you actually take official action on the award, execution or administration of the grant, contract, or lease. IMPROPER INFLUENCE IN STATE GRANTS, CONTRACTS, LEASES, OR LOANS.•Some exceptions: •You and your immediate family members may have interests in a •loan that is generally available to members of the public, and•subject to fixed eligibility standards. •As long as you do not actually take or withhold official action affecting the award, execution, or administration of that loan. IMPROPER INFLUENCE IN STATE GRANTS, CONTRACTS, LEASES, OR LOANS.•AEA Specific Statute, ••• IMPROPER INFLUENCE IN STATE GRANTS, CONTRACTS, LEASES, OR LOANS.•Alaska Op. Atty. Gen. (Inf.) 241 (Alaska A.G.), (Sep. 1996)• IMPROPER INFLUENCE IN STATE GRANTS, CONTRACTS, LEASES, OR LOANS.•So test for AEA conflict statute is: ••• AIDING IN A VIOLATION•The Ethics Act prohibits you from knowingly helping another person covered by the Act to violate the Act. POLITICAL PURPOSESAS 39.52.120•Cannot use state funds, equipment, or facilities for partisan political purposes. •These are activities that are intended to benefit or harm a candidate, potential candidate, political party or group. THE ACT AS SWORD AND SHIELDTHE SHIELD •Ethics Act can be used as a sword, but also as a shield to protect you.•Provision that if you seek advice, with full disclosure of facts, and follow that advice, you are protected.•Caveat: Any ethics complaints against G and LG go straight to the Personnel Board and are assigned to independent counsel. REPORTING PROVISIONS•The Ethics Act works by relying on you to report your own gifts and interests in state grants, contracts, leases, and loans.•The Ethics Act also relies on you to report to your designated ethics supervisor any situation that might produce a violation of the Act.•If you have doubts about what the Ethics Act requires you to do in a particular situation, you should seek advice from your designated ethics supervisor. REPORTING PROVISIONSIt doesn’t matter much which form you use.What matters is•recognizingwhen there is an ethics issue;•reportingit and asking for advice;•waitingfor that advice; and•followingthe advice. REPORTING PROVISIONSA member of a board or commission whose involvement in a matter might violate the Ethics Act must disclosethat matter: (1)on the public record and (2)in writing to both the designated ethics supervisor and the attorney general.Ethics for Alaska’s Executive Branch: A Self-Guided Training Tool43 REPORTING PROVISIONSWhen a member of a board or commission discloses a potential violation of the Ethics Act, the designated ethics supervisor will determine whether the member’s involvement violates the Act.The designated ethics supervisor will provide copies of the written determination to the member and to the attorney general.Like the disclosure itself, the designated ethics supervisor’s determination is also disclosed at a meeting on the public record.Ethics for Alaska’s Executive Branch: A Self-Guided Training Tool44 REPORTING PROVISIONSIf any member of the board or commission objectsto the designated ethics supervisor’s determination,or if the chairdiscloses a potential Ethics Act violation,the members present at a meeting (other than the disclosing member) must voteon whether the disclosing member may participate in the matter. Ethics for Alaska’s Executive Branch: A Self-Guided Training Tool45 REPORTING PROVISIONS•If amajority of the members voting determines that a violation of the Ethics Act would exist, or•the chair rules that there would be a violation and no one objectsto the chair’s ruling,•the member making the disclosure must refrain from voting, deliberating, or participatingin that matter.Ethics for Alaska’s Executive Branch: A Self-Guided Training Tool46 REPORTING PROVISIONSA disclosing member who violates the Ethics Act in taking or withholding an action will not be liable for the violation if•the member acted in accordance with the chair’s (or board or commission’s) determination;•the member fully disclosed all relevant facts to the chair (or board or commission); and•the attorney general has not advised the member, chair, board, or commission that the action violates the Ethics Act.Ethics for Alaska’s Executive Branch: A Self-Guided Training Tool47 REPORTING PROVISIONSA designated ethics supervisor may request advice from the attorney generalwhen determining whether an employee – or member of a board or commission – is involved in a matter that might lead to a violation of the Ethics Act.Boards and commissions may also seek advice from the attorney general when making those determinations.Ethics for Alaska’s Executive Branch: A Self-Guided Training Tool48 COMPLAINT PROCEDURESThe Ethics Act also provides procedures for filing complaints alleging violations of the Act. A complaint must•be in writing;•be signed under oath; and•contain a clear statement of the details of the alleged violation.Ethics for Alaska’s Executive Branch: A Self-Guided Training Tool49 COMPLAINT PROCEDURES•Complaints against the Gov, LG, or AG are referred to the Personnel Board and are reviewed by independent counsel.•For all other public officers, the attorney general (or independent counsel in some cases) reviewseach complaint to determine whether•it is properly completed; and•contains allegations that, if true, would establish a violationof the Ethics Act.•If the complaint does not provide probable cause for a violation, then the complaint is dismissed with notice to parties.Ethics for Alaska’s Executive Branch: A Self-Guided Training Tool50 COMPLAINT PROCEDURESA complaint and all other documents and information regarding the investigation of a complaint areconfidential unless•the person named in the complaint agreesto make the complaint public; or•the attorney general initiates formal proceedings by serving an accusation on the person named in the complaint.Ethics for Alaska’s Executive Branch: A Self-Guided Training Tool51 BUT REMEMBER:THE SHIELD •Provision that if you seek advice, with full disclosure of facts, and follow that advice, you are protected. STATE EMPLOYEES’ RIGHTS•The state cannot restrict or attempt to restrict after-working-hours statements, pronouncements or other activities, not otherwise prohibited by law or personnel rule, of any employee of the state, if the employee does not purport to speak or act in an official capacity. AS 39.26.010 WHO TO CALL•Matt Stinson, Ethics Counsel 269-6612•Jennifer Williams, Ethics Counsel Paralegal, 375-7774•The Board’s Chair is the DES for the Board. AEA OVERVIEW PRESENTATION Curtis W. Thayer Executive Director AEA Board of Directors September 10, 2024 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Alaska Government Other Departments Administration Corrections Court System Education and Early Development Environmental Conservation Fish and Game Health and Social Services Law Labor &Workforce Development Military and Veterans Affairs Natural Resources Public Safety Revenue Transportation and Public Facilities Key Affiliation Reporting Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) *AEA Board of Directors: Adam Crum –Commissioner, Department of Revenue (Juneau) Tony Izzo –Board Member Clay Koplin –Board Member Ingemar Mathiasson –Board Member Jenn Miller –Board Member Duff Mitchell –Board Member Julie Sande –Commissioner of DCCED (Juneau) Robert Siedman –Board Member Governor Mike Dunleavy *Board of Directors Department of Commerce, Community,and Economic Development (DCCED)Legislature AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 2 Other DCCED Corporate Agencies Alaska Investment Development and Export Authority Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation Alaska Railroad Corporation Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute Alcoholic Beverage Control Board Marijuana Control Board Regulatory Commission of Alaska 44.83.070: “The purpose of the Authority is to promote, develop, and advance the general prosperity and economic welfare of the people of the state by providing a means of financing and operating power projects and facilities that recover and use waste energy and by carrying out the powers and duties assigned to it under AS 42.45.” Created to promote, finance, and construct power projects1976AEA History AEA is an independent and public corporation of the State of Alaska created by the state legislature in 1976. 3 AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Railbelt Energy —AEA owns the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, the Alaska Intertie, and the Sterling to Quartz Creek Transmission Line —all of which benefit Railbelt consumers by reducing the cost of power. Power Cost Equalization (PCE) —In rural Alaska, PCE reduces the cost of electricity for residential customers as well as community facilities, thus ensuring its sustainability. Rural Energy —AEA constructs bulk fuel tank farms, diesel powerhouses, and electrical distribution grids in rural villages. AEA supports the operation of these facilities through circuit rider and emergency response programs. Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency —AEA provides funding, technical assistance, and analysis of renewable energy technologies such as biomass, electric vehicles, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, and wind. Grants and Loans —AEA offers loans to local utilities, local governments, and independent power producers for the construction or upgrade of power generation and other energy facilities. Energy Planning —In collaboration with local and regional partners, AEA provides economic and engineering analysis to plan the development of cost-effective energy infrastructure. About AEA AEA’s mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. To achieve this mission, AEA strives to diversify Alaska's energy portfolio — increasing resiliency, reliability, and redundancy. 4 AEA Active Projects and Services AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 5 AEA Programs and Projects AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Owned Assets -Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project -Soldotna to Quartz Creek -Alaska Intertie Rural Energy -Power Cost Equalization -Bulk Fuel Upgrades -Rural Power System Upgrades -Rural Training and Utility Assistance Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Planning -Renewable Energy Fund -Power Project Fund -Electronic Library 6 7AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Amazing Vision Two Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Home Energy and High Efficiency Rebate Allocations –$74 million EPA Solar for All –$ 62.4 million DOE State Energy Program (BIL) –$3.6 million State-Based Home Energy Efficiency Contractor Training Grant Program –$1.3 million (formula) + $2 million (competitive) DOE State Energy Program (Annual) –$480,580 Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan –$52 million Local Utilities and Others Alaska Cargo and Cold Storage –$25.2 million Black Rapids Training Site Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program with Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) –$15.7 million Port Electrification with Chugach, Holland America/Princess –$15 million Delta 3-Phase (Food Security) with GVEA –$3 million Alaska Rural Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment Deployment –$1.6 million Statewide Collaboration AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Federal Funding —Awards and Pending Applications #Awarded and Conditional Awards Alaska Grant $Match $ 1 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships Topic 3 Phase 1 $ 206,500,000 $ 206,500,000 2 Preventing Outages and Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid (40101d) $ 64,022,556 $ 9,603,383 3 Solar For All Competition $ 62,450,000 $ - 4 National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program $ 52,415,294 $ 10,483,059 5 Home Efficiency Rebates Program $ 37,368,480 $ - 6 Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates Program $ 37,150,940 $ - 7 Federal Highway Administration Alaska Cargo and Cold Storage $ 25,200,000 $ - 8 Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot -Black Rapids Training Site $ 15,602,648 $ - 9 Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Capitalization $ 4,782,480 $ - 10 State Energy Program Funding $ 3,661,930 $ - 11 High Energy Cost Grants -United States Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service $ 2,000,000 $ - 12 Vehicle Technology Office Competition Federal Fiscal Year 2022 $ 1,670,000 $ 417,500 13 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant $ 1,627,450 $ - 14 Training for Residential Energy Contractors $ 1,293,870 $ - 15 Energy Future Grant $ 496,725 $ - 16 Energy Innovator Fellowship Program NA NA Total Awards = $743,246,315 $ 516,242,373 $227,003,942 #Application Submitted –Status Pending Alaska Grant $Match $ 1 Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grants $ 12,000,000 $ 3,000,000 2 MARAD Port Infrastructure Development Program $ 8,958,431 $ - Total Pending = $20,958,431 $ 20,958,431 $ 3,000,000 8 FINANCE P A M E L A E L L I S , C O N T R O L L E R 9 10 AEA Finance Team Number of Employees: 11 Responsible for: Assists in formulating operating and capital budgets Fund, grant, and capital project accounting Financial reconciliations Processes accounts payable Creates of annual financial statements Coordinates external independent audits Processes grant applications and subawardsPamela Ellis Controller AEA FY25 GOV Amended Operating Budget $15,424,400 AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 11 Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement For fiscal years 2024 and 2025, the provisional indirect cost rate is 31.85 percent. Allows AEA to fully recover indirect costs associated with managing and administering federal awards. In prior years, AEA utilized a 10 percent De Minimis rate. AEA’s finance team is currently implementing this agreement. AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 12 AEA FY25 GOV Amended & FY24 Supp Capital Budget $315,794,703 AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 13 Total Capital Appropriations FY2021 to FY2025 (in thousands) Operating Budget Overview (In Thousands) Operating Budget -All Components FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 Authorized Authorized Authorized Authorized Authorized Expenditure Categories: Personnel Services ----15,095.0 Travel 134.8 134.8 134.8 196.1 463.3 Services (includes personal services paid to AIDEA)9,698.2 8,548.2 8,548.2 10,008.8 4,420.0 Commodities 56.0 56.0 56.0 106.0 940.0 Capital Outlay/Equipment 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 Grants 32,100.0 29,600.0 32,100.0 47,794.8 47,794.8 Totals 42,004.0 38,354.0 40,854.0 58,120.7 68,728.1 Funding Sources: Unrestricted GF (undesignated)847.3 847.3 847.3 1215.3 4,960.6 Power Project Fund (designated)995.5 995.5 995.5 996.4 996.4 Renewable Energy (designated)2,000.0 1,400.0 1,400.0 1,401.2 1,401.2 Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Endowment (designated)32,736.8 30,236.8 32,736.8 48,665.5 48,665.5 Subtotal (Designated & Undesignated GF)36,679.6 33,529.6 36,029.6 52,278.4 56,023.7 CIP Receipts 2,567.8 2,567.8 2,567.80 3,528.1 8,310.0 Federal Receipts 1,502.0 1,202.0 1,202.00 1,208.60 1,208.6 AEA Receipts 980.7 780.7 780.7 781.3 1,199.0 I/A Receipts 123.9 123.9 123.9 124.3 1,786.8 Statutory Designated Program Receipts 150.0 150.0 150.0 200.0 200.0 Subtotal (Receipts)5,324.4 4,824.4 4,824.4 5,842.3 12,704.4 Totals 42,004.0 38,354.0 40,854.0 58,120.7 68,728.1 14AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 FY2023 Financial Highlights –Page 1 of 2 STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 Assets Restricted Investment securities and cash 1,226,790 1,048,505 Loans, net 26,459 27,058 Capital assets, net 375,794 385,307 Receivables and other assets 8,068 5,634 Total assets 1,637,111 1,466,504 Liabilities and net position: Liabilities Bonds payable 204,032 45,925 Other bond liabilities –56 Payables and other liabilities 51,145 46,646 Total liabilities 255,177 92,627 Net Position 1,381,934 1,373,877 Total liabilities and net position 1,637,111 1,466,504 15AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 FY2023 Financial Highlights –Page 2 of 2 REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION June 30, 2023 June 30, 2022 Operating revenues: Federal grants 10,179 8,575 Revenue from operating plants 27,461 22,657 State operating and capital revenues 23,704 22,657 Interest on loans 280 329 Other operating revenues 852 5,008 Total operating revenues 62,476 40,501 Operating expenses: Grants and projects 26,163 18,238 Power cost equalization grants 42,332 24,222 Plant operating 9,746 7,834 General and administrative 6,707 6,319 Provision for loan recovery –– Depreciation 11,698 12,305 State of Alaska appropriations and transfers –– Other project expense –– Total operating expense 96,646 68,918 Operating loss (34,170) (37,765) Investment income (loss), net 94,280 (144,109) Interest expense (6,653)(1,568) State of Alaska reappropriations and transfers (45,000)(12,395) Capital contributions –– Loss on disposal of asset (400)– Increase (decrease) in net position 8,057 (195,837) 16AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 PCE Endowment History (In Thousands) FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024** Beginning Investment Fund Balance $1,072,825 1,078,157 1,149,165 967,416 946,597 Inflows: Annual investment earnings 48,303 150,299 (143,842)88,405 66,539 Capital fund transfers in ————12,545 Total inflows 48,303 150,299 (143,842)88,405 79,084 Outflows: Transfers to AEA for PCE payments (27,000)(28,237)(23,613)(54,139)(41,262) Transfers to Other Funds (14,867)(49,744)(12,395)(53,775)(12,404) Program administration –AEA (575)(737)(737)(214)(401) Administrative fee –Regulatory Commission (108)(123)(133)(126)(168) Management fee –Dept of Revenue/APFC*(421)(450)(1,030)(970)(1,777) Total outflows (42,971)(79,291)(37,908)(109,224)(56,012) Ending investment fund balance $1,078,157 1,149,165 967,416 946,597 969,670 Source: Unaudited schedule included in AEA's financial statements. *Management of PCE Endowment transferred to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation effective FY2024. **FY2024 AEA financial statements are in progress at 09/10/24. Reported numbers are draft and subject to change up until date of opinion. 17AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 HUMAN RESOURCES + IT K A R E N T U R N E R , D I R E C T O R R O B E R T H A W K I N S , D I R E C T O R 18 Number of Employees: 2 Responsible for: Employee engagement and retention Recruitment/hiring/onboarding Employee performance and development Policies and procedures Leadership support Employee relations File and data management 19 AEA Human Resources Team Karen Turner Director Curtis Thayer Executive Directo r -AEA PCN 08-020 8 Patrick D omitrovich Infrastructure Engineer PCN 08-X123 Natha n Howes Project Manager PCN 21-7014 Jennifer Bertolini Executive Assistan t PCN 08-0219 Bryan Ca rey Dir Owne d Assets PCN 08-X071 Vacant PCE Technicia n PCN 08-X075 Sean Arcilla Project Manager Program Mana ger PCN 08-X073 Vacant Rural Electric Utility Worker PCN 21-7010 Kyler Killmer Circuit Rider Te chnician PCN 08-X003 Justin Tuomi Rural Assistance Mgr PCN 21-7012 Tim Sandstrom Chief Opera ting Office r PCN 08-0206 Dean Maschner Project Manager PCN 08-0231 Conn er Erickson Director Planning PCN 08-0230 Justin Glover Project Manager PCN 08-X007 Lucas Jury Circuit Rider Te chnician PCN 08-X029 Vacant Rural Progra ms Manage r PCN 08-0403 Brand y D ixon Comm unications Director PCN 08-X034 Fred Caraway Senior Acco untant PCN 08-0457 Daw n Molina Project Manager PCN 08-0222 (AIDEA) Vacant CFO Pam Ellis Asst C FO/Controller PCN 08-0453 Mischiell Barerra Asst C ontroller PCN 08-X074 Alyssa Thern Accounting Technician PCN 08-0214 Dorothy Su’esu’e Grant Accountant PCN 08-0438 Mark Zeismer Project Controller – Owned Asse ts PCN 08-0507 Karen Turner Huma n Resources Dir PCN 08-0455 Selwin Ray Contracting Officer PCN 08-X019 Anna Larse n PCE Technicia n PCN 08-0217 Katherine Aubry PCE Pro gram Mgr/ Cmnt y Assist Adv PCN 08-0411 Karen Be ll Planning Manager PCN 08-X098 Department of Commerce,Community and Economic Development Alaska Energy Authority FY2025 Org Chart as of 08/01/2024 Ryan McLaughlin Infrastructure Engineer PCN 08-0425 Ashley Streveler Asst Project Manage r PCN 08-X077 Josep hine H artley REEE Programs Manage r PCN 08-0443 Wendy Sturdivant Grants Manage r PCN 08-X127 Ashley Harris HR Analyst/Recru iter PCN 08-0473 Willia m Price Sr.Infrastructure Engineer PCN 08-0491 Malae Ta uiliili Accounting Technician PCN 08-0468 Audre y Alstrom Director AEEE Program PCN 08-X033 Jim M endenhall Project Manager Program Mana ger PCN 08-X106 Quinlan H arris Asst Project Mana ger PCN 21-7013 Shaylyn Storms Project Manager IIJA PCN 08-X196 Vacant Project Manager IIJA PCN 08-X195 Vacant Contracting Officer IIJA PCN 08-X197 Vacant Grants Coordinator IIJA PCN 08-X199 Amy Jackso n Senior Acco untant IIJA PCN 08-X198 Jeannette Levine Sr.Budget Analyst PCN 08-X072 Ta ase Toli-Moana PCE Technicia n IIJA PCN 08-X203 Vacant Huma n Resources Te chnician (IIJA) PCN 08#### Vacant Eng &Com Spe cialist (IIJA) PCN 08#143 Vacant Admin Assistan t (IIJA) PCN 08#144 Vacant Accounting Technician (IIJA) PCN 08#142 Vacant Grant Accountant (IIJA) PCN 08#141 Vacant Project Manager (IIJA) PCN 08#139 Vacant Project Manager (IIJA) PCN 08#138 Vacant Senior Acco untant PCN 08-xxxx Vacant Fe deral Projects D ir (GRIP) PCN 08#147 Vacant Utility Engineer(GRIP) PCN 08#148 Vacant Environmental Engineer(GRIP) PCN 08#149 Vacant Transmissio n Project Manage r(GRIP) PCN 08#150 Vacant Project Controls/ Comp liance Officer(GRIP) PCN 08#152 Vacant GIS/IT (GRIP) PCN 08#154 Vacant Sr.Contracting Officer(GRIP) PCN 08#153 Vacant Accounting Te chnician (GRIP) PCN 08#156 Vacant Eng &Com Specialist(GRIP) PCN 08#158 Vacant Transmissio n Project Manage r(GRIP) PCN 08#151 R26 EX Anch orage Vacant Senior Accounta nt(GRIP) PCN 08#155 Vacant Sr.Contracting Officer (IIJA) PCN 08#140Vacant Admin Assistan t (GRIP) PCN 08#157 R14 EX Anch orage Updated 8/1/2024 (AIDEA) Asst C FO/Controller Carmen Nob le Accounta nt PCN 08-0493 (AIDEA) Supervisor Rachael Holly Contracting Officer PCN 08-0469 Shannon Apga r-Kurtz GIS Specialist PCN 08-X076 Ian N ilse n MIS Administrator PCN 08-0227 Justo n Dixon Analyst Prog rammer PCN 08-X037 Robe rt Haw kins IT Director PCN 08-0401 David Kennedy Business Systems Analyst PCN 08-X141 81 EX:Exempt 0 NP:Non Perm 81 Total Positions SHARED SERVICES:10 AEA:47 New IIJA 20 Jordan R awl IT An alyst/Netw ork Support PCN 21-7015 Mark Billingsley General Co unsel PCN 08-0466 Vacant Railbelt Tran smission Org D irector PCN 08#### Vacant RTO Financial Analyst PCN08#### James John son Accounting Supervisor PCN 08-X038 Vacant Asst Project Mana ger (AHFC) PCN 08#185 Vacant DOE Fellow PCN 08-T213 FY25 New AEA 4 AEA Organization Chart 20AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 46 25 10 AEA Employees IIJA Employees Shared Services (Finance, IT, HR) Employees Employment Terms and Team Structure Exempt from State of Alaska Personnel Act and Alaska wage and hour laws Non-union —all employees “at will” Must staff within allocated PCNs Operating budget which includes AEA’s personal services component is approved by the legislature All positions range 21 and above require approval by the Governor’s office 21AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 AEA Information Technology Team Number of Employees: 4 Responsible for: Develops and implements process for IT strategy with a focus on networks, systems, and security infrastructures. Analyzes IT infrastructure and systems performance to assess operating costs, productivity levels, upgrade requirements, and other metrics and needs. Manages and coaches IT team by organizing, assigning projects, and providing feedback . Ensures learning and development plans are met. Robert Hawkins Director 22 OWNED ASSETS B R Y A N C A R E Y , P E , D I R E C T O R 2323 AEA Owned Assets Team Number of Employees: 5 Responsible for: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (including the Dixon Diversion Project) Soldotna to Quartz Creek Alaska Intertie Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships Battery Energy Storage Systems for Grid Stabilization Serves on Intertie Management Committee Board member Railbelt Reliability CouncilBryan Carey, PE Director 24 25 Railbelt Opportunities AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 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 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 26 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). Dixon Diversion Project $342 Million 27AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 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; and 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) 28AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Alaska Intertie AEA owns the 170-mile Alaska Intertie transmission line that runs between Willow and Healy. The line operates at 138 kV (it was designed to operate at 345 kV) and includes 850 structures. A vital section of the Railbelt transmission system, the Intertie is the only link for transferring power between northern and southern utilities. The Intertie transmits power north into the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)system and provides Interior customers with low-cost, reliable power —between 2008 and 2021, the Intertie saved GVEA customers an average of $37 million annually. The Intertie provides benefits to Southcentral customers as well through cost savings and resilience to unexpected events. Constructed in the mid‐1980s with $124 million in State of Alaska appropriations, there is no debt associated with the Alaska Intertie. 29AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP): HVDC 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 (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. 30 $413 Million (206.5 Million Federal and $206.5 Million Alaska Match) Anticipated outcomes and benefits include: AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 HVDC Subsea Cable from Kenai to Beluga The RIR project encompasses several projects —one of them being the installation of a new subsea 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: 31AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 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 32 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 ($28 Million Current Available Funds) 33AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 RURAL ENERGY T I M S A N D S T R O M , C H I E F O P E R A T I N G O F F I C E R 34 AEA Rural Energy Team Number of Employees: 6 Responsible for: Procurement Power Cost Equalization Rural Power System Upgrade Bulk Fuel Upgrade Circuit Rider Emergency Response Training and Tech Support Information Technology 35 Tim Sandstrom Chief Operating Officer Houston Solar Farm, Houston, AK St. George Island, Pribilof Islands, AKSt. George Island, Pribilof Islands, AK Power Cost Equalization (PCE) The PCE program was established in 1985 as one of the components of a statewide energy plan. The cost of electricity for Alaska’s rural residents is notably higher than for urban residents. PCE lowers the cost of electric service paid by rural residents. Ultimately ensuring the viability of rural utilities and the availability of reliable, centralized power. 36AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Houston Solar Farm, Houston, AK St. George Island, Pribilof Islands, AKSt. George Island, Pribilof Islands, AK Who is Eligible to Participate in PCE? PCE eligibility is determined by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska in accordance with Alaska Statute 42.45.100-170. Eligible customers include: Residential and community facilities (water, sewer, public lighting, and clinics, etc.) Non-eligible customers include: State and federal facilities and commercial customers Any community with rates lower than the urban average (the PCE floor) 37AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Rural Power System Upgrades BeforeAfterAEA’s Rural Power Systems Upgrade program improves power generation in Alaska villages with less than 2,000 people. Approximately 170 communities are eligible for the program, which replaces outdated, inefficient mechanical systems with new electronically controlled generator sets. Due to declining funds, rural power systems aren't upgraded timely, and communities are left with aging systems at risk of failure. AEA evaluates several factors when prioritizing projects for funding –at this time deferred maintenance is estimated at $300 million. 38 Rural Power System Upgrade Prioritization List 1.Red Devil 2.Nelson Lagoon 3.Chalkyitsik 4.False Pass 5.Manokotak 6.Tuluksak 7.Atka 8.Birch Creek 9.Hughes 10.Kokhanok 11.Newtok 12.Saint Paul 13.Chignik Bay 14.Levelock 15.Galena 16.Saint George 17.Chignik Lagoon 18.Chuathbaluk 19.Elfin Cove 20.Karluk 21.Pedro Bay 22.Diomede 23.Mertarvik 24.Ruby 25.Stony River Of the more than 170 communities eligible for the power system program, AEA has upgraded more than one-third of them over the years. The list of communities below is limited to 25, as AEA only has the financial and technical resources to manage a half dozen new projects each year. AEA estimates each power system upgrade to cost between $5-7 million. To complete all 25 on the list below, the total is estimated to be $175 million. 39AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 AEA designs and builds modern, code-compliant bulk fuel facilities through our Bulk Fuel Upgrade program. In Alaska, there are over 400 bulk fuel facilities —each sized to support the village. Most of the facilities are older than 40 years,with many exceeding 50 years, and they average 100,000 gallons in size. However, aging infrastructure poses several safety risks for rural communities, e.g. corrosion, erosion, and environmental. AEA maintains an inventory and assessment priority need-based list —so far deferred maintenance is estimated at $1 billion. Bulk Fuel UpgradesBefore After40AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Bulk Fuel Upgrade Prioritization List 1.Shageluk* 2.Newtok 3.Eek* 4.Kivalina 5.Kobuk 6.Chefornak* 7.Metlakatla 8.Whale Pass 9.Noatak 10.Wales* 11.Allakaket* 12.Kasaan* 13.Coffman Cove 14.Naukati Bay 15.Nulato 16.Huslia 17.Ambler* 18.Manokotak 19.Goodnews Bay 20.Shungnak* 21.Kwigillingok* 22.Tuluksak* 23.Teller 24.Galena 25.Kongiganak Of the state’s 400 bulk fuel facilities, 60% have been assessed by AEA. Initial data collection to establish a baseline will completed by December 2024. This active list can be re-ranked according to specific area of concern, e.g. environmental, dispenser, tank health. As AEA gathers additional data, the list is re-ranked accordingly. AEA estimates each bulk fuel upgrade to cost between $10-12 million. To complete all 25 on the list below, the total is estimated to be $300 million. *AEA active projects or projects in development. Several of these projects were identified in previous inventories and assessments. 41AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Training and Tech Support 42 Circuit Rider and Bulk Fuel Itinerant Onsite Number after entity indicates more than one occurrence. 45 Total Onsite Visits Akiachak(2) Akiak Atmautluak AVTEC Seward(3) Central(2) Chefornak Chitina(2) Circle(2) Clarks Point(3) Elfin Cove(2) False Pass(2) Fort Yukon(2) Iliamna(2) King Cove(2) Kwethluk Larsen Bay Napaskiak Ouzinkie(2) Pedro Bay Pelican(2) Port Heiden Tenakee Springs(2) Tuluksak(6) Twin Hills Electrical Emergency Assistance Naknek (COVID-19 Field Hospital Gensets) Circuit Rider Real-Time Remote Assistance Number after entity indicates more than one occurrence. 311 Total Responses ACEP Fairbanks Adak AKhiok Akiachak(6) Akiak(13) Angoon(5) ANTHC(2) Arctic Village Atmautluak(11) Atka(2) Beaver(4) Birch Creek Buckland(4) Calista/Y-K region Central(4) Chenega Bay(4) Chignik Bay(7) Chignik Lagoon(3) Chignik Lake(3) Chitina(6) Chefornak Circle Clarks Point(17) Crooked Creek DCRA Deering Diomede(8) Egegik(6) Elfin Cove(5) Emmonak False Pass(2) FEMA Anchorage(2) Fort Yukon(2) Galena Gambell Hoonah(3) Hughes(3) Igiugig(3) IPEC (Juneau) Kake(7) Kipnuk(8) Kobuk Kokhanok(3) Kongiganak(3) Koyuk Koyukuk Kwethluk(14) Kwigillingok(7) Larsen Bay(4) Levelock(5) Manokotak McGrath(5) Mertarvik(8) MKEC McGrath Napakiak Newhalen(3) Newtok(2) Nikolia(2) Nunam Iqua(2) Nuvista Fairbanks Ouzinkie(13) Pedro Bay(2) Pelican(13) Perryville(2) Pilot Point Platinum Point Hope Port Heiden(7) Providence Alaska Medical Center Ruby(4) Saint George SEOC Anchorage(2) Stevens Village(4) Tatitlek(5) Tazimina(3) TCC Fairbanks Tenakee Springs(2) Tuluksak(24) Tuluksak School Tuntutuliak Ugashik Wales AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 43AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 3D Modeling RENEWABLE ENERGY & ENERGY EFFICIENCY A U D R E Y A L S T R O M , P E , D I R E C T O R 44 AEA Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Team Number of Employees: 6 Responsible for: Working Group Facilitation Solar for All National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Home Energy and High Efficiency Rebate Allocations Black Rapids Training Site State Energy Program Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Develop and implements renewable energy programs based on organizational goals 45 Audrey Alstrom, PE Director 46 Working Group Facilitation Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Alaska Energy Efficiency Partnership Alaska Solar Working Group Alaska Wind Working Group Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs AEA’s renewable energy and efficiency programs provide technical and financial support for communities interested in developing renewable energy programs with the aim of growing Alaska's clean economy. BIOMASS ENERGY EFFICIENCY ELECTRIC VEHICLES ENERGY STORAGE GEOTHERMAL HEAT RECOVERY HYDROELECTRIC NUCLEAR SOLAR WINDHouston Solar Farm, Houston, AK AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Solar for All In April 2024, AEA and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) were selected for a $62.5 million grant from the Environmental Protection Agency's Solar for All program. -AEA will develop community solar in disadvantaged communities. -AHFC will develop residential rooftop solar for low income households. Program benefits: -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. No match required for this competitive grant. CO2 $62.5 Million (Shared with AHFC) 47AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Quarterly meetings, monthly technical sessions, and newsletters Public-facing stakeholder outreach and engagement EV Infrastructure Funding National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program -$52 million / Federal Highway Administration -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. Alaska Rural EVSE Deployment (ARED) Project -$1.67 million / DOE Volkswagen Settlement -AEA Constructed a fast charging corridor between Healy and Homer/Seward est. 2022 48AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Electric Vehicles 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 in fall/winter 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 in fall/winter 2025. 49 AEA is collaborating with AHFC to distribute Alaska’s allocation of $74 Million Home Energy and High Efficiency Rebate Allocations AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 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 an 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. 50AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 State Energy Program (Annual) The program emphasizes the state's role as the decision maker and administrator for program activities within the state.Program activities are tailored to Alaska's unique resources, delivery capacity, and energy goals. Funds equally shared between agencies to carry out statewide energy programming. In addition to receiving funding, US DOE also offers technical assistance. Alaska’s FY25 Allocation is $480,580 No State match is required. Period of performance is July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025. State Energy Program (BIL) An investment to upgrade and modernize the nation's energy infrastructure. States use funds to pursue activities and goals that enhance energy security, advance state-led energy initiatives, and increase energy affordability. 80%of funds allocated to AEA and 20%passed through to AHFC . AEA's activities include developing a State Energy Plan and State Energy Security Profile,participating in grid planning,establishing a grant program (RE-VEEP) that funds renewable and energy efficiency projects,providing training and workforce development opportunities for Alaskans, and conducting outreach and education to various audiences. AHFC's activities include updating energy modeling and data,developing housing and energy repositories, and providing energy education and resources, as well as access to energy data to Alaskans. Alaska’s Allocation is a one-time disbursement of $3.6 million. No State match is required. Period of performance is July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2028. 51 AEA and AHFC work together to carry out statewide energy programming State Energy Program (SEP) Allocations AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 In October 2023, AEA received a one-time EECBG formula award of $1.6 million. These funds, along with $1.4 million in SEP BIL funds, were used to help establish the Renewable Energy-Village Energy Efficiency Program (RE-VEEP). -RE-VEEP is an expansion of the Village Energy Efficiency Program and has awarded sub-grants to finance building-scale renewable, energy efficiency, and conservation projects in public buildings and facilities in rural Alaska. -As of July 2024, $1.5 million in federal funds sub-awarded. Program benefits: -Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, -Reduce total energy use, -Improve energy efficiency, -Enhance energy security, -Advance state-led energy initiatives, and -Increase energy affordability. No match required. Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) 52AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 AEA’s biomass program, which has over $1 million in federal funding, receives its support from the State, United States Forest Service, and the Denali Commission. Biomass Program AEA’s Biomass Program provides project development, outreach,project management, and technical assistance for biomass energy systems across the state. -Most systems are community-scale heat loops powered by wood (cordwood, chips, or pellets) -Waste-to-energy systems, like the Anchorage Municipality's Landfill Gas Project and the Kenai Peninsula Borough's Landfill Gas Projects, are the utility-scale systems under the biomass program Wind Program AEA supports wind projects throughout Alaska through its Wind Program, which seeks to harness Alaska's wind resources. By investing in wind projects through the Renewable Energy Fund, AEA helps to reduce fossil fuel dependency. AEA collaborates with local communities, industry experts, and policymakers to develop wind projects through its Alaska Wind Working Group.53 Biomass and Wind Programs AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 PLANNING C O N N E R E R I C K S O N , D I R E C T O R 54 55 AEA Planning Team Number of Employees: 2 Responsible for: Renewable Energy Fund Power Project Fund Electronic Library Grid Resilience Formula Grant Program, IIJA 40101(d) Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund Capitalization Grant Program IRA 40502 U.S. Department of Energy’s State and Community Energy Program: Energy Future Grants Program Analytical support for AEA managed programs Review and evaluation of AEA-related energy projects Conner Erickson Director The PPF loan program continues to see an increase in applications due to federal matching fund requirements and other incentives. The Inflation Reduction Act provides tax credits of up to 40%. A fund capitalization of $25 million would allow for additional funds needed to support the increased demand in funding. Renewable Energy Fund (REF) With Senate Bill 187, the Legislature and Governor appropriated $10.5 million for five projects in June 2024. The appropriation is double the initial REF budget of $5 million. In light of the numerous federal funding opportunities available, which compete for these same limited community resources, AEA and the REF Advisory Committee will seek fiscal year 2026 funds from the Legislature for the 19 projects not funded in Round 16. Since its inception, the State has invested $327 million in the REF; Over 100 operational projects, and 59 are under development; and The REF has offset the consumption of approximately 85 million gallons of diesel fuel, per an independent study. REF Highlights Round 13: 11 Projects –$4.75M Round 14: 27 Projects –$15M Round 15: 18 Projects –$17M Round 16: 5 Projects –$10.5M Kongiganak, Alaska AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 56 The PPF loan program continues to see an increase in applications due to federal matching fund requirements and other incentives. The Inflation Reduction Act provides tax credits of up to 40%. A fund capitalization of $25 million would allow for additional funds needed to support the increased demand in funding. The PPF loan program continues to see an increase in applications due to federal matching fund requirements and other incentives. The Inflation Reduction Act provides tax credits of up to 60% for clean energy projects. Capitalization of the fund would allow for additional loans to be issued to support the increased demand. Power Project Fund (PPF) Loan Program Outstanding Loans $31 Million 15 Loans Competitive Rates Current PPF Interest Rate 5.52% as of August 2024 Pending Applications $0 Loans Under Review Uncommitted Cash Balance Fund Needing Capitalization AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 57 WORKING VALUE Nemo enim ipsam voluptatem quia voluptas sit aspernatur aut odit aut fugit, sed quia consequ untur magni Write Something Caption Here AEA Electronic Library (E-Library) AEA E-Library provides public access to over 50 years of Alaska energy data, reducing staff time devoted to finding records for general inquiries and Freedom of Information Act requests. On December 11, 2023, AEA officially launched its digital e-library, which was funded by a $100,000 grant from the Denali Commission and $40,000 from AEA. The e-library launched with 7,500 documents, including program publications, technical reports, research and feasibility studies. Currently, over 11,000 documents are searchable. The e-library is fully accessible to the public via AEA’s website via the library tab, or directly via accessing AEA‘s website at https://www.akenergyauthority. org/library Since its launch, the e-library has averaged over 650 unique visitors per month.Site visits to the e-library are reported to be trending positively, with an average 10% increase in site visits month over month. 58AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Grid Resilience Formula Grant Program, IIJA 40101(d) Per IIJA section 40101(a)(1),8 a disruptive event is defined as “an event in which operations of the electric grid are disrupted, preventively shut off, or cannot operate safely due to extreme weather, wildfire, or a natural disaster.” 40101(d) is a five-year competitive grant program under which the AEA is anticipated to receive $60 million in federal formula grants to catalyze projects that increase grid resilience against disruptive events. In August 2023, the first two years of allocations, $22.2 million, was awarded to AEA. AEA’s competitive solicitation for these funds closed in February 2024, with seven applications received. Three preliminary sub-award selections have been announced for a total of $20.9 million in sub-award funds. Official award agreements expected 3nd QTR 2024, currently pending DOE review and approval. For fiscal year 2025, AEA requested $17,627,018, Alaska’s formula allocation for year 3, in Federal Receipt Authority and $1,816,579 in matching funds. Resilience measures include but are not limited to: -Relocating or reconductoring powerlines -Improvements to make the grid resistant to extreme weather -Increasing fire resistant components -Integrating distributed energy resources like microgrids and energy storage Formula-based funding requires a 15% state match and a 33% small utility match. $60 Million (Over Five Years) 59 The EERLF was authorized under Section 40502 of the Inflation Reduction Act to provide capitalization funding for states to establish loan funds to eligible recipients for commercial and/or residential energy audits, upgrades, and retrofits. The state of Alaska was allocated $4,782,480 under the federal formula, with funds being awarded to AEA in June 2024 . With interest-rate buydowns stated as an allowable use of funds under the EERLF program, AHFC sought to apply the funds to its EEIRR program, increasing the loan amount threshold to which the interest rate reduction may apply, lowering the overall, blended interest rate for eligible borrowers. As the only entity eligible for the funds in the state, AEA applied with AHFC's support.AEA and AHFC have a reimbursable services agreement, and this award will be managed as a sub-award to AHFC. AEA will retain a portion of the funds for administration, reporting, and compliance, while AHFC will receive $4.4 million to enhance its EEIRR program. Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund (EERLF) Capitalization Grant Program IRA 40502 Through the application of EERLF funds, the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) will be able to increase the loan amount threshold for interest-rate buydowns for its Energy Efficiency Interest Rate Reduction (EEIRR) program, resulting in a lower blended interest rate for eligible borrowers. $4.8 Million (Single Formula Award) 60AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) EFG program is a competitive, federally-funded program that provides financial and technical assistance to support local, state, and Tribal government-led partnership efforts to increase resiliency and improve access to affordable clean energy. ▪ With state energy offices eligible for the EFG program, AML and AEA partnered to submit an application under the first- ever program solicitation.It is slated to be a continuing program offered through DOE's State and Community Energy Programs (SCEP).▪ AML, via this pass-though sub-award opportunity to be managed under a Memorandum of Agreement between AEA and AML, will engage via a cohort-approach up to 45 Alaskan municipalities to enhance and improve their capacity for local energy operations and governance.▪ AEA’s award under the program was preliminarily awarded in late March 2024. AEA expects the final award to be officially issued by DOE in August 2024, upon DOE’s conclusion of negotiations.▪ U.S. DOE SCEP: Energy Future Grants (EFG) Program With funding under the EFG program, the Alaska Municipal League (AML) will increase the capacity of up to 45 municipalities to access affordable clean energy, through cohort reviews and exercises related to permits, land-use, regulatory, and other aspects. 61 $496,725 (Single Award) AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 RAILBELT TRANMISSION ORGANIZATION K A R E N B E L L , D I R E C T O R 62 Insert Image Here AEA Railbelt Transmission Organization (RTO) Team Number of Employees: 1 Responsible for: Administration and management of RTO functions Development of the RTO certificate and tariff filings Provide compliance oversight for regulatory filings Liaison between AEA and Railbelt utilities for matters related to the RTO Reporting and financial analysis for RTO activities Budget development and contract management 63 Karen Bell Director Owing to recommendations from the governor’s Alaska Energy Security Task Force concerning the elimination of transmission wheeling charges and the establishment of a RTO, the Legislature passed House Bill 307, which was signed into law on July 31, 2024. Under the new law, the RTO will be a division of AEA. RTO DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Form the RTO on or before January 1, 2025, modeled after the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee. Governance structure must be comprised of a representatives from AEA, the Railbelt utilities, and the Railbelt Reliability Council (non-voting member). Apply to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) for a certificate under AS 42.05.221 on or before January 1, 2025. By July 1, 2025, file with the RCA a nondiscriminatory open access tariff that provides for the recovery of Railbelt backbone transmission costs and related ancillary services, and replaces wheeling charges with a new mechanism that fairly recovers and equitably allocates the costs of operating the backbone transmission system. Hold and administer the certificate and tariff for the RTO. The tariff will require updates to the revenue mechanism to reflect changes in costs from year to year. 64AEA Overview | AEA Board of Directors | September 10, 2024 Alaska Energy Authority 813 W Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 akenergyauthority.org Thank You 65 REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA1Board Meetings and Materials•Order of Business / Sample Agenda•Meeting Documents•Executive Session Documents•Access AEA Board email and SharePoint•Accessing / Receiving Board Materials REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAAEA Board of Directors SharePoint Site2AEA Board Share Point•Check Email•Board Schedule•Meeting Documents•Confidential Executive Session Documents•Teams Meeting Link•Governance•Other Resources REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKASharePoint Access31. Click on the following URL, or type into a web browser: https://sharepoint.aidea.org/aeaboard/• User will be prompted to sign in:2. Sign as follows: • User Name: email user name preceded by: AEAMAIN\bod_ • Password: same password as email passwordBoard of Director User Names:• Commissioner Crum: AEAMAIN\bod_acrum• Commissioner Sande: AEAMAIN\bod_jsande• Tony Izzo: AEAMAIN\bod_tizzo• Ingemar Mathiasson: AEAMAIN\bod_imathiasson• Duff Mitchell: AEAMAIN\bod_dmitchell• Robert Siedman: AEAMAIN\bod_rsiedman REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAAEA Email Access: 1.https://www.akenergyauthority.org4Alaska Energy Authority Email 2. Click webmail3. Enter email credentials:•User name: bod_1stinitial last name•Password: set at first log in Page 1 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX BYLAWS OF THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ARTICLE I. THE AUTHORITY Section 1. Name of Authority. The name of the Authority is the “Alaska Energy Authority.” Section 2. Seal of Authority. The seal of the Authority is in the form of a circle and shall bear the name of the Authority and the year of its creation. Section 3. Offices of the Authority. The offices of the Authority shall be at 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, or at such locations in the State of Alaska as the Authority may from time to time designate. The Authority may hold its meetings at such places in Alaska as it may from time to time designate. Section 4. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Authority shall be the same as the fiscal year of the State of Alaska. ARTICLE II. BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS Section 1. General Powers. The powers of the Authority are vested in its Board of Directors. Section 2. Directors. The members of the Board of Directors of the Authority are: a. The commissioner of revenue; b. The commissioner of commerce, community and economic development; and c. Six public members appointed by the governor as determined pursuant to AS 44.83.030, and who shall serve for three-year terms. If a commissioner described in a. or b. above is unable to attend a meeting of the Board of Directors, such commissioner may, by an instrument in writing and filed with the Board of Directors, designate a deputy or director to act in the commissioner’s place as a member of the Board of Directors at the meeting. In such event such designee shall be a member of the Board of Directors at such meeting. Section 3. Compensation. The directors of the Authority shall serve without compensation, but they shall receive the same travel pay and per diem as provided by law for board members under AS 39.20.180 as from time to time amended. Section 4. Board Officers. The officers of the Board of Directors of the Authority shall be a Chair, a Vice-Chair, and a Secretary/Treasurer. Section 5. Chair. The Chair of the Board shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors. Section 6. Vice-Chair. The Vice-Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence or incapacity of the Chair, and in case of the resignation or death of the Chair, the Vice-Chair shall perform such duties until the Board elects a new Chair. Section 7. Secretary/Treasurer. The Executive Director shall serve as Secretary/Treasurer. Page 2 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX (a) As Secretary, the Executive Director shall: 1. Keep the records of the Authority; 2. Keep a record of the proceedings of the Authority in a journal of proceedings to be kept for such purposes; 3. Act as Secretary of the meetings of the Authority and record all votes; 4. Provide that all meetings of the Authority are electronically recorded; 5. Provide for the standardization of all applications, forms, books and records of the Authority; 6. Keep in safe custody the seal of the Authority and affix the seal to appropriate contracts and instruments authorized to be executed by the Authority; and 7. Perform all other duties incident to his or her office. (b) As Treasurer, the Executive Director is authorized and empowered to: 1. Keep regular books of accounts of all financial transactions of the Authority, recording receipts and expenditures; 2. Have the care and custody of all funds of the Authority; 3. Deposit Authority funds in such banks as he or she may select; 4. Invest corporate funds as directed by statute; 5. Disburse monies for all Authority expenses and obligations; and 6. Have annual audits made of the books of accounts of the Authority and render such other reports and accounting as required by the Board. (c) The Board of Directors of the Authority may, by resolution, assign to some other person or persons, all or part of the above enumerated duties of the Secretary-Treasurer, or authorize the Executive Director to delegate all or part of the above enumerated duties to some other person or persons, and may give said person or persons an appropriate title. (d) The Board of Directors of the Authority may appoint one or more Assistant Secretary- Treasurer(s), who shall be an employee of the Authority. In the absence or incapacity of the Secretary-Treasurer, each person so appointed shall be authorized to perform all duties and acts of the Secretary-Treasurer. Section 8. Election of Chair and Vice Chair. The Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected by the Board of Directors from its members at its annual meeting and shall hold office for two years or until their successors are elected as provided by law under AS 44.83.040(a). The procedures for the election of the Chair and the Vice Chair are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 9. Vacancies. Should a vacancy occur in the membership of the Board, the governor shall immediately appoint a member for the unexpired portion of the term. Should the office of Chair Page 3 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX or Vice-Chair become vacant, at its next regular meeting the Board shall elect a successor from the Board to fill the unexpired term of the office. Section 10. Additional Duties. Board officers shall perform such other duties as are set forth in these Bylaws or State of Alaska laws and regulations or as may from time to time be authorized by the Board. Section 11. Budget and Audit Committee. There shall be a budget and audit committee consisting of not less than three directors of the Board of Directors. The members shall be elected by the Board of Directors at the annual meeting of the Board. Should a vacancy occur, the Chair shall appoint a successor to fill the unexpired term. It shall be the duty of the committee to recommend to the Board a competitively procured independent accounting firm to perform an annual audit and evaluation of the internal financial controls of the Authority. The committee shall act on behalf of the Board in meeting with the independent auditor and the appropriate Authority officers and reviewing matters relating to the financial reporting and accounting policies and procedures, the adequacy of financial accounting and operating controls and the scope of the audits of the independent auditor. The committee shall review the results of such audits and shall promptly report thereon to the Board of Directors. The committee shall additionally submit to the Board any and all recommendations it may have from time to time with respect to financial reporting and accounting practices and policies and financial accounting and operational controls and safeguards. The committee shall review the annual operating and capital budgets submitted by staff and recommend approval of the annual budgets to the Board. The committee shall elect a chair of the audit committee who will call meetings as appropriate. Section 12. Personnel Committee. There shall be a personnel committee consisting of not less than three directors of the Board of Directors. The members shall be elected by the Board of Directors at the annual meeting of the Board. Should a vacancy occur, the Chair shall appoint a successor to fill the unexpired term. The committee shall annually evaluate the Executive Director and make compensation recommendations to the Board. The compensation of the Executive Director shall be set by the Board as per Article III, Section 1(a) of these Bylaws. In addition, the committee shall review the Authority’s personnel and compensation/benefits policies, as needed. The committee shall elect a chair of the personnel committee who will call meetings as appropriate. Section 13. Board Business. The business of the Board must be conducted through the State email server. ARTICLE III. STAFF AND EMPLOYEES Section 1. Executive Director. The Executive Director is charged with the administration of the business affairs of the Authority and shall in general supervise and control the business and affairs of the Authority, and shall perform all duties incident of the office of Executive Director and such other duties as the Board of Directors of the Authority may prescribe from time to time. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Board and shall have such term as the Board fixes. The compensation of the Executive Director shall be set by the Board. No director of the Board shall be eligible for this office. Page 4 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX Section 2. Additional Personnel. The Executive Director shall employ such personnel as the Executive Director deems necessary to administer the affairs of the Authority and perform the attendant duties. Section 3. Conflicts of Interest. With respect to conflicts of interest, a director of the Authority shall act in accordance with AS 39.52 Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act and Procedures for Boards and Commissions. Section 4. Legal Indemnification. (a) This section applies to all current and former officers, directors, and employees with respect to claims arising out of acts or events occurring during and in the course of their employment or service with the Authority. (b) If the Executive Director, with the advice of the Attorney General, determines that an employee did not engage in conduct beyond the scope of the employee's authority or in conduct which constituted willful misconduct or gross negligence in the performance of the employee's duties, the Authority shall provide for the legal defense of the employee in any civil legal action brought against the employee as a result of the performance of the employee’s duties. Any determination with respect to the conduct of the Executive Director or a director of the Board of Directors shall be made by the Board of Directors. (c) An employee must request the legal defense services available under this section in writing within five (5) working days of service on the employee of a summons and complaint. The date of the request shall be the date of postmark if mailed or the date of delivery if conveyed by some other means. The request must be made to the Executive Director or, in the event the Executive Director or a director requests such services, to the Board of Directors. Failure to submit a written request within the required five working days relieves the Authority of any obligation under this section. (d) The Authority shall have the right to select the attorney who represents an employee. (e) Attorneys provided by the Authority will only undertake to defend an employee and will not assert any counterclaims or cross claims on the employee's behalf without the prior written approval of the Authority. (f) Except as otherwise provided herein, the Authority will pay any judgment rendered against an employee if it has provided legal services to the employee pursuant to this section. ARTICLE IV. MEETINGS Section 1. Annual Board Meeting. The annual meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held during the third quarter of each calendar year on the date and at the place set by the Board. The annual meeting shall also constitute a regular Board meeting. Section 2. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors of the Authority shall be held quarterly at the place designated at the last regular meeting, but in the absence of such designation then at the place and on the date in any such month as fixed by the Chair. The directors of the Authority shall have at least seven days’ prior notice of regular meetings; Page 5 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX designation of date, time, and place of meeting at the previous regular meeting constitutes sufficient notice to directors of the Authority. If the directors not present have signed a Waiver of Notice and Consent, a quorum otherwise being present, any and all business may be transacted even though notice of the meeting is not provided to Authority directors. Section 3. Special Meetings. The Chair of the Authority may, when he or she deems it expedient, and shall upon the written request of two members of the Authority call a special meeting of the Authority for the purpose of transacting any business designated in the call. The call for a special meeting may be transmitted electronically or mailed to the business or home address of the members of the Authority at least seven days prior to the date of such special meeting. Seven days’ notice shall be provided to the public for any special meeting. At such special meetings no business shall be considered other than as designated in the call, but if the directors not present have signed a Waiver of Notice and Consent to Meeting, a quorum otherwise being present, any and all business may be transacted at such special meeting. Section 4. Public Notice of Meetings. There shall be at least seven calendar days’ public notice of any meeting of the Board of Directors. Such notice shall also be transmitted electronically or mailed directly to each director. All meetings of the Board shall comply with the Alaska Open Meetings Act, AS 44.62.310-.312. In emergencies, the Board may meet with such public notice as is reasonable under the circumstances. Section 5. Electronic Meetings. The Board of Directors of the Authority may meet and transact business by an electronic medium if: (1) public notice of the time and locations where the meeting will be held by an electronic medium has been given in the same manner as if the meeting were held in a single location; (2) participants and members of the public in attendance can hear and have the same right to participate in the meeting as if the meeting were conducted in person; and (3) copies of pertinent reference materials, statutes, regulations, and audio-visual materials are reasonably available to participants and to the public. A meeting by an electronic medium as provided in this section has the same legal effect as a meeting in person. Section 6. Attendance and Quorum. Directors are expected to attend and actively participate at each meeting; such attendance may be by way of telephone or by utilizing such equipment or devices that all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other during the meeting. Five directors of the Authority shall constitute a quorum. Section 7. Board Information. For each Board meeting, the Executive Director and staff shall prepare a packet of information including an agenda, action items, informational items, resolutions, and other information pertinent to the meeting. Section 8. Order of Business. At a regular meeting of the Board of Directors, the following shall be the order of business: 1. Roll Call Page 6 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Public Comments 5. Board Committee Reports 6. Old Business 7. New Business 8. Report of the Chair 9. Report of the Executive Director 10. Any Other Matters to Properly Come Before the Board 11. Executive Session 12. Adjournment The Chair may announce changes in the Order of Business during the meeting. The Chair and the Executive Director may submit such recommendations and information to the Board as they consider proper concerning the business, affairs and policies of the Authority. Section 9. Manner of Voting. When a quorum is in attendance, action may be taken and motions and resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors at a meeting by the affirmative vote of at least five board members. The voting on all questions coming before the Authority shall be by roll call, and the “Yeas” and “Nays” shall be entered upon the minutes of such meeting if any dissenting votes are cast; otherwise, resolutions may be shown as unanimous. ARTICLE V. RECORDS Section 1. Custody. The books and records of the Authority, including all applications for financing and all contracts with third parties, including consultants, financial advisors and bond counsel, shall be maintained in the offices of the Authority. Section 2. Public Inspection. All books and records of the Authority, unless privileged, are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the offices of the Authority. The Authority will provide copies of books and records on request, but may charge a reasonable fee for this service which fee may include the cost of employee time and overhead. Books and records need not be reproduced in the exact form or medium in which they are stored, however, any alteration in the form or medium shall not change the substantive content of the information contained in the books or records. ARTICLE VI. AMENDMENTS Section 1. Amendments to Bylaws. The Bylaws of the Authority may be amended at a regular or special meeting, but no such amendment may be adopted at a special meeting unless all of the members are present or at least seven days’ written or electronic notice of the proposed amendment and of the meeting has been previously given to all the members of the Authority. AEA Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 1 of 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 2024-05 RESOLUTION OF THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ADOPTING CHANGES TO THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY BYLAWS WHEREAS, AS 44.83.080 provides that the Alaska Energy Authority (Authority) has the power to make and alter bylaws for its organization and internal management; and WHEREAS, the bylaws of the Authority provide that the members of the Authority may amend the bylaws; and WHEREAS, the original bylaws of Alaska Energy Authority have been in effect since May 20, 1993; and WHEREAS, the original bylaws have required amendment on multiple occasions including in 2012, 2013, and 2019; and WHEREAS, the 33rd Alaska State Legislature passed HB307, which was signed by the Alaska Governor and went into effect on July 31, 2024; and WHEREAS, HB307 made significant changes to the Alaska Energy Authority including establishing a new Board of Directors distinct from that of the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority board; and WHEREAS, the Authority recognizes the need to update its bylaws to reflect current governance practices and ensure compliance with applicable laws. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY as follows: Section 1. The Board of Alaska Energy Authority hereby adopts the new bylaws, as presented, to replace and supersede the existing bylaws; and Section 2. The Secretary is hereby directed to file the new bylaws with the official records of the Authority and ensure that all necessary steps are taken to implement and enforce the new bylaws; and AEA Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 2 of 2 Section 3. The new bylaws shall take effect immediately upon the adoption of this resolution. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this ___ day of September 2024. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY __________________________ Chair __________________________ Curtis W. Thayer, Secretary Corporate seal Page 1 Exhibit A to AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX EXHIBIT A RULES FOR ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR The procedures embodied in these rules have been adopted by the Alaska Energy Authority to facilitate the election of the Chair and Vice Chair as called for under Article II Section 8 of the Bylaws. These procedures may be amended at any time by a majority vote of the Board of Directors. 1. The Chair and Vice Chair shall be elected by an affirmative vote of at least five members of the Board of Directors. Each member of the Board of Directors shall have one vote in this election. 2. The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve for a term of two years or until his or her resignation or removal, if earlier. The Chair and Vice Chair shall not be eligible for consecutive terms but shall be eligible if they held the position of Chair or Vice Chair, respectively, other than during the immediately preceding term. 3. The bi-annual election of the Chair and Vice Chair shall occur each year at the first meeting held after the newly-appointed Board of Directors members take office (i.e., the “Annual Meeting”). 4. The election shall be supervised by the current Chair. If the Chair is not present or no member of the Board of Directors holds the Chair position, then the duty to supervise the election shall reside with the Vice Chair and failing that with the Executive Director. 5. The election shall be conducted by secret ballots which shall be delivered to the supervisor of the election by hand or other confidential communication in the case of members who are not attending the Annual Meeting in person. Voting by proxy is not allowed. 6. The elections of the Chair and the Vice Chair shall take place at the beginning of the Annual Meeting. The newly-elected Chair’s term of service as Chair shall begin upon completion of the elections at the Annual Meeting. 7. Seven days prior to the Annual Meeting the supervisor of the election shall notify the members of the Board of Directors that nominations for Chair and Vice Chair of the Board of Directors will be open for 72 hours. 8. Members of the Board of Directors may nominate any member of the Board of Directors to serve as Chair. Self-nominations are allowed. 9. Nominations shall be communicated to the supervisor of the election. The supervisor of the election shall contact any nominee who is not self-nominated to confirm the nominee’s Page 2 Exhibit A to AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX willingness to serve as Chair or Vice Chair, as applicable, if elected. 10. Upon conclusion of the nomination period and confirmation that all nominees are willing to serve, the supervisor of the election shall send the list of nominees to the members of the Board of Directors. 11. At the commencement of the Annual Meeting, each of the nominees shall be given an opportunity to address the Board of Directors if they so desire. 12. In the event that no candidate receives the requisite majority, the candidate receiving the lowest number of votes shall be removed from the ballot and a new vote taken. 13. In the event that there is a tie between two or more candidates receiving the lowest vote, then the supervisor of the election shall conduct a run-off election among those tied candidates in which all of the members of the Board of Directors shall have a vote. In the event that none of the tied nominees receives a majority of the votes cast, the nominee receiving the lowest number of votes shall be removed from the ballot and a new vote taken, until one of the nominees receives a majority of the votes cast. When one of the tied nominees receives a majority of the votes cast, then the other tied nominees shall be removed from the ballot for the position and a new vote taken for that position. 14. Step 12, and as necessary Step 13, shall be repeated until one candidate receives the requisite majority of the votes and so is elected Chair or Vice Chair of the Board of Directors. Page 1 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX BYLAWS OF THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ARTICLE I. THE AUTHORITY Section 1. Name of Authority. The name of the Authority is the “Alaska Energy Authority.” Section 2. Seal of Authority. The seal of the Authority is in the form of a circle and shall bear the name of the Authority and the year of its creation. Section 3. Offices of the Authority. The offices of the Authority shall be at 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, or at such locations in the State of Alaska as the Authority may from time to time designate. The Authority may hold its meetings at such places in Alaska as it may from time to time designate. Section 4. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Authority shall be the same as the fiscal year of the State of Alaska. ARTICLE II. BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS Section 1. General Powers. The powers of the Authority are vested in its Board of Directors. Section 2. Directors. The members of the Board of Directors of the Authority are: a. The commissioner of revenue; b. The commissioner of commerce, community and economic development; and c. Six public members appointed by the governor as determined pursuant to AS 44.83.030, and who shall serve for three-year terms. If a commissioner described in a. or b. above is unable to attend a meeting of the Board of Directors, such commissioner may, by an instrument in writing and filed with the Board of Directors, designate a deputy or director to act in the commissioner’s place as a member of the Board of Directors at the meeting. In such event such designee shall be a member of the Board of Directors at such meeting. Section 3. Compensation. The directors of the Authority shall serve without compensation, but they shall receive the same travel pay and per diem as provided by law for board members under AS 39.20.180 as from time to time amended. Section 4. Board Officers. The officers of the Board of Directors of the Authority shall be a Chair, a Vice-Chair, and a Secretary/Treasurer. Section 5. Chair. The Chair of the Board shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors. Section 6. Vice-Chair. The Vice-Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair in the absence or incapacity of the Chair, and in case of the resignation or death of the Chair, the Vice-Chair shall perform such duties until the Board elects a new Chair. Section 7. Secretary/Treasurer. The Executive Director shall serve as Secretary/Treasurer. Page 2 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX (a) As Secretary, the Executive Director shall: 1. Keep the records of the Authority; 2. Keep a record of the proceedings of the Authority in a journal of proceedings to be kept for such purposes; 3. Act as Secretary of the meetings of the Authority and record all votes; 4. Provide that all meetings of the Authority are electronically recorded; 5. Provide for the standardization of all applications, forms, books and records of the Authority; 6. Keep in safe custody the seal of the Authority and affix the seal to appropriate contracts and instruments authorized to be executed by the Authority; and 7. Perform all other duties incident to his or her office. (b) As Treasurer, the Executive Director is authorized and empowered to: 1. Keep regular books of accounts of all financial transactions of the Authority, recording receipts and expenditures; 2. Have the care and custody of all funds of the Authority; 3. Deposit Authority funds in such banks as he or she may select; 4. Invest corporate funds as directed by statute; 5. Disburse monies for all Authority expenses and obligations; and 6. Have annual audits made of the books of accounts of the Authority and render such other reports and accounting as required by the Board. (c) The Board of Directors of the Authority may, by resolution, assign to some other person or persons, all or part of the above enumerated duties of the Secretary-Treasurer, or authorize the Executive Director to delegate all or part of the above enumerated duties to some other person or persons, and may give said person or persons an appropriate title. (d) The Board of Directors of the Authority may appoint one or more Assistant Secretary- Treasurer(s), who shall be an employee of the Authority. In the absence or incapacity of the Secretary-Treasurer, each person so appointed shall be authorized to perform all duties and acts of the Secretary-Treasurer. Section 8. Election of Chair and Vice Chair. The Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected by the Board of Directors from its members at its annual meeting and shall hold office for two years or until their successors are elected as provided by law under AS 44.83.040(a). The procedures for the election of the Chair and the Vice Chair are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 9. Vacancies. Should a vacancy occur in the membership of the Board, the governor shall immediately appoint a member for the unexpired portion of the term. Should the office of Chair Page 3 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX or Vice-Chair become vacant, at its next regular meeting the Board shall elect a successor from the Board to fill the unexpired term of the office. Section 10. Additional Duties. Board officers shall perform such other duties as are set forth in these Bylaws or State of Alaska laws and regulations or as may from time to time be authorized by the Board. Section 11. Budget and Audit Committee. There shall be a budget and audit committee consisting of not less than three directors of the Board of Directors. The members shall be elected by the Board of Directors at the annual meeting of the Board. Should a vacancy occur, the Chair shall appoint a successor to fill the unexpired term. It shall be the duty of the committee to recommend to the Board a competitively procured independent accounting firm to perform an annual audit and evaluation of the internal financial controls of the Authority. The committee shall act on behalf of the Board in meeting with the independent auditor and the appropriate Authority officers and reviewing matters relating to the financial reporting and accounting policies and procedures, the adequacy of financial accounting and operating controls and the scope of the audits of the independent auditor. The committee shall review the results of such audits and shall promptly report thereon to the Board of Directors. The committee shall additionally submit to the Board any and all recommendations it may have from time to time with respect to financial reporting and accounting practices and policies and financial accounting and operational controls and safeguards. The committee shall review the annual operating and capital budgets submitted by staff and recommend approval of the annual budgets to the Board. The committee shall elect a chair of the audit committee who will call meetings as appropriate. Section 12. Personnel Committee. There shall be a personnel committee consisting of not less than three directors of the Board of Directors. The members shall be elected by the Board of Directors at the annual meeting of the Board. Should a vacancy occur, the Chair shall appoint a successor to fill the unexpired term. The committee shall annually evaluate the Executive Director and make compensation recommendations to the Board. The compensation of the Executive Director shall be set by the Board as per Article III, Section 1(a) of these Bylaws. In addition, the committee shall review the Authority’s personnel and compensation/benefits policies, as needed. The committee shall elect a chair of the personnel committee who will call meetings as appropriate. Section 13. Board Business. The business of the Board must be conducted through the State email server. ARTICLE III. STAFF AND EMPLOYEES Section 1. Executive Director. The Executive Director is charged with the administration of the business affairs of the Authority and shall in general supervise and control the business and affairs of the Authority, and shall perform all duties incident of the office of Executive Director and such other duties as the Board of Directors of the Authority may prescribe from time to time. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Board and shall have such term as the Board fixes. The compensation of the Executive Director shall be set by the Board. No director of the Board shall be eligible for this office. Page 4 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX Section 2. Additional Personnel. The Executive Director shall employ such personnel as the Executive Director deems necessary to administer the affairs of the Authority and perform the attendant duties. Section 3. Conflicts of Interest. With respect to conflicts of interest, a director of the Authority shall act in accordance with AS 39.52 Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act and Procedures for Boards and Commissions. Section 4. Legal Indemnification. (a) This section applies to all current and former officers, directors, and employees with respect to claims arising out of acts or events occurring during and in the course of their employment or service with the Authority. (b) If the Executive Director, with the advice of the Attorney General, determines that an employee did not engage in conduct beyond the scope of the employee's authority or in conduct which constituted willful misconduct or gross negligence in the performance of the employee's duties, the Authority shall provide for the legal defense of the employee in any civil legal action brought against the employee as a result of the performance of the employee’s duties. Any determination with respect to the conduct of the Executive Director or a director of the Board of Directors shall be made by the Board of Directors. (c) An employee must request the legal defense services available under this section in writing within five (5) working days of service on the employee of a summons and complaint. The date of the request shall be the date of postmark if mailed or the date of delivery if conveyed by some other means. The request must be made to the Executive Director or, in the event the Executive Director or a director requests such services, to the Board of Directors. Failure to submit a written request within the required five working days relieves the Authority of any obligation under this section. (d) The Authority shall have the right to select the attorney who represents an employee. (e) Attorneys provided by the Authority will only undertake to defend an employee and will not assert any counterclaims or cross claims on the employee's behalf without the prior written approval of the Authority. (f) Except as otherwise provided herein, the Authority will pay any judgment rendered against an employee if it has provided legal services to the employee pursuant to this section. ARTICLE IV. MEETINGS Section 1. Annual Board Meeting. The annual meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held during the third quarter of each calendar year on the date and at the place set by the Board. The annual meeting shall also constitute a regular Board meeting. Section 2. Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of Directors of the Authority shall be held quarterly at the place designated at the last regular meeting, but in the absence of such designation then at the place and on the date in any such month as fixed by the Chair. The directors of the Authority shall have at least seven days’ prior notice of regular meetings; Page 5 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX designation of date, time, and place of meeting at the previous regular meeting constitutes sufficient notice to directors of the Authority. If the directors not present have signed a Waiver of Notice and Consent, a quorum otherwise being present, any and all business may be transacted even though notice of the meeting is not provided to Authority directors. Section 3. Special Meetings. The Chair of the Authority may, when he or she deems it expedient, and shall upon the written request of two members of the Authority call a special meeting of the Authority for the purpose of transacting any business designated in the call. The call for a special meeting may be transmitted electronically or mailed to the business or home address of the members of the Authority at least seven days prior to the date of such special meeting. Seven days’ notice shall be provided to the public for any special meeting. At such special meetings no business shall be considered other than as designated in the call, but if the directors not present have signed a Waiver of Notice and Consent to Meeting, a quorum otherwise being present, any and all business may be transacted at such special meeting. Section 4. Public Notice of Meetings. There shall be at least seven calendar days’ public notice of any meeting of the Board of Directors. Such notice shall also be transmitted electronically or mailed directly to each director. All meetings of the Board shall comply with the Alaska Open Meetings Act, AS 44.62.310-.312. In emergencies, the Board may meet with such public notice as is reasonable under the circumstances. Section 5. Electronic Meetings. The Board of Directors of the Authority may meet and transact business by an electronic medium if: (1) public notice of the time and locations where the meeting will be held by an electronic medium has been given in the same manner as if the meeting were held in a single location; (2) participants and members of the public in attendance can hear and have the same right to participate in the meeting as if the meeting were conducted in person; and (3) copies of pertinent reference materials, statutes, regulations, and audio-visual materials are reasonably available to participants and to the public. A meeting by an electronic medium as provided in this section has the same legal effect as a meeting in person. Section 6. Attendance and Quorum. Directors are expected to attend and actively participate at each meeting; such attendance may be by way of telephone or by utilizing such equipment or devices that all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other during the meeting. Five directors of the Authority shall constitute a quorum. Section 7. Board Information. For each Board meeting, the Executive Director and staff shall prepare a packet of information including an agenda, action items, informational items, resolutions, and other information pertinent to the meeting. Section 8. Order of Business. At a regular meeting of the Board of Directors, the following shall be the order of business: 1. Roll Call Page 6 AEA Bylaws, adopted XXX 2.Approval of Agenda 3.Approval of Minutes 4.Public Comments 5.Board Committee Reports 6.Old Business 7.New Business 8.Report of the Chair 9.Report of the Executive Director 10.Any Other Matters to Properly Come Before the Board 11.Executive Session 12.Adjournment The Chair may announce changes in the Order of Business during the meeting. The Chair and the Executive Director may submit such recommendations and information to the Board as they consider proper concerning the business, affairs and policies of the Authority. Section 9. Manner of Voting. When a quorum is in attendance, action may be taken and motions and resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors at a meeting by the affirmative vote of at least five board members. The voting on all questions coming before the Authority shall be by roll call, and the “Yeas” and “Nays” shall be entered upon the minutes of such meeting if any dissenting votes are cast; otherwise, resolutions may be shown as unanimous. ARTICLE V. RECORDS Section 1. Custody. The books and records of the Authority, including all applications for financing and all contracts with third parties, including consultants, financial advisors and bond counsel, shall be maintained in the offices of the Authority. Section 2. Public Inspection. All books and records of the Authority, unless privileged, are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the offices of the Authority. The Authority will provide copies of books and records on request, but may charge a reasonable fee for this service which fee may include the cost of employee time and overhead. Books and records need not be reproduced in the exact form or medium in which they are stored, however, any alteration in the form or medium shall not change the substantive content of the information contained in the books or records. ARTICLE VI. AMENDMENTS Section 1. Amendments to Bylaws. The Bylaws of the Authority may be amended at a regular or special meeting, but no such amendment may be adopted at a special meeting unless all of the members are present or at least seven days’ written or electronic notice of the proposed amendment and of the meeting has been previously given to all the members of the Authority. AMENDMENTS1. Alaska Power Authority Bylaws, original 1978.2. Resolution 1981-6 of the Alaska Power Authority Board of Directors.3. Resolution 1993-06 of the Alaska Energy Authority.4. Resolution 1995-01 of the Alaska Energy Authority.5. Resolution 2001-02 of the Alaska Energy Authority6. Resolution 2008-02 of the Alaska Energy Authority7. Resolution 2012-01 of the Alaska Energy Authority8. Resolution 2013-04 of the Alaska Energy Authority9. Resolution 2019-02 of the Alaska 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 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 10, 2024 TO: AEA Board of Directors FROM: Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director RE: Authorization of Banking Services with First National Bank Alaska Alaska Energy Authority banking and custodial services were provided under a contract between Alaska Industrial Development Authority (AIDEA) and KeyBank that expired on December 31, 2023. Currently, AIDEA is on a month-to-month agreement for banking and custodial services with KeyBank, and AEA continues to receive banking and custodial services under this same agreement. In April 2024, AEA released a request for proposal (RFP) soliciting banking and custodial services. Two banks responded to the RFP. After the evaluation process, First National Bank Alaska (FNBA) was selected. This contract was signed and finalized on July 10, 2024. The term of the contract is May 31, 2024 to May 30, 2026, and includes three consecutive two-year extension options at the sole discretion of the Authority. The duration may be up to eight years at the same rate, subject to appropriations. The total cost of the contract is estimated not to exceed $500,000 per every two years for the first term and for any subsequent renewals. The annual cost of the contract may be more or less depending on the level of services provided and the total dollar amount of funds the contractor is holding in custody for the Authority. FNBA banking and custodial services for AEA will consist of sixteen checking accounts and fourteen repurchase agreement accounts. The repurchase agreement accounts are the mechanism utilized for FNBA to provide AEA’s required custodial services. Two of the sixteen checking accounts will be utilized as regular day to day checking accounts. The other fourteen checking accounts will be companion accounts to the repurchase agreement accounts. FNBA requires a Board of Director’s resolution in order to open accounts and endorse checks and orders for the payment of money or otherwise withdraw or transfer funds on deposit. The proposed resolution was generated by FNBA to meet their requirements. It has been reviewed and approved by AEA legal counsel. I recommend that the AEA Board of Director adopt the draft resolution empowering AEA to proceed with establishing and administering the required checking and repurchase accounts. 2018 (1807).01 Wolters Kluwer Financial Services Corporation Authorization Bankers Systems Page 1 of 3 CA-1 7/1/2018 Corporate Authorizat ion Resolution 2024-06 By: Referred to in this document as "Financial Institution"Referred to in this document as "Corporation" I, organized under the laws of meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation duly and properly called and held on (date). These resolutions appear in the minutes of this meeting and have not been rescinded or modified. Agents. Any Agent listed below, subject to any written limitations, is authorized to exercise the powers granted as indicated below: , engaged in business under the trade name of , and that the resolutions on this document are a correct copy of the resolutions adopted at a , certify that I am Secretary (clerk) of the above named corporation , Federal Employer I.D. Number Name and Title or Position Facsimile Signature (if used) B. F. X X X A.X X X XC.X XD.X XE.X Signature FIRST NATIONAL BANK ALASKA PO BOX 100720 ANCHORAGE, AK 99510-0720 STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY CURTIS W THAYER ALASKA 92-6001185 STATE OF ALASKA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 09/10/2024 CURTIS W THAYER - AEA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PAMELA J ELLIS - AEA CONTROLLER STATE OF ALASKA Endorse, assign, transfer, mortgage or pledge bills receivable, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, stocks, bonds, real estate or other property now owned or hereafter owned or acquired by the Corporation as security for sums borrowed, and to discount the same, unconditionally guarantee payment of all bills received, negotiated or discounted and to waive demand, presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of non-payment. (5) (6) Enter into a written lease for the purpose of renting, maintaining, accessing and terminating a Safe Deposit Box in this Financial Institution. . (4) Borrow money on behalf and in the name of the Corporation, sign, execute and deliver promissory notes or other evidences of indebtedness. (3) Endorse checks and orders for the payment of money or otherwise withdraw or transfer funds on deposit with this Financial Institution. Limitations on Powers. The following are the Corporation's express limitations on the powers granted under this resolution. The Corporation named on this resolution resolves that, Resolutions (7) Other: (1) The Financial Institution is designated as a depository for the funds of the Corporation and to provide other financial accommodations indicated in this resolution. (2) This resolution shall continue to have effect until express written notice of its rescission or modification has been received and recorded by the Financial Institution. Any and all prior resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of the Corporation and certified to the Financial Institution as governing the operation of this corporation's account(s), are in full force and effect, until the Financial Institution receives and acknowledges an express written notice of its revocation, modification or replacement. Any revocation, modification or replacement of a resolution must be accompanied by documentation, satisfactory to the Financial Institution, establishing the authority for the changes. (3) The signature of an Agent on this resolution is conclusive evidence of their authority to act on behalf of the Corporation. Any Agent, so long as they act in a representative capacity as an Agent of the Corporation, is authorized to make any and all other contracts, agreements, stipulations and orders which they may deem advisable for the effective exercise of the powers indicated in this resolution, from time to time with the Financial Institution, subject to any restrictions on this resolution or otherwise agreed to in writing. Powers Granted. (Attach one or more Agents to each power by placing the letter corresponding to their name in the area before each power. Following each power indicate the number of Agent signatures required to exercise the power.) Indicate A, B, C, D, E, and/or F Description of Power Indicate number of signatures required (1)Exercise all of the powers listed in this resolution. Open any deposit or share account(s) in the name of the Corporation.(2) 2018Wolters Kluwer Financial Services Corporation Authorization Bankers Systems Page 2 of 3 (4) All transactions, if any, with respect to any deposits, withdrawals, rediscounts and borrowings by or on behalf of the Corporation with the Financial Institution prior to the adoption of this resolution are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. (1807).01 CA-1 7/1/2018 none none AB TWO AB TWO none none none none none none none none STATE OF ALASKA (7) (6) The Corporation acknowledges and agrees that the Financial Institution may rely on alternative signature and verification codes issued to or obtained from the Agent named on this resolution. The term "alternative signature and verification codes" includes, but is not limited to, facsimile signatures on file with the Financial Institution, personal identification numbers (PIN), and digital signatures. If a facsimile signature specimen has been provided on this resolution, (or that are filed separately by the Corporation with the Financial Institution from time to time) the Financial Institution is authorized to treat the facsimile signature as the signature of the Agent(s) regardless of by whom or by what means the facsimile signature may have been affixed so long as it resembles the facsimile signature specimen on file. The Corporation authorizes each Agent to have custody of the Corporation's private key used to create a digital signature and to request issuance of a certificate listing the corresponding public key. The Financial Institution shall have no responsibility or liability for unauthorized use of alternative signature and verification codes unless otherwise agreed in writing. The Corporation acknowledges and agrees that the Financial Institution may furnish at its discretion automated access devices to Agents of the Corporation to facilitate those powers authorized by this resolution or other resolutions in effect at the time of issuance. The term "automated access device" includes, but is not limited to, credit cards, automated teller machines (ATM), and debit cards. The Corporation agrees to the terms and conditions of any account agreement, properly opened by any Agent of the Corporation. The Corporation authorizes the Financial Institution, at any time, to charge the Corporation for all checks, drafts, or other orders, for the payment of money, that are drawn on the Financial Institution, so long as they contain the required number of signatures for this purpose. (5) 2018Wolters Kluwer Financial Services Corporation Authorization Bankers Systems Page 3 of 3 Certification of Authority I further certify that the Board of Directors of the Corporation has, and at the time of adoption of this resolution had, full power and lawful authority to adopt the resolutions stated above and to confer the powers granted above to the persons named who have full power and lawful authority to exercise the same. (Apply seal below where appropriate.) If checked, the Corporation is a non-profit corporation. In Witness Whereof, I have subscribed my name to this document and affixed the seal of the Corporation on . If notEffect on Previous Resolutions. This resolution supersedes resolution dated completed, all resolutions remain in effect. Secretary (date). Attest by One Other Officer For Financial Institution Use Only . Acknowledged and received on This resolution is superseded by resolution dated (date) by Comments: (initials) (1807).01 CA-1 7/1/2018 08/15/2024 CURTIS W THAYER PAMELA J ELLIS STATE OF 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 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 10, 2024 TO: AEA Board of Directors FROM: Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director RE: Board Approval Required to Apply for and Accept Grants over $10,000,000 Over the past decade, the Alaska Energy Authority has significantly grown its number of programs, projects, and budget. The financial scale at which AEA is operating far exceeds its past performance, including applying for multiple new large federal grants in some cases exceeding $100M. To maintain agility, responsiveness, and operational efficiency, the Board has before it a draft resolution requiring AEA Board approval to apply for and accept grants excess of $10M in value while delegating to the sound discretion of the AEA Executive Director application for and acceptance of grants at or below $10M in value. The fast-paced nature of funding opportunities necessitates a nimble approach. Grants and contracts often have tight deadlines and require rapid responses to secure funding. Allowing the executive management team to act independently on funding opportunities below $10M will enhance AEA’s ability to seize these opportunities promptly, positioning us to better compete for and secure critical resources. This resolution would allow AEA staff to dedicate more time and resources to our core missions and strategic initiatives. The risks associated with awards of this size are well within the scope of our current risk management. The executive team is equipped with the expertise to assess and mitigate these risks effectively. All awards, regardless of size, are administered in the same manner and subject to the same controls. Further, all federal awards are subject to stringent federal guidelines. All awards will remain subject to AEA’s annual audit. Additional accountability is ensured because for all federal awards AEA must obtain “federal receipt authority” from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the State Legislature, and the Governor. Finally, the AEA executive management team will maintain transparency by regularly reporting to the Board on all grants processed under this delegated authority, ensuring continued oversight and alignment with organizational objectives. AEA Resolution No. 2024-07 Page 1 of 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 2024-07 RESOLUTION OF THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY REQUIRING BOARD APPROVAL TO APPLY FOR AND ACCEPT FEDERAL GRANTS OVER $10,000,000 WHEREAS, over the past decade, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) has significantly expanded its programs, projects, and budget, now operating on a financial scale that surpasses its historical performance; and WHEREAS, AEA is engaged in applying for more and larger grants than in the past; and WHEREAS, the fast-paced nature of these funding opportunities often requires rapid responses and tight deadlines that require AEA to remain agile and responsive in order to be competitive; and WHEREAS, the risks associated with grants of this size are within the scope of AEA’s existing risk management framework, and the executive management team possesses the expertise to effectively assess and mitigate these risks; and WHEREAS, all awards, regardless of size, will continue to be administered with the same controls and oversight, and all federal awards are subject to stringent federal guidelines and the annual audit process; and WHEREAS, the Executive Director and the executive management team will ensure transparency by regularly reporting to the Board on all grants processed under this delegated authority, maintaining oversight and alignment with AEA’s organizational objectives. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY as follows: Section 1. Application for, and acceptance, of all grants in excess of $10,000,000 shall require Alaska Energy Authority Board approval. The Executive Director shall exercise sound judgment in applying for, and accepting, grants equal to or less than $10,000,000. Section 2. The Executive Director is responsible for ensuring that all grants regardless of size are administered in accordance with AEA’s risk management policies, federal guidelines, and organizational controls. AEA Resolution No. 2024-07 Page 2 of 2 Section 3. The Executive Director and the executive management team shall provide regular reports to the Board on all grants processed under this delegated authority, ensuring continued transparency and alignment with AEA’s strategic goals. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this ___ day of September 2024. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY __________________________ Chair __________________________ Curtis W. Thayer, Secretary Corporate seal 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: RE: MEMORANDUM September 10, 2024 AEA Board of Directors Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director Acceptance of DOE GRIP Federal Award for Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project AEA and its Railbelt utility partners have the opportunity to improve grid resilience by accepting US DOE GRIP 3 Round 1 funding and executing the corresponding Railbelt Innovative Resilience (RIR) project work. To authorize and execute this project, the Board has before it a draft resolution, which is supported by this memorandum. PROJECT OVERVIEW Name Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Scope Subsea HVDC transmission line; 2 battery energy storage systems Cost Total $413M Federal cost share: $206.5M / Recipient cost share: $206.5M Federal program US DOE Grid Resilience Innovation Program, Topic Area 3, Round 1 Participants Awardee & lead organization: Alaska Energy Authority Partner organizations: Railbelt utilities Project dates 2024-09-01 through 2032-08-31 (8 years) RAILBELT VULNERABILITIES, IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND THE RIR PROJECT Alaska’s Railbelt grid spans over 700 miles, comprises three main load-generation regions (South, Central, and Northern), and serves the majority of Alaska's population and key economic centers. The grid consists of multiple series of aging transmission lines that operates below the standards of the contiguous United States in ways that limit its resilience and hinders progress towards cleaner energy solutions. Interregional power transfers are limited by the grid, exacerbating fuel consumption and carbon emissions as well as creating risks that have manifest in incidents the Swan Lake fire of 2019, which isolated regions and increased costs. To address these weaknesses, the AEA in coordination with Railbelt utilities developed the Grid Modernization Resiliency Plan (GMRP), which outlined a $2.87 billion investment over fifteen years, envisioning federal and state funding. This ambitious plan not only aims to stabilize grid frequency and enhance transmission capacity but also to integrate renewable energy sources more effectively. By reducing reliance on fossil fuels and bolstering grid resilience, the project anticipates significant economic benefits, including reduced energy costs and enhanced energy security for critical infrastructure. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 4 The RIR project was designed to meet the requirements of a unique federal funding opportunity (described below) and implement part of the GMRP. This project consists of a new transmission line and two new Battery Energy Store Systems (BESS). FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITY In August 2022 a tremendous opportunity arose to execute a portion of the GMRP. The US Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for the first round of its Grid Resilience and Innovative Partnerships (GRIP) program (DOE-FOE-0002740). This “once-in-a-generation investment” to “modernize and upgrade American infrastructure” was included as Sec. 40103(b) of the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In response to the GRIP 3 Round 1 FOA, the AEA submitted a concept paper that included the Railbelt utilities as partners. In March 2023, the US DOE encouraged AEA to submit a full application, which was completed in May 2023. On October 17, 2023, the US DOE notified AEA that the RIR project had been selected for negotiation of a financial award. RIR PROJECT DETAILS The RIR project through two distinct activities: (1) First and foremost, the RIR projects entails the construction of a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable across Cook Inlet from the Kenai Peninsula across Cook Inlet to Beluga, where it would reconnect with the grid. The 38-mile HVDC would leverage solid dielectric construction for enhanced reliability and reduced environmental impact. (2) Additionally, if funding allows, the RIR project would support installation of a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) in Fairbanks and another in the Railbelt Central Region (Anchorage and the MatSu Borough). These BESS systems would augment existing infrastructure in the Southern Region to stabilize frequency and improve overall grid reliability. The projects would be complete within 8 years from the project start date. The total cost of the RIR project is estimated to be $413M. The DOE is prepared to provide $206.5M to AEA, which will need to secure a mandatory 1:1 cost match. DOE will award funding on a rolling basis as AEA secures matching funds and DOE approves a scope of work that matches each new tranche. At this stage, DOE is prepare to award an initial $14.7M. AEA has secured $32.7M in matching funds thus far. Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 4 This map identifies asset owners and depicts the Railbelt, the proposed expansion of the Railbelt, and the three projects that would be funded by the RIR project. Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 4 Benefits of the RIR project include Greater grid reliability; reduced risk of outages from power quality or natural events (and related costs for power for ratepayers) Increased interregional transfer capability The opportunity for greater integration of power generation from renewable resources Reduced energy losses from resistance and spinning reserves. Reduced reliance on fossil fuel generation and associated emissions Elimination of constraints on Bradley Lake hydropower and thereby increase capacity of power transmitted Retention of high-quality jobs as well as new apprenticeship and internship programs to train a new generation of lineworkers and wireworkers PARTNERSHIP A critical aspect of the RIR project is its collaborative nature, involving partnerships among stakeholders including the Alaska Energy Authority, Homer Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, and Seward Electric. Alaska Energy Authority would be the primary recipient of the award and would oversee project execution. Actual construction and installation would be performed by contractors hired consistent with State of Alaska procurement policy. Upon completion, the HVDC transmission line would be owned and maintained by AEA. The Railbelt utilities are integral partners because their customers will be the focal point and ultimate beneficiaries of the RIR project. Construction and installation will be coordinated with the service area utility, as the assets fully integrated into their operations. CONCLUSION The draft resolution before the Board would authorize AEA, acting through its Executive Director, to accept US DOE GRIP 3 round 1 funding and execute the corresponding Railbelt Innovative Resilience project. The planned HVDC transmission line and Battery Energy Storage Systems will enhance grid stability and capacity, support environmental sustainability, and provide greater energy security for Alaska's Railbelt communities. Attachments: DRAFT Resolution Outside counsel letter recommending acceptance of Terms and Conditions AEA Grant Application US DOE Award LetterAward Terms and Conditions AEA Resolution No. 2024-08 Page 1 of 3 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 2024-08 RESOLUTION OF THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF A US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY GRIP 3 ROUND 1 AWARD FOR THE RAILBELT INNOVATIVE RESILIENCY PROJECT WHEREAS, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska, the State's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development, and has the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska”; and WHEREAS, Alaska Statute 44.83.080 authorizes the Alaska Energy Authority to accept grants and enter into contracts “for the construction, financing, operation, and maintenance of all or any part of a power project,” “for the sale or transmission of power from a project,” and “acquire battery and other energy storage systems;” and WHEREAS, AEA Resolution No. 2021-3 authorized the Executive Director to work collaboratively with the Railbelt utilities (Chugach Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, and Seward Electric System) to prepare a strategic plan including “transmission upgrades addressing capacity, reliability and redundancy” and to “pursue opportunities that will benefit ratepayers”; and WHEREAS, on August 30, 2022, the US Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Funding Opportunity Announcement for the first round of its Grid Resilience and Innovative Partnerships (GRIP) program (DE-FOA-0002740) as part of its “once-in-a-generation investment” to “modernize and upgrade American infrastructure” through the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act; and WHEREAS, AEA led a concept paper joined by the Railbelt utilities for Topic Area 3 of the GRIP program (GRIP 3) and was encouraged by DOE in March 2023 to submit a full application; and WHEREAS, the full GRIP 3 Round 1 application titled the “Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project” (RIR) was submitted in May 2023; and WHEREAS, AEA was notified by DOE on October 17, 2023, that it had been selected for negotiation of a financial award; and AEA Resolution No. 2024-08 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the RIR project would be eight years in duration and would entail (1) construction of a submarine HVDC cable from the Kenai Peninsula to Beluga and (2) if feasible, installation of a battery energy storage system (BESS) in each of Alaska’s northern region and central region; and WHEREAS, the total cost of the RIR project that DOE has agreed to support is $413M including a 1:1 AEA match such that the GRIP funding amount would be $206.5M, which would be awarded on a rolling basis as matching funds are raised and project scope is approved by DOE; and WHEREAS, anticipated benefits to consumers include (a) increased transfer capacity between regions that enable high renewable energy integration, (b) resilience and reliabilty improvements for railbelt tribal and disadvantaged communities including reduction on reliance on fossil fuel generation and associated emissions, (c) greater retention of high quality jobs, and (d) additional apprenticeships and internships to train a new generation of line- and wireworkers. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY as follows: Section 1. The AEA Executive Director is hereby authorized to accept and execute the GRIP 3 Round 1 (DE-FOA-0002740) award for the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project. Section 2. The AEA Executive Director is hereby authorized to successfully execute and complete the proposed Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project and take such actions as may be necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of this resolution. /// /// /// AEA Resolution No. 2024-08 Page 3 of 3 Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this ___ day of September 2024. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY __________________________ Chair __________________________ Curtis W. Thayer, Secretary Corporate seal 1 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 A. Cover Page Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Applicant: The Alaska Energy Authority representing the State of Alaska Technical and Business Point of Contact: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority The Alaska Energy Authority and Railbelt utilities are partners in this project as collaborative decision makers representing all the primary transmission owners and operators of Alaska’s largest electrical grid (the Railbelt). The project partners (the Team) are: 1. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) 2. Chugach Electric Association Inc, a Central Region Cooperative (CEA) 3. Golden Valley Electric Association Inc., a Northern Region Cooperative (GVEA) 4. Homer Electric Association Inc., a Southern Region Cooperative (HEA) 5. Matanuska Electric Association Inc., a Central Region Cooperative (MEA) 6. The City of Seward, Alaska, dba Seward Electric System, a Southern Region Municipal Utility (SES) 7. The Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) is participating as a team member, in an advisory and regulatory role, as permitted by their statutory authority and restrictions. Project Location: All three regions (Northern, Central, and Southern) of the Ala ska Railbelt electrical grid and the Eastern Region1. 1 Copper Valley Electric Association serves the Eastern Region and is a stakeholder knowledgeable about this application but is not a project team member. Area served by the Railbelt grid Area served by Copper Valley Electric Association 2 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 B. Project overview B.1 Background Vision and Opportunity Alaska and the nation are at a critical transition point with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build resiliency and develop a fuel-diverse, low-carbon economy, by investing in essential electrical infrastructure. The state’s largest, but electrically islanded, grid serves over 75% of the state’s population including diverse and underserved communities, primary commerce and shipping centers, strategic military bases, and access areas for key mineral deposits. However, due to the relatively low population to share in costs, the electric system does not meet the minimum standards of the Lower 48 states. This deficiency limits the grid’s resiliency and undermines the ability to usher in a clean energy future. At this intersection, the collective mission of the State of Alaska, and the interconnected Railbelt electric utilities, is to build a resilient, clean, smart, and low-cost electrical grid. This grid must support a fuel-diverse energy landscape that drives sustainable economic development in Alaska and ensures a cost-effective delivery of energy to Railbelt consumers and beyond. The Railbelt utilities and State share a vision: a collaborative future in the Railbelt in which our communities come together and share resources to strengthen and build a smart, clean electrical grid that promises our residents, our national defense infrastructure, and communities adjacent to the Railbelt access to clean, low-cost energy from any source. An innovative team has been assembled to manage the project consisting of relevant decision makers in the region: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) representing the State of Alaska, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), and five electric utilities that make up the Railbelt electric grid. The team will work under a structure like the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee (BPMC), an organization with a 32-year history of successful project development and management. The Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) will construct new transmission lines parallel to the existing single regional ties and provide a looped transmission feed to the DOD ground-based missile defense facility at Fort Greeley and interconnect the currently islanded Copper Valley Electric Association with the Railbelt grid. The Project will incorporate a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable installed in a challenging marine environment. This cable circuit will require significant innovation which is more fully described later in this document. Alaskans are enthusiastic about funding opportunities to rise to their unique energy challenges. A recent Op-Ed in the Anchorage Daily News, co-written by Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy and Doug Tansy, business manager for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers No. 1547, highlights this intent: “Right now, we have historic alignment of the players involved. Utilities, the state of Alaska, and labor are working together in a way that has not been seen in our lifetimes to build a reliable, resilient, and efficient grid for future families and business owners. Now is the time for all the players to combine efforts and secure this investment for Alaskans.” The total estimated cost for the construction of the line segments and associated station facilities proposed in this funding cycle is approximately $822.7M. In this application we are requesting a federal grant of $411.4M. We anticipate an eight-year project timeframe. The State of Alaska, and the Railbelt utilities are committed to upgrading the Railbelt transmission grid. On December 2, 2022, the BPMC, through AEA, closed on a bond package for $166M, 65% of which will be dedicated to match federal aid for transmission reconstruction and 35% to three-regional grid 3 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 stabilization battery energy storage systems (BESS), one of which is currently in service and two of which are included in this grant application. This funding will begin work on the Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP), but without Federal and State assistance it cannot be completed in a reasonable time frame. We are seeking State funding assistance2 to help close the gap between utility funding and federal assistance.3 4 History The Railbelt electric grid is unique in North America as it is technically a fully functioning long- distance electrical grid on a very small scale. The Railbelt is characterized by three load- generation regions with four load-balancing areas. These load-generation concentrations, known as the Northern Region (Fairbanks-Delta Junction), the Central Region (Anchorage-MatSu), and Southern Region (the Kenai Peninsula), are tied together with two long transmission lines operating at 115kV and 138KV. The grid provides electricity to approximately 75% of the state's residents and generates 80% of the electricity in Alaska. It extends over 700 miles from the Bradley Lake Project, located at the head of Kachemak Bay near Homer, Alaska, in the Southern Region, to Delta Junction in Interior Alaska, roughly the distance from Washington, DC to Atlanta, GA, as depicted in figure 1. The grid transverses inhospitable subarctic mountainous terrain and the Cook Inlet with its tremendous tides and currents. The region is laced with highly active seismic zones and is subject to volcanic eruptions, forest fires, flooding, and fierce annual winter storms. The grid's assets vary from high voltage (138 kV and 230 kV) submarine cable crossings in Cook Inlet5 to remote "helicopter/riverboat-access-only" river crossings and numerous transmission structures well above 2000 feet (sub-arctic). Unlike numerous areas in the contiguous lower forty-eight states, the Railbelt has received minimal federal investment in grid development. The Eklutna Hydroelectric Project, initially constructed in the 1950s, was the last major federal project in the Railbelt that included a transmission line component. This project was rebuilt by the Bureau of Reclamation's Alaska Power Administration after the 1964 "Good Friday” Earthquake and sold by the Federal government to Central Region utilities in the early 1990s. 2 The Governor has submitted legislation to establish a funding agency for the purpose of energy related projects. 3 State matching funding is subject to Executive branch and Legislative approval. Utility funding is subject to Cooperative and Municipal governing Board approval. 4 Given the duration of this project, and if selected for award, during the grant negotiation process the Team will seek an inflation adjustment clause, based on actual inflation. 5 Cook Inlet is a silt laden 180-mile inlet reaching from Knik Arm to the Gulf of Alaska. The Inlet has the fourth highest tidal range in the world at 35 feet and contains an endangered subspecies of the Beluga Whale. Railbelt Grid Figure 1: Alaska’s Relative Size 4 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Due to the high cost of transmission lines, the regions are moderately interconnected, primarily at 69kV, 115kV, 138KV, 230kV. A tight power pool operates in the Central region, and an active economy energy market exists between regions but is severely limited by transmission constraints. There is no formal interconnection queue. A reserve-sharing pool exists between all three regions. Historically, due to weak interconnections the regions have planned for capacity separately. The Railbelt grid is technically characterized as "transient stability limited," with machines under dynamic stress swinging against other machines within the region; and with regions swinging against each other across the light interregional interconnections. The grid is susceptible to and has experienced large-scale6 small-signal instability oscillations. Voltage stability, which varies from marginal to good depending on the specific area, has been improved with the addition of six static VAR compensators at critical locations. The Railbelt grid operates under a subset of North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) standards modified to account for the scale and nature of the interconnection (the grid's system bias is variable and ranges from 3-10 MW/.1 hertz). The grid has a sophisticated under-frequency load shed scheme which sheds load to match generation in four stages with varying time delays and, in some cases, considering frequency rate-of-change. Traditional day-ahead and real-time security constrained economic dispatch are run in each LBA with net interchange, and frequency monitored and managed to NERC CPS 1 and 2. Dynamic events on the grid occur and resolve very quickly (2-10 seconds) when compared with the much larger North American grids which resolve in tens of minutes. The grid's peak demand is roughly 750 MW compared to ERCOT's peak demand of 85,000 MW. The grid's annual energy consumption is approximately 4,500 GWH compared to ERCOT at 339,000 GWH. The Railbelt’s Grid Modernization Resiliency Plan (GMRP) Today, the broader energy landscape in Alaska and across the world is being reshaped by multiple change drivers. Geopolitical shifts are dramatically altering global energy markets. Decarbonization policies and technological advancements, shaped by increasingly dramatic climate change, are both the result of and contributor to a shift in focus on energy and the environment. Regionally, uncertainty around Cook Inlet natural gas and broader fuel supply issues for utility companies is a critical – and shared – challenge looming on the near-term horizon. The Railbelt’s weakly interconnected grid is inadequate to meet the challenges of a sustainable, fuel diverse, decarbonized future. In response to this shared challenge, the Team has come together to develop a broad-based, long-term plan to ensure the future energy viability of the Railbelt from a social, economic, and technical perspective. The technical aspect of that Plan is the GMRP, of which the RIR is a component. The Team will propose that the GMRP be incorporated into Alaska’s broader State Energy Plan as that document is developed in the coming months. 6 Oscillations have been measured with a peak of 220 MW, a 1.1 second period and sustained for over 90 seconds on a grid with a summer valley peak load of approximately 500MW. 5 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Figure Two is a graphic representation of the Southern, Central, and Northern regions of the Railbelt grid with the current system and the proposed Southern and Central Region GMRP components overlayed. The components of the GMRP in these regions that make up the 22-23 funding cycle RIR are highlighted in yellow. A more detailed listing of the Plan’s component projects (transmission line segments and substations), and estimated costs is outlined in the workplan. Figure Three is a graphic representation of the entire Railbelt with the full GMRP overlayed on the existing system. On this diagram, yellow highlights indicate GRIP Topic 3 Railbelt Innovative Resiliency (RIR) projects; rust and red highlights indicate Topic 1 (RBR) projects; and the blue “C” indicates GRIP Topic 2 Smart Grid projects. This Plan is highly innovative and transformational in that it will reshape the Railbelt in a way that will usher in a sustainable fuel diverse low carbon future. As we describe below, the totality of this transformation is innovative technically and financially from both a teaming and regulatory perspective. Given the operational nature of the Railbelt and the disparate socioeconomic status and vast diversity of its communities, valuable lessons from this undertaking will be broadly applicable to the larger grids of the contiguous lower forty-eight states and North America. Our estimated total cost for the GMRP is $2.87B over fifteen years. Without significant Federal and State investment, the GMRP and this Project are beyond the financial capabilities of the Railbelt utilities. The priority for diversifying the Railbelt fuel supply and decarbonizing the Railbelt grid must be to stabilize frequency and decongest the transmission system. These improvements are required irrespective of the nature of fuel supply diversity and decarbonization solutions. B.2 Project Goals The RIR line segments considered in this application will construct a second parallel Figure 2: RIR Components in current funding cycle Figure 3: Railbelt Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan 6 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 transmission line between the Southern, Central, and Northern regions of the Railbelt grid. The current configuration lacks redundancy, impedes reliability, limits the ability to construct and move clean energy from one region to another, and constrains economic dispatch, thus increasing fuel burn, carbon emissions, and the cost of power to our member-ratepayers. In addition, the project will allow the Team to engage in interregional planning and operations. Further, this application includes completion of two grid-scale energy storage systems (that will) augment the existing 46 MW- two-hour battery already installed on the Kenai Peninsula. These three energy storage systems will be coordinated and operated in real-time with the HVDC submarine cable to maximize transfer capability between regions and minimize spinning reserves, thereby reducing fuel usage, and reducing carbon emissions. The three storage systems will also provide coordinated regulation for system-wide renewables. As importantly, the energy storage systems and new interties will stabilize grid frequency and eliminate the small signal instability oscillations, decreasing the likelihood of large-scale system outages and machine damage. Goal Description 1 Completion of the transmission lines and HVDC submarine cable from Soldotna to Nikiski to Beluga and on to Healy, using innovative and technical solutions to enhance resiliency in extreme environments. 2 Completion of BESS units in Northern and Central Regions to coordinate with existing BESS unit and HVDC in Southern region to enhance resiliency and eliminate small signal instability events and increase frequency control. 3 Significantly increase transfer capability between regions (75MW to 200-300 MW). The increased capacity will enable regional participation in planning and clean energy projects, reduce capacity limitations, add resiliency, redundancy, and improve economies of scale. 4 Reduce reliance on fossil fuels and improve resiliency; reduce carbon emissions; virtually eliminate impacts of long-term outages due to extreme weather, wildfire, natural disasters, and other disruptive events. 5 Document lessons learned that can be shared throughout Alaska, the nation, and the world. 6 Adoption of innovative rate-making techniques to incent transmission construction, easing member/ratepayer burden in procuring matching funds for the project. The project includes an innovative HVDC submarine circuit crossing Cook Inlet from Nikiski in the Southern region to Beluga in the Central region. This crossing will present technical challenges requiring innovative solutions and will subsequently provide important lessons that can be shared throughout Alaska and the US, through DOE’s national laboratory system, with potential specific applicability to offshore wind facilities. As noted above, the RCA, a team member in this project, has agreed to consider innovative rate- making techniques that will incent transmission construction, easing the member/ratepayer burden in procuring matching funds for the project. These rate -making strategies could include inclusion of costs in rate-base through the RCA’s Simplified Rate Filing (SRF) process, prior to the assets being used and useful; or forward funding of the project costs. Either or both will significantly reduce the carrying cost of capital thereby reducing the burden on the membership/ratepayers and improving project benefit -cost metrics. Achieving these objectives will have a significant impact on increasing the transfer capacity between all regions, reducing the requirements for thermal generat ion reserve, and thus 7 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 lowering carbon emissions. It will also improve economic dispatch, further reducing carbon emissions, and eliminate transmission capacity constraints that restricts the use of Bradley Lake energy and capacity. It will allow flexibility to address shifts in load or generation, interregional participation in clean energy projects, and improve economies of scale. As a result, increased economies of scale will decrease the per unit cost of clean energy generation. From a resiliency perspective, accomplishing these goals will reduce or eliminate the likelihood of outages or lack of transfer capability due to small signal instability, flood, unbalanced snow loading, and tree and animal related outages7. Innovative rate making will reduce capital carrying costs and improve the benefit-cost ratio for projects incentivizing wise transmission investment. Finally, having a robustly integrated grid will allow for interregional planning which, as noted above, will increase economies of scale and operating efficiencies. As previously referenced, we have formed a unique partnership between all relevant decision makers in the Railbelt; the State of Alaska represented by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), the four interconnected Railbelt Electric Cooperatives, the single Railbelt municipal utility, and the utility regulator, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). We have strong support from organized labor, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and other labor unions; and strong support from other stakeholders including the Railbelt reliability Council the Railbelt’s newly formed electric reliability organization , the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA). Together, the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local 1547 (IBEW 1547) have a joint electrical apprenticeship training center. This collaborative organization is prepared and excited about ramping its activities up to train what will become that next generation of Alaskan electrical and telecommunications workers required to staff the GMRP. In terms of regional planning and coordination, this unique team has already enhanced collaboration between the State, the regional cooperatives and Seward Electric System, a municipal utility, and the RCA. Value Proposition The value proposition for the residents of the Railbelt grid is clear, this project will position the Railbelt for a fuel diverse, sustainable clean energy future and lower energy costs through more efficient use of scarce Cook Inlet natural gas as we transition away from natural gas to a clean energy future. Numerous tribal and disadvantaged communities exist within the Railbelt proper. For the non-Railbelt communities that receive Power Cost Equalization (PCE) funds, most of which are tribal and many of which are disadvantaged, the value proposition is the direct economic benefits that will occur as we hold the Railbelt cost of power down and increase the PCE energy subsidy to these stakeholders. For all rural villages (including non-PCE), as well as the DOE and the nation, the lessons learned from the process of decarbonizing a sm all scale, fully functioning grid will provide valuable best-method insights to execute this necessary regional activity. Finally, improving the resiliency, reliability, and efficiency of the Railbelt grid will provide 7 The 2019 Swan Lake fire separated the Central and Northern regions from the Southern region and the Bradley Lake hydroelectric project for ~135 Days resulting in millions of dollars of additional fuel burn (and Carbon emissions) by the Northern and Central region utilities. The Alaska Intertie between Douglas and Healy is often removed from service due to unbalanced heavy snow loading islanding the northern region from the Central and Southern regions during periods of peak load. 8 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 a more secure energy supply to critical military defense infrastructure located in the three Railbelt regions, enhancing national security and global stability. B.3 DOE Impact The total project cost is $ 822.7M with a federal grant assistance request of $411.4M. Matching funds will be pursued from the State and to the degree required from the utilities. DOE investment is critical to mobilizing this additional State and utility capital. Accomplishing a project of this magnitude in a 10-to-15-year time frame is beyond the financial capabilities of the Railbelt utilities without significant rate increases. The burden of such rate increases falls on all ratepayers but disproportionately on the disadvantaged and underserved. With the completion of this project, fuel burn (which represents about 40 % of an average consumer’s bill) can be reduced 10% to 15 %, exclusive of increased clean energy development. Project Scale In scale, this project will be the largest grid infrastructure project undertaken in the Railbelt since the interconnection of the Central and Northern regions in 1984. The benefits of this project will be significant and comparable to the recent economic benefit of converting the existing Railbelt generation fleet from GE Frame units to aero-derivative units which reduced fuel burn by nearly 30%. The benefits of the RIR will come in terms of improved fuel efficiency, reducing fuel costs, reduced carbon emissions, increased variable generation penetration, increased private capital investment from IPPs in energy development, reduced O&M, and will result in extended transition time to move away from Cook Inlet natural gas8. Finally, the project will promote coordinated energy and capacity planning across the Railbelt. Measures of Success Metrics consistent with SMART9 goals and objectives will be utilized to measure success. Examples of measurable success are System Average Heat Rate10 over time, CAIDI, SAIDI, and SAIFI11 resulting from transmission outages, measured increased transfer capability, measured frequency deviations, and reductions in CO2 emissions. B. 4 Community benefit, Workforce Development, & Disadvantaged Communities Improvements in Railbelt transfer capability, reliability, and resiliency will lower costs, and these benefits will flow to the numerous tribal and disadvantaged communities on the Railbelt as well as to the rural villages outside the Railbelt through Alaska’s unique Power Cost Equalization program. As noted above and in their letter of support, the IBEW sees this as an opportunity to train a new generation of linemen and wiremen, reinvigorating this sector of Alaska’s technical workforce. The broad and inclusive outreach program envisioned in our CBP will ensure that maximum benefit flows to the diverse and disadvantaged communities on the Railbelt. 8 The Cook Inlet Field provides heat to 140,000 homes and businesses in the Central region and is used to generate 70% of the electricity in the Railbelt. In early 2021, the field’s only remaining large-scale producer notified utilities (both gas and electric) that they would not extend existing gas contracts, most of which expire in 2028. Railbelt Utilities are working to develop alternatives in both the short, medium, and long -term. Extending the transition time to move off Cook Inlet gas is a critical part of this plan. 9 SMART-Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time bound. 10 This is the total number of MWHR produced, divided by the total thermal fuel used, measured in MMBtu. 11 CAIDI the consumer average interruption duration index. SAIDI- the system average interruption duration index. SAIFI System average interruption frequency index. 9 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 B.5 Long-Term Constraints This project will not create any long-term constraints on community access to natural resources and tribal cultural resources. B.6 Climate resiliency This project installs new poles, wires, and undersea cable, as well as traditional substation equipment. Design criteria will include where appropriate: mapping of avalanche chutes, placement of structures outside of known avalanche, and powder blast paths. If such placement is not possible, the use of breakaway conductor attachments, and poles in driven- pile-caisson construction for ease of replacement where avalanche danger , cannot be mitigated. When appropriate, a combination of wider than typical rights-of-way and taller structures may be used to prevent trees from making contact with overhead conductors, providing both fire prevention and protection. Ongoing right-of-way maintenance will also mitigate tree related outages. Substations and switchyards will be hardened to current AK-CIP standards for physical and cyber security. C. Technical Description Innovation and Impact C.1 Relevance and Outcomes Relevance to the FOA The RIR aligns perfectly with the FOA goals; transforming community, interregional and national resilience including consideration of future shifts in generation and load; catalyzing and leveraging State and private sector spending for impactful technology and infrastructure development; and advancing community benefit especially to disadvantaged and tribal communities. Further, the Project will provide training and job opportunities for the next generation of power system linemen, wireman, equipment operators, technicians and engineers. The Project has four primary components: the BESS, The HVDC submarine cable, the overhead lines connecting the HVDC cable to the Healy switchyard in the Northern region and the Beluga Switchyard in the Central region, and the lines connecting the Nikiski terminal with the Soldotna substation in the Southern region. As a part of the RIR, the BESS will ensure grid reliability by increasing interregional transfer capability, allowing for diversification of fuel supply, accelerating the adoption of variable renewable generation, reducing carbon emissions, improving frequency regulation, and eliminating potentially catastrophic small signal instability oscillations. Additionally, the BESS and HVDC submarine cable, operating as separate but integrated technologies and integrated with the second transmission path, will improve overall grid resilience and lower costs. The State Energy Plan is under development and the Team will propose that the GMRP be included in that plan. Unique Teaming The team, which has come together with the State through the Alaska Energy Authority, represents a unique collaborative effort. This effort exists between the eligible entity AEA, (a transmission and generation owner), a private non-profit electric cooperative representing all balancing authorities in the Railbelt which also constitutes the remaining transmission and generation owners and operators with in the Railbelt grid, a public municipal utility, and State’s Utility regulator. These entities all working collaboratively on a significant interregional project 10 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 will yield benefits for all Railbelt residents including disadvantaged and tribal communities and the broader State through PCE, food, transportation, and national security. C.2 Feasibility Addressed within Feasibility and Need below. C.3 Innovation and Impacts In current practice, BESS are commonly used for system frequency and variable generation regulation. System oscillation dampening is generally performed by Power Oscillation Dampers (PODs) on Static VAR Compensators or Power System Stabilizers (PSS) on generator exciters (two quadrant devices) which are secondary effect control devices as they attempt to control real power oscillations using reactive power and weak coupling between real and reactive power. Such devices have proven ineffective in dampening the small signal oscillations in the Railbelt. Additionally, HVDC submarine cables are used to transmit bulk power across bodies of water or asynchronously connect two grids and are not part of an oscillation control scheme. Project Improvement and Innovation Operating in a coordinated fashion, the BESS and HVDC line will increase transfer capability, resiliency, and reliability, by performing three functions, all of which contribute to frequency stabilization. The first function is increasing transfer capability. The second function is improved frequency regulation. And the third function is stabilizing the grid in terms of small signal instability. The HVDC controllers and the three BESS installations in three different regions of the system will be operated in a coordinated manner12 to increase transfer limits across the interconnecting transmission lines. From a small signal instability perspective, the BESS will eliminate large power oscillations. Following completion of the Nikiski-Beluga line or the Beluga–Healy section, the system controls will be modified to optimize system security associated with the decreased inertia and generation contingencies and increase the ability to accept renewables into the system by performing regulation and reserve optimization. An increase of the interregional transfer capacity from approximately 75MW to over 200MW will allow the generation with the highest costs and emissions on the Railbelt to run only during rare contingencies. It will also allow the large-scale wind projects of approximately 200MW capacity to be located as needed to take f ull advantage of geographic diversity of wind resources, which will minimize the amount of fossil fuel generation required to regulate the output of the Railbelt’s future wind generation portfolio. We know of no other single transmission line that has the capability to consolidate multiple planning areas into a single interregional planning area. Knowledge gleaned from this project’s unique integration of multiple BESS and HVDC will be useful throughout the country and world as BESS and HVDC systems are installed to facilitate increased variable clean energy project integration. C. 4 State, Local, Tribal, Regional, and National Resilience, Decarbonization Increasing grid resiliency and lowering the cost of Railbelt electricity will have direct positive impacts on the tribal and disadvantage communities within the Railbelt as well as direct positive impacts on rural PCE communities, which are most often tribal and disadvantaged communities. 12 If the grip Topic 2 application12 were to be approved, we would enhance this coordinated control with high speed communications and a single master controller rather than using multiple local controllers and system frequency as our primary direct control variable. Thus, Grip topic 2 and 3 are related but not dependent projects. 11 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 C. 5 Deployment Impacts; Further Development; Additional Private Sector Investments Development of a robust grid between regions in the Railbelt will facilitate the development of larger-scale Independent Power Producer (IPP) clean-energy projects by allowing participation in these projects by all the Railbelt utilities. Larger scale projects drive the price per unit of electricity down and make the benefit-cost hurdle lower and more achievable driving greater private sector investment in the Railbelt energy field. C. 6 Grid Innovation Program The BESS Feasibility and Need The Railbelt is transmission constrained so we are only able to move 10% or less of our peak load between regions. Further, Railbelt utility engineers have observed several increasingly concerning trends on the Railbelt over the past decade. These challenges include the degradation of frequency regulation, decreasing system frequency response to generation trip disturbances, and increasing magnitude and duration of natural frequency power oscillations and occasional large power swings impacting the entire Railbelt. A global engineering firm was engaged by Chugach to investigate the application of a battery energy storage system (BESS)13 as a solution to address these concerns. While this firm was able to show BESS contributions to ge neral improvement in frequency regulation on the Railbelt, they were unable to conclusively establish a link between the BESS performance and the natural frequency, small-signal instability oscillations. Building on work that had been done with global Pelton turbine manufacturer in Zurich 14. In early 2004, Chugach followed up with an internal and more robust analysis and validation of the Siemens PTI study15 but was without a conclusive link between the mechanical phenomenon in the turbine pit and the electric power grid. In 2022, a local engineering firm with a long history of study and evaluation of Railbelt grid phenomenon completed a study16 definitively showing that the cause of the oscillations was attributable to the characteristics of the Bradley Lake power plant in a weak and oscillatory summer valley system. The report indicates for a Douglas export of ~70 MW, the oscillations can be controlled with a ~45 MW absorption of a system BESS. If our Grip 2 project is funded, export limits could increase to 100-250 MW, indicating a BESS or combination of BESS’s capable of absorbing ~70 MW to ~150MW may be required to prevent these oscillations. This “uncharged” BESS capacity would be regulated and controlled across the system to meet this requirement. Based on these studies, and other analyses performed by Railbelt utilities, three regional BESS units were proposed in each of the Southern, Northern, and Central regions. Study work found that BESS units in the three regions provided significant reliability and economic benefit to the Railbelt. Given the 13 Bansal A, Anantharaman A, Donlagic T, Feltes T, Orikhi Z, Rachinger S, Silva D, Grande-Moran C; Alaska Railbelt Power System Oscillation Anchorage Bess unit Impact Analysis; 10-20-20; SPTI P# 620T-001718 14 List B, Amrein J, Heimann A, Furtner N, Keck H, Dorfler P, Hickey B, Stead D, Bradley Lake Deflector Divider Model Tests; 9-10-2004 VA TCH Hydro 15 Thornton R, Bell J, McKinnon C, Reid P, Hickey B; South Central Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Reliability and Economic Evaluation Report; 4-13-21; Chugach Internal Study 16 Cote J, Burlingame D, Lai D; Railbelt Oscillation Investigation and Mitigation study; 3-1-22; Electric Power Systems Inc. 12 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 cause-and-effect relationship between the Bradley Lake Project (when operating at low lake levels) and the Railbelt summer valley system resulting in the massive small signal instability oscillations, the BESS were determined to qualify as Required Project work for the Bradley Lake project, and 35 % of the recent $166M BPMC bond issue was allocated to BESS systems. Concerns for the Railbelt Railbelt steady-state frequency regulation has decreased over the past decade. Electrical system frequency is the primary control variable for interconnected power systems (grids). System frequency instantly telemeters the generation-load balance status to protection and control system feedback loops throughout a grid. Frequency is also a physical phenomenon that changes the actual electrical characteristic of the grid17. Many major power system components are designed to operate at a specific frequency. Deviation from design frequency can cause increased wear and tear and, in extreme cases, catastrophic damage. The amount of generation that moves frequency measured in MW/.1 Hz is known as system beta18 and is a measurement of stiffness or robustness of the grid. In the past seven years of system event analysis, the system beta has fallen from approximately 10 MW/.1 Hz in the 1990s to a current variable range between 3 and 13 MW/.1 Hz. A study performed at Chugach revealed that in 2011, system frequency was at the nominal 60 Hz about 44% of the time. In 2020, the time the system was at nominal frequency had fallen to about 15% of the time. This trend of straying from nominal frequency more often is of concern. Several drivers of the loss of frequency control are lighter, more efficient turbines with less spinning mass (rotating inertia), plant control systems that prioritize efficiency over response, and the introduction of non-dispatchable or variable generation into the generation-load mix. Alaska Railbelt Reliability Standards require that load shedding not occur when only one unit is tripped from the system. Measurements, such as system Tesla recordings, relay event recordings, and SCADA data, indicate that the ability of Railbelt generation to meet this requirement is deteriorating without expensive fast response spinning reserve from gas-fired generation. 17 Electrical components are a combination of the either inductive, capacitive, or resistive elements. The impedance presented to the grid by the inductive and capacitive components varies directly or inversely with frequency. 18 This value is closely related, but differs, from system bias, the response conditioning variable in the Area Control Error (ACE) equation. Figure 4- Railbelt Frequency Control decline 13 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 A significant and potentially catastrophic problem developing on the Railbelt is the increasing magnitude and duration of small signal power oscillations during system disturbances. When a generation unit trips off-line, or another disturbance occurs, power can begin to swing from one end of the system to the other, much like the way a spring oscillates back and forth when it is drawn and released. The frequencies at which the grid oscillates are known as the natural frequencies of the system, and these natural frequencies exist in most electro-mechanical systems. Natural frequency oscillations can be made up of tens to hundreds of MWs of energy transiting the length of the Railbelt in several tenths of a second. The energy associated with these power swings creates massive reactive forces in the electrical generator's physical infrastructure. Reactive forces in the physical generators create wear and tear in the in base- loaded generation, and in extreme cases, can result in catastrophic failure. Natural frequency oscillations have been a long-term characteristic of the Railbelt, leading to the installation of damping equipment such as power system stabilizers at Bradley Lake and power oscillation dampers on the equipment on the transmission system on the Kenai Peninsula. Natural frequency power oscillations have been increasing across the Railbelt power system. These natural frequency oscillations have been measured as large as 220 MW, shifting power from Bradley Lake to Fairbanks every second, lasting for minutes. With newer and faster data collection technology, it is clear that oscillations are a threat to system reliability and resiliency. Even previously unexplained generator damage may be explained by these power oscillations. For example, the Bradley Lake hydroelectric plant, which is known to participate in po wer oscillations based on a 2019 study19, has experienced significant generator stator damage in the past; the repairs approached $1 M. The BESS Solution In response to the concerns above, several potential solutions were informally considered including batteries, grid-scale resistors (brakes), and converting existing frame generators to synchronous condensers. Subsequently, given the advances in battery technology and the improvements in battery cost-benefit profiles, analysis found that BESS units in the three regions provided significant reliability benefit to Railbelt as a whole. Regional BESS in the Railbelt will improve power system performance, given their high speed of response and versatility. It was determined that BESS’s could successfully fulfill the required energy response to a loss of generation in as quickly as less than one second, improving system frequency. Furthermore, the study showed that a BESS could participate in balancing generation and load, thereby improving frequency regulation. Another finding of the study was that a BESS would help stabilize non-dispatchable renewables' output by smoothing the energy fluctuations 19 n (14) Figure 5- June 3 2021-Representative Natural frequency Oscillation 14 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 and controlling their release to the grid. It was also proven that adequate frequency control can prevent severe and potentially damaging oscillations throughout the Railbelt associated with Bradley Lake as well as mitigate oscillations resulting from transient swings following line trips. Likewise, it was noted that with coordinated response, the transient frequencies across weak tie- lines can be controlled and mitigated to increase transfer limits across the line. Chugach also commissioned a nationally recognized economic and regulatory firm to study20 the economic value of an investment in battery storage and evaluate the effect of battery storage on the Chugach-MEA Power Pool. The study found that the BESS would allow for a more efficient dispatch of generators in the Power Pool by providing fast spin and regulation of load. Additionally, taking reserves and regulation off of gas-fired units will reduce fuel and O&M costs by enabling a more efficient (lower cost) dispatch of the gas units. The study also found that the potential to avoid a major power system outage adds value to consumers. The study concluded that the battery would add significant value to the Power Pool. After careful analysis, it has been determined that a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS)/ HVDC can significantly enhance system performance and reduce operational limitations in power systems. The proposed integrated BESS will bring a range of benefits to the Railbelt grid. These benefits include improved oscillation damping, enhanced disturbance response rate, increased transfer capability between regions, and less constrained economic dispatch. These improvements will result in reduced fuel burn, lower carbon emissions, and most importantly, greater ability to integrate variable generation such as wind and solar power into the grid. When operated in a coordinated fashion with the HVDC submarine cable, these benefits are significantly enhanced. The combined BESS system promises to be a valuable addition to the Railbelt grid’s power infrastructure. Southern Transmission upgrades HVDC and Interconnecting Transmission Lines Feasibility and Need The existing transmission system between the Southern and Central regions was originally constructed to transmit 16 MW of power from the Cooper Lake Power Plant to the Anchorage area. The addition of the 120 MW Bradley Lake hydro plant in 1991, as well as additional thermal generation in the southern region, now relies exclusively on this 1961 constructed line21 to transfer all power between the Central and Southern regions. This 218-mile series of single transmission lines was never intended to transfer the power from Bradley Lake to Anchorage. Currently, 100% of the energy produced for export from the Southern region is delivered over the single 115 kV transmission line for the Central and Northern regions. Although the transmission system has been upgraded in the past 30 years to include two Static Var Compensation systems and certain northern sections of the 164 -miles of transmission lines have been upgraded to 230 kV construction, a second or alternate transmission line has not been constructed. The single line crosses over 80 avalanche chutes, transverses through both state 20 National Economic Research Associates (NERA) South Central Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) Reliability and Economic Evaluation report (n11) pp 44 21 Several sections shave been rebuilt to 230 kV standards over the past 1-½ decades and the rate of about 10 miles every other year. Construction windows are limited to 60 days per year in order to prevent spilling water at Bradley Lake. This constraint combined with restrictions around nesting migratory bird species and wetlands make construction slow and costly. The second line from Soldotna to Beluga would eliminate this challenge. 15 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 and national forest areas subject to forest fires and other hazards and parallels a Wild and Scenic highway and the scenic Kenai River and other wilderness areas. Outages to the single line have resulted in the separation of the Southern area from the bulk of the Railbelt for up to 135 continuous days in a single year (2019 Swan Lake fire), 60-day construction outages occur annually or bi-annually, and multiple unplanned separations often occur in a single year. Net of regional load, the Southern region has over 300MW of export capability and an additional 85MW of potential hydro as well as a large windfarm is under con sideration. Current export capability and the single transmission line stifle the development of future hydro, wind, and PV resources from being located in the Southern area. Additional renewable resources cannot be developed in the region due to limited transfer capacity available on the existing single line, and the risk of complete production curtailment when the single line is out of service. The characteristics of the single transmission line result in weak coupling between the Southern and Central regions, consequently, the stability limit of the transmission line is approximately 50% of the line’s thermal rating in one direction and approximately 30% in the other. The displacement of thermal generation with renewable generation such as wind or PV will further decrease the inertia in each of the regions and can negatively impact the stability limit across the single inter-regional transmission lines. In addition to the elimination of the large-scale oscillations and stability constraints, a new line can eliminate the constraints on developing new sources of clean energy in both the central and southern regions. However, without unconstrained access enabled by a new transmission line to the southern resources, the potential development of renewable resources in each region will be limited by each region’s ability to operate following a single contingency event. 16 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 As opposed to an AC submarine cable and transmission line, a new HVDC submarine cable, and associated AC transmission lines, is proposed. The HVDC submarine cable between the Southern and Central regions is proposed to utilize a bi-pole, 300 MW HVDC system and will eliminate charging current challenges posed by a long AC submarine cable. The submarine cable will require considerable design and mitigation measures within the waters of Cook Inlet to avoid areas of scouring from severe currents and shore ice. In addition, the Inlet has active and abandoned oil and gas pipelines as well as communication cables that are critical to the infrastructure of the Alaskan environment and economy. The use of a bi- pole DC system will allow the Southern and Central systems to remain interconnected and operated as a single integrated system for several years while the existing AC transmission line is being converted to 230 kV. As noted above, Cook Inlet has the highest tides in the US and the fourth highest tides in the world, resulting in very high tidal currents. The cables routing is intended to mitigate cable damage from these high currents which carry abrasive silt, trees, and other debris down the inlet. The Inlet is home to an endangered subspecies of Beluga whales. The significant tidal currents and ice scouring requires careful consideration and planning for the cable’s location. The existing communications cables and oil pipelines will require protection during the laying of the HVDC cable and state-of-the-art cathodic protection during operation. Innovative construction techniques like full-time whale watch and bubble noise dispersion technology will be used as required to mitigate potential harm to the Belugas. The installation of a bi-pole submarine cable will harden the Railbelt system against natural disasters such as forest fires, avalanches, and floods, all of which can impact the existing transmission line and result in islanding the Railbelt system into individually controlled area s for extended lengths of time. The assured interconnection of the Southern and Central regions through this additional transmission line will remove hurdles to the development of additional clean energy resources. The HVDC controller22 will play an integral part of stability control of the entire Railbelt grid. The controller will work in concert with BESS controllers in the Northern, Central , and Southern 22 n (9) Figure 6- Proposed HVDC Submarine Cable Routing 17 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 regions to control transient frequencies in each of the islands to increase stability limits across each of the AC transmission interconnections. The HVDC controller will help coordinate the system-wide regulation of clean energy resources. It will be integral to the ability to black-start either the Southern or Central region following a catastrophic event such as a repeat of the 1964 Good Friday Earthquake, the November 2018 earthquake or the tremendous windstorm of 2022. The Railbelt’s Northern region is interconnected to the Central region by a single, 195-mile-long transmission line. The Northern region, with the highest energy costs in the Railbelt, desires to import as much energy from the Southern and Central regions as is technically and reliably feasible. The existing transmission line has a stability limit of 65-84 MW, approximately 1/3 of the thermal limit of the line. To allow large imports of power from the south, in 200 3 GVEA installed a 46 MW/15-minute NiCad BESS. The BESS prevented large and sometimes total blackouts of the GVEA system following the loss of Central region intertie. The line has been de-energized for several weeks at a time due to severe icing or structure damage at one of the many river crossings, and these events can occur multiple times per year depending on weather. Due to the single contingency line, the Northern system, like the Southern system, is limited in the amount of renewable generation it can support on its system. However, unlike the Southern system, the Northern system does not have base-line hydro generation on-line to provide grid- strength, as measured by increased Short Circuit Ratio (SCR) following the loss of the tie to the Central region. The extremely low SCR following the loss of the single line puts the system with large motors, the existing SVCs and the existing BESS at risk. The proposed Beluga – Healy line will increase transfer capabilities between regions. The line will allow Northern region wind and PV resources to be totally developed as part of the integrated grid, as opposed to as an isolated region. Regulation could be performed over multiple regions, significantly reducing the integration costs for renewable resources. The geographical diversity of wind resources will reduce the overall variability of wind and solar resources, reducing the financial impact of regulation required by thermal resources. With the Beluga-Healy line, the Northern region could be operated without thermal generation during much of the year, only needed when system conditions or climatic events warrant it, or when renewables are unavailable. Further, the proposed routing of the line along the existing AKLNG pipeline route will open access to large, currently geographically unavailable, new wind resources. The combination of the Beluga – Healy line with the proposed Soldotna – Beluga line virtually eliminates transmission constraints on renewable development in the Railbelt. Additional lines and upgrades may be needed to establish specific renewable projects. However, the bulk of the benefits to the Railbelt are realized with these two transmission lines. D. Work Plan D.1 Project Objectives Phases Description 1 230kV transmission connection between the Southern Region and the Central Region. 2 HVDC submarine circuit including HVDC terminals at Nikiski and Beluga. 3 Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) that is comprised of a BESS in both Central and North Regions. 4 230kV transmission link between the Central region and the Northern Region. 18 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 D. 2 Technical Scope Summary Phase 1 Phase 1 is a transmission tie connection that connects the HVDC submarine segments with the existing transmission system. The overall objective of this segment is to construct a parallel path between the Central region and Southern region to improve transfer capability and increase resilience. The parallel line will reduce generating costs and will provide an optional path if fires or avalanches interrupt power transfer. The tie connection adds a 230kV bay at Soldotna substation, a new 25-mile 230kV overhead transmission segment from Soldotna to a new terminal point at Nikiski where the 230kV AC system transitions to a HVDC system. A similar process is repeated on the west side of Cook Inlet where the HVDC transitions back to 230kV AC and connects to Beluga over a 5-mile transmission line. At Beluga a new 230kV circuit will terminate in an existing 230kV bay where power will feed into the existing 230kV system feeding both Central and Northern Regions. Permitting and routing this segment will undergo a NEPA process expected to take three years. A large portion of the study work was completed in 2003 th rough the Southern Intertie project Environmental Impact Study (EIS). Routing for Soldotna to Nikiski Landing transmission segment follows the recommended path in prior study effort, but additional analysis is likely as conditions/property ownership may have changed since the original study. Preliminary work will begin to secure right-of-way access through easement, special permit, or land acquisition efforts. Once the final permits are secured, easements will be finalized. Land is available at both the end points (Soldotna and Beluga), therefore permits should be minimal to accommodate local design criteria. Land for both the Nikiski Landing and Beluga Landing will be required for the switchyards and will be placed adjacent to the HVDC converter stations . Transmission construction would start with right -of-way clearing followed by material delivery and installation of structures and anchors. Following erection, down guys are installed to support structures and conductors are strung using specialized pulling equipment. The conductor is then sagged and pulled to proper tension. Following conductor installation, conductors are clipped (attached to tangent and angle structures) or dead-ended (attached to end structures), and jumpers are installed to carry current from one side of the dead-end structure to the other. To expedite construction and minimize environmental impacts, helicopter construction is recommended in inaccessible remote locations. The use of helicopters to set structures and pull sock line (stringing line or rope) can reduce labor costs and increase productivity. Helicopters can also be used to deliver material to staged locations along the transmission path. Construction will add a 230kV bay at Soldotna that will include a termination structure for the line and associated structures, switches, and breakers to interconnect the line with the existing 230kV substation. The interconnection will include relaying protection and communications to safely operate the transmission line. The Nikiski Landing station on the north end of the project will be a termination point, switching station and transition point from 230kV Alternating Current (AC) system to a bi-pole HVDC station using a HVDC converter. Phase 2 Construction Phase 2 is a 38-mile HVDC submarine cable as described above. Preliminary routing studies were completed to confirm feasibility of the crossing. HVDC terminals will be located at Nikiski and 19 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Beluga Substations. A combination of HVDC underground cables and overhead transmission lin es will be utilized from the HVDC station to the submarine cable terminal. Since the cables are solid dielectric construction, station service and buildings are not anticipated. Due to the limited number of permitting agencies, we believe the permitting can be completed in three years, even considering the substantial public interest expected on the project. Phase 3 Construction Phase 3 includes the addition of two Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). The new BESS units will be located in both Northern and Central regions and will augment the existing BESS unit in the Southern region. As discussed in the feasibility section, incorporating BESS units in all three regions will provide significant reliability and economic benefit to the entir e Railbelt. The Northern BESS will be installed within a building to provide maximum protection from Fairbank’s extreme temperatures. Both BESS units will include battery modules, power transformers, switchgear and associated bus, steel, control, fire suppression and communications equipment. Phase 4 Construction Phase 4 is a 220-mile 230kV transmission link between Beluga in the Central Region and Healy in the Northern Region. The transmission line uses an existing spare 230kV bay at the Beluga 230kV yard and adds a 230kV substation at Healy. The transmission route is envisioned to follow the AKLNG right of way to Healy. A route selection study will be completed to reach a final determination on routing. Special considerations for outreach and flexibility in construction techniques will be necessary and are expected as the line transitions Denali National and State parks. Substation construction will include steel structures, foundations, conduit and cables, two 230kV/138kV power transformers and associated breakers and switches with SCADA, communications, protection and control devices. Line construction is envisioned using a combination of steel H structures, angle and deadend structures with all the associated guys, anchors, and overhead conductor. A fiber optic cable will be included in the Optical Ground Wire (OPGW) for communications. Due to the scale of the project (220-mile length), the project will be broken into 4 sections for construction purposes with multiple contractors working concurrent schedules to meet the construction timeline of just two years. Construction techniques are like those discussed under Phase 1. Phase 4 will provide improved energy transfer and resilience between the Central and North Regions. The existing transmission line crosses some of the most difficult territory in Alaska including numerous river crossings, snow and ice loading areas, mountain terrain , and proximity to fire danger from lightning strikes prevalent in the area. An alternative path will increase resiliency and reliability and reduce occurrences of transmission unavailability to transfer power throughout the Railbelt. This additional line will provide needed access to new inaccessible renewable energy opportunities such as wind, hydroelectric and PV. Phase 4 includes both a 230kV Substation and 230kV transmission line. D.3 WBS and Task Description Summary WBS Task Name Days *Resource Start Finish 1.000 Environmental/Permitting 20 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 1.001 Cent. BESS Station 90 P1 11/5/2022 3/11/2025 1.002 No. BESS Station 45 P2 11/5/2025 1/7/2026 1.003 Preliminary Design and NEPA Process - EIS 1095 P3 5/15/2024 7/30/2028 1.004 Soldotna Switchyard 90 P1 7/15/2027 11/18/2027 1.005 Nikiski HVDC 180 P1 6/3/2025 2/10/2026 1.006 Beluga HVDC 270 P1 6/3/2025 6/17/2026 1.007 Healy 230kV Sub 90 P2 11/10/2029 3/16/2030 1.100 Approval Milestone 1.200 Go/No Go 2.000 Design & Engineering 2.001 Cent. BESS 208 D1 1/15/2024 11/2/2024 2.002 No. BESS 208 D1 1/15/2025 11/3/2025 2.003 Soldotna Switchyard 180 D1 1/17/2028 9/26/2028 2.004 Soldotna/Nikiski 230kV 360 D1 6/1/2027 10/18/2028 2.005 Nikiski HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 360 D3 7/1/2027 11/17/2028 2.006 Beluga HVDC Terminal/Switchyard 360 D3 7/1/2027 11/17/2028 2.007 HVDC Submarine Cable 180 D4 1/15/2028 9/23/2028 2.008 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 270 D1 9/1/2028 9/15/2029 2.009 Beluga/Healy Transmission 1005 D2 1/15/2025 11/25/2028 2.010 Healy 230kV Sub 240 D2 12/1/2028 11/2/2029 2.100 Design Complete Milestone 3.000 Land Acquisition 3.001 No. BESS 90 L1 1/10/2026 5/16/2026 3.002 Soldotna/Nikiski 230kV 180 L2 8/10/2028 4/19/2029 3.003 Nikiski HVDC Terminal 180 L2 8/1/2028 4/10/2029 3.004 Beluga HVDC Terminal 270 L2 8/1/2028 8/15/2029 3.005 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 270 L2 8/10/2028 8/24/2029 3.006 Beluga/Healy Transmission 730 L1 8/10/2028 5/31/2031 3.007 Healy 230kV Sub 90 L1 3/20/2030 7/24/2030 3.100 Approval Milestone 3.200 Go/No Go 4.000 Long-lead Equipment Purchase 4.001 Cent. BESS 263 PO1 5/5/2023 5/9/2024 4.002 No. BESS 263 PO1 11/5/2025 11/9/2026 4.003 Soldotna/Nikiski 230kV 180 PO1 10/22/2028 7/1/2029 4.004 Nikiski HVDC Terminal 526 PO1 6/5/2025 6/13/2027 4.005 Beluga HVDC Terminal 526 PO1 6/5/2025 6/13/2027 4.006 HVDC Cable 526 PO1 9/25/2028 10/3/2030 4.007 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 180 PO1 9/20/2029 5/30/2030 4.008 Beluga/Healy 365 PO1 11/30/2028 4/26/2030 4.009 Healy 230kV Sub 526 PO1 11/10/2029 05/01/2031 4.100 Approval Milestone 21 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 4.200 Go/No Go 5.000 Right-of-Way Clearing/Site Prep 5.001 Cent. BESS 30 C1 1/15/2025 2/26/2025 5.002 No. BESS 30 C2 1/15/2026 2/26/2026 5.003 Soldotna/Beluga Trans 125 R1 11/20/2028 5/14/2029 5.004 Nikiski HVDC 186 C1 6/10/2025 2/26/2026 5.005 Beluga HVDC 207 C1 6/10/2026 3/27/2027 5.006 Nikiski/Beluga 230kV 25 R1 6/5/2029 7/10/2029 5.007 Beluga/Healy Trans 5.008 Section 1 283 R1 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.009 Section 2 283 R2 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.010 Section 3 283 R3 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.011 Section 4 283 R4 1/15/2029 2/16/2030 5.012 Healy 230kV Sub 90 C2 1/15/2030 5/21/2030 5.100 Right-of-Way Clearing Milestone 6.000 Construction 6.001 Cent. BESS Sub 403 E1 3/5/2025 9/21/2026 6.002 Cent. BESS 360 E1 10/1/2026 2/18/2028 6.003 No. BESS Building 396 G1 3/5/2026 9/11/2027 6.004 No. BESS Sub 403 E2 3/5/2026 9/21/2027 6.005 No. BESS 360 E2 10/1/2027 2/17/2029 6.006 Soldotna Switchyard 140 E3 6/1/2029 12/14/2029 6.007 Soldotna/Nikiski Landing 230kV 251 L1 6/1/2029 5/19/2030 6.008 Nikiski Landing Switchyard 140 E3 12/20/2029 7/4/2030 6.009 Nikiski HVDC Terminal 433 E4 12/20/2029 8/19/2031 6.010 Beluga Landing Switchyard 140 E5 12/20/2028 7/4/2029 6.011 Beluga HVDC Terminal 431 E5 7/10/2029 3/7/2031 6.012 HVDC Submarine Cable Laying 90 Sub1 8/1/2031 12/5/2031 6.013 Beluga Landing/Beluga 230kV 157 L1 6/1/2030 1/7/2031 6.014 Beluga/Healy 230kV 6.015 Section 1 656 L2 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.016 Section 2 656 L3 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.017 Section 3 656 L4 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.018 Section 4 656 L5 1/10/2029 7/19/2031 6.019 Healy 230kV Sub 623 E4 1/4/2029 5/28/2031 6.100 Construction Completion Milestone 7.000 Commissioning/Testing 7.010 Cent. BESS 90 D1 10/1/2026 2/4/2027 7.020 No. BESS 90 D2 2/20/2029 6/26/2029 7.030 Nikiski HVDC 49 D1 8/22/2031 10/29/2031 7.040 Beluga HVDC 49 D1 3/12/2031 5/19/2031 7.050 Soldotna/Beluga Trans 30 D1 5/22/2031 7/3/2031 22 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 7.060 Healy 230kV Sub 90 D2 5/30/2031 10/3/2031 7.070 Beluga/Healy Trans 30 D2 10/5/2031 11/16/2031 7.100 Commissioning/Testing Milestone Resource Description Resource Description C Civil Contractor D Design Engineering Firm E Electrical Contractor G General Contractor P Permit/Lands Company PO Purchasing Officer L Line Contractor R ROW Clearing Contractor Sub Submarine Cable Layer D.4 Milestone Summary Task Milestone Description Timeline Criteria 1.0 Project Management Plan and CBP 90 days Plan Submittal 2.0 Cybersecurity Plan 90 days Plan Submittal 3.0 Permits & CBP outreach complete Per schedule Record of Decision, permit issued, outreach 4.0 Land Acquisition Completion Per schedule Purchase/Easement documents executed 5.0 Long-lead Procurement Completion Per schedule Delivery Schedule Submitted 6.0 Construction Completion Monthly Monthly Progress Reports 7.0 Testing & Commissioning 120 days post Testing & Commissioning Report *Quarterly milestones will be added as the design is further refined. D. 5 Go/No Go Decision Points – Post NEPA Description Criteria Budget Period *Permitting Go/No Go Permit Issued 120 days Land Acquisition Go/No Go Purchase /Easement Agreement 180 days Long-lead Procurement Go/No Go P.O.’s secured 270 days Construction Go/No Go Construction Contract 540 days *Does not include NEPA Process Timeline- additional Go/No Go points will be added as design is further refined Go/No go conditions can occur through the routing, permitting and land acquisition process. Landowners/adjacent landowners/special interest groups and others can object to the use, view or construction method being proposed. The outcomes of the objections could be route adjustment, structure type change (wood pole to steel, fiberglass, or laminate), underground vs. overhead, longer conductor span lengths or specialized conductors. Generally, the No Go option results in a change rather than a complete loss of project. Transmission line materials such as submarine cable, power transformers, transmission structures, switches, breakers, anchors, and overhead conductor can have long lead times depending on the materials and design used. A No Go condition could arise when certain products are unavailable in the market to meet the project’s deadline. Options may include a change in design/material to accommodate the unavailability, such as using fiberglass structures rather than steel, or extending the completion time to accommodate the delivery schedule. Go/No Go on construction would generally occur if labor and equipment were unavailable or in short supply. Alternatives include using helicopter construction to reduce labor costs and speed construction. Project labor agreements can be used to minimize labor disruptions and increase available staffing using less skilled labor for less technical work such as hauling material , excavation, and general labor requirements. D.6 End of Project Goal 23 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Goal Description 1 Completion of transmission lines/HVDC submarine cable from Soldotna to Nikiski to Beluga and to Healy, using innovative and technical solutions in extreme environments. 2 Completion of BESS units in Northern and Central Regions to coordinate with existing BESS unit and HVDC in Southern region to eliminate small signal instability events and increase frequency control. 3 Significant increase in transfer capability between regions (75MW to 200-300 MW). The increased capacity will enable regional participation in clean energy projects, reduce capacity limitations, add redundancy, and improve economies of scale. 4 Reduce reliance on fossil fuels and carbon emissions and improve resiliency; virtually eliminate impacts of long-term outages due to extreme weather, wildfire, natural disaster and other disruptive events. 5 Document lessons learned that can be shared throughout Alaska, the nation, and the world. 6 Adoption of innovative rate-making techniques to incent transmission construction, easing member/ratepayer burden in procuring matching funds for the project. D.7 Project Schedule (Gantt Chart) *A more detailed version of this Gantt chart is available for review. D.8 Buy American Requirements for Infrastructure Projects This project will not include applicable infrastructure work. D.9 Project Management Overall Approach The project will use traditional project management techniques and controls such as change management, budget and cost control, and scope management as identified in the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). A comprehensive risk log will be maintained by the project manager. All risk and mitigation strategies will be upda ted, at a minimum, at each milestone. The project will be managed by an overall project lead under the guidance of the Team. The Team is comprised of Railbelt utility engineers, system operators, and managers. Acting as the project steering committee, the Team will guide the project lead’s efforts and provide access to resources and data. The Team and DOE will validate and verify the performance of the systems at each milestone and go/no go point. Role Description Project Lead Manages overall project Engineering Liaison Evaluates process to secure needed design & engineering expertise Lands Liaison Evaluates process to secure land acquisition, easements, and permits Construction Liaison Evaluates the best method to secure construction contracts Labor Liaison Works with labor unions, workforce development organizations, universities, and trade schools to arrange for needed labor Project Management Lead Manages overall schedule and coordinates individual projects 24 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Finance & Grant Management Lead Coordinates work with AEA, utilities, DOE, RUS, and private lenders Government Relations Lead Communicates project details with local, state, and federal entities Purchasing & Materials Lead Assures key materials are available and monitors and works with vendors on unforeseen Buy America goals Public Relations Lead Communicates with key stakeholders and the general public, and executes the Community Benefit Plan outreach Legal & Contracts Lead Develops contracts and provides guidance with appropriate terms and conditions Accounting and Closeout Coordinator Coordinates with project leads, assuring all proper documentation is secured to timely close out projects; coordinates with Finance and Grant Management Lead Project Value and Change Management Projects will be competitively bid. Traditional project change control methods will be used. Quality Assurance/Control QA/QC Performed by the project management team; strict check-out and commissioning procedures will be developed in the Factory Acceptance (FAT)and Site Acceptance test (SAT) plans. Project Communication Project initiation documents, and Project Management Plan (PMP) will contain a project communications plan detailing chain of command and appropriate communication meeting cadence and tempo. E. Technical Qualifications and Resources Combined, the Team combined has two hundred years of Railbelt system operations, construction, and engineering experience. The Team is experienced and well versed in executing complex transmission line and substation projects in Alaska’s challenging environment. The Railbelt utilities have skilled engineers and designers, and the local work force includes IBEW journeymen, technicians, and linemen who have built the electrical system we have today. Engineering and design firms, who routinely propose projects as envisioned in the application , are available locally and in the Pacific Northwest. Alaska has multiple highly-skilled electrical contractors through the National Electrical Contractor Association (NECA), who employees workers from IBEW local 1547. They are versed in both high voltage transmission and substation construction. The IBEW has out-of-state traveler availability and a state-of-the-art apprenticeship school that can ramp up to meet demand. The NECA contractors have specialized tools and equipment to undertake remote offroad transmission construction. These specialized techniques have expedited construction and minimized environmental damage. E.1 Unique Qualifications and Expertise The Project Team is unique in that it includes all relevant decision makers in the Railbelt. The Team has decades of experience in constructing transmission lines and installing, operating, and maintaining high voltage (34.5kV 138 kV and 230kV Alternating Current (AC)) submarine cables in Cook Inlet. In addition, they have decades of experience with BESS systems. The existing BESS in Fairbanks at 46MW for 5 Minutes was the largest BESS in the world at the time of its installation in 2003, and, the Southern region BESS (46.5MW-2hours) was commissioned and installed in 2022. Further, with six Static VAR Compensators (SVCs) on the Railbelt the team is very familiar with installation, commissioning, and operation of high-power electronics like those used in 25 Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 HVDC converters. The Team is currently rebuilding the 39-mile Sterling to Quarts Creek line to 230 kV. The Team has also collaborated on a number of other projects including the construction of the $350M Bradley Lake Hydroelectric facility in 1991, $47M Battle Creek diversion at Bradley Lake in 2020, and $10M Controls replacement on the Northern SVCS. Team members have also done significant transmission line construction individually. E.2 Existing Equipment and Facilities The Team’s systems have complex state-of-the-art SCADA/EMS systems with an interregional ICCP link for data transfer. A complex network of ringed SONET compatible digital microwave and fiber assets and hardened stations for high-speed communications. The microwave and fiber systems are currently used for SEL high speed mirrored bit communications to enable high speed transfer tripping. As noted above, several high voltage AC submarine cables and BESS systems and SVC’s as well as the equipment and technical know-how to work on them. E.3 Relevant, Previous Work Efforts, Demonstrated Innovations Numerous complex systems have been studied and successfully placed in the Railbelt by project team members. For example, as previously referenced, in 2003 the Northern region BESS, in 2022 the Southern region BESS, and the Central region BESS which is currently under procurement. High voltage AC Submarine cables have been installed, the earliest at 138kV in 1973. Static Var Compensators have been added, the earliest of which was 1985, and more recently the control systems on all the Alaska Intertie and Bradley Lake SVCs have been completely replaced. Installation of SCADA and EMS systems at all five utilities; installation of interregional digital microwave and fiber optic systems; installation of high-speed communication-assisted transfer trip and line current differential protection on all Railbelt transmission lines; eigenvector/value analysis that defined and mitigated, the small signal instability points between the weak summer valley Railbelt grid and the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric project. The study of development and installation of the Railbelt’s multi-stage, multi-delayed under frequency load shed schemes is another example of a complex real-time control system developed and installed by members of the project team. E.4 Key Team Members’ Time Commitment Key members will be assigned to this project as necessary to ensure successful completion. E.5 DOE Technical Services None CURTIS W. THAYER Experience and Achievements Alaska Energy Authority 2019-Present The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the state's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Position: Executive Director The Executive Director serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority, responsible for all business and operations. I work closely with the Board as it sets Authority policies, goals, and objectives, and is responsible for the execution of Board directives. I have developed a close relationship with the Governor, Commissioners of principal State departments, the Legislature, business community, and the public to advance the mission of the Authority. Achievements: Increased the profile and developed a strategic action plan to advance the goal and objectives of the Authority Worked with the Board to establish long-range vision, strategies, goals, policies, and plans; including leading the strategic planning process and working with the Board and Legislature to implement the strategy to achieve that vision. Strengthening the working relationship with the five utilities is like shuttle diplomacy. A few of the key issues during the three years have included purchase of develop a strategy and bonding package for a $170 million upgrade for the transmission lines from Homer to Anchorage (closes 11/30/22), purchase SS/Q line ($17 million), Battle Creek diversion and construction delays and construction claims, ligation on the SQ line, and Governor’s goal of reducing the cost of power. Managing expectations of the Board, Governor’s Office, Legislature and our five utility partners has proved to be challenging (and rewarding). Oversight responsibility of the Authority’s rural energy programs, including energy system upgrades, loan programs, alternative/renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the Power Cost Equalization program . Reviewed and analyzed legislation, laws, regulations, and other public policies that may affect the Authority’s mission and programs and recommends changes when appropriate. Developing and maintaining professional/cooperative relationships with local, state, and federal agencies, and Authority business partners. Working with legislative or other government agencies regarding policies, programs, and budgets. Alaska State Chamber of Commerce 2015-2019 The Alaska Chamber is a non-profit, membership funded advocacy organization founded in 1953. The Chamber membership is comprised of companies, associations, and individuals from every business sector in Alaska. The Chamber’s core mission is to make Alaska the best place to do business through its advocacy for and defense of sound business policies based on the principles of free enterprise, personal responsibility, and limited government. Position: President and CEO As the President & Chief Executive Officer, I serve as the top administrative officer, principal spokesm an, chief advocate in Juneau and Washington DC, chief finance officer and team leader. Achievements: Raised the profile of the Alaska Chamber Coordinated and guided the work of staff, lobbyists, counsel, committee, and volunteers in marshaling and expressing the Chamber’s business perspective on public policy issues which has increased the profile of the Alaska Chamber statewide through outreach and tackling tough legislative positions that benefit and promote business. Lead efforts to develop and manage coalitions involving other business associations, advocacy groups local chambers and the US Chamber to achieve Chamber goals. Grew Chamber membership for the last three straight years. Developed and implemented a financial plan that has increased Chamber reserves by 15 percent within three years. State of Alaska, Department of Administration 2012 – 2014 With 1,100 employees and an annual budget of $350 million, DoA facilitates state government operations by providing policy leadership and management services in essential areas, including finance/accounting, payroll, human resources/retirement benefits, information technology, labor negotiations, legal services, procurement/facilities, and risk management. Positions: Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner Served as the chief executive officer of DoA and as a member of Governor Sean Parnell’s cabinet. Unanimously confirmed by the Alaska State Legislature. Advised Governor on IT, pensions, healthcare, and labor relations with the Legislature and business community. Responsible for development and implementation of all DOA policies and programs. Hired and managed two deputy commissioners and ten division directors. Achievements: Reducing the Cost of Government Reformed PERS/TERS (state/local government pension programs) to reduce annual state contribution and ensure long-term solvency. Annual savings are more than $300 million. Restructured AlaskaCare (state healthcare program) to reduce state contribution without reducing core benefits . Annual savings are more than $60 million. Negotiated with the state’s eleven public employee’s unions to limit automatic merit increases, reduce leave accruals, and cap benefit cash-outs, all without work stoppages. Annual savings are more than $20 million. Worked with Legislature to revamp state procurement statutes to increase transparency and competition . Applied new statutes and best practices to major telecom procurement, which reduced annual state expenses by 50%. Previous Experience 2009-2012: Deputy Commissioner, State of Alaska, Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development 2004-2009: Director, Corporate and External Affairs, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company 2002-2004: President & CEO, Thayer & Associates (political and corporate communications consulting) 2001-2002: External Affairs Advisor, Alaska Gas Producers Pipeline Team (BP, Phillips, Exxon) 1997-2000: Special Assistant, U.S Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska) 1993-1996: Professional Staff, U.S House Committee on Natural Resources 1991-1992: Management Specialist, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Education University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, AK. Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Business/Justice National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), Golden CO, Executive Energy Leadership Academy University of Wisconsin, Institute of Organizational Management, U.S. Chamber State of Alaska, Real Estate License Community Activities CURRENT Alaska Board of Marine Pilots, Chair Don Young Institute for Alaska, Chair Alaska Leaders Archives, Treasurer PAST Alaska Gas Line Development Corporation, Director Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Director Alaska Retirement Management Board, Trustee Alaska Royalty Oil and Gas Development Advisory Board, Director Abused Women Aid in Crisis (AWAIC), Director and Treasurer Committee of 100 Top Chamber Executives, U.S. Chamber Council of State Chamber Executives Selected as “Top 40 under 40” community leader CLAY CHRISTIAN MBA, MS, CPA, CIA clay.christian@gmail.com • Cell: 301-706-1061• LinkedIn Profile • Chief Financial Officer • Chief financial officer with a long career of leadership for organizations undergoing major transitions. Creative and sound decision-making through changes in strategic direction, mergers and acquisitions, fundraising, debt and equity financing, performance improvement, financial audit restatements, and information systems. Focus areas include capital programs, investment, restructuring and alignment, asset management, procurement, real estate and construction, contract management, optimization, compliance, team building, and continuous training and process improvement. Deep experience with public and private partnerships, government sponsored entities, not-for-profit companies, investment tax credit, and qualified opportunity zone business development programs. Certified Public Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor, and Big 4 public auditor. • CORE COMPETENCIES • Chief Financial Officer • Strategic Planning • Risk Management • Capital Development • Not-for-Profit Mergers and Acquisitions • Financial and Management Reporting • Change Management • Optimization Excellent Written & Verbal Communication Skills • Leadership • Team Building and People Development Information Systems • Internal Controls • Training • Continuous Process Improvement • KEY ACHIEVEMENTS • • Chief Financial Officer for Alaska Infrastructure Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) • Vice President, Finance for 130-year-old company, Crowley Fuels, Alaska • Interim-Controller for start-up $3 billion Water Street Tampa real estate development • Independent consultant through Cross Services LLC for numerous companies undergoing substantial change (Fannie Mae, Muni Mae, Capital Petroleum Group, and above Water Street Tampa) • Worked remotely through pandemic and delivered outstanding results • Strong engagement with public auditors through new audits, consolidations, and financial restatements • Frequent meetings with boards, executives, general counsel, and operational leaders • Strategic and financial transformations • PROFESSIONAL AND CONSULTING EXPERIENCE • Chief Financial Officer: Alaska Infrastructure Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) – Anchorage, Alaska 2023 – Present Leading team of more than 22 professionals for both entities who manage more than $3 billion in investment, federal, and state programs. Vice President, Finance: Crowley Fuels – Anchorage, Alaska 2021 – 2023 Lead for more than 20 professionals; equity raise of $120m; capital improvements of $20m; budgeting, forecasting, optimization, financial and compliance audits, investor presentations. CLAY CHRISTIAN • clay.christian@gmail.com • Cell: 301-706-1061 • Page 2 Private Equity Investment Firm (Cross Services LLC) – Remote to Tampa, Florida 2019 – 2021 Privately held $3B real estate investment, backed by wealthy individuals. • Interim controller; overseeing financial reporting, compliance, and leading accounting transformation on behalf of RSM and Deloitte, global public accounting firms. Capitol Petroleum Group (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2011 – 2018 Privately held $1B firm focused on wholesale and retail motor fuel sales in East Coast markets. • Led first-ever comprehensive audits of companies, developed compliance program and financial reporting system. Worked closely with mezzanine investors and bankers through budgeting, forecasting, financial restatements, and consolidations. • Designed and developed systems using SQL programs, created executive dashboards, trained accounting department, and implemented cloud-based applications to replace legacy systems. Miscellaneous Clients (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2009 – 2011 My private consulting firm, focusing on investment and capital raises for several non-public clients. Municipal Mortgage & Equity LLC (Cross Services LLC) – Baltimore, Maryland 2007 – 2009 Real estate management company with portfolio of municipal and mortgage revenue bonds. • Led team of 40 examining accounting and reporting of more than 20 business units subject to consolidation as variable interest entities. Designed and conducted cash flow modeling, valuation, and consolidation for 2,200 not-for-profit entities in affordable housing program. Fannie Mae (Cross Services LLC) – Washington, DC Metro Area 2005 – 2006 Largest government sponsored entity providing mortgage capital to lenders, making housing more accessible and affordable. • Led team to review accounting policies and information systems for mortgage-backed securities programs and investments in not-for-profit affordable housing organizations. • Designed and developed SQL database to monitor and report operating performance. • EARLIER EXPERIENCE • Freddie Mac – Washington, DC Metro Area Ø Senior Director, Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance CohnReznick – Washington, DC Metro Area (lead CPA firm to low-income housing tax credit industry) Ø Senior Manager, Consulting and Audit Sodexo – Washington, DC Metro Area (global leader in food and facilities management services) Ø Senior Director, Strategic Information Analysis Ø Director, Internal Audit Ernst & Young – Boston, Massachusetts (global leader in public accounting) Ø Manager, Consulting and Audit • EDUCATION AND CERTIFICATIONS • MBA and MS, Accounting – Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts MS, Economics and BA, Geography – West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia Certified Public Accountant – CPA (Massachusetts License No. 16762) Certified Internal Auditor – CIA (Certificate No. 25966) Pamela J. Ellis Phone: (907) 771-3981 | Email: PEllis@akenergyauthority.org EDUCATION Master Class for Data Warehouse and Business Intelligence University of Alaska Anchorage (Fall Semester 2015) Bachelor of Arts, Major in Accounting / Minor in Management College of Saint Benedict – Saint Joseph, Minnesota (1987-1989) University of San Diego – San Diego, California (1985-1986) EXPERIENCE Alaska Energy Authority - Anchorage, Alaska Controller | December 19, 2022 to Present Supervisor: Curtis Thayer Duties include supervision of the daily accounting functions, finance staff; Develop, design and implement policies, procedures, internal controls and work processes; oversees the Finance section for the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA); Direct supervision of a Project Controller and Assistant Controller; conducts and oversees research and implementation of new accounting standards; controls budget and expenditures for both the AEA operations and capital budgets with restrictions by funding source; Manages federal receipts by reviewing federal grant applications for sufficient federal budget authorization and funding for match requirements; manages federal grant applications and ensures that finance components of the federal financial assistance award applications are properly completed; Manages the financial transactions of awarded federal grants and assures compliance with all federal financial reporting requirements; Reviews and assists with the publication and audit, by external auditors, of the AEA annual Single Audit; Manages the receipt and expenditure of all other funding sources of AEA. Including state funds and community grants that are managed by AEA on behalf of communities; reviews all AEA sub-recipient grants for initial or amendment. Reviews and approves all sub-recipient awards close outs; and responsible for the annual financial statements for AEA. Oversees the annual financial audit with external auditors. Municipality of Anchorage - Anchorage, Alaska Assistant Controller (Acting Controller 2011 & 2019) | February 2008 to Present December 16, 2022 Supervisors (Controllers/CFOs (when Acting for over 6 months)): Teresa Peterson, David Ryan, Lucinda Mahoney (CFO 2011), Nanette Spear, Tom Fink, Tammy Clayton, Alex Slivka (CFO 2019), and Mollie Mo rrison. Supervision of up to seven staff accountants and up to four Contractors (Supervisory backfill during SAP implementation) as Assistant Controller and up to twenty-three staff accountants and four supervisors as Acting Controller for the Controller Division; Duties of the Assistant Controller include review and creation of year-end workpapers, Detail Statements, capital asset schedules, footnotes, required supplementary schedules (RSI’s), and statistical tables for the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR). Coordination with internal and external auditors including audit field work and audit of the detailed statements and ACFR. As Acting Controller created the Letter of Transmittal and MD&A for the ACFR. Created audit finding recommended corrective action plans. Creation of the GASB 34 conversion entries and all required documentation. Recording of all debt financing activities at the governmental fund level and processing the conversion to the government-wide level for government-wide financial statement presentation. Create and post in the General Ledger (GL) all required GL transactions required for G.O. debt refunding’s. Review all new G.O. debt GL postings for MOA’s Governmental Funds. Offer consultation with the Public Finance Division in regard to capitalization of capital assets for upcoming G.O. Bond issues. Incorporation of three discretely presented component units and one trust fund in the form of four separate stand -alone audited financial statements into the government-wide financial statements for MOA. Creation of a full set of stand-alone financial statements for CIVICVentures LLC (a blended component unit), including the MD&A, financial statements (in the full accrual and modified accrual presentation) with a two-year comparison and footnotes. Maintenance of inventory documentation and capital asset schedules. Participation in the annual audit. Oversight of all daily accounting functions of Governmental Funds (to include the General Fund), Enterprise Funds, Internal Service Funds, Fiduciary Funds, and Suspense Funds (such as the Cash Pool Fund and the Employee Pay and Benefits Fund). Oversight of the MOA’s capital asset and construction work in progress (CWIP) daily accounting activities. The Assistant Controller supervises the Fixed Asset Accountant and Infrastructure Accountant for MOA. Daily review and approval of journal entries, fund certifications of Municipal Assembly documents, and reconciliations. Creation and management of month and year-end processing schedules. Responsible for period close coordination with other Finance Directors. Hold weekly meetings as required. Process the year-end split payroll postings and perform extensive reconciliations before posting. Subject matter expert (SME) of the General Ledger (GL), Controlling Module (CO), Asset Management Module (AM), and the Projects Module of SAP. Assist with implementation of all new GASB pronouncements. Review and update of Finance policy and procedures. Creation of internal control documentation and oversight of internal controls regarding the GL and creation of the ACFR per GAAP. Acting Controller as required. Fund / Reconciliation Accounting Supervisor | February 2005 to January 2008 Budget Coordinator Finance & CFO Departments Supervisors: Teresa Peterson, Wanda Tankersley, Michelle Drew, and David Richards Supervised five Senior Staff Accountants. Two reconciliation accountants and three fund accountants. Oversight of the MOA’s daily accounting activities of the General Funds, Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds, Internal Service Funds and Trust Funds (Fiduciaries). To include review of all fund certifications created for the CFO for pending assembly legislation. Oversight of MOA’s capital asset module and creation of MOA’s capital asset footnote for the ACFR. Creation of various footnotes, RSI’s, and statistic tables of the ACFR. Review of MOA’s bank reconciliations, investment reconciliations, subledger to general ledger reconciliations and unclaimed property filings. Assist four Finance Divisions of the Finance Department and the CFO Department with review and creation of their annual operating budgets. Assist with review and updates to the intergovernmental cost allocation plans (IGCs) and methodologies for the Finance and CFO Departments. Acting Controller as required. General Fund Accountant | April 2004 to January 2005: Supervisor: Guy Baily Create workpapers, detail statements, RSI’s, and statistical tables for all of MOA’s General Funds. Review and MOA wide department generated journal entries and creation of journal entries for all of MOA’s General Funds. Create fund balance worksheets for the General Funds of MOA. Reconcile all balance sheet accounts of the MOA General Funds and create year-end workpapers. Grant Fund Accountant | October 2001 to March 2004 Supervisor: Catherine Gettler-Amyott Create monthly and quarterly grant reports for state, state pass thru federal, and federal grants awarded to MOA. Reconcile the GL to grant reports and make correcting entries in the GL as required. Receipt all grant proceeds and create year-end accrual / deferral entries. Create workpapers for the generation of the Single Audit. This was for MOA’s Capital Project Funds, Enterprise Funds and Special Revenue Funds. Assist in audit requests when being audited by external or internal auditors. Reconciliation Accountant | April 2001 to September 2001 Supervisor: David Richards Reconciled the Accounts Payable subledger and Accounts Receivable subledger to the General Ledger. Reconciled the revenue postings to all Governmental Capital Project Funds and created corrective entries. PROFESSIONAL BOARDS AND PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATES Governmental Finance Officers Association – Member Municipal Audit Committee – Member (when serving as the Acting Controller) Lost Lake Run Board Member GFOA certificate for Excellence in Financial Accounting and Reporting (2019 and 2020). COMPUTER SKILLS Microsoft Word Microsoft Excel Microsoft PowerPoint Microsoft Outlook PeopleSoft Financial Systems Corel WordPerfect Corel Quattro Pro IBM Lotus Yardi Property Management Software Microsoft Dynamics NAV 365 Business Central Intuit Turbo Tax Intuit QuickBooks Pro SAP (to include completion of 1 semester SAP course at UAA on Hana, BW, and NetWeaver) Kronos and NEOGOV Libra Accounting Software Skyline Software Systems Onsite Manager Various Web Based Reporting Systems BRANDY M. DIXON 13429 Karen Street Anchorage, AK 99515 (907) 764-3928 bmdinak@gmail.com SUMMARY OF QUALIFICATIONS Creative, forward thinking, resourceful Communications Professional with 15+ years experience in all facets of marketing, advertising, and public relations. Successfully promote diverse activities and events. Conduct public information, social marketing, and education campaigns. Strengths include: Written and Oral Communication Planning and Organizing Managing and Mentoring Researching and Evaluating Detail, results and goal oriented. Productive team member with dedication to quality and professionalism. Proven track record of putting ideas into motion and creating engaging, targeted marketing campaigns. SELECTED ACCOMPLISHMENTS Written and Oral Communication Executed mail and email broadcast campaigns, public relations, conferences shows, media advertisements, promotions, customer communications, and other marketing plans to inform the public. Designed, scripted, edited and arranged production of internal/external newsletters, brochures, annual reports, corporate profiles and submissions, and internal/external communications. Served as spokesperson for the Alaska Native Medical Center (ANMC). Responded in timely matter to media inquiries, arranged interviews, distributed press releases and media advisories to provide accurate information. Encouraged positive and discreet communication on controversial, sensitive and proprietary topics. Protected patients’ privacy and confidentiality according to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act guidelines. Ensured cross-system coordination between ANMC and its Tribal Health Organization partners throughout the state and interactions with media regarding personnel, programs, services and policies. Managed interposition of vendors and contractors to successfully complete projects on time and on budget. Managing and Mentoring Supervised team of five. Oversaw time and attendance, discipline, training, coaching, performance evaluations and ongoing development opportunities. Facilitated staff meetings. Delegated responsibilities and assignments among staff and monitored timely completion of projects. Identified and coordinated specific training opportunities for employees in alignment with their employee development plans. Monitored and coached 25+ scholarship and internship participants throughout the course of the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium’s (ANTHC) 9-week internship. Arranged travel, housing, onboarding, interviewed department heads for intern placement matching at ANMC and conducted periodic evaluations. Managed database of 125+ scholarship and internship program participants via Microsoft Access to monitor program success. Developed and presented information to executives on department activities and goals to sustain budget funding. Planning and Organizing In collaboration with leadership, developed short and long-term strategic communication plans for ANMC to fulfill Board of Directors’ goals and objectives. Planned and coordinated numerous company events for 2,000+ employees including Joint Commission celebration, employee picnic, employee appreciation celebrations and United Way campaigns. Provided key organization functions as a member of planning team for Annual Meeting for four years with 100+ attendees. Successfully led marketing activities to promote the Healthy Alaska Natives Foundations’ annual fundraising ball for three years with an average attendance of 450+ attendees and celebrity guests. Organized 20-30 employee forums over a two-year period with an average attendance of 30-40 people, which resulted in improved communication between hospital administration and staff. Researching and Evaluating Conducted focus groups in partnership with external contractor to gain insight on needs of target audience. Developed communications plan based on results. Initiated strategic planning and implementation on a variety of communication and marketing plans. Reviewed ANTHC Scholarship and Internship applications, interviewed candidates and observed disciplinary procedures for program and departmental positions. Researched, developed and conducted trainings. Monitored and analyzed budgetary position for program. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Communications Director Communications and Events Director Client Insights Special Assistant to the CEO Marketing Manager Public Relations Manager Manager of Public Relations Senior Office Specialist Program Assistant Senior Office Assistant Office Manager Marketing Coordinator Alaska Energy Authority, AK Alaska Chamber, AK Solstice Advertising, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Southcentral Foundation, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, AK Rizzo & Company, AK Microcom, AK 9/19 – Current 12/13 – 9-19 9/13 – 12/13 01/12 – 9/13 09/09 – 01/12 04/08 – 09/09 07/07 – 04/08 04/06 – 07/07 05/05 – 04/06 11/04 – 05/05 04/04 – 10/04 06/03 – 04/04 TECHNICAL SKILLS Microsoft Office Suite: Adobe Software: Access Excel Outlook PowerPoint Publisher Visio Word Acrobat Bridge InDesign Illustrator Photoshop PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS American Marketing Association Alaska Chapter Public Relations Society of America Alaska Chapter Alaska Design Forum Cook Inlet Regional Incorporation Shareholder EDUCATION Bachelor of Art, Art, University of Alaska Anchorage, AK Diploma, Robert Service High School, Anchorage, AK MARK ZIESMER (907) 771-3985 mziesmer@aidea.org EXPERIENCE July 2022 to Current ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY, Anchorage, Alaska Project Controller – Owned Assets Responsible for all accounting activities related to utility assets. Establish, monitor, and enforce internal controls and accounting procedures. Prepare, analyze, and distribute quarterly financial and compliance reports. Work with management and utility partners for development of the annual budget. Coordinate, plan, and serve as point of contact for the annual audit. July 2020 to July 2022 ALASKA SAUSAGE COMPANY, INC, Anchorage, Alaska Controller Responsible for all company financial and accounting operations. Evaluated procedures and processes for effectiveness and adherence to GAAP. Administered 401k plans, payroll, health insurance, and workers compensation. Collaborated with outside consultants to complete annual review and tax return. Prepared bank reconciliations and cash forecasts. November 2010 to July 2020 DOYON UTILITIES, LLC, Fairbanks, Alaska Senior Regulatory Analyst (April 2019 – July 2020) Prepared revenue requirement schedules and depreciation studies for rate filings. Submitted quarterly and annual regulatory reports to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Assisted legal counsel with analyzing and developing regulatory strategic plans. Aided the Regulatory Commission of Alaska in conducting utility audits and review of rate filings. Provided guidance to corporate staff on regulatory matters. Senior Financial Analyst (July 2018 – April 2019) Supervised and reviewed day-to-day work of financial analyst team. Prepared the annual corporate budget, financial projections, and variance analyses. Provided analysis for tariff rate changes and known and measurable adjustments. Business Systems Analyst (June 2017 – July 2018) Maintained responsibilities held under Senior Utility Accountant/Analyst title. Heavier focus on managing corporate wide system implementations and upgrades. Senior Utility Accountant/Analyst (November 2010 – June 2017) Project manager for corporate wide system implementations and upgrades. Spearheaded system process improvements and integration projects. Provided ad hoc reporting support for all departments. Reviewed work of accounts payable, payroll, and general ledger staff. Supervised monthly accounting close and financial reporting. Maintained corporate debt balances and compliance reporting. Prepared bank reconciliations and cash flow forecasts. June 2010 to November 2010 KINROSS GOLD CORPORATION, Fairbanks, Alaska Senior Accountant Finance team member for an enterprise resource planning system implementation. Provided cost and fixed asset accounting for capital projects. Supervised and reviewed day-to-day work of accounts payable and payroll staff. MARK ZIESMER (907) 771-3985 mziesmer@aidea.org EXPERIENCE (CONTINUED) June 2009 to June 2010 DOYON UTILITIES, LLC, Fairbanks, Alaska Asset Guardian Coordinator / Project Accountant Project manager for asset management software implementation. Develop work order, preventive maintenance, and asset tagging processes. Assist controller with identifying and developing project and cost reporting capability. April 2005 to May 2009 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES ALASKA, LLC, North Pole, Alaska Project Controls (May 2007 to May 2009) Accounts Payable Supervisor / Yield Analyst (December 2005 to April 2007) Project Cost Analyst (April 2005 to November 2005) October 2002 to March 2005 WILSON AND WILSON CPA’S, INC., Fairbanks, Alaska Senior Accountant EDUCATION University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska Master of Business Administration, Capital Markets University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma Bachelor of Arts, Economics CERTIFICATION IMA Data Analytics & Visualization Fundamentals Institute of Management Accountants IMA Robotic Process Automation Series Institute of Management Accountants UNIX System Administrator Cochise College PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Institute of Management Accountants – Member, Treasurer Government Finance Officers Association – Member COMPUTER SKILLS MS Office Suite, Microsoft Project, Microsoft Dynamics, MS SQL Server, Aspen Canopy, Oracle, Maximo, JD Edwards, QuickBooks, Jet Reports, IBM Cognos Connection, UNIX, Linux Bryan E. Carey, P.E. 13041 Ridgewood Road Anchorage, Alaska 99516 (907) 382-0949 E-mail B3Alaska@Outlook.com Summary of Qualifications Professional Engineer with over 30 years project experience at remote Alaskan sites. Experience in project management and working with varied teams of contractors and clients. Experience in design and construction at locations with challenging logistics. Strong verbal and written communication skills. Education and Professional Certifications Professional Engineer registration in Alaska CE - 10810 M.A., Business Administration, University of Alaska, Anchorage B.S., Petroleum Engineering, University of Alaska, Fairbanks Experience and Qualifications Director of Owned Assets, Project Manager, Alaska Energy Authority AEA), Anchorage, Alaska, 2001 to Present Project Manager at the two largest state owned but utility operated hydroelectric projects in the State (Bradley Lake and Snettisham). Responsibilities include insuring projects remain in compliance with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license and state permits, work with diverse group of utilities managers and professionals on project upgrades, insurance and legal agreements, and insure the State ownership interest is not impaired. Have recommended, worked with agencies and other stakeholders, and overseen multiple project license amendments through FERC to reduce land fees and flow releases. Oversee AEA owned Statewide transmission projects. Oversee planning and operation of AEA owned and utility operated & maintained projects. Ensure insurance and permits current and in compliance. Board Member Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) which is the certificated electric reliability organization for the Railbelt region of Alaska. The goal of the RRC is to ensure grid resilience and reduce long-term costs by developing and enforcing technically sound reliability standards, conduction grid-wide integration resource planning, and designing consistent interconnection protocols for grid users. Reviewed Renewable Energy Fund (REF) proposals and managed grantee’s. Proposed new West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion Project for Bradley Lake hydroelectric Project to utilities. Oversaw all environmental and engineering studies. Filed FERC documents, and acquired license amendment. Managed acquiring funding, bidding, and oversaw construction of diversion project. Project completed on schedule and within budget of $47 million. Project increases annual energy of the largest hydroelectric project in Alaska by 10%. Project Manager for feasibility and conceptual engineering studies for the Susitna Hydropower Project. Oversaw engineering contractors to come up with conceptual designs and costs to fit within the Railbelt Integrated Resource Plan (Utilities future electrical demand and generation). Deliver presentations and question & answer at legislative committees and public organizations. Oversaw all engineering and environmental work for filing the Preliminary Application Document with FERC. Managed contractors to design, acquire site control, project funding, and construct energy projects at remote Alaskan communities. Projects required meeting with local community leaders and design engineers to develop a project design. Site control was then obtained and a Business Operating Plan developed and accepted by the project participants. Projects were built using contract construction managers or competitive bid. Negotiation of scope and changes occur at all phases with project participants and contractors. Bulk fuel, power plant, and small hydroelectric projects were completed at approximately 20 remote rural communities. Many of the projects had multiple energy projects completed. Remote work involved limited air or barge logistics. Steep terrain required several projects to be completed with extensive use of helicopters to move equipment William (Bill) Price Page | 1 William J. Price 25050 Cates Ave freedomsprice@live.com Eagle River Ak, 99577 907-903-3377 SUMMARY 20 years of experience as an Engineer and Project Manager. Received Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering from Utah State University in 2002. Professional Mechanical Engineer, State of Alaska License #129742. WORK EXPERIENCE Senior Infrastructure Engineer August 2019 – Present Alaska Energy Authority Anchorage AK Maintain transmission & generation infrastructure owned by the Alaska Energy Authority. This includes the Alaska Intertie, Bradley Lake Hydro, and other related transmission infrastructure. Maintenance and operations managed through Committees consisting of utility engineers and executives. Represent AEA on Railbelt Reliability Council, and participate in creation of the State Energy Security Plan. Responsible for project planning. This includes collecting and analyzing energy and community data, identifying present and future needs, conceptualizing engineering solutions, and developing, reviewing, and analyzing plans and proposals in order to determine the feasibility and appropriate technology for a prospective project. Conduct site visits, including public meetings in order to discuss prospective projects with local entities and residents. Direct design professionals and business consultants in the development of conceptual design reports, design documents, business plans and cost estimates appropriate to the scope of the project. Perform project construction management functions including overseeing the preparation of construction budgets, schedules, work plans, quality control, oversight and on-site inspections during construction. Administer technical services contracts including issuing invitation for bids, reviewing and evaluation bids, selecting contractors, preparing documents, negotiating and awarding contracts, monitoring and supervising contractors, preparing change orders, overseeing contract accounting, and evaluating contractor’s work. Analyze data, research new technology, and propose solutions to technical problems. Develop comprehensive reports and technical analysis to propose solutions and effective actions to solve technical problems. Coordinate with agency staff, rural community entities, federal and state agencies and the public on project and program-related topics. Mechanical Project Engineer March 2017 – August 2019 RSA Engineering Anchorage AK Responsibilities included working with the clients to develop concept designs, calculations, equipment selections, mechanical design drawings, specifications and supporting documents. Work collaboratively with architects, structural, civil engineers and in house electrical engineers to complete projects on time and on budget. Significant projects summarized below: Renovation of existing power plants in Kaktovik and Anaktuvuk Pass in the North Slope Borough. Project includes new radiators, heat exchangers, pumps, waste heat recovery loops, day tank, and related systems. Replaced boilers and renovated mechanical rooms in multiple properties owned by the Municipality of Anchorage and the National Park Service. Replacement included site investigation, drawings, boiler selection and supporting equipment and piping design. Developed plans and bidding documents for replacement of all domestic water piping in Valdez hospital. Designed water and waste connections for North Slope Borough commercial and residential buildings. Installations included holding tanks, below and above grade sewer connections. William (Bill) Price Page | 2 Mechanical Project Engineer Jan 2011 – Jan 2017 Gray Stassel Engineering Anchorage AK Designed or assisted in the design of 13 rural power systems for Alaskan villages. Communities included Atmautluak, Emmonak, Stebbins, Nunam Iqua, Teller, Togiak, Fort Yukon, Perryville, Kake and Heat Recovery renovations in Buckland and King Cove. Project Engineer for Kvichak River RISEC (River In Stream Energy Conversion) Project. Deployed two hydrokinetic devices in the Kvichak River near Igiugig Alaska, which is home to one of the largest Salmon returns in the world (Bristol Bay). Both devices were connected to the Igiugig electric grid during testing. Developed and maintained, budgetary estimates, project schedules, permit requirements, and stakeholder meetings. Designed new power plant with a biomass and district heating system in Fort Yukon Alaska. System includes 4 diesel generators which provide prime power for the community of Fort Yukon. The district heating system will provide heat for 13 community buildings through nearly 9000 feet of arctic pipe and will offset approximately 50,000 gallons of heating oil annually in the community. Assessed 7 rural Alaskan villages for new or updated heat recovery systems, resulting in construction of heat recovery systems in King Cove, Buckland and Atmautluak, which offset nearly 62,000 gallons of heating fuel annually. Director of Operations Support May 2009 – December 2010 212 Resources Salt Lake City UT Operations Support for treatment of water produced during Natural Gas production in Wyoming and Colorado. Support included mechanical, process, and electrical engineering, IT, logistics, procurement, and corporate reporting. Project Engineer for new produced water recycling facility in Colorado. Project vaporized produced water from nearby natural gas production. Super concentrated brine was stored for disposal, condensate (primarily methanol) was collected and clean water was discharged into a nearby tributary of the Colorado River. Continued to serve as Field Engineer for both Colorado, and Wyoming sites. Supervised and assisted in installation of new equipment, engineering support and technical problem solving. Primary contact for vendors, contractors, consultants, manufacturers, and industry experts to solve problems and maintain field operations. Developed and implemented a root cause analysis and corrective action program. Created documents and reporting systems to track failure events and corrective actions. Trained operations staff in data collection, and root cause investigation. Field Engineer Aug 2008 – May 2009 212 Resources Grand Junction CO Provided technical support, stress analysis, vibration analysis, PLC trouble shooting, and general problem solving for 24 hr field operations. The remote facility, circulated, vaporized and concentrated produced and ‘frac’ water from natural gas production. The super condensed waste water, condensate and clean water were stored for the client use or disposal. Monitored process efficiency through data collection and trend analysis, process improvements and preventative maintenance. Supervise installation, repair or replacement of equipment, and manage corrective actions. Support main office engineering staff through data collection, design engineering, testing and evaluation, field inspections utilizing AutoDesk Inventor and AutoCAD. Support construction efforts and new site preparation. Work with clients to determine operation requirements and design solutions. Visit vendors and contractors to inspect equipment and construction to verify specifications were met. Ryan McLaughlin ryan.mclaughlin25@gmail.com 907.444.7886 Work Experience Alaska Energy Authority -Anchorage,Alaska (05/2023-present) Infrastructure Engineer (05/2023-present) -Assisted in engineering studies,field investigations,and development of engineering design for the Alaska Energy Authority’s owned assets. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium -Anchorage,Alaska (01/2022-present) Engineering Project Manager (01/2022-present) -Managed water,sanitation,and solid waste infrastructure projects for 7 Alaska Native communities in the Maniilaq and Norton Sound Regions of Alaska -Developed strong relationships with key tribal and city members to help identify and progress projects that were high priority community needs -Secured project funding through numerous sources and ensured engineering and construction was managed in compliance of funding requirements -Negotiated and administered engineering and construction contracts,tracked and adjusted consultant progress and ensured adherence to project scope,schedule,and budget Alaska Solar -Anchorage,Alaska (06/2021-10/2021) Solar Technician (06/2021-10/2021) -Worked on a small team to install ~700KW of residential solar in Southcentral Alaska -Interfaced with customers and provided easily digestible information on how the systems would operate and produce ConocoPhillips -Anchorage,Alaska (06/2015-03/2021) DataOps Engineer (05/2020-03/2021) -Collaborated with Amazon Web Services to develop a machine learning model that optimized wiper trips for the Coiled Tubing Drilling Program -Helped develop real-time and big data processing pipelines to support the Alaska Data Science team in an e ort to move Company data from on-prem to the cloud -Acquired proficiency in multiple programming languages (SQL,Python)through on-the-job training and DataCamp curriculum Coiled Tubing Drilling Engineer (09/2018-05/2020) -Responsible for developing drilling programs and providing 24/7 engineering support during execution phases of Coiled Tubing Drilling projects -Delivered ~15 multi-million dollar projects on time and budget by working closely with multi-disciplinary teams and overseeing projects from start to finish -Managed all long-lead material and inventory needs for the Alaska CTD program -Developed new and innovative technologies with 3rd party vendors -Ensured strict compliance with government regulations and maintained close communication with the Alaska Oil and Gas Association throughout all activities Wells Supervisor (10/2016-09/2018) -Responsible for the on-site execution,supervision,and safety for a wide range of well intervention jobs including slickline,e-line,service coil,and frac work -Managed up to 6 crews at a time and ensured all crews had procedures,permits,and equipment necessary for daily activities -Collaborated with engineers and contractors to come up with quick decisions for issues that arose during Well Intervention operations Performance Engineer (06/2015-10/2016) -Created and provided near real-time performance reports and KPIs for Drilling Operations -Early adopter of Spotfire for data visualization and helped save over $1MM through small e ciencies gained on highly repeatable tasks on the drilling rigs Education B.S.Petroleum Engineering,University of Alaska Fairbanks,2015 -President -Tau Beta Pi,Engineering Honor Society (2014-2015) -Chancellor’s List (3.95 GPA) -Minor,Music Performance -Fairbanks Symphony Orchestra (2013-2015) -Member of AADE and SPE (2011-2015) Extracurriculars American Association of Drilling Engineers,Alaska Chapter -Board Member,University Liaison (10/2019-03/2021) Ski Summit of Mount Denali (Self-Guided,2019) -Employed complex trip planning and risk management skills in a remote environment Wilderness First Responder (2021) -80 hr WFR certification to e ectively identify and manage medical emergencies in the outdoors Bear 100 (2021) -100 mile mountain trail race in Utah,requiring a year of structured training,planning,and discipline Rebecca Garrett, PMP AEA Rural Programs Manager rgarrett@akenergyauthority.org Professional Work Experience State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Rural Programs Manager September 2022 - Present Oversee the Rural Programs Projects Managers and Grants section. Manage Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) Program. Manage Bulk Fuel Upgrade (BFU) Program. Manage rural power system construction projects. Collaborate with other agency staff, rural community entities, and federal agencies to coordinate diverse interests in rural power system projects. Seek out and apply for funding for agency and partner energy projects. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Project Manager/Program Manager February 2018 – September 2022 Manager Rural Power System Upgrade (RPSU) Program. Manage rural power system construction projects. Manage the active construction of 3 heat recovery systems around the state of Alaska. Manage State Clean Diesel (DERA) program for Alaska Energy Authority. Manage the DERA rural powerhouse engine replacement projects. Offer technical assistance to communities that need efficiency upgrades and/or are experiencing problems with the power system. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy projects and programs. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Assistant Project Manager June 2014 – January 2018 Manage end use (conservation) projects. Manage rural power system construction. Manage the construction of heat recovery systems around the state of Alaska. Manage State Clean Diesel (DERA) program for Alaska Energy Authority. Offer technical assistance to communities that need efficiency upgrades and/or are experiencing problems with the power system. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy conservation. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Energy Group Project Development/Project Manager January 2009 - June 2014 Manage end use efficiency (conservation) projects. Develop and present regional energy fairs around the state with a focus on energy efficiency. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy conservation. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). Monitor section needs and lobby for additional support when necessary. State of Alaska, Alaska Energy Authority, Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Section Program/Project Manager September 1999 – January 2009 Manage end use efficiency (conservation) program. Develop and present regional energy fairs around the state with a focus on energy conservation. Assist rural communities with funding opportunities and questions to expand the reach of energy efficiency. Authorize and release the Energy Cost Reduction RFP. Administer each project that results from the Cost Reduction RFP analysis. Facilitate bi-weekly section meetings, and collaborate with Accounting and Procurement. Oversee 20 projects with budgets totaling over $20 million all over the state of Alaska. Coordinate the Rural Energy Conference every 18 months (2002-2016). Work History State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Rural Programs Manager September 2022 - Present State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Project/Program Manager February 2018 – September 2022 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Assistant Project Manager June 2014 – January 2018 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Project Development January 2009 – June 2014 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Energy Efficiency Program May 2001 – May 2009 State of Alaska - Alaska Energy Authority, Training Program Manager May 1997 – May 2001 State of Alaska – Division of Energy, Administrative Clerk III March 1997 – May 1997 Avis Rent-a-Car, Assistant Manager – Rental Counter September 1992 – December 1997 Certifications Project Management Professional (PMP) May 2018 Project Management Institute September 2015 Meeting Professionals International March 2007 Notary Public May 1997 – present E-Writing, Business and Technical Writing March 2006 Post Baccalaureate Course Work University of Alaska, Fairbanks May 2021 Sustainable Energy Occupational Endorsement University of Alaska, Anchorage September 2006 – May 2007 Organizational Behavior (BA 300), Technical Writing (ENGL 212) University of Alaska, Fairbanks March 1998 Cultural Awareness Education BA History, University of Alaska, Anchorage May 1996 Dimond High School, Anchorage Alaska June 1991 Volunteer Experience State of Alaska, Polling Place Worker, Anchorage AK August 2020 -Seasonal Primary and Election day worker at local polling station Gladys Wood Elementary School, Volunteer, Anchorage AK September 2006 – 2013 Parent working in the classroom and Parent-Teacher Organization Karin St. Clair AEA Grants Manager 907-771-3081 kstclair@akenergyauthority.org Professional Experience Alaska Energy Authority – Grants Manager - Dec 2011-2016 & Aug 2019-Present Maintain grants management database. Prepare reports from grants management software. Ensure data integrity in databases. Evaluate grantee proposal, plans and justifications to include cost factors. Process grant applications and obtain outstanding materials. Monitor and ensure timely receipt of reports from grantees. Monitor and administer federal and state grants and contracts. Collect and analyze grant data. Maintain electronic and physical files related to all aspects of the grant cycle. Prepare, scan, and verify historical documents for electronic conversion. Prepare grant agreements, notification letters, applications, and letters of inquiry. Communicate with Federal, State, and local agencies regarding award compliance. Review contracts for completeness, accuracy, and conformance with state regulations. Provide technical guidance to internal and external stakeholders on grant administration and financial policies, procedures, statutes, and regulations. Serve as liaison between the project managers and outside funding agencies; provides assistance in resolving issues and conflicts with funding agencies; participates in meetings and discussions in which decisions affecting projects are made. Inform grantees regarding regulation changes impacting grant opportunities. Process amendments, modifications, extensions, and terminations of contracts and subcontracts Alaska Energy Authority – Project Controls - Jul 2016-Jan 2020 Track status reporting, financial reporting, milestones, and deliverables of projects. Track and audit internal controls and guidelines associated with project controls. Monitor budget, scope, and milestones. Provide leadership and training to team members on internal controls and guidelines associated with project controls. Recommend and execute corrective actions to handle project compliance. Identify upcoming project milestones and customer requirements so that Project Managers can ensure satisfaction of project milestones and customer requirements. Monitor and implement approved project management plan changes. Management of less complex projects and close outs. Identify all funding sources and develop a monitoring system for funding opportunities. Assist communities in writing grant applications. Assist in writing grant applications for agency. Alaska Energy Authority – Administrative Assistant - Jun 2011-Dec 2011 Provided administrative support for various departments, including answering telephones, assisting visitors, resolving various problems, and assisting with inquiries. Prepared, transcribed, composed, typed, edited, and distributed agendas and minutes of numerous meetings. Scheduled and coordinated meetings, teleconferences, appointments, events, and other similar activities for staff, including travel and lodging arrangements. Assisted with Round V Grant Application data entry and file setup. Scanned, labeled, and tracked grant documents in award database (Navision). Entered milestones for grants in Navision. Created and maintained grant files and related paper documents. Tracked grant applications for Commercial Audit Program. Communicated with auditors and commercial owners regarding project progress and missing information. Prepared reimbursement paperwork for the finance department First National Bank Alaska - Administrative Assistant - 2009-2010 Prepared and assigned daily reports to Merchant Representatives. Logged and tracked the completion of reports by Merchant Representatives. Attended weekly staff meeting and transcribed meeting minutes. Arranged travel for Merchant Representatives. Monitored daily in town travel of merchant representatives. Monitored and ordered all supplies for department. Scheduled all trainings as well as reserved rooms and equipment needed. Composed and prepared mass mailings to merchants. Performed credit checks, acquired financial statements and business licenses for potential merchants. Worked with the IT Department in developing a new program for Merchant Services using Access and Excel. Responsible for merchant billing and collections. Answered multi-line phones, receive daily mail and incoming deliveries Law Offices of Thom F. Janidlo Anchorage - Administrative Assistant - 2006-2009 Scheduled all attorney court hearings, client meetings and consultations. Transcribed during appropriate trial setting conferences and client meetings. Transcribed and prepared legal court documents. Performed legal research to assist attorneys with preparation of court documents. Maintained accurate records for attorney’s billable hours. Identified more efficient and cost saving methods for ordering office supplies. Initiated the use of a credit card machine to assist in payment processing. Suggested the use of a scanner to replace paper processes, minimizing paper waste and expense. Answered multi-line phones, received daily mail and courier services. Computerized/Manual Accounts Payable/Receivable. Credit and Collections. Month-End- Closings. Account Reconciliation. Monthly Payroll Processing. Statement Billings. Customer Service/Client Relations. Office Management Education Project Management Institute- Project Management Foundation 2016 International Correspondence School- Medical Office Assistant Certificate 1999 Northwest College- General studies 1991-1992 Related Activities - Thompson Grants - Federal Grants Forum for State & Local Governments 2021 - Jim Hale - Writing for the Workplace (one day seminar) 2014 - Gil Tran, Senior Technical Manager, OMB - OMB’s Grant Reform and the Uniform Guidance (one day seminar) 2014 - Colleen Campbell, State of Alaska Single Audit Coordinator - State Single Audit Presentation (one day seminar) 2014 - Grants Management Workshop - Grants Management Certificate (two day workshop certificate attached) 2012 May 11, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington D.C. 20585 RE: Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Program – Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project To the U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (GVEA) is pleased to team with the State of Alaska, d/b/a the Alaska Energy Authority, and the other Railbelt electric utilities 1 to partner in the funding opportunity for the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) (DE-FOA-0002740). GVEA is a not-for-profit, member owned, electric cooperative that serves nearly 100,000 residents in Interior Alaska. We operate and maintain nearly 3,300 miles of power lines, 35 substations and nine generating facilities. GVEA’s electric system is interconnected with, and has the ability to serve, four critical military installations - Fort Wainwright, Eielson AFB, Fort Greely, and Clear AFS. GVEA is also interconnected to the other Railbelt electric utilities via a single transmission line, the majority of which is the Alaska Intertie – a 170 mile long, 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between Willow and Healy that operates at 138 kV. Together GVEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities comprise what is commonly referred to as the Alaska Railbelt electric system and provide electric service to approximately 75% of Alaska’s population. GVEA is supportive of the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project proposal and hopes that the proposal receives DOE approval. As a not-for-profit, member owned cooperative, GVEA has a fiduciary responsibility to our member-consumers, to ensure that GVEA’s resources are used wisely and prudently. As essential as the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project is to achieve meaningful, transformative, long-term benefits on the Railbelt electric system, and to Copper Valley Electric Association, the cost of achieving those benefits cannot, from a practical perspective, be borne solely by Railbelt Ratepayers. Financial support in the form of Department of Energy funding via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is critically necessary. For that reason, GVEA supports the cost allocation methodology 1 Chugach Electric Association, Inc., Homer Electric Association, Inc., Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., and the City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System. DOE Letter of Commitment (GVEA) – FOA-0002740 Page 2 of 2 outlined in this and other applications submitted by this project team to the DOE’s Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program that prioritizes securing Federal IIJA/IRA funds with State of Alaska matching funds for the “non-federal cost share requirement.” If necessary, additional funding will also come from GVEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities, subject to successful negotiation of the grant contract and receipt of Board of Directors, regulatory, and/or third-party approvals required to ensure that costs incurred by the utilities can appropriately be recovered from the Railbelt’s member-consumers. GVEA has been diligently working with the other Railbelt electric utilities and with the Alaska Energy Authority to ensure that the opportunities afforded by the DOE IIJA and IRA funding grants, once received, will meaningfully and positively transform the Alaska Railbelt electric system. GVEA fully supports the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project, as well as other aspects of the broader Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan that have been submitted to the DOE under separate applications. As the applications reflect, there exists unprecedented alignment amongst the Railbelt utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority to materially transform the Railbelt electric system. We are committed to work collaboratively in order to strengthen and build a smart, clean electrical grid that ensures residents, communities, and the military bases served by the Railbelt electric utilities have access to clean, reliable, low-cost energy. Sincerely, John J. Burns President & Chief Executive Officer May 12, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington D.C. 20585 RE: Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3 Grid Innovation Program; Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Dear Application Review Committee, Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (MEA) is pleased to team with the State of Alaska, d/b/a the Alaska Energy Authority, and the other Rail belt electric utilities 1 to partner in the funding opportunity for Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) (DE-FOA-0002740). MEA is a not-for-profit, member owned, electric cooperative that serves almost 65,000 meters in the fastest-growing area of Alaska. We operate and maintain nearly 4700 miles of power lines, 26 substations and self-generate the majority of our power. MEA is interconnected to the other Rail belt electric utilities via a single transmission line, the majority of which is the Alaska lntertie -a 170 mile long, 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between Willow and Healy that operates at 138 kV. Together, MEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities comprise what is commonly referred to as the Alaska Rail belt Electric System and provides electric service to approximately 75°/o of Alaska's population. MEA is supportive of the Rail belt Innovative Resiliency Project proposal and hopes that the proposal receives DOE approval. As a not-for-profit, member owned cooperative, MEA has a fiduciary responsibility to our member-consumers, to ensure that MEA's resources are used wisely and prudently. As essential as the Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project is to achieve meaningful, transformative, long-term benefits on the Railbelt Electric System, the cost of achieving those benefits cannot, from a practical perspective, be borne solely by our small number of Railbelt ratepayers. Financial support in the form of Department of Energy funding via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is critically necessary. For that reason, MEA supports the cost allocation methodology outlined in this and other applications being submitted by this project team to the DOE's Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program that prioritizes securing Federal IIJAIIRA funds with State of Alaska matching funds for the "non-federal cost share requirement." If necessary, additional funding will also come from MEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities, subject to successful negotiation of the grant contract and receipt of any necessary Board of Directors, regulatory, and/or third-party approvals required to ensure that costs incurred by the utilities can appropriately be recovered from the Railbelt's member-consumers. MEA has been diligently working with the other Rail belt electric utilities and with the Alaska Energy Authority to ensure that the opportunities afforded by the DOE IIJA and IRA funding grants, once received, will meaningfully and positively transform the Alaska Railbelt electric system. 1 Chugach Electric Association, Inc., Homer Electric Association , Inc., Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., and the City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System. MATANUSKA ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION , INC . • P.O. Box 2929 • Palmer , Alaska 99645 • t 907.7 45.3231 • f 907 .7 61 .9368 • www .mea.coop U.S. Department of Energy Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3 May 12, 2023 Page 2 MEA fully supports the Railbelt Innovative Resiliency proposal, as well as other aspects of the broader Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan that has and will be submitted to the DOE under separate applications. As the application reflects, there exists unprecedented alignment amongst the Railbelt utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority to materially transform the Railbelt electric system. We are committed to work collaboratively in order to strengthen and build a smart, clean electrical grid that ensures residents, communities, and the military bases served by the Railbelt electric utilities have access to clean, reliable, low-cost energy. Sincerely, ~ci/)L ff11. lzzv Anthony M. WI Chief Executive Officer Corporate Office Central Peninsula Service Center 3977 Lake Street 280 Airport Way Homer, Alaska 99603-7680 Kenai, Alaska 99611-5280 Phone (907) 235-8551 Phone (907) 283-5831 FAX (907) 235-3313 FAX (907) 283-7122 May 11, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office 1000 Independence Ave. SW Washington D.C. 20585 RE: Letter of Commitment for Topic Area 3: Grid Innovation Dear Grid Deployment Office: Homer Electric Association, Inc. (HEA) is pleased to submit this letter expressing its support for the funding proposal for improving Grid Innovation. HEA is a not-for-profit, member owned, electric cooperative that serves the residents, businesses, and industrial facilities of the entire western Kenai Peninsula in the state of Alaska. HEA’s electric system is interconnected with the other Alaska Railbelt electric utilities via a single transmission line between the HEA and Chugach Electric systems. Together HEA and the other Railbelt electric utilities comprise what is commonly referred to as the Alaska Railbelt Electric System and provide electric service to approximately 75% of Alaska’s population. HEA supports the Railbelt Innovating Resiliency Project (RIRP) proposal and hopes that the proposal receives DOE approval. As a not-for-profit, member owned cooperative, HEA has a fiduciary responsibility to its member-consumers, to ensure that HEA’s resources are used wisely and prudently. As essential as transmission improvements are to achieving, transformative, long- term benefits on the Railbelt Electric System, the cost to HEA’s members of secure those benefits must be understood before HEA can make a financial commitment to participate in funding the project. For that reason, HEA expects financial support in the form of Department of Energy funding via the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) to be critically necessary. Accordingly, HEA commits to work with the other utilities and the State of Alaska to develop a firm cost allocation methodology for funding the “non-federal cost share requirement” of the initiatives as described in the applications being submitted by the Railbelt Utilities’ project team to the DOE’s Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. HEA’s funding obligation in this regard will be subject to HEA’s final approval of the terms of the grant agreement and any necessary or appropriate Board of Directors, regulatory, and/or third-party approvals. HEA fully supports the RIRP proposal, as well as other aspects of the broader Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan that have been submitted to the DOE under separate applications. As the application reflects, there exists unprecedented alignment among the Railbelt utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority to create a resilient, reliable Railbelt electric system that would be on a U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office May 11, 2023 Page 2 par with the systems currently enjoyed by the rest of the country. HEA is committed to work collaboratively in order to achieve that end. Sincerely, Bradley P. Janorschke General Manager 1 May 16, 2023 Gene Rodrigues, Assistant Secretary U.S. Department of Energy Office of Electricity 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Dear Assistant Secretary Rodrigues, We are writing in support of applications submitted by Matanuska Electric Association and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for FY2023 funding through Topic Areas 1, 2, and 3 the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five Alaska Railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s AEA are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will directly benefit the 75 percent of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the Railbelt but are eligible for Alaska’s innovative rural electric subsidy Power Cost Equalization program. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid by bringing it up to modern standards and enhancing resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disasters, climate change and rugged geographic terrain. These improvements are critical to preparing Alaska for a fuel-diverse clean energy future and integrating new sources of energy along the grid, which spans a distance equivalent to the space between Atlanta, GA and Washington, D.C. The benefit of this work reaches far beyond our state. The Railbelt grid supplies energy to five U.S. military bases of vital strategic importance to national security. These critical assets contribute to the national defense from a broad range of perspectives including missile defense, global telecommunications downlink infrastructure, and F-22 high-speed intercept capability. The Railbelt grid serves the Port of Alaska, a federally designated strategic seaport which provides virtually all of the cargo, food, fuel and building materials to the majority of Alaskans. And finally, the Railbelt grid serves Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport – the third busiest airport in the world in terms of cargo throughput. 2 With the U.S. Department of Energy as a partner, Alaska’s utilities and the State of Alaska will be positioned to demonstrate grid revitalization and decarbonization on a scale that can be replicated. Thank you for your consideration of this application. Consistent with applicable law, policy, and guidance, we respectfully ask that you give due consideration to the Matanuska Electric Association and AEA’s GRIP application. We ask that you keep our offices apprised of the outcome. 100 Cushman Street, Suite 102, Fairbanks, AK 99701 | www.fairbankschamber.org | 907-452-1105 April 3, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Re: FOA DE-FOA-0002740 To Whom it May Concern: We are writing today in support of the applications submitted by the members of the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1, 2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five railbelt electric utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization, which will directly benefit over 70% of the state’s population living connected to the railbelt grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern standards and creating resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disaster, climate change and rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing the state for the future and integrating new sources of energy, whatever they may be and wherever they are created. The Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce supports efficient, affordable and reliable power production for Interior Alaska. We have more than 600 members, and they rely on the Golden Valley Electric Association, one of the railbelt utilities, to power homes and businesses and drive manufacturing, support resource development and bolster community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. We hope the benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans, stimulates development opportunities and fosters growth. Sincerely, Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Jeremy Johnson Patrick Cotter President & CEO Board Chair Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 RE: Alaska’s Railbelt Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan To Whom It May Concern, The Alaska Municipal League (AML) is a voluntary, nonprofit, nonpartisan, statewide organization of 165 cities, boroughs, and unified municipalities, wherein over 97 percent of Alaskans reside. Since the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, AML has focused its efforts to support strategic regional projects that address the long-standing inadequacy of Alaska’s infrastructure. As part of this effort, we are proud to support projects that improve the condition of communities and intersect with Alaska’s municipalities. We are excited to see the proposed project for the Alaska Railbelt’s Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP) move forward. Working to decarbonize Alaska’s Railbelt grid is a particularly timely endeavor – state regulators have recently indicated that the natural gas supply that both power generation and other users rely on may not meet current demand within the next decade. This looming shortage puts economic activity throughout the state at risk by introducing long-term uncertainty to the key services that local governments and other organizations rely on from the Railbelt. With some of the highest energy prices in the country, solutions to control cost are a critical economic challenge facing Alaska’s communities and economic development. It’s important to note that in addressing costs on the Railbelt, these projects also stand to benefit communities across the state via the Power Cost Equalization program. The formula for this critical program ties subsidies for energy across the state to Railbelt prices – thus, if the cost of electricity on the Railbelt is lowered, it provides a greater subsidy to those communities who are experiencing high costs, and in effect lowering the cost to consumers. The GRMP is a strategic and collaborative effort that would go beyond the Railbelt to help make energy and the rural economies that depend on it more affordable and resilient. We fully support the GRMP and its associated projects. Sincerely, Nils Andreassen Executive Director 510 L Street, Suite 603, Anchorage, AK 99501 • 907-258-3700 • www.AEDCweb.com March 10, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Re: FOA DE-FOA-0002740 To Whom it May Concern: I’m writing today in support of the applications submitted by the members of Alaska’s Bradley Lake Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1,2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five Railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s Alaska Energy Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will directly benefit over 70% of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the Railbelt. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern standards and bringing resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disaster, climate change and rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing Alaska for a fuel-diverse clean energy future and integrating new sources of energy, whatever they may be and wherever they are created. Anchorage Economic Development Corporation’s mission is to grow and diversify the economy of Anchorage and Alaska. The health and future success of the local economy relies on the Railbelt electric grid to power homes and businesses, drive manufacturing, support resource development and bolster community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. Going forward, we look forward to engaging with the utilities and the State and partnering to make sure the benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans. Thank you for your time and attention to Alaska’s infrastructure needs. You may reach me at 907-334-1206 or wpopp@aedcweb.com with any questions or requests for information. Sincerely, Bill Popp President & CEO March 10, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Re: FOA DE-FOA-0002740 Subject: Letter of Support for Alaska Railbelt GRIP Applications To Whom it May Concern: This letter expresses support for the applications submitted by the members of Alaska’s Bradley Lake Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1, 2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s Alaska Energy Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will directly benefit over 70% of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the railbelt. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern standards and improving its resiliency against future natural disasters, climate change, and the ongoing challenges wrought by our rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing Alaska for a fuel-diverse clean energy future so new sources of energy can be fully integrated, whatever and wherever they may be. The Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) is a non-profit corporation certificated by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) as the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) responsible for performing Integrated Resource Planning and developing and enforcing Reliability, Security, and Non- Discriminatory Open Access Transmission and Interconnection Standards for the railbelt bulk energy system. The capital projects proposed in the GRIP applications will directly impact the system under the RRC’s ERO jurisdiction. The RRC was certificated less than six months ago, and is still in the process of staffing and organizing. As such, the RRC cannot at this time render opinions on the specific projects included within the GRIP applications. The RRC can affirm that the existing Railbelt grid has multiple single contingency elements, capacity bottlenecks, and technical and operational constraints that prevent optimal dispatch of the region’s existing and potential future suite of generation resources. The RRC can also confirm that the existing Railbelt grid leaves some regions isolated for up to several months every year during periods of annual maintenance and, at times, for even longer due to natural disasters such as wildland fires. The projects within the GRIP applications will address these long-standing limitations, and the parties involved in developing the GRIP applications are the best-available team to advance current proposals GRIP Application Support letter March 10, 2023 Page 2 of 2 for railbelt system improvements to address these limitations. Over the timeframe that these capital projects would unfold, the RRC will become fully functional, implementing standards and integrated resource plans that will in time directly influence the refinement, execution, and operation of the capital upgrades proposed in the GRIP applications. The RRC Board of Directors is a balanced independent and stakeholder board whose directors represent the stakeholder interests of railbelt utilities, independent power producers, residential, industrial, and environmental consumers, and state agencies. The stakeholder interests represented on the RRC’s board individually and collectively rely on the railbelt electric grid to power homes and businesses, drive manufacturing, support resource development, and bolster community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. The RRC looks forward to continuing engagement with the utilities and the State in partnership to ensure the benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans. Thank you for your time and attention to Alaska’s infrastructure needs. You may reach me via e-mail with any questions or requests for information. Sincerely, RAILBELT RELIABILITY COUNCIL Joel D. Groves. P.E. President and Board Chair joel@polarconsult.net ALASKA JOINT ELECTRICAL APPRENTICESHIP AND TRAINING TRUST MELISSA CARESS Statewide Training Director Tom Cashen Training Center 5800 B Street Anchorage, AK 99518 Tel: (907) 337-9508 Fax: (907) 337-9500 CASEY PTACEK Training Coordinator Kornfeind Training Center 4782 Dale Road Fairbanks, AK 99709 Tel: (907) 479-4449 Fax: (907) 479-0425 May 18, 2023 U.S. Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations Re: FOA DE‐FOA‐0002740 To Whom it May Concern: I’m writing today in support of the applications submitted by the members of Alaska’s Bradley Lake Project Management Committee to Topic Areas 1,2 and 3 of the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Program. The five Railbelt electric utilities and the State of Alaska’s Alaska Energy Authority are working in unison to design, fund and implement a program of grid modernization that will directly benefit over 75% of the state’s population connected to the grid and indirectly benefit rural Alaskans who are geographically isolated from the Railbelt. This is a once‐in‐a‐generation opportunity for Alaskans to stabilize an aging grid, bringing it up to modern standards and bringing resiliency in the face of unprecedented natural disaster, climate change and rugged geographic terrain. Perhaps most importantly, these improvements are critical to preparing Alaska for a fuel‐diverse clean energy future and integrating new sources of energy, whatever they may be and wherever they are created. The Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship & Training Trust (AJEATT) is responsible for supplying apprentice manpower to the IBEW Local 1547 and AK NECA. These organizations represent the majority of the electrical work performed in the State of Alaska, whose members rely on the Railbelt electric grid to power homes and businesses and drive manufacturing, support resource development and bolster community services that make Alaska a place where current and future generations will thrive. Going forward, we look forward to engaging with the utilities and the State and partnering to make sure the benefits of this historic federal investment reach a wide and diverse group of Alaskans. Thank you for your time and attention to Alaska’s infrastructure needs. You may reach me at 1‐907‐337‐9508, or melissa@ajeatt.org with any questions or requests for information. Sincerely, Melissa Caress Statewide Training Director AJEATT Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 1 STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES (SOPO) Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project (RIR) A. OBJECTIVE The Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project (RIR) aims to enhance resiliency and transfer capability among the three regions of the Railbelt. The Railbelt has experienced decreasing frequency regulation, slowed disturbance response and increasing magnitude natural frequency oscillations. The current configuration of the Railbelt system restricts the adoption of clean energy, diversification of the fuel supply, and Alaska’s preparation for a sustainable carbon-free future. A key priority to achieve this objective is to reinforce interconnections between the primary regions of the Railbelt by adding parallel lines and implementing Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) to resolve long-standing frequency control and instability issues. Alongside the High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable, these additions will alleviate transmission congestion and optimize interregional transfer capability. The project's innovative so lutions hold the promise of curbing escalating energy prices, which currently rank among the highest in the nation, while providing rural residents and disadvantaged communities with an opportunity to enhance community viability. Sharing these solutions with other communities will support collective efforts toward achieving clean, reliable, and affordable energy for all. B. SCOPE OF WORK The RIR project involves four primary components to meet the project’s objectives. The projects involve the interconnection of AC Transmission with a DC Bi-polar High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine circuit and three large capacity Battery Energy Storage systems (BESS). Coordinated interregional control and operations of the BESS and HVDC line will tie all the individual systems together to maximize stability and limit congestion. Phase 1 – New 230kV interconnection from Soldotna and Beluga to the terminals of the Phase 2 HVDC submarine cable) – these components are necessary to add a parallel interconnection between the Southern Region to the Central Region. Combined with the HVDC line they will provide a second path from the Southern Region to Central region that will provide redundancy and limit exposure to fire danger and avalanches and maintenance and construction outages which have been the major cause of system separation. Tying to Beluga is necessary to fully utilize the existing transmission connections to the Central and Northern Regions. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 2 Phase 2 - HVDC Submarine Circuit across Cook Inlet – The HVDC submarine Cable system provides for increased transfer capability and the ability to mitigate system stability challenges aiding in the elimination of interregional oscillations. Phase 3 - BESS units in both Central Northern Regions and Southern (existing) will work to control frequency caused by transmission line or generation trips from either unplanned unit trips or non-dispatchable power swings caused by wind and solar. The BESS units are necessary to fully integrate variable renewable generation and will work in concert with the HVDC controllers to minimize system oscillations. Phase 4 – New parallel interconnections between Central and Northern regions. Like Phase 1, the new path between the regions will not only improve resiliency and reliability but will increase energy transfer capability between the regions by 2-3 times. Providing a parallel path assures that all energy will continue to flow if the alternative path is lost. Major load swings between regions are also avoided by increasing system stability and allowing the lines to carry additional capacity reducing congestion. C. TASKS TO BE PERFORMED Task 1.0: Project Management and Planning (PMP): Subtask 1.1 – Project Management Plan (PMP): A PMP will be submitted within 60 days of the award. Subtask 1.2: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Compliance The Applicant will undertake an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) with a lead agency (DOE) to identify and analyze possible adverse environmental impacts and investigate reasonable alternatives as appropriate. Subtask 1.3: Cybersecurity Plan (CSP) The Applicant will focus its efforts on protecting the Federal systems and its networks from cyber threats. The plan will incorporate processes to identify, investigate and mitigate threats from targeted phishing, denial of service attacks, and the introduction of malware into the system. A coordinated effort with the State, the utilities, and DOE will be undertaken to implement the tools necessary to provide continuous diagnostics and mitigation. The plan will be compliant with AKCIP standards. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 3 A full cybersecurity plan will be submitted during award negotiations and prior to receiving project funding. Subtask 1.4: Continuation Briefing(s): A continuation briefing will be done on an annual basis to explain the plans, progress, and results of the technical effort. Task 2.0: Preliminary Design, Community Benefit Plan (CBP) Outreach & Engineering – Design criteria for transmission lines, substations, submarine cable, converter stations, and BESS units. Subtask 2.1 – Risk Evaluation – Evaluate transmission components. Subtask 2.11 – Evaluate new transmission corridor for known events such as CBP input, avalanche, seismic, wildfire, heavy snow and ice loading. Subtask 2.12 – Evaluate subsea cable routing for CBP input, undersea obstructions, tidal currents, ice scouring, and Beluga whale migration. Subtask 2.13 – Evaluate BESS units for CBP input, fire suppression, temperature, and hazardous materials disposal. Subtask 2.2 – Design Criteria – Develop tailored and innovative design criteria to mitigate input and risks identified in 2.1. Evaluate alternative routing alignment as necessary. Subtask 2.3 – Preliminary Design – Engineer for submarine cable, converter stations, BESS units, foundations, anchors, guys, structure type, span length, conductor size, design, and sag. Evaluate potential right-of-way alignment, land ownership and permit requirements. Task 3.0: Public Notice – Provide public notice of intent to construct, provide data, seek input, and provide feedback. Adjust design and routing as necessary to secure permits. Task 4.0: Final Design & Engineering – Prepare final design documents for permitting and construction. Task 5.0: Permitting – Undertake EIS and apply for permits from appropriate agencies. Subtask 5.1 – Notice of Intent to Prepare EIS Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 4 Subtask 5.2 – Scoping process –Federal agency begins the scoping process by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI). The NOI describes the project and provides background on potential impacts. The public provides comments on the proposed project, proposed alternatives, and environmental impacts. Applicant holds public meetings to obtain comments. Subtask 5.3 – Notice of Availability of Draft EIS – the Draft EIS presents, analyzes, and compares potential environmental impacts and proposed actions for mitigation. Subtask 5.4 – Notice of Availability of Final EIS – EIS prepared and distributed including comments from Draft EIS. Subtask 5.5 – Record of Decision – Notice of decision and rationale for decision giving factors such as cost, technical feasibility, agency and national objectives, and environmental impacts of any actions. Task 6.0: Procurement – Secure long-term materials such as submarine cable, inverters, converters, transformers, steel structures, and specialized equipment. Task 7.0: Construction – Undertake construction process Subtask 7.1 – Solicitation – prepare construction documents and evaluate most cost-effective method to seek bids. Subtask 7.2 – Award – Award contracts for construction Subtask 7.3 – Construction Management – Initiate project management office Subtask 7.4 – Construction Close Out Process Task 8.0: Testing & Commissioning – Undertake final inspection, energization, and cutovers as necessary. D. DELIVERABLES I. Management Reporting a. Progress Report b. Project Management Plan (PMP) c. Cybersecurity Plan d. Continuation Briefings II. Financial Reporting Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 5 III. Closeout Reporting E. BREIFINGS/TECHNCIAL PRESENTATIONS Briefings and technical presentations will be prepared as requested by the Federal Project Officer which may include a kickoff briefing, pre-continuation briefing, final project briefing and other technical, financial and/or administrative briefings as requested by the DOE. Award Number: Award Recipient: (May be award recipient or sub-recipient) Section A - Budget Summary Federal Cost Share Total Costs Cost Share %Proposed Budget Period Dates Budget Period 1 $103,376,300 $103,250,000 $206,626,300 49.97%1/1/2024-12/30/2025 Budget Period 2 $103,348,768 $103,250,000 $206,598,768 49.98%1/1/2026-12/30/2027 Budget Period 3 $102,801,234 $103,250,000 $206,051,234 50.11%1/1/2028-12/30/2029 Budget Period 4 $103,473,699 $103,250,000 $206,723,699 49.95%1/1/2030-12/30/2031 Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total $413,000,000 $413,000,000 $826,000,000 50.00% Section B - Budget Categories CATEGORY Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Costs % of Project Comments (as needed) a. Personnel $3,249,314 $3,379,287 $3,509,259 $3,639,232 $0 $13,777,092 1.67% b. Fringe Benefits $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% c. Travel $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $0 $470,400 0.06% d. Equipment $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 0.01% e. Supplies $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $0 $320,000 0.04% f. Contractual Sub-recipient $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Contractor $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 97.81% FFRDC $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Contractual $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 97.81% g. Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% h. Other Direct Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.00% Total Direct Costs $205,813,974 $205,753,946 $205,173,919 $205,813,891 $0 $822,555,729 99.58% i. Indirect Charges $812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 0.42% Total Costs $206,626,300 $206,598,768 $206,051,234 $206,723,699 $0 $826,000,000 100.00% Instructions and Summary Date of Submission: SUMMARY OF BUDGET CATEGORY COSTS PROPOSED The values in this summary table are from entries made in subsequent tabs, only blank white cells require data entry Additional Explanation (as needed): Form submitted by: Please read the instructions on each worksheet tab before starting. If you have any questions, please ask your DOE contact! Do not modify this template or any cells for formulas! 1. If using this form for award application, negotiation, or budget revision, fill out the blank white cells in workbook tabs a. through j. with total project costs. 2. Blue colored cells contain instructions, headers, or summary calculations and should not be modified. Only blank white cells should be populated. 3. Enter detailed support for the project costs identified for each Category line item within each worksheet tab to autopopulate the summary tab. 4. The total budget presented on tabs a. through i. must include both Federal (DOE) and Non-Federal (cost share) portions. 5. All costs incurred by the preparer's sub-recipients, contractors, and Federal Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), should be entered only in section f. Contractual. All other sections are for the costs of the preparer only. 6. Ensure all entered costs are allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with the administrative requirements prescribed in 2 CFR 200, and the applicable cost principles for each entity type: FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities; and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 7. Add rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than five budget periods, consult your DOE contact before adding additional budget period rows and columns. 8. ALL budget period cost categories are rounded to the nearest dollar. BURDEN DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 24 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Office of Information Resources Management Policy, Plans, and Oversight, AD-241-2 - GTN, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910-5162), U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (1910- 5162), Washington, DC 20503. Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 1 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 2 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 3 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 4 Time (Hrs) Hourly Rate ($/Hr) Total Budget Period 5 1 Sr. Engineer (EXAMPLE!!!)2000 $85.00 $170,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 200 $50.00 $10,000 2400 $190,000 2 Technicians (2)4000 $20.00 $80,000 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 0 $0.00 $0 4000 $80,000 1 thru 8 Contracting Officer 390 84.31 $32,881 390 $87.68 $34,196 390 $91.05 $35,511 390 $94.43 $36,827 - $0.00 $0 1560 $139,415 1 thru 8 Contracting Officer 1170 84.31 $98,643 1170 $87.68 $102,588 1170 $91.05 $106,534 1170 $94.43 $110,480 - $0.00 $0 4680 $418,245 1 thru 8 Executive Director 390 181.61 $70,828 390 $188.87 $73,661 390 $196.14 $76,494 390 $203.40 $79,327 - $0.00 $0 1560 $300,310 1 thru 8 Communication Director 1170 96.32 $112,694 1170 $100.17 $117,202 1170 $104.03 $121,710 1170 $107.88 $126,218 - $0.00 $0 4680 $477,824 1 thru 8 GIS 780 77.49 $60,442 780 $80.59 $62,860 780 $83.69 $65,278 780 $86.79 $67,695 - $0.00 $0 3120 $256,275 1 thru 8 Owned Assets Director 975 154.49 $150,628 975 $160.67 $156,653 975 $166.85 $162,678 975 $173.03 $168,703 - $0.00 $0 3900 $638,662 1 thru 8 Senior Infrastructure Engineer 1560 109.26 $170,446 1560 $113.63 $177,263 1560 $118.00 $184,081 1560 $122.37 $190,899 - $0.00 $0 6240 $722,689 1 thru 8 Infrastructure Engineer 1560 104.28 $162,677 1560 $108.45 $169,184 1560 $112.62 $175,691 1560 $116.79 $182,198 - $0.00 $0 6240 $689,750 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 150.00 $585,000 3,900 $156.00 $608,400 3,900 $162.00 $631,800 3,900 $168.00 $655,200 - $0.00 $0 15600 $2,480,400 1 thru 8 Environmental Engineer 3,900 150.00 $585,000 3,900 $156.00 $608,400 3,900 $162.00 $631,800 3,900 $168.00 $655,200 - $0.00 $0 15600 $2,480,400 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 104.28 $406,692 3,900 $108.45 $422,960 3,900 $112.62 $439,227 3,900 $116.79 $455,495 - $0.00 $0 15600 $1,724,374 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 104.28 $406,692 3,900 $108.45 $422,960 3,900 $112.62 $439,227 3,900 $116.79 $455,495 - $0.00 $0 15600 $1,724,374 1 thru 8 Program Project Manager 3,900 104.28 $406,692 3,900 $108.45 $422,960 3,900 $112.62 $439,227 3,900 $116.79 $455,495 - $0.00 $0 15600 $1,724,374 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 $0 Total Personnel Costs 27495 $3,249,314 27495 $3,379,287 27495 $3,509,259 27495 $3,639,232 0 $0 109980 $13,777,092 Additional Explanation (as needed): Position Title INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. List project costs solely for employees of the entity completing this form. All personnel costs for subrecipients and contractors must be included under f. Contractual. 2. All personnel should be identified by position title and not employee name. Enter the amount of time (e.g., hours or % of time) and the base hourly rate and the total direct personnel compensation will automatically calculate. Rate basis (e.g., rate negotiated for each hour worked on the project, labor distribution report, state civil service rates, etc.) must also be identified. 3. If loaded labor rates are utilized, a description of the costs the loaded rate is comprised of must be included in the Additional Explanation section below. DOE must review all components of the loaded labor rate for reasonableness and unallowable costs (e.g. fee or profit). 4. If a position and hours are attributed to multiple employees (e.g. Technician working 4000 hours) the number of employees for that position title must be identified. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. SOPO Task #Rate BasisProject Total Dollars Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 a. Personnel Project Total Hours Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Detailed Budget Justification Labor Type Total Project Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total Personnel Costs Rate Total EXAMPLE!!! Sr. Engineer $170,000 20%$34,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $10,000 20%$2,000 $38,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Total:$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Detailed Budget Justification b. Fringe Benefits Additional Explanation (as necessary): Please use this box (or an attachment) to list the elements that comprise your fringe benefits and how they are applied to your base (e.g. Personnel) to arrive at your fringe benefit rate. INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below by position title. If all employees receive the same fringe benefits, you can show "Total Personnel" in the Labor Type column instead of listing out all position titles. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one fringe cost percentage. Complex calculations should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. 3. The fringe benefit rates should be applied to all positions, regardless of whether those funds will be supported by Federal Share or Recipient Cost Share. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. ______ A fringe benefit rate has been negotiated with, or approved by, a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is/was included with the project application.* ______ There is not a current federally approved rate agreement negotiated and available.** *Unless the organization has submitted an indirect rate proposal which encompasses the fringe pool of costs, please provide the organization’s benefit package and/or a list of the components/elements that comprise the fringe pool and the cost or percentage of each component/element allocated to the labor costs identified in the Budget Justification (Form EERE 335.1). **When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided in the Sample Rate Proposal at https://www.energy.gov/eere/funding/downloads/sample-indirect-rate-proposal-and-profit-compliance-audit , or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in the performance of the proposed project. A federally approved fringe benefit rate agreement, or a proposed rate supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes is required at the time of award negotiation if reimbursement for fringe benefits is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if not previously submitted. Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Purpose of Travel Depart From Destination No. of Days No. of Travelers Lodging per Traveler Flight per Traveler Vehicle per Traveler Per Diem Per Traveler Cost per Trip Basis for Estimating Costs Domestic Travel 1 EXAMPLE!!! Visit to PV manufacturer 2 2 $250 $500 $100 $160 $2,020 Current GSA rates 1 and 2 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 1 and 2 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 1 and 2 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 1 and 2 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 1 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel 3 and 4 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 3 and 4 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 3 and 4 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 3 and 4 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 2 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel 5 and 6 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 5 and 6 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 5 and 6 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 5 and 6 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 3 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel 7 and 8 In-State Trips - Northern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Northern Alaska 2 40 $250 $1,100 $100 $58,000 Previous experience 7 and 8 In-State Trips - Southern Sites 10 trips per year; 2 people per trip. Anchorage Southern Alaska 2 40 $250 $500 $100 $34,000 Previous experience 7 and 8 Out of State Trips - 2 per year WA - DC Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $500 $12,000 Previous experience 7 and 8 Out of State Conference / Transmission Training Anchorage Out of State 5 2 $1,000 $1,500 $400 $500 $13,600 Previous experience International Travel $0 Budget Period 4 Total $117,600 Domestic Travel $0 $0 $0 $0 International Travel $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 PROJECT TOTAL $470,400 INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Identify Foreign and Domestic Travel as separate items. Examples of Purpose of Travel are subrecipient site visits, DOE meetings, project mgmt. meetings, etc. Examples of Basis for Estimating Costs are past trips, travel quotes, GSA rates, etc. 2. All listed travel must be necessary for performance of the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Only travel that is directly associated with this award should be included as a direct travel cost to the award. 4. Federal travel regulations are contained within the applicable cost principles for all entity types. 5. Travel costs should remain consistent with travel costs incurred by an organization during normal business operations as a result of the organizations written travel policy. In absence of a written travel policy, organizations must follow the regulations prescribed by the General Services Administration. 6. Columns E, F, G, H, I, J, and K are per trip. 7. The number of days is inclusive of the day of departure and the day of return. 8. Recipients should enter City and State (or City and Country for International travel) in the Depart from and Destination fields. 9. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): c. Travel Detailed Budget Justification Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #Equipment Item Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3,4,5 EXAMPLE!!! Thermal shock chamber 2 $70,000 $140,000 Vendor Quote - Attached Reliability testing of PV modules- Task 4.3 1,2 Office set-up 10 $10,000 $100,000 Previous experience 10 new staff office set-up $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL EQUIPMENT $100,000 d. Equipment Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Equipment is generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost greater than $5,000 and a useful life expectancy of more than one year. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific equipment definitions and treatment. 2. List all equipment below, providing a basis of cost (e.g. contractor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify items as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. If it is existing equipment, provide logical support for the estimated value shown. 3. During award negotiations, provide a contractor quote for all equipment items over $50,000 in price. If the contractor quote is not an exact price match, provide an explanation in the additional explanation section below. If a contractor quote is not practical, such as for a piece of equipment that is purpose-built, first of its kind, or otherwise not available off the shelf, provide a detailed engineering estimate for how the cost estimate was derived. 4. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task #General Category of Supplies Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 4,6 EXAMPLE!!! Wireless DAS components 10 $360.00 $3,600 Catalog price For Alpha prototype - Task 2.4 1,2 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 1 Total $80,000 3,4 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 2 Total $80,000 5,6 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 3 Total $80,000 7,8 Misc. Supplies 40 $2,000.00 $80,000 Previous experience 20 staff members - $2,000/pp per year $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 4 Total $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL SUPPLIES $320,000 Detailed Budget Justification INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Supplies are generally defined as an item with an acquisition cost of $5,000 or less and a useful life expectancy of less than one year. Supplies are generally consumed during the project performance. Please refer to the applicable Federal regulations in 2 CFR 200 for specific supplies definitions and treatment. 2. List all proposed supplies below, providing a basis of costs (e.g. contractor quotes, catalog prices, prior invoices, etc.). Briefly justify the need for the Supplies as they apply to the Statement of Project Objectives. Note that Supply items must be direct costs to the project at this budget category, and not duplicative of supply costs included in the indirect pool that is the basis of the indirect rate applied for this project. 3. Multiple supply items valued at $5,000 or less used to assemble an equipment item with a value greater than $5,000 with a useful life of more than one year should be included on the equipment tab. If supply items and costs are ambiguous in nature, contact your DOE representative for proper categorization. 4. Add rows as needed. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 e. Supplies Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 SOPO Task # Sub-Recipient Name/Organization Sub-Recipient Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 2,4 EXAMPLE!!! XYZ Corp.Partner to develop optimal lens for Gen 2 product. Cost estimate based on personnel hours. $48,000 $32,000 $16,000 $96,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total 6 Contractor for developing robotics to perform lens inspection. Estimate provided by contractor. $32,900 $86,500 $119,400 1 thru 8 State of Alaska or competitive bid $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $0 $1,600,000 1 thru 8 Competitive bid $42,059 $42,059 $42,059 $42,059 $168,237 2,3,4 Competitive bid $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $400,000 2 thru 8 Competitive bid $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,600,000 2,3,4 Lands Consultant Competitive bid $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $1,600,000 2 thru 7 Labor/Governmental Consulting Competitive bid $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $225,000 $900,000 1 thru 8 Project Coordination Committee Competitive bid $600,000 $600,000 $60,000 $600,000 $1,860,000 1 thru 8 Contractor Federal Project Reporting Competitive bid $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $600,000 2 thru 7 Contractor Projects Competitive bid $199,500,000 $199,500,000 $199,500,000 $199,500,000 $0 $798,000,000 2 thru 8 Accounting & Auditing Services Competitive bid $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $600,000 4,5 Insurance Consultant Competitive bid $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $130,000 4,5 Competitive bid $200,000 $200,000 $30,000 $0 $430,000 Sub-total $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 SOPO Task #Purpose and Basis of Cost Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Project Total $0 $0 Sub-total $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237Total Contractual Detailed Budget Justification f. Contractual INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. The entity completing this form must provide all costs related to sub-recipients, contractors, and FFRDC partners in the applicable boxes below. 2. Sub-recipients (partners, sub-awardees): Subrecipients shall submit a Budget Justification describing all project costs and calculations when their total proposed budget exceeds either (1) $100,000 or (2) 25% of total award costs. These sub-recipient forms may be completed by either the sub-recipients themselves or by the preparer of this form. The budget totals on the sub-recipient's forms must match the sub-recipient entries below. A subrecipient is a legal entity to which a subaward is made, who has performance measured against whether the objectives of the Federal program are met, is responsible for programmatic decision making, must adhere to applicable Federal program compliance requirements, and uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs. contractor status. 3. Contractors: List all contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Contractor cost with total project costs of $100,000 or more, a Contractor quote must be provided. A contractor is a legal entity contracted to provide goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, operates in a competitive environment, provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program, and is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program. All characteristics may not be present and judgment must be used to determine subrecipient vs.contractor status. 4. Federal Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs): FFRDCs must submit a signed Field Work Proposal during award application. The award recipient may allow the FFRDC to provide this information directly to DOE, however project costs must also be provided below. 5. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Additional Explanation (as needed): Contractor Name/Organization EXAMPLE!!! ABC Corp. Legal Services Public Relations Firm Cultural Consultation Design & Engineering Consultant NEPA Consultant FFRDC Name/Organization SOPO Task #General Description Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 3 EXAMPLE ONLY!!! Three days of excavation for platform site $28,000 Engineering estimate Site must be prepared for construction of platform. Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $0 Detailed Budget Justification g. Construction PLEASE READ!!! 1. Construction, for the purpose of budgeting, is defined as all types of work done on a particular building, including erecting, altering, or remodeling. Construction conducted by the award recipient is entered on this page. Any construction work that is performed by a contractor or subrecipient should be entered under f. Contractual. 2. List all proposed construction below, providing a basis of cost such as engineering estimates, prior construction, etc., and briefly justify its need as it applies to the Statement of Project Objectives. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Overall description of construction activities: Example Only!!! - Build wind turbine platform Additional Explanation (as needed): Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 SOPO Task #General Description and SOPO Task # Cost Basis of Cost Justification of need 5 EXAMPLE!!! Grad student tuition - tasks 1-3 $16,000 Established UCD costs Support of graduate students working on project Budget Period 1 Total $0 Budget Period 2 Total $0 Budget Period 3 Total $0 Budget Period 4 Total $0 Budget Period 5 Total $0 TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS $0 Detailed Budget Justification h. Other Direct Costs Additional Explanation (as needed): INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Other direct costs are direct cost items required for the project which do not fit clearly into other categories. These direct costs must not be included in the indirect costs (for which the indirect rate is being applied for this project). Examples are: tuition, printing costs, etc. which can be directly charged to the project and are not duplicated in indirect costs (overhead costs). 2. Basis of cost are items such as vendor quotes, prior purchases of similar or like items, published price list, etc. 3. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Budget Period 1 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Provide ONLY Applicable Rates: Overhead Rate 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% General & Administrative (G&A)0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% FCCM Rate, if applicable 0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00% OTHER Indirect Rate 25.00%25.00%25.00%25.00%0.00% Indirect Costs (As Applicable): Overhead Costs $812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 G&A Costs $0 FCCM Costs, if applicable $0 OTHER Indirect Costs $0 Total indirect costs requested:$812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 i. Indirect Costs INSTRUCTIONS - PLEASE READ!!! 1. Fill out the table below to indicate how your indirect costs are calculated. Use the box below to provide additional explanation regarding your indirect rate calculation. 2. The rates and how they are applied should not be averaged to get one indirect cost percentage. Complex calculations or rates that do not do not correspond to the below categories should be described/provided in the Additional Explanation section below. If questions exist, consult with your DOE contact before filling out this section. 3. The indirect rate should be applied to both the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share. 4. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim resulting cost as a Cost Share contribution, nor can the Recipient claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution . Neither of these costs can be reflected as actual indirect cost rates realized by the orgnaization, and therefore are not verifiable in the Recipient records as required by Federal Regulation (200.306(b)(1)) 5.. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Explanation of BASE AEA is in the process of developing an indirect cost allocation plan (ICAP) and is working with independent contractor to develop a cost model to track and allocate indirect costs for federal cost recovery. AEA will seek approval of the ICAP by their cognizant agency as required. AEA understands that this process will take up to two years for development of the ICAP and the required approval. Currently, AEA utilized the 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f). AEA fully expects to have an approved ICAP and indirect cost rate by July 1, 2025 and therefore, for budgetary purposes only, AEA has used an estimated rate of 25%. AEA will only request reimbursement based on the 10% de minimis rate or an approved indirect cost rate. Detailed Budget Justification You must provide an explanation (below or in a separate attachment) and show how your indirect cost rate was applied to this budget in order to come up with the indirect costs shown. A federally approved indirect rate agreement, or rate proposed (supported and agreed upon by DOE for estimating purposes) is required if reimbursement of indirect costs is requested. Please check (X) one of the options below and provide the requested information if it has not already been provided as requested, or has changed. Example: Labor + Fringe ______ An indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency. A copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project. __X____ The organization does not have a current, federally approved indirect cost rate agreement and has provided an indirect rate proposal in support of the proposed costs. __X____ This organization has elected to apply a 10% de minimis rate in accordance with 2 CFR 200.414(f). Organization/Source Type (Cash or In Kind) Cost Share Item Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 Total Project Cost Share ABC Company EXAMPLE!!! Cash Project partner ABC Company will provide 20 PV modules for product development at the price of $680 per module $13,600 $13,600 State of Alaska 413000000 Subject to legislative approval, the state of Alaska will invest in this project $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $413,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL COST SHARE $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $103,250,000 $0 $413,000,000 $826,000,000 50.0% Additional Explanation (as needed): Cost Share Detailed Budget Justification PLEASE READ!!! 1. A detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed must be provided in the table below. All items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table below. Identify the source organization & amount of each cost share item proposed in the award. 2. Cash Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) for costs incurred and paid for during the project. This includes when an organization pays for personnel, supplies, equipment, etc. for their own company with organizational resources. If the item or service is reimbursed for, it is cash cost share. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. Contractors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 3. In Kind Cost Share - encompasses all contributions to the project made by the recipient, subrecipient, or third party (an entity that does not have a role in performing the scope of work) where a value of the contribution can be readily determined, verified and justified but where no actual cash is transacted in securing the good or service comprising the contribution. In Kind cost share items include volunteer personnel hours, the donation of space or use of equipment, etc. The cash value and calculations thereof for all In Kind cost share items must be justified and explained in the Cost Share Item section below. All cost share items must be necessary to the performance of the project. If questions exist, consult your DOE contact before filling out In Kind cost share in this section. Contractors may not provide cost share. Any partial donation of goods or services is considered a discount and is not allowable. 4. Funds from other Federal sources MAY NOT be counted as cost share. This prohibition includes FFRDC sub-recipients. Non-Federal sources include any source not originally derived from Federal funds. Cost sharing commitment letters from subrecipients and third parties must be provided with the original application. 5. Fee or profit, including foregone fee or profit, are not allowable as project costs (including cost share) under any resulting award. The project may only incur those costs that are allowable and allocable to the project (including cost share) as determined in accordance with the applicable cost principles prescribed in FAR Part 31 for For-Profit entities and 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E - Cost Principles for all other non-federal entities. 6. NOTE: A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim the resulting indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution. 7. NOTE: A Recipient cannot claim "unrecovered indirect costs" as a Cost Share contribution, without prior approval. 8. Each budget period is rounded to the nearest dollar. Cost Share Percent of Award:Total Project Cost: Award Number: Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f)(g) 1.Budget Period 1 $103,376,300 $103,250,000 $206,626,300 2.Budget Period 2 $103,348,768 $103,250,000 $206,598,768 3.Budget Period 3 $102,801,234 $103,250,000 $206,051,234 4.Budget Period 4 $103,473,699 $103,250,000 $206,723,699 5.Budget Period 5 $0 $0 $0 6.Totals $413,000,000 $413,000,000 $826,000,001 Budget Period 1 Budget Period 2 Budget Period 3 Budget Period 4 Budget Period 5 $3,249,314 $3,379,287 $3,509,259 $3,639,232 $0 $13,777,092 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $117,600 $0 $470,400 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $0 $320,000 $202,267,059 $202,177,059 $201,467,059 $201,977,059 $0 $807,888,237 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $205,813,974 $205,753,946 $205,173,919 $205,813,891 $0 $822,555,729 $812,326 $844,822 $877,315 $909,808 $0 $3,444,271 $206,626,300 $206,598,768 $206,051,234 $206,723,699 $0 $826,000,000 7.$0 SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Section B - Budget Categories Applicant Name:0 0 Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 Section A - Budget Summary Grant Program Function or Activity Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Estimated Unobligated Funds New or Revised Budget h. Other 6.Object Class Categories Grant Program, Function or Activity Total (5) a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment e. Supplies f. Contractual g. Construction Authorized for Local Reproduction i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Previous Edition Usable Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Abstract The Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) is a crucial initiative aimed at building a resilient, clean, smart, and affordable electrical grid in Alaska. The project involves constructing new transmission lines, providing a looped transmission feed to the DOD ground-based missile defense facility at Fort Greeley, interconnecting the Copper Valley Electric Association with the Railbelt grid, and incorporating Battery Energy Storage (BESS) and a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine cable installed in a challenging marine environment. One of the primary objectives of the RIR is to address various challenges facing the electrical grid in the three Railbelt regions of Alaska. These challenges include decreasing system frequency regulation, slowing frequency response to disturbances, and increasing natural frequency power oscillations. To overcome these challenges, the project emphasizes the need for BESS and a new transmission line between the Northern, Central, and Southern regions of the Railbelt system. Not only will these projects solve the challenges above they will increase interregional transfer capacity, fuel supply diversity, interregional resilience and reliability, lower carbon emissions, reduce costs, and incentivize the introduction additional private sector clean energy projects into the Railbelt. Finally, they will allow for unconstrained interregional capacity planning and operation. The RIR work plan involves four phases, each with its own set of objectives and steps involved in construction, including permitting, routing, right-of-way access, and material delivery. The technical aspects of structure placement, soil conditions, foundation, and anchor design, as well as the switching and protection schemes required for the project, are also discussed. The RIR is a unique partnership between relevant decision makers in the Railbelt, including the State of Alaska, Railbelt Electric Cooperatives, Railbelt municipal utility, utility regulator, and labor unions. The project will incentivize wise transmission investment through innovative rate-making techniques. Furthermore, it will have a direct positive impact on tribal and disadvantaged communities within the Railbelt and rural Power Cost Equalization communities. Federal grant funding is critical to the success of the project. Without the significant rate increases that would negatively affect all ratepayers and would disproportionately affect disadvantaged and underserved communities, the investment required for this project exceeds the abilities of the Railbelt utilities, private sector, and the State. REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Prime Applicant: Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Project Title: Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Total Project Costs $826 M Federal Share $413 M Match $413 M Executive Director Principal Investigator •Curtis Thayer •Bryan Carey Key Personnel •William Price •Clay Christian •Mark Ziesmer •Karin St. Clair Key Partners •Chugach Electric Association, Inc. •Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. •Homer Electric Association, Inc. •Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. •The City of Seward, Alaska dba Seward Electric System •Regulatory Commission of Alaska Proposed Project Duration •96 months REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR-The Project) aims to build a resilient, clean, smart, and low-cost electrical grid in Alaska. •The Project is part of the Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan to build a fuel-diverse, low-carbon economy in the Alaskan Railbelt. •The Project involves building new transmission lines, looped transmission feed to Fort Greeley, interconnecting Copper Valley Electric Association, and incorporating BESS and HVDC submarine cable. •BESS installations are needed to address challenges in the electrical grid such as decreasing system frequency regulation, slow frequency response to disturbances, and increasing natural frequency power oscillations. •New transmission is needed to allow for renewable resource development and eliminate constraints on renewable energy development in the Railbelt. •Objectives of the RIR and GMRP include increasing interregional transfer capability, resiliency, reliability, and reducing carbon emissions. •Unique partnership between all relevant decision-makers in the Railbelt includes the State of Alaska, Railbelt Electric Cooperatives, Railbelt municipal utility, utility regulator, and labor unions. •The Team has decades of experience in transmission line construction and operations including HV AC submarine cables, BESS installations, and power electronics like those used in HVDC-Ac converters. •The project will incentivize wise transmission investment through innovative rate-making techniques. •Federal grant funding is critical to the project's success as the investment required exceeds the abilities of the Railbelt utilities and the State, in the absence of significant rate increases that would disproportionately affect the disadvantaged and underserved. •The Project has significant community benefit to underserved, disadvantaged, and tribal communities throughout the Railbelt and to all Alaska through the Power Cost Equalization fund. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) U.S. Department of Energy DE-FOA-0002740 Community Benefits Plan : Job Quality and Equity The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, completed in 1991, brought together the State of Alaska (dba Alaska Energy Authority) and six of the Railbelt’s utility providers: 1) Chugach Electric Association, 2) Golden Valley Electric Association, 3) Homer Electric Association, 4) Matanuska Electric Association, 5) Seward Electric System, and 6) Municipal Light and Power1. The first four are member-owned cooperatives; Seward Electric System is owned and operated by City of Seward. Anchorage’s Municipal Light and Power was subsequently acquired by Chugach Electric Association. Together they provide approximately 80% of Alaska’s electricity.2 The State and these utilities have developed an efficient partnership through management and operation of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. Acting jointly, they assembled a project team (the Team) and have drafted a Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP), which seeks to update Alaska’s outdated grid infrastructure in order to unconstrain the Bradley Lake project (the Project), improve the resiliency of power delivery from the Project and throughout the grid, reduce carbon emissions, ease the entry barriers to other clean power projects, and lighten the energy burden for three quarters of Alaska’s population. Included in GMRP is the Railbelt Innovation Resiliency (RIR) project—the subject of this application. In this funding cycle, the RIR seeks to construct an interregional transmission line (including a high voltage direct current submarine cable) parallel to the line that currently ties together the Railbelt’s Southern and Central regions, an interregional transmission line parallel to the line that currently ties the Central and Northern regions together, as well as two Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). In a future funding cycle, the RIR includes a transmission line from the Central region to the Copper Valley system, and on to the Ground Based Missile Defense System at Fort Greely in the Northern region. RIR is coordinated with, but distinct from, the Team’s requests in GRIP Topic Areas 1 and 2. The group’s GRIP Topic Area 1 proposal seeks to reconstruct the existing transmission system backbone, while our Topic Area 2 proposal seeks to design and procure the interregional battery-HVDC control and monitoring system. Given the interconnectedness of these three projects (which, taken together, compose the GMRP), community vetting for all three projects will be completed through a single coordinated public outreach effort as outlined below. 1. Community and Labor Engagement The Team recognizes that broad support for GMRP is necessary for successful project implementation. An effective public participation process draws on diverse perspectives from a broad cross-section of stakeholders. The Team looks forward to incorporating this public knowledge into both GMRP and RIR. The five utilities will form hubs for this process, since their properties will host many of the physical improvements and they already possess open communication channels with relevant stakeholders. Hiring a contractor to complete the GMRP 1 In 2020, Chugach Electric acquired Municipal Light and Power 2Alaska’s Energy Infrastructure | REAP (https://alaskarenewableenergy.org/ppf/alaskas-energy-infrastructure) 2 public participation plan is anticipated to cost $120,000. This cost is included in the project budget. GMRP Public Participation Plan Phase 1: Draft GMRP Public Participation Plan (1st and 2nd quarter 2024). Assuming we are selected for federal financial assistance and matching funds are in place, the Team intends to complete the following deliverables by 3rd quarter 20243: 1. 1. Define purpose and goals of GMRP public participation plan. 2. 2. Select the team members to manage the GMRP public participation plan. 3. 3. Select consulting firm to assist with GMRP public participation plan. 4. 4. Select environmental consultant to complete EIS for underwater HVDC submarine cable portion of RIR and field related stakeholder questions/input. 5. 5. Identify stakeholder groups affected by GMRP. 6. Draft stakeholder engagement strategies and outreach media. Include strategies designed to ensure participation from minority groups and disadvantaged communities affected by project. 7. Draft sample graphics and key messages. A focus group will be used to test the effectiveness of these materials on diverse populations. 8. Draft SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Accessibility) goals, including potential support for creation of minority business enterprises in disadvantaged communities; and SMART commitments to workers, stakeholders, and those vulnerable to project activities, including a commitment that work performed with GRIP funding will be done in compliance with Alaska public contracting law. 9. Finalize public participation plan schedule. 10. Launch GMRP website with public meeting schedule, GMRP description, and public comment section. This website will remain live until at least January 2031. Phase 2: Implement GMRP Public Participation Plan (2nd quarter 2024). The Alaska Energy Authority, representing the State of Alaska, is the lead applicant for this project. They are accustomed to engaging with local governments and tribal entities regarding permitting and regulatory processes for capital projects. Under the GMRP public participation plan, these conversations will begin early to inform project development in response to local communities’ needs and concerns. The Team believes that local governments and tribal entities are uniquely situated to identify actions the project can take to advance progressive workforce, DEIA, and environmental justice outcomes at the community level. Certain local meeting series may be accelerated as needed to allow time for sufficient public participation in individual projects represented in GMRP (such as RIR) that may be ready for construction as early as spring 2024. 3 All dates are subject to revision based on grant award date and the timing of successful obtainment of matching funds. 3 AEA will work closely with each utility provider to determine the appropriate time and setting for each community visit, taking care to avoid conflicts with other events. When possible, the AEA will use existing community events and meetings to gather input. The core team will devote special attention to ensuring diverse demographic participation at all meetings, including hosting all meetings outside of working hours. Task 1: Introductory Work Sessions (2nd or 3rd quarter 2024). Each of the five utility providers will host an introductory public work session. These work sessions will be advertised at least two weeks in advance via social media, public postings, utility cooperative mailers, text messages, and the GMRP website. Topics will include: Task 2: Data Collection and Materials Refinement (2nd or 3rd quarter 2024) A series of core team meetings will be held to refine the GMRP public participation plan in light of feedback gathered during initial work sessions. At this point, deadlines and core team leads will be decided for the following deliverables: 1. Conduct data collection and research as needed (including surveys) to address data gaps identified by the public. Surveys will be distributed electronically or made available at key community locations. We would not expect to get a statistically valid sample of the entire Railbelt population but enough feedback to assess community perspectives from a cross-section of stakeholders. 1. Review the GMRP: Communicate what it encompasses, costs, and its projected timeline and potential impacts; Identify stakeholders affected and their various value propositions; Provide extra detail about projects in GMRP that are shovel ready such as segments of RIR included in this GRIP application. 2. Communicate how the public can learn more, track project progress, and how their feedback will be used. 3. Share success stories as well as lessons learned from other electrical infrastructure upgrades conducted on the Railbelt. 4. Discuss structure of the Team and the roles and responsibilities of the six parties that constitute it. 5. Discuss metrics that will be used to measure the success of GMRP implementation. 6. Share proposed list of community organizations with whom the Team will conduct one-on-one outreach meetings, with an emphasis on organizations that serve disadvantaged populations. Solicit suggestions for additional organizations. 7. Present and solicit feedback on SMART DEIA goals, including support for creation of minority business enterprises in disadvantaged communities, and SMART commitments to workers, stakeholders, and those vulnerable to project activities, as developed during Phase 1. 8. Identify areas where stakeholders wish to have more data or information via questions like: “What should the Team consider that we haven't covered today?” “What information would you like to see at a future meeting?” “What additional questions do you have?” 9. Query and catalog any public concerns regarding the project. 4 2. Develop ArcGIS Online mapping tool for GMRP website. By hosting an interactive map of the project, the Team can solicit public comments that are geocoded by location, allowing identification of site-specific issues, needs, and themes. 3. Minutes from introductory work sessions as well as public comments from GMRP website coalesced to capture key themes and messages and posted to website. 4. Finalize: List of organizations with which to conduct one-on-one work sessions; SMART DEIA goals; SMART commitments. As part of this task, the core team will continue to utilize various stakeholder engagement tools to share project information, promote opportunities to get involved, and invite public input. Task 3: One-on-One Organizational Work Sessions and “Going to the People” (no later than 1st quarter 2025) Task 4: Public Feedback Sharing (3rdquarter 2024) 4 Asterisked organizations are those with whom preliminary contact about GMRP ha s already been made. 1. Work sessions with relevant organizations will be conducted. Early engagement with these groups will guide GMRP revisions and establish constructive relationships, as many of these groups will be critical partners throughout GMRP implementation. Discussion topics to include: environmental impacts (particularly around HVDC submarine cable included in RIR), viewshed impacts, subsistence impacts, state and federal land management, Power Cost Equalization, workforce development (including apprenticeships), support for minority business enterprises, DEIA recruitment, DEIA workplace policies, and state legislation. These meetings will follow the same template as the intro public work sessions (Task 1), communicating an overview of GMRP and inviting organizations to provide feedback. Minutes will be recorded. Examples of relevant organizations and Minority Serving Institutions with whom meetings will be sought include: Alaska Federation of Natives, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative*, University of Alaska, Alaska Pacific University, Alaska Black Caucus*, RurAL CAP, Alaska Municipal League*, IBEW Local 1547*, IUOE Local 302*, Alaska State Office of Veterans Affairs, Alaska Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association*, Alaska Operating Engineers Training Trust*, Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship & Training Trust*, Railbelt Tribal councils, and Railbelt City Councils.4 A. In addition to NEPA Process requirements, meetings will be sought with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Kenaitze and Knik Tribal Councils to discuss best practices to minimize environmental impacts from the placing of a submarine HVDC cable through Cook Inlet, which is home to an endangered population of Beluga whales. 2. Additional outreach will be conducted at existing meetings in each project area, such as: Tribal Council meetings, City Council meetings, and Chamber of Commerce lunches. Outreach will also be conducted in more informal settings in an attempt to recruit a more diverse group of stakeholders. The Team refers to this process as “G2P” or “Going to the People”. Examples of events suitable for G2P include: Alaska Federation of Natives Convention, Alaska Black Caucus Sunday night Zoom meetings, Alaska State Fair, community farmers’ markets, Juneteenth programming, Alaska Federation of Filipino Americans programming, Sportsman shows, music festivals, and more. 5 A second round of public meetings will be hosted by the five utilities as well as Alaska Energy Authority. Topics will include: Task 5: Internal GMRP Finalization (3rd quarter 2024) The Team will meet to discuss the Public Feedback Sharing and assign task leads for the following deliverables: Task 6: Board/Leadership Presentations (4th quarter 2024) 2. Investing in the American Workforce Alaska’s Economy Relies on the Railbelt RIR and GMRP will provide significant secondary benefits to most sectors of Alaska’s economy. In addition to serving as home to three quarters of Alaska’s population, the Railbelt, and 1. Recap GMRP purpose, goals, and timeline. 2. Themes and key takeaways from introductory work sessions, one-on-one org meetings, G2P events, and survey results. 3. Share SMART DEIA goal revisions and SMART commitments revisions. 4. Have stations set up around different topics: Participants can walk from station to station to learn about different elements of the project such as submarine HVDC cable, timeline, DEIA goals, labor commitments, environmental impacts, employment opportunities, homeowner impacts, and ask questions of project staff about the areas they are most interested in. 5. Demonstration and launch of ArcGIS mapping tool on GMRP website. 6. Request for additional feedback or concerns not captured thus far. 7. Minutes from this meeting will be posted to GMRP website. 1. GMRP final draft with incorporated stakeholder feedback. 2. Final draft of SMART DEIA goals and SMART commitments. 1. Final draft GMRP, SMART DEIA goals, and SMART commitments presented to each utility board and AEA leadership by the Team. Requested changes catalogued in detail. 2. Core Team meetings to incorporate requested changes from utility boards and AEA leadership. If funded through this application, these changes will be considered only whe re doing so allows GMRP to remain in compliance with Department of Energy Grid Deployment Office DE -FOA-0002740 job equality and equity, community and labor engagement, quality jobs, and DEIA requirements. 3. Revised final draft GMRP, SMART DEIA goals, and SMART commitments (including commitment to comply with State of Alaska public contracting law) presented to each board and AEA leadership. Presentations to focus on requested changes from previous meeting, and whether those changes were implemented. Each board will be asked to ratify these documents. If they do not approve the revised final drafts, a second round of edits and board presentations will be scheduled. 4. The board-ratified GMRP, SMART DEIA goals, and SMART commitments will be posted to the GMRP website. Outreach media—including emails to those who attended the previous two public meetings—will direct the public to these finalized documents. 6 particularly Anchorage, is the economic heart of Alaska, shunting labor, supplies, and goods to and from all corners of the state. While a quantitative analysis of the impact of the Railbelt on Alaska’s state economy lies outside the scope of this Community Benefits Plan, the magnitude of its import can be illustrated through a quick overview of the Port of Alaska, a potential beneficiary of this project as a customer of Chugach Electric Association: The Port of Alaska, located in Anchorage, is a federally designated Strategic Seaport, and serves 90% of Alaska’s population. It receives 50% of all freight shipped into Alaska by all modes (marine, truck, and air), and supports $14 billion of commercial activity in Alaska.5 74% of all waterborne freight and ninety-five percent of refined petroleum products entering the state are shipped through the Port of Alaska. This includes 100 % of the jet fuel supplied to Joint Base Elmendorf- Richardson and 66 % of the jet fuel for Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport6, which is, as of April 2022, the third busiest cargo airport in the world.7 Despite its importance to the statewide economy, the Port of Alaska, like the rest of the Railbelt, is served by inadequate electrical infrastructure. Tony Izzo, general manager of Matanuska Electrical Authority, said: “We have one of the most fragile systems in the United States. I don’t refer to the Alaska Railbelt as first-world, because it’s not.”8 Unlike the contiguous forty-eight states, Alaska has received minimal federal investment in grid development. The Eklutna Hydroelectric Project, constructed in the 1950s, was the last major federal project in the Railbelt that included a transmission line component; RIR would change that. Employment at Chugach Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, and Seward Electric System More granularly, investment in RIR and GMRP will retain high-quality jobs with employer sponsored benefits at all five Railbelt utilities by creating new infrastructure that will require operation and maintenance for the next 25 years, as well as prepare the Railbelt grid for the development of low carbon energy infrastructure projects. Approximately 650 of the 1,100 total employees who work at these five utilities belong to labor unions.9 In addition, virtually all of the contractors that support the utilities are signatory to collective bargaining agreements. Alaska is not a Right to Work state; utility employees whose positions are covered by bargaining unit agreements are required to join unions consistent with those agreements. These are highly skilled and highly paid positions: the average wage of a journeyman lineman at these utilities ranges from $54.40 to $58.00 an hour. The utilities sponsor the following benefits: medical, dental, vision, life insurance, defined contribution retirement plans, 401(k), pension, short -term disability, long/short-term disability, tuition reimbursement, paid time off, and paid holidays. The 659 unionized workers these utilities employ suggests they possess access to sufficient supplies 5 Port of Alaska in Anchorage, The Logistical and Economic Advantages of Alaska's Primary Inbound Port, McDowell Group, October 2020. 6 Ten Year Tonnage Summary | Port of Alaska in Anchorage 7 Alaska Business Monthly, 04/13/23, "ANC Ranks 3rd in the World for Air Cargo" 8 Anchorage Daily News, 03/12/23, "Railbelt utilities again scramble to fill expected Cook Inlet gas shortages" 9 Email correspondence with Reagan M. Russel (see footnote 12); Justin Patterson (see footnote 13); phone correspondence with Charlene Flyum, (907)235-3369, Human Resources, Homer Electric Association, Friday, March 10, 2023 9:26 AM; Candice Strandberg, Human Resources, Chugach Electric Association, (907)762-4788, Friday, March 10, 2023, 9:16 AM; and Rob Montgomery, General Manager, Seward Electric System, (907)224-4073, Wednesday, March 8, 2023, 3:10 PM. 7 of skilled labor, while their longstanding track records of providing power to Alaska residents in remote and difficult environments demonstrates they are responsible employers. For perspective, each of these utilities is significantly older than the State of Alaska (which achieved statehood in 1959). Their years of founding are CEA: 1948; GVEA: 1947; HEA: 1945; MEA: 1941; and SES: 1921.10 Importantly, the Team includes the State of Alaska dba Alaska Energy Authority. With State support affirmed in this way, the GMRP public participation plan anticipates no issues establishing partnerships with tribal entities, local governments, and other State of Alaska departments with the goal of matching progressive workforce solutions to project needs. The Team has long-term relationships with organized labor in Alaska. They have used project labor agreements in the past for projects of this scale, such as construction of the Alaska Intertie. Each of the utilities has collective bargaining agreements with IBEW, among other unions. As outlined in detail in the GMRP public participation plan (Section 1), The Team plans to engage its labor partners early to initiate discussions around labor agreements, local and targeted hiring goals, card-check neutrality, and programs to attract, train, and retain new workers. HR directors at these utilities confirmed that their organizations possess plans to minimize the risk of labor disputes via contracts with “appropriate grievance resolution stipulations”11 and a staffed position of “Labor Relations Program Manager”.12 Melinda Taylor, Communications Director at IBEW Local 1547, wrote: “We would generally consider our relationship with each utility to be positive. We work well with each of these utilities and understand that the success of our membership is tied to the success of each utility. Because we have separate collective bargaining agreements with each utility (some of these utilities have multiple CBAs), the applicable work rules and expectations are much clearer than if there were no CBA in place. For these reasons, we believe that the IBEW is well-positioned to maintain strong labor relations with our partner utilities throughout any Railbelt grid modernization and revitalization projects.”13 Work performed with GRIP funding will be done in compliance with Alaska public contracting law, which contains provisions for local hire, apprenticeship training, prevailing wages and other forward-looking policies. Alaska has a unique labor market that results in construction employees on projects of this scale being dispatched by organized labor and benefiting from registered apprenticeship programs represented by the Alaska Apprenticeship Training Coordinators Association (AATCA). AATCA, composed of 16 different construction trades, is a member of the Alaska Works Partnership, a non-profit organization focused solely on getting Alaskans into careers in the construction industry. Alaska Works is jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, and the North American Building Trades Unions. By 10 Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association Inc., Matanuska Electric Association, Inc., and phone call with Rob Montgomery, General Manager, Seward Electric System, (907)2 24- 4073, Wednesday, March 8, 2023, 3:10 PM 11 Email correspondence between Reagan M. Russell, RMRussel@gvea.com, Human Resources at Golden Valley Electric Association, and Clare Boersma, clareboersma@northerncompassgroup.com, Monday, March 6, 2023, 10:39 AM. 12 Email correspondence between Justin Patterson, justin.patterson@mea.coop, Human Resources at Matanuska Electric Association, and Clare Boersma, clareboersma@northerncompassgroup.com, Monday, March 9, 2023, 3:27 PM. 13 Email correspondence between Melinda Taylor, mtaylor@ibew1547.org, Communications Director IBEW 1547, and Clare Boersma, clareboersma@northerncompassgroup.com, Tuesday, March 7, 2023, 6:00 PM. 8 complying with Alaska public contracting law and engaging registered apprentices in this project, the Team is assured of accessing the resources brought to bear by the Alaska Works Partnership in support of local hire, veteran hire, and as diverse a workforce as Alaska has to offer. Tasks Related to Quality Jobs 3. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility (DEIA) It is a fundamental policy of all five Railbelt utilities and Alaska Energy Authority to assure equal opportunity in employment to all individuals regardless of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, age, genetic information, veteran status, or disability. Each utility provides reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees who need them because of a disability or to practice their religion. They maintain strict policies fostering safe, inclusive workplaces free of discrimination and harassment. Hiring practices and standard operating procedures comply with all Local, State, and Federal laws. Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, Homer Electric Association and Golden Valley Electric Association are federal contractors. The lone utility which is not—Seward Electric System—only has 10 employees. As federal contractors these utilities are subject to the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs’ requirements for hiring and adhering to an Affirmative Action Plan. Alaska offers significant opportunities to engage underserved populations, including Alaska Natives, Pacific Islanders, and veterans. The GMRP public participation plan is designed to identify workforce partnerships to encourage participation of these and similar communities in the project, including meetings with organizations representing DACs to discuss how GMRP can best utilize and support minority business enterprises (MBEs), focus groups including minority populations to test communication materials effectiveness, “Going to the People” public outreach that target events with diverse populations, and hosting all public meetings after work to reduce barriers to participation. The Team will measure DEIA goals against data collected by Team HR departments related to workforce (including contractors), veteran status, ethnicity, gender, and disability status. Finalized DEIA goals will be evaluated against this dataset. Potential programs to increase diversity among project beneficiaries include affirmative action, scholarships, and anti-bias trainings for hirers. The Team’s members support continued development of a skilled, inclusive local workforce via the IBEW-NECA Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust, individual utility training programs, and the University of Alaska System. Under Task 3 of the GMRP public participation plan, meetings will be held between the Team, the Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust (AJEATT) and other relevant local training trusts. These meetings will assess how the apprenticeship programs these organizations offer serve workers facing systematic barriers to employment, and how to reduce those barriers through GMRP implementation. Given assumptions of a 1-cent/kWh reduction in the cost of power, cumulative annual benefits from the project in the form of reduced energy burdens of $18,215,330 will flow to DACs or Tribal 1. The Team will conduct one-on-one work sessions with IBEW Local 1547 and other relevant labor organizations about GMRP and input their feedback into the finalized plan. 2. The Team will meet with tribal entities, local governments, and State of Alaska departments to implement progressive workforce-related solutions into GMRP. 9 lands. For more detail on these benefits, see Section 4: “Project Benefits for Disadvantaged Communities”. Tasks Related to DEIA 1. Host public meetings outside of working hours; test communication materials on minority populations for effectiveness; target diverse populations with “G2P” outreach. 2. Invite one-on-one organizational meetings with organizations representing DACs affected by project, including tribal councils, Alaska Black Caucus, and Alaska Federation of Natives. 3. Share and refine SMART DEIA goals during GMRP public participation plan, including support for MBEs. 4. Assess how AOEETT and AJEATT apprenticeship programs serve workers facing systematic barriers to employment; implement improvements. 5. Collect data on workforce veteran status, ethnicity, gender, and disability throughout GMRP implementation. 6. Use collected data to evaluate success of DEIA goals throughout GRIP performance period. 4. Justice40 Initiative AEA is a state entity with obligations to the public interest, while the utilities are member-owned cooperatives (one is municipal with responsibilities to the city’s residents). GMRP’s public participation plan is designed to encourage local governments and tribes to identify actions the project can take to advance environmental justice in their individual communities through this project. This includes directing benefits to DACs and minority owned businesses through labor agreements, training programs, and reduced long-term energy burdens and CO2 emissions. The most significant potential negative environmental impact caused by RIR would be from the submarine HVDC cable through Cook Inlet. Although Cook Inlet already hosts numerous subsea petroleum and natural gas pipelines and high voltage AC submarine cables, it is home to an endangered subspecies of Beluga whale. In addition to complying with all federal and state environmental permitting requirements, including marine mammal monitoring during construction, the Team will endeavor to convene a joint meeting with Alaska Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Kenaitze and Knik Tribal Councils (the governing bodies for the two Alaska Native Village Statistical Area s whose lands are adjacent to the intended path of the submarine cable through Cook Inlet) to discuss additional best practices for minimizing potential disruptions to this Beluga population. “America’s First Climate Refugees” Nowhere is climate change more visible--or occurring faster--than in the far north. Driven by a shift in popular sentiment, decarbonization policies and technological advancements are reshaping Alaska’s energy landscape. Uncertainty around Cook Inlet natural gas, which fuels approximately 70% of the Railbelt’s power, is a major challenge looming on the near-term horizon.14 The Alaska Department of Natural Resources forecasts there will be supply shortfalls of Cook Inlet gas starting around 2027; no alternative supply exists in-state.15 This economic 14 Alaska’s Energy Infrastructure | REAP (https://alaskarenewableenergy.org/ppf/alaskas-energy-infrastructure) 15 State of Alaska, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas 2022-cook-inlet-gas-forecast-report.pdf 10 reality exists alongside complex moral and social issues: a thawing arctic disproportionately affects Alaska Native communities. For instance, Newtok Village, located on the Ninglick River, and the Native Village of Napakiak, located on the Kuskokwim River, are both currently being relocated to higher ground with over $60 million of federal aid; they are considered “America’s first climate change refugees.”16 Rob Montgomery, General Manager of Seward Electrical System, writes: “The biggest obstacle Railbelt utilities face in putting more renewable or carbon-free energy on the grid is the limited capacity of existing transmission infrastructure. The Railbelt’s transmission system simply is not robust enough to move electricity in large capacities that would ultimately drive down costs.” RIR will increase transfer capacity between the three Railbelt regions, paving the way for development of increased hydro-electric power generation and other clean energy solutions. This will help mitigate environmental impacts from the 3,218 natural-gas-produced GWh on the Railbelt each year, resulting in 1.61 billion kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent.17 Additionally, RIR is projected to result in a 10-15% reduction in thermal spending due to decreased line losses and reduced reserves, and more efficient economic dispatch of generation units representing a non-cumulative decrease of over 200 million kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. Project Benefits for Disadvantaged Communities Decreased Energy Burdens This project is anticipated to provide significant benefits to Alaska’s DACs, both on and off the Railbelt. There are 22 census tracts that qualify as disadvantaged18 on the Railbelt, with a combined population of 81,921.19 There are a further 17 Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas (ANVSA) on the Railbelt20, with a combined population of 160,486. These communities will receive direct benefits from GMRP via reduction of their energy burdens. As mentioned, Railbelt engineers believe GMRP’s decreased line losses and reduced reserves, due to increased transfer capability and improved economic dispatch, will result in thermal spending reductions of 10- 15%.21 Because the utilities are member-owned, these savings will transfer directly to reduced consumer costs. The Railbelt’s 260,00022 residential utility accounts serve 623,916 individuals23, 242,407 of whom live in a DAC or Alaska Native Village Statistical Area. Roughly speaking, Railbelt engineers project that the GMRP’s overall fuel savings of 10-15% of fuel and variable operations and maintenance could result in a reduction of approximately 0.5 cents/kWh to 1.5 cents/kWh for users24. The combined Railbelt utilities sold 4,408 GWh (Gigawatt-Hours) in 202025, yielding a potential total 16 See: Alaska on the edge: Newtok's residents race to stop village falling into sea | The Guardian; Impossible Choice Faces America's First 'Climate Refugees' : NPR; Alaska’s Climate Refugees - The Atlantic 17 Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity Generated from Conventionally Produced Natural Gas - O'Donoughue - 2014 - Journal of Industrial Ecology - Wiley Online Library 18 DOE Disadvantaged Communities Reporter 19 American Community Survey 2021 5 Year Population Estimates 20 2020 U.S. Census, DOE Disadvantaged Communities Reporter 21 Brian Hickey, Project Lead, P.E., Brian.Hickey@mea.coop, Zoom, 8:00-8:30 am, March 1st, 2023. 22 Summed from: Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Chugach Electric Association Inc., Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 23 Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Research and Analysis Section. 24 Production costing studies can be run to validate the accuracy of these estimates. 25 U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2020 11 savings of $44,080,000 for a 1-cent per kWh cost reduction based on historical generation data. A significant portion of those annual savings realized should pass through to member-owners; as a percentage of population served, 39% of these savings will flow to those who live in a DAC or on Tribal Land. A unique feature of RIR as a component of the GMRP is that it will also have significant economic impacts outside of the Railbelt due to Alaska’s Power Cost Equalization program (PCE). The PCE program was established in 1985 to provide economic assistance to residents and community facilities in rural Alaska, where electricity rates can be two to five times higher than in more urban areas. PCE was devised at the same time that state funds were used to construct major energy projects for urban Alaska, such as the Four Dam Pool, Bradley Lake, and the Alaska Intertie. The primary beneficiaries of PCE are residential customers, who are eligible for subsidy of actual consumption up to 750 kWh (starting FY23; it has historically been 500 kWh). If a household uses more than 750 kWh of electricity in a given month, the amount used above 750 kWh is not subsidized. Community facilities are also eligible for actual consumption up to 70 kWh per month per community resident. Community facilities must be nonprofit organizations that do not receive the majority of their funding from state and federal sources. AEA administers the PCE program by making payments directly to individual utilities enrolled in the program. The PCE program is funded by earnings of the PCE Endowment Fund. Alaska Statute 42.45.085 provides that five percent of the PCE Endowment Fund’s three-year monthly average market value may be appropriated to the PCE Program. In recent years the 5% draw on the endowment has been sufficient to fully fund PCE payments. PCE is determined for a utility as 95% of eligible power costs above the “Average Class Rate” and below $1.00 per kWh. The Average Class Rate is derived from the average electricity cost in Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks (20.03¢/kWh for FY 2022). Eligible costs are fuel expenses including transportation, and non-fuel expenses such as salaries, insurance, taxes, parts, supplies, and interest. By decreasing (or incrementally reducing over the long-term) electricity rates in Anchorage and Fairbanks, GMRP will correspondingly decrease the Average Class Rate AEA uses to calculate PCE for rural utilities, consequently increasing the PCE credit for eligible communities and residents. In FY22 PCE served 188 communities, 15426 (82%) of whom qualify as DACs or Tribal lands. Approximately 108,914,53027 of PCE-eligible kWh were produced between residential and community facilities in those 154 DACs. AEA has estimated, based on the statutory PCE credit formula, that the increased credit amount that would be issued by AEA to PCE-enrolled communities is estimated to be $1,263,000, when applying a one-cent reduction in the average class rate. Actual savings would be less than this, since Juneau, which is outside the Railbelt, is included in the “Average Class Rate”, and their rates would not be affected by thermal spending reductions from GMRP. It should also be noted that PCE payments received by a particular utility are not uniformly distributed and will vary from year-to-year based on the utilities’ energy cost reporting. In sum: GMRP and RIR’s projected 1-cent/kWh reduction in energy costs for users is estimated at a potential $44,080,000 in reduced energy burdens for on -Railbelt electricity users, 39% of 26 https://www.energy.gov/diversity/justice40-initiative 27 FY22 PCE Community Report.pdf (akenergyauthority.org) 12 whom belong to DACs or live on Tribal lands. Through AEA’s Power Cost Equalization program, that same 1-cent/kWh reduction in on-Railbelt energy costs is anticipated to result in an additional $1,263,00028 in PCE subsidies to off-Railbelt communities, 82% of which will flow to DACs or Tribal lands, on a representative percentage basis. The GMRP presents a unique opportunity for federal investment when considering the significant multiplier effects regarding both direct and indirect benefits to be realized by both on and off-Railbelt DACs, by virtue of long- standing existing programs seeking to equalize the cost of power between urban and rural areas of the state. Increased Energy Resilience The Railbelt region is home to some of the harshest conditions on earth, making grid resilience a top priority. Past disasters include volcanic activity, earthquakes, avalanches, forest fires, and landslides, which have left communities isolated and without power for days or weeks. 26% of Railbelt customers live in an ANVSA, many of which are located in remote areas with energy infrastructure that is particularly vulnerable to natural disaster. Increased grid resiliency is a primary goal of this project, best embodied by the interregional transmission line that will be installed parallel to the line that currently ties together the Railbelt’s Southern and Central region s, and which will allow for continued energy transmission between regions in the event of a major natural disaster. Additional resilience benefits include right-of-way clearing, aerial inspections, and refurbishment of existing lines and structures. Increased High Quality Job Creation Lastly, GMRP will create high paying jobs for members of DACs who live along the Railbelt. Working with IBEW-NECA Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust, individual utility training programs, and local colleges and the University of Alaska System, the project team will create apprenticeship and internship programs that streamline into jobs working on the grid. This will improve regional economies as well as help locals take ownership of the project, ultimately increasing energy democracy. Tasks Related to Justice40 Initiative 1. Provide numerous opportunities and means for disadvantaged communities to voice potential concerns over negative environmental impacts from GMRP through public participation process; host joint organizational meeting regarding submarine HVDC cable through Cook Inlet. 2. Me as ure decreased energy burdens for DACs on Railbelt. 3. Measure increased PCE credits for DACs off Railbelt. 4. Streamline apprenticeships and internships in remote communities into jobs working on Railbelt grid. 28 FY22 PCE Community Report.pdf (akenergyauthority.org) Prime or Sub Name City State Zip Code + 4 Prime Soldotna SubStation Soldotna Alaska 99669 Prime Sub Cable terminal Nikiski Alaska 99611 Prime Sub Cable terminal Beluga Alaska 99695 Prime Healy Substation Healy Alaska 99743 Prime Wilson Substation Fairbanks Alaska 99775 Prime International Substation Anchorage Alaska 99518 Locations of Work (DE-FOA-0002740) Confirmation Thank you for submitting your grant application package via Grants.gov. Your application is currently being processed by the Grants.gov system. Once your submission has been processed, Grants.gov will send email messages to advise you of the progress of your application through the system. Over the next 24 to 48 hours, you should receive two emails. The first will confirm receipt of your application by the Grants.gov system, and the second will indicate that the application has either been successfully validated by the system prior to transmission to the grantor agency or has been rejected due to errors. Please do not hit the back button on your browser. If your application is successfully validated and subsequently retrieved by the grantor agency from the Grants.gov system, you will receive an additional email. This email may be delivered several days or weeks from the date of submission, depending on when the grantor agency retrieves it. You may also monitor the processing status of your submission within the Grants.gov system by clicking on the “Track My Application” link listed at the end of this form. Note: Once the grantor agency has retrieved your application from Grants.gov, you will need to contact them directly for any subsequent status updates. Grants.gov does not participate in making any award decisions. IMPORTANT NOTICE: If you do not receive a receipt confirmation and either a validation confirmation or a rejection email message within 48 hours, please contact us. The Grants.gov Contact Center can be reached by email at support@grants.gov, or by telephone at 1-800-518-4726. Always include your Grants.gov tracking number in all correspondence. The tracking numbers issued by Grants.gov look like GRANTXXXXXXXXX. If you have questions please contact the Grants.gov Contact Center: support@grants.gov 1-800-518-4726 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Closed on federal holidays. The following application tracking information was generated by the system: Grants.gov Tracking Number:GRANT13888581 F3N8ZSHJXUH8UEI: Karin St. ClairSubmitter's Name: CFDA Number:81.254 CFDA Description:Grid Infrastructure Deployment and Resilience Funding Opportunity Number:DE-FOA-0002740 Funding Opportunity Description:BIL Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships ( GRIP) Agency Name:National Energy Technology Laboratory Application Name of this Submission:Railbelt Innovative Resiliency Project (RIR) Date/Time of Receipt: https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/spoExit.jsp?p=web/grants/applicants/track-my-application.html&tracking_num=GRANT13888581 TRACK MY APPLICATION – To check the status of this application, please click the link below: It is suggested you Save and/or Print this response for your records. May 18, 2023 05:14:34 PM EDT Alaskan Energy Authority Award Number:DE-GD0000935 Attachment 4 Federal Non-Federal Federal Non-Federal Total (a) (b) (c ) (d) (e) (f) (g) 1.Budget Period 1a 81.254 $7,303,915 $7,303,915 $14,607,830 2.Budget Period 1b $199,196,085 $199,196,085 $398,392,170 * 3.$0 4.$0 5. Totals $206,500,000 $206,500,000 $413,000,000 * (1) Federal BP1a (2) Cost Share BP1a (3) BP1b* (4) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 7.$0 *These costs reflect estimated values only and will be finalized no later than 18 months after award. SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) (b) Applicant (c ) State (d) Other Sources (e) Totals 8.$206,500,000 $206,500,000 9. 10. 11. 12.$0 $206,500,000 Total for 1st Year 1st Quarter 2nd Quarter 3rd Quarter 4th quarter 13. $7,303,915 14. $7,303,915 15. $14,607,830 $0 $0 $0 $0 (b) First (c ) Second (d) Third (e) Fourth 16.$199,196,085 $0 17. 18. 19. 20.$199,196,085 $0 $0 $0 21. Direct Charges 22. Indirect Charges 23. Remarks SF-424A (Rev. 4-92) Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 $0$0 Previous Edition Usable Authorized for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102Previous Edition Usable (a) Grant Program Section C - Non-Federal Resources Total (5) f. Contractual g. Construction Section B - Budget Categories Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number Grant Program Function or Activity Estimated Unobligated Funds e. Supplies i. Total Direct Charges (sum of 6a-6h) Grant Program, Function or ActivityObject Class Categories Authorized for Local Reproduction h. Other a. Personnel b. Fringe Benefits c. Travel d. Equipment 6. j. Indirect Charges k. Totals (sum of 6i-6j) Program Income Applicant Name: Budget Information - Non Construction Programs OMB Approval No. 0348-0044 New or Revised Budget Section A - Budget Summary Section E - Budget Estimates of Federal Funds Needed for Balance of the Project 81.254 Section D - Forecasted Cash Needs Federal Total (sum of lines 8 - 11) (a) Grant Program 81.254 Section F - Other Budget Information Future Funding Periods (Years) Non-Federal Total (sum of lines 13 and 14) Total (sum of lines 16-19) Page 1 of 1 Instructions for the SF-424A Public Reporting Burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 3.0 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. Please do not return your completed form to the Office of Management and Budget; send it to the address provided by the sponsoring agency. General Instructions This form is designed so that application can be made for funds from one or more grant programs. In preparing the budget, adhere to any existing Federal grantor agency guidelines which prescribe how and whether budgeted amounts should be separately shown for different functions or activities within the program. For some programs, grantor agencies may require budgets to be separately shown by function or activity. For other programs, grantor agencies may require a breakdown by function or activity. Sections A, B, C, and D should include budget estimates for the whole project except when applying for assistance which requires Federal authorization in annual or other funding period increments. In the later case, Sections A, B, C, and D should provide the budget for the first budget period (usually a year) and Section E should present the need for Federal assistance in the subsequent budget periods. All applications should contain a breakdown by the object class categories shown in Lines a-k of Section B. Section A. Budget Summary Lines 1-4 Columns (a) and (b) For applications pertaining to a single Federal grant program (Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog number) and not requiring a functional or activity breakdown, enter on Line 1 under Column (a) the catalog program title and the catalog number in Column (b). For applications pertaining to a single program requiring budget amounts by multiple functions or activities, enter the name of each activity or function on each line in Column (a), and enter the catalog number in Column (b). For applications pertaining to multiple programs where none of the programs require a breakdown by function or activity, enter the catalog program title on each line in Column (a) and the respective catalog number on each line in Column (b). For applications pertaining to multiple programs where one or more programs require a breakdown by function or activity, prepare a separate sheet for each program requiring the breakdown. Additional sheets should be used when one form does not provide adequate space for all breakdown of data required. However, when more than one sheet is used, the first page should provide the summary totals by programs. Lines 1-4, Columns (c) through (g) For new applications, leave Columns (c) and (d) blank. For each line entry in Columns (a) and (b), enter in Columns (e), (f), and (g) the appropriate amounts of funds needed to support the project for the first funding period (usually a year). For continuing grant program applications, submit these forms before the end of each funding period as required by the grantor agency. Enter in Columns (c) and (d) the estimated amounts of funds which will remain unobligated at the end of the grant funding period only if the Federal grantor agency instructions provide for this. Otherwise, leave these columns blank. Enter in columns (e) and (f) the amounts of funds needed for the upcoming period. The amount(s) in Column (g) should be the sum of amounts in Columns (e) and (f). For supplemental grants and changes to existing grants, do not use Columns (c) and (d). Enter in Column (e) the amount of the increase or decrease of Federal funds and enter in Column (f) the amount of the increase or decrease of non-Federal funds. In Column (g) enter the new total budgeted amount (Federal and non-Federal) which includes the total previous authorized budgeted amounts plus or minus, as appropriate, the amounts shown in Columns (e) and (f). The amount(s) in Column (g) should not equal the sum of amounts in Columns (e) and (f). Line 5—Show the totals for all columns used. Section B. Budget Categories In the column headings (a) through (4), enter the titles of the same programs, functions, and activities shown on Lines 1-4, Column (a), Section A. When additional sheets are prepared for Section A, provide similar column headings on each sheet. For each program, function or activity, fill in the total requirements for funds (both Federal and non-Federal) by object class categories. Lines 6a-i—Show the totals of Lines 6a to 6h in each column. Line 6j—Show the amount of indirect cost. Line 6k—Enter the total of amounts on Lines 6i and 6j. For all applications for new grants and continuation grants the total amount in column (5), Line 6k, should be the same as the total amount shown in Section A, Column (g), Line 5. For supplemental grants and changes to grants, the total amount of the increase or decrease as shown in Columns (1)-(4), Line 6k should be the same as the sum of the amounts in Section A, Columns (e) and (f) on Line 5. Line 7—Enter the estimated amount of income, if any, expected to be generated from this project. Do not add or subtract this amount from the total project amount. Show under the program narrative statement the nature and source of income. The estimated amount of program income may be considered by the federal grantor agency in determining the total amount of the grant. SF-424A (Rev. 4-92 Previous Edition Usable Authorized for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 Section C. Non-Federal Resources Lines 8-11—Enter amounts of non-Federal resources that will be used on the grant. If in-kind contributions are included, provide a brief explanation on a separate sheet. Column (a)—Enter the program titles identical to Column (a), Section A. A breakdown by function or activity is not necessary. Column (b)—Enter the contribution to be made by the applicant. Column (c)—Enter the amount of the State's cash and in-kind contribution if the applicant is not a State or State agency. Applicants which are a State or State agencies should leave this column blank. Column (d)—Enter the amount of cash and in-kind contributions to be made from all other sources. Column (e)—Enter totals of Columns (b), (c), and (d). Line 12—Enter the total for each of Columns (b)-(e). The amount in Column (e) should be equal to the amount on Line 5, Column (f) Section A. Section D. Forecasted Cash Needs Line 13—Enter the amount of cash needed by quarter from the grantor agency during the first year. Line 14—Enter the amount of cash from all other sources needed by quarter during the first year. Line 15—Enter the totals of amounts on Lines 13 and 14. Section E. Budget Estimates of Federal Funds Needed for Balance of the Project Lines 16-19—Enter in Column (a) the same grant program titles shown in Column (a), Section A. A breakdown by function or activity is not necessary. For new applications and continuation grant applications, enter in the proper columns amounts of Federal funds which will be needed to complete the program or project over the succeeding funding periods (usually in years). This section need not be completed for revisions (amendments, changes, or supplements) to funds for the current year of existing grants. If more than four lines are needed to list the program titles, submit additional schedules as necessary. Line 20—Enter the total for each of the Columns (b)-(e). When additional schedules are prepared for this Section, annotate accordingly and show the overall totals on this line. Section F. Other Budget Information Line 21—Use this space to explain amounts for individual direct object-class cost categories that may appear to be out of the ordinary or to explain the details as required by the Federal grantor agency. Line 22—Enter the type of indirect rate (provisional, predetermined, final or fixed) that will be in effect during the funding period, the estimated amount of the base to which the rate is applied, and the total indirect expense. Line 23—Provide any other explanations or comments deemed necessary. SF-424A (Rev. 4-92 Previous Edition Usable Authorized for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102 Page 1 of 1 DE-GD0000935 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 (DECMBER 2014) (NETL – APRIL 2024) ........................................................................................................... 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 ................................................................................................................................................ 8 FUNDING OF BUDGET PERIODS – NETL JUNE 2024 ................................................................................ 9 REBUDGETING AND RECOVERY OF INDIRECT COSTS - REIMBURSABLE INDIRECT COSTS AND FRINGE BENEFITS ............................................................................................................................... 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) ........................................................................................... 12 REAL PROPERTY (DECEMBER 2014)......................................................................................................... 13 EQUIPMENT (DECEMBER 2014) (NETL – MAY 2024) ................................................................................. 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 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) REQUIREMENTS ................................................ 15 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) – Budget Period 1b ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 DE-GD0000935 Page 5 SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT AND UNIVERSAL IDENTIFIER REQUIREMENTS ............ 17 FINAL INCURRED COST AUDIT (DECEMBER 2014)............................................................................... 18 LOBBYING RESTRICTIONS (MARCH 2012) .............................................................................................. 18 CORPORATE FELONY CONVICTION AND FEDERAL TAX LIABILITY ASSURANCES (MARCH 2014).................................................................................................................................................................. 18 NONDISCLOSURE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS ASSURANCES (JUNE 2015) .............. 18 REPORTING OF MATTERS RELATED TO RECIPIENT INTEGRITY AND PERFORMANCE (DECEMBER 2015) ......................................................................................................................................... 19 SUBAWARD/SUBCONTRACT CHANGE NOTIFICATION .......................................................................... 21 GO/NO-GO DECISION - NETL ...................................................................................................................... 22 IMPLEMENTATION OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13798, PROMOTING FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (NOVEMBER 2020) ....................................................................................................................... 22 CONTINUED USE OF REAL PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT (OCTOBER 2022) ....................................... 22 FOREIGN NATIONAL PARTICIPATION – APPROVAL REQUIRED (APRIL 2024) .................................. 23 POST AWARD DUE DILIGENCE REVIEWS (APRIL 2024) .......................................................................... 23 EXPORT CONTROL (JUNE 2024).................................................................................................................. 24 INTERIM CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE (MARCH 2023) ............ 24 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (APRIL 2024) .................................................................... 24 BUY AMERICAN REQUIREMENT FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS (APRIL 2024) ......................... 25 PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT (APRIL 2024) 29 PROHIBITION RELATED TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED TALENT RECRUITMENT PROGRAMS (MARCH 2023).......................................................................................................................... 29 PARTICIPANTS AND OTHER COLLABORATING ORGANIZATIONS (APRIL 2024) ............................. 30 HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH (MARCH 2023) .......................................................................................... 31 FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE (MARCH 2023) .............................................................................................. 32 TRANSPARENCY OF FOREIGN CONNECTIONS (APRIL 2024) ................................................................. 32 FOREIGN COLLABORATION CONSIDERATIONS (MARCH 2023) ........................................................... 33 REPORTING SUBAWARD AND EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION (SEPTEMBER 2023) ........................... 34 POTENTIALLY DUPLICATIVE FUNDING NOTICE (MARCH 2023) .......................................................... 36 IMPACTED INDIAN TRIBES (MAY 2024) ...................................................................................................... 37 REPORTING, TRACKING AND SEGREGATION OF INCURRED COSTS (MARCH 2023) ...................... 37 COMMUNITY BENEFITS OUTCOMES AND OBJECTIVES (APRIL 2024) ................................................ 37 CYBERSECURITY PLAN (APRIL 2024) (NETL – JUNE 2024) ..................................................................... 37 DAVIS-BACON ACT REQUIREMENTS (APRIL 2024) .................................................................................. 38 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND PAY TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS (SEPTEMBER 2023) ............ 39 DE-GD0000935 Page 6 CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE CONTINUITY PLAN (MAY 2024) .......................................................... 40 CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE (MAY 2024) ....................................................................................................... 40 DE-GD0000935 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 (DECMBER 2014) (NETL – APRIL 2024) This agreement consists of the Assistance Agreement Cover Page and Award Terms and Conditions of this Assistance Agreement, 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 Attachment 6 Wage Determination(s) The following are incorporated into this Award by reference: DOE Assistance Regulations, 2 CFR part 200 as supplemented 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. As applicable, 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, DE-GD0000935 Page 8 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. 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 Project Management Plan. 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 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: DE-GD0000935 Page 9 Budget Period Government Share Recipient Share Total No. $ % $ % BP1a (Subtasks 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.4 3.1, and 4.1 only) $7,303,915 50% $7,303,915 50% $14,607,830 BP1b (all other tasks/sub-tasks) $199,196,085* 50%* $199,196,085* 50%* $398,392,170* Total Project $206,500,000* 50%* $206,500,000* 50%* $413,000,000* *These costs reflect estimated values only and will be finalized no later than 18 months after award. 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. FUNDING OF BUDGET PERIODS – NETL JUNE 2024 DOE has obligated $206,500,000 for completion of the Project authorized by this agreement, however, only $7,303,915 is available for work performed by the Recipient through Budget Period 1a. For Budget Period 1b, the remainder or $199,196,085 will be available contingent upon (1) substantial progress towards meeting the objectives of your approved application; (2) successful negotiation of budget negotiations of Budget Period 1a; (3) successful completion of the milestones and metrics as defined in the Statement of Project Objectives and/or Project Management Plan, including approval of associated deliverables, as applicable; (4) submittal of required reports as well as meeting the established milestones defined in the Community Benefits Outcomes and Objectives (CBOO) for the given performance period; (5) adequate evidence of financial commitment for the full cost share; and (6) compliance with the terms and conditions of the award. In the event that the Recipient does not make satisfactory process or DOE disapproves a continuance of a subsequent milestone, phase, or decision point, the maximum DOE liability to the Recipient is the funds that are available for the current approved effort or $7,303,915. In such event, DOE reserves the right to deobligate any remaining funds. DE-GD0000935 Page 10 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. PRE-AWARD COSTS (DECEMBER 2014) You are entitled to reimbursement for costs incurred on or after October 18, 2023, as authorized by the pre- award costs letter dated July 11, 2024, 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: 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. DE-GD0000935 Page 11 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. 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 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. DE-GD0000935 Page 12 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-GD0000935." 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. INSURANCE COVERAGE (DECEMBER 2014) See 2 CFR 200.310 for insurance requirements for real property and equipment acquired or improved with Federal funds. DE-GD0000935 Page 13 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) (NETL – MAY 2024) Subject to the conditions provided in 2 CFR 200.313 and 2 CFR 910.360 (as applicable), 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 or permit encumbrance without prior written approval by the DOE Contracting Officer and must follow the requirements of 2 CFR 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 200.313(c)(1)(i) and (ii). Management requirements, including inventory and control systems, for equipment are provided in 2 CFR 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. However, pursuant to the FY23 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 117-328), Division D, Title III, Section 309, the Secretary, or a designee of the Secretary may, at their discretion, vest unconditional title or other property interests acquired under this project regardless of the fair market value of the property at the end of the award period. DE-GD0000935 Page 14 Subject to the vesting of any property pursuant to Section 309 of the FY23 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. No. 117-328), Division D, Title III, 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 200.313(e)(2); or (c) transfer title to the Federal awarding agency or to an eligible third Party as specified in 2 CFR 200.313(e)(3). See 2 CFR 200.313 for additional requirements pertaining to equipment acquired under a Federal award. Also see 2 CFR 200.439 Equipment and other capital expenditures. See 2 CFR 910.360 for supplemental 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. DE-GD0000935 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. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) REQUIREMENTS DOE must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to authorizing the use of Federal funds. DOE has made a conditional NEPA determination for this Award, and Federal funding for certain tasks under this Award is contingent upon the final NEPA determination. The Recipient is authorized to proceed with the following phases and/or tasks as referenced in the SOPO approved by the Contracting Officer, except where such activity is subject to a restriction set forth elsewhere in this Award: Budget Period 1a (Subtasks 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.4 3.1, and 4.1 only). Design, Permitting, and Sitting. No construction may be performed. This authorization is specific to the project activities and locations as described in the SOPO approved by the Contracting Officer and the DOE NEPA Determination. DOE has not authorized the following phases and/or tasks as referenced in the SOPO: Budget Period 1b. See also the term titled “Environmental Assessment (EA)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – Budget Period 1b”. Should the Recipient elect to undertake activities or change locations prior to written authorization from the Contracting Officer, the Recipient does so at risk of not receiving Federal funding and such costs may not be recognized as allowable cost share. DE-GD0000935 Page 16 If the Recipient later intends to add to or modify the activities or locations as described in the approved SOPO and the DOE NEPA Determination, those new activities/locations or modified activities/locations are subject to additional NEPA review and are not authorized for Federal funding until the Contracting Officer provides written authorization on those additions or modifications. Should the Recipient elect to undertake activities or change locations prior to authorization from the Contracting Officer, the Recipient does so at risk of not receiving Federal funding for those activities, and such costs may not be recognized as allowable cost share. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (EA)/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (EIS) – Budget Period 1b DOE must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to authorizing the use of federal funds. Based on the information available, DOE may determine that an EA or an EIS is required. A final NEPA decision (e.g., a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for projects requiring an EA or a Record of Decision (ROD) for projects requiring an EIS) is required prior to DOE notifying the Recipient of approval to proceed with the expenditure of Federal funds. Prohibited actions include, but are not limited to: detailed design; purchase of long-lead time equipment; demolition or decontamination of existing buildings; and site preparation, clearing, ground breaking, excavation, and construction. However, DOE may provide cost-shared funding for activities necessary to perform site characterization, sampling, and monitoring to support the NEPA process; preparation of conceptual design data, analysis, and documentation (including project planning assistance); and training before a final NEPA decision is issued. Questions about the permissibility of Federal cost sharing on activities prior to DOE’s issuance of a FONSI or ROD shall be directed to the DOE Contracting Officer. At its discretion, DOE may issue an Interim Action Determination to document DOE’s decision regarding the permissibility of Federal cost-sharing on the activities that are within the scope of an on-going EA or EIS process. Approval to incur cost eligible for Federal cost sharing requires written approval from the DOE Contracting Officer. After receiving Interim Action approval from the DOE Contracting Officer, if the Recipient chooses to incur costs eligible for Federal cost sharing for the approved activities, the Recipient agrees to abide by the conditions, limitations, mitigation measures, monitoring requirements, and reporting responsibilities specified in the Interim Action Determination and to undertake these activities in accordance with necessary landowner approvals, required permits, and any additional approvals and mitigation requirements of other federal, state and local governmental agencies with jurisdiction by law. Prior to issuance of a final NEPA document (Final EA/EIS, FONSI, ROD, Mitigation Action Plan, etc.), DOE agrees to discuss with the Recipient any proposed conditions and requirements that may be imposed if DOE decides to proceed with its proposed action. However, DOE retains sole discretion on whether to issue a final NEPA document and what conditions to include in it if one is issued. If DOE decides to proceed with its proposed action subject to conditions, limitations, mitigation requirements, or monitoring requirements specified in a final NEPA document, the Recipient agrees to: a. abide by the conditions, limitations, mitigation requirements, and monitoring requirements specified in the final NEPA document; DE-GD0000935 Page 17 b. negotiate changes to the project schedule, costs, and/or scope as necessary to effect the requirements or conditions in the final NEPA document; c. allow DOE’s authorized representatives to visit the site and facilities upon notice to verify project status and compliance to include conditions and requirements in the final NEPA document; and d. submit data or otherwise meet specified reporting requirements that may be in the final NEPA document. If the Recipient finds the conditions and requirements to be unacceptable, they reserve the right to terminate the award in accordance with 2 CFR 200.340. 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 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: DE-GD0000935 Page 18 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) 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 Alaska Energy Authority 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 Alaska Energy Authority 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 Alaska Energy Authority 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 19 a designated investigative or law enforcement representative of a Federal department or agency authorized to receive such information. (2) The undersigned further attests that Alaska Energy Authority 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 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: DE-GD0000935 Page 20 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; (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: DE-GD0000935 Page 21 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 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 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 22 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 - NETL The Government has elected to include go/no-go decision(s) in the Project Management Plan (PMP). If it is advantageous for the Government to proceed beyond the go/no go decision point(s), the Contracting Officer will notify the recipient in writing authorizing the recipient to proceed beyond the go/no go decision point in the PMP. 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 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 final project accomplishments, 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: 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. DE-GD0000935 Page 23 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 (APRIL 2024) 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. 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 a person without United States citizenship or nationality (may include a stateless person). 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 (APRIL 2024) 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 24 participate in the Award. As part of the research, technology, and economic security risk review, DOE may contact the Recipient project team members for additional information to inform the review. EXPORT CONTROL (JUNE 2024) 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 investigations, charges, indictments, convictions, and violations upon occurrence, at the recipient or subrecipient level, and for convictions/violations, provide the corrective action(s) to prevent future convictions/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. 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 (APRIL 2024) 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 25 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. 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 (APRIL 2024) A. Definitions Components See 2 CFR 184.3 “Definitions”. Construction Materials See 2 CFR 184.3 “Definitions”. Domestic Content Procurement Preference Requirement or Buy America Requirement means a requirement that no amount of funds 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. Infrastructure See 2 CFR 184.4 (c) and (d). Manufactured Products See 2 CFR 184.3 “Definitions”. Predominantly of iron or steel See 2 CFR 184.3 “Definitions”. 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. DE-GD0000935 Page 26 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 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. See 2 CFR 184.5 for determining the cost of components for manufactured products; 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. See 2 CFR 184.6 for construction material standards. The Buy America Requirement only applies to those articles, materials, and supplies that are consumed in, incorporated into, or permanently affixed to the infrastructure in the 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. The Buy America Requirement only applies to an article, material, or supply classified into one of the following categories* based on its status at the time it is brought to the work site for incorporation into an infrastructure project: i. Iron or steel products; ii. Manufactured products; or iii. Construction materials The Buy America Requirement only applies to the iron or steel products, manufactured products, and construction materials used for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of public infrastructure in the United States when those items are consumed in, incorporated into, or permanently affixed to the infrastructure. An article, material, or supply incorporated into an infrastructure project should not be considered to fall into multiple categories, but rather must meet the Buy America Preference Requirement for only the single category in which it is classified. All iron and steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the infrastructure project must be produced in the United States. DE-GD0000935 Page 27 *Section 70917(c) of the BABA states that “construction materials” do not include cement and cementitious materials, aggregates such as stone, sand, or gravel; or aggregate binding agents or additives. Section 70917(c) materials are excluded from Construction materials. Asphalt concrete pavement mixes are typically composed of asphalt cement (a binding agent) and aggregates such as stone, sand, and gravel. Accordingly asphalt is also excluded from the definition of Construction materials. Section 70917(c) materials, on their own, are not manufactured products. Further, Section 70917(c) materials should not be considered manufactured products when they are used at or combined proximate to the work site-such as in the case with wet concrete or hot mix asphalt brought to the work site for incorporation. However, certain Section 70917(c) materials (such as stone, sand, and gravel) are used to produce a manufactured product, such as is precast concrete processed into a specific shape or form, and is in such state when brought to the work site, then that product is subject to the BABA requirements. Further, clarification is provided in 2 CFR 184 on the circumstances under which a determination is made that Section 70917(c) materials should be treated as components of a manufactured product. That determination is based on consideration of: (i) the revised definition of the “manufactured products” at 2 CFR 184.3; (ii) a new definition of “Section 70917(c) materials” at 2 CFR 184.3; (iii) new instructions at 2 CFR 184.4(e) on how and when to categorize articles, materials, and supplies; and (iv) new instructions at 2 CFR 184.4(f) on how to apply the Buy America preference by category. 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 Recipients 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. Recipients 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. Recipients 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, Recipients 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 28 the DOE 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: 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; • A description of the market research conducted that includes who conducted the market research, when it was conducted, sources that were used, and the methods used to conduct the research; and Anticipated impact to the project if no waiver is issued. 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 29 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 (APRIL 2024) 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; (3) Exercise an option to procure; or (4) 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. 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 30 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 (APRIL 2024) 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; (2) authorized representative of applicant with primary responsibility for business support (e.g., financial management, fiscal oversight, providing resources, award administration, etc.), if other than listed senior/key personnel, e.g., the Administrative Officer listed on the SF-424 Application; and (3) each person who has worked or is expected to work at least one person month per year on the project regardless of the source of compensation (a person month equals approximately 160 hours of effort). DE-GD0000935 Page 31 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 outlined in 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: 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 32 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 (APRIL 2024) 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; 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 33 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. 7. Any proposed changes to the equipment used on the project that would result in: a. Equipment originally made or manufactured in a foreign country of risk (including relabeled or rebranded equipment). b. Coded equipment where the source code is written in a foreign country of risk. c. Equipment from a foreign country of risk that will be connected to the internet or other remote communication system. d. Any companies from a foreign country of risk that will have physical or remote access to any part of the equipment used on the project after delivery. 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. DE-GD0000935 Page 34 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 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 35 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 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 36 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: 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. DE-GD0000935 Page 37 IMPACTED INDIAN TRIBES (MAY 2024) If any activities anticipated to take place under this agreement could potentially impact the resources or reserved rights of Indian Tribe(s), as defined in 25 U.S.C. § 5304 (e), then the recipient/awardee agrees to develop and maintain active and open communications with the potentially impacted Indian Tribe(s), during the period of performance of the agreement, and, if necessary, after the end of the agreement. Approval by DOE must be obtained before any activities take place that could impact Tribal resources or reserved rights, including but not limited to lands, cultural sites, sacred sites, water rights, mineral rights, fishing rights, and hunting rights. The recipient/awardee must coordinate with DOE on all Tribal interactions. DOE will determine if formal government-to-government consultation is needed, and DOE will conduct that consultation accordingly. Tribal lands is as defined in 25 U.S.C. §§ 3501(2), (3), (4)(A) and (13). Indian Tribe is as defined in 25 U.S.C. § 5304 (e). 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 (APRIL 2024) The Recipient must meet the stated objectives and milestones set forth in its Community Benefits Outcomes and Objectives, which is incorporated into the Award as an attachment. Reporting on the Recipient’s progress towards meeting the objectives and milestones set forth in the Community Benefits Outcomes and Objectives must be submitted in accordance with the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist, attached to this award. CYBERSECURITY PLAN (APRIL 2024) (NETL – JUNE 2024) 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 project period, including responding to DOE feedback on the plans and the associated milestones, deliverables, and attending associated cybersecurity plan lifecycle support meeting dates with CESER and DOE SMEs. The Recipient will revise their Cybersecurity Plan as requested by the DOE, incorporating specified changes within sixty (60) days of receiving notice from the DOE. 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 DE-GD0000935 Page 38 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 (APRIL 2024) 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). 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. DE-GD0000935 Page 39 (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, in accordance with the reporting instructions in the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist attachment. 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 Recipient must ensure the timely submission of weekly certified payrolls as part of its compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act. The Department of Energy has contracted with LCPtracker, a third-party DBA electronic payroll compliance software application. A waiver for the use of LCPtracker may be granted to a particular contractor or subcontractor if 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 start of work subject to Davis-Bacon Act requirements (e.g., construction, alteration, or repair work). The recipient 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. DE-GD0000935 Page 40 (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 compliance assistance with EO 11246. For more information regarding this program, see https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ofccp/construction/mega-program. CONSTRUCTION WORKFORCE CONTINUITY PLAN (MAY 2024) The Recipient must furnish a Construction Workforce Continuity Plan within 30 days of award notice. A Construction Workforce Continuity Plan template is provided at https://www.energy.gov/infrastructure/reporting-checklists for administrative convenience. If the template is not used, the Recipient must ensure that all of the information requested in the template is provided. A report on the Recipient’s progress toward meeting the objectives and milestones set forth in the Construction Workforce Continuity Plan due not less than 90 days prior to each 12-18 month increment or as by the Grants Officer/Contracting Officer. If at any time, it becomes apparent that the Recipient is non-compliant with their Workforce Continuity Plan, additional reporting may be required. CONSTRUCTION SIGNAGE (MAY 2024) The recipient is encouraged to display DOE Investing in America signage during and after construction. Guidance can be found at: (https://www.energy.gov/design). Proposed signage costs that meet these specifications are an allowable cost and may be included in the proposed project budget. 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: RE: MEMORANDUM September 10, 2024 AEA Board of Directors Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director Acceptance of US EPA Solar for All Grant The purpose of this memo is to recommend to the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Board approval of Resolution 2024-09 – Approving the Acceptance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Solar for All Grant. PROJECT OVERVIEW AEA Project Name Solar for All Scope Residential-serving community solar & residential rooftop solar projects Cost $62,450,000 Federal program US EPA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Solar for All Grant Participants Awardee & lead organization: Alaska Energy Authority Partner organization: Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Project dates 2024-05-01 through 2029-04-30 (5 years) BACKGROUND On June 28, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the $7 billion Solar for All (SFA) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to issue competitive grants to states, tribal governments, municipalities, and other eligible recipients. These grants aim to provide sub- grants, 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 (LIDACs). Primary meaningful benefits to be delivered by the program include: household electricity savings of 20%, equitable access to solar technologies, resilience benefits, community ownership, and workforce development. In response to the NOFO, in July 2023, AEA submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) as the lead applicant for a $100 million coalition application with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), and subsequently a full application in October 2023. The structure of this proposal held that AEA would focus on residential-serving community solar and AHFC on residential rooftop solar, with funds to be split evenly between the two organizations. Partners in the application included Alaska Works Partnership (AWP) to coordinate and implement solar workforce development training, Alaska Municipal League (AML) to conduct equity and stakeholder engagement activities, including working with communities for meaningful inclusion and benefits, and Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) to provide technical assistance & techno-economic analysis of proposed projects. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 3 On April 22, 2024, the EPA alerted AEA and AHFC that the coalition application was tentatively selected for a $62.45 million award. Notice of the award obligation was provided by the EPA on July 11, 2024. BENEFITS TO THE STATE OF ALASKA This funding directly aligns with AEA’s goal of reducing the cost of energy for Alaskans, in addition to providing substantial run-on benefits through enhancement of energy resilience and supporting sustainable development in our most vulnerable communities. Target Beneficiaries: Rural Alaskan Communities Low-Income or Disadvantaged Households Funding Details: Total Amount: $62.45M Match Requirements: None Project Duration: Five years Program Requirements: All funding must benefit Low-Income or Disadvantaged households (LIDAC) INSTALLATION & TARGET IMPACTS The impact estimates below represent those developed in the original application for a $100M program budget, scaled directly to represent the $62.45M award. Refinement of these estimates will occur throughout the work-plan revision as well as the one year planning period. 9.3 MW DC of Solar Deployed 3.6 MWh of battery storage deployed 3809 households impacted 209,870 tons avoided CO2 over 30 years 6996 tons avoided CO2 annually $56,113,909 energy savings to impacted households over 30 years CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS AEA staff wholly recommends the approval of the resolution. This funding opportunity from the EPA's Solar for All program presents a significant chance to advance our state's renewable energy goals while directly benefiting some of our most vulnerable populations. Your approval and support are crucial to ensuring the successful implementation of this initiative. The SFA award does not require a match and will be at no additional cost to the State of Alaska. AEA and AHFC, working with the EPA, will update and revise the project work-plan and budget by October 11, 2024. Upon EPA approval of our revised budget and work-plan we will enter into the planning year, during which time we will codify the framework for separation of roles and responsibilities between project partners, begin engaging with community stakeholders, and refining project selection processes. First community scale projects to be funded by AEA will likely be in spring of 2026. Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 3 Attachments: DRAFT Resolution Outside counsel letter recommending acceptance of Terms and Conditions Solar for All Program Narrative EPA award notification Grant Terms and Conditions Solar for All Fact Sheet Solar for All White Paper AEA Resolution No. 2024-09 Page 1 of 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 2024-09 RESOLUTION OF THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY APPROVING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION FUND SOLAR FOR ALL GRANT WHEREAS, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the State's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development; and WHEREAS, Alaska Statutes 44.83.080 authorizes the Alaska Energy Authority to accept grants and enter into contracts regarding them “for the construction, financing, operation, and maintenance of all or any part of a power project or bulk fuel, waste energy, energy conservation, energy efficiency, or alternative energy facilities or equipment,” and “to make grants or loans to any person and enter into contracts or other transactions regarding the grants”; and WHEREAS, Alaska Energy Authority, in partnership with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, submitted an application to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for their Solar for All grant program (Funding Opportunity Announcement EPA-R-HQ-SFA-23-01); and WHEREAS, upon review of the submitted application, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notified the Alaska Energy Authority, as the main applicant, that its Solar for All application has been selected to receive $62,450,000 in federal grant funding; and WHEREAS, the 33rd Alaska State Legislature and Governor of the State of Alaska gave Alaska Energy Authority $20,000,000 in federal receipt authority for the Solar for All grant in the fiscal year 2025 budget with authorization for the balance of the grant anticipated in future years; and WHEREAS, the grant application proposes providing funds for residential-serving community solar, rooftop residential solar, solar technical assistance, workforce development, and outreach and education; and AEA Resolution No. 2024-09 Page 2 of 2 WHEREAS, AEA, as the State’s energy office, should continue seeking funds in furtherance of its mission of reducing the cost of energy in Alaska including by introducing renewable electric generation for Alaska’s communities and its residents; and WHEREAS, the State has already invested millions of dollars in renewable energy projects throughout Alaska through the Renewable Energy Fund to reduce the cost of energy, and hundreds of millions in renewable energy projects still can be completed to provide reliable and stabilized electric service; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency endorses AEA’s Solar for All application and commits to providing this once in a generation funding for solar projects throughout Alaska to benefit low-income and disadvantaged communities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY AS FOLLOWS: 1)The Board authorizes Alaska Energy Authority, as applicant, in collaboration with the Alaska Housing Finance Committee, to accept the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Solar for All funding. 2)The Executive Director of the Authority is authorized to execute and manage the Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Solar for All grant on behalf of the Authority to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 3)The Executive Director of the Authority is hereby authorized to take such actions as may be necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of this resolution in the name of and on behalf of the Authority. 4)This Resolution takes effect immediately upon its passage and approval. DATED in Anchorage, Alaska, this ___ day of September 2024. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY _______________________________________ Chair _______________________________________ Curtis W. Thayer, Secretary 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 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 1 TYPE OF ACTION U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY MAILING DATE ACH#PAYMENT METHOD: PROGRAM CODE: DATE OF AWARDMODIFICATION NUMBER: GRANT NUMBER (FAIN):84090601 X0475ASAP 0 07/08/2024 New 07/11/2024 Grant Agreement 5H RECIPIENT TYPE:Send Payment Request to: RECIPIENT: EIN: PAYEE: State ANCHORAGE, AK 99503-2407 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 92-6001185 813 W. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD Contact EPA RTPFC at: rtpfc-grants@epa.gov 813 W. NORTHERN LIGHTS BLVD ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ANCHORAGE, AK 99503-2407 PROJECT MANAGER EPA PROJECT OFFICER EPA GRANT SPECIALIST Audrey Alstrom 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 aalstrom@akenergyauthority.orgEmail: 907-771-3045Phone: Christine Clark 77 West Jackson Boulevard LL-17J Chicago, IL 60604 Clark.Christine@epa.govEmail: 312-886-9749Phone: Shana Etheridge 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 3903R Washington, DC 20460 Etheridge.Shana@epa.govEmail: 202-564-9777Phone: PROJECT TITLE AND DESCRIPTION State of Alaska Solar for All Program “Note: A Special payment condition applies to this award.” See Attachment 1 for project description. BUDGET PERIOD PROJECT PERIOD TOTAL BUDGET PERIOD COST TOTAL PROJECT PERIOD COST 05/01/2024 - 04/30/2029 05/01/2024 - 04/30/2029 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 NOTICE OF AWARD Based on your Application dated 10/11/2023 including all modifications and amendments, the United States acting by and through the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby awards $ 62,450,000.00. EPA agrees to cost-share 0.00% of all approved budget period costs incurred, up to and not exceeding total federal funding of $ 62,450,000.00. Recipient's signature is not required on this agreement. The recipient demonstrates its commitment to carry out this award by either: 1) drawing down funds within 21 days after the EPA award or amendment mailing date; or 2) not filing a notice of disagreement with the award terms and conditions within 21 days after the EPA award or amendment mailing date. If the recipient disagrees with the terms and conditions specified in this award, the authorized representative of the recipient must furnish a notice of disagreement to the EPA Award Official within 21 days after the EPA award or amendment mailing date. In case of disagreement, and until the disagreement is resolved, the recipient should not draw down on the funds provided by this award/amendment, and any costs incurred by the recipient are at its own risk. This agreement is subject to applicable EPA regulatory and statutory provisions, all terms and conditions of this agreement and any attachments. ISSUING OFFICE (GRANTS MANAGEMENT OFFICE)AWARD APPROVAL OFFICE ORGANIZATION / ADDRESSORGANIZATION / ADDRESS Environmental Protection Agency, Grants and Interagency Agreement Management Division 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Mail code 3903R Washington, DC 20460 Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund OA - Office of the Administrator 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Mail code 3903R Washington, DC 20460 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DATEDigital signature applied by EPA Award Official Keva R. Lloyd - Acting Chief, Grants Management Branch 07/08/2024 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 2 EPA Funding Information FUNDS FORMER AWARD THIS ACTION AMENDED TOTAL EPA Amount This Action $ 0 $ 62,050,000 $ 62,050,000 EPA In-Kind Amount $ 0 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 Unexpended Prior Year Balance $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Other Federal Funds $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Recipient Contribution $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 State Contribution $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Local Contribution $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Other Contribution $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Allowable Project Cost $ 0 $ 62,450,000 $ 62,450,000 Assistance Program (CFDA)Statutory Authority Regulatory Authority 66.959 - Zero-Emissions Technology Grant Program National Environmental Policy Act: Sec. 102(2)(I) Clean Air Act: Sec. 134(a)(1) 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act (PL 117-328) 2 CFR 200, 2 CFR 1500 and 40 CFR 33 Fiscal Site Name Req No FY Approp. Code Budget Organization PRC Object Class Site/Project Cost Organization Obligation / Deobligation $ 62,050,000--4129000MGBXG 2QUE1SF322242411U41050- $ 62,050,000 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 3 Budget Summary Page Table A - Object Class Category (Non-Construction) Total Approved Allowable Budget Period Cost 1. Personnel $ 0 2. Fringe Benefits $ 0 3. Travel $ 0 4. Equipment $ 0 5. Supplies $ 0 6. Contractual $ 0 7. Construction $ 0 8. Other $ 0 9. Total Direct Charges $ 0 10. Indirect Costs: 0.00 % Base $ 0 11. Total (Share: Recipient ______ % Federal ______ %)$ 00.00 0.00 12. Total Approved Assistance Amount $ 0 13. Program Income $ 0 14. Total EPA Amount Awarded This Action $ 62,450,000 15. Total EPA Amount Awarded To Date $ 62,450,000 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 4 Attachment 1 - Project Description Note: A special payment condition applies to this award. This agreement provides funding under the Inflation Reduction Act. The recipient will provide financial and technical assistance to low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from residential-serving distributed solar energy and storage projects. These programs will ensure low-income households receive residential distributed solar by providing program beneficiaries household savings, community ownership, energy resilience, and other meaningful benefits. Solar projects receiving financial assistance from the recipient may receive assistance for associated energy storage and upgrades that either enable project deployment or maximize the benefits of the project for low-income and disadvantaged communities. The recipient will also provide project- deployment services to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from residential solar.The anticipated deliverables will include steps and milestones to implement the strategies and plans for the Solar for All Program, a distribute solar market strategy, the financial assistance strategy, the project-deployment technical assistance strategy, and an equitable access and meaningful involvement plan. The expected outcomes include climate and air pollution benefits, equity and community benefits, and market transformation benefits. The intended beneficiaries include households in low-income and disadvantaged communities. No subawards are included in this assistance agreement. 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 5 Administrative Conditions A. General Terms and Conditions The recipient agrees to comply with the current EPA general terms and conditions available at: https: //www.epa.gov/grants/epa-general-terms-and-conditions-effective-october-1-2023-or-later. These terms and conditions are in addition to the assurances and certifications made as a part of the award and the terms, conditions, or restrictions cited throughout the award. The EPA repository for the general terms and conditions by year can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/grants/grant-terms-and-conditions#general. B. Correspondence Condition (updated 06/21/24) The terms and conditions of this agreement require the submittal of reports, specific requests for approval, or notifications to EPA. Unless otherwise noted, all such correspondence should be sent to the following email addresses: Federal Financial Reports (SF-425): rtpfc-grants@epa.gov and EPA Grants Specialist. MBE/WBE reports (EPA Form 5700-52A): DBE Coordinator, OMS-OGD-MBE_WBE@epa.gov and EPA Grants Specialist. All other forms/certifications/assurances, Indirect Cost Rate Agreements, Requests for Extensions of the Budget and Project Period, Amendment Requests, Requests for other Prior Approvals, updates to recipient information (including email addresses, changes in contact information or changes in authorized representatives) and other notifications: EPA Project Officer and EPA Grants Specialist Payment requests (if applicable): EPA Project Officer Quality Assurance documents, workplan revisions, equipment lists, programmatic reports and deliverables: EPA Project Officer C. Intergovernmental Review Period In accordance with 40 CFR Part 29, EPA must allow for an intergovernmental review comment period when a recipient or subrecipient intends to provide financial assistance to a project that involves construction or land use planning. With the exception of projects that will be carried out in the State of California, the recipient must ensure that directly affected State, areawide, regional, and local government entities have 60 calendar days to review the description of the project contained in the application for funding for the project and provide comments to the EPA Project Officer. Applications for funding for projects that will be carried out in the State of California must be submitted to the California Single Point of Contact at https://cfda.opr.ca.gov for review as provided in California law. The recipient agrees to comply with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 29, implementing the Demonstration Cities, Metropolitan Development Act, the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, and Executive Order 12372 as amended in 1983, to ensure that projects funded under federal programs are consistent with local planning requirements. D. Pre-Award Costs 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 6 As provided in 2 CFR 200.458, recipients are authorized to incur pre-award costs, which are costs that would have been allowable if incurred after the date of the Federal award. For competitive grants, EPA interprets the requirement in the regulation that pre-award costs be incurred “directly pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the Federal award” to limit allowable pre-award costs to those a recipient incurs after EPA has notified the recipient that its application has been selected for award consideration and the start date of the Project Period as provided on the Notice of Award. The pre-award costs must have been included in the recipient's application to be allowable. As provided in 2 CFR 1500.9, recipients incur pre-award cost at their own risk. Please refer to Section I.C: Pre-Award Costs of the Interim General Budget Development Guidance for Applicants and Recipients of EPA Financial Assistance for additional information. E. Pre-Award Administrative Capability The following term and condition on pre-award administrative capability applies if the recipient is an Eligible Nonprofit Recipient as defined in the Eligible Recipient definition and if the recipient is both a Tribal government as defined in the Eligible Recipient definition and denoted as a not for profit on the Notice of Award: The recipient's pre-award certification review has not been completed. EPA's policy for awarding financial assistance in excess of $200,000 to non-profit organizations requires an Administrative Capability Assessment review of the recipient's administrative and financial management systems to be completed prior to the recipient drawing down any EPA funds per EPA Order 5700.8. Because EPA has not yet completed the review, the recipient is precluded from drawing down funds under this assistance agreement until EPA provides written confirmation of the completion of the assessment with satisfactory results. Please note, any costs incurred prior to EPA approval are at the recipient's own risk. If the recipient fails to respond or is unable to satisfactorily address all identified deficiencies within 90 calendar days of the award date of this assistance agreement or within any extension of time granted by EPA, the agreement may be terminated. Noncompliance with this term and condition may result in adverse action by EPA per 2 CFR 200.339. F. New Recipient Training Requirement The recipient agrees to complete the EPA Grants Management Training for Applicants and Recipients and the How to Develop a Budget training within 90 calendar days of the date of award of this agreement. The recipient must notify the Grant Specialist via email when the required training is complete. For additional information on this training requirement, the recipient should refer to RAIN- 2024-G01. 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 7 Programmatic Conditions Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF): Solar for ALL (SFA) Programmatic Terms and Conditions I. Programmatic Terms and Conditions A. Performance Reporting In accordance with 2 CFR 200.329 and 2 CFR 200.337, the recipient agrees to the following two requirements of performance reporting: (1) performance reports and (2) transaction-level and project- level data. The recipient agrees to ensure that these reports cover its own expenditures as well as the expenditures of its subrecipients, contractors, and program beneficiaries in implementing the recipient's EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan under the federal award. The recipient agrees that EPA may amend the award agreement to reflect information collection instruments authorized by GGRF Accomplishment Reporting (EPA ICR Number 2783.01, OMB Control Number 2090-NEW), once such instruments are authorized. The recipient acknowledges that knowingly and willfully making a false statement may be subject to criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or other civil and administrative sanctions. EPA intends to make the performance reporting information available to the public, either in whole or in part, through disclosing copies of the reports as submitted or using the content of the reports to prepare EPA reporting documents. Pursuant to 2 CFR 200.338, the recipient agrees to redact personally identifiable information (PII) and mark confidential business information (CBI) accordingly. Information claimed as CBI will be disclosed only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. As provided at 40 CFR 2.203(b), if no claim of confidential treatment accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the public by EPA without further notice to the recipient. The EPA Project Officer may extend the due date for performance reporting requirements to the extent authorized by 2 CFR 200.329 and 2 CFR 200.344. On a case-by-case basis, the EPA Project Officer may waive or modify performance reporting requirements to the extent authorized by 2 CFR 200.329 and 2 CFR 200.344. The following additional term and condition applicable to performance reporting applies if the recipient is an Eligible Nonprofit Recipient as defined in the Eligible Recipient definition: The recipient agrees to have its chief executive officer (or equivalent) and chief reporting officer (or equivalent) review, sign, and submit reporting electronically to the EPA Project Officer. To the extent that the reporting is not compliant with the terms and conditions, or demonstrates noncompliance with the terms and conditions, the chief executive officer (or equivalent) and chief reporting officer (or equivalent) must note such noncompliance to the EPA Project Officer alongside the submission. 1. Performance Reports Semi-Annual Report The recipient agrees to submit semi-annual reports (including but not limited to performance metrics) that are in accordance with information collection instruments approved through GGRF Accomplishment 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 8 Reporting (EPA ICR Number 2783.01, OMB Control Number 2090-NEW). The recipient agrees to submit semi-annual performance reports electronically to the EPA Project Officer within 30 calendar days after the semi-annual reporting period ends. The recipient may submit a request to their Project Officer for an extension to 60 days after the end of the reporting period to submit reports. A request may be made once, and it must include 1) an explanation of recipient's unique circumstance as to why they need the extension; 2) the length of the extension; and 3) the duration of the extension. The semi-annual reporting periods are as follows: July 1 to December 31; January 1 to June 30. If the period of performance begins prior to July 1, 2024, then the first semi-annual reporting period shall cover the first day of the period of performance through December 31, 2024. The semi-annual performance report should cover activities from the preceding two quarters. For the semi-annual reporting period that ends December 31, recipients will provide information on activities conducted from April 1 to September 30 rather than from July 1 to December 31. For the semi-annual reporting period that ends June 30, recipients will provide information on activities conducted from October 1 to March 31 rather than from January 1 to June 30. Final Report The recipient agrees to submit a final report in a format conducive for immediate public consumption. The final report must contain detailed narratives describing program performance for the entire period of performance, representing an overall assessment of the recipient's implementation of its EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan, supported with qualitative discussions and quantitative metrics. Additionally, the recipient should detail its program strategy and plans for performance reporting under the Closeout Agreement. The recipient must include the following broad, non-exhaustive elements in its annual reports: Progress towards objectives on key performance metrics over the entire period of performance, Summary of key activities completed in the entire period of performance, including case studies across different types of financial assistance and project-deployment technical assistance undertaken to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy or benefit from zero- emissions technologies, Geographic coverage of financial assistance and project-deployment technical assistance deployed in the entire period of performance, Descriptions and examples of actions the program took over the entire period of performance to meaningfully involve the communities the program serves in program design and operations, Plans for key activities (including current transaction pipeline) to be completed as well as outputs and outcomes to be achieved under the Closeout Agreement. These reports must be submitted ready to be published on the EPA website for public consumption and must not include any material that the recipient considers to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or Personal Identifiable Information (PII). All reports will undergo an EPA review process to verify that there is no PII or CBI claims in publishable reports. Reports submitting with CBI claims will not comply with this requirement and may result in remedial action by EPA. Should EPA identify PII in reports, the 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 9 EPA Project Officer will require that the recipient re-submit the report without the PII so that it can be published without redaction. The recipient agrees to submit the final performance report electronically to the EPA Project Officer no later than 120 calendar days after the end date of the period of performance. 2. Transaction-Level and Project-Level Data The recipient agrees to submit semi-annual transaction-level and project-level data in accordance with information collection instruments approved through GGRF Accomplishment Reporting (EPA ICR Number 2783.01, OMB Control Number 2090-NEW). The recipient agrees to submit the transaction-level and project-level data electronically to the EPA Project Officer within 30 calendar days after the semi-annual reporting period ends. The recipient may submit a request to their Project Officer for an extension to 60 days after the end of the reporting period to submit reports. A request may be made once, and it must include 1) an explanation of recipient's unique circumstance as to why they need the extension; 2) the length of the extension; and 3) the duration of the extension. The semi-annual reporting periods are as follows: July 1 to December 31; January 1 to June 30. If the period of performance begins prior to July 1, 2024, then the first semi-annual reporting period shall cover the first day of the period of performance through December 31, 2024. The semi-annual transaction-level and project-level reports should cover transactions originated in the preceding two quarters. For the semi-annual reporting period that ends December 31, recipients will provide information on transactions originated from April 1 to September 30 rather than from July 1 to December 31. For the semi-annual reporting period that ends June 30, recipients will provide information on transactions originated from October 1 to March 31 rather than from January 1 to June 30. B. Cybersecurity Condition The following terms and conditions applicable to cybersecurity apply if the recipient is a State as defined in the Eligible Recipient definition: (a) The recipient agrees that when collecting and managing environmental data under this assistance agreement, it will protect the data by following all applicable State law cybersecurity requirements. (b) (1) EPA must ensure that any connections between the recipient's network or information system and EPA networks used by the recipient to transfer data under this agreement, are secure. For purposes of this Section, a connection is defined as a dedicated persistent interface between an Agency IT system and an external IT system for the purpose of transferring information. Transitory, user- controlled connections such as website browsing are excluded from this definition. If the recipient's connections as defined above do not go through the Environmental Information Exchange Network or EPA's Central Data Exchange, the recipient agrees to contact the EPA Project Officer and work with the designated Regional/Headquarters Information Security Officer to ensure that the connections meet EPA security requirements, including entering into Interconnection Service Agreements as appropriate. This condition does not apply to manual entry of data by the recipient into 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 10 systems operated and used by EPA's regulatory programs for the submission of reporting and/or compliance data. (2) The recipient agrees that any subawards it makes under this agreement will require the subrecipient to comply with the requirements in (b)(1) if the subrecipient's network or information system is connected to EPA networks to transfer data to the Agency using systems other than the Environmental Information Exchange Network or EPA's Central Data Exchange. The recipient will be in compliance with this condition: by including this requirement in subaward agreements; and during subrecipient monitoring deemed necessary by the recipient under 2 CFR 200.332(d), by inquiring whether the subrecipient has contacted the EPA Project Officer. Nothing in this condition requires the recipient to contact the EPA Project Officer on behalf of a subrecipient or to be involved in the negotiation of an Interconnection Service Agreement between the subrecipient and EPA. The following terms and conditions applicable to cybersecurity apply if the recipient is a Tribal Government as defined in the Eligible Recipient definition so long as the recipient is not identified as a not for profit on the Notice of Award: (a) The recipient agrees that when collecting and managing environmental data under this assistance agreement, it will protect the data by following all applicable Tribal law and policy cybersecurity requirements. (b) (1) EPA must ensure that any connections between the recipient's network or information system and EPA networks used by the recipient to transfer data under this agreement, are secure. For purposes of this Section, a connection is defined as a dedicated persistent interface between an Agency IT system and an external IT system for the purpose of transferring information. Transitory, user-controlled connections such as website browsing are excluded from this definition. If the recipient's connections as defined above do not go through the Environmental Information Exchange Network or EPA's Central Data Exchange, the recipient agrees to contact the EPA Project Officer no later than 90 days after the date of this award and work with the designated Regional/Headquarters Information Security Officer to ensure that the connections meet EPA security requirements, including entering into Interconnection Service Agreements as appropriate. This condition does not apply to manual entry of data by the recipient into systems operated and used by EPA's regulatory programs for the submission of reporting and/or compliance data. (2) The recipient agrees that any subawards it makes under this agreement will require the subrecipient to comply with the requirements in (b)(1) if the subrecipient's network or information system is connected to EPA networks to transfer data to the Agency using systems other than the Environmental Information Exchange Network or EPA's Central Data Exchange. The recipient will be in compliance with this condition: by including this requirement in subaward agreements; and during subrecipient monitoring deemed necessary by the recipient under 2 CFR 200.332(d), by inquiring whether the subrecipient has contacted the EPA Project Officer. Nothing in this condition requires the recipient to contact the EPA Project Officer on behalf of a subrecipient or to be involved in the negotiation of an Interconnection Service Agreement between the subrecipient and EPA. The following terms and conditions applicable to cybersecurity apply if the recipient is a Municipality or Eligible Nonprofit Recipient as defined in the Eligible Recipient definition and if the recipient is both a Tribal government as defined in the Eligible Recipient definition and denoted as a not for profit in the Notice of Award: 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 11 (a) The recipient agrees that when collecting and managing environmental data under this assistance agreement, it will protect the data by following all applicable State or Tribal law cybersecurity requirements. (b) (1) EPA must ensure that any connections between the recipient's network or information system and EPA networks used by the recipient to transfer data under this agreement, are secure. For purposes of this Section, a connection is defined as a dedicated persistent interface between an Agency IT system and an external IT system for the purpose of transferring information. Transitory, user-controlled connections such as website browsing are excluded from this definition. If the recipient's connections as defined above do not go through the Environmental Information Exchange Network or EPA's Central Data Exchange, the recipient agrees to contact the EPA Project Officer no later than 90 days after the date of this award and work with the designated Regional/Headquarters Information Security Officer to ensure that the connections meet EPA security requirements, including entering into Interconnection Service Agreements as appropriate. This condition does not apply to manual entry of data by the recipient into systems operated and used by EPA's regulatory programs for the submission of reporting and/or compliance data. (2) The recipient agrees that any subawards it makes under this agreement will require the subrecipient to comply with the requirements in (b)(1) if the subrecipient's network or information system is connected to EPA networks to transfer data to the Agency using systems other than the Environmental Information Exchange Network or EPA's Central Data Exchange. The recipient will be in compliance with this condition: by including this requirement in subaward agreements; and during subrecipient monitoring deemed necessary by the recipient under 2 CFR 200.332(d), by inquiring whether the subrecipient has contacted the EPA Project Officer. Nothing in this condition requires the recipient to contact the EPA Project Officer on behalf of a subrecipient or to be involved in the negotiation of an Interconnection Service Agreement between the subrecipient and EPA. C. Competency Policy In accordance with Agency Policy Directive Number FEM-2012-02, Policy to Assure the Competency of Organizations Generating Environmental Measurement Data under Agency-Funded Assistance Agreements, the recipient agrees, by entering into this agreement, that it has demonstrated competency prior to award, or alternatively, where a pre-award demonstration of competency is not practicable, the recipient agrees to demonstrate competency prior to carrying out any activities under the award involving the generation or use of environmental data. The recipient shall maintain competency for the duration of the project period of this agreement and this will be documented during the annual reporting process. A copy of the Policy is available online at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015- 03/documents/competency-policy-aaia-new.pdf or a copy may also be requested by contacting the EPA Project Officer for this award. D. Signage Required 1. Signage Requirements a. Investing in America Emblem: The recipient will ensure that a sign is placed at construction sites supported in whole or in part by this award displaying the official Investing in America emblem and must identify the project as a “project funded by President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act,” where the financial assistance used to fund the construction project exceeds $250,000. The recipient will also make optional 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 12 signage available for projects where the construction is less than $250,000. The sign must be placed at construction sites in an easily visible location that can be directly linked to the work taking place and must be maintained in good condition throughout the construction period. The recipient will ensure compliance with the guidelines and design specifications provided by EPA for using the official Investing in America emblem available at: https://www.epa.gov/invest/investing-america-signage. b. Procuring Signs: Consistent with section 6002 of RCRA, 42 USC 6962, and 2 CFR 200.323, the recipient is encouraged to use recycled or recovered materials when procuring signs. Signage costs are considered an allowable cost under this assistance agreement provided that the costs associated with signage are reasonable. Additionally, to increase public awareness of projects serving communities where English is not the predominant language, the recipient is encouraged to translate the language on signs (excluding the official Investing in America emblem or EPA logo or seal) into the appropriate non- English language(s). The costs of such translation are allowable, provided the costs are reasonable. 2. Public or Media Events The recipient agrees to notify the EPA Project Officer of public or media events publicizing the accomplishment of significant activities related to execution of the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan and provide the opportunity for attendance and participation by federal representatives with at least 15 calendar days' notice. Additionally, the recipient agrees to provide the EPA Project Officer a minimum of 2 business days notice, with an updated version of the press release, prior to the publication of any press releases related to the Solar for All program. The EPA Project Officer may waive or modify these requirements. E. In-Kind Assistance This action awards federal funds in the amount specified on the Notice of Award of which $400,000 is anticipated to be through in-kind assistance. The in-kind assistance will include but is not limited to convenings and peer networking, market data collection, research and analysis, tool building, and education and outreach, to assist recipients in achieving the objectives of the Solar for All program. F. Geospatial Data Standards All geospatial data created must be consistent with Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) endorsed standards. Information on these standards may be found at https://www.fgdc.gov/. G. Leveraging and Fund Raising 1. Leveraging The recipient agrees to make best efforts to provide the proposed leveraged funding that is described in its EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan. If the proposed leveraging does not materialize during the period of performance, and the recipient does not provide a satisfactory explanation, the Agency may consider this factor in evaluating future proposals from the recipient. In addition, if the proposed leveraging does not materialize during the period of performance, then EPA may reconsider the legitimacy of the award; if EPA determines that the recipient knowingly or recklessly provided inaccurate information regarding the leveraged funding described in the application, EPA may take action as authorized by 2 CFR Part 200 and/or 2 CFR Part 180 as applicable. 2. Fund Raising 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 13 2 CFR 200.442 provides coverage on allowable fund-raising costs, with additional details contained in Item 4 of the EPA Guidance on Selected Items of Cost for Recipients. Fund raising costs are an allowable cost and may include costs that are reasonable and necessary for raising additional capital to provide financial assistance to eligible zero emissions technologies or project-deployment technical assistance to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from eligible zero emission technologies. Allowable fund-raising costs must meet the following two criteria, in addition to meeting the requirements for allowability under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E as well as applicable provisions of 2 CFR Part 1500: (1) must be in support of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund's third program objective to mobilize financing and private capital and (2) must be reasonable and necessary to raise capital from private- sector investors. Funds a recipient raises with costs borne by an EPA financial assistance agreement are considered program income, which must be treated in accordance with the Program Income Programmatic Term and Condition. When fund raising costs are paid for by both the award as well as other sources, a portion of the funds raised equal to the share of fund-raising costs charged to the award will be treated as program income. H. Quality Assurance Authority: Quality Assurance applies to all assistance agreements involving environmental information as defined in 2 C.F.R. § 1500.12 Quality Assurance. The recipient shall ensure that subawards involving environmental information issued under this agreement include appropriate quality requirements for the work. The recipient shall ensure subrecipients develop and implement the Quality Assurance (QA) planning documents(s) in accordance with this term and condition and/or ensure subrecipients implement all applicable approved QA planning documents. Note, EPA will not approve any QA planning documents developed by a subrecipient. The recipient is responsible for reviewing and approving its subrecipient QA planning documents, if required based on the subrecipients environmental information collection operations. 1. Quality Management Plan (QMP) a. Prior to beginning environmental information operations needed to complete the requirements outlined in the Performance Reporting Programmatic Term and Condition, the recipient must: i. Submit a previously EPA-approved and current Quality Management Plan (QMP). The EPA Quality Assurance Manager or designee (hereafter referred to as QAM) will notify the recipient and EPA Project Officer in writing if the previously EPA-approved QMP is acceptable for this agreement, ii. Develop a QMP in consultation with the EPA Project Officer and EPA QAM if a previously EPA- approved and current QMP is not in place, iii. Submit the QMP within 90 days of the date of award for the first amendment of the agreement and obtain EPA Project Officer and EPA QAM approval, iv. Review the approved QMP at least annually. These documented reviews shall be made available to the sponsoring EPA organization if requested. When necessary, the recipient shall revise its QMP to incorporate minor changes and notify the EPA Project Officer and QAM of the changes. If significant changes have been made to the Quality Program that affect the performance of environmental 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 14 information operations, it may be necessary to re-submit the entire QMP for re-approval. In general, a copy of any QMP revision(s) made during the year should be submitted to the EPA Project Officer and QAM in writing when such changes occur. Conditions requiring the revision and resubmittal of an approved QMP can be found in section 6 of EPA's Quality Management Plan (QMP) Standard. 2. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) a. Prior to beginning environmental information operations needed to complete the requirements outlined in the Performance Reporting Programmatic Term and Condition, the recipient must: i. Develop a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in consultation with the EPA Project Officer and EPA QAM, ii. Submit the QAPP within 90 days of the date of award for the first amendment of the agreement and obtain EPA Project Officer and EPA QAM approval, iii. Review the approved QAPP at least annually. These documented reviews shall be made available to the sponsoring EPA organization if requested. When necessary, the recipient shall revise its QAPP to incorporate minor changes and notify the EPA Project Officer and QAM of the changes. If significant changes have been made to the Quality Program that affect the performance of environmental information operations, it may be necessary to re-submit the entire QAPP for re-approval. In general, a copy of any QAPP revision(s) made during the year should be submitted to the EPA Project Officer and QAM in writing when such changes occur. Conditions requiring the revision and resubmittal of an approved QAPP can be found in section 6 of EPA's Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Standard. The following materials contain quality specifications and definitions to facilitate adherence to these terms and conditions: • Quality Management Plan (QMP) Standard and EPA's Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) Standard; • EPA QA/G-5: Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans. • EPA's Quality Program website has a list of QA managers, and Non-EPA Organizations Quality Specifications. • The Office of Grants and Debarment Implementation of Quality Assurance Requirements for Organizations Receiving EPA Financial Assistance. I. Equipment Disposition The following term and condition applicable to equipment disposition applies if the recipient is a Municipality, Tribal Government, or Eligible Nonprofit Recipient as defined in the Eligible Recipient definition: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.313, when original or replacement equipment acquired under this agreement is no longer needed for the original project or program or for other activities currently or previously supported by EPA, the recipient may dispose of the equipment without further instruction from EPA. 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 15 J. Real Property In accordance with 2 CFR 200.311, title to real property acquired or improved under this agreement will vest upon acquisition in the recipient. This property must be used for the originally authorized purpose as long as needed for that purpose, during which time the recipient must not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests. Disposition When real property is no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose, the recipient must obtain disposition instructions from EPA. The instructions will provide for one of the following alternatives: 1. Retain title after compensating EPA. The amount paid to EPA will be computed by applying EPA's percentage of participation in the cost of the original purchase (and costs of any improvements) to the fair market value of the property. However, in those situations where recipient is disposing of real property acquired or improved with a Federal award and acquiring replacement real property under the same Federal award, the net proceeds from the disposition may be used as an offset to the cost of the replacement property. 2. Sell the property and compensate EPA. The amount due to EPA will be calculated by applying EPA's percentage of participation in the cost of the original purchase (and cost of any improvements) to the proceeds of the sale after deduction of any actual and reasonable selling and fixing-up expenses. If the Federal award has not been closed out, the net proceeds from sale may be offset against the original cost of the property. When the recipient is directed to sell property, sales procedures must be followed that provide for competition to the extent practicable and result in the highest possible return. 3. Transfer title to EPA or to a third party designated/approved by EPA. The recipient is entitled to be paid an amount calculated by applying the recipient's percentage of participation in the purchase of the real property (and cost of any improvements) to the current fair market value of the property. Recordation As authorized by 2 CFR 200.316, EPA requires that recipients who use EPA funding to purchase and improve real property through an EPA funded construction project record a lien or similar notice in the real property records for the jurisdiction in which the real property is located, which indicates that the real property has been acquired and improved with federal funding and that use and disposition conditions apply to the real property. K. Program Income In accordance with 2 CFR 200.307(e)(2) and 2 CFR 1500.8(b), the recipient and any subrecipient must retain program income earned during the period of performance. Program income will be added to funds committed to the program by EPA and used for the purposes and under the conditions of the assistance agreement and beyond the period of performance based on a closeout agreement. Until such a closeout agreement is effective, the recipient and subrecipient are authorized to use program income under the conditions of the assistance agreement, pending execution of the closeout agreement. In accordance with 2 CFR 1500.8(d) as supplemented by the Period of Performance Programmatic Term and Condition, the recipient and subrecipient may only use program income once the award is fully drawn down or the period of performance ends for a different reason. Program income must be deposited and 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 16 held in an account meeting the requirements in the Financial Risk Management Programmatic Term and Condition. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.307(b), costs incidental to the generation of program income may be deducted from gross income to determine program income, provided these costs have not been charged to the EPA award or another Federal financial assistance agreement. The recipient must retain adequate accounting records to document that any costs deducted from program income comply with regulatory requirements. L. Use of Logos If the EPA logo is appearing along with logos from other participating entities on websites, outreach materials, or reports, it must not be prominently displayed to imply that any of the recipient or subrecipient's activities are being conducted by the EPA. Instead, the EPA logo should be accompanied with a statement indicating that the recipient received financial support from the EPA under an Assistance Agreement. More information is available at: https://www.epa.gov/stylebook/using-epa-seal- and-logo#policy. II. Additional Programmatic Terms and Conditions A. Conflicts Among Authorities Any inconsistency or conflict among the authorities governing the recipient's administration of this award will be resolved in the following order of precedence: public laws, regulations (including 2 CFR 200 and 2 CFR 1500), applicable notices published in the Federal Register, Executive Orders, and these award agreement terms and conditions. B. Specific Condition on Completion of EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan Pursuant to 2 CFR 200.206(b) and (c), 2 CFR 200.208(b)(1), and 2 CFR 200.208(c)(2) and (6), EPA has determined that a specific condition is necessary to ensure that the recipient's EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan allows the recipient to effectively carry out the significant scale, complexity, and novelty of the Solar for All program. Based on this determination, until the documents listed below have been approved by the EPA Grants Management Officer or Award Official, the recipient may draw down no more than 2% of the EPA funding, identified in the Notice of Award, for direct costs for the following cost categories: personnel; fringe benefits; contractual costs for consultants procured in accordance with 2 CFR 200 and 1500; and indirect costs, that are necessary for the recipient to finalize the scope of work of this agreement. This limitation includes pre-award costs and costs the recipient incurs after award. EPA cannot confirm whether costs incurred or drawn down are allowable until EPA reviews and approves the documents below. Any costs incurred by the recipient are at their own risk until the documents below are approved by EPA. Within 90 days of receipt of award, the recipient must submit the following documents to the EPA Project Officer identified in the Notice of Award: Revised SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 17 Indirect Rate Proposal or Agreement, if applicable Revised Budget Narrative Revised Project Specific Workplan (i.e., the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan) Action Required to remove the specific condition. EPA will review the recipient's submissions and will work with the recipient to refine the SF-424A to ensure that all costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable; the budget narrative appropriately reflects the full budget of the award; and that there is sufficient detail of estimated funding amounts for each project task. Upon completion and EPA approval of the above documents, EPA will promptly remove this term and condition, as require by 2 CFR 200.208 (e), and all remaining funds will be available to the recipient to draw down reasonable, allocable, and allowable expenditures in accordance with its EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan. Method for Reconsideration. If the recipient believes that this specific condition is not warranted or requires modification, the recipient must file a written objection within 21 days of the EPA award or amendment mailing date and must not draw down funds until the objection is resolved. The recipient must submit the written objection via email to the Award Official, Grant Specialist and Project Officer identified in the Notice of Award. The EPA Award Official may modify this requirement on a case-by-case basis. C. Solar for All Workplan 1. EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan The recipient agrees to implement this grant in accordance with its EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan. The recipient agrees that the public laws, regulations, applicable notices, Executive Orders, and these award agreement terms and conditions supersede the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan in the event there are conflicting provisions in the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan. 2. Specific condition on revisions to EPA-approved Solar for All workplan in the one-year planning period The recipient's EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan may include work to refine the program during the one-year planning period. Pursuant to 2 CFR 200.206(b) and (c), 2 CFR 200.208(b)(1), and 2 CFR 200.208(c)(2) and (6), EPA has determined that a specific condition is necessary to ensure that the further revisions to the recipient's EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan allow the recipient to effectively carry out the significant scale, complexity, and novelty of the Solar for All program. Based on this determination, if the recipient makes revisions to its EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan during the one- year planning period, the recipient must first receive approval from the EPA Grants Management Officer or Award Official on the revised Solar for All Workplan prior to requesting drawdown on any revised work. EPA will not make payments for unapproved work and any costs incurred for unapproved work by the recipient are at its own risk. The recipient may continue to request payments and EPA will make payments for costs covered by the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan while the EPA Grants Management Officer or Award Official, as appropriate, reviews any revised Solar for All Workplan. Action Required to remove the specific condition. If the recipient makes revisions to its workplan during 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 18 the planning period, the recipient must submit the revised workplan to EPA no later than 365 calendar days after the date of award for the first amendment of the agreement. EPA will review the recipient's submissions and will work with the recipient to refine the SF-424A to ensure that all costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable; the budget narrative appropriately reflects the full budget of the award; and that there is sufficient detail of estimated funding amounts for each project task. Upon completion and EPA approval of any revisions to the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan, timeline, budget narrative, budget detail, and SF-424A (if applicable), EPA will promptly remove this term and condition, as require by 2 CFR 200.208(e), and the recipient may then request payments for the revised work that has been approved by EPA. Method for Reconsideration. If the recipient believes that this specific condition is not warranted or requires modification, the recipient must file a written objection within 21 days of the EPA award or amendment mailing date and must not draw down funds until the objection is resolved. The recipient must submit the written objection via email to the Award Official, Grant Specialist and Project Officer identified in the Notice of Award. D. Allowable and Unallowable Activities The recipient agrees to only use the award to support the following allowable activities: financial assistance and project-deployment technical assistance that enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from eligible zero emissions technologies as well as participant support costs for trainees in workforce development programs. All costs charged to the award to support these activities must meet the requirements for allowability under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E as well as applicable provisions of 2 CFR Part 1500. In addition, the recipient agrees to obtain prior approval from the EPA Award Official prior to the expenditure of the award for activities that involve acquiring real property, including related equipment purchases. Note, the recipient may meet this requirement by specifying the framework for all acquisitions of real property in its EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan. The recipient agrees to not use the award for the following unallowable activities: (a) activities that support deployment of projects that do not meet the definition of eligible zero-emissions technologies; (b) Costs of acquiring “intangible property,” as defined in 2 CFR 200.1; and (c) activities that support deployment of projects outside the boundaries of the ten EPA regions. The recipient also agrees not to use the award for activities associated with defending against, settling, or satisfying a claim by a private litigant, except when either (a) the claim stems from the recipient's compliance with the terms and conditions of the award agreement or (b) the recipient has obtained prior written approval from the EPA Project Officer. E. Foreign Entity of Concern As part of carrying out this award, recipient agrees to ensure that entities the recipient contracts with, the recipient makes subawards to, or that receive funds as program beneficiaries at any tier of funding under this grant agreement are not— (A) an entity owned by, controlled by, or subject to the direction of a government of a covered nation under 10 U.S.C. 4872(d); (B) an entity headquartered in a covered nation under 10 U.S.C. 4872(d); or (C) a subsidiary of an entity described in (A) or (B). 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 19 As of the date these terms and conditions become effective, covered nations under 10 U.S.C. § 4872(d) are the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea; the People's Republic of China; the Russian Federation; and the Islamic Republic of Iran. F. Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities Expenditure Requirement The recipient agrees to ensure that 100% of the award is used for the purposes of enabling low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from eligible zero emissions technologies. This requirement applies to the entire award provided to the recipient and “flows down” to all subrecipients. G. Revolving Loan Fund Characterization EPA considers the portion of the award used to provide financial products, including financial products that are categorized as project-deployment technical assistance under this program, that may generate program income as a capitalization of a revolving loan fund for the purposes of 2 CFR 1500.8(d). Such financial assistance may include subawards or participant support costs. In accordance with section 2.0 Applicability and Effective Date and the definition of Subaward in section 3.0 of the EPA Subaward Policy, the EPA Subaward Policy does not apply to the recipient's subawards from the capitalization of a revolving loan fund. EPA does not consider the remaining portion of the award as a capitalization of a revolving loan fund for the purposes of 2 CFR 1500.8(d). As such, all subgrants made by the recipient are subject to the EPA Subaward Policy. H. Subawards to For-Profit Entities The recipient is authorized to provide subawards to for-profit entities as included in the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan. The recipient agrees to require that for-profit entities that receive such subawards: 1. Can only recover their eligible and allowable direct and indirect costs from EPA-funded activities, including recovering the portion of their overhead costs attributable to the activities by applying either a Federally approved indirect cost rate, as authorized by 2 CFR 200.414(f), or the de-minimis rate if the subrecipient does not have a Federally approved rate; 2. Comply with the Management Fees General Term and Condition, which is incorporated by reference into the Establishing and Managing Subawards General Term and Condition; 3. Account for and use program income under the rules for program income pursuant to 2 CFR 1500.8(b) and the terms and conditions of the award agreement; 4. Be subject to the same requirements as non-profit subrecipients under 2 CFR Part 200 Subparts A through E, as federal awarding agencies are authorized to apply 2 CFR Part 200 Subparts A through E to for-profit entities in accordance with 2 CFR 200.101(b); and 5. Select an independent auditor consistent with the criteria set forth in 2 CFR 200.509 and obtain an independent audit substantially similar in scope and quality to that of the Single Audit (see 2 CFR 200.500 et. seq.); the subrecipient must submit the audit to the recipient within 9 months of the end of the recipient's fiscal year or 30 days after receiving the report from an independent auditor, whichever is earlier; as provided in 2 CFR 200.337(a) the recipient must provide EPA, the EPA Office of Inspector General, and the Comptroller General with access to the subrecipient's independent auditor reports. 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 20 I. Subawards as Part of Revolving Loan Funds The following requirements apply when the recipient provides Subawards under 2 CFR 200.1 as part of a revolving loan fund. These requirements apply to the recipient and subrecipient in lieu of those specified in the Establishing and Managing Subawards General Term and Condition. 1. The recipient agrees to provide written guidelines for all subawards provided as part of a revolving loan fund. The recipient is precluded from drawing down funds for subawards provided as part of a revolving loan fund until the EPA Project Officer provides written confirmation of the guidelines. These guidelines must: (a) describe the activities that will be supported by the subawards; (b) specify the range of funding to be provided through the subawards; (c) identify which types of entities (i.e., governmental, non-profit, for-profit) will receive the subawards; and (d) specify how the subrecipients are eligible subrecipients in accordance with EPA's Subaward Policy. Additionally, if a recipient plans to subaward to a for-profit entity the recipient's response to (d) must specifically describe how the for-profit subrecipient will only receive reimbursement for their actual direct or approved indirect costs such that the subrecipient does not “profit” from the transaction. 2. The recipient must establish and follow a system that ensures all financial assistance agreements are in writing and contain all of the elements required by 2 CFR 200.332(a), including the indirect cost provision of 2 CFR 200.332(a)(4) for subawards. EPA has developed an optional template for subaward agreements available in Appendix D of the EPA Subaward Policy, which may also be used for such subaward agreements. 3. The subrecipient must comply with the internal control requirements specified at 2 CFR 200.303 and is subject to the 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, Audit Requirements. The pass-through entity must include a condition in all financial assistance agreements that requires subrecipients to comply with these requirements. No other provisions of the Uniform Grant Guidance, including the Procurement Standards, apply directly to the subrecipient. 4. Prior to making the subaward, the recipient must ensure that the subrecipient has a “unique entity identifier.” This identifier is required for registering in the System for Award Management (SAM) and by 2 CFR Part 25 and 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1). The unique entity identifier (UEI) is generated when an entity registers in SAM. Information on registering in SAM and obtaining a UEI is available in the General Condition of the pass-through entity's agreement with EPA entitled “System for Award Management and Universal Identifier Requirements.” J. Participant Support Costs 1. Participant Support Cost Requirements The recipient may provide financial assistance and project-deployment technical assistance to enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from eligible zero emissions technologies in the form of participant support costs. The recipient agrees to the following eligibility, restrictions, timelines, and other programmatic requirements on participant support costs, in addition to other requirements included in the terms and conditions of this award agreement: A. The recipient and program beneficiaries are responsible for taxes, if any, on payments made to or on 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 21 behalf of entities participating in this program that are allowable as participant support costs under 2 CFR 200.1, 2 CFR 200.456, or 2 CFR 1500.1. EPA encourages the recipient and program beneficiaries to consult their tax advisers, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or state and local tax authorities regarding the taxability of subsidies, rebates and other participant support cost payments. However, EPA does not provide advice on tax issues relating to these payments. B. Participant support cost payments are lower tiered covered Nonprocurement transactions for the purposes of 2 CFR 180.300 and the Suspension and Debarment General Term and Condition. The recipient, therefore, may not make participant support cost payments to entities excluded from participation in Federal Nonprocurement programs under 2 CFR Part 180 and must ensure that subrecipients adhere to this requirement as well. The recipient is responsible for checking that program participants are not excluded from participation through either (1) checking the System for Award Management (SAM) or (2) obtaining eligibility certifications from the program participants. The recipient is precluded from drawing down funds for participant support costs until the EPA Project Officer provides written confirmation of the guidelines. These guidelines must: (a) describe the activities that will be supported by the participant support costs; (b) specify the range of funding to be provided through the participant support costs; (c) identify which types of entities will have title to equipment (if any) purchased with a rebate or subsidy; (d) establish source documentation requirements (e.g., invoices) for accounting records; and (e) describe purchasing controls to ensure that the amount of the participant support cost is determined in a commercially reasonable manner as required by 2 CFR 200.404. The recipient agrees to reporting and transaction documentation of participant support costs in support of the reporting requirements in the Performance Reporting Programmatic Term and Condition. 2. Participant Support Costs for Fellowship, Internship Programs and Similar Programs When the recipient uses EPA funds for participant support costs payments as stipends for workforce development, scholarships, tuition remission and other forms of student aid, these participant support costs may only be used for citizens of the United States, its territories, or possessions, or for individuals lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. The recipient and program participants are responsible for taxes, if any, on payments made to or on behalf of individuals participating in this program that are allowable as participant support costs under 2 CFR 200.1 or 2 CFR 200.456 and scholarships and other forms of student aid such as tuition remission under 2 CFR 200.466. EPA encourages recipients and program participants to consult their tax advisers, the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or state and local tax authorities regarding the taxability of stipends, tuition remission and other payments. However, EPA does not provide advice on tax issues relating to these payments. Participant support cost payments, scholarships, and other forms of student aid such as tuition remission are lower tiered covered Nonprocurement transactions for the purposes of 2 CFR 180.300 and EPA's Suspension and Debarment Term and Condition. Recipients, therefore, may not make participant support cost payments to individuals who are excluded from participation in Federal Nonprocurement programs under 2 CFR Part 180. Recipients are responsible for checking the eligibility of program participants in the System for Award Management (SAM) or obtaining eligibility certifications from the program participants. 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 22 See EPA Guidance on Participant Support Costs K. Labor and Equitable Workforce Development Requirements 1. Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) A. Program Applicability As provided in Section 314 of the Clean Air Act (42 USC § 7614) (DBRA), Davis-Bacon Act (42 USC §§ 3141-3144) labor standards apply to projects assisted by grants and cooperative agreements made under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Accordingly, all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors on projects assisted under this award agreement shall be paid wages at rates not less than those prevailing for the same type of work on similar construction in the locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with 40 USC Subtitle II, Part A, Chapter 31, Subchapter IV (Wage Rate Requirements). Under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the relevant construction type and prevailing wage classifications would be “Building” and “Residential.” The Secretary of Labor's wage determinations are available at https://sam.gov/content/wage-determinations. Therefore, recipient must ensure that any construction work financed in whole or in part with such financial assistance, as defined in these Terms and Conditions, provided under this agreement complies with Davis Bacon Act requirements. If the recipient encounters a situation that presents uncertainties regarding DBRA applicability under this assistance agreement, the recipient must discuss the situation with the EPA Project Officer before authorizing work on the project. In the event that a periodic project site visit, audit, or routine communication with subrecipient, program beneficiary, contractor, or subcontractor determines any instances of non-compliance or potential non- compliance with Davis-Bacon, the recipient agrees to promptly inform the EPA Project Officer for possible referral to the U.S. Department of Labor for guidance or enforcement action. Consistent with the definition in 40 CFR 33.103 the term “construction” as used in this term and condition means the erection, alteration, or repair (including dredging, excavating, and painting) of buildings, structures, or other improvements to real property. B. Davis-Bacon and Related Acts Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBRA) is a collection of labor standards provisions administered by the Department of Labor, that are applicable to grants involving construction. These labor standards include the: Davis-Bacon Act, which requires payment of prevailing wage rates for laborers and mechanics on construction contracts of $2,000 or more; Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act, which prohibits a contractor or subcontractor from inducing an employee into giving up any part of the compensation to which he or she is entitled; and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, which requires overtime wages to be paid for over 40 hours of work per week, under contracts in excess of $100,000. 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 23 C. Recipient Responsibilities When Entering Into and Managing Contracts: a. Solicitation and Contract Requirements: i. Include the Correct Wage Determinations in Bid Solicitations and Contracts: Recipients are responsible for complying with the procedures provided in 29 CFR 1.6 when soliciting bids and awarding contracts. ii. Include DBRA Requirements in All Contracts: Include “By accepting this contract, the contractor acknowledges and agrees to the terms provided in the DBRA Requirements for Contractors and Subcontractors Under EPA Grants.” b. After Award of Contract: i. Approve and Submit Requests for Additional Wages Rates: Work with contractors to request additional wage rates if required for contracts under this grant, as provided in 29 CFR 5.5(a)(1) (iii). ii. Provide Oversight of Contractors to Ensure Compliance with DBRA Provisions: Ensure contractor compliance with the terms of the contract, as required by 29 CFR 5.6. D. Recipient Responsibilities When Establishing and Managing Additional Subawards: a. Include DBRA Requirements in All Subawards (including Loans): Include the following text on all subawards under this grant: “By accepting this award, the EPA subrecipient acknowledges and agrees to the terms and conditions provided in the DBRA Requirements for EPA Subrecipients.” b. Provide Oversight to Ensure Compliance with DBRA Provisions: Recipients are responsible for oversight of subrecipients and must ensure subrecipients comply with the requirements in 29 CFR 5.6. The contract clauses set forth in this Term & Condition, along with the correct wage determinations, will be considered to be a part of every prime contract covered by Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (see 29 CFR 5.1), and will be effective by operation of law, whether or not they are included or incorporated by reference into such contract, unless the Department of Labor grants a variance, tolerance, or exemption. Where the clauses and applicable wage determinations are effective by operation of law under this paragraph, the prime contractor must be compensated for any resulting increase in wages in accordance with applicable law. 2. Mega Construction Project Program The recipient must work with the U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to identify projects that are within the scope of OFCCP's Mega Construction Project Program, which includes federally-assisted projects with a total project value above $35,000,000. If those projects are selected from a wide range of federally-assisted projects over which OFCCP has jurisdiction, those projects will be required to participate and partner with OFCCP in the OFCCP Mega Construction Projects program. 3. Compliance with Federal Statutes and Regulations 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 24 The recipient agrees to comply with other applicable federal statutes and regulations related to labor and equitable workforce development as well as to enforce compliance with subrecipients, contractors, and other partners. This includes but is not limited to applicable health and safety regulations as administer by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. 4. Free and Fair Choice to Join a Union In accordance with Executive Order 14082 (Implementation of the Energy and Infrastructure Provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022), the recipient agrees to design and implement a policy to increase high-quality job opportunities for American workers and improving equitable access to these jobs, including in traditional energy communities, through the timely implementation of requirements for prevailing wages and registered apprenticeships and by focusing on high labor standards and the free and fair chance to join a union. In accordance with the EPA General Terms and Conditions, grant funds may not be used to support or oppose union organizing, whether directly or as an offset for other funds. 5. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises The recipient agrees to comply with 40 CFR Part 33, “Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Programs” set forth requirements for making good faith efforts to ensure that Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, including Minority Business Enterprises and Women's Business Enterprises receive a fair share of contracts awarded with funds provided by EPA financial assistance agreements. These requirements apply to subrecipients in accordance with 40 CFR 33.102 and the definition of “Recipient” in 40 CFR 33.103. L. Build America, Buy America Act The Build America, Buy America Act – Public Law 117-58, requires the EPA to ensure that “none of the funds made available for a Federal financial assistance program for infrastructure, including each deficient program, may be obligated for a project unless all of the iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States.” (P.L. 117-58, Secs 70911 – 70917). The recipient is bound to the EPA Build America, Buy America General Term and Condition, which outlines the Build America, Buy America requirements that all recipients of EPA financial assistance awards must comply with. If the recipient encounters a situation that presents uncertainties regarding Build America, Buy America applicability under this assistance agreement, the recipient must discuss the situation with the EPA Project Officer before authorizing work on the project. M. Consumer Protection Requirements The recipient agrees to carry out the following consumer financial protection requirements to the extent that the recipient directly interacts, transacts, or contracts with consumers: 1. Comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Act, and other federal consumer protection laws that apply; 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 25 2. Provide written disclosures to consumers containing information in clear and understandable language regarding purchasing, leasing, or financing as well as the costs associated with a consumer's transaction; 3. With regard to solar products or services, provide written disclosures on the impact of the solar project on the consumer's ability to sell or refinance their home and recording of any liens on the home; consumer rights; contact information for the solar project provider; and complaint procedures for the consumer if they have a problem with the solar project or sales process; 4. Require that all in-person and telephone marketing that directly interacts, transacts, or contracts with consumers be conducted in a language in which the consumer subject to the marketing is able to understand and communicate; and 5. Maintain a process for receiving, monitoring, and resolving consumer complaints, including ensuring that complaints are appropriately addressed and referring complaints, when necessary, to the appropriate government regulatory agency. The recipient agrees to monitor and oversee subrecipients and contractors with respect to these consumer financial protection requirements to the extent that they directly interact, transact, or contract with consumers, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(d) and 2 CFR 200.318. N. Financial Risk Management Requirements 1. Cash Management Requirements The recipient and any subrecipient must deposit and maintain advance payments of Federal funds into insured accounts, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.305(b)(7)(ii). Interest income earned on the advance payment from EPA to the recipient prior to disbursement is subject to the requirements on interest earned within 2 CFR 200.305(b)(8) and 2 CFR 200.305(b)(9); consequently, such interest earned in excess of $500 must be remitted annually to the Department of Health and Human Services Payment Management System. The recipient and subrecipient are authorized to maintain program income in insured accounts. The recipient and subrecipient are also authorized to maintain program income in accounts where such income is used to purchase U.S. Savings Bonds, U.S. Treasury Marketable Securities, and U.S. Agency Marketable Securities, provided the duration of such instruments is no longer than 90 days and that such instruments are held-to-maturity if purchased directly; or short-term money market funds consisting solely of the aforementioned investment instruments and offering daily investor redemptions. Interest income and other returns earned on funds that have already been disbursed is considered additional program income consistent with 2 CFR 1500.8(d) and is not subject to the requirements on interest earned within 2 CFR 200.305(b)(8) and 2 CFR 200.305(b)(9). 2. Climate-Related Financial Risks The recipient agrees to comply with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management). This may include accounting for and evaluating practicable alternatives or other mitigation related to ameliorating flood risks and protecting flood plains as part of its financial risk management policies and procedures. The recipient agrees to comply with Executive Order 14030 (Climate-Related Financial Risk). This may include accounting for climate-related financial risks—including physical and transition risks—in its 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 26 financial risk management policies and procedures.\ 3. Additional Requirements The recipient agrees to not subordinate its interests in any asset that the recipient acquires with EPA funds or program income in a manner that waives EPA's claim for compensation under any applicable statutory claims, 2 CFR Part 200, or common law. The recipient agrees to apply EPA's Final Financial Assistance Conflict of Interest Policy to all subawards and participant support costs made to entities receiving financial assistance or project- deployment technical assistance. Notwithstanding the statement in section 2.0 of the Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy that it does not apply to “Subawards in the form of loans, loan guarantees, interest subsidies and principal forgiveness, purchases of insurance or similar transactions entered into with borrowers by recipients of revolving loan fund capitalization grants or other EPA financial assistance agreements where Agency funds may be used for lending activities,” EPA is applying the COI Policy to these transactions through this term and condition. The recipient agrees to provide subrecipients that receive subawards to provide financial assistance or project-deployment technical assistance with training and technical assistance on program-related matters, including on prudent financial risk management practices, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(e). O. Historic Preservation National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 of the NHPA requires all federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings, including the act of awarding a grant or cooperative agreement, on historic properties, and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. The recipient must assist the EPA Project Officer in complying with NHPA if any activities funded under this grant impact a historic property. Historic properties include: (a) land or buildings listed in or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; (b) buildings or structures that are greater than 50 years old; (c) archaeologically sensitive areas or in an area where traditional cultural properties are located; and (d) properties that are associated with significant historic events, are associated with significant people, embody distinctive characteristics, and contain important precontact information. The recipient should work with their Project Officer to ensure that subrecipients are available to work with EPA on any required consultation process with the State or Tribal Historic Preservation Office prior to commencing the project to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. If NHPA compliance is required, necessary Section 106 consultation activities, such as historic or architectural surveys, structural engineering analysis of buildings, public meetings, and archival photographs, can be considered allowable and allocable grant costs. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act (AHPA) This law applies if archeologically significant artifacts or similar items are discovered after an EPA-funded construction project has begun, and compliance may be coordinated with the NHPA, discussed above. The AHPA requires federal agencies to identify relics, specimens, and other forms of scientific, 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 27 prehistorical, historical, or archaeologic data that may be lost during the construction of federally- sponsored projects to ensure that these resources are not inadvertently transferred, sold, demolished or substantially altered, or allowed to deteriorate significantly. The recipient must ensure that subrecipients performing construction projects are aware of this requirement, and the recipient must notify EPA if the AHPA is triggered. P. Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA) applies to acquisitions of property and displacements of individuals and businesses that result from federally assisted programs. The URA and Federal Highway Administration's implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24 require the recipient to follow certain procedures for acquiring property for purposes under the federal award, such as notice, negotiation, and appraisal requirements. The statute and regulations also contain requirements for carrying out relocations of displaced persons and businesses, such as reimbursement requirements for moving expenses and standards for replacement housing. The recipient must comply with, and ensure subrecipients comply with, the URA and 49 CFR Part 34 if an EPA-funded acquisition of property results in permanent displacement of individuals or businesses. Note that although the URA does not apply to temporary displacement of residents, the cost for temporary relocation of residents may be an allowable cost under the “necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award” provision of 2 CFR 200.403(a). The recipient must obtain prior approval of the EPA Project Officer and EPA Award Official for the allowability of costs for temporary relocation of residents. Q. Other Federal Requirements In addition to the statutes outlined in the Labor and Equitable Workforce Programmatic Term and Condition, Build America, Buy America Programmatic Act Term and Condition, Historic Preservation Programmatic Term and Condition, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act Programmatic Term and Condition, Consumer Protection Requirements Programmatic Term and Condition, and Financial Risk Management Programmatic Term and Condition, the recipient must comply with all federal cross-cutting requirements. These requirements include, but are not limited to: Endangered Species Act, as specified in 50 CFR Part 402: Non-Federal entities must identify any impact or activities that may involve a threatened or endangered species. Federal agencies have the responsibility to ensure that no adverse effects to a protected species or habitat occur from actions under Federal assistance awards and conduct the reviews required under the Endangered Species Act, as applicable. Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act: Recipients of financial assistance awards must comply with the requirements outlined in 2 CFR Part 170, Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation. Farmland Protection Policy Act: This statute requires EPA to use criteria developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to identify the potential adverse effects of Federal programs on farmland and its conversion to nonagricultural uses, to mitigate these effects, and to ensure that programs are carried out in a manner that is compatible with the farmland preservation policies of state and local governments, and private organizations. Recipients may need to work with EPA or NRCS, as appropriate, to ensure compliance. 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 28 Coastal Zone Management Act: Projects funded under federal financial assistance agreements must be consistent with a coastal State's approved management program for the coastal zone. For additional information on cross-cutting requirements visit https://www.epa.gov/grants/epa-subaward- cross-cutter-requirements. R. Remedies for Non-Compliance The recipient agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the award agreement. Should the recipient fail to adhere to the terms and conditions of the award agreement, the EPA may seek remedies under 2 CFR 200.208 or 2 CFR 200.339 up to and including termination and the recovery of unallowable costs as well as advances not yet disbursed for allowable costs. The recipient agrees to comply with the statutory requirements of Section 134 of the Clean Air Act. Should the recipient violate the statutory requirements of Section 134 by failing to use grant funds in accordance with Section 134 or by failing to ensure that the activities of subrecipients are in accordance with Section 134, EPA may seek remedies under Section 113, which may subject the recipient to civil administrative penalties through an EPA administrative enforcement action, civil penalties and/or injunctive relief through a civil judicial enforcement action by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), or criminal penalties through a DOJ criminal judicial enforcement action. Should the recipient or its subrecipients make false claims or statements to EPA, EPA may refer the matter to DOJ to pursue claims under the False Claims Act (31 USC 3729) or take action under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (40 CFR Part 27). S. Clarifications to EPA General Terms and Conditions EPA agrees to make the following clarifications to the EPA General Terms and Conditions. These clarifications expand on, rather than replace or modify, the EPA General Terms and Conditions. The recipient agrees to comply with these clarifications. 1. Access to Records In accordance with 2 CFR 200.337, EPA and the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) have the right to access any documents, papers, or other records, including electronic records, of the recipient and any subrecipient which are pertinent to this award in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. This right of access also includes timely and reasonable access to the recipient and subrecipient's personnel for the purpose of interview, discussion, and on-site review related to such documents. This right of access shall continue as long as the records are retained. 2. Automated Standard Application Payments (ASAP) and Proper Payment Draw Down The following clarification to the ASAP and Proper Payment Draw Downs General Term and Condition applies if the recipient is a Municipality, Tribal Government, or Eligible Nonprofit Recipient as defined in the Eligible Recipient definition. States, as defined in the Eligible Recipient definition, are subject to the Proper Payment Drawdown for State Recipients General Term and Condition: The recipient is subject to the Automated Standard Application Payments (ASAP) and Proper Payment Draw Down General Term and Condition. 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 29 The recipient is required to notify the EPA Project Officer of draws from ASAP in excess of the following amounts: $10,000,000 within a 24-hour period or $50,000,000 within a 7-day period. The recipient is required to provide such notification within 3 business days of the draw amount being surpassed. 3. Establishing and Managing Subawards 2 CFR 200.308 requires the recipient to obtain prior agency approval for “subawarding, transferring or contracting out of any work under a Federal award.” EPA will not require additional written approval from the EPA Award Official for a subaward to a subrecipient that is named in the recipient's EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan. When the subrecipient is not named in the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan, the recipient agrees to provide written guidelines that must be approved by the EPA Project Officer. The recipient is precluded from drawing down funds for subawards not named in the application until the EPA Project Officer provides written confirmation of the guidelines. These guidelines must: (a) describe the activities that will be supported by the subawards; (b) specify the range of funding to be provided through the subawards; (c) identify which types of entities (i.e., governmental, non-profit, for-profit) will receive the subawards; and (d) specify how the subrecipients are eligible subrecipients in accordance with EPA's Subaward Policy, and specifically how the subrecipients will comply with the requirement that the subrecipient recipient must only receive reimbursement for their actual direct or approved indirect costs such that they do not “profit” from the transaction. 4. Indirect Cost Rate The recipient should note that subrecipients that receive loans cannot charge an indirect cost rate against their loans and that entities that receive participant supports costs cannot charge an indirect cost rate against their participant support cost payments. Modified total direct costs (MTDC), as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $25,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs and the portion of each subaward in excess of $25,000. 5. Sufficient Progress The EPA Project Officer may assess whether the recipient is making sufficient progress in implementing the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan under this assistance agreement within 30 calendar days after the recipient submits its annual reporting requirements for the second, third, and fourth years for the award. “Sufficient progress” shall be assessed based on a comparison of the recipient's planned versus actual expenditures as well as planned versus actual outputs/outcomes. This term and condition “flows down” to subrecipients, with the recipient required to assess whether each subrecipient is making sufficient progress in implementing the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan under its subaward agreement; the recipient may increase the frequency and scope of the review of sufficient progress of subrecipients, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332 Requirements for Pass-Through Entities. If the EPA Project Officer determines that the recipient has not made sufficient progress in implementing its EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan, the recipient, if directed to do so, must implement a corrective 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 30 action plan concurred on by the EPA Project Officer and approved by the Award Official or Grants Management Officer pursuant to 2 CFR 200.208. 6. Termination EPA maintains the right to terminate the assistance agreement only as specified in 2 CFR 200.340, through either a partial or full termination. If EPA partially or fully terminates the assistance agreement, EPA must (1) deobligate uncommitted funds and reobligate them to another entity to effectuate the objectives of Section 134 of the Clean Air Act, 42 USC § 7434 within 90 days of the deobligation and (2) amend the recipient's assistance agreement to reflect the reduced amount, based on the deobligation. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.341, EPA must provide the recipient notice of termination. T. Period of Performance The period of performance under this award agreement will start on the date specified in the budget period and project period of the “Notice of Award” for this assistance agreement and end no later than five years from that date. However, the period of performance may end prior to five years from the end date specified in the budget period and project period of the “Notice of Award” if (1) the recipient has disbursed the entire award amount and (2) the EPA Project Officer has advised the EPA Award Official that all required work of the Federal award have been completed, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.344. EPA will not consider all required work to have been completed until the entire award amount (or its equivalent) has been used for allowable activities. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.344(b), the recipient agrees to liquidate all financial obligations incurred under the award no later than 120 calendar days after the end date of the period of performance. The recipient should note that the recipient will not be considered to have used the entire award amount so long as any subrecipient has not met the requirements for closeout under 2 CFR 200.344. U. Closeout Agreement As provided at 2 CFR 200.307(f) and 2 CFR 1500.8(c), after the end of the period of performance of the assistance agreement, the recipient may keep and use program income at the end of the assistance agreement (retained program income) and use program income earned after the assistance agreement period of performance (post-closeout program income) in accordance with this term and condition. When used in this Closeout Agreement, the term “program income” includes both retained program income and post-closeout program income. The closeout agreement goes into effect for this assistance agreement the day after the assistance agreement period of performance ends, unless otherwise designated by the EPA Grants Management Officer or Award Official. Prior to the effective date of the Closeout Agreement, the recipient agrees to submit a post-closeout program strategy, covering the use of program income retained and earned by the recipient and its subrecipients. This program strategy will become a condition of the Closeout Agreement, once the program strategy has been approved by the EPA Project Officer. EPA intends to make the program strategy, either in whole or in part, available to the public through disclosing copies of the program strategy as submitted or using the content of the program strategy. Pursuant to 2 CFR 200.338, the recipient agrees to redact personally identifiable information (PII) and mark confidential business information (CBI) accordingly. Information claimed as CBI will be disclosed only to the extent, and by means of the procedures, set forth in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B. As provided at 40 CFR 2.203(b), if no claim of confidential treatment accompanies the information when it is received by EPA, it may be made 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 31 available to the public by EPA without further notice to the recipient. This term and condition is the entire Closeout Agreement between the EPA and the recipient. If any provisions of this Closeout Agreement are invalidated by a court of law, the parties shall remain bound to comply with the provisions of this Closeout Agreement that have not been invalidated. The Closeout Agreement will be interpreted and, if necessary, enforced under Federal law and regulations. The recipient shall comply with the requirements specified below as part of the Closeout Agreement. As specified in the Flow-Down Requirements Programmatic Term and Condition, the Closeout Agreement Programmatic Term and Condition flows down to subrecipients such that the recipient must enter into a corresponding Closeout Agreement with all subrecipients that have retained program income and/or that expect to earn post-closeout program income. 1. Allowable Activities The recipient shall use program income in accordance with the Allowable and Unallowable Activities Programmatic Term and Condition, as applicable. 2. Reporting Requirements The recipient shall submit program performance reports to the EPA Project Officer in accordance with the Performance Reporting Programmatic Term and Condition, as applicable. After September 30, 2031, the recipient shall disclose program performance reports publicly rather than submitting them to the EPA. 3. Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities Expenditure Requirements The recipient shall expend 100% of program income for the purposes of providing financial assistance and technical assistance in and benefiting enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from eligible zero emissions technologies and comply with this requirement in accordance with the Low-Income and Disadvantaged Communities Expenditure Requirements Programmatic Term and Condition, as applicable. 4. Cash Management Requirements The recipient is authorized to maintain program income not yet deployed in support of its program strategy in insured accounts. The recipient is also authorized to maintain program income not yet deployed in support of its program strategy in accounts where such income is used to purchase U.S. Savings Bonds, U.S. Treasury Marketable Securities, and U.S. Agency Marketable Securities, provided the duration of such instruments is no longer than 90 days and that such instruments are held-to-maturity if purchased directly; or short-term money market funds consisting solely of the aforementioned investment instruments and offering daily investor redemptions. The recipient agrees to enforce these Cash Management Requirements on its subrecipients. 5. Remedies for Non-Compliance The recipient agrees to identical remedies for non-compliance that are specified in the Remedies for Non-Compliance Programmatic Term and Condition, as applicable. 6. Suspension and Debarment 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 32 The recipient agrees to ensure that program income is not used to transfer funds in the form of subawards, participant support costs, or contracts to entities that are currently suspended, debarred, or otherwise declared ineligible under 2 CFR Part 180. The recipient may access the System for Award Management (SAM) exclusion list at https://sam.gov/SAM to determine whether an entity or individual is presently excluded or disqualified. 7. Non-Discrimination The recipient must expend program income in compliance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 7 regarding non-discrimination in EPA-funded programs, as applicable. As provided in 2 CFR 200.300, the general terms and conditions of EPA grants implement nondiscrimination and social policy requirements: a. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975. The recipient agrees to comply with these laws, prohibiting discrimination in the provision of services or benefits, on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability or age, in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. Pursuant to EPA's regulations on “Nondiscrimination in Programs receiving Federal Assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency,” in 40 CFR Part 5 and 40 CFR Part 7 the pass-through entity agrees, and will require all subrecipients to agree, not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability or age. b. Executive Order 11246 Part III of Executive Order No. 11246 (September 24, 1965) as amended prohibits discrimination in Federally assisted construction activities. As provided in section 301 of the Executive Order, Pass-through entities will ensure that subrecipients include the seven clauses specified in section 202 of the Order in all construction contracts. Section 302 defines "Construction contract" as “any contract for the construction, rehabilitation, alteration, conversion, extension, or repair of buildings, highways, or other improvements to real property.” Contracts less than $10,000 are exempt from the requirements of the Order. 8. Record-Keeping In accordance with 2 CFR 200.334(e), the recipient shall maintain appropriate records to document compliance with the requirements of the Closeout Agreement (i.e., records relating to the use of retained and post-closeout program income) for a three-year period following the end of the Closeout Agreement, unless one of the conditions specified in the regulation applies. EPA may obtain access to these records to verify that program income has been used in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Closeout Agreement. Records and documents relating solely to performing the grant agreement prior to closeout may be disposed of in accordance with 2 CFR 200.334. Additionally, the recipient must maintain adequate accounting records for how program income is managed and spent as well as all other appropriate records and documents related to the activities conducted using retained and post-closeout program income. The recipient agrees to ensure that subrecipients comply with Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) reporting requirements. Pass-through entities may use the terms of their subaward agreement or other effective means to meet their responsibilities. 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 33 9. Other Federal Requirements The following other federal requirements apply to the use of program income under the terms of this Closeout Agreement: Davis-Bacon and Related Acts, as specified in the Labor and Equitable Workforce Programmatic Term and Condition; Build America, Buy America Act, as specified in the Build America, Buy America General Term and Condition; National Historic Preservation Act, as specified in the Historic Preservation Programmatic Term and Condition; Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act, as specified in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policy Act Programmatic Term and Condition; Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and Executive Order 14030 (Climate-Related Financial Risk), as specified in the Financial Risk Management Programmatic Term and Condition; Endangered Species Act, as specified in 50 CFR Part 402; Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act; Farmland Protection Policy Act; and Coastal Zone Management Act. 10. Amendments to the Closeout Agreement The EPA Award Official or Grants Management Officer and the recipient must agree to any modifications to this Closeout Agreement. Agreed-upon modifications must be in writing and signed by each party. Oral or unilateral modifications shall not be effective or binding. 11. Termination of the Closeout Agreement The EPA Award Official or Grants Management Officer and the recipient may mutually agree to terminate this Closeout Agreement. 12. Points of Contact The points of contact for the Closeout Agreement are the EPA Project Officer (for the EPA) and Audrey Alstrom (for the recipient). If changes are made to these points of contact, the respective party must notify the other within 30 days of the planned change. V. Accounting Principles 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 34 Each recipient and subrecipient must account for Solar for All award funds in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as in effect in the United States. Further, the recipient and subrecipient must segregate and account for Solar for All award funds separately from all other program and business accounts during both the period of performance and under the Closeout Agreement. Additionally, the recipient and subrecipient must segregate and account for program income separately from its drawdowns of EPA award funds during the period of performance to maintain compliance with the Program Income Programmatic Term and Condition and the Period of Performance Programmatic Term and Condition. W. Internal Controls Each recipient and subrecipient must comply with standards for internal controls described at 2 CFR 200.303. The “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States referenced in § 200.303 are available online at https://www.gao. gov/assets/gao-14-704g.pdf X. Audits The recipient agrees to meet the requirements of 2 CFR Subpart F—Audit Requirements during both the period of performance and under the Closeout Agreement. The recipient agrees to notify the EPA Project Officer within 30 days of the submission of the recipient's Single Audit to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse's Internet Data Entry System; the recipient also agrees to notify the EPA Project Officer within 30 days of the submission of any subrecipient's Single Audit (i.e., at any tier of subrecipients) to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse's Internet Data Entry System. Additionally, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332 and 2 CFR 200.501(h), the recipient agrees to disclose directly to the EPA Project Officer audited financial statements from any for-profit subrecipient (i.e., at any tier of subrecipient) that expends $1,000,000 or more of EPA funds from the recipient's grant program in the subrecipient's fiscal year. Any for-profit subrecipient that must disclose such financial statements is required to select an independent auditor consistent with the criteria set forth in 2 CFR 200.509 and obtain an independent audit substantially similar scope and quality to that of the Single Audit (see 2 CFR 200.500 et. seq.). The subrecipient must submit the audit to the recipient within 9 months of the end of the recipient's fiscal year or 30 days after receiving the report from an independent auditor, whichever is earlier. As provided in 2 CFR 200.337(a) the recipient must provide EPA, the EPA Office of Inspector General, and the Comptroller General with access to the subrecipient's independent auditor reports. Y. Annual Workshop Upon the request of the EPA Project Officer, the recipient must participate in an annual workshop (i.e., one workshop per calendar year) with other recipients under Solar for All. The workshop may include recipients from the National Clean Investment Fund and/or Clean Communities Investment Accelerator. The EPA Project Officer will contact the recipient to finalize details for each annual workshop. Z. EPA Project Officer Oversight and Monitoring Pursuant to 2 CFR 200.206(b) and (c), 2 CFR 200.208(b)(1), and 2 CFR 200.208(c)(3)(4) and (6), EPA has determined that a specific condition is necessary to ensure that eligible recipients effectively carry 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 35 out the significant scale, complexity, and novelty of the Solar for All program. This specific condition will remain in effect throughout the period of performance unless the EPA Award Official determines, based on a request by the recipient or EPA Project Officer, that some or all of the specific conditions are no longer necessary for EPA to manage programmatic or financial risks. The EPA Project Officer, or other EPA staff designated by the EPA Project Officer, will oversee and monitor the grant agreement through activities including: 1. Participating in project activities, to the extent permissible under EPA policies, such as: consultation on effective methods of carrying out the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan, provided the recipient makes the final decision on how to perform authorized activities; coordination by EPA staff with other recipients under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and with other EPA programs, and other federal programs to avoid duplication of effort; 2. Reviewing the qualifications of key personnel, including senior management and board-level committee members or contractors employed by recipients. Note that EPA does not have the authority to select employees or contractors, including consultants, employed by the recipient; 3. Closely monitoring the recipient's management and oversight of subrecipients and procedures for ensuring that program beneficiaries adhere to program participation guidelines; 4. Closely monitoring the recipient's performance to verify compliance with the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan and achievement of environmental results; 5. Participating in periodic telephone conference calls with recipient personnel to discuss project successes and challenges, and similar items impacting recipient performance; 6. Reviewing and commenting on performance reports prepared under the award agreement. Note that the final decision on the content of performance reports rests with the recipient; 7. Verifying that the recipient is expending the award on allowable activities, including but not limited to reviewing a sample of financial assistance transactions to verify compliance with regulatory requirements and the terms and conditions of this award; 8. Periodically reviewing costs incurred by the recipient as well as its contractors and subrecipients if needed to ensure appropriate expenditure of grant funds. Note that recipients are not required to submit documentation of costs incurred before obtaining payments of grant funds; 9. Working with other EPA officials to review and approve QAPPs and related documents or verifying that appropriate Quality Assurance requirements have been met where quality assurance activities are being conducted pursuant to an EPA-approved QMP; and 10. Monitoring the use of program income after the period of performance ends, in accordance with the terms of the Closeout Agreement. Method for Reconsideration. If the recipient believes that this specific condition is not warranted or requires modification, the recipient must file a written objection within 21 days of the EPA award or amendment mailing date and must not draw down funds until the objection is resolved. The recipient must submit the written objection via email to the Award Official, Grant Specialist and Project Officer 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 36 identified in the Notice of Award. Subject to approval by the EPA Award Official, the EPA Project Officer and the recipient may agree to additional areas of oversight and monitoring. AA. Compliant URL Links The EPA may elect to develop informational materials to publicize the key characteristics of the recipient's Solar for All award. These materials may include links to recipient and/or subrecipients' websites. The recipient agrees to work with the EPA Project Officer or another member of Solar for All program staff to ensure any such links are compliant with pertinent EPA and government-wide standards. AB. Flow-Down Requirements As described in 2 CFR 200.101, the terms and conditions of Federal awards flow down to subawards unless a particular section of 2 CFR 200.101 or the terms and conditions of the Federal award specifically indicate otherwise. As required by 2 CFR 200.332(a)(2) and in accordance with the Establishing and Managing Subawards General Term and Condition, the recipient agrees to ensure that subrecipients are subject to the same requirements as those that apply to the pass-through entity's EPA award. For the purposes of this award agreement, all terms and conditions must flow down to subawards to the extent they are applicable. The EPA Project Officer is authorized to waive the applicability of programmatic terms and conditions to subawards, unless the term and condition implements statutory, regulatory, or executive order requirements. AC. Financial Assistance in the Form of Credit Enhancements If the recipient's EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan includes providing financial assistance in the form of credit enhancements such as loan loss reserves or loan guarantees, the recipient is authorized to draw down funds as cash reserves. “Cash reserves” means cash that is drawn down and subsequently held in order to support the recipient's deployment of financial assistance in the form of credit enhancements. Cash reserves involve the drawdown and disbursement of grant funds into an escrow account meeting the following standards: (1) the recipient does not retain possession of the grant funds; (2) the recipient cannot get the funds back from the escrow account upon demand; (3) the entity providing the escrow account is independent from the recipient; (4) the recipient is able to use the funds in the escrow account to support eligible uses of cash reserves, as defined here; and (5) the escrow account is with an “insured depository institution,” as defined in 12 USC 1813. The recipient is not authorized to use an escrow account until the substantive terms of the escrow account have been reviewed and approved by the EPA Project Officer. The recipient agrees to provide written guidelines for all financial assistance in the form of credit enhancements that must be approved by the EPA Project Officer prior to the recipient implementing its strategy, even if the form of credit enhancement is described in the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan. These guidelines must describe how the expenditure enables low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from eligible zero-emissions technologies. Any obligations that the recipient incurs in excess of the grant award funds allocated and expended to 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 37 execute its credit enhancement strategy are the recipient's responsibility. This limitation on the extent of the Federal Government's financial commitment to the recipient's credit enhancement strategy shall be communicated to all participating banks, borrowers, subrecipients, or program beneficiaries prior to the execution of any documentation governing such transactions with any such parties. AD. Additional Requirements for Eligible Nonprofit Recipients The following terms and conditions apply if the recipient is an Eligible Nonprofit Recipient as defined in the Eligible Recipient definition: 1. Incorporation and Control The recipient agrees to maintain its incorporation in the United States and to maintain its status as not being controlled by one or several entities that are not eligible recipients. Control is defined by either (i) control in any manner over the election of a majority of the directors, trustees, or general partners (or individuals exercising similar functions) or (ii) the power to exercise, directly or indirectly, a controlling influence over management policies or investment decisions. 2. Governance Requirements A. Board Size and Composition The recipient agrees to ensure that its board size in terms of number of members (excluding advisory committees) is commensurate with the scope of oversight and monitoring activities as well as the scale, complexity, and risk profile of the recipient's EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan as well as other business activities. The board must have a sufficient number of members to adequately staff each of its committees. The recipient agrees to ensure that its board consists of members that are qualified with relevant expertise, skills, and track record as well as representative members (including from low-income and disadvantaged communities). In accordance with 2 CFR 200.329(e), in the event of a vacancy in board membership, the recipient agrees to notify the EPA Project Officer about the vacancy within 15 calendar days of the vacancy and make its best efforts to fill the vacancy with a qualified member within 120 calendar days of the vacancy. B. Board Independence The recipient agrees to ensure that the majority of the board is independent, in accordance with the Internal Revenue Service's definition of “independent” for the purposes of Form 990 reporting. C. Board Policies and Procedures The recipient agrees to enforce board policies and procedures including, among others, those that ensure strong ethics and mitigate conflicts of interest; ensure appropriate board training to review and assess internal risk assessments for all of the organization's significant activities; and ensure regular board engagement, including frequency of meetings and attendance procedures. The recipient agrees to require recusals from any officers or members of the board of directors with a 5H - 84090601 - 0 Page 38 personal or organizational conflict of interest in the decision-making and management related to financial transactions under this award. Such recusals must include but not be limited to decision-making and management of subawards and participant support cost payments to or from any organization in which an officer or member of the board of directors or their immediate family is directly employed by or has a consulting or other contractual relationship with, serves on the board, or is otherwise affiliated with the organization. The term “immediate family” has the same meaning as that term in the EPA's Final Financial Assistance Conflict of Interest Policy. 3. Legal Counsel The recipient agrees to consult appropriate legal counsel. Counsel must review all agreements associated with any form of financial assistance provided that generates program income prior to execution of the documentation, unless the EPA Project Officer waives this requirement. The recipient is required to maintain and appropriately update such documentation during both the period of performance and under the Closeout Agreement. Upon request by the EPA Project Officer, the recipient agrees to provide certification from legal counsel that such documentation complies with these terms and conditions, the EPA-approved Solar for All Workplan, and applicable State and local law. 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 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, 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 (3) Up to 10 awards to serve similar communities across multiple states. 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. 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 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 10, 2024 TO: AEA Board of Directors FROM: Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director RE: Transfer of Tie Line and Real Property from AEA to Alaska Power & Telephone Company The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the necessary background and rationale for a resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to transfer ownership of the Craig to Klawock (C-K) power tie line and associated real property to the Alaska Power & Telephone Company (AP&T). BACKGROUND The C-K tie line spans 5.5 miles and serves the communities of Craig and Klawock. This line was constructed in 1987 under the management of the Alaska Power Authority (APA), which was the predecessor of AEA. Following the dissolution of APA in 1993, ownership of the C-K line was transferred to AEA. AP&T has taken responsibility for the maintenance of the C-K line over the years. Their efforts have ensured that the line remains in good operational condition. Notably, AP&T has undertaken significant improvements, including converting a portion of the line to below- ground installation at their own expense. The proposed transfer includes real property located at 6598 Klawock-Hollis Highway, Klawock, AK 99925. The real property, which houses the substation, emergency generator, fuel storage, and other miscellaneous parts, is prone to flooding and has known contamination as well as other safety hazards. AEA has concluded that ownership is better vested in a local stakeholder than with AEA. In 2023, AEA issued a Request for Information (RFI 23072) to solicit interest in ownership of these assets. AP&T was the sole respondent. Given that AP&T already operates the utility for both Craig and Klawock, and their equipment is integrated with the C-K line, their interest in this proposed ownership transfer clearly aligns with their operational capabilities and responsibilities. A transfer of ownership from AEA to AP&T is in the best interest of all parties involved for the following reasons: The C-K intertie is fully depreciated, and retaining ownership offers no financial benefit to AEA. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 AEA does not generate revenue from this asset; rather, AEA is exposed to potential liabilities associated with its ownership. AEA lacks the necessary funds to continue maintaining or upgrading the C-K line. AP&T, with its existing role in providing power to both Craig and Klawock, has the resources, knowledge, and experience necessary to maintain and respond to emergencies involving the C-K line. Unified ownership and operation by AP&T will ensure that the party responsible for the project will also bear the associated costs. Retaining the C-K line and investing in its upkeep would complicate any future transfer due to the increased asset value, which would have been enhanced at State of Alaska expense. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the transfer of the C-K tie line to AP&T represents a prudent decision that aligns with the operational and financial interests of AEA. The transfer will eliminate potential liabilities, avoid unnecessary state expenses, and place the infrastructure under the management of an entity well-equipped to handle its maintenance and operational demands. It is recommended that the Board of Directors adopt the resolution authorizing the Executive Director to execute the transfer of ownership of the Craig to Klawock tie line and associated real property to Alaska Power & Telephone Company. AEA Resolution No. 2024-10 Page 1 of 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 2024-10 RESOLUTION OF THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF THE CRAIG-KLAWOCK TIE LINE PROJECT AND ASSOCIATED REAL PROPERTY TO ALASKA POWER & TELEPHONE COMPANY WHEREAS, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska, the State's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development, and has the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska”; and WHEREAS, AEA owns the 5.5-mile Craig-Klawock Tie Line Project as well as the real property located at 6598 Klawock-Hollis Highway, Klawock, AK 99925; and WHEREAS, Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) desires to acquire the Property from AEA, has shown itself to be a good steward of the Project and property, and has interests that are best aligned with the long term ownership and maintenance of the Project and property; and WHEREAS, The Property is listed in Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation’s database of Contaminated Sites with a status of “Cleanup Complete – Institutional Controls,” is recorded with a “Notice of Environmental Cleanup and Residual Soil and Groundwater Contamination,” and both parties are familiar with the requirements applicable to the Property by virtue its listing and status; and WHEREAS, AP&T has agreed to accept the property as-is with all faults and with no warranties from AEA; and WHEREAS, AEA has the statutory authority to convey any real or personal property owned by it in furtherance of its corporate purposes pursuant to AS 44.83.080(7) and 3 AAC 105.400- .480. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY as follows: Section 1. AEA board hereby authorizes the AEA Executive Director to transfer all of AEA’s right, title, and interest in the 5.5-mile Craig-Klawock Tie Line Project and 6598 Klawock- Hollis Highway to AP&T on the condition that AP&T assumes any and all liabilities with respect to AEA Resolution No. 2024-10 Page 2 of 2 the environmental condition of the Property, whether such liabilities arise or accrue before, on or after the date of transfer. Section 2. The AEA Executive Director is hereby authorized to successfully execute and necessary paperwork to achieve the transfer and take such actions as may be necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of this resolution. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this ___ day of September 2024. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY __________________________ Chair __________________________ Curtis W. Thayer, Secretary Corporate seal 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 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 10, 2024 TO: AEA Board of Directors FROM: Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director RE: Transfer of Tie Line from AEA to Alaska Villege Electric Cooperative, Inc. This memorandum is submitted in support of a resolution to authorize the Executive Director of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) to transfer ownership of the Shungnak to Kobuk (S-K) Tie Line Project to the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC). BACKGROUND The S-K tie line spans 10 miles to connect the communities of Shungnak and Kobuk. The line was constructed in 1981 under the management of the Alaska Power Authority (APA), which also managed the construction of other key power lines. Following the dissolution of APA in 1993, ownership of the S-K line was transferred to AEA. AVEC currently operates the S-K line, using it to supply power from one community to the other. However, the line is in poor condition, requiring either substantial maintenance or a complete rebuild, with estimated costs ranging from $1 million to $5 million. In 2021, AEA issued a Request for Information (RFI 21120) to gauge interest in ownership of the S-K transmission line. Both AVEC and OTZ Telephone Company (OTZ) expressed their willingness to take over ownership of the line. A joint discussion between AEA, AVEC, and OTZ in December 2022 led to an agreement wherein AVEC would assume ownership of the S-K line, while OTZ would continue to use the poles under a fee arrangement. AEA requested that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between AVEC and OTZ be finalized such that it can be included with the final transfer documents. To facilitate AEA’s ownership and maintenance of the line, AEA obtained an easement from NANA, which owns the land that the line crosses. As part of any transfer agreement, AEA will transfer the easement to AVEC with the consent of NANA. A transfer of ownership from AEA to AVEC is in the best interest of all parties involved for the following reasons: The S-K intertie is fully depreciated, offering no financial return to AEA as the owner. AEA does not derive revenue from this asset but retains potential liabilities associated with its ownership. AEA does not have the financial resources to maintain or upgrade the S-K line. AVEC already provides power to the communities at both ends of the intertie. With its existing expertise, resources, and experience in maintaining power lines, AVEC is well- Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 suited to manage and respond to any emergencies involving the S-K line. Unified ownership and operation will ensure that the party responsible for the project will bear the associated costs. If AEA retains ownership and invests in the line's upkeep, any future transfer could be complicated by the increased asset value, which would have been enhanced at state expense. AVEC's ownership of the line would enable them to apply for and obtain funding for the DC transmission demonstration project planned for this line. CONCLUSION Transferring the S-K tie line to AVEC is a strategic decision that aligns with AEA's operational and financial interests. The transfer will eliminate potential liabilities, avoid unnecessary state expenses, and place the infrastructure under the management of an entity equipped to handle its maintenance and operational demands. It is recommended that the Board of Directors adopt the resolution authorizing the Executive Director to execute the transfer of ownership of the Shungnak to Kobuk tie line to Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. AEA Resolution No. 2024-11 Page 1 of 2 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 2024-11 RESOLUTION OF THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO TRANSFER OWNERSHIP OF THE SHUNGNAK-KOBUK TIE LINE PROJECT TO ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE WHEREAS, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska, the State's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development, and has the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska”; and WHEREAS, AEA owns the 10 mile Shungnak-Kobuk (S-K) Tie Line Project, including but not limited to power poles, lines, foundations, and related appurtenances such as cross-arms, braces, and insulators. WHEREAS, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) desires to acquire the S-K Tie Line from AEA, has shown itself to be a good steward of the Tie Line, and has interests that are best aligned with the long term ownership and maintenance of the Project and property; and WHEREAS, AVEC has agreed to accept the property as-is with all faults and with no warranties from AEA; and WHEREAS, a transfer of ownership from AEA to AVEC is in the best interest of all parties involved because the S-K Tie Line represents a liability for AEA with no financial return, AVEC already provides power to the communities at both ends of the intertie and is well- suited to manage and respond to any emergencies involving the S-K Tie Line, and AVEC’s ownership of the line would enable them to apply for and obtain funding for the DC transmission demonstration project planned for this line. WHEREAS, AEA has the statutory authority to convey any real or personal property owned by the Authority in furtherance of its corporate purposes pursuant to AS 44.83.080(7) and 3 AAC 105.400-.480. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY as follows: AEA Resolution No. 2024-11 Page 2 of 2 Section 1. AEA board hereby authorizes the AEA Executive Director to transfer all of AEA’s right, title, and interest in the 10 mile Shungnak-Kobuk Tie Line Project to Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. as-is with all faults and with no warranties from AEA; and Section 2. The AEA Executive Director is hereby authorized to successfully execute any necessary paperwork to achieve the transfer and take such actions as may be necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of this resolution. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this ___ day of September 2024. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY __________________________ Chair __________________________ Curtis W. Thayer, Secretary Corporate seal 4868-5823-3823\1 AEA Resolution No. 2024-12 Page 1 of 5 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 2024-12 RESOLUTION OF THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO RESOLUTION 2024-02 REGARDING THE SALE OF NOT TO EXCEED $200,000,000 OF ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY POWER REVENUE BONDS, ELEVENTH SERIES (BRADLEY LAKE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT); PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE TENTH SUPPLEMENTAL RESOLUTION OF THE AUTHORITY TO SECURE SAID BONDS; AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO AND THE EXECUTION OF THE LOAN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AUTHORITY AND PURCHASER OF THE SAID BONDS; DELEGATING CERTAIN AUTHORITY TO THE CHAIR, THE BOARD MEMBER DESIGNEE OF THE CHAIR, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER; AND PROVIDING FOR RELATED MATTERS WHEREAS, the Alaska Energy Authority ("Authority") is authorized by Title 44, Chapter 83, of the Alaska Statutes, as amended, to issue bonds for the purpose of carrying out its corporate purpose and power, including the establishment or increase of reserves to secure or to pay for bonds; and WHEREAS, the Authority has, pursuant to the Power Revenue Bond Resolution, adopted by the Board on September 7, 1989, as amended and supplemented ("Master Bond Resolution"), issued ten series of power revenue bonds subject to terms and conditions set forth in the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Electric Power (the "Power Sales Agreement") dated as of December 8, 1987, by and among the Chugach Electric Association, Inc., Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc., the City of Seward d/b/a Seward Electric System, and Alaska Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative, Inc., and as Additional Parties Homer Electric Association, Inc. and Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (collectively, "Power Purchasers") and the Authority; and WHEREAS, the Master Bond Resolution authorizes the issuance of additional bonds for purposes of financing costs and expenses of planning, designing, acquiring, constructing, installing capital improvements in connection with the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project ("Bradley Project") subject to terms and conditions set forth therein and the Power Sales Agreement; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the request of the Power Purchasers the Authority, pursuant to Resolution No. 2022-06, previously determined to issue its Power Revenue Bonds, Eleventh Series (Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project), in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $270,000,000 to provide funds to be used to (a) pay all or a portion of the costs of the acquisition, improvement 4868-5823-3823\1 AEA Resolution No. 2024-12 Page 2 of 5 and development of the electric transmission line systems between the Bradley Junction and Soldotna Substation, the electric transmission line systems between the Soldotna Substation and the Sterling Substation, the electric transmission line systems between the Sterling Substation and the Quartz Creek Substation, and of battery energy storage systems, in each case including associated rights-of-way and permits, all of which will become an integral part of the Project; (b) fund a debt service reserve account; and (c) pay costs incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds (collectively, the "Project"); and WHEREAS, subsequent to the adopting of Resolution No. 2022-06 the Authority, pursuant to Resolution No. 2022-07, approved a tenth supplemental resolution (the “Tenth Supplemental Resolution”) setting forth the terms and provisions of the issuance, sale and delivery of its Power Revenue Bonds, Eleventh Series (Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project), in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $200,000,000 (the "Series 2022 Bonds") to provide funds to be used for the purpose of (1) financing a portion of the costs of the Transmission Project, (2) making a deposit to the Capital Reserve Fund, sufficient to satisfy the Capital Reserve Fund Requirement and (3) paying costs of issuance of the Bond. The Bond of such Series shall be designated and entitled “Power Revenue Bond, Eleventh Series (Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project); and WHEREAS, the Series 2022 Bonds were issued on November 30, 2022, under and pursuant to and secured by the Master Bond Resolution and the Tenth Supplemental Resolution; and WHEREAS, provisions were made for the sale of the Series 2022 Bonds pursuant to a Loan Agreement entered into between the Authority and National Cooperative Services Corporation (the "Purchaser"); and WHEREAS, subsequent to the issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds the Authority was awarded pursuant to letter dated October 3, 2023, and issued by the U.S. Department of Energy the Authority to receive a funding opportunity grant in the amount of $206,500,000 (the “GRIP Grant”), subject to meeting certain additional requirements including providing for an equal amount of state match funds (the “State Match”); and WHEREAS, portions of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project to be funded by the proceeds of the Series 2022 Bonds may also be funded by funds to be provided pursuant to the GRIP Grant; and WHEREAS, the GRIP Grant also provides for funding an HVDC submarine circuit crossing Cook Inlet from Nikiski in the Southern region to Beluga in the Central region to maximize transfer capability between regions and minimize spinning reserves, thereby reducing fuel usage, and reducing carbon emissions (the “Underwater HVDC Transmission Line”); and WHEREAS, in order to fund the necessary state match necessary to receive the total funds awarded pursuant to the GRIP Grant the Authority has also requested moneys be provided from the State of Alaska pursuant to a request to the Governor, State of Alaska; and 4868-5823-3823\1 AEA Resolution No. 2024-12 Page 3 of 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to a letter dated December 22, 2023, the Authority, as required pursuant to the Power Sales Agreement and prior to the incurrence of debt must receive a determination from the Alaska Department of Law the Underwater HVDC Transmission Line is Required Project Work; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 24-02 passed and approved on the 8th day of February, 2024, the Authority approved providing for the amendment of the Series 2022 Bond financing documents to expand the uses of the Series 2022 Bonds previously executed to expand the uses of Series 2022 Bond proceeds to fund any and all portions of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric and Transmission Project and to use the Series 2022 Bonds proceeds to fund a match with respect to the GRIP Grant in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000; and WHEREAS, the Authority now desires to expand the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project to include the Underwater HVDC Transmission Line provided for funding pursuant to the GRIP Grant portion of the Series 2022 Bonds with no more than an additional $30,000,000 ($50,000,000 in aggregate when combined with Resolution No. 24-02) to be used for the Underwater HVDC Transmission Line, along with such other necessary requests of the Purchaser to amend the bond documents accordingly (the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, Transmission Project, Underwater HVDC Transmission Line and other approved projects of the Department of Energy shall hereinafter collectively be referred to as the “Bradley Lake Hydroelectric and Transmission Project”). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In order to provide funds to finance the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric and Transmission Project the Authority is hereby authorized, conditioned upon approval and receipt of all necessary consents and approvals from the Purchaser and bond holder, the Alaska Department of Law, the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee and any other necessary parties, to amend any and all of the necessary Series 2022 Bond financing documents and Series 2022 Bonds previously executed to expand the uses of Series 2022 Bond proceeds to fund any and all portions of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric and Transmission Project and to use the Series 2022 Bonds proceeds to fund a match with respect to the GRIP Grant not to exceed $30,000,000 ($50,000,000 in aggregate when combined with the $20,000,000 from Resolution No. 24-02). Section 2. In order finance, construct and equip all, or any part, of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric and Transmission Project and to consummate the transactions contemplated in the Tenth Supplemental Resolution, as amended, subject to appropriate insertions and revisions, be and the same hereby is in all respects authorized, approved and confirmed, and that the Chair, the Board member designee of the Chair, Executive Director or Chief Financial Officer of the Authority (each, an "Authorized Officer") be, and each of them hereby is, authorized, empowered, and directed to execute Series 2022 Bonds, as amended, whether by manual or facsimile signature, to seal the Series 2022 Bonds, as amended, with the official seal of the Authority (manually or by facsimile), and to deliver, for and on behalf of the Authority, the Series 2022 Bonds, as amended, 4868-5823-3823\1 AEA Resolution No. 2024-12 Page 4 of 5 to the Purchaser; and that the provisions of the Tenth Supplemental Resolution, as amended, and Series 2022 Bonds, as amended, be and the same hereby is authorized, approved and confirmed and is incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. The Series 2022 Bonds, as may be amended to carry out the purposes hereof, do not constitute an indebtedness or other liability of the State of Alaska, or any political subdivision thereof, except the Authority. The Authority does not pledge the faith and credit of the State of Alaska, or any political subdivision thereof (except the Authority) to the payment of the Series 2022 Bonds, as amended, and the issuance of the Series 2022 Bonds, as amended, does not obligate the State of Alaska or any political subdivision thereof (except the Authority) to apply money, or levy or pledge any form of taxation whatsoever to, payment of the Series 2022 Bonds, as amended. The Authority has no taxing power. Section 4. The form and content of the Loan Agreement, as amended, be and the same hereby are in all respects authorized, approved and confirmed and each Authorized Officer be and hereby are authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver the Loan Agreement, as amended, for and on behalf of the Authority, with such changes, modifications, additions, and deletions therein as shall to them seem necessary, desirable or appropriate, their execution of the Loan Agreement, as amended, to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all changes, modifications, additions or deletions therein from the form and content of the Loan Agreement now before this meeting, and that, from and after the execution and delivery of the Loan Agreement, as amended, each Authorized Officer be and they hereby are authorized, empowered, and directed to do all such acts and things and to execute all such documents as may be necessary to carry out and comply with the provisions of the Loan Agreement, as amended and as executed. Section 5. The form and content of the Tenth Supplemental Resolution and providing of the security therefor to the repayment of the Series 2022 Bonds to U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, as Trustee, for the security of the Series 2022 Bonds, including necessary counterparts, but with such changes, modifications, additions, and deletions therein as shall to them seem necessary, desirable, or appropriate, the execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of their approval of any and all changes, modifications, additions, or deletions thereto from such form, and that the final Tenth Supplemental Resolution, as amended, is hereby authorized, approved, confirmed and adopted in accordance with the Master Bond Resolution and is incorporated herein by reference. Following execution and delivery of the Tenth Supplemental Resolution, as amended, each Authorized Officer be and they hereby are authorized, empowered, and directed to do all such acts and things and to execute all such documents as may be necessary or convenient to carry out and comply with the provisions of the Tenth Supplemental Resolution, as amended and as executed. Section 6. The Board of the Authority acknowledges and re-confirms the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee desires to allocate approximately 65% of proceeds of the Series 4868-5823-3823\1 AEA Resolution No. 2024-12 Page 5 of 5 2022 Bonds toward transmission upgrades and approximately 35% of proceeds of the Series 2022 Bonds toward the battery energy storage system serving the Kenai Peninsula, South Central, and Interior Alaska. The Authority will use commercially reasonable efforts to effectuate such allocation; provided, however, the Authority in its discretion, may deviate from such allocation, in order to fulfill its purpose and duties, as set forth in State law. Section 7. The Authorized Officers be, and each of them hereby is, authorized to execute and deliver for and on behalf of the Authority any and all additional certificates, documents, opinions or other papers and perform all such other acts as they may deem necessary or appropriate in order to implement and carry out the intent and purposes of this Resolution, and all of the acts and doings of the Authorized Officers of the Corporation that are in conformity with the intent and purposes of these resolutions, whether heretofore or hereafter taken or done, shall be and the same are hereby in all respects ratified, confirmed and approved as the acts and deeds of the Corporation. Section 8. This Resolution does hereby incorporate by reference, as though fully set out herein, the provisions of the Act, the Master Bond Resolution, the Tenth Supplemental Resolution, the Series 2022 Bonds, and the documents presented to this meeting. Section 9. All prior resolutions of this Board or any parts thereof in conflict with the foregoing resolutions are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. Section 10. The recitals to this Resolution, including definition of terms, are incorporated into this Resolution as if fully set forth herein. Terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings as set forth in the Tenth Supplemental Resolution, as amended. Section 11. Resolution shall become effectively immediately upon its passage and approval. DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this ___ day of September, 2024. _________________________________ Chair ____________________________________________ Curtis W. Thayer, Secretary Corporate seal 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: Board of Directors FROM: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director DATE: September 10, 2024 SUBJECT: AEA Board Proposed Meeting Schedule Per the proposed new AEA Bylaws, AEA Board is to hold its annual meeting the 3rd quarter of each calendar year and shall hold regular meetings quarterly. The annual meeting shall also constitute a regular meeting. The Board Chair may call special meetings as necessary. AEA is recommending the AEA Board determine the meeting schedule for the next year, meeting quarterly in July (annual meeting), October, January and April on either the 4th Tuesday or Thursday of those months. Below are possible schedules for the next year for the Board to consider: AEA Board Meeting 4th Tuesday: October 22, 2024 January 28, 2025 April 22, 2025 July 22, 2025 AEA Board Meeting 4th Thursday: October 24, 2024 January 23, 2025 April 24, 2025 July 24, 2025 UPDATED FY24 58,120,700$ FY25 Management Plan 65,285,100$ 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 (Enacted) & FY24 Supp 284,676,588$ 31,118,115$ 315,794,703$ 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 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FY2025 OPERATING BUDGET Alaska Energy Authority - Budget Components FY25 Base Budget FY25 GOV Amd FY25 Operating Total AEA Facilities Personal Services - - - Travel 22.5 - 22.5 Contractual 745.8 407.7 1,153.5 Supplies 8.0 - 8.0 Equipment 5.0 10.0 15.0 Total 781.3 417.7 1,199.0 417.7 167.7 OA Staffing 250.0 AEA Rec Adj AEA Rural Energy Assistance Personal Services - - - Travel 149.3 - 149.3 Contractual 6,496.5 1,333.4 7,829.9 Supplies 98.0 - 98.0 Equipment 10.0 70.0 80.0 Grants 100.0 - 100.0 Total 6,853.8 1,403.4 8,257.2 1403.4 1249.5 IIJA Staffing 153.9 Sal Adj UGF AEA PCE Personal Services - - - Travel 2.2 - 2.2 Contractual 586.7 - 586.7 Supplies - - - Equipment - - - Grants 47,694.8 - 47,694.8 Total 48,283.7 - 48,283.7 AEA Statewide Project, AEE Personal Services - - - Travel 22.1 50.0 72.1 Contractual 2,179.8 3,362.4 5,542.2 Supplies - 120.0 120.0 Equipment - - - Grants - - - Total 2,201.9 3,532.4 5,734.3 3532.4 2932.4 CIP Adj for GRIP 350.0 CIP Adj for IIJA 250.0 Library and CIP Adj GRAND TOTAL 58,120.7 5,353.5 63,474.2 Budget Request Descriptions for FY25 GOV Amd 1. Owned Facilities Staff Support: 157.7k Contractual Services 10k Equipment. 3. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) Staff Support FY25-29: 1,179.5k in Contractual Services for 2 PMs, 1 Sr Contracting Off, 1 Grant Acct, 1 Acct Tech, 1 Engagement & Communications Spc, and 1 Admin Asst;70k in Equipment (10k per new position). 2. Owned Facilities True-up: 250k in Contractual Services is needed to cover the increased costs and resources to support Owned Assets (Bradley Lake and AK Intertie projects) with the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Required Project Work, including Railbelt Transmission Line and Battery Energy Storage Systems. 4. AEEE CIP Increment Alignment: 350k for anticipated Contractual Services related to the increase in capital project expenditures. 5. Data Library: 200k in Contractual Services for continued funding of administration, hosting, expansion, and digitization services. 6. Travel Increment: 50k for anticipated expenditures in travel and new IIJA anticipated travel. 7. GRIP,12 new positions for Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership for $2,812.4 and $120 in commodities per new position. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY FY2025 OPERATING BUDGET Alaska Energy Authority - Budget Components FY25 GOV Amd FY25 Mngmt Plan FY25 Operating Total AEA Facilities Personal Services - - - Travel 22.5 - 22.5 Contractual 1,153.5 - 1,153.5 Supplies 8.0 - 8.0 Equipment 15.0 - 15.0 Total 1,199.0 - 1,199.0 AEA Rural Energy Assistance Personal Services - 8,550.9 8,550.9 Travel 149.3 103.0 252.3 Contractual 7,829.9 (7,471.8) 358.1 Supplies 98.0 100.0 198.0 Equipment 80.0 (70.0) 10.0 Grants 100.0 - 100.0 Total 8,257.2 1,212.1 9,469.3 AEA PCE Personal Services - - - Travel 2.2 - 2.2 Contractual 586.7 - 586.7 Supplies - - - Equipment - - - Grants 47,694.8 - 47,694.8 Total 48,283.7 - 48,283.7 AEA Statewide Project, AEE Personal Services - 4,333.1 4,333.1 Travel 72.1 6.4 78.5 Contractual 5,542.2 (3,740.7) 1,801.5 Supplies 120.0 - 120.0 Equipment - - Grants - - Total 5,734.3 598.8 6,333.1 GRAND TOTAL 63,474.2 1,810.9 65,285.1 . 1. HB 307 - AEA is able to have it's own employees and own Board due to separation from AIDEA. Statewide Project Development Alternative Energy Efficiency employes all IIJA and GRIP employees. 3. SB 259 Compensation for Certain State Employees increased UGF for wage increases ($704.9) between Rural Energy and Statewide Energy Components. Budget Passed for Management Plan 1. HB 307 - AEA is able to have it's own employees and own Board due to separation from AIDEA. Rural Energy Assistance houses all employees but IIJA and GRIP employees and establishing Railbelt Transmission Organization requiring a Project Manager, and a Senior Accountant and other contractual services ($943.5) . 2. HB 154 passes as HB 273 for AHFC Sustainable Energy, with AEA employing an Assistant Project Manager ($162.5). 3. SB 259 Compensation for Certain State Employees increased UGF for wage increases ($704.9) between Rural Energy and Statewide Energy Components. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Capital Budget- FY20258/30/24 4:20 PM Project Name Federal Receipt Authority (Adjourn) State Funding (Adjourn) 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 $ 17,627,018 $ 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 1002 Fed Receipts IRA Sec. 50123: State Based Energy Efficiency Contractor $ 1,296,870 $ - $ 1,296,870 1002 Fed Receipts Total IIJA/IRA/GRIP Capital Requests: $ 245,676,588 $ 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 $ 2,000,000 $ 13,000,000 1002 - Fed Receipts / 1003 G/F Match Electrical Emergency Response $ - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1004 - General Fund Renewable Energy Grant Fund - Round 16 $ - $ 10,521,836 $ 10,521,836 1004 - UGF Rural Power Systems Upgrades (state dollars are matching funds) $ 25,000,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 27,500,000 1002 - Fed Receipts /1003 G/F Match Total $ 281,676,588 $ 31,118,115 $ 312,794,703 FY2024 Supplemental - Request Project Name Federal Receipt Authority (Adjourn) Federal Receipt Authority (Adjourn) 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. GOV Orig request was $206,500,000 Fed and $10,405,900 state match, reappropriation for $2,294,100 from Trans-Line Plan and Ext. Intertie. 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. GOV Orig request was for $5,000,000, House Finance added another $9,310,158, funding 7 projects, GOV changed 10,521,836 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. GOV Orig request was $12,110,523 Fed and $1,816,579 State match, an additional $5,516,495 Fed grant awarded. IIJA - AEA selected for for an award, pending negotiations. This project will enable AEA and AHFC to develop programs and deploy rooftop solar panels and community solar arrays to benefit low-income households and disadvantaged communities. Funding for this program may also be used for storage and building upgrades necessary to deploy and maximize the benefits of solar infrastructure that will serve up to 10,000 households in the State of Alaska. 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 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. 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. As of 9/10/2024 (In Progress) Month Finance Area Description of task/function to perform Target Date Status July thru August Audit File Update memo's to audit files 8/31/24 In progress August Audit Preliminary work with BDO (auditors) Planning reque 7/23‐8/16/24 Done August Payroll 6/30/24 Payroll AEA Allocate Including Shared Servic 7/30/24 Done August Loans Get Payable (Loan‐default buffer) from Loans Department of AIDEA see Fund E2801 GL 31202 8/2/24 Done August ICAP ICAP/GAD/Indirects posted & Cash Transfers 8/23/24 Done August A/P Create PCE Accrual 8/30/24 Done August A/P A/P cutoff (week of) ‐ last A/P run 8/9/24 Done August General Ledger Request Trial Balances from State of Alaska (Division of Finance) and APFC 8/12/24 Done August Audit BDO beginning of audit fieldwork (remote ‐ through Portal) After Engagement Letter is signed 8/16/24 In progress August Balance Sheet Balance Sheet Recons finalized (Except Manual A/P, Capital Assets, Owned Assets Receivable/Payable from Surplus Calculation 8/20/24 Done August Capital Assets Final review of asset additions/retirements/impairments (to include from CWIP) 8/27/24 Done August Capital Assets Depreciation run final for FY24 8/30/24 Done September General Ledger Final day for accruals & adjusting entries completed 8/30/24 Done September General Ledger Check actual PCE invoices submitted in Portal ‐ Adjust PCE A/P Accrual if Material 9/3/24 Done September SEFA Advances schedule due to SOA (per SOA ACFR letter)9/6/24 Done September Audit Draft trial balances to auditors 9/18/24 In progress September Audit Send Auditors GL details, payroll, and final draft trial balances (not including items pending from State unless received) through 6/30 9/18/24 In progress September Financial Statements BDO on‐site Fieldwork 9/10‐9/12/24 In progress September Financial Statements All Fund workpapers completed (to include support for Footnotes) 9/20/24 (Estimate may change)In progress September SEFA Draft Federal Schedule due to SOA ‐ SEFA 9/29/24 In progress September SEFA ‐ Subrecipient Subrecipient Pass‐Through Report due to SOA 9/29/24 In progress September Audit Final Fieldwork (done through Portal)TBD Late Sept or into Early Oct September/ October Audit Provide last draft financial statements to BDO w/ updated trial balances, workpapers, notes, schedules and MD&A 9/27/24 October Audit Final Fieldwork week (remote)TBD Late Sept/ Early October October SEFA Final Federal Schedule due to SOA ‐ SEFA 10/16/24 FY24 Annual Audit AEA Finance Internal Year‐End Schedule Page 1 of 2 As of 9/10/2024 (In Progress) FY24 Annual Audit AEA Finance Internal Year‐End Schedule October Financial Statements Draft financial statements in Shells submitted to State of Alaska ‐ Division of Finance 10/1/24 October Financial Statements Board meeting to review final draft of financial statements 10/?/24 TBD TBD October Financial Statements Issued financial statements submitted to SOA 10/15/24 November Bradley ‐ Financial Statements BPMC Committee meeting ‐ review final draft of Bradley Lake financial statements (this is with the Special Audit of Bradley Lake done in November) TBD Acronyms listing: ICAP Indirect Cost Allocation Plan GAD General Administrative A/P Accounts Payable PCE Power Cost Equalization APFC Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation CWIP Construction Work In Progress TBD To Be Determined FY Fiscal Year SOA State of Alaska ACFR Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (of the State of Alaska) SEFA Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards BPMC Bradley Lake Project Management Committee Page 2 of 2 State of AlaskaElectric Vehicle InfrastructureImplementation Plan FY25 ii Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Plan Development This plan was developed by the Alaska Energy Authority, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, electric vehicle stakeholders, utilities, communities, and residents, with the assistance of Michael Baker International. Executive Oversight Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, AEA Ryan Anderson, P.E., Commissioner, DOT&PF Staff Audrey Alstrom, PE, Director of Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs, AEA Josi Hartley, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Manager, AEA Adam Moser, Program Development Chief, DOT&PF Rashaud Joseph, Civil Rights Office Manager & Compliance Officer, DOT&PF Support Jeff Kupko, P.E., P.T.O.E., Consultant Project Manager, Michael Baker International Karin McGillivray, Public Engagement Manager, Michael Baker International Jennifer Gross, GIT Supervisor, Michael Baker International Caitlin Frye, Communications Specialist, Michael Baker International Malia Walters, Communications Specialist, Michael Baker International Cover Photo: Ford Mach-E. Photo courtesy Michael Baker International. iii Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Acronyms AATCA Alaska Apprenticeship Training Coordinators Association ABC Associated Builders and Contractors AEA Alaska Energy Authority AEL&P Alaska Electric Light and Power AFC Alternative fuel corridor AFN Alaska Federation of Natives AGC Alaska General Contractors AJEATT Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust AKEVA Alaska Electric Vehicle Association AKEVWG Alaska EV Working Group AMHS Alaska Marine Highway System API Application programming interface ARED Alaska Rural EVSE Deployment ATV All-terrain vehicles AUCP Alaska Unified Certification Program AWP Alaska Works Partnership BIL Bipartisan Infrastructure Law CCS Combined Charging System CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHAdeMO CHArge de MOve Protocol CISA Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency CVEA Copper Valley Electric Association DAC Disadvantaged community DBE Disadvantaged business enterprise DCFC Direct current fast charging DEC Department of Environmental Conservation DNR Department of Natural Resources DOT&PF Department of Transportation & Public Facilities EEO Equal employment opportunity EV Electric vehicle EVSE Electric vehicle supply equipment EVITP Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic information systems GPS Global Positioning System IBEW International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers iv Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 ICE Internal combustion engine kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-hour LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MOA Memorandum of Agreement MP Mile post MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MW Megawatt NACS North American Charging Standard NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NEVI National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure NHS National Highway System NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer PCI-DSS Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard PKI Public Key Infrastructure PII Personally identifiable information RCA Regulatory Commission of Alaska RFA Request for Applications RFI Request for Information RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SEP State Energy Program SESP State Energy Security Plan STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program SUV Sport utility vehicle TIP Transportation Improvement Program USC United States Code USDOT United States Department of Transportation VTO Vehicle Technologies Office VW Volkswagen v Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Table of Contents Dates of State Plan for Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Development and Adoption ........................2 Updates from Prior Plan (FY24 Annual Update) ...............................................................................................................4 State Agency Coordination �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������6 Public Engagement ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9 Stakeholders Involved in Plan Development.....................................................................................................................10 Current Stakeholders ...........................................................................................................................................................10 Potential Future Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................................12 Tribal Engagement ...................................................................................................................................................................12 Utility Engagement ..................................................................................................................................................................13 Public Outreach ........................................................................................................................................................................13 Community Engagement Outcomes Report ....................................................................................................................13 Plan Outreach .......................................................................................................................................................................13 Targeted Workshops ............................................................................................................................................................14 Alaska EV Working Group ..................................................................................................................................................15 Alaska EV Working Group Technical Sessions ...............................................................................................................15 Monthly Newsletter ..............................................................................................................................................................17 Community Surveys .............................................................................................................................................................19 Outreach Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................................19 Justice40 Survey Results ........................................................................................................................................................20 Upcoming Engagement .........................................................................................................................................................21 Site Specific Public Engagement .........................................................................................................................................22 Plan Vision & Goals ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������23 Plan Vision ................................................................................................................................................................................23 High-Level Program Goals ...................................................................................................................................................24 Outlook for 5-year Program ................................................................................................................................................26 Phase One, Build Out Alaska’s Alternative Fuel Corridor ..........................................................................................26 Phase Two, Build Out Alaska’s Highway and Marine Highway System ..................................................................27 Phase Three, Install Charging Stations in Hub Communities, as funding allows .................................................27 Phase Four, Urban and “Destination” Locations, as funding allows .......................................................................27 Developing Alaska’s Phase 2 Approach ............................................................................................................................27 Site Design ............................................................................................................................................................................28 The Alaska Highway System (AHS) .................................................................................................................................29 vi Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Alaska Highway (East of Delta Junction) ........................................................................................................................30 Richardson Highway ............................................................................................................................................................31 Glenn Highway .....................................................................................................................................................................32 Seward Highway ..................................................................................................................................................................33 Sterling Highway ..................................................................................................................................................................34 Other Highways ...................................................................................................................................................................34 The Alaska Marine Highway System ...............................................................................................................................35 Summary of Phase 2 ..........................................................................................................................................................37 Contracting �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 Status of Contracting Process ..............................................................................................................................................38 Alaska’s Request for Applications ....................................................................................................................................38 Status of Contracting Process ...............................................................................................................................................41 Awarded Sites ...........................................................................................................................................................................41 Scoring Methodologies Utilized ..........................................................................................................................................43 Stage 1: Completeness and Eligibility (Pass/Fail) ..........................................................................................................43 Stage 2: Evaluation of Technical Application ................................................................................................................43 Stage 3: Evaluation of Pricing Application ....................................................................................................................45 Stage 4: Ranking and Prioritization of Projects ............................................................................................................46 Plan for Compliance with Federal Requirements ............................................................................................................46 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................................................................................47 How Alaska Will Ensure Contractors Engage Communities .........................................................................................47 Opportunities for Small Businesses ....................................................................................................................................48 Knowledge Sharing .................................................................................................................................................................48 Civil Rights ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������49 Title VI ........................................................................................................................................................................................49 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ................................................................................................................................50 Diverse Business Participation ..............................................................................................................................................50 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������51 State Geography, Terrain, Climate and Land Use Patterns ............................................................................................51 Alaska Climate Regions ......................................................................................................................................................52 State Travel Patterns, Public Transportation Needs, Freight and Other Supply Chain Needs .............................53 Future State of EV Adoption in Alaska .............................................................................................................................55 Continued Growth Scenario ............................................................................................................................................56 Aggressive Growth Scenario ...........................................................................................................................................56 Growth Monitoring .............................................................................................................................................................56 AFC - Corridor Designation ................................................................................................................................................57 Corridor Pending Corridors ..............................................................................................................................................58 Corridor Ready Corridors ..................................................................................................................................................58 Existing Locations of Charging Infrastructure Along AFCs ...........................................................................................58 vii Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Known Risks and Challenges ................................................................................................................................................60 Lack of Development .........................................................................................................................................................60 Climate ........................................................................................................................................................................................61 Barriers to Consumer Adoption ........................................................................................................................................61 Energy Sources and Costs .................................................................................................................................................62 Private Investment ...............................................................................................................................................................64 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������65 Funding Sources ......................................................................................................................................................................65 Infrastructure Deployment Upgrades ................................................................................................................................66 Volkswagen Settlement: Homer to Healy Corridor .....................................................................................................66 AFC Corridor Pending Designation to Corridor Ready Designation ......................................................................66 Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program ........................................................................67 Vehicle Technologies Office Funding Opportunity Announcement .......................................................................67 Increases of Capacity/Redundancy along Existing AFC ............................................................................................68 Electric Vehicle Freight Considerations ..........................................................................................................................68 Public Transportation Considerations .............................................................................................................................69 Other Fleet Electrification Services ......................................................................................................................................70 FY23-26 Infrastructure Deployments ..................................................................................................................................71 Planned Infrastructure Deployments ...............................................................................................................................71 Public Utility Definition .......................................................................................................................................................73 State Energy Policy ..............................................................................................................................................................73 State Motor Fuel Tax – Registration Fees.......................................................................................................................74 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Acquisition Requirement .......................................................................................................74 Regional Zoning ..................................................................................................................................................................74 Grassroots .............................................................................................................................................................................75 Implementation ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������77 Strategies for EVSE Operations & Maintenance .............................................................................................................77 Maintenance & Warranty Costs .......................................................................................................................................77 Fees .........................................................................................................................................................................................78 Pricing Structures .................................................................................................................................................................78 Strategies for Identifying Electric Vehicle Charger Service Providers and Station Owners .................................78 Site Selection ........................................................................................................................................................................79 Strategies for EVSE Data Collection & Sharing .................................................................................................................81 Strategies to Address Resilience, Emergency Evacuation, Snow Removal/Seasonal Needs ................................82 Strategies to Promote Strong Labor, Safety, Training, and Installation Standards ..................................................82 Strategies to Address Compliance with Minimum Standards ......................................................................................84 Equity Considerations ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������85 Identification and Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) in the State .................................................86 Process to Identify, Quantify, and Measure Benefits to DACs ......................................................................................87 viii Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Benefits to DACs through this Plan .....................................................................................................................................88 Labor & Workforce Considerations �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������91 Physical Security & Cybersecurity ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������94 Physical Security ......................................................................................................................................................................94 Cybersecurity ...........................................................................................................................................................................94 Program Evaluation ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������96 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................................................96 Reporting ..................................................................................................................................................................................96 Annual Updates .......................................................................................................................................................................96 Discretionary Exceptions �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������97 Summary of Requests ...........................................................................................................................................................97 Justification for Exception 1 ...................................................................................................................................................97 Map of Exception 1 .................................................................................................................................................................98 Justification for Exception 2 ..................................................................................................................................................99 Map of Exception 2 .................................................................................................................................................................99 Justification for Exception 3 ..................................................................................................................................................99 Map of Exception 3 ................................................................................................................................................................100 Appendix A: Public Outreach and Education Plan �����������������������������������������������������������������������������A-1 Appendix B: Example Site Layouts ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������B-1 Appendix C: Summary of Public Comments ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������C-1 ix Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 List of Figures Figure 1. Example NEVI Outreach Advertising Materials ...................................................................................................13 Figure 2. Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group 2022-2024 Email Newsletter Stats .................................................18 Figure 3. Location of outreach attendees and survey respondents. ...............................................................................18 Figure 4. Alaska’s Highway System .........................................................................................................................................25 Figure 5. Alaska NEVI Funding Breakdown ..........................................................................................................................28 Figure 6. The highways that makeup the AHS. ..................................................................................................................29 Figure 7. Distances between major hubs along the Alaska Highway east of Delta Junction, existing EVSE, and electric service. ............................................................................................................................................................................30 Figure 8. Distances between major hubs along the Richardson Highway, existing EVSE, and electric service. ...31 Figure 9. Distances between major hubs along the Glenn Highway, existing EVSE, and electric service. ...........32 Figure 10. Distances between major hubs along the Seward Highway, existing EVSE, and electric service. .......33 Figure 11. Distances between major hubs along the Sterling Highway, existing EVSE, and electric service. .......34 Figure 12. The Alaska Marine Highway System. ..................................................................................................................36 Figure 14. Site Applications by Applicant and Site Category. ..........................................................................................40 Figure 13. Number of Applications Received by Priority Site Location..........................................................................40 Figure 15. Priority Sites Recommended for Award. ............................................................................................................42 Figure 16. Alaska’s Average Annual Daily Traffic ..................................................................................................................53 Figure 17. Alaska’s Transportation Systems ...........................................................................................................................54 Figure 18. EV Registrations in Alaska by Manufacturer .....................................................................................................55 Figure 19. EV Registrations in Alaska by Region .................................................................................................................55 Figure 20. Alaska EV Growth Scenarios .................................................................................................................................56 Figure 21. Alternative Fuel Corridor ......................................................................................................................................57 Figure 22. Alaska AFC Distance Between Fast Chargers ...................................................................................................58 Figure 23. Existing EV Chargers Within One Mile and Along Alaska’s AFC..................................................................60 Figure 24. Utility Service Areas ................................................................................................................................................63 Figure 25. Alaska’s Current and Future EV Charging Locations ......................................................................................67 Figure 26. Freight Moved by Mode (Within, Into, and Out of Alaska) ..........................................................................68 Figure 27. Priority Sites for Phase 1 as Recommended For Award ..................................................................................71 Figure 28. RFI Response Word Cloud ...................................................................................................................................78 Figure 29. Example Configuration to Accommodate EVs with Trailers ..........................................................................80 Figure 30. Alaska’s Justice40 Tracts .........................................................................................................................................86 Figure 31: Justice40 Community Participation Outreach, Survey Responses. .............................................................89 Figure 32. Discretionary Exception 1 ......................................................................................................................................98 Figure 33. Discretionary Exception 2 .....................................................................................................................................99 Figure 34. Discretionary Exception 3 ....................................................................................................................................100 x Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 List of Tables Table 1: Current Plan Development Stakeholders ................................................................................................................10 Table 2: Current Plan Development Potential Future Stakeholders .................................................................................12 Table 3: Targeted Workshops ....................................................................................................................................................14 Table 4: Working Group Meetings ...........................................................................................................................................15 Table 5: AKEVWG Technical Sessions ......................................................................................................................................16 Table 6: AEA Newsletters ...........................................................................................................................................................17 Table 7: Community Surveys .....................................................................................................................................................19 Table 8: Status of Contracting Process....................................................................................................................................41 Table 9: Awarded Sites. ...............................................................................................................................................................41 Table 10: Technical Application Scoring Rubric ....................................................................................................................44 Table 11: Site Proposal Evaluation Criteria .............................................................................................................................45 Table 12: Pricing Applications Scoring Rubric. .....................................................................................................................46 Table 13: Summary of Future Grid Loads and Capacity ....................................................................................................57 Table 14: Existing Locations of EVSE Within One Mile and Along Alternative Fuel Corridor (as of June 2024) ..59 Table 15: Proposed EV Charger Installations by Other Initiatives ....................................................................................66 Table 16: Stations Under Construction ....................................................................................................................................71 Table 17: Planned Stations.........................................................................................................................................................72 Table 18: Fully Built Out Status. ................................................................................................................................................73 Table 19: Site Selection and Prioritization Criteria ...............................................................................................................79 Table 20: National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements .........................................................84 Table 21: Benefits Category and Strategy for Tracking Benefits .......................................................................................89 Table 22. Discretionary Exception Requests .........................................................................................................................97 1 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Introduction The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) offers a unique funding opportunity to advance a statewide electric vehicle (EV) fast charging network and community-based charging installations in urban and rural areas throughout the state. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula program will provide $5 billion over five years for states to build electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) charging stations along highway corridors. NEVI goals for the EVSE network include being reliable, affordable, equitable, and seamless between states and networks while reducing emissions and increasing clean air. Through the BIL NEVI Formula Program, Alaska will receive more than $50 million over five years. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires states to submit an implementation plan to be eligible for these funds. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA or The Authority) and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) have worked with partners and stakeholders to develop the state’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan (The Plan) and will continue to gather feedback and update The Plan over the coming years. NEVI program funds will be received by DOT&PF and administered by AEA for the duration of the program. The Plan outlines a strategy for using the NEVI formula funds to deliver EV charging infrastructure that will enable light-duty EV travel and provide confidence when commuting throughout the state for work, recreation, and tourism. The Plan was developed in coordination with State agencies, local governments, utilities, and other stakeholder groups in Alaska. This Plan supports the goals and objectives of the State’s long-range transportation plan. Programs and projects funded through the NEVI program will follow United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and The NEVI formula program will provide $5 billion over five years for states to build charging stations along highway corridors. Alaska will receive more than $50 million of those funds. 2 Introduction Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 FHWA regulatory requirements and will be included in DOT&PF’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan. The Authority will strategically manage the NEVI funds to deploy publicly accessible EVSE. The guidance requires designated alternative fuel corridors of the National Highway System to be fully “built out” and approved by FHWA with guidance coming from the USDOT/Department of Energy Joint Office of Energy and Transportation (Joint Office). Alaska currently has one pending Alternative Fuel Corridor (AFC), located between Anchorage and Fairbanks. After the AFC is built and accepted by FHWA, the Authority plans to install Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) and Level 2 charging stations throughout the rest of the state as funding allows. AEA and DOT&PF will also advocate for rural charging locations through the federal discretionary grant process to meet the needs in this plan. • Phase 1: Build Out Alaska’s Alternative Fuel Corridor • Phase 2: Build Out Alaska’s Highway and Marine Highway Systems • Phase 3: Install Charging Stations in rural Hub Communities, as funding allows • Phase 4: Develop charging sites in Urban and “Destination” Locations, as funding allows The expected dates of the phases identified above are as follows: • Phase 1: 2022-2025 • Phase 2: 2024-2027 • Phase 3: 2025-2027 • Phase 4: 2026 Dates of State Plan for Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Development and Adoption AEA has partnered with Michael Baker International, an engineering firm with expertise in EV Infrastructure Planning, to assist in developing The Plan. Following is a summary of activities conducted prior to and while developing The Plan: • 2020: AEA formalized the Alaska EV Working Group (AKEVWG) to conduct public education and outreach. The AKEVWG meets quarterly. • April 2022: AEA entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Alaska Department of Motor Vehicles to receive EV registration data. • April 2022: AEA created the AEA/DOT&PF interagency advisory group. An EV enthusiast stands next to his EV while it chargesPhoto courtesy of Mark Kelliher 3 Introduction Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 • May 2022: Request for Information (RFI) released by AEA to gather public feedback on the NEVI program and to solicit information from potential site hosts. • May 2022: RFI and outreach events advertised at the Sustainable Energy Conference. • May-July 2022: RFI and outreach events advertised on the Online Public Notices (OPN) platform. • June 2022: Hosted four virtual informational sessions. • June 2022: In-person presentations: Southeast Conference, Fairbanks FAST Planning (x3), Bradley Lake • Project Management Committee. • July 2022: The FY22-FY23 Plan was released for public comment. • July 12, 2022: Coordination meeting with utilities. • July 13, 2022: Two hybrid (in-person with virtual component) presentations/listening sessions to solicit • feedback on The FY22-FY23 Plan. • July 14, 2022: Presentation to Alaska Municipal League. • July 29, 2022: The FY22-FY23 Plan was submitted to the Joint Office. • September 27, 2022: The FY22-FY23 Plan was approved by FHWA. • October 2022: In-person presentations: Mat-Su Borough, Seward Chamber, Fairbanks City Council, Fairbanks Alliance, NASEO, Mat-Su Transportation Fair, Wasilla City Council, Alaska Federation of Natives Annual Convention. • November 2022: In-person presentations: Southeast Conference and Alaska Electric Light & Power, Juneau Working Session, Alaska Municipal Climate Network Meeting, National Women in Construction. • December 2022: In-person presentations: All Hazards Planning Committee, Alaska Municipal League Annual Local Government Conference. • January 2023: In-person presentations: Anchorage Transportation Fair, AKEVWG Quarterly Meeting. • February 2023: In-person presentations: Kenai NEVI Workshop, Alaska Forum on the Environment. • March 1, 2023: AEA released Request for Applications (RFA) for Site Hosts along the AFC (Phase 1) • March 2023: In-person presentations: DBE Conference for the Civil Rights Office, AEA EV RFA Pre-Application Meeting, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) Training (IBEW), Alaska EV Working Group (AKEVWG) Quarterly Meeting, Electrifying Alaska. • April 2023: In-person presentations: AKEVWG technical session, Mat-Su NEVI Workshop. • May 2023: In-person presentations: AKEVWG quarterly meeting, Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference. • May 15, 2023: RFA for Site Hosts along the AFC (Phase 1) closed. • June 12–15, 2023: NEVI Plan and Program Update Workshops in Anchorage, Mat-Su, Juneau, and Fairbanks. • June 16–July 16, 2023: Public comment period on the draft FY24 Plan. • June 22, 2023: Selection Committee meeting for Phase 1 AFC Projects. • July 31, 2023: The FY24 Plan was submitted to the Joint Office. • September 27, 2023: Presented at the Alaska Infrastructure Development Symposium. • September 29, 2023: FY24 Plan Approval. 4 Introduction Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 • December 8, 2023: Presented at AML 73rd Annual Local Government Conference • May 10-20, 2024: FY25 Plan Update and Phase 2 Workshops in Ketchikan, Glennallen, Homer, Seward, and Anchorage. • July 1 - August 1, 2024: Public comment period on draft plan. • September 1, 2024: FY25 Plan submission to Joint Office. • September 30, 2024: Expected FY25 Plan Approval. This plan is intended to be a living document as AEA and DOT&PF collaborate with communities, laws or policies change, adoption projecttions alter, and additional guidance from the federal government is published. This plan is not intended to impede other DOT&PF infrastructure improvements. The document will be updated annually, and prior year progress and changes will be documented. Updates from Prior Plan (FY24 Annual Update) Section Updates: • State Agency Coordination – Minor updates were made to this section to reflect the Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers. • Public Engagement – The stakeholder list was updated to reflect continued and expanded engagement. The Community Engagement Outcomes Report was updated to capture FY24 activities, including survey results. The plan also was updated to reflect the upcoming engagement plan for Phase 2. Dedication of an AEA-funded EV Fast-Charger in Homer, AlaskaPhoto courtesy of AEA 5 Introduction Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 • Plan Vision and Goals – This section was updated to outline the Phase 2 approach as Alaska moves beyond the Alternative Fuel Corridor deployments. This section is a major addition to this year’s plan. • Contracting – This section was updated to reflect the current status of contracting with selected sites and updating the results of the Request for Applications. • Civil Rights – There were no major changes to this section. • Existing and Future Conditions Analysis – This section was updated to reflect updated current conditions for EV adoption and trends, growth monitoring, and the locations of existing EV charging infrastructure. • EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment – This section was updated to reflect known EV charging infrastructure initiatives and grants, other efforts like transit and fleet adoption, and the plan to seek Fully Built Out determination. • Implementation – This section had minor text updates. • Equity Considerations – This section had minor updates to include the CJEST website and outcomes from DAC outreach. • Labor and Workforce Considerations – This section had minor updates to include required text from FHWA. • Physical Security & Cybersecurity – There were no changes to this section. • Program Evaluation – There were no changes to this section. • Discretionary Exceptions – There were no changes to this section. 6 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 State Agency Coordination AEA is the designated State Energy Office and the lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. In 2018, Alaska became a beneficiary of the Volkswagen (VW) Environmental Mitigation Trust (Trust), and the Authority was designated by the Governor’s Office as the State’s lead agency for EV planning and implementation. At that time, AEA adopted a goal to reduce barriers to EV adoption. AEA has taken the leading role in developing and implementing the NEVI program. DOT&PF is the responsible recipient of FHWA Title 23 funds and plays a vital role in the implementation of FHWA’s AFC designations and the NEVI program. DOT&PF oversees the funding and management of state highways, bridges, airports, ferries, and state-owned buildings throughout the state. Since the designation of AEA as the State’s lead agency for EVs by the Governor ’s Office, AEA has conducted public outreach and education and has worked towards reducing range anxiety by strategically installing EV chargers. In 2020, AEA facilitated the development of the AKEVWG, comprised of representatives of utilities, state and local government, researchers, EV owners, and stakeholder industries. AEA’s experience administering the VW settlement grants for DCFC in Alaska provides the agency with the background and experience needed to implement the NEVI program. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed between Alaska DOT&PF and AEA to assign responsibilities for each agency and to define the financial and contracting processes required to implement the Plan. The purpose of the MOA is to provide a framework of collaboration between the two agencies to ensure EV charging infrastructure investments by the State are strategic, coordinated, efficient, and equitable. AEA’s experience administering the VW Settlement grants in Alaska provides the agency the background and experience needed to implement the NEVI program. 7 State Agency Coordination Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 The MOA was signed into effect by AEA and DOT&PF on October 20, 2022. This MOA describes the roles and responsibilities for the planning and development phase of work for the NEVI program, which includes work primarily related to the development of this Plan. Of note, the MOA places AEA as responsible for: • planning and designating AFCs • creating, managing, and maintaining a public, fair, equitable, and competitive process for project selection • developing and administering a public involvement plan that includes consultation and collaboration with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and other critical planning entities • holding public project evaluation and selection processes • awarding NEVI funds • identifying and verifying match requirements are met • ensuring alignment with the DOT&PF Transportation ‘Family of Plans’ by identifying that the goals, objectives, strategies, and actions from the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) are incorporated as well as evaluation of regional, area, modal and system plans to incorporate regional needs • providing oversight of all AEA-handled NEVI funds and being responsible for compliance with Title 23, Title 49, and 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 200 requirements AEA and DOT&PF staff meet regularly to coordinate efforts related to NEVI programs and funding. The Executive Director of AEA and the Commissioner of DOT&PF meet at least twice a year to coordinate and plan for ongoing and new EV program initiatives. The MOA acknowledges DOT&PF as the responsible recipient of FHWA Title 23 funds. DOT&PF will oversee Title 23 funds and requirements under 23 CFR 200. DOT&PF will also provide geographic information systems (GIS) assistance as needed and coordinate with the MPOs to ensure NEVI projects are included in their transportation implementation plans. Of note, the MOA places DOT&PF as responsible for: • providing NEVI plan input and alignment with governor and State priorities • ensuring alignment with the DOT&PF Transportation ‘Family of Plans’ and working to incorporate NEVI as a system with overarching strategy into other transportation plans • sharing information on laws, AEA-funded EV charging stations in SewardPhoto courtesy of AEA 8 State Agency Coordination Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 regulations, rules, and guidelines that may come to bear on the process and connecting AEA with appropriate resources managing federal contractual agreements with FHWA • creating a DOT&PF NEVI planning support program that includes funding in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) • provide funding notices to AEA annually based on federal formula and MOA agreements • implementing NEVI as appropriate on state infrastructure in coordination with the Plan • ensuring NEVI aligns with the overall strategy of DOT&PF’s Sustainable Transportation Program • managing federal contractual agreement with FHWA Future roles and responsibilities for DOT&PF and AEA related to the design, construction, and operation and maintenance of the charging sites will be defined in individual project agreements after sites are selected. The site-specific project agreements are currently under development, and will receive input from AEA, DOT&PF, and the grantees. These project agreements are expected to go into effect in the fall of 2024. The current MOA for planning and development governs the planning work and will not govern the project-specific work. The Plan is a product of close coordination between DOT&PF and AEA. An internal advisory group composed of subject matter experts within DOT&PF, AEA, and FHWA was formed in April 2022 to coordinate implementation planning and development efforts. The purpose of the advisory group is to develop the state strategy for implementing the NEVI program and ensure the Plan adheres to FHWA requirements. The advisory group meets and provides updates to agency directors and commissioners every two weeks. AEA, DOT&PF, and FHWA have continued to meet on a biweekly, virtual basis throughout calendar years 2022, 2023, and 2024 to discuss NEVI program development, outreach and engagement, and other topics relevant to the delivery of the NEVI program objectives. In addition, AEA and DOT&PF meet in-person quarterly to develop process strategies for carrying out the NEVI program. AEA and DOT&PF have worked collaboratively to develop the state’s approach to the incorporation of NEVI projects into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), environmental review and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, federal project agreement negotiation and process, and project agreements with the State and selected project site hosts. AEA and DOT&PF will comply with the Buy America requirements issued for the NEVI program, and utilize US-produced parts, materials, and EVSE. The agencies recognize that the FHWA interprets and applies Buy America requirements on a 100% domestic content and assembly threshold for iron, steel, and protective coatings. AEA and DOT&PF will also comply with the Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers (88 FR 10619) as effective March 23, 2023, that applies to: • EV chargers manufactured by July 1, 2024, whose final assembly occurs in the United States, and whose installation has begun by October 1, 2024. • EV chargers manufactured on or after July 1, 2024 whose final assembly occurs in the United States, and for which the cost of components manufactured in the United States is at least 55 percent of the cost of all components. 9 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Public Engagement AEA and DOT&PF partner to deliver timely and continuous public involvement opportunities consistent with 23 CFR 450.210. As part of developing Alaska’s NEVI Plan, AEA and DOT&PF began conducting public outreach, which utilized various platforms and outreach tools. The public involvement objective is to increase Alaskans’ awareness of the NEVI formula funding and gather public input on the plan development and EVSE siting. Public involvement will provide transparency in implementation of the NEVI formula program and increase understanding of and enthusiasm for EVs, as well as break down barriers to EV adoption. AEA hosts the AKEVWG, which meets quarterly and is composed of EV owners, researchers, utilities, municipalities, site hosts, EV vendors, charging station site hosts and other stakeholders. This group helps inform AEA of Alaska-specific EV considerations, including EVSE needs and trends, and provides input on how to best identify sites for charging stations. The working group has several hundred email subscribers that receive AEA EV newsletters and are regularly engaged and provides an opportunity for Alaskans to stay up-to-date on the changing EV landscape and opportunities in the state.AEA conducts public outreach at the Governor’s Sustainable Energy Conference in 2023. Photo courtesy of AEA 10 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 AEA maintains an EV subpage on the AEA domain that includes information about upcoming public outreach events, AKEVWG meeting minutes, and information regarding cost of EV ownership compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, as well as costs and potential benefits to owning a DCFC site.1 The website also links news articles and television clips in which AEA is featured. AEA’s outreach team is continuing to improve and direct traffic to the website. The vision of the website is to be the go-to source for Alaska’s EV enthusiasts. The website will include the latest iterations and updates of the Plan and provide opportunities for public comment. As the Plan is implemented, the website will include a map with site locations and construction progress. Stakeholders Involved in Plan Development The list of organizations that have been engaged as the plan was developed, and future stakeholders as the plan evolves are are identified in Table 1 and 2, respectively. An asterisk identifies a stakeholder or community that is found within a Justice40 area identified by the USDOT2. Current Stakeholders Table 1: Current Plan Development Stakeholders Communities & Local Governments Akutan*City of Houston*Old Harbor* Municipality of Anchorage Hydaburg*Ouzinkie* City of Anderson City and Borough of Juneau City of Palmer City of Angoon*Kachemak*Pelican Coffman Cove Kake*Petersburg Borough Cold Bay*Kasaan*Port Lions* Cordova Kenai*Saxman* Craig*Kenai Peninsula Borough*Seldovia* Delta Junction City of Ketchikan*Seward Denali Borough*Ketchikan Gateway Borough City and Borough of Sitka* Eagle*King Cove*Municipality of Skagway Borough* City of Fairbanks Klawok*Soldotna* Fairbanks North Star Borough City of Kodiak Tenakee Springs False Pass*Kodiak Island Borough*Unalaska* Gustavus Matanuska-Susitna Borough*City of Valdez Haines Borough City of Nenana*Wasilla* Homer*North Pole Whittier City of Hoonah*North Slope Borough Yakutat Adak^Akiak*^Bethel^ Buckland*^Cantwell*^Chefornak*^ Dillingham^Gakona*^Galena*^ Healy*^Huslia*^Kaktovik*^ Kiana*^Kotzebue^Napakiak*^ Napaskiak*^Pilot Station^Point Hope*^ Quinhagak*^Saint Michael*^Tooksook Bay*^ *Indicates stakeholder or community that is found within a Justice40 area identified by the USDOT ^ Indicates stakeholder added to list since last plan update 1 https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-Do/Alternative-Energy-and-Energy-Efficiency-Programs/Electric-Vehicles2 https://www.transportation.gov/equity-Justice40 11 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Unalakleet*^Utqiagvik*^Wainwright*^ Whale Pass*^Wrangell*^ Native Organizations Ahtna, Inc.*Cook Inlet Regional Corp*Metlakatla Indian Community* Chickaloon Native Village*Doyon* Chugach Corp*Kodiak Area Native Association* Utilities Alaska Electric Light & Power Co.Cordova Electric Kotzebue Electric Association Alaska Power & Telephone Enstar Natural Gas Matanuska Electric Association Alaska Power Association Golden Valley Electric Association Southeast Alaska Power Agency, Ket-chikan Chugach Electric Homer Electric Association Juneau Hydropower^ Copper Valley Electric Kodiak Electric Association Ketchikan Public Utilities, Electric Dept.^ Agencies Alaska DOT&PF Bureau of Land Management US Department of Energy Alaska Energy Authority Federal Highway Administration Alaska Housing Finance Corpora-tion Regulatory Commission of Alaska Businesses Adventure Denali Loopy Lupine Denali Chamber of Commerce Alaska Sea Life Center^Sheep Creek Lodge Willow Chamber of Commerce Dimond Center Chugiak Eagle River Chamber Three Bears Alaska Whistle Hill^Jack River Inn^Major Marine Tours^ Local Organizations Alaska Municipal League*Easy Park Pacific Northwest Economic Region Alaska Center Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation Prince William Sound Economic Devel-opment District Alaska Electric Vehicle Association (AKEVA)Fairbanks Area Surface Transporta-tion (FAST) Planning MPO Prince William Sound Science Center Alaska Public Interest Research Group Haines Economic Development Corporation ReCharge Alaska Alaska Trails Juneau EVA Renewable Energy Alaska Project Anchorage Economic Development Corporation Kenai Peninsula Economic Devel-opment District*Sitka Conservation Society Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) Launch Alaska Southeast Conference* Bering Strait Development Council*Norton Sound Health Corporation*Southwest Alaska Municipal Confer-ence* Copper Valley Development Asso-ciation*Transition Sitka^Mat-Su Valley Planning (MVP) MPO^ Education University of Alaska Anchorage University of Alaska Fairbanks Private Companies or Vendors Compucon^FLO Tesla^ eCAMION^ChargePoint *Indicates stakeholder or community that is found within a Justice40 area identified by the USDOT ^Indicates stakeholder added to list since last plan update 12 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Potential Future Stakeholders Table 2: Current Plan Development Potential Future Stakeholders Alaska Dept. of Environmental Con-servation, Air Quality Division Calista Corporation*Laborers’ Local 341 Alaska Federation of Natives*CCI Electrical Services, LLC Laborers’ Local 942 Alaska Inter-Tribal Council*Chugach Native Association*Maniilaq* Alaska Native Tribal Health Consor-tium*Cook Inlet Tribal Council*McKinley Private Investment Alcan Electrical & Engineering, Inc.Copper River Native Association*NANA Regional Corporation* Aleut Corporation*Fairbanks Native Association*National Park Service Aleutian Pribilof Island Association*Fullford Electric, Inc.Northern Alaska Environmental Center Alyeska Resort Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Sealaska Corporation* Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Kawerak Tanana Chiefs Conference* Association of Village Council Pres-idents Knik Tribe*Telecommunications/Internet Entities Bering Straights Native Corpora-tion*Kodiak Area Native Association*Tok Transportation Bristol Bay Native Corporation*Koniag, Incorporated*University of Alaska Fairbanks Sheep Mountain Lodge^Eureka Lodge^Gunsight Mountain Lodge^ Grow Ketchikan^EVGateway^ *Indicates stakeholder or community that is found within a Justice40 area identified by the USDOT ^ Indicates stakeholder added to list since last plan update Tribal Engagement AEA hosted a booth at the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) annual conference in Anchorage in October 2023. AFN is the largest statewide Native organization in Alaska and represents more than 140,000 Native peoples—about one out of every five Alaskans. Formed in 1966 to settle land claims, AFN continues to be the principal forum and voice of Alaska Natives in addressing critical issues of public policy and government. The booth at the AFN conference provided numerous resources related to the NEVI program and the state’s EV strategy. Project managers were available at the booth to discuss the program in greater detail with interested stakeholders. In addition to AEA’s involvement at the AFN event, staff attended and presented at the Alaska Municipal League (AML) annual conference in October 2023 in Anchorage. AML is a nonprofit statewide organization of 165 cities, boroughs, and unified municipalities. Attendees at the conference included organizations from across the state, specifically from rural Alaska. AEA presented on the NEVI program to five groups from the Arctic, Southeast, Interior, Southwestern, and Southcentral regions. In April 2024, AEA presented at the 4th Annual Infrastructure Development Symposium which is put on by AML in coordination with the Governor’s Office of Infrastructure and AFN. The goal of the symposium is to work toward and review progress on federal infrastructure investments. The primary focus of the Alaska NEVI program has been on the buildout of the AFC, which is largely urbanized when compared with the rest of the state. The focus of the NEVI program will shift to rural and tribal infrastructure deployment after the buildout of the AFC is complete. However, engagement with tribal entities is a core tenant of AEA’s mission. As such, AEA’s primary focus for competitive funding opportunities has been on tribal and rural community EVSE deployment. AEA applied for a grant through DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office titled “Alaska EVSE Deployment and Best Practices in Rural and Underserved 13 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Communities” and received funding. This project will provide technical assistance and training resources; demonstrate EVSE in 9 rural communities by installing up to 36 charging stations; and fund data collection and analysis in rural communities. This project includes a number of project partners, including AML. Utility Engagement The Railbelt Utilities, those that serve the AFC territory, regularly attend the AKEVWG meetings, both quarterly and technical sessions. During these meetings, the utilities identify upcoming initiatives they have as well as any concerns with provisioning electricity for EVs. AEA also engaged the utilities to develop a form for the solicitation of the EV charging stations along the AFC so that utilities were aware of potential installations and so applicants could determine if their site was feasible and how much it would cost to provide new or upgraded service. The involvement of the utilities has been crucial to the program moving forward expeditiously to reduce review times following site selection and avoid miscalculations in project cost estimates. Public Outreach AEA’s EV team hosted five informational sessions to inform stakeholders on the Plan and solicit feedback in May of 2024. AEA staff traveled to several communities to present in-person on the program. AEA utilized regularly recurring meetings in order to increase attendance and sent emails, flyers, and calendar events informing stakeholders on the presentations to the working group members, 166 municipal league members, and approximately 270 people on our active NEVI stakeholder registry. AEA published Public Notices on the State of Alaska website regarding all outreach events. AEA continues to facilitate quarterly working group meetings, publishes monthly newsletters, attends conferences to provide information on the program, and offers virtual presentations on program updates. Each annual update will receive a public comment period of 30 days as well as a virtual and several workshop sessions for public comment and input. AEA, in coordination Michael Baker, has also created an outreach and education plan outlining outreach goals, activities, and resources for the Plan. This outreach plan can be found in Appendix A. Community Engagement Outcomes Report Plan Outreach Prior to submission of the FY25 Plan, the Authority held targeted workshops in May 2024. All outreach events were advertised through the Authority’s Listserv distribution, which contains over 270 contacts. Event-specific graphics were created (see Figure 1) and advertised via AEA social media accounts on Facebook and LinkedIn. A NEVI Plan specific page was created on the Authority’s website to host the Plan, AKEVWG meeting information, information on the NEVI formula program, AFC map gallery, and FAQs as relating to the Plan. AEA continues to hold quarterly working group meetings and a technical session every six weeks. Additionally, AEA hosts booths at community events as they arise. These include, but not limited to, the Alaska State Fair, the Infrastructure Development Symposium, and Anchorage and Mat-Su Transportation Fairs.Figure 1. Example NEVI Outreach Advertising Materials 14 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Targeted Workshops NEVI Plan workshops were held throughout the state by request or on an as-needed basis. AEA hosted in-person meetings with local stakeholders to discuss The Plan and continuously solicit feedback. NEVI Plan workshops were useful tools to implement in areas where the Plan had been met with doubt, hesitation, or concern, as AEA was able to meet directly with the affected parties and work to understand the local concerns as well as educate on the Plan. NEVI Plan workshops were also beneficial to hold in areas with strong EV support given that local stakeholders were already engaged and looking for more resources and guidance moving forward. Table 3: Targeted Workshops Location Date Topic Agencies Represented Fairbanks, Alaska September 20, 2022 NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Overview FAST Planning, DOT&PF Juneau, Alaska November 03, 2022 NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Overview City of Sitka, City of Ketchikan, City of Petersburg, City of Kodiak, UAF Kenai, Alaska February 09, 2023 NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Overview HEA, MTA, GVEA, City of Soldotna, City of Kenai Matanuska Susitna Valley, Alaska April 17, 2023 NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Overview City of Palmer, MEA Ketchikan, Alaska May 10, 2024 FY25 Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Update and Phase 2 Approach Metlakatla Indian Community, Southeast Conference, Ketchikan Public Utilities/Electric, Grow Ket-chikan/Ketchikan Community Land Trust, Southeast Alaska Power Agen-cy; Ketchikan, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, EVGateway Glennallen, Alaska May 14, 2024 FY25 Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Update and Phase 2 Approach Ahtna, Inc., Alaska DOT&PF, Copper River Native Association Homer, Alaska May 15, 2024 FY25 Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Update and Phase 2 Approach Whistle Hill, Homer Electric Associ-ation Seward, Alaska May 16, 2024 FY25 Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Update and Phase 2 Approach City of Seward, Alaska Sealife Center, Major Marine Tours, EVGateway Anchorage, Alaska May 20, 2024 FY25 Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Update and Phase 2 Approach ReCharge Alaska, Alaska DOT&PF, Chugach Electric Association 15 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Alaska EV Working Group The AKEVWG met quarterly to discuss EVs and charging infrastructure in Alaska. The goal of the Working Group is to minimize barriers to the adoption of electric transportation in Alaska and to create a vibrant and enduring ecosystem for EVs and other modes of electric transport through strong local and regional partnerships. The Working Group has members from across the state. Members of the AKEVWG include the Alaska Electric Vehicle Association (AKEVA), Alaska DOT&PF, electric utilities, EV owners, EVSE vendors, municipalities, prospective charging sites, site hosts, universities, other stakeholders, and interested members of the public. Working Group meetings provided an opportunity for the group to gather and hear any high-level updates from AEA as well as serving as a venue for group members to share updates about ongoing work. All Working Group meetings were hybrid-style meetings to help facilitate attendance from people across the state, even if they were located outside of one of the urban hubs in which the in-person meetings were held. Meeting agendas, presentations, recordings, and transcribed Q&A were posted to the AEA website after the meetings. Table 4: Working Group Meetings Location Date Topic Agencies Represented Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska July 13, 2022 Morning Session NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infra-structure Implementation Plan Overview MEA, City of Soldotna, Chugach Electric, City of Petersburg, MOA, UAA Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska July 13, 2022 Afternoon Session NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Overview MOA, CIRI, Alaska Power Assoc., AGC Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska October 13, 2022 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Update Electrification Coalition Group Updates MEA, CEA, FAST Planning, GVEA, UAF, HEA, FNSB, DOT&PF Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska January 19, 2023 NEVI Program Site Host Request for Applications (RFA) Update on Existing EV Charging Stations in AK* Chugach Electric, MEA, ReCharge AK, MOA, AHFC, MTA, City of Ju-neau, FAST Planning, UAA, GVEA, City of Valdez, UAF Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska May 22, 2023 Post-selection process for NEVI funding recipients USDOT, GVEA, Chugach Electric Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska August 15, 2023 Rural Reimagined Project MEA, UAF, Tennessee Tech Univer-sity Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska October 26, 2023 Site Host Selection, Schedule, and Path Forward*Chugach Electric, MEA, Tesla, DOT&PF, Kia, Jule, HAP, Donlin Gold, AKEVA, GVEA, Flo, Launch Alaska Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska March 22, 2024 EV Microtrends and Winter vs. Summer Performance*MEA, Chugach Electric, UAF, Launch Alaska, ReCharge AK, Southeast Conference *Indicates a combined Tech Session/Working Group Meeting Alaska EV Working Group Technical Sessions Technical sessions were held as a subset of the AKEVWG and the topics were more targeted and focused as compared to the quarterly Working Group meetings. AEA invited experts to join panel discussions on 16 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 various topics related to EVs and the deployment of EV chargers throughout the state. A meeting facilitator researched the session topic before each meeting and drafted questions to help guide the discussion. Invites were sent out to targeted groups that AEA believed would have special interest in the topic; however, the sessions were always open to anyone who wished to join. Meeting participants were encouraged to ask the panel members questions as well as interact with each other. Panel members and participants discussed challenges and brainstormed ideas on best practices to consider while moving forward. Technical sessions were held as hybrid-style meetings to ensure that participants and panel members could join from wherever they were located, even if they were close to the in-person meeting location. Meeting recordings and notes were posted to the AEA website after the Technical Session. Participant locations for all AKEVWG meetings and technical sessions can be found in Figure 3. Table 5: AKEVWG Technical Sessions Location Date Topic Agencies Represented Virtual via ZOOM September 27, 2022 Workforce panel discussion on construction and maintenance workforce, EVITP certification process and training UAA, AKEVA, Kotzebue Electric Association Virtual via ZOOM November 03, 2022 Electric utility panel discussion on challenges faced during EVSE deployment AVEC, REAP, MTA, City of Ket-chikan, GVEA, MEA, City of Petersburg, HEA, Chugach Electric Association, City of Sitka, MOA Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska January 19, 2023 NEVI Program Site Host Request for Applications (RFA) Update on Existing EV Charging Stations in AK* Chugach Electric, MEA, ReCharge Ak, MOA, AHFC, MTA, City of Juneau, FAST Planning, UAA, GVEA, City of Valdez, UAF, Launch Alaska Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska March 10, 2023 NEVI Uptime Requirements City of Juneau, UAA, City of Wasilla, MEA, Chugach Electric Association, USDOT Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska April 03, 2023 The Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program MEA, Chugach Electric Assoc., USDOT, UAF, GVEA Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska July 12, 2023 Justice40 Benefits GVEA, DOT&PF, MEA, AKEVA, UAF Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska October 26, 2023 Site Host Selection, Schedule, and Path Forward*Chugach Electric, MEA, Tesla, DOT&PF, Kia, Jule, HAP, Donlin Gold, AKEVA, GVEA, MEA, Flo, Launch Alaska Virtual via Zoom December 14, 2023 Car Dealership Panel Discus-sion Chugach Electric, MEA, Flo, Launch Alaska, UAF Virtual via Zoom January 18, 2024 DriveOhio Infrastructure De-ployment Update UAF, Launch Alaska, GVEA, Chugach Electric, AKEVA Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska March 22, 2024 EV Microtrends and Winter vs. Summer Performance*MEA, Chugach Electric, UAF, Launch Alaska, ReCharge AK, Southeast Conference Virtual & In person: Anchorage, Alaska June 18, 2024 Alaska FY25 NEVI Plan Update Chugach Electric, GVEA, ReCharge, AK, Southeast Conference, UAF, City of Sitka, Electrification Coali-tion, AKEVA *Indicates a combined Tech Session/Working Group Meeting 17 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Monthly Newsletter AEA wrote a monthly newsletter that was distributed to the listserv and posted to the website. Newsletters typically contained an educational section, for example an explanation of EV tax credits, as well as updates on EV current events, like news on road rallies, either in Alaska or throughout the rest of the United States. The newsletters also served as an opportunity to advertise upcoming events, such as Technical Sessions, Working Group Meetings, or Workshops, and were a method to share links that readers could use to do further research on the topic at hand. Table 6: AEA Newsletters Date Topic August 04, 2022 AEA Submits The Plan to Joint Office August 11, 2022 Plan Spotlight: What is an AFC and why is the first round of funding going there? September 08, 2022 Arctic Road Rally Recap October 13, 2022 The Plan is approved! DE-FOA-0002611 Grant Concept Paper Accepted. Building Alaska’s EV Workforce November 09, 2022 Charging EVs with electricity harnessed from fossil fuels: Worth It? December 09, 2022 Updates on the electrification of fleets, buses, and airplanes in Alaska NEVI Site Host Appli-cation Update January 12, 2023 NEVI RFA Update and Timeline February 9, 2023 Clean Vehicle Tax Credit. Electric Buses in Metlakatla and Ketchikan March 9, 2023 NEVI Minimum Standards and Requirements. Build America, Buy America Act Waiver April 13, 2023 The Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program May 12, 2023 Updated EPA Vehicle Pollutant Standards. Updates on the Clean Vehicle Tax Credit. VW 1D.4 Alaska Tour. GVEA kWh Rate Change for DC Fast Chargers June 8, 2023 AEA Intent to Negotiate for DE-FOA-0002611. Ford Adopts NACS July 13, 2023 EV Charging Ports, NEVI Plan Comments Due Monday, and What We’re Reading August 10, 2023 Justice40 Initiative Survey, August 15 Technical Session, and EV Resources September 14, 2023 EV batteries — composition, recycling incentives, and future solutions October 12, 2023 IFirst Round Alaska NEVI Funding, Timeline, and Next Steps November 9, 2023 FHWA Approves FY24 Alaska NEVI Plan, NACS Update, and Local EV News December 14, 2023 Clean Vehicle Tax Credit Updates, Alaska’s Latest EV Count, and What We’re Reading January 11, 2024 NEVI Plan Spotlight, Funding Opportunity, Technical Session Recap, and January Events February 8, 2024 NEVI Plan Spotlight, EV Sales, and Upcoming Events March 7, 2024 NEVI Plan Spotlight, EV Signs, Funding Opportunities, and Upcoming Events April 11, 2024 Plan Spotlight, Share Your EV Data, and Fairbanks and North Pole EV Survey May 6, 2024 NEVI Workship Series, Plan Spotlight: Existing & Future Conditions Analysis, and What’s in a Sign? June 14, 2024 EVSE Funding Opportunity, Plan Spotlight: EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment, and an Update on the FY25 Draft NEVI Plan July 16, 2924 Your Input Needed on FY25 Alaska NEVI Plan, Call for Photos, and New Clean Vehicle Tax Credit Checklist August 8, 2024 Plan Update, Spotlight with AEL&P, and Upcoming Roundtable with Electric Utilities 18 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Figure 3. Location of outreach attendees and survey respondents. Figure 2. Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group 2022-2024 Email Newsletter Stats 19 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Community Surveys Community surveys were used to extend stakeholder outreach into rural areas of Alaska to ensure that disadvantaged communities were given opportunities to comment on the NEVI Plan. Paper and electronic surveys were distributed at the following events where AEA either held an informational booth or presented on the NEVI Plan. The survey locations of the survey respondents combined with the Alaska Municipal League outreach can be found in Figure 3 overlaid with Justice40 boundaries. Table 7: Community Surveys Date Event Website December 2022 Alaska Municipal League Annual Local Government Conference https://amlannual.org/ January 2023 Anchorage Transportation Fair www.anchorage-transportation-fair.com February 2023 Alaska Forum on the Environment https://akforum.org/ Outreach Outcomes Through all of the outreach that has been performed, it has become extremely evident that there is an appetite to install EV charging infrastructure in locations outside of the AFC. Nearly all stakeholders are excited for the new sites on the AFC, and can’t wait for their completion so that Alaska can move into Phase 2. There is a strong need for charging infrastructure in many communities across Alaska, from rural to marine to the larger urban areas. Timely completion of the AFC is critical to maintain this excitement. Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) raised concerns about the lack of electrical infrastructure to support chargers during the May 2024 outreach sessions. As a result, coordination and outreach with CVEA has a been a more focused effort with the intent to return to CVEA service area in the next round of workshops. Other communities wanted to make sure the project team was aware of the reasons that EV charging is needed in the community. These include providing access to existing EV owners, fostering additional adoption, supporting regional travel and tourism, and leveraging renewable energy sources where available. A Phase 2 outline was developed by AEA and DOT&PF prior to the May 2024 workshop series to generate reactions and comments. It proved to be an iterative process across the workshops, as valuable feedback was provided at each session and incorporated into a refined approach for Phase 2. The results of the outreach are reflected in this version of the plan and identify a measured and tactical approach to deploying in other areas of the state. However, it became apparent that additional outreach is necessary to define what each community needs, desires, and can support for Phase 2 before any procurement can be released. The goal of FY25 will be to finalize the approach of Phase 2. This photo of the remote Glenn Highway was taken during travel to the 2024 Glennallen NEVI Workshop. CVEA, the electric utility in this area, has raised concerns about lack of electric infrastructure to support EV charging. Photo courtesy AEA. 20 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Justice40 Survey Results There were 21 participants that responded to the online and paper Justice40 Benefits Survey. They rated each proposed benefit on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being the most favorable. The survey results below show the average rating of the responses to each proposed benefit. The survey is ongoing and available for for stakeholders to respond to at this link: https://www.menti.com/al1p5xitmqy3 21 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Upcoming Engagement AEA will host quarterly Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group meetings in the third and fourth quarters of 2024, as well as the first and second quarters of 2025 to engage the EV community on the progress of the NEVI program and other EV-related topics. These dates and topics are still to be determined. Further, Working Group Technical Sessions will be held monthly over the next year to continue to provide opportunities for knowledge sharing. To continue to refine the Phase 2 approach for NEVI deployment, workshops will be held in additional communities as identified below: • Tok • Delta Junction • Valdez • Cordova • Skagway • Sitka • Kake • Kodiak • Unalaska 22 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 EVs parked outside the AEA Outreach Workshop in Homer. Photo courtesy of AEA The timing for Phase 2 engagement is currently under development, but AEA expects it will occur during FY25. Upon completion of the community workshops, AEA will disseminate a targeted survey to the municipal governments, utilities, and tribal governments in priority communities to provide a final refinement of the make-up of sites (i.e. number of ports, speed of charging) that can be used in a solicitation for Phase 2. Site Specific Public Engagement At this time, no site-specific public engagement activities have been scheduled. However, AEA did recommend that selected sites engage with the public and responders in the communities where the EV charging stations will be installed, so this section will be updated in the future as those activities occur. 23 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Plan Vision & Goals Plan Vision Alaska’s NEVI Vision: Adapting Alaska’s unique infrastructure system to support reliable, equitable, and sustainable electric transportation while meeting community and economic needs.The primary mission of AEA is to lower the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA has a goal to reduce the barriers to EV adoption. Alaska’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan is a framework for utilizing NEVI formula funds to deliver EV charging infrastructure and enable passenger EV travel throughout the state. The charging network will provide EV drivers with confidence when traveling for work, recreation, and tourism. The primary mission of the DOT&PF is to ‘Keep Alaska Moving through Service and Infrastructure’. The AEA mission and the Alaska NEVI Plan are a component to the DOT&PF ‘Family of Plans’ and both inform other transportation plans, as well as be informed by the State’s LRTP. In this spirit of partnership, Alaska and the public at large will be able to realize the promise of the BIL in general, and the NEVI program in particular. Key strategic themes of the LRTP include safety, state of good repair, economic vitality, resiliency, sustainability, and mobility. Of particular relevance is DOT&PF’s Sustainable Transportation program, the goal of which is to help communities thrive through transportation investments that promote independence, efficiency, a healthy environment, and low-cost transportation. Implementation is supported through the formation of interdisciplinary and multiagency partnerships for cohesive and integrated deployment. NEVI is a core component of the Sustainable Transportation program’s portfolio. 24 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 As required in the NEVI Standards and Requirements related to the use of the NEVI formula funds, charging stations will be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year, with a minimum of 97% uptime. In addition, each site will be required to deliver ongoing operations and maintenance activities during and after the period of the award. This will necessitate contractual requirements for each charging location to facilitate measurable data collection and evaluation. Project partners will support this program goal with data collection to inform stakeholders of the performance of EVs and efficacy of vehicle electrification in Alaska. This program will increase access to EV charging stations for all Alaskans, including those historically underrepresented, specifically indigenous and disadvantaged populations. The Plan aims to ensure that community members are included and consulted in program decision-making and Plan development. Alaska will administer the NEVI funds in a way that supports the Justice40 initiative, where at least 40% of the benefits of the program investments will be distributed to disadvantaged communities. In addition to providing an EV fast-charging network along the state’s road and marine highway systems (AMHS), this program will serve locations comprising of Alaska Natives, residents of multiunit housing, and low-income, rural, and disadvantaged communities to ensure equitable access to EV charging infrastructure. The implementation of transportation electrification will help to lower the cost of transportation energy for all Alaskans. Alaska suffers from some of the highest fuel costs in the nation, especially in rural Alaska. High energy burdens threaten some households’ abilities to pay for energy and transportation expenses. Consequently, this forces difficult choices between paying for electricity, transportation, heating oil, food, medicine, and other essential items. High energy burdens paired with the high cost of goods in communities create challenging living conditions and, in some cases, food justice issues. Making EV charging infrastructure more accessible and equitable will ensure that Alaskans can comfortably transition to EVs, which typically have a lower total cost of ownership. Renewable energy generation in Alaska has been on the rise for several years, with support from state and local governments. In 2010, the Alaska Legislature enacted a goal for 50% of the state’s electricity to be generated from renewable energy sources by 2025. In 2020, Alaska generated about 28% of its electricity from renewable energy sources. Alaska’s Railbelt grid is currently composed of 15% renewable generation, and most of Kodiak and Southeast Alaska’s energy is generated by hydropower. NEVI charging stations will ensure renewable energy can power vehicles and reduce energy costs for families. Increasing access to charging stations and EVs will accelerate EV adoption throughout the state and improve air quality by reducing emissions associated with ICE vehicles. This is especially important in communities with poor air quality, like the portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough that has been designated as a nonattainment area by the US Environmental Protection Agency due to particulate pollution during strong temperature inversions in the winter. AEA will work closely with partners to maximize the public benefit by providing resources for EVSE site selection and development to partners. AEA will continue to work closely with DOT&PF to ensure site selection does not conflict with DOT&PF infrastructure improvement projects and long-term goals. High-Level Program Goals 1. Deploy EV charging stations that are reliable and accessible for work, recreation, and tourism to inspire driver confidence. Providing infrastructure that is visible on traveled routes can greatly reduce range anxiety. DCFC stations will be located approximately 50 miles apart along the AFC and along the road system and marine highways. The plan intends to provide EV drivers with multiple options for EV Alaska suffers from some of the highest fuel costs in the nation, especially in rural Alaska. Making EV charging infrastructure more accessible and equitable will ensure that Alaskans can transition to EVs, which typically have a lower total cost of ownership. 25 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 charging along their travel route. Each location will be situated conveniently, no more than one mile from the AFC. The sites will provide at least four units and give consideration to pull-through spaces for vehicles pulling trailers and recreational or passenger vehicles. Locations will be easily identifiable through third-party charging station locator applications. All charging stations shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. Program partners will be required to enter into a five-year operations and maintenance contract to ensure the station complies with the federal NEVI requirements. The Authority will monitor station uptime and other key metrics through vendor- reported usage data on a quarterly basis at minimum, with a goal of 97% uptime provided to drivers. 2. Ensure the benefits are distributed and applied equitably for all Alaskans. Alaska is planning for equitable EV charging capabilities throughout the state. At least 40% of the benefits of the program investments will be distributed to Justice40 communities. Justice40 communities are shown in Figure 30, as defined by the FHWA. Phases 2 and 3 of the Implementation Plan will develop charging infrastructure in communities along the AMHS and in hub communities as funding allows. 3. Support the existing and future demand for electrified transportation. AEA aims to support the existing EVs on the road today and prepare the state for future scenarios with increased EV adoption as well as the potential for medium- and heavy-duty freight and transit electrification. 4. Implement an outreach and education program to train, retain, and diversify the workforce in support of the electric transportation system. AEA aims to increase knowledge and education about EVs, infrastructure, and the benefits to adoption. This program can help address frequently asked questions and common misconceptions, and act as a resource. The program will evolve to support workforce development to enhance the skills of Alaskan workers for the mobility of tomorrow. Figure 4. Alaska’s Highway System 26 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 5. Collect data to measure program performance and make informed deployment decisions. Project partners will support this program goal with data collection and analysis to inform participants of the performance and usage of EVs and EVSE and changes in adoption, and publish charging usage and efficacy of vehicle electrification in Alaska. The data will be analyzed for the out-year deployments to aid in selecting optimal locations for EV charging deployment. 6. Invest strategically to make Alaska’s infrastructure more resilient and independent. The deployment of charging stations that are supported by renewable energy sources, where available, will be encouraged to reduce dependence on foreign oil and gas. Collaboration with the utility companies will occur in support of this effort. 7. Work with international partners to connect to the continental network. Recognizing that Alaska is removed from the lower 48 states, the movement of goods and people along the highway network crosses international borders. AEA will coordinate deployments with international partners to support logistics and mobility. Outlook for 5-year Program The Plan will deliver a reliable, grid-connected DCFC infrastructure network from the south end of the Alaska AFC in Anchorage and 355 miles north to Fairbanks within the first three years. During this same time frame, AEA will be conducting extensive EVSE and EV infrastructure public outreach, continuously gathering stakeholder feedback and lessons learned. Future iterations of the plan will incorporate these findings. Phase One, Build Out Alaska’s Alternative Fuel Corridor • Phase one will focus on building out Alaska’s AFC to meet FHWA guidance, where practically feasible, along the AFC from Anchorage to Fairbanks. • Plan activities will include site selection, public outreach, and meetings with Alaska boroughs, Alaska Native corporations and tribes, and other private landholders, city planners, small Alaskan communities, and all other key stakeholders identified in Section 3 – Public Engagement & Outreach. • Outreach and coordination will continue with DOT&PF, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), and electrical utilities that provide power to the communities to be served by the NEVI-funded stations. EV performance in cold weather is currently a barrier to EV adoption for many Alaskans.Photo courtesy of Mark Kelliher 27 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 • Due to the seasonality of Alaska’s climate, public and private contracting for initial design and construction projects is expected to extend over two construction seasons. • Several 50 kW DCFC locations have been recently commissioned or are under construction along the AFC. These stations were funded with VW settlement grants in the summer of 2021. These stations do not meet the NEVI requirements as currently designed. Phase Two, Build Out Alaska’s Highway and Marine Highway System • AEA and DOT&PF will coordinate to develop DCFC infrastructure along Alaska’s non-AFC highways and the AMHS to enable passenger EV travel throughout the state. This phase of the program will focus on connecting small urban areas, rural communities on the road system, Alaska’s road system to Canada, and coastal communities located on the AMHS. • A review of communities and travel patterns along the Seward Highway, Glenn Highway, Sterling Highway, and Richardson Highway will be completed prior to completion of Phase 1 to determine potential locations for DCFC in support of long-distance mobility within the state in Phase 2. • The communities along the AMHS will be key stakeholders to identify where charging locations would suit mobility that is paired with the ferry system. Early coordination with communities such as Juneau, Cordova, Ketchikan, Sitka, and Valdez will indicate opportunities for community partnerships to deploy infrastructure. • Engagement with stakeholders and communities along the AMHS will further refine the locations, phased deployment and site composition, balancing preferences between fast charging and Level 2 charging. • Some isolated communities may not require or have the generation infrastructure to support 150 kW charging or four charging ports. In such cases, providing lower-speed charging or utilizing distributed energy resources may be essential for successfully deploying EV infrastructure in the more remote regions of Alaska. Phase Three, Install Charging Stations in Hub Communities, as funding allows • Install community-based charging stations in EV-ready communities throughout regional hubs in rural Alaska. • Rural communities are generally not connected by road or transmission. Each community self-generates its power through a small local utility. Average loads in rural communities range from 100 kW to 1 MW. In many communities, NEVI-compliant DCFC equipment may not be feasible; therefore, Level 2 charging stations are preferred. This will be evaluated against community needs. • Beyond the NEVI formula funding, AEA intends to coordinate with DOT&PF to apply for competitive and discretionary grants for rural Alaska. Phase Four, Urban and “Destination” Locations, as funding allows • AEA and DOT&PF will identify and develop strategic charging sites in urban and “destination” locations. These charging sites will utilize a combination of DCFC and Level 2 charging infrastructure and will provide a reliable charging safety net for unexpected charging needs and provide “destination charging” for overnight trips. Developing Alaska’s Phase 2 Approach With the selection of nine sites along the AFC, AEA and DOT&PF are preparing to move into Phase 2 of the overall plan which includes EV charging infrastructure deployment along the other Alaska Highways and the Marine Highway System. The update of the FY25 Plan begins this process with a detailed approach and process to identify priority sites for procurement once Alaska receives the approval to do so. 28 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 To begin the process, AEA developed an outreach plan to inform the public about the FY25 plan and solicit input into its development. While large portions of the Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan remain the same as previous versions, this update presents a unique opportunity that had not been afforded to the state in the past: working to identify sites outside of the AFC. The Phase 2 approach was Informed by workshops held virtually and in-person in: • Ketchikan (Marine Highway) – May 10, 2024 • Glennallen (Highway) – May 14, 2024 • Homer (Highway and Marine Highway) – May 15, 2024 • Seward (Highway) – May 16, 2024 • Anchorage (statewide) (Highway) – May 20, 2024 While Phase 1 (AFC) prioritized locations based on a gap analysis along the AFC and solicited public input for ideal locations, Phase 2 needs to leverage public input to prioritize community locations for EV charging. These community inputs will not only assist in identifying the needs of the community and potential limitations (like grid infrastructure), but it will also help prioritize selections during future Requests for Applications. These inputs are expected to include Disadvantaged Community status, distance between sites, number of EVs in the community, adjacent roadway volumes, presence of existing stations, existing EVSE utilization, known planned EVSE, expected cost of the site, and power availability or capacity of utility infrastructure. Of the $52.4 million coming to Alaska in NEVI formula funds, $6.4 million was allocated in Round 1 for sites along the AFC. With approval of this FY25 plan, Alaska will have received $41.25 million from FHWA, leaving approximately $31.85 million in available funds to deliver Phase 2 after administrative costs have been removed. The FY25 Plan does not allocate the $11.2 million in FY26 funding, as that may be part of Phase 2 or another phase in the future. It is also imperative to determine an appropriate split of funding between Highway and Marine Highway for funding. The impetus behind this is to ensure that there is adequate distribution of funding and sites among the two focus highway systems. AEA intends to provide infrastructure along both systems, so setting a minimum funding amount or percentage during the procurement phase will be important to align with stakeholder input on the needs of the communities. This split is still being determined through on-going collaboration with those in these communities. Site Design Based on average site costs of Phase 1 awards, Alaska could install approximately 45 additional NEVI creditable stations throughout the state if the requirements for the sites were 4 DCFC ports at 150 kW each. However, moving off of the AFC affords additional flexibility in the type of charging (DCFC vs. Level 2) and speed of charging. The NEVI Standards and Requirements (23 CFR 680) sets the standard for each site to be four Figure 5. Alaska NEVI Funding Breakdown 29 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 ports, but if the site is not along an AFC, the makeup of those ports could be DCFC, Level 2, or a combination of DCFC and Level 2. Further, the 150 kW minimum requirement per DCFC port applies only to the AFC, so consideration could be given to a different power requirement for the sites based on more localized characteristics, such as the capacity of the grid. A minimum of 6 kW is applied in the NEVI Standards and Requirements for Level 2 charging, but AEA and DOT&PF will attempt to secure equipment that is rated at higher speeds. The Alaska Highway System (AHS) The Alaska Highway System (AHS) is a network of roads and highways that facilitate transportation across Alaska. While the Alternative Fuel Corridor (AFC) focuses on providing infrastructure for electric vehicles, the AHS extends beyond this to encompass a broader range of transportation needs. As Alaska continues to develop its alternative fuel infrastructure, the AHS will play a crucial role in supporting the transition to more sustainable transportation options. Outside of the AFC, the AHS serves remote communities and areas where EV charging infrastructure is not yet established. In these regions, the provision of services such as fuel stations, rest areas, and emergency services are spread out and infrequent, but are critical for the safety and convenience of travelers. The AHS includes major highways such as the Alaska Highway (also known as the Alcan Highway), which runs from Dawson Creek in British Columbia, Canada, through the Yukon Territory, and into Alaska at Delta Junction. It then connects to the Richardson Highway, which continues to Fairbanks. This historic route was originally constructed during World War II for military purposes but has since become a vital commercial and recreational artery. In the following subsections, the highways that make up the AHS are portrayed with a line-diagram. These line-diagrams depict major settlements along the routes, as they are the most likely locations to have potential site hosts to install EV charging as well as the most likely to have utility service to support its deployment. Each of the shown locations also identifies any existing charging available, not as a deterrent to installing new charging but to further paint the picture of the limited, charging infrastructure in Alaska’s many rural communities. The distances shown identify the distance between the communities that travelers would need to overcome to reach the community. Figure 6. The highways that makeup the AHS. 30 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Alaska Highway (East of Delta Junction) Alaska Highway: Also known as the ALCAN (Alaska-Canada Highway), this highway connects to Canada, as the nickname implies, and provides linkage to Southeast Alaska and the Lower 48. This 198-mile highway connects Delta Junction and the Richardson Highway to the Canadian border, traversing communities like Tok with it intersects with the Tok Cutoff. The greatest challenge along the route is the lack of regulated public utility service to be able to supply EV charging. Figure 7. Distances between major hubs along the Alaska Highway east of Delta Junction, existing EVSE, and electric service. 31 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Richardson Highway Richardson Highway: As a major inland route, the 368-mile Richardson Highway connects Fairbanks to Valdez, traversing regions such as the Copper River Basin and the Alaska Range. While Fairbanks serves as the northern terminus of the AFC, substantial portions of this highway lack charging infrastructure. The extreme temperatures, heavy snowfall, and extensive distances between communities such as Glennallen and Paxson present significant challenges for reliable EV charging deployment and maintenance. Additionally, limited electrical capacity and considerable gaps in the electric grid fur ther complicate deployment efforts. Figure 8. Distances between major hubs along the Richardson Highway, existing EVSE, and electric service. 32 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Glenn Highway Glenn Highway: This 189-mile highway runs between Anchorage and the Tok Cut-Off, connecting to the Alaska Highway near Tok (136 miles to Tok via the Tok Cutoff). Significant portions of the Glenn Highway traverse remote areas outside the AFC, such as the Matanuska-Susitna Valley and the Copper River Basin. Implementing EV charging along these stretches faces challenges like limited grid connectivity, harsh winters, and vast distances between communities like Glennallen and Chickaloon. Figure 9. Distances between major hubs along the Glenn Highway, existing EVSE, and electric service. 33 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Seward Highway Seward Highway: Another notable highway is the Seward Highway, a 127-mile scenic byway that winds along the Kenai Peninsula’s rugged coastline. The Seward Highway stretches from Seward on the Kenai Peninsula to Anchorage and the Parks Highway, which connects Anchorage to Fairbanks. This highway traverses through some of Alaska’s most scenic areas, offering access to national parks, wildlife reserves, and outdoor recreational activities. The coastal environment, mountainous terrain, and lack of existing infrastructure present challenges for deploying and maintaining reliable EV charging solutions. Figure 10. Distances between major hubs along the Seward Highway, existing EVSE, and electric service. 34 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Sterling Highway Sterling Highway: The Sterling Highway, spanning 138 miles from Sterling to Homer, serves as a gateway to the Kenai Peninsula’s communities and outdoor recreation areas. Outside of the AFC between Anchorage and Fairbanks, this route may become the most EV-friendly segment of the AHS system upon completion. However, the harsh maritime climate and the isolation of many communities along this route pose significant challenges for implementing reliable charging networks and expanding to meet the demand for EV charging. Other Highways Beyond these major routes, Alaska’s highway system is comprised of numerous smaller roads and routes that crisscross the state’s vast expanses, serving remote communities, resource extraction sites, and recreational areas. One such route is the Dalton Highway, 414-miles from Livengood to Deadhorse, near the Arctic Ocean and the Prudhoe Bay Oil Fields. This drive crosses the Arctic Circle and the Brooks Range. However, with limited services and road maintenance, and extreme weather conditions, implementing EV charging infrastructure along this remote highway would require innovative solutions and robust planning. The Dalton Highway is not currently a focus of Alaska’s NEVI program. There are some other roads included in the Alaska Highway system which extend far beyond these major highways, traversing some of the most remote areas of Alaska. These highways serve as vital transportation arteries, connecting isolated communities, supporting resource extraction industries, and enabling recreational access. Figure 11. Distances between major hubs along the Sterling Highway, existing EVSE, and electric service. 35 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 One notable highway is the Denali Highway, a 135-mile stretch running between Paxson and Cantwell. This scenic route provides access to the recreational and hunting areas in the interior of Alaska. . The Taylor Highway, stretching 164 miles from the Alaska Highway near Tok to Eagle, is another crucial route beyond the AFC. This highway traverses the Fortymile country, a region rich in history and natural resources, serving as a link for mining, hunting, and other economic activities. The Steese Highway, a 162-mile route connecting Fairbanks to the Yukon River, is another important artery outside of the AFC. This highway serves several communities, including Circle and Central, and provides access to remote areas for mining, hunting, and recreation. Finally, other roadways include 175 miles of highway on the Seward Peninsula encompassing Nome and its surrounding villages, and the 170 miles of roadway on Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska that connect four communities. The Alaska Marine Highway System Phase two of Alaska’s NEVI deployment will also provide a direct connection to the country’s largest public transit network by locating EV charging stations at AMHS ferry port communities. The AMHS is a state-operated ferry service that provides a transportation link for many communities along Alaska’s coastline. Established in 1963, the AMHS covers a route of approximately 3,500 miles, stretching from Bellingham, Washington, to the Aleutian Islands in Alaska. It serves over 30 coastal communities, many of which are not connected to the North American road network, making the ferry system an essential part of Alaska’s infrastructure. This service helps meet the social, educational, health and economic needs of Alaskans. AMHS provides year-round scheduled ferry service throughout Southeast and Southwest Alaska, extending south to Prince Rupert, British Columbia and Bellingham Washington. The system connects communities with each other, regional centers, and the continental road system. It is an integral part of Alaska’s highway system, reaching many communities that would otherwise be cut off from the rest of the state and nation. AMHS also provides a coastal transportation alternative between Anchorage and the Lower 48 states versus driving the Alaska Highway. AMHS is designed to provide basic transportation services to communities; transportation that allows community access to health services, commodities, legal services, government services, and social services; transportation that meets the social needs of isolated communities; and transportation that provides a base for economic development. AMHS services are divided into two major systems: the Southeast System (from Bellingham north to Yakutat) and the Southwest system (from Cordova west to Unalaska). The AMHS fleet consists of nine vessels; six operate in the Southeast System, and three operate in the Southwest System. All nine vessels are designed to carry passengers and vehicles ranging in size from motorcycles to large freight container vans. Trips can last several hours or several days. Some of the key routes include: Inside Passage Route • Bellingham, WA to Ketchikan • Ketchikan to Wrangell • Wrangell to Petersburg • Petersburg to Juneau • Juneau to Haines/Skagway Established in 1963, the AMHS covers a route of approximately 3,500 miles, stretching from Bellingham, Washington, to the Aleutian Islands in Alaska. It serves over 30 coastal communities, many of which are not connected to the North American road network, making the ferry system an essential part of Alaska’s infrastructure. 36 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Cross-Gulf Routes • Kodiak to Port Lions on Kodiak Island • Homer to Seldovia on the Kenai Peninsula • Whittier across Prince William Sound to Chenega, Tatitlek, and Cordova Southwest Routes • From Kodiak, ferries sail to communities in the Aleutian Islands like Akutan, Chignik, False Pass, King Cove, Sand Point, and terminating in Unalaska/Dutch Harbor. The Alaska Marine Highway also connects to road systems at terminus towns like Bellingham, WA, Prince Rupert, BC, and Haines where travelers can continue onwards by highway. All routes feature multiple stops to allow passengers to disembark and explore communities along the way. Major hubs like Juneau, Ketchikan, and Kodiak see frequent ferry arrivals and departures. The initial Phase 2 aspirations would be to provide EV charging in or near key AMHS port towns to serve those that travel the AMHS with an EV and to support the communities themselves that are often islanded and remote. Other key locations will be where the AHS and the AMHS intersect in a community, thus servicing both systems at the same time. Further, DOT&PF have been exploring the possibility of electrifying the ferries that serve the AMHS, but that is not part of the scope of this plan or the NEVI program. Figure 12. The Alaska Marine Highway System. 37 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Summary of Phase 2 The approach to delivering Phase 2 will continue to evolve over the next year, following the finalization of the FY25 update to the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan. Insights gained from outreach sessions focused on developing the Phase 2 approach revealed that each community has unique needs and preferences for EV charging infrastructure due to factors such as geography, community road miles, utility infrastructure and use cases. As a result, applying a standardized site design for the AHS and AMHS will not lead to successful deployment or utilization of NEVI funding. Additionally, while cost was a significant scoring criterion for the site selection process for Phase 1 (AFC), it may present greater challenges in Phase 2 without clear guidelines on the specific EV charging infrastructure required at each site. A four-port DCFC site is not directly comparable to a four-port Level 2 site. Therefore, a more precise definition of the number and composition of ports needed in each community is essential. This will necessitate further engagement with communities beyond the submission of the FY25 Plan. 38 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Contracting Status of Contracting Process Alaska’s Request for Applications AEA solicited competitive grant applications for the purpose of installing EVSE at up to 14 sites along Alaska’s AFC. The scope of the projects include design, construction, installation of software and hardware, operations, maintenance, and data reporting. The RFA set out the purpose, instructions, requirements, evaluative criteria, and other information for submitting an application to AEA for grant funding. AEA and DOT&PF will jointly enter into a separate project grant agreement for each site chosen to satisfy a priority area. AEA’s goal for this RFA was to build out Phase One, which includes the AFC from Anchorage to Fairbanks. This section of roadway includes the state roads with the highest traffic volumes, connects Alaska’s two largest cities, and provides access to many communities, parks, and other attractions. After the AFC is completely built out, AEA will move on to Phase Two, and conduct solicitations that include the remaining highway systems and AMHS. All funds associated with the NEVI formula program and the Alaska NEVI request for applications shall be administered under Chapter 1 of Title 23, United States Code (USC), which encompasses requirements for states to receive federal-aid funding. The procurement and contractual requirements must comply with federal and Alaska state laws and additional program requirements. Applicants will be required to construct and maintain EVSE at the site, pursuant to federal program requirements defined in the NEVI Standards and Requirements. The equipment must also meet Buy America requirements as identified in the current and future Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers. 39 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Thirty-four grant applications for the first round of applications for 14 locations along Alaska’s AFC were received and were reviewed for recommendations of award. The following solicitation steps encompass Phase 1 of Alaska’s NEVI program: 1. Advertised RFA: AEA advertised the grant opportunity throughout the state. EV charging companies or site host property owners who self-manage or partner with other entities prepared the grant applications to apply for NEVI funding to install, own, and operate compliant EV chargers. The contracts awarded are designed to be design-build-operate-maintain as the state will not own or operate any of the charging equipment. 2. Prepared Applications: Applicants identified sites for EVSE installation within priority areas identified by AEA. Applicants prepared their application and coordinated with local utilities to understand site readiness for EVSE installation. Utilities provided infrastructure upgrade plans to the applicant, including cost estimates to be included in the final pricing application. 3. Reviewed Applications: AEA and DOT&PF evaluated the administrative, technical, and pricing applications based on the evaluation criteria and process as defined in the RFA package. The ranking and prioritization of projects were determined for each priority site. The selection committee members awarded competitive points to each application against the application criteria and weight outlined in the RFA and the applicant with the highest overall score within each priority site group was selected for award. AEA developed a final prioritized list of projects, taking into consideration the amount of funding that is available and the distribution of projects along the AFC. 4. Incorporate Projects into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): After the selection committee confirmed recommended projects, DOT&PF incorporated the project by line item addition based on budget, scope, and schedule values for all incorporated projects. 5. Federal Project Agreements and Authorization to Proceed: AEA and DOT&PF provide project information to the FHWA for Authorization to Proceed. 6. State Project Agreements: AEA and DOT&PF will enter into project agreements with each site host. These project agreements will include information related to reimbursement and billing methods between parties, and program regulations and requirements related to the NEVI program. These include but are not limited to NEPA, Title 23, Chapter 1 of the CFR, Build America and Buy America Requirements, property interest agreements, Uniform Act, and the Clean Air Act. The project agreement will be executed upon agreement of the signing parties. 7. Design and Construction of EVSE: DOT&PF will conduct NEPA compliance work during the preliminary design phase. The grantee will perform the final design and permitting, site work, equipment installation, and connection to power service, and commission the EVSE. AEA and DOT&PF will oversee the project activities and review for compliance with Title 23 and other program requirements. Payments will be made to the grantee on a monthly or quarterly reimbursement schedule as associated with specific project milestones and deliverables. 8. Operation and Maintenance of EVSE: The project agreement will include operations and maintenance service for up to five years. The grantee will provide specific data from the RFA attachments for program monitoring and compliance. We are here! 40 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 The applications received were primarily from EVSE vendors who partnered with site hosts. Most site categories received were from hotels and convenience stores. Figure 14 summarizes the site applications by applicant and site category. Figure 13. Number of Applications Received by Priority Site Location. Figure 14. Site Applications by Applicant and Site Category. 41 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Status of Contracting Process Table 8: Status of Contracting Process. Round of Contracting (Example: 1st round of three) Number of Proposals or Applications Recieved Contract Type (Design-build-operate-maintain, design-build, or others) Date Solitication Released Date Solicitation Closed Date of Intent to Award Phase 1 RFA - Round 1 of 1 34 Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (DBOM) March 1, 2023 May 15, 2023 September 22, 2023 Awarded Sites AEA is requesting acknowledgment of Corridor Ready status following commissioning of the selected Priority Sites for the state’s sole AFC. The Discretionary Exceptions included in this plan submission are the same that FHWA has previously approved in the FY24 plan and AEA and DOT&PF request their approval again. Three gaps along the corridor exceed the 50-mile maximum, but none of them exceed 80 miles, the distance granted an exception in the initial plan. It is AEA and DOT&PF’s belief that the market response to the RFA was adequate and there will be no suitable responses to another RFA that seeks to solicit charging locations in Willow and Clear. The lack of development and potential sites in these two locations is limited, especially as identified in Clear with no applications submitted for the first round. The initially approved Discretionary Exception is requested again – albeit at 77 miles instead of 80 miles due to sites recommended for award – due to the lack of power grid within this gap on the AFC. Based on the market response to the RFA, the remaining gaps, and the desire to maximize station viability of the awarded sites, DOT&PF and AEA do not need to go through another round of procurement to achieve Corridor Ready status. Table 9: Awarded Sites. Round of Contracting (Example: 1st round of three) Award Recipient Contract Type (Design-build-operate-maintain, design-build, or others) Location of Charging Station Award Amount Estimated Date of Operation Phase 1 RFA - Round 1 of 1 BDC Wasilla L.P.DBOM 1875 E Parks Hwy, Wasilla, AK 99654 $952,950 Summer 2025 Phase 1 RFA - Round 1 of 1 North Anchorage Real Estate Investors, LLC. DBOM 1200 N Muldoon Rd, Anchorage, AK 99504 $1,039,746 Summer 2025 Phase 1 RFA - Round 1 of 1 Tesla Inc.DBOM 114.6 Parks Hwy, Trapper Creek, AK 99676 $451,989 Summer 2025 Phase 1 RFA - Round 1 of 1 Tesla Inc.DBOM 209.9 Parks Hwy, Cantwell, AK 99729 $451,989 Summer 2025 42 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Round of Contracting (Example: 1st round of three) Award Recipient Contract Type (Design-build-operate-maintain, design-build, or others) Location of Charging Station Award Amount Estimated Date of Operation Phase 1 RFA - Round 1 of 1 Tesla Inc.DBOM 3755 Airport Way, Fairbanks, AK 99709 $451,989 Summer 2025 Phase 1 RFA - Round 1 of 1 Tesla Inc.DBOM Main St & First St, Nenana, AK 99760 $451,989 Summer 2025 Phase 1 RFA - Round 1 of 1 eCAMION USA, inc.DBOM Mile 238.9, 238.9 Parks Hwy, Denali National Park and Preserve, AK 99755 $875,951 Summer 2025 Phase 1 RFA - Round 1 of 1 eCAMION USA, inc.DBOM 813 Noble St, Fairbanks, AK 99701 $875,951 Summer 2025 Phase 1 RFA - Round 1 of 1 eCAMION USA, inc.DBOM 133 Parks Hwy, Trapper Creek, AK 99683 $875,951 Summer 2025 Figure 15. Priority Sites Recommended for Award. 43 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Scoring Methodologies Utilized Applications were reviewed in four stages by the application evaluation committee, which included AEA staff, DOT&PF staff, and the PM consultant from Michael Baker International. • Stage 1: Completeness and Eligibility (Pass/Fail) • Stage 2: Evaluation of Technical Application • Stage 3: Evaluation of Pricing Application • Stage 4: Ranking of Projects All applications were reviewed to determine if they were responsive. Applications determined to be responsive were evaluated using the criteria that is described below. If an application was rejected, the applicant was notified in writing or via email that their application had been rejected and the basis for rejection. Appeals for rejected applications were handled following the procedures outlined in 3 Alaska Administrative Code 107.650. At any stage in the review process, AEA could request additional information and the applicant would have a specified amount of time to respond to the request for information. Failure to timely respond or timely provide adequate information would result in the application being rejected. An evaluation may not be based on discrimination due to the race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, disability, or political affiliation of the applicant. Stage 1: Completeness and Eligibility (Pass/Fail) All applications received by the deadline were initially reviewed by AEA staff to assess application completeness. Stage 1 review included the following: Administrative Application Review • Applicant Information • Signature Page/Authorized Signers Overall Completeness of Entire Package • Application is complete and information is sufficiently responsive to the RFA to allow AEA to consider the application in the next stage of evaluation. Project and Applicant Eligibility • Application is submitted by an eligible applicant that demonstrates that they will take ownership of the project; own, lease, or otherwise control the site upon which the project is located; and upon completion of the project operate and maintain it for its economic life for the benefit of the public. • Included as documentation is a resolution or other formal authorization of the applicant that demonstrates the applicant’s commitment to the project and that any proposed matching funds are available and in the applicant’s control. Stage 2: Evaluation of Technical Application Each technical application was evaluated and scored as described in Table 10 (Technical Application Scoring Rubric). 44 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Table 10: Technical Application Scoring Rubric Technical Scoring Element Max Points Percent of Total Understanding of Program and Project Methodology 100 10% Management Plan, Schedule, Development and Operation 200 20% Experience and Qualifications 200 20% Site Proposal 300 30% Maximum Technical Application Score 800 80% Understanding of Program and Project Methodology (10%) Applicants will be evaluated against the following questions: • How well has the applicant demonstrated a thorough understanding of the purpose and scope of the project? • How well has the applicant identified pertinent issues and potential problems related to the project? • How well has the applicant proposed to manage and mitigate identified project risks? • Has the applicant demonstrated an approach that depicts a logical approach to fulfilling the requirements of the NEVI formula program? • Does the methodology interface with the schedule in the RFA? Management Plan, Schedule, Development and Operation (20%) Applicants will be evaluated against the following questions: • How well does the management plan support the project requirements and logically lead to successful project completion as required in the RFA? • How well is accountability defined? • Is the organization of the applicant team clear? • How well does the management plan illustrate the lines of authority and communication? • Does the application cover all required staffing to deliver the project through all phases of the program? • To what extent does the applicant already have the hardware, software, equipment, and licenses necessary to carry out the project? • Has the applicant provided a reasonable schedule for the project work? • Has the applicant provided a thorough plan for EVSE operations and maintenance that is consistent with the NEVI program requirements? • Does the applicant sufficiently address their approach to meeting Buy America requirements under current waiver rules? • Does the applicant present a sufficient approach to meeting the uptime requirements as described in the NEVI Standards and Requirements? Experience and Qualifications (20%) Applicants will be evaluated against the following questions: • Has the applicant team demonstrated experience in the deployment and operation of EVSE? • Are resumes complete and do they demonstrate capability of implementing EVSE? • How extensive is the applicable education and experience of the personnel designated to work on the project? • Does the proposed staff have applicable experience with Title 23 Federal-Aid projects? (Preferred) • How well has the applicant team demonstrated experience in completing similar projects on time and 45 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 within budget? • Has the proposal demonstrated the ability of subcontractors to implement EVSE at selected sites? • How successful is the general history of the applicant team regarding timely and successful completion of projects? Site Proposal (30%) Applicants will be evaluated against the following questions and criteria: • Has the applicant demonstrated a clear understanding regarding the infrastructure needs and utility improvement costs for the site? (Attachment 4, Utility Service Site Information Form) • Does the project schedule align with the demonstrated utility infrastructure and utility needs? Table 11: Site Proposal Evaluation Criteria Criterion Max Points Utility Service Site Information Form Evaluation Has the applicant demonstrated a clear understanding regarding the infrastructure needs and utility improvement costs for the site? Does the project schedule along with the demonstrated infrastructure and utility needs? 80 Site is located within 1 mile of the highway Within 1 mile: 60 points 1-3 miles: 30 points 3-5 miles 15 points Over 5 miles: 0 points 60 Site provides adequate lighting for security around the EVSE.20 Site has amenities for users to access while charging their vehicle.40 Site is located within a Justice40 boundary.40 Site match contribution: 20%: 20 points 25%: 40 points 30%: 60 points 60 Total available base points 300 Bonus Considerations Max Points Site offers pull through charging access.20 Site offers make-ready work for additional ports and increased speed (e.g. 350 kW in the future).20 Site offers additional plug standards to be inclusive of other drivers (e.g. NACS and CHAdeMO)10 Stage 3: Evaluation of Pricing Application The applicants completed Attachment 5 (Pricing Application Form) and included a one-page pricing narrative for each proposed site. The site pricing applications had two components as shown in Table 12 – Pricing Application Scoring Rubric. Overall, a minimum of 20% of the total evaluation points were assigned to these components. 46 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Table 12: Pricing Applications Scoring Rubric. Pricing Scoring Element Max Points Percent of Total Site Pricing Application Cost 100 10% Site Pricing Application Narrative 100 10% Maximum Site Pricing Application Score 200 20% Site Pricing Application Cost (10%) The applicant with the lowest site cost for each priority site was allocated the maximum points (100 points) for their pricing application. The remaining applicants for each site received a percentage of the points based upon the following formula: Site Pricing Application Score = (Lowest Cost Application / Candidate’s Cost Amount) X 100 Site Pricing Application Narrative (10%) Applicants will be evaluated against the following questions: • Has the pricing narrative demonstrated alignment with the technical application? • Does the applicant demonstrate a clear understanding of costs related to the project? • Does the applicant account for Alaska-specific cost considerations? • Has the applicant sufficiently defined the assumptions used in the development of their estimate? • Has the applicant provided an approach that supports successful EVSE implementation at the site? Stage 4: Ranking and Prioritization of Projects The ranking and prioritization of projects was determined for each priority site (1-14). The applicant with the highest overall score within the priority site group was selected for award. For each site application, the applicant’s overall score was calculated as follows: Applicant’s Overall Score = Technical Application Score + Pricing Application Score Individuals on the evaluation committee received a copy of each application along with the criteria that was used to score and rank the applications. Each member of the committee independently reviewed the applications and provided written comments related to each application. The committee members awarded competitive points to each application against the application criteria and weight outlined above. The evaluation committee met to review the applications as a group, discussed the merits of each application, and finalized their own scores based upon insights gained through the group discussion. The evaluation committee outlined justifications for each of their conclusions. AEA developed a final prioritized list of all recommended projects, taking into consideration the amount of funding that is available and the distribution of projects along the AFC. If, after entering the award process, the first-ranked applicant is unable to move forward with the project as proposed in their application, AEA reserves the right to cancel the agreement and move on to the second-ranked applicant. Plan for Compliance with Federal Requirements AEA is working closely with partners at DOT&PF to ensure program and project compliance with Title 23 requirements. AEA and DOT&PF are currently drafting project agreements, which will be signed by AEA, DOT&PF, and selected site hosts. The project agreements will include specific requirements including but not limited to NEPA, Title 23, Chapter 1, Part 680 of the CFR, Build America and Buy America Requirements, 47 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 property interest agreements, Uniform Act, and the Clean Air Act. The project agreement will be executed upon agreement of the signing parties. AEA is monitoring the rapid adoption of the NACS and requests the Joint Office to provide further guidance. If NACS is to become the ultimate standard, investments in infrastructure should consider the future viability of CCS. While there are numerous cars and trucks today equipped with CCS that can utilize the deployed infrastructure, consideration should be given to requiring NACS being included as well. Operations and Maintenance There are no restrictions to include operations and maintenance plans with the above allowable procurement methodologies. Guaranteed operations and maintenance through the life of the NEVI deployment period can be included in the upfront construction cost so it is accounted for in the deployment. Alaska’s plan will be to include five years of operations and maintenance in the procurement and withhold a retainage to paid annually as long as uptime and data submission requirements of the program are met. How Alaska Will Ensure Contractors Engage Communities Every contract for the installation and hosting of charging station infrastructure will include a requirement to prominently display at least one sign on site that is visible to drivers from the roadway. The sign will clearly state that the site is an EV charging station. This is to supplement areas where cell phone coverage may not exist, so using navigation and other apps may be affected. Charging company vendors may be asked to provide materials, such as flyers and social media graphics, to site hosts and government agencies to increase community awareness about the charging station. Each contractor and site host will also be supported by the public engagement plan included in this document, which includes earning media coverage across the state, social media outreach, and participating in community events. AEA and DOT&PF have a broad network of strong ties to the Alaska construction contracting community. DOT&PF’s work with industry organizations, like the Associated General Contractors of Alaska (AGC) and Alaska Builders and Contractors (ABC) Inc., will ensure that contractors building Alaska’s EV infrastructure engage in meaningful public involvement. Many of the large general contractors throughout the state have long working histories in Alaska and are already active participants in their respective regions and communities. AEA and DOT&PF will work with contractors and the trades unions to drive workforce participation and public investment in the development, construction, maintenance, and public use of the Alaska EV infrastructure. A NACS adapter installed at a ReCharge Alaska charging station in Glennallen. Photo courtesy AEA. 48 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Opportunities for Small Businesses In accordance with Title 23 of USC 304, the Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan will provide contracting opportunities for small businesses in the implementation and deployment of EV infrastructure. In compliance with this code, Alaska NEVI planning efforts will consult with entities on small business contracting, including community-based organizations, environmental justice and environmental protection organizations, small business associations, chambers of commerce, labor organizations, and private entities. Throughout Alaska, and especially in rural and disadvantaged areas of the state, small businesses are a nexus for opportunity. DOT&PF and AEA will work with business partners and community leadership to ensure that these vital small business entities participate in the Alaska NEVI process. Additional specific initiatives for small businesses are included in the Civil Rights and Equity Considerations chapters. Many of the applications received were from local and small businesses. Further, applicants identified ways to engage Alaskan businesses and companies to be able to install and/or maintain the deployed equipment along the corridor. It is apparent that applicants understood AEA’s goals with this effort to support small businesses and reacted accordingly. Knowledge Sharing AEA supported a knowledge sharing effort by the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) by conveying the RFA process and lessons learned for those states that haven’t gone through the process. The NASEO/AASHTO effort was conducted by Atlas Public Policy and highlighted to the path to building out the AFC.1 1 https://www.naseo.org/data/sites/1/documents/publications/Alaska%20Builds%20Out%20Alternative%20Fuel%20Corridor_v4.pdf 49 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Civil Rights The Alaska DOT&PF is a recipient of federal financial assistance. As a federal-aid recipient, DOT&PF will ensure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related federal statutes and regulations in all DOT&PF programs and activities, including: • 49 CFR Part 21 (Department of Transportation Regulations for the Implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 [P.L. 100.259]) • 23 CFR Part 200 (Title VI Program and Related Statutes – Implementation and Review Procedures) • 23 CFR Part 680 (National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements) • Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 • Age Discrimination Act of 1975 • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 • Executive Orders 12898 and 13166 Title VI DOT&PF Title VI Non-Discrimination Policy Statement: It is the policy of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) that no one shall be subject to discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The Title VI Non-Discrimination policy is implemented by the Civil Rights Office Title VI program manager. Programs within Title VI are Environmental Justice, Limited English Proficiency, and Title VI (Non- Discrimination). To ensure DOT&PF is in compliance with these programs, the Title VI program manager conducts Title VI program reviews of each division within DOT&PF. If an area is found to be noncompliant, the program manager works with staff to bring the identified noncompliant area into compliance. The policy also applies to subrecipients, so by AEA entering into an MOA with DOT&PF and leading the procurement, AEA accepts responsibility to include the Non-Discrimination language in all procurement documentation and contract agreements. 50 Civil Rights Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) DOT&PF ADA Policy Statement: “It is the policy of the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) that no qualified individual with a disability shall, solely on the basis of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any of its programs, services, or activities as provided by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). ADOT&PF further assures that every effort will be made to provide nondiscrimination in all of its programs and activities regardless of the funding source, including FTA, FAA, FHWA, and state funds.” When addressing accessibility needs and requirements, DOT&PF is committed to making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, procedures, and programs that would otherwise deny equal access to individuals with disabilities unless a fundamental alteration in the program would result. Under chapter 5 of the U.S. Access Boards “Guide to the ADA Accessibility Standards” Electric Vehicle Charging Stations,1 it is recommended: “Provide access to a reasonable number of spaces serving EV charging stations” or use the scoping table in §208.2 to determine an appropriate number.2 (The number of accessible spaces serving EV charging stations must be determined separately from the required number of car and van parking spaces.)” AEA included Title VI language and required compliance with applicable civil rights regulations and accessibility standards in procurement documents and contracts with other entities such as consultants, contractors, and vendors. While the NEVI Standards and Requirements3 suggested adherence to the U.S. Access Board’s guide, AEA mandated adherence in the RFA requirements to ensure accessible design. AEA will also monitor for compliance and perform required reporting in accordance with USDOT regulations. Diverse Business Participation DOT&PF has strong civil rights programs that implement Title 49 Part 26 through the Alaska Unified Certification Program (AUCP). These programs ensure participation of Minority/Women/Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (M/W/DBE) small businesses. DOT&PF has a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan approved by the FHWA (2019). The DOT&PF Civil Rights Office administers all DOT&PF DBE and On-the-Job Training Supportive Services Programs.4 Firms certified as DBEs by the AUCP are also eligible for the DBE Business Development Program,5 which gives DBE firms the opportunity to further assist in small business growth within and outside of the market for traditional DBE areas of work. These programs have strong stakeholders and partners, including intergovernmental agencies, business, labor, and community groups. The Civil Rights Office has longstanding partnerships with the Small Business Administration, the Alaska Procurement Technical Assistance Center, Alaska Small Business Development Center, AGC, ABC, the Federation of Community Councils, the University of Alaska, Alaska Works Partnership (AWP), the Alaska Apprenticeship Training Coordinators Association (AATCA), various trades unions, and chambers of commerce throughout the state. 1 https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-5-parking/#electric-vehicle-charging-stations 2 https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-5-parking/#minimum-number-of-accessible-parking-spaces 3 23 CFR Part 680 4 23 USC 140(c) 23 CFR 230 Subpart B; 23 CFR § 230, Appendix A to Subpart A, 23 CFR § 230, Appendix B to Subpart B, 23 CFR § 230.111, 23 CFR § 230.113, and 23 USC 140(b) 5 23 CFR § 230, Appendix A to Subpart A, 23 CFR § 230, Appendix B to Subpart B, 23 CFR § 230.111, 23 CFR § 230.113, and 23 USC 140(b) 51 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis To evaluate the statewide network and set a baseline for future evaluation, an inventory of traffic, EV registrations and adoption, existing infrastructure, and planned near-term installations must be inventoried. State Geography, Terrain, Climate and Land Use Patterns Spanning over 665,400 square miles, Alaska is the largest state in the country and represents about one-fifth the total size of the contiguous United States. In terms of size, Alaska stretches 2,000 miles from east to west and 1,100 miles north to south. This includes hundreds of islands that make up the Aleutian Island chain and over 1,000 islands that make up the Archipelago of Southeast Alaska. The sheer size of the state results in a wide range of temperatures and terrains. While Alaska is geographically large, the relatively small population of the state results in a low population density with clusters around the major urban areas of Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. Alaska is bordered by 6,640 miles of coastline, including coasts of the Pacific and Arctic Oceans, and 1,538 miles of international border with Canada. With the least-dense population in the country, many Alaskans reside along the state’s road system and the remaining population resides in small, rural villages and towns accessible by water or air. The largest city, Anchorage, contains two-thirds of the state’s population at just under 300,000 residents, followed by Juneau and Fairbanks, each with a population of about 30,000 residents. Alaska’s transportation network is relatively undeveloped compared to its national peers. Of the state’s 17,690 centerline miles of road, 82% is considered rural and 65% is unpaved. The vast majority of the state’s land is publicly held. Of the public lands, 65% is owned by the federal government and 25% by the state. Of the state’s 17,690 centerline miles of road, 82% are considered rural and 65% are unpaved. The vast majority of the state’s land is publicly held. 52 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Despite its size, Alaska does not have any signed interstates. Alaska shares a border to the east with Canada and some travel routes across Alaska traverse Canada, adding complexity to supporting statewide EV movements that will require international coordination. Alaska’s terrain and ecosystem varies tremendously and includes the flat and treeless tundra of the North Slope, subarctic boreal forests, permafrost and marshlands, numerous mountain ranges including the highest peak in North America, and temperate coastal rainforest. Its climate is as diverse as its terrain with long, cold winters and cool summers in the far north and northwestern coast, extreme cold in winter and extreme heat in summer across the Interior, a warmer and snowier climate in Southcentral, and an even warmer and rainier climate in Southeast Alaska. The state is renowned for its cold winters where temperatures frequently drop to -50°F without a wind chill and will regularly climb into the 90s during the summer. Based on the temperature and precipitation averages, Alaska is divided into five climate regions. Alaska Climate Regions The Arctic region consists of the area north of the Brooks Range to the Arctic Ocean and is entirely north of the Arctic Circle. Average temperatures here are well below freezing with long, cold, and dark winters. Precipitation in this area is light, falling mostly in the summertime. This region is situated above the tree line and consists of predominantly tundra, and high winds are typical in this area for most of the year. The Interior region consists of the area between the Brooks Range to the north and the Alaska Range to the south. It comprises the largest area of the state and has high temperature variability. Summers are typically warm and sunny with an average temperature in the 60s, and winters are cold with average temperatures below zero. The north end of the AFC, Fairbanks, is located in the Interior region. The Western region spans a wide area including the Aleutian Islands. The climate in this area is heavily impacted by the Pacific Ocean and experiences frequent storms during the winter and fall. This area extends hundreds of miles into the Bering Sea and has a maritime climate that is typically above freezing with less variability. The Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet areas consist of Southcentral Alaska and are home to most of the state’s population. This area is buffered by multiple mountain ranges, and the climate is not as extreme as the Aleutian chain. Southcentral has a more temperate climate with mild summers and winters relative to the climate zones to the north and west. Anchorage, the south end of the AFC, is located in this region. The Southeast Alaska area borders the Gulf of Alaska and has a strong maritime influence. While the temperatures can be moderate, there is high annual precipitation in the form of snow and rain. The impact of the mountain terrain in the area contributes to weather conditions that can vary substantially. The AMHS is located in Southeast Alaska. An EV sits under the Northern Lights. Photo courtesy of Mark Kelliher 53 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 State Travel Patterns, Public Transportation Needs, Freight and Other Supply Chain Needs The vast and diverse natural geography of Alaska makes it a challenging setting for transportation—natural barriers throughout the region create a unique environment for aviation and marine transportation. While most interstate travel can be achieved on the road network, Alaska has a unique set of challenges as many communities cannot be accessed by the road network. These communities are located off the road system and are only accessible by plane or through the AMHS. The AMHS extends across 3,500 miles of coastline and provides service to 35 communities. The DOT&PF maintains and operates 235 airports throughout Alaska to support 82% of communities that depend on aviation for year-round access. According to the Transportation Assessment for the Alaska Moves 2050 LRTP, 251 communities in Alaska are served exclusively by air, with distances between some airports comparable to the distance between Minneapolis and Orlando. Ferries also support an important section of transportation in the state, with the AMHS serving over 3,500 miles of coastline and 35 communities, many of which rely on ferry for travel and goods. Remoteness is the theme when discussing the travel patterns in Alaska. Not only is that reflected in the importance of the marine and aviation system, but on the connected road network as well. The two major cities on the road system are separated by over 300 miles of road. Smaller towns are dispersed along the road system, but many have reduced services. With few full-service locations spread out over a wide geographic area, the structure of Alaskan highways presents a challenge to widespread EV usage as it relates to the ability to charge vehicles. This would increase the need for fast-charging stations throughout the state to enable users the ability to reach their destination. The State of Alaska has 17,690 total centerline miles. A vast section of the Alaska road network is unpaved; the breakdown of total miles by road surface type is 11,520 unpaved and 6,169 paved. All 1,080 miles of the functionally classified Interstate roads and 920 of the 939 miles of the Principal Arterial-Other roads are paved. Figure 16. Alaska’s Average Annual Daily Traffic 54 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Most vehicular travel occurs in the southcentral population centers along Alaska Routes A-1 from Anchorage to the Canadian border, A-2 from Tok to Fairbanks, A-3 from Soldotna to Anchorage, and A-4 from Gateway to Fairbanks. The Alaska National Highway System is unlike most in the continental United States. It includes six-lane urban freeway segments with volumes of up to 68,000 a day (2019), and the Dalton Highway, which is 400 miles of mostly unpaved road with segments seeing as little traffic as 105 vehicles a day (2019). Based on travel pattern data, key locations for automotive transportation occur in more populated areas including Anchorage, Fairbanks, Knik-Fairview, and Wasilla in the central region, and Juneau, Ketchikan, and Sitka in southeast Alaska. Vehicular transportation is also limited in the State of Alaska by seasonal weather, with certain roads closed for a portion of the year due to snow cover and ice. In addition to more concentrated traffic and car ownership in these population corridors, transit plays a big role in connecting Alaskan businesses with their workforce across a range of industries. According to the American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample, approximately 5,600 workers in Alaska use transit to get to work, collectively earning $203 million in wages annually.1 Key cities with federally funded public transportation programs include: • Anchorage – People Mover and AnchorRIDES • Bethel Transit Bus System • Central Kenai Peninsula – Central Area Rural Transit (CARTS) • Fairbanks – Metropolitan Area Commuter System (MACS) and Van Tran • Girdwood – Glacier Valley Transit (GVT) • Gulkana – Soaring Eagle Transit (SET) • Hollis – The Inter-Island Ferry Authority (IFA) Figure 17. Alaska’s Transportation Systems 1 https://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/transit/pub/AKEconomicStudy_EBP_05262022_2.pdf 55 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 • Juneau – Capital Transit • Ketchikan – Ketchikan Gateway Borough Transit (The Bus) • Kodiak – Kodiak Area Transit System (KATS) • Wasilla – Valley Transit • Sitka – The Ride • Talkeetna – Sunshine Transit • Tok – Interior Alaska Bus Line (IABL) Access to more remote areas of the state occurs most frequently by aviation and ferries (along the southern coast). Approximately $1 billion of funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is dedicated to the AMHS to establish an essential ferry service supporting rural communities. Aviation is also a vital component of the regional transportation system, connecting all communities to the rest of the state and beyond. The aviation system in Alaska not only serves the transportation needs of residents, but also supports the movement of material goods and critical medical services as well as the regional economy. According to the Alaska DOT&PF, nearly 82% of Alaska communities are inaccessible by road, making airstrips and airports essential to Alaskan communities. Future State of EV Adoption in Alaska As of May 2024, there were 2,985 EVs registered in Alaska. The EV adoption in Alaska is trending upward as indicated by a 38% increase in registrations since last year’s plan update (May 2023 data). The EV penetration rate is 0.54%, which still lags behind the national average, but is also increasing. Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks account for 80% of new vehicles purchased in Alaska.2 Due to this vehicle preference trend, it is expected that EV market share in Alaska will increase once battery electric pickups trucks are readily available to Alaska consumers. As of May 2024, electric SUVs make up approximately 17% of the EVs in the Figure 18. EV Registrations in Alaska by Manufacturer Figure 19. EV Registrations in Alaska by Region 2 White Paper - Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure in Alaska: https://www.akenergyauthority.org/Portals/0/2020.12.09%20AEA%20 Board%20Meeting%20Documents/9B.%202020.12.09%20EV%20EVinfrastructure%20WhitePaper.pdf?ver=2020-12-03-164813- 090&ver=2020-12-03-164813-090 56 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 state and the pickup trucks are 5.8%, both increasing rapidly. For comparison, SUVs comprised of 11% of all EVs in May 2023 and pickup trucks comprised of 1.7% of all EVs. Tesla continues to hold the majority of the market; however, its share has decreased from 53% to 38.6% since 2022. The two strongest competitors, Ford and Chevrolet, added 156 and 140 EV registrations, respectively, compared to Tesla’s 230 registrations since May 2023. The future state of EVs in Alaska was evaluated to determine if the deployed capacity along the AFC related to the NEVI requirements would be satisfactory to the expected number of EVs on the road at the end of the program. To assist in the development of future EV registrations, two growth scenarios were developed. It is important to recognize that a variety of factors can affect EV adoption, including access to charging infrastructure, availability of models, price points and comparability to ICE models, and willingness to make the transition. Continued Growth Scenario The continued growth scenario projects that EV adoptions continue the 2020 to 2021 growth of 42.05% throughout the five-year period. The results are that the state would realize about 1,200 EV sales per year on average, adding about 6,000 new EV registrations in the five-year period. The penetration rate of EVs in Alaska in 2026 would be 1.01% of all registered vehicles in the state, up from the existing 0.20% in 2021 for light-duty vehicles. Aggressive Growth Scenario The aggressive growth scenario increases the 2020 to 2021 growth by a factor of 1.5, resulting in a 63% growth rate. This scenario addresses the expected increase in registration due to the new battery electric pickup truck models coming to market and expanded offerings for SUVs. The results are that the state would realize about 2,600 EV sales per year on average, adding 13,160 new EV registrations over the five-year period. The penetration rate for EVs in Alaska under this scenario would be 2.02%, up from the existing 0.20% in 2021 for light-duty vehicles. Growth Monitoring Monitoring the growth of EVs in the state is essential to assess how closely actual trends align with projections. The continued growth scenario projects 2,965 registered EVs through May 2024, and the actual number is 20 registrations more. It appears as if the market has recovered from past supply chain constraints related to battery minerals and semiconductors. Last year’s plan showed the continued growth scenario at 212 registrations short, and the projections appear to be on target now. Chugach Electric Association has contracted with S&P Global Mobility for data over the past six years and has observed substantial changes in EV adoption trends across Alaska. The most recent data indicates an annual EV growth rate of over 70% for the Railbelt, significantly higher than the statewide average. Based on these data, Figure 20. Alaska EV Growth Scenarios 57 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 the aggressive growth scenario is a more accurate representation for the Railbelt region. EV registrations have seen a steady growth since the publication of the first plan in August 2022 that cited 1,250 EV registrations in December 2021. In June 2023, the number of EV registrations in Anchorage surpassed the Southeast for the first time as more drivers in the state’s largest population center adopt EVs. However, Juneau, Sitka, and the Hoonah-Angoon Census Area lead EV penetration rates with 2.85%, 2.14%, and 2.11%, respectively. No other borough or census area tops 1% EV penetration, and those areas exceed the statewide rate of 0.54%. In all, a total of 821 EV registrations have been added since last year’s plan, bringing the total number very close to 3,000 registrations. The 38% growth of EV registrations is outpacing the overall vehicle registrations increase of 5.4% since the last plan. Grid Capacity A review of the peak loads combined with historical growth of the electrical loads on the Railbelt Utilities was performed to determine the impact of DCFC stations on the grid in the region. The future capacity projections factored in the decommission of the Healy #2 generation plant in 2024 but did not account for any additional added capacity from renewable sources as a conservative estimate. Based on the projected loads, there is more than adequate capacity for the proposed NEVI-compliant DCFC stations along the AFC detailed in this study. Table 13: Summary of Future Grid Loads and Capacity 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Firm Peak Load (MW)809.2 849.6 892.0 936.6 983.4 Total Capacity (MW)1569.8 1569.8 1519.8 1519.8 1519.8 Reserve Margin (MW)760.6 720.2 627.8 583.2 536.4 Reserve Margin (%)94%85%70%62%55% Additional reviews of the grid will be completed as locations outside of the AFC are identified for installations. AFC - Corridor Designation Alaska does not have any designated interstates due to its isolation from the contiguous United States. However, Alaska submitted and was approved Corridor Pending status for a single AFC in Round 4 of nominations. The nominated section of the highway is between Anchorage and Fairbanks, with a distance of 358 miles The corridor was submitted to FHWA as the entirety of the Parks and Glenn Highways from Anchorage to Fairbanks. As stated in the 2020, Round 4 application submitted by Alaska DOT&PF: “We propose the EV vehicle corridor to correspond to the National Freight Route along the [National Highway System] NHS from Anchorage to Fairbanks initially as a target for investment, with an eventual build out along the entire NHS.” There are no updates proposed to the AFC designations in Round 8, which ran concurrently to updating this plan for FY25. Figure 21 shows the existing AFC through Alaska. Figure 21. Alternative Fuel Corridor 58 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Corridor Pending Corridors The route from Anchorage to Fairbanks is the only approved AFC through eight rounds of application. Corridor Ready Corridors Alaska currently does not have any ready corridors. This plan intends to upgrade the corridor from Anchorage to Fairbanks to ready by 2025. Existing Locations of Charging Infrastructure Along AFCs As of June 2024, there are six existing DCFC locations with 17 ports located within a mile of Alaska’s proposed AFC along the Parks and Glenn Highways. Of the existing DCFC locations, most do not have connectors and speed output (minimum 150 kW) that meet the NEVI standards. The average output is 50 kW for the six existing DCFC stations that are not Tesla Superchargers. The Supercharger in Chugiak is rated at 250 kW and includes the “Magic Dock” from Tesla, a permanently affixed CCS adapter that can be unlocked through the Tesla app for drivers of CCS vehicles. However, it does not have a credit card reader on the pedestals to make it Creditable. Figure 22 displays the gaps in coverage for DCFC locations and highlights the longest gap, which spans 170 miles from Wasilla to Cantwell. Within that span there are three Level 2 stations, but only one is open year-round. Two locations are RV campgrounds and provide access to charging only during summer months. The second longest gap in charging access is from Healy to Fairbanks, a span of over 110 miles. This span also lacks Level 2 charging locations. Once into Fairbanks, the nearest DCFC location is approximately 4.5 miles from the AFC. Neither DCFC nor Level 2 stations have yet been installed along the Glenn Highway. In all, Alaska has 65 public EV charging station locations with 127 EV charging ports according to the Alternative Fuels Data Center records. Figure 22. Alaska AFC Distance Between Fast Chargers 59 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Table 14: Existing Locations of EVSE Within One Mile and Along Alternative Fuel Corridor (as of June 2024) State EV Charging Location Unique ID Charger Level (DCFC, L2) Charger Type Location # of Charging Ports EV Network (if known) Meets all relevant requirements in 23 CFR 680? Intent to count towards Fully Built Out determination? AK1_0_Ea-syPark7thG Level 2 J1772 650 G St, Anchorage, AK 99501 2 Non-net-worked No No AK1_0_EVGate-wayLinnyPacillo Level 2 J1772 513 W 7th Ave, An-chorage, AK 99501 2 evGateway No No AK3_174.73A_JamJam Level 2, DCFC 1 J1772, 1 CHAde-MO/CCS Combo Mile 209.9 Parks Highway, Cantwell, AK 99729 2 FLO No No AK3_5.12_Ken-dallFordWasilla Level 2 J1772 2701 Moun-tain Village Dr, Wasilla, AK 99654 1 Non-Net-worked No No AK3_6.33_Mi-dasWasilla Level 2 J1772 1032 E Steam Cmns Ave, Wasilla, AK 99654 2 ChargePoint No No AK3_179.59_ReChargeDe-nali Level 2, DCFC 1 J1772, 1 CHAde-MO/CCS Combo Mile 214.5 Parks Hwy, Denali National Park and Preserve, AK 99755 2 Non-Net-worked No No AK3_203.6_Te-soro Level 2 NACS Mile 238.6 Parks Hwy, Denali Park, AK 99755 2 Non-Net-worked No No AK3_213.66_ThreeBear-sHealy Level 2, DCFC 2 J1772, 2 CHAde-MO/CCS Combo 248.5 Parks Hwy, Healy, AK 99743 4 evGateway No No AK3_79.7_ThreeBear-sTrapperCreek Level 2, DCFC 2 J1772, 2 CHAde-MO/CCS Combo 23471 Parks Hwy, Trapper Creek, AK 99683 4 evGateway No No AK1_21_Three-BearsChugiak DCFC NACS/CCS Combo 22211 Birchwood Loop Road, Chugiak, AK 99567 8 Tesla Super-charger No No 60 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Known Risks and Challenges There are several risks and challenges worth noting, given the diverse and challenging terrain of Alaska paired with its size and low population density. Lack of Development Long distances with no development, including a 100-mile stretch along the AFC between Trapper Creek and Cantwell, pose logistical challenges for installing EV charging infrastructure and seeking hosts for sites. In these remote transportation corridors, there may be only electric transmission lines with no existing tie-in capability (along the Parks and Richardson Highways, for example) or, in some areas, no electricity infrastructure at all (along the Dalton Highway, for example). Until these logistical challenges are solved, it will be difficult to combat range anxiety among potential EV adopters. The lack of reliable internet or cell service in underdeveloped and undeveloped areas poses a challenge to keep remote stations connected to a network to provide accurate real- time reporting on energy pricing and downtime. The EV charging infrastructure may need to rely on hard-wired communication if the site has access. Additionally, an RFI was issued by AEA in April 2022 for public comment, and to gather feedback regarding EVs and charging infrastructure needs in Alaska. Ninety-nine responses were received with new ideas for charging locations, risks that may affect the program, and other supporting information regarding the seasonal use of EVs that will continue to inform AEA’s NEVI program. Figure 23. Existing EV Chargers Within One Mile and Along Alaska’s AFC 61 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Climate Along the Railbelt corridor, average low temperatures in the winter range between -20˚F and 5˚F, with much colder temperatures occurring frequently throughout the season. These cold temperatures can cause a range decrease of up to 50% for EVs, which will contribute to range anxiety. Colder temperatures can also increase the time required to charge the battery. The challenges with frequent snow and ice removal at charging stations could increase station downtime. Likewise, winter driving conditions and winter storms could make travel between charging stations hazardous or impossible for brief periods. Most major highways are maintained year-round by State of Alaska maintenance crews, but conditions along some corridors (the Richardson Highway, for example) require complete road closures due to high winds or avalanches more often than others. Several corridors like the Denali Highway and Taylor Highway are not maintained in the winter, effectively closing them to car and truck traffic. Some roadways may not be open year-round due to the lack of winter maintenance. According to the Alaska DOT&PF/511AK, the following highways are not maintained during the winter months (October – May): • Copper River Highway (MP 18 to Million Dollar Bridge, MP 49) • Denali Highway (Paxson, MP 0 to Cantwell, MP 130) • Denali Park Highway • Eureka-Rampart Road (MP 0 to MP 3) • Taylor Highway (Tetlin, MP 0 to Eagle, MP 160) • Top-of-the World Highway • McCarthy Road (Copper River Bridge, MP 0 to Kenicott River by McCarthy, MP 58) • Nome area: ◦Council Road (E. of Nome, MP 5 to Council, MP 73) ◦Kourgarok Road/Nome-Taylor Highway (N. of Nome, MP 13 to Kougarok River, MP 86) ◦Nome-Teller Highway (Snake River Bridge, MP 7 to S. of Teller, MP 68) ◦St. Mary’s/Mountain Village Road (St. Mary’s Airport, MP 5 to Mtn. Village Airport, MP Some of the DCFC stations in rural areas, such as the one in Healy, have been retrofitted with an enclosure that increases the temperature of the air around the station by about 30 degrees to ensure that it works in the harsh, cold climate. This could be a consideration for the charging stations installed based on the operating parameters of the available stations. Barriers to Consumer Adoption It will be difficult to overcome skepticism about whether EVs are appropriate for Alaska’s geography and climate. Many Alaskans live in small communities located a great distance from developed commercial infrastructure, many of which are off the road system and accessible only by water or air. The cost, logistics, and sustainability of low-usage sites will be a challenge in reaching these users. Further, the low existing EV penetration may impact the economic viability for the return on investment of the match funding provided by site hosts or charging vendors. There have also been supply chain constraints that have limited EV availability in all parts of the world, including Alaska, and particularly limiting preferred vehicle types that Alaskans typically purchase such as larger SUVs and trucks. 62 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Energy Sources and Costs Alaska’s electricity grid is isolated from the rest of North America—it is not connected to power grids in Canada or the contiguous United States. This could leave Alaska more vulnerable to reliability issues in its electric grid. There are two distinct grid categories in the State of Alaska: Railbelt and remote. The majority of the population (70%) resides in urban areas in the Southcentral region of the state and are serviced by the Railbelt Electric System. The remaining 30% of the population reside in isolated rural communities served by independent utilities. Petroleum and coal sources account for 70% of Alaska’s electricity production, which could negate some of the positive environmental benefits of electrical vehicle use in Alaska and be a barrier to adoption for environmentally focused consumers. Alaska’s Railbelt Electric System is serviced by five electric utilities (four cooperatives and one municipal utility): Chugach Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, and Seward Electric. The “Railbelt” refers to the interconnected grid that loosely follows the route of the Alaska Railroad. The system stretches approximately 700 miles and services 70% of Alaska’s population. The State of Alaska, through the 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 Electric System generates approximately 4800 GWh. Interconnection between regions is by single transmission lines. 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. The Railbelt is subject to several different climate zones and seasonally harsh conditions, including a sub- Arctic climate with significant seismic activity. Disruptive natural events occur often; earthquakes, wildfires, extreme cold and winter storms are experienced annually. The reliability of the Railbelt is susceptible to the effects of these natural events. Depending on their scale, they can affect service to member-consumers and service communities. In the spring of 2022, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska approved electricity rates proposed by the regulated electric utilities that will be charged to the operators of high-speed commercial EV charging stations. The previous electric rate structures imposed a demand charge based on the peak amount of electricity drawn during any 15-minute period over a billing period, and an EV using a DCFC could impact the demand charge assessed to the site. The new rates have gone into effect over a 10-year inception period and the RCA will monitor the effect of EVSE usage on utilities and the progress of the deployment of EVSE in the state. The utilities recognize that high-speed EV charging stations with imposed demand charges would likely render the charging stations uneconomic. Under an agreement with the RCA, the utilities are using a formula which a per kWh rate will be charged for EV charging. The approved charging station rates are: • Golden Valley Electric Association: $0.14951/kWh • Homer Electric Association: $0.16640/kWh • Matanuska Electric Association: $0.30243/kWh • Chugach Electric Association (North District): $0.15274 • Chugach Electric Association (South District): $0.13508 • Juneau Utility, Alaska Electric Light and Power Company: $0.1383 to $0.2489/kWh depending on class of customer and time of year The EV Tariff for the Chugach Electric Association South District secondary service establishes an energy charge of $0.13508 per kWh, for billing periods where the load factor Petroleum and coal sources account for 70% of Alaska’s electricity production, which could negate some of the positive environmental benefits of EV use in Alaska and be a barrier to adoption for environmentally focused consumers. 63 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 is below 34.478%. Chugach has filed a rate case with the RCA proposing to consolidate North and South Distract tariffs. This will result in the tariff for the South District as the best representation of Chugach’s EV rate. Further, Chugach’s rate applies to both DCFC and Level 2 charging. AEL&P has a time-of-use rate program. Through this program, customers are billed at a reduced rate, approximately half price per kWh if they charge their vehicles during the off-peak hours of 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. AEL&P reported that in total, for the roughly two hundred people who have opted into this program, about 60 percent of EV charging takes place at night. That helps lessen the demand on AEL&P’s power supply during normal peak load hours which typically occur during the morning and the evening when people are in their homes doing energy intensive things. The state’s AFC is located within the Railbelt service territories of Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, and Golden Valley Electric Association. The RCA’s action does not address EV rates for unregulated utilities. Golden Valley Electric Association initially received approval for a DCFC tariff of $0.654801 but revised its load factor and submitted an alternative rate to the RCA of $0.14951/kWh to be more in line with the other utilities along the Railbelt and promote deployment of charging stations within its service area. The remaining 30% of the state’s population resides in remote and rural communities. Alaska’s 183 remote villages are primarily powered by small diesel engine generator sets. Alaska has very few roads despite being 665,000 square miles and more than twice the size of Texas—it is vastly more remote than even the most rural parts of the contiguous United States. There are no natural gas pipelines, electric transmission lines, or central generation plants serving multiple villages. Engines, generators, switchgear and supporting equipment vary significantly among the 183 powerhouses dispersed across Alaska’s remote communities. Each village is a stand-alone microgrid and many do not have the expected professionally trained utility and maintenance personnel. Figure 24. Utility Service Areas 64 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Southeast Alaska sits along the coast of British Columbia and the Yukon Territories in Canada and includes hundreds of islands of the Alexander Archipelago. Its temperate climate, high rates of precipitation, and steep mountains create an ideal environment for hydroelectric resources, including both storage (lake tap) or run-of-the-river projects. Low population density and long distances between communities over avalanche- and landslide-prone terrain and ocean crossings create significant financial and technical barriers to a regionwide transmission intertie. Therefore, many communities in southeast are served by islanded electric grids comprised of hydroelectric resources and supplemental or backup diesel generation. The cost of energy varies drastically depending on the cost of fuel. The non-subsidized cost of energy in rural Alaska ranges between $0.30/kWh and $1.20/kWh. The Southeast region consumes the least amount of fossil fuel for electric generation. Both Kodiak and Southeast have large, mature hydroelectric projects that provide the majority of power in their more populated communities, resulting in stable, low energy costs. Some communities in The Aleutians, Bering Straits, Bristol Bay, Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim, and Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana regions are almost entirely reliant on diesel for power generation. An increasing amount of wind power is generated in the Bering Straits, Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim, and Northwest Arctic regions. Some communities in the Bristol Bay and Aleutians regions have developed hydropower resources. The amount of hydroelectric and wind generation has been continually increasing in the last 15 years. Through conversations with the utilities outside of the Railbelt, there are additional challenges and considerations related to the capacity and grid availability when determining where EV charging infrastructure should be placed. There are utility service gaps between communities and some community’s electrical capacity varies by time of year due to hydroelectric being more abundant in the warmer months and in the winter months it is supplemented by other sources like diesel. This also leads to a great fluctuation in the cost of electricity by time of year. Private Investment Given the current low penetration and expected usage of the DCFC stations, some small businesses that could be site hosts may find the 20% match to be a challenging proposition. AEA is investigating solutions to reduce the burden and identifying potential site hosts to determine if match funding can be fully supported. From Round 1, the average NEVI- creditable site will cost $889,000 to construct, requiring $178,000 of private cost share to pair with the $711,000 of federal funding. While AEA received many responses to the RFA, it is unclear at this time if any businesses chose not to respond due to the amount of match required to participate in the program. There may have been enough incentive or enough anticipated EV traffic and charging sessions to support the deployment of infrastructure along the corridor, but AEA will monitor the situation for the Highway and Marine Highway phases of the program to evaluate the viability of private investment in more remote areas. EV charging station at the IBEW office in Anchorage.Photo courtesy of AEA 65 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment The Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan identifies where and when EV charging infrastructure should be deployed with the NEVI formula funding. Considerations of consumer adoption, cost to install, return on investment, utility availability, roadway traffic, weather, and site host availability were taken into account to develop a proposed strategy to deploy infrastructure. Throughout the five-year NEVI program, the deployment plan is expected to evolve through lessons learned, data collection and analysis, and continued stakeholder engagement. This section has been updated for FY25 to reflect the previous edition’s planned EV charging stations that have been commissioned and additional grassroots efforts in the state to showcase EV capabilities. Funding Sources No State funding or highway gas taxes have been allocated for the construction of the infrastructure. Match funding sources will come from one or a mix of the below options. Therefore, AEA is evaluating the matching funding sources available. • Site hosts: While the 20% match could be significant, some sites may be able to suppor t the entire match. Regardless of other match funding sources, it is expected that the site may provide match funding or support the operations and maintenance throughout the five-year period. • State EV Program Funds: AEA received $1.5 million of state funding to leverage as matching funds for discretionary grant funding opportunities. However, these funds are not expected to be used for the NEVI formula program. • Utilities: Utilities are permitted to support line extensions that can count as part of the overall project costs and therefore count towards match requirements. Utility contributions may include a portion of service upgrade and line extension costs as well as direct financial support through incentive programs. 66 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Infrastructure Deployment Upgrades An inventory of EV charging stations currently being installed through other initiatives outside of NEVI was compiled for review to identify locations and determine if any of the sites would be NEVI compliant. Coordination with the other deployments could help maximize the formula funding and present opportunities to engage with potential site hosts that already support EV charging. At this time, there are no known proposed EV charger installations outside of the NEVI program. The Chilkoot Indian Association will receive $1.4 million to construct an EV charging site located on the Haines Highway, adjacent to a local park, cruise ship terminal and oceanfront walking, and biking trails. As details are refined, Table 15 will be updated to reflect the deployment information. Table 15: Proposed EV Charger Installations by Other Initiatives State EV Charging Location Unique ID Charger Level (DCFC, L2) Charger Type Location Number of EV Connec-tors EV Network (if known)Corridor * *There are no proposed sites by other initiatives as of July 2024. Volkswagen Settlement: Homer to Healy Corridor In 2021, AEA spent $1 million from the VW settlement to fund a charging corridor from Homer and Seward on the Kenai Peninsula to Healy, south of Fairbanks. The corridor consists of nine charging stations separated by less than 100 miles, allowing drivers the ability to travel from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks without fear of losing power. Figure 25 identifies the corridor deployment. The proposed stations will not meet NEVI requirements as all the DCFC stations will be a minimum 50 kW and at most there will be two stations per site installed. Sites in Anchorage, Homer, Seward, Soldotna, Cantwell, Chugiak, Healy and Trapper Creek were active by early 2024. During the summer of 2024, AEA was notified that VW settlement-funded Freewire charging stations in Cooper Landing, Homer, and Soldotna were affected by Freewire Technologies entering into an assignment for the benefit of creditors. As a result, Freewire can no longer fulfill its warranty obligations, posing significant challenges in maintaining these chargers. In response to this situation, Speed Charge LLC was established specifically to provide essential support for these charging stations. This new service entity is responsible for back-end software, telematics, and maintenance, ensuring that the chargers continue to operate. However, this service comes at a significant cost of $765 per charger per month. To ensure these critical infrastructure sites remain operational, AEA is working closely with site hosts. Recognizing the importance of these stations, AEA has proposed covering the cost of Speed Charge LLC’s service for one year. This situation has provided valuable lessons, which will be incorporated into future project agreements for NEVI projects to better safeguard against similar challenges. AFC Corridor Pending Designation to Corridor Ready Designation AFC pending designation in Alaska as of Round 6 goes from Anchorage to Fairbanks. In order to receive the corridor-ready designation and comply with NEVI requirements, the corridor will require an entire buildout of new infrastructure, as none of the existing stations meet the requirements of the NEVI program. Some locations along the corridor are not within a utility service area. Because of the power utility gaps, some EV charging locations will not be within the 50-mile radius required by NEVI. The EV charging locations are optimized to be within the shortest distance of each other. Last year ’s plan proposed that the AFC be 67 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 upgraded to Corridor Ready once the selected Priority Sites are commissioned, and this year’s plan reaffirms that statement. Charging and Fuel-ing Infra-structure Discretion-ary Grant Program In addition to the NEVI Formula Funding, the BIL provides for $2.5B in discretionary funding which has taken the form of the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) grant program. AEA and DOT&PF submitted a joint application to install EV charging infrastructure in coastal communities at AMHS facilities. The CFI grant submission intends to jumpstar t the state’s activities in Phase 2 of the plan rather than wait until the AFC is certified complete. This will help give marine hub communities earlier access to charging infrastructure to support electrification. Vehicle Technologies Office Funding Opportunity Announcement AEA submitted an application for the Fiscal Year 2022 Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Program Wide Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) and was selected. The project title is Alaska Rural EVSE Deployment (ARED). This application was submitted to support rural communities in alignment with Phase 3 of the plan. The ARED project aims to facilitate EV adoption in remote Alaskan communities across multiple energy regions. This project involves identifying communities based on multiple criteria including their electrical grid infrastructure and local interest in EV adoption. The project aims to install EVSE in up to nine rural communities. AEA has partnered with the Alaska Center for Energy and Power, DOT&PF, AML, Launch Alaska, and Yellowstone-Teton Clean Cities Coalition to deliver this project. This project is currently underway. Figure 25. Alaska’s Current and Future EV Charging Locations 68 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Increases of Capacity/Redundancy along Existing AFC AEA intends to build out the AFC to its maximum capability. It was not expected that any location will exceed the minimum number of charging stations prescribed in the NEVI guidance. However, the awarded Tesla sites included eight total ports, five of which will be funded through the NEVI program. Electric Vehicle Freight Considerations Nearly half of Alaska’s freight by weight is transported by truck, another quarter by rail, and just under 15% by boat. The majority of trucked goods and materials are transported to the state by ship or barge, then trucked within the state to their destination. The highest volume of this truck traffic occurs between the urban centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks. According to the Alaska Trucking Association, the trucking industry in Alaska does not anticipate the electrification of fleets in the foreseeable future and is not aware of any sales of electric freight vehicles in the state. When fleet electrification does begin in the state, range and infrastructure will be two major considerations. Alaska’s freight routes are more defined than freight routes in the contiguous United States because there are fewer destinations and fewer alternative routes. For example, a driver traveling between Anchorage and Fairbanks will need to travel the entire distance (approximately 360 miles) and charge at the destination. A lengthy break for charging in the middle of the route would make the trip economically infeasible. AEA will continue to monitor fleet manufacturing roadmaps to determine if battery-electric trucks become the industry preference or if another alternative fuel or hybrid powertrain becomes prominent. A lack of electric infrastructure along some freight routes will also be a barrier to fleet electrification. For example, the oil and gas industry based on the North Slope depends on freight trucked year-round up the Figure 26. Freight Moved by Mode (Within, Into, and Out of Alaska)Source: Alaska Moves 2050 Statewide Freight Plan 69 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Elliott and Dalton Highways to Prudhoe Bay, a nearly 500-mile one-way trip, and there is no power grid available along the route. Electrification of the state’s marine fleet may be more feasible in the near term. A research project is currently underway, funded by Alaska DOT&PF, that is studying the feasibility of low emission and electric ferries as an option as the state replaces its aging AMHS fleet.1 Public Transportation Considerations Two electric buses are currently in use in Alaska—one city transit bus in Juneau and one school bus in Tok. Tok Transportation operates the state’s only electric school bus, which is half-powered by solar panels and half by the local electric utility. The community of Tok is located in Interior Alaska, which experiences some of the coldest winter temperatures in the state. In the milder shoulder seasons, the bus runs between 1.4 and 1.7 kilowatts per mile. At -38˚F, the bus’s efficiency decreased to 3.46 kilowatts per mile. The extra energy costs are spent heating the inside of the bus to a minimum of 45 degrees. To increase efficiency, the battery is insulated, and the engine is covered. Juneau’s bus, operated by Capital Transit, has faced mechanical, electrical, and range issues since its purchase in spring 2021. Capital Transit is working with the manufacturer to get the bus performing reliably. Despite the difficulties with its first bus, Capital Transit continues to follow the development of electric bus technology. After talking with other transit operators in cold environments with electric buses and reviewing FTA reliability testing, Capital Transit placed an order for seven Gillig electric buses. They are expected to arrive in summer 2024. Capital Transit’s current fleet consists of Gillig diesel buses, which share many of the same components and operator controls. This will aid in training when the new buses arrive. In its 2019 Climate Action Plan, the Municipality of Anchorage included a goal to “monitor the economic viability” of transitioning its public transit fleet to EVs, although progress on that goal was not discussed in the 2019/2020 follow-up report. Preparations are being made for new electric buses, including planning for the large-scale charging infrastructure to charge the buses. According to a report on the Anchorage School District website,2 although the school district recognizes the future potential of electric buses, cost and performance of the buses on long routes, especially in the winter, make them not viable. Several smaller transit services provide transportation within rural communities (like Sunshine Transit serving communities in the upper Susitna Valley) and between rural communities and urban areas (like Soaring Eagle Transit, operated by the Gulkana Village Council, which runs between communities in the Copper River Basin and Anchorage). None of these services use EVs but could benefit from the buildout of EV infrastructure. The greatest barriers to adoption of EVs in public transit appear to be initial investment costs and cold weather performance. The Anchorage School District claims electric buses can cost three to four times as much up-front and requires a capital investment of $8 million to $10 million to convert the current diesel fueling infrastructure to electric charging stations. Performance in cold weather is also a concern, with much of the battery power being used to heat the interior of the bus. Currently Juneau’s electric bus cannot complete a full day’s worth of routes in the winter without having to be switched out to charge. AEA will continue to monitor electric bus technology improvements and agencies as they plan to purchase electric buses to determine if there are opportunities to collaborate on future infrastructure deployments outside of the designated AFC. 1. https://dot.alaska.gov/comm/pressbox/arch2022/PR22-0021.shtml 2. https://www.asdk12.org/Page/13936 70 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Other Fleet Electrification Services The Solid Waste Services Department of the Municipality of Anchorage launched two electric garbage trucks on March 20, 2024. These Heavy-Duty Peterbuilt 520 vehicles were added to a fleet that includes a Medium-Duty Peterbuilt 220 box truck that has been in operation since 2021. The Heavy-Duty vehicles were funded through a US DOE grant. Alaska DOT&PF took delivery of a Ford F-150 Lightning in early 2024, the first EV in its fleet. The vehicle is currently used to support the drone operations by DOT&PF, often traveling to remote areas of Alaska. Alaska Electric Light & Power Company (AEL&P) has three electric trucks as part of its metering fleet. Two of the trucks were put into service in 2023, and the third was added in 2024. According to AEL&P, the trucks have met performance expectations, and the plan is to replace the remaining two metering trucks with electric trucks on the existing replacement schedule. MOA Solid Waste Services electric garbage truck. Photo Courtesy: MOADOT&PF Ford F-150 Lightening. Photo Courtesy: DOT&PF AEL&P Ford F-150 Lightening fleet. Photo Courtesy: AEL&P 71 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 FY23-26 Infrastructure Deployments During Phase 1, the AFC buildout, the focus will be on the priority charging sites along the AFC. Applications were solicited to host NEVI site to maximize coverage along the corridor. Following the RFA, AEA is proposing to construct nine EV charging sites that meet NEVI requirements. This awards allocated $6.4 million of federal funding, leaving about $40 million for other phases of the program. AEA is requesting that FHWA consider the Corridor Ready status for the state’s only AFC, thus leading to Corridor Complete status under the NEVI program. With Corridor Complete status, AEA can move to Phase 2 and identify priorities along the AHS and AMHS to support other Alaskan communities. With approval of the FY25 plan, AEA expects to have about $32 million on-hand for Phase 2. Figure 27 depicts what a Corridor Ready AFC would look like following commissioning of all recommended sites. Planned Infrastructure Deployments Table 16: Stations Under Construction State EV Charging Location Unique ID Route (note if AFC) Number of Ports Estimated Year Opera-tional Estimated Cost NEVI Funding Sources (Choose one: No NEVI, FY22/23, FY24, FY25, FY26, FY27+) New Location or Upgrade? * *There are no sites currently under construction as of July 2024 since the solicitation process is ongoing. Figure 27. Priority Sites for Phase 1 as Recommended For Award 72 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Table 17: Planned Stations State EV Charging Location Unique ID Route (note if AFC) Number of Ports Estimated Year/Quar-ter Opera-tional Estimated Cost NEVI Funding Sources (Choose one: No NEVI, FY22/23, FY24, FY25, FY26, FY27+) New Location or Upgrade? AK3_5.94_NEVI_Wasilla AFC 4 2025/Q3 $1,191,188 FY22/23 New AK1_4.12_NEVI_Anchorage AFC 4 2025/Q3 $1,299,683 FY22/23 New AK3_79.63_NEVI_Trapper-Creek AFC 8 2025/Q3 $564,986 FY22/23 New AK3_174.72_NEVI_Cantwell AFC 8 2025/Q3 $564,986 FY22/23 New AK3_323.24_NEVI_Fairbank-sWest AFC 8 2025/Q3 $564,986 FY22/23 New AK3_269.8_NEVI_Nenana AFC 8 2025/Q3 $564,986 FY22/23 New AK3_203.78_NEVI_Healy AFC 4 2025/Q3 $1,094,939 FY22/23 New AK3_327.15_NEVI_Fairbank-sEast AFC 4 2025/Q3 $1,094,939 FY22/23 New AK3_97_NEVI_DenaliState-Park AFC 4 2025/Q3 $1,094,939 FY22/23 New Current AFC sites have not progressed into the planned or construction phases at this time. Notices of Intent to Award have been issued to selected site hosts, and DOT&PF is currently conducting NEPA assessments for each of the selected sites. Construction is anticipated to begin in Q3 of 2024. Planning Toward a Fully Built-Out Determination As noted in the Awarded Contracts section of the Contracting chapter, AEA and DOT&PF are requesting acknowledgment of Corridor Ready status following commissioning of the selected Priority Sites for the state’s single AFC. Three gaps along the corridor exceed the 50-mile maximum, but none of them exceed 80 miles, the distance granted an exception in the initial plan. It is AEA and DOT&PF’s belief that the market response to the RFA was adequate and there will be no suitable responses to another RFA that seeks to solicit charging locations in Willow and Clear. The lack of development and potential sites in these two locations is limited, especially as identified in Clear with no applications submitted for the first round. The initially approved Discretionary Exception is requested again – albeit at 77 miles instead of 80 miles due to sites recommended for award – due to the lack of power grid within this gap on the AFC. If Corridor Ready status is granted, this will complete the only AFC in the state and Alaska then requests Corridor Complete status for fully built-out determination. 73 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Table 18: Fully Built Out Status. How many stations are still needed to achieve Fully Built Out status (based on the State’s EV AFCs as of the date of this update’s submission)? Zero. The only AFC will be complete with the sites awarded in Phase 1 RFA and the state will achieve Fully Built Out Status Provide the estimated month/year to achieve Fully Built Out status:August 2025. In the interim, Alaska requests the ability to move into the procurement of Phase 2 as the process is refined during this fiscal year. With the limited construction season due to extreme weather conditions, waiting for sites to be operational could further delay the roll-out of Phase 2 and based on input from our workshops, there are a significant number of partners ready to deploy Phase 2 across the state. State, Regional, and Local Policy Policies at the state, regional, and local level affect how the infrastructure can be deployed, funds collected, adoption rates and willingness to adopt EVs from the public, and how the infrastructure may be used by the public and fleet vehicles. Public Utility Definition The RCA approved U-21-022 on October 25, 2021, which clarified that EV charging stations are not public utilities or subject to restrictions on the resale of electric service, so vendors and owners of charging stations could assess a fee for the provision of electricity. Previously, site hosts had to charge customers based on the amount of time spent using the EV charger since only public utilities were allowed to charge multiple different customers for electricity.1 It should be noted that not all public utilities are regulated by the RCA, such as Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA). State Energy Policy The State Energy Policy (Alaska Statutes 44.99.115) recognizes the importance of promoting energy efficiency in the transportation sector.2 1 Poux, 20212 Alaska State Government, 2020 EV charging station in AnchoragePhoto courtesy of AEA 74 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 State Motor Fuel Tax – Registration Fees There was a proposed bill that implemented a biennial registration fee to supplement the highway fuel tax that is used for highway construction, maintenance, and operations. Electric and alternative fuel vehicles would have paid $100 and hybrid vehicles would pay $50 under the proposal.1 The bill passed the Alaska House of Representatives and was referred to the Finance Committee in the Senate, but the 2021-2022 session ended before the Senate passed the bill. It has not been reintroduced at the time of this publication. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Acquisition Requirement Per Alaska Statute 44.42.020, every five years the Alaska DOT&PF must evaluate alternative fuel cost, efficiency, and commercial availability for automotive purposes. When practical, vehicles using alternative fuels should be purchased or vehicles should be converted to alternative fuels. To ensure the availability of alternative fuels for consumers, the DOT&PF may work jointly with public or private partners.2 Regional Zoning Zoning ordinances are useful tools for state and local governments to indicate where EVSE is allowed or prohibited. Planners and other officials can utilize zoning to incentivize or require EVSE like chargers throughout a municipality’s zoning districts or in specific areas. Alaska can look to what other states and local municipalities have done to promote EV adoption. For example, in the case of Methuen, Massachusetts, an addendum to the existing zoning ordinance permitted the use of EVSE in single- and multi-family dwellings along with commercial and industrial zones. Even more radical measures include incentivizing EV supply equipment installation through parking requirement measures. In Georgia, a municipal ordinance includes an incentive program in which each designated EV space in a parking facility counts as three spaces toward meeting off-street parking requirements. The effects of this ordinance are twofold: EV use is incentivized, and traditional ICE vehicle use is constrained and disincentivized. Any changes in zoning ordinances must include clear definitions and provisions to avoid unintended limitations on EVSE deployment. New York City’s Department of City Planning demonstrated this best practice when it amended zoning language to define EVSE in conjunction with parking facilities as an accessory use. This action allowed EVSE to be located in any drive-in property in a commercial district, rather than only at existing fueling station locations.3 Further, state or local ordinances could restrict the parking of non-EVs or EVs not charging in parking spaces with fines and/or towing implications. 1 Josephson, 20212 U.S. Department of Energy, n.d3 US Department of Energy, 2015 A crowd gathers in the Golden Valley Electric Association parking lot in Fairbanks to send off the 10-vehicle Arctic Road Rally caravan on August 12, 2022. Photo courtesy AEA 75 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Grassroots AKEVA plans to set up a temporary EV charging corridor from Fairbanks to Oliktok Point to bring attention to the challenges of electrifying all communities across Alaska. Demonstration, education, advocacy, and fundraising are pivotal as AKEVA builds its platform for EV drivers, activists, and stakeholders across the state to engage. These measures accelerate the adoption of EVs and improve EV infrastructure in Alaska. Education can also be utilized to dispel public misconceptions about range anxiety, EV performance in cold climates, and costs that prevent consumers from confidently making an EV their next vehicle purchase.1 ReCharge Alaska is a private project led by EV enthusiasts in Alaska. The group’s goal is to “open up Alaska and advance the EV transformation through the deployment of DC Fast Chargers.” ReCharge Alaska has deployed its own DCFC stations to support EV drivers in the state, written white papers on the subject, and researched and developed solutions to deploying infrastructure in the extreme cold temperatures of Alaska. The group has voiced satisfaction with RCA’s 2020 R-20-005 tariff. The RCA evaluated the current electrical tariffs for emerging EV market and concluded that the R-20-005 incentive for electric users to reduce their power loads from short bursts of loads to a levelized load would be easier for the electrical utilities to manage. Such cooperation between private entities and state organizations is a promising step towards popularizing EV use. In this framework, passionate citizens take the initiative fur ther than individual EV purchase, towards bolstering the public good.2 After departing from the Golden Valley Electric Association parking lot on August 12, 2022 the Arctic Road Rally caravan of 10 EVs successfully traversed a 1,096-mile round trip from Fairbanks to the Arctic Ocean and back, testing the limits of where EVs can go and negotiating the lack of infrastructure along the way.3 1 AKEVA, 2022 2 Hall, 2022 3 https://www.arcticroadrally.com/ Ten EVs assemble at the edge of the Arctic Ocean after driving north up the Dalton Highway during the 2022 Arctic Road Rally Demonstration event. Photo courtesy Tim Leach, Launch Alaska 76 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 The biggest challenge on the Dalton Highway wasn’t the performance of the vehicles themselves, but the lack of infrastructure, underscoring the need for more charging stations across the state. With no power lines to provide a charge, the group used a combination of diesel and natural gas generators to electrify their trip. Renewable energy credits provided by Chugach Electric Association helped them achieve net-zero emissions. The event was meant to demonstrate and test the capabilities of EVs in some of the harshest environments—and the vehicles delivered. The group is planning another rally where they plan to bring in vehicles from more manufacturers and run some larger vehicles Another adventurer, Rainer Zietlow, showcased the abilities of his Volkswagen ID.4 while driving from Homer (southernmost road-network location in Alaska) to Deadhorse, the northern most point in the United States, while traversing the AFC and the Dalton Highway1. This trek occurred between March 28, 2023, and April 4, 2023, encountering some harsh spring conditions along the way, and arrived at the earliest time of year for an EV. From Deadhorse, Rainer then drove to Key West, Florida, the southernmost location in the United States and arrived on May 6, 2023. 1 https://vwid4-alaskatour.com/vw-id4-alaska-tour/ 77 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Implementation AEA has experience in supporting the deployment of EV charging stations, so past lessons learned and understandings can be applied to the NEVI program as AEA supports its deployment. The strategies in this section will support a successful deployment and lower risk to drivers, site hosts, network companies, the federal government, and AEA. Strategies for EVSE Operations & Maintenance Following the EV infrastructure installation process, there will be several operational considerations to be aware of, including electricity and maintenance costs and associated networking fees. Maintenance & Warranty Costs Charging infrastructure general maintenance includes storing charging cables, checking parts, keeping the equipment clean, and some intermittent repairs to chargers. Warranties vary by manufacturer and can be packaged as fixed-term, renewable, or included with equipment costs. However, while routine maintenance can be minimal, repairing broken chargers that are no longer under warranty can be costly. It is necessary to establish responsibility for maintenance costs (site host, charging network, or installer). Maintenance contracts should include response and repair times. The site hosts and charging vendors will be responsible for the warranty, maintenance, and operations of the sites. The five-year costs related to these activities are expected to be included in the total project cost to be factored in with the federal share and local match. Once the NEVI funds are expended, the costs will entirely transfer to the site host and vendor, where it is expected that the sites will continue to operate and will be supported by collection of charging fees. 78 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Fees Charging station site hosts who want to generate revenue or recover costs may assess a fee for use of the charging infrastructure. Many charging networks will facilitate the fee transaction at the charging unit, but fees can also be collected via app, credit card, over the phone, or at a nearby establishment. According to the final federal rulemaking, “all revenues received from operation of the EV charging facility are used only for: i. Debt service with respect to the EV charging station project, including funding of reasonable reserves and debt service on refinancing; ii. A reasonable return on investment of any private person financing the EV charging station project, as determined by the State or other direct recipient; iii. A reasonable return on investment of any private person financing the EV charging station project, as determined by the State or other direct recipient; iv. If the EV charging station is subject to a public-private partnership agreement, payments that the party holding the right to the revenues owes to the other party under the public-private partnership agreement; and v. Any other purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated under Title 23, United States Code.” Pricing Structures A report released by the University of California, Los Angeles Luskin Center for Innovation details important information about the factors that influence the financial viability of charging stations. Common pricing structures charge by kWh, session, length of time, or through a subscription. The RCA has enabled charging by the kWh—the preferred method for EV drivers—so AEA required that the recipients of the NEVI funding assess fees per kWh. This has not been an issue along the AFC with the Railbelt utilities, but discussions continue with other utilities to ensure this pricing structure can occur in their territories. Strategies for Identifying Electric Vehicle Charger Service Providers and Station Owners On May 13, 2022, AEA publicly released a RFI directed at interested site hosts and businesses of all sizes. The RFI was directly shared with local and small businesses that expressed interest in the VW Mitigation DCFC deployment. The intent was to begin a list of entities to engage as the program unfolds, generate interest in the program, and compare interested parties with identified areas for infrastructure deployment. Participants were encouraged to submit ideal locations with Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates. This information can be used in initial outreach to gauge interest. Further, respondents were asked to provide suggestions and considerations for the plan. The word cloud in Figure 28 highlights the responses received, and the notable themes collected from the public during this phase are:Figure 28. RFI Response Word Cloud Source: www.wordclouds.com 79 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 • Equitable: In alignment with AEA’s goals and the Justice40 requirements, equity will be ensured throughout the program. • Community: The program should provide community charging. Alaskan’s transportation patterns do not commonly include corridor travel. • Efficient: Providing adequate speeds of charging will allow those using the charging stations to receive the charge needed and get back on the road. • Profitable: Host sites will need to support the installation and have a return on investment of the match funding provided. • Accessible: The stations need to be accommodating of all users and need to be placed in convenient locations for those traveling. All procurements will be conducted through a publicly competitive process but conducting engagement activities with suppliers and site owners in advance should help bolster the number of applications received. Site Selection Criteria were developed in the initial plan and updated for the RFA so help distinguish sites when multiple applications were received for each Priority Area. The criteria reflected desirable site characteristics such as distance from the AFC, lighting provided on the site, located within a Justice40 boundary, and access to amenities while charging. Table 19: Site Selection and Prioritization Criteria Criterion Max Points Utility Service Site Information Form Evaluation Has the applicant demonstrated a clear understanding regarding the infrastructure needs and utility improvement costs for the site? Does the project schedule along with the demonstrated infrastructure and utility needs? 80 Site is located within 1 mile of the highway Within 1 mile: 60 points 1-3 miles: 30 points 3-5 miles 15 points Over 5 miles: 0 points 60 Site provides adequate lighting for security around the EVSE.20 Site has amenities for users to access while charging their vehicle.40 Site is located within a Justice40 boundary.40 Site match contribution: 20%: 20 points 25%: 40 points 30%: 60 points 60 Total available base points 300 Bonus Considerations Max Points Site offers pull through charging access.20 Site offers make-ready work for additional ports and increased speed (e.g. 350 kW in the future).20 Site offers additional plug standards to be inclusive of other drivers (e.g. NACS and CHAdeMO)10 There are a variety of configurations for site layouts that a site host could pick based on expected usage and space or parking spaces available. Through the many public engagement actions to-date, accommodating 80 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 vehicles towing trailers has been brought up several times and could be an important consideration for the success of EV charging in Alaska as pickup trucks gain market share. Figure 29 shows an example configuration that accommodates one EV with a trailer. Additional layout examples can be found in Appendix B. Figure 29. Example Configuration to Accommodate EVs with Trailers 81 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Strategies for EVSE Data Collection & Sharing AEA will collect data on the usage of the EV charging stations for performance measurement, planning for future deployments, and reporting to the Joint Office on the program’s metrics. To be compliant with the expected reporting requirements of the NEVI Standards and Requirements, the grantee shall provide a quarterly report in a form to be approved by AEA that includes the following: • EV charging station identifier • Charging port identifier • Charging session start time/end time • Charging session error codes • Energy (kWh) dispensed to EVs per session by port • Peak session power (kW) by port • Payment method associated with each charging session • Charging station uptime for each of the past three months as calculated by the methodology contained in 23 CFR 680.116(b) • Duration of each outage • Number of charging sessions per zip code for use by AEA in tracking Justice40 benefits. This is an Alaska-specific requirement. The grantee shall produce an annual report (as dictated by the NEVI Standards and Requirements) which contains the following data: • Maintenance and repair cost per charging station for the previous year • Identification of and participation in any state or local business opportunity certification programs including but not limited to minority-owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, woman-owned businesses, and businesses owned by economically disadvantaged individuals The grantee shall produce a one-time report per the NEVI requirements that contains the following data: • Name and address of the private entity(ies) involved in the operation and maintenance of the chargers • Distributed energy resource installed capacity, in kW or kWh as appropriate, of asset by type (e.g., stationary battery, solar) per charging station • Charging station real property acquisition cost, charging equipment acquisition and installation cost, distributed energy resource acquisition and installation cost, and grid connection and upgrade cost on the utility side of the electric meter • Aggregate grid connection and upgrade costs paid to the electric utility as part of the project, separated into: ◦Total distribution and system costs ◦Total service costs These requirements will be imposed through the project agreements executed between AEA, DOT&PF and the site host. Further, the charging vendor will be required and responsible for sharing information through its own applications and other third- party applications. To enable data sharing with third-party entities, the vendor will be required to provide an application programming interface (API) with specific static information (such as location and name) and dynamic information (such as pricing structure and availability status). The APIs will also be used to create a centralized dashboard for the public to view stats on the Alaska EV program. The chargers will be required to display and base the price for electricity in $/kWh. The price of charging will be displayed on the chargers and communicated via the charging network. Further, the pricing structure 82 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 that is inclusive of maintenance and operation costs will be required to be explained via an application or a website. In an effort to make EV charging station location information more accessible, AEA will coordinate with the Alaska DOT&PF to add a layer to Alaska 511. This website garners frequent views due to the dynamic and changing conditions of Alaska’s roadways. This will help inform the public of charging station locations and help ease range anxiety. Strategies to Address Resilience, Emergency Evacuation, Snow Removal/Seasonal Needs Alaska has significant risks related to earthquakes, mudslides, flooding, and avalanches. All of these—while serious and not entirely uncommon—are not as impactful as winter weather. Certain roads are not maintained during the winter season, and year-round availability and maintenance of the charging stations. Some local entities have designed enclosures for the DCFC stations to maintain an acceptable operating temperature during the winter. Site partners will be required to clear the parking spaces for the EV charging equipment, but it may take additional time to complete snow removal based on the weather conditions. These factors cannot be used against the vendor for station uptime, especially if the adjacent roadway is not traversable. Requirements for operating temperatures and conditions will be included in the project agreements, but modifications, such as enclosures, may need to be accepted if the available equipment does not meet the specifications of the surrounding environment. Strategies to Promote Strong Labor, Safety, Training, and Installation Standards To ensure Alaska’s workforce is prepared to install and maintain EV infrastructure, AEA will coordinate with and seek feedback from unions including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW Local 1547), the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA), and local Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) affiliates like the Laborers’ Local 942 in Fairbanks and the Laborers’ Local 341 in Southcentral Alaska, and other vocational organizations. Coordination efforts will focus on identifying challenges and risks in training Alaska’s workforce to prepare for EV infrastructure and creating recommendations for certification requirements and state regulation changes, if needed Charging station at the Dimond Center, AnchoragePhoto courtesy of AEA 83 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Coordination efforts with unions will take place through the AKEVWG as outlined in the Public Outreach and Engagement Plan in Appendix A. The Working Group includes representatives from Alaska’s business community, including chambers of commerce, small businesses, and potential site hosts. All recommendations related to the labor issues surrounding EV infrastructure that are discussed in technical group sessions will be presented to the larger group for consideration. The NEVI Standards and Requirements identifies the EVITP as the certification program for electricians to install, maintain, and operate EV infrastructure. The EVITP website currently lists four Alaska businesses (located in Anchorage and Fairbanks) as utilizing EVITP- certified installers. The Public Outreach and Engagement Plan lists each of these businesses as potential stakeholders to help inform future EV installation and maintenance standards due to their experience with the certification process. As the Working Group considers the best path to certification for Alaskans, it will consider the option to allow certification through a registered electrical apprenticeship program that includes EVSE-specific training, as outlined in the proposed NEVI program regulations. Bringing labor, business, and contracting groups into the EV conversation will have the added benefit of creating EV community advocates as workers learn more about EVs in Alaska and their economic development potential. An EV passes through the intersection of Fireweed Lane and Arctic Blvd in Anchorage. Photo courtesy of AEA Bringing labor, business, and contracting groups into the EV conversation will have the added benefit of creating EV community advocates as workers learn more about EVs in Alaska and their economic development potential. 84 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Strategies to Address Compliance with Minimum Standards There were no significant plan changes from the initial plan document to adhere to the NEVI Standards and Requirements Final Rule that was posted on February 28, 2023, and became effective March 30, 2023. All requirements and associated final rule reference sections can be found in Table 20. Table 20: National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements Requirement Reference Procurement Process Transparency for the Operation of EV Charging Stations Section 680.106(a) Number and Type of Chargers Section 680.106(b) Connector Type Section 680.106(c) Power Levels Section 680.106(d) Availability Section 680.106(e) Payment Methods Section 680.106(f) Equipment Certification Section 680.106(g) Security Section 680.106(h) Long Term Stewardship Section 680.106(i) Qualified Technician Section 680.106(j) Customer Service Section 680.106(k) Customer Data Privacy Section 680.106(l) Use of Program Income Section 680.106(m) Interoperability of EV Charging Infrastructure Section 680.108 Traffic Control Devices or on-premises signs acquired, installed or operated Section 680.110 Data Submittal Section 680.112 Charging Network Connectivity of EV Charging Infrastructure Section 680.114 Communication of Price Section 680.116(a) Minimum Uptime Section 680.116(b) Third-Party Data Sharing Section 680.116(c) Other Federal Requirements Section 680.118(a) & Section 680.118(b) ADA Requirements Section 680.118(c) & Design Recommendations for Accessible Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Title VI of the Civil Rights Act Section 680.118(d) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Section 680.118(e) Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act Section 680.118(f) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)Section 680.118(g) 85 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Equity Considerations DOT&PF and AEA employees know and understand the varying demographic communities throughout the state of Alaska as well as the importance of reaching out to all of our communities. The State is committed to not only public input and public outreach from our rural, underserved, and disadvantaged communities, but continued communication throughout the life cycle of the process and project of delivering EV charging stations within the communities and proposed corridors. Alaska has extensive rural regions and communities that range from all around the borders of the state to the interior border with Canada. Rural communities face challenges related to location, terrain, resources, and communication capabilities. AEA will work with community leaders to provide opportunities to engage, comment, and participate in the development of the EV charging stations. AEA will use social media, community councils, in-person meetings, virtual meetings, and partnerships with local governments/municipalities and tribes to collaborate with these groups to understand local needs. Within the urban areas, community leaders will have the opportunity to attend virtual meetings and in-person meetings to provide comments from the community as well as reviewing site selections and project rollout. In rural communities, social media, virtual meetings, and in-person meetings with the DOT&PF’s tribal liaison, tribes, and community elders will provide vital information as to sacred areas/burial grounds within their communities to avoid. The State understands the subsistence hunting/fishing lifestyle and times of year and will work with the tribes to avoid outreach/public participation within those time frames with the goal to re- engage with those communities at a later date. The Plan reflects that the concerns, questions, input, and ideas from the public comments/public outreach events will have a direct effect on the corridor and EV site selection. Continued communication with communities and stakeholders throughout the life cycle of the project will allow for modifications to the Plan based on public feedback from individuals within disadvantaged communities. As contractors are selected for 86 Equity Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 capabilities, DOT&PF and AEA will require the selected vendor to review and evaluate site locations within the EV study area using federal requirements and guidelines made available by the Joint Office. Identification and Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) in the State Through Executive Order 14008, the Justice40 Initiative was signed by President Biden. The Justice40 Initiative sets a goal that 40% of the overall benefits in certain federal investments flow to DACs that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened. Through meaningful and consistent stakeholder engagement, Justice40 will allow stakeholders and community members the opportunity to engage and provide input on project and programs decisions. Through the use of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, which is the digital tool developed with the use of U.S. Census Bureau data, AEA will identify marginalized, underserved, and overburdened communities within the project area for outreach and DAC participation. The initial stakeholder list contains many government communities that fall within Justice40 boundaries as other DACs, including tribal councils. AEA commits to furthering outreach through promotion of efforts on social media and through newsletters so AEA can continue to foster engagement with all communities. 39.8% of Railbelt residents live in DACs or Alaska Native village statistical areas, so the benefits along the AFC should meet the Justice40 requirements. Large parts of the AFC lie within DACs, so initial outreach will occur in these communities for deployment, while outreach in other communities will be used to update and refine the Plan for the out-years. The investments beyond the AFC will focus on the AMHS, where many of the port communities fall within Justice40 boundaries, and then community and destination charging where AEA can provide charging access Figure 30. Alaska’s Justice40 TractsSource: Climate & Economic Justice Screening Tool 87 Equity Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 in rural DACs to foster growth for EVs. The expected penetration in the early years in these communities is expected to be low, but the investment will ensure that the DACs are not left behind as the vehicle fleet shifts to electric power. To support equitable deployments, 30 of the 54 (56%) communities and local governments on the stakeholders list lie within Justice40 boundaries. By only having one AFC, AEA will have the flexibility to disseminate investments and benefits to more communities across the state. AEA and DOT&PF are also currently reviewing the Justice40 map for discrepancies between their own records of DACs, as it appears the two datasets are not in alignment. Should discrepancies be found, AEA will request credit for the benefits of DAC deployments not located on the Justice40 map. Process to Identify, Quantify, and Measure Benefits to DACs The initial measurement method to track the benefits to DACs will be quantifying the amount of funding invested into DACs. This process will involve identifying the infrastructure installed within Justice40 boundaries. For locations that are not within boundaries, an evaluation will be performed using GIS mapping to determine if the infrastructure is in close proximity to the boundary and along a roadway to the community. With Alaska’s roadway network, terrain, and rural nature, many communities only have one access point to the roadway network, so infrastructure placed along that access but outside the boundary may still benefit the DAC. Consultant and AEA labor will also be tracked for engagement activities that directly correlate to DACs, as education and outreach will be important to involve DACs, collect their input, and support them with the NEVI funding. Awareness of the project will also increase chances of small business participation in the communities as site hosts, recognizing the indirect benefit of site sales while travelers charge. AEA understands that community needs are dynamic. The current engagement plan recognizes this and will be updated accordingly throughout the NEVI program. The plan calls for meeting with DACs, engaging with their needs, providing transparency in the implementation process, and eventually gaining trust within the community. There is an additional opportunity to integrate DACs into the clean energy job pipeline as job training related to EV infrastructure installation and general clean energy infrastructure could be provided. Such training measures would not only increase community engagement related to the clean energy transition, but also provide additional income and job security that could provide upward mobility from DAC status. AEA will coordinate with the Alaska Works Partnership, the Alaska Apprenticeship Training Coordinators Association, Alaska General Contractors, and the Associated Builders and Contractors to support women and minority participation in the apprenticeship programs. Electric vehicle charging station in Anchorage. Photo courtesy of AEA 88 Equity Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Benefits to DACs through this Plan AEA and DOT&PF are in the early stages of identifying and setting performance targets for the benefits to DACs. Investment in communities ensures access to EV charging infrastructure. While adoption rates may be low initially, providing access will make the transition to EVs easier as more affordable and accessible vehicles are released by Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). Context-sensitive approaches must be utilized in Alaska, especially as it pertains to alternative vehicles like All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and snowmachines. While electric versions of these vehicles are by no means low-cost capital, they are significantly more affordable than electric passenger vehicles. ATVs and snowmachines are used daily by some Alaskans, and their personal preferences must not be disregarded. Including these means of transportation in the EV transition may be a more financially viable variation for DACs in the transition to electric passenger vehicles. While total cost of ownership is typically lower over the life of the vehicle, financial barriers to entry into the EV market can be prohibitive. Therefore, an alternative to remedy these barriers could be the popularization of transit and shared-ride vehicles for DACs. By alleviating the financial burdens of individual vehicle purchase and providing community support for transit, DACs can receive the same mobility benefits for a lower per capita price. These communally utilized modes also cut down on vehicle miles traveled in their entirety, decreasing the economic and environmental constraints of EV producers and EV users. These wholesale changes to travel habits would result in air quality improvements due to increased EV adoption. Air quality improvements are critical as DACs are oftentimes disproportionately affected by transportation emissions from ICE vehicles. To help inform the measurement of benefits to DACs, AEA published a community benefit survey at outreach events. The locations and number of respondents to the survey are shown in Figure 31. A measure that AEA expects to monitor but may be more qualitative is resilience. For instance, if there are charging stations that are supported by a battery back-up system, a user could charge during a power outage. AEA plans to monitor these occurrences to determine other benefits of the program. An early measurement through the Phase 1 RFA is project investment in DACs. Five of the nine sites are located within a Justice40 boundary and based on the costs of each site, 54.9% of program investment has gone to Justice40 communities. AEA and DOT&PF will continue to monitor and measure the other benefits as identified in Table 21. An early measurement through the Phase 1 RFA is project investment in DACs. Five of the nine sites are located within a Justice40 boundary and based on the costs of each site, 54.9% of program investment has gone to Justice40 communities. 89 Equity Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Table 21: Benefits Category and Strategy for Tracking Benefits Benefits Category Strategy for Tracking Benefits (Metrics, Baseline, Goals, Data Collection & Analysis Approach, Community Validation) Improve clean transportation access through the location of chargers. Metric: Increase number of EV charging stations in Justice40 areas Baseline: The number of EV charging stations prior to RFA awards Goals: At least 40% of the cost of investment with new charging stations is within Justice40 boundaries Data/Analysis: AEA will track the expenditures of the program and identify the costs for locations within J40 boundaries to determine this benefit. Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. Decrease the transportation energy cost burden by enabling reliable access to affordable charging. Metric: Transportation Energy Cost Burden Baseline: 2020 US Census Data; 2021 EV registration data Goals: Reduce the transportation energy cost burden in J40 communities. Data/Analysis: Overlay EV registration data (from DMV data 2022) to determine adoption in census tracks to calculate a revised transportation energy cost burden; price of gas; price of electricity by census tract, J40 overlay; Zip codes that are J40 Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. Figure 31: Justice40 Community Participation Outreach, Survey Responses. 90 Equity Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Benefits Category Strategy for Tracking Benefits (Metrics, Baseline, Goals, Data Collection & Analysis Approach, Community Validation) Reduce environmental exposures to transportation emissions Metric: Environmental Exposure Baseline: Emissions and air quality models from the state and regional planning agencies; 2021 EV registrations Goals: Reduce PM2.5 and CO2 emissions. Data/Analysis: Use model to determine the change and apply cost of impacts to determine benefit; new EV registrations by zip code Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. Increase the clean energy job pipeline, job training, and enterprise creation in disadvantaged communities. Metric: Number of new clean energy jobs, and jobs related to clean energy. Baseline: Number of EVITP contractors and personnel in 2022, Number of electricians, contractors, and engineers working on EV infrastructure in 2022. Goals: Increase the number of EVITP contractors and personnel by 5 in 5 years, Increase number of electricians, contractors, and engineers working on EV infrastructure by 5% in 5 years. Data/Analysis: EVITP registrations, Survey of contracted entities for NEVI program, Zip code of employees, Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. Economic impacts to business owners.Metric: Indirect impacts of retail/site sales while patrons charge Baseline: With no NEVI creditable sites, there is no existing indirect impact currently. Goals: Show a positive benefit at all sites commissioned through NEVI funding. Data/Analysis: Voluntary economic benefits by site hosts; survey results Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. Knowledge Sharing and Program Awareness. Metric: Community opportunities for engagement about the program. Baseline: Pre-2022 engagements Goals: Increase engagements with communities. Data/Analysis: Number of educational and listening sessions, Labor costs to produce Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. 91 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Labor & Workforce Considerations Alaska expects the capacity of the state’s EV workforce to increase with the implementation of NEVI funds. EV adoption in Alaska is an opportunity for the development of skilled workers and job creation. As EV penetration and charging infrastructure increase, the demand for an in-state EV workforce and associated training programs will increase as well. The State of Alaska has a current EV penetration level of approximately 0.53%, with minimal supporting EV charging infrastructure in place. A significant amount of EV installation, operations, and maintenance expertise currently resides out of state. The goal of the State’s NEVI Labor and Workforce plan is to develop and retain as many EV workforce opportunities as possible within the state. This can be accomplished, in part, by working with our partners at the Department of Labor, AWP, AATCA, AGC, ABC, IBEW, and other vocational schools and universities to promote in-state EV training programs and opportunities. To ensure a network of reliable and effective EV chargers, Alaska will need to implement strong labor, training, and installation standards. Electricians installing EVSE and charging equipment must understand the aspects of the market to adequately address customer questions, concerns, and satisfaction. Currently there are four EVITP certified contractors in Alaska—three in Anchorage and one in Fairbanks. This number has not changed between FY23 and FY25. The planned EV infrastructure investment will bring a significant amount of EV employment opportunities to the state, which could overwhelm the current in-state EVITP certified workforce capacity. In March 2023, AEA joined the EVITP course at the IBEW Local 1547 to discuss the NEVI program and share the outlook for future EVSE work opportunities in Alaska. The IBEW in Alaska offers 2 EVITP courses per year; one of these courses is offered in Anchorage and one is offered in Fairbanks. The EVITP course is 20 hours 92 Labor & Workforce Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 with typical attendance of 10 electricians. Over time, the IBEW EVITP course registration numbers have been steadily increasing. AEA begun to discuss how the state can support Electric Vehicle Charging Vocational Training. The intent is to increase access and frequency of EVITP training to the local vocational workforce and expand on the existing 20-hour EVITP certification in a continuing education style course for journeyman electricians. The program would aim to develop a curriculum to support future EVSE deployment throughout Alaska by providing the following: • Classroom training for Level 2 and DCFC charging protocols and electrical requirements (Existing EVITP). • Hands-on experience with AC Level 2 and DCFC chargers; installation, maintenance, and troubleshooting (Existing EVITP). • Creation of an “Alaska-specific” EVSE training program to meet EVITP required coursework or supplement EVITP required coursework. • Support to obtain supplies to power and purchase EVSE for the “lab/hands on” portion of the training program. • Support for instructor certification and continuing education. • Develop program to facilitate charger manufacturer-specific installer/maintainer certifications. This component of the program would facilitate local electrician’s ability to receive “factory certification” to do service and warranty work on their equipment. Facilitate an in-state training where training can occur on-site. Dedication of an AEA-funded EV charging station at the Linny Pacillo Parking Garage in Anchorage. Photo courtesy of AEA 93 Labor & Workforce Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 AEA plans to work with DOT&PF and FHWA to develop a funding mechanism for labor and workforce development activities, Workforce development activities for NEVI formula program projects are eligible so long as they are directly related to the charging of an EV. States are required to comply with the qualified technician requirements in 23 CFR 680.106(j). Workforce development activities funded by the NEVI formula program will contribute to the State’s compliance with these requirements. In compliance with 23 CFR 680.106(j) to ensure that the installation and maintenance of chargers is performed safely by a qualified and increasingly diverse workforce of licensed technicians and other laborers, all electricians installing, operating, or maintaining EVSE must receive certification from the EVITP or a registered apprenticeship program for electricians that includes charger-specific training developed as part of a national guideline standard approved by the Department of Labor in consultation with the Department of Transportation, if and when such programs are approved. The State of Alaska has a Policy on Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity to protect against illegal discrimination. Alaska is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse states in the nation and is committed to promoting a workforce that is representative of all Alaskans. As an employer and service provider, the State fully supports equal opportunity, equal employment opportunity (EEO), and affirmative action. The State does not condone, permit, or tolerate discrimination against its employees or applicants for State employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy or parenthood, or status as a veteran or veteran with a disability. 94 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Physical Security & Cybersecurity Physical Security Providing a welcoming and secure environment for motorists looking to charge their vehicles will help ensure the success of the deployments. This is a challenge, due to the remoteness of some of the locations along the AFC and the lack of sunlight in the winter months. Adequate lighting is paramount and was included as a scoring criterion in the selection process for this reason. Other site amenities that could aid in security include cameras, security detail, a staffed facility that is open 24/7, and locating the stations on-site in areas with high visibility. AEA will work with the vendors through the selection and design process to ensure that physical safety is kept in mind. Cybersecurity AEA’s approach to deploying infrastructure through the NEVI program is to use third-party vendors to own, operate, and maintain the EV charging stations and the data that is stored and transmitted. The data that will be publicly available will be transmitted through an API, and the data will be limited to non-sensitive material. AEA does not intend to collect, nor does it want personally identifiable information (PII). The energy sector is uniquely critical as all other infrastructure sectors depend on power and/or fuel to operate. A threat on energy infrastructure can directly affect the security and resilience within and across other critical infrastructure sectors—threatening public safety, the economy, and national security. In FY24, AEA developed the State Energy Security Profile (SESP) as an essential part of energy security planning. These plans will describe the state’s energy landscape, people, processes, and risks, and will include 95 Cybersecurity Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 considerations and planning as they relate to EVSE. AEA will work with partners to develop and finalize a plan to ensure the infrastructure is safe against all physical and cybersecurity threats. As part of the contract with the site partner and/or charging providers, language surrounding cybersecurity requirements will be included. The vendor will be responsible for meeting the latest cybersecurity requirements around PII and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) security standards to protect customer payment information. The vendor will be responsible for alerting AEA and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of any known or suspected network or system compromises. In addition to ensuring payment information is secured in compliance with PCI-DSS, AEA will work with partners to ensure all potential threat vectors are reviewed with respect to current standards and best practices for each. This will require design reviews and collaboration with charging providers to ensure EVSE cybersecurity is fully addressed. In the absence of any one specific EV charging cybersecurity standard, the following standards and guidelines will be used as part of these discussions. This is not an exhaustive list and is updated regularly as the industry evolves: NIST Interagency Report 8294; NREL Project 1.3.4.402, Consequence-Driven Cybersecurity for High Power Charging Infrastructure; SAE J1772 for EV plugs and adapters; IEC 68151-1 EV Charging Modes; IEC 62196 EV plugs and adapters and ISO 15118 where applicable. Design reviews will include discussions of Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP) implementations; Public Key Infrastructure Architecture and Certificate Management methodologies; and other protocol reviews from a cybersecurity perspective to ensure that secure development lifecycle and operations best practices are used by all vendors. AEA will ensure best practices by vendors are followed to include but not be limited to: • A method to authenticate all software as part of the initialization phase • Secure configurations in all meter equipment, disabling any unused ports and protocols such as Bluetooth or Telnet • Encryption of all over-the-air transmissions where applicable • Transport Layer Security for all web-enabled devices • FedRAMP and/or SOC 2 certification for all cloud services • Continuous monitoring by the EV Charging Management System AEA will consider requesting cybersecurity scan results from the charging provider, ensuring all configurations and vulnerabilities have been addressed prior to operational service date. AEA has considerable cybersecurity resources available to assist in ensuring the entire EV ecosystem is securely implemented and maintained. 96 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Program Evaluation Monitoring AEA will work with Alaska DOT&PF to develop a public-facing dashboard that displays the data collected from the infrastructure deployed with NEVI formula funding. This dashboard will inform the community of the number of stations, their usage, and their uptime. The AEA program manager will be responsible for monitoring the deployment schedule and monitoring the progress of the installations. The dashboard will be updated as new stations come online. Reporting The dashboard developed to monitor the program will also assist AEA in reports that need to be developed for submittal to the Joint Office. These reports will assist in evaluating compliance for speed of charging provided as well as station uptime. Alaska will comply with the quarterly and annual reporting requirements identified in the NEVI Standards and Requirements. AEA will also provide an extract of the maps produced and provide them to DOT&PF for incorporation into the ‘Family of Plans’ and other transportation-related maps. Annual Updates This report is intended to be a living document and will be updated annually based on data collected throughout the year. Summaries will be included to inform Alaskans and the Joint Office on the progress of the program and its usage. This data will also aid in informing out-year decisions, such as if additional capacity at certain locations is required or the type of facility that benefits the most from infrastructure installation. While AEA has developed a roadmap for the five-year NEVI program, continued engagement with stakeholders will refine and alter the proposed method and locations for infrastructure outside the AFC. 97 Discretionary Exceptions Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 97 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Discretionary Exceptions Summary of Requests AEA and DOT&PF, on behalf of Alaska, are currently requesting three discretionary exceptions to the NEVI requirements as identified in Table 22. Table 22. Discretionary Exception Requests Exception #Type Distance of Deviation Included in Round 7 AFC Nomination Reason for Exception Request 1 50 miles apart 1 mile from exit 27 miles__ miles Yes No Grid Capacity Geography Equity Extraordinary Cost 2 50 miles apart 1 mile from exit 27 miles__ miles Yes No Grid Capacity Geography Equity Extraordinary Cost 3 50 miles apart 1 mile from exit 16 miles__ miles Yes No Grid Capacity Geography Equity Extraordinary Cost Justification for Exception 1 The State of Alaska is requesting an exception to the requirement that EV chargers be placed no more than 50 miles apart due to the lack of electric service and infrastructure area along a 77-mile stretch of the AFC. There is currently no electric infrastructure between approximately Parks Highway mile 135 (north of Trapper Creek) and mile 210 (Cantwell). The recommended sites for award leave this gap at 77 miles. It was approved in the initial plan due to the lack of electric grid. 98 Discretionary Exceptions Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 The Matanuska Electric Association provides electric service to points south of mile 135. Its certified authority extends north to approximately mile 173, although no infrastructure is currently installed north of mile 135. Golden Valley Electric Association provides electric service to points north of mile 210 and its certified authority extends south to mile 199. This leaves a 26-mile gap where no electric utility has regulatory authority to install new service. Within the area where no electric infrastructure currently exists, there are few commercial establishments and none that operate year-round, leaving limited options for utilities to recoup the costs of extending power lines. Installing power lines to EV charging stations to meet the 50-mile distance requirement would be prohibitively expensive and logistically onerous, with few, if any, site stakeholders to engage to host the stations within the gap. The two utility companies on either side of this utility gap are active stakeholders in the AKEVWG, which will continue to work to overcome these challenges. One alternative solution considered was to install a charging station within the utility gap that utilizes diesel or solar power generation, or a combination of both. The environmental costs of diesel power generation, the feasibility of utilizing solar power during Alaska’s dark winter months, and the cost of constructing and operating a NEVI-compliant charging station with these alternative power sources rule out this option. Map of Exception 1 Figure 32. Discretionary Exception 1 99 Discretionary Exceptions Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Justification for Exception 2 The State of Alaska is requesting an exception to the requirement that EV chargers be placed no more than 50 miles apart between Wasilla and Trapper Creek. The recommended sites for award leave this gap at 77 miles. There were no acceptable submissions in Houston or Willow that would have reduced this gap, and it is not expected than there would be an acceptable sites submitted in another round of RFA due to the lack of development in these locations. Further, cutting this distance could harm the economic viability of the charging stations installed in Wasilla and Trapper Creek, as it is expected there will initially be low utilization of the four ports. Map of Exception 2 Justification for Exception 3 The State of Alaska is requesting an exception to the requirement that EV chargers be placed no more than 50 miles apart between the Healy assigned site and Nenana. The recommended sites for award leave this gap at 66 miles. The identified priority site identified between these two locations was Clear and it received no submissions during the RFA initial round. AEA does not expect to receive any applications in any future rounds due to the lack of development in this area of the AFC. Initially, AEA decided to attempt to solicit a site in this location but without any applications received, additional effort should not be expended to solicit a site in this area. Figure 33. Discretionary Exception 2 100 Discretionary Exceptions Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Map of Exception 3 Figure 34. Discretionary Exception 3 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Appendix A: Public Outreach and Education Plan ALASKA ELECTRIC VEHICLE OUTREACH & EDUCATION PLAN UPDATE AUGUST, 2024 Prepared for: 813 W Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503 Prepared by: Michael Baker International 3900 C Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, AK 99503 907-273-1600 Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-3 This public outreach and education plan is a living document. It may be updated to add or remove objectives, stakeholders, strategies, or methods as needed to adapt to new and changing circumstances as project development progresses. Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-4 BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) seeks to improve the United States’ nationwide network of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program by creating a network of 500,000 EV chargers by 2030. This will allow reliable, affordable, convenient, and equitable charging opportunities for all EV users. The NEVI Formula Program required each state to submit an initial EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan by August 1, 2022 outlining how each state intends to use its formula funds. Plan updates are required to be submitted annually throughout the life of the program. This document supplements the State of Alaska’s annual plan update. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is the lead agency in Alaska charged with reducing barriers to the adoption of EVs across the state, disbursing federal grant and program funding related to EVs, and planning for and implementing the expansion of the state’s EV infrastructure. One component of this mission and a requirement of the federal funding program is to develop a public outreach and education campaign to support the expansion of EV infrastructure across the state. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES We will support the expansion of EV charging infrastructure across the state and break down barriers to EV adoption through the following objectives: 1. Create opportunities for stakeholders to work through and collaborate on EV issues statewide through the following objectives measured between July 2024 and June 2025: a. Host public meetings/workshops in at least five communities across the state b. Host quarterly working group meetings that provide an opportunity for stakeholder updates and discussion c. Host nine technical sessions in a panel- or discussion-based format that address specific EV issues relevant to Alaska (e.g., workforce training, winter maintenance) 2. Keep the public informed about NEVI-related activities in Alaska as measured by the following objectives: a. Earn five Alaska-based media stories in print, radio, or television b. Distribute 12 monthly email newsletters, with content cross-posted on the AEA website and social media, covering a variety of topics of interest to Alaskans c. Attend at least five external community events (e.g., Alaska Federation of Natives conference, Alaska Municipal League conference, Transportation Fairs, Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference, and chamber of commerce events) to provide information about EVs in Alaska and the NEVI program 3. Conduct equitable and inclusive public outreach as measured by the following objectives: a. Receive engagement in the form of meeting attendance, comments, or survey results from communities in each region of the state, including remote communities that are not connected to the contiguous North American highway system b. Target one technical session to Justice40 communities along the Railbelt to ensure the communities’ needs are reflected in Phase 1 roll-out Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-5 c. Help facilitate the pursuit of additional grant funding to support EV charging infrastructure deployment in rural and remote communities This Public Information Plan will comply with best practices in public involvement and all applicable local, state, and federal regulations including 23 CFR 450.210. STRATEGY Meetings and events will be the primary avenue for engaging stakeholders and the public with EV-related information. Through quarterly working group meetings, technical sessions, and community workshops, we will ensure a wide variety of topics and targeted interests are represented in our outreach. We will also engage directly with communities and the public by attending events, meeting Alaskans with EV-related information where they are. DATA COLLECTION To ensure our outreach is equitable and reaches multiple and disadvantaged communities, we will collect demographic data throughout the public involvement process. We will analyze this data to identify gaps and address them with new techniques or approaches (for example, offering different meeting times, advertising through different formats, or changing venues to increase ease of access). We will enact tasks to gather participant data to include but not limited to: Hard copy sign in sheets Required registration for virtual meetings Demographic questions within each survey Email sign up form on website TIMELINE This plan covers to period of July 2024 through June 2025. Outreach work, however, is ongoing and planned to continue throughout the life of the NEVI program OUTREACH TACTICS Our primary outreach tactics are: 2. Quarterly Working Group Meetings: AEA established this group in 2020 to solicit feedback and share information among EV stakeholders across the state. Working group meetings are generally held once per quarter and typically include about 40 attendees. 3. Technical Sessions and Community Workshops: AEA hosts targeted meetings based on specific topics related to EVs in Alaska (technical sessions) and individual community coordination (community workshops) to ensure AEA’s statewide efforts are aligned with local community efforts. Each technical session has an in-person and virtual attendance option and are held 8-10 times per year. Community Workshops are scheduled by request or are offered when staff are traveling for other business needs. Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-6 4. Email Newsletters and Announcements: AEA’s email listserv for EV-related news is robust with high open and click rates. This listserv is utilized for monthly newsletters, meeting announcements, funding opportunity announcements, and calls to action. 5. Community Events: AEA attends community events (such as the Arctic Road Rally in Fairbanks and the DOT&PF Transportation Fair in the Mat-Su Valley and Anchorage in 2024) to share information with the public about EVs in Alaska. Staff also give presentations by request to community groups like chambers of commerce and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. QUARTERLY WORKING GROUP MEETINGS This working group of EV stakeholders was established in 2020 after the State of Alaska received funding from the VW emissions settlement. The group’s quarterly meetings, which are open to the public, allow stakeholders to share information, discuss EV-related projects, and learn about EV-related topics on the national and statewide level. Over the life of this plan, we intend to host four quarterly Working Group meetings tentatively scheduled for August, November, February, and May. Each meeting will be open to the public and will include in-person and virtual attendance. The in-person component will typically be hosted in Anchorage. Meetings typically occur over the lunch hour between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Meeting are recorded and recordings and presentations are posted online within one week of each meeting. Providing updates on NEVI plan progress and implementation will be a standing agenda item at each meeting. We will also solicit presentations from stakeholders to update the group on other projects, new infrastructure and business partnerships, state agencies, and the electric vehicle market in Alaska. Due to feedback from the group, we will focus on Alaska-specific content over national content. MEETING NOTICES & DOCUMENTATION We will use the following tactics to advertise the meeting to our stakeholders and the public: Email blast to working group, including all previous attendees who have provided their email addresses Advertise meetings in monthly Newsletters Post content on Alaska Energy Authority social media pages Create content for flyers to be posted at community locations like local businesses and post offices Each advertisement will include a link (and QR code on flyers) to the AEA website where all meeting information will be housed and archived including the date, time, and in-person meeting location; agenda (posted at least three days prior to each meeting); and the virtual meeting link. Sign-in sheets that collect demographic information will be distributed to in-person attendees. Virtual attendance will require registration. A recording and transcript of each meeting will be posted to the AEA website within one week of the event. Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-7 TECHNICAL SESSIONS AND COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS Technical sessions and community workshops are targeted outreach intended to serve specific stakeholder groups. Technical sessions are held 8-10 times per year and focus on specific topics or issues. We typically solicit panelists from stakeholder groups and provide them with questions ahead of the meetings to prompt discussion. For example, a technical session held in 2022 focused on workforce development and training. We solicited panelists from the state’s primary electric workers’ union, small businesses with staff who had completed the EVITP certification process, and a professor who is training students on EV maintenance. The discussion revolved around Alaska’s current readiness to support EV infrastructure and strategies to develop training programs in-state. Community workshops similarly target outreach to local areas and issues. AEA solicits attendance from community leaders and the public, and typically will give a presentation on the NEVI program and potential future funding opportunities. Attendees always have the opportunity to discuss and comment on their own EV- related plans and how those fit into AEA’s work. MEETING NOTICES & DOCUMENTATION Technical sessions and community workshops will be noticed and documented using the same process as the quarterly working group meetings. EMAIL NEWSLETTERS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS We will create content for the monthly EV newsletter, which will be sent from the AEA communications team to the EV listserv hosted by AEA. Each newsletter will focus on a different topic related to EVs in Alaska. We will also include any meeting information or public comment opportunities in these monthly emails. Past topics for the newsletter include: The latest options for off-road electric vehicles Electric vehicles and electricity derived from fossil fuels Electric vehicles in fleet, transit, and air travel in Alaska Clean vehicle tax credit Arctic Road Rally event in which a group of electric vehicles traveled the Dalton Highway Electric vehicle workforce in Alaska NEVI RFA Update and Timeline Clean Vehicle Tax Credit. Electric Buses in Metlakatla and Ketchikan NEVI Minimum Standards and Requirements. Build America, Buy America Act Waiver The Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program Updated EPA Vehicle Pollutant Standards. Updates on the Clean Vehicle Tax Credit. VW 1D.4 Alaska Tour. GVEA kWh Rate Change for DC Fast Chargers AEA Intent to Negotiate for DE-FOA-0002611. Ford Adopts NACS EV Charging Ports, NEVI Plan Comments Due Monday, and What We're Reading Justice40 Initiative Survey, August 15 Technical Session, and EV Resources EV batteries — composition, recycling incentives, and future solutions Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-8 FHWA Approves FY24 Alaska NEVI Plan, NACS Update, and Local EV News Clean Vehicle Tax Credit Updates, Alaska's Latest EV Count, and What We're Reading NEVI Plan Spotlight, Funding Opportunity, Technical Session Recap, and January Events NEVI Plan Spotlight, EV Sales, and Upcoming Events NEVI Plan Spotlight, EV Signs, Funding Opportunities, and Upcoming Events Plan Spotlight, Share Your EV Data, and Fairbanks and North Pole EV Survey NEVI Workshop Series, Plan Spotlight: Existing & Future Conditions Analysis, and What's in a sign? In additional to the monthly newsletter schedule, the listserv will be utilized for meeting announcements, funding opportunity announcements, and calls to action. COMMUNITY EVENTS AEA staff will seek out opportunities to participate in various events throughout the state to share information to groups and the public about the NEVI program and EVs in Alaska. These events could take the form of attendance at a booth, as we did in 2023 and 2024 at DOT&PF Transportation Fairs. It could also involve giving a presentation or hosting a workshop, as we did at the 2023 Alaska Municipal League Annual Local Government Conference where we distributed a survey to rural communities soliciting feedback about interest and needs related to EVs. STAKEHOLDERS Current stakeholders are either involved in the working group or have signed up for the monthly newsletter. We will continue to review this list to define gaps and ensure we are reaching Alaskans equitably. Stakeholders with an asterisk indicate groups or communities that are found within a Justice40 area identified by the U.S. Department of Transportation. CURRENT STAKEHOLDERS The list below includes groups or communities that participate in our outreach activities or are included in the email listserv. * Indicates a stakeholder or community that is found within a Justice40 area identified by the USDOT Communities & Local Governments Akutan* City of Houston* Old Harbor* Municipality of Anchorage Hydaburg* Ouzinkie* City of Anderson City and Borough of Juneau City of Palmer* City of Angoon* Kachemak* Pelican Coffman Cove Kake* Petersburg Borough Cold Bay Kasaan* Port Lions* Cordova Kenai* Saxman* Craig* Kenai Peninsula Borough* Seldovia* Delta Junction City of Ketchikan* Seward Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-9 Denali Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough City and Borough of Sitka* Eagle King Cove* Municipality of Skagway Borough* City of Fairbanks Klawok* Soldotna* Fairbanks North Star Borough City of Kodiak Tenakee Springs False Pass* Kodiak Island Borough* Unalaska* Gustavus Matanuska-Susitna Borough* City of Valdez Haines Borough City of Nenana* Wasilla* Homer* North Pole Whittier City of Hoonah* North Slope Borough Yakutat Adak Akiak* Bethel Buckland* Cantwell* Chefornak* Dillingham Gakona* Galena* Healy* Huslia* Kaktovik* Kiana* Kotzebue Napakiak* Napaskiak* Pilot Station Point Hope* Quinhagak* Saint Michael* Tooksook Bay* Unalakleet* Utquiagvik* Wainwright* Whale Pass* Wrangell* Native Organizations Ahtna, Inc.* Cook Inlet Regional Corp* Metlakatla Indian Community* Chickaloon Native Village* Doyon* Copper River Native Association Chugach Corp* Kodiak Area Native Association* Utilities Alaska Electric Light & Power Co. Cordova Electric Kotzebue Electric Association Alaska Power & Telephone Enstar Natural Gas Matanuska Electric Association Alaska Power Association Golden Valley Electric Association Southeast Alaska Power Agency, Ketchikan Chugach Electric Homer Electric Association Juneau Hydropower Copper Valley Electric Kodiak Electric Association Ketchikan Public Utilities/Electric Agencies Alaska DOT&PF Bureau of Land Management US Department of Energy Alaska Energy Authority Federal Highway Administration Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Regulatory Commission of Alaska Businesses Adventure Denali Loopy Lupine Denali Chamber of Commerce ChargePoint Sheep Creek Lodge Willow Chamber of Commerce Dimond Center Chugiak Eagle River Chamber Three Bears Alaska Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-10 Jack River Inn Whistle Hill Major Marine Tours Alaska Sealife Center Local Organizations Alaska Municipal League Easy Park Pacific Northwest Economic Region Alaska Center Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation Prince William Sound Economic Development District Alaska Electric Vehicle Association (AKEVA) FAST Planning Prince William Sound Science Center Alaska Public Interest Research Group Haines Economic Development Corporation ReCharge Alaska Alaska Trails IBEW Local 1547 Renewable Energy Alaska Project Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) Juneau EVA Transition Sitka Anchorage Economic Development Corporation Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District Sitka Conservation Society Bering Strait Development Council Launch Alaska Southeast Conference* Copper Valley Development Association Norton Sound Health Corporation Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference* Education University of Alaska Anchorage University of Alaska, Fairbanks Private Companies/Vendors Compucom FLO Tesla eCAMION POTENTIAL FUTURE STAKEHOLDERS The list below includes groups or communities that we would like to engage with moving forward. Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Air Quality Division Calista Corporation* Laborers’ Local 341 Alaska Federation of Natives* CCI Electrical Services, LLC Laborers’ Local 942 Alaska Inter-Tribal Council* Chugach Native Association* Maniilaq* Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium* Cook Inlet Tribal Council* McKinley Private Investment Alcan Electrical & Engineering, Inc. NANA Regional Corporation* Aleut Corporation* Fairbanks Native Association* National Park Service Aleutian Pribilof Island Association* Fullford Electric, Inc. Northern Alaska Environmental Center Alyeska Resort Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Sealaska Corporation* Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Kawerak Tanana Chiefs Conference* Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-11 Koniaq Incorporated* Telecommunications/Internet Entities Association of Village Council Presidents Knik Tribe* Tok Transportation Bering Staights Native Corporation* Kodiak Area Native Association* Bristol Bay Native Corporation* Sheep Mountain Lodge Eureka Lodge Gunsight Mountain Lodge Grow Ketchikan EVGateway Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Appendix B: Example Site Layouts B-2 Appendix B: Example Site Layouts Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Example One: three stalls and one pull-through station B-3 Appendix B: Example Site Layouts Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Example Two: four stalls and no pull-through stations B-4 Appendix B: Example Site Layouts Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Example Three: two stalls and two pull-through stations B-5 Appendix B: Example Site Layouts Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Example Three: no stalls and four pull-through stations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Appendix C: Summary of Public Comments C-2 Appendix C: Summary of Public Comments Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Public Comment Agency Response So, when do you start spending the money and actually getting something built? Seems like you’re always a year away. The grantees have been selected and are currently getting under contract. Once the contracts are signed, construction can begin. My name is Bri Gabel and I am the Sustainability Coordinator for the City and Borough of Sitka. In response to your updated NEVI draft, I wanted to share my contact information as I am your best contact for arranging community engagement efforts in Sitka. Thank you for providing your contact information. First, thanks for all the good work. Your group has been a big contributor for planning and implementing better EV infrastructure in Alaska. Having recently just completed my first EV roadtrip in Alaska, I would strongly recommend requiring all paid chargers to accept credit card payments, directly, without any sign-ups or memberships. The next highest priority would be tracking uptime and perhaps consequences for excessive downtime. Having a charger that does not work most of the time is basically worthless. Related to that would be an obvious and outward indication on all chargers that it is, or is not, actually working and available. Finally, because some chargers do actually require a membership/sign-up, I would like to share that the EVGateway phone app and payment process is the absolute worst customer experience I have ever witnessed. EVGateway should not be allowed to manage any more EV charging stations anywhere in Alaska, or really anywhere at all. If I could I would move all EVGateway chargers to another company. I admit that I did not read the FY25 Alaska NEVI Plan very closely, but I did not see any sections addressing these important customer experience standards/points. I did see the section about charging by the kilowatt hour, and strongly support that approach. Although I think it is OK to have parking charges if a car is blocking access for too long after charging has completed. Finally, the overall policies and priorities seemed reasonable and logical. In response to your comments: 1) The NEVI Standards and Requirements dictate that point-of-sale credit card readers must be included and membership cannot be a requirement for use. This was also a requirement in the RFA. 2) The NEVI Standards and Requirements identify that a 97% uptime is needed. Through contracting, we are withholding a retainage payment to be remitted annually provided the site meets uptime and other requirements such as data submission. 3) It will be up to each provider on how they indicate if the charger is working, and that info should be found in the network’s app as well as third party apps since the provider must use the open API to identify status. 4) We appreciate your comments on EVGateway. None of the currently selected applicants are leveraging this network. 5) There is a section titled “Strategies to Address Compliance with Minimum Standards” which provided references to the NEVI Standards and Requirements where these provisions apply. 6) We also have been supportive of idle fees for those that have completed charging but are still plugged in for an extended period. This is an allowable fee that can be incorporated into the charger’s operation. Pg 12 and 21 Outreach/Engagement – The Southeast Conference is holding it’s annual meeting in late September in Ketchikan. This would be a great opportunity to engage many of the AMHS communities at one event. Annual Meeting - Southeast Conference (seconference.org) Noted. AEA and DOT&PF will have representation at this event. C-3 Appendix C: Summary of Public Comments Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Public Comment Agency Response Pg 28 It is not clear what the amount dedicated to Phase 2 is. Is it the full $31.85M?That is correct. Approximately $31.85 million is available for Phase 2 deployment. Next year’s fiscal funds have not been allocated to a phase yet, so they could go to Phase 2 or one of the other phases identified in the report. Some edits were made to this section to make it more clear. Pg 63 It would be worthwhile to include a discussion about hydropower resources in SE Alaska, and AEL&P’s time-of-use EV charging rate and charger rental program. Let me know if you would like me to draft some language around this. Our EV programs are described here: Electric Vehicles (aelp.com) These are both beneficial additions to the plan and have been included. Pg 71 The CBJ electric bus is no longer in service. Preparations are being made for the new Gilleg buses, though, including planning for the large-scale charging infrastructure to charge the buses. Revised the paragraph to reflect current conditions. Pg 71 Other electrification efforts – AEL&P now has three electric trucks as part of its metering fleet. Two of the trucks were put into service in 2023, and the third was added in 2024. The trucks have performed very well and the plan is to replace the remaining 2 metering trucks with electric trucks on the existing replacement schedule. Included AEL&P fleet information. Site Design – Pg 29: State a “preferred” power for Level 2 charging of 19.2kW (80A). More EVs are now capable of accepting the maximum power, Level 2 charging stations will be valuable for both charging larger EVs like pickups, as well as charge and provide cabin heat simultaneously during the winter. The statement identifies the minimum requirements based on the NEVI Standards and Requirements. While we agree that higher speed chargers are ideal for the Alaskan climate, we have concern that there are chargers that meet the Buy America waiver in the 19.2 kW range. When we procure for this equipment, we will state a desire for higher speeds but may be limited on other requirements. Plan for Compliance with Federal Requirements – Pg 55: Chugach encourages standardizing Phase 2 infrastructure with NACS connector as preferred and allow CCS available via adapter. Suggest retaining some funding for Phase 1 site conversion from CCS to NACS in subsequent years if necessary. We are supportive of the NACS connector. However, we are bound by current NEVI Standards and Requirements that identify the plug must be CCS with an allowable NACS adapter. That being said, we are monitoring the developments at the federal level and if this requirement should change, we will be flexible as well. We have also considered leveraging available money for plug conversion should the requirement change. C-4 Appendix C: Summary of Public Comments Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Public Comment Agency Response Operations and Maintenance: - pg.46: Chugach suggests providing clarity the allocation of funding for continued O&M. a) O&M agreements could include an established cost of the five-year contract but would be reimbursed to the operator on an annual basis for each year. This could reduce the risk to the state in the event an operator is no longer able to honor their obligation and an alternative operating agreement is needed. b) A second consideration would allow the O&M agreement to include costs associated with maintaining necessary parts and service agreements with the charging equipment manufacturer. Due to the small market, the cost for leading charging equipment manufacturer to maintain a forward-deployed inventory of parts and service equipment could preclude them from entering the Alaska market. Allowing those costs to be considered in the O&M agreement would increase the viability reputable charging equipment manufacturers to support the Alaska market. We included 5 years of O&M and also have retainage on the payment based on performance of the site over five years. This section has been updated to reflect this. “Future state of EV adoption – Pg. 54: a) Chugach strongly encourages the State to begin including both Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles (PHEV) in the total count of EVs. As the plan advances into subsequent phases that may include both Level 2 and Level 3 charging stations, PHEVs will increasingly compete for these resources. Counting total plug-in vehicles is an established industry standard for representing EVs, and is a more accurate reflection of alternative-fuel vehicles. Many PHEVs observed within the Chugach service area operate almost exclusively as EVs. b) Suggest adjusting methodology to reflect EV density on a per-capita basis rather than as an absolute percentage of growth or total registered vehicle fleet. # of EVs per 10,000 people is a reasonably standard metric for quantifying EV density and representing EV growth. This provides a more meaningful metric to compare EV adoption vs. other regions of the country. This will also provide a more meaningful comparison of EV densities within Alaskan communities that vary greatly in population. c) Adjusting counting methodology will support Alaska being viewed fairly against other areas of the country that may have larger populations but similar rates of EV adoption. This will be valuable to new charging networks or charging equipment manufacturers in assessing the Alaska market potential.” The suggestions to include PHEVs and evaluate EV registration on per capita are both good suggestions moving forward. With the initial focus being fast charging on the AFC, we don’t intend to modify this year’s plan, but moving forward will begin to evaluate and include both of those data points. As we look towards community charging in Phase 2, looking at the mix of BEV and PHEV will prove useful, as will looking at per captia adoption. C-5 Appendix C: Summary of Public Comments Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FY25 Public Comment Agency Response Energy Sources and Cost – pg. 64: Chugach notes that the current Electric Vehicle tariff includes both Level 2 and Level 3 EV charging at single-phase and three-phase service locations. Plan has been updated to reflect L2 tariff. Public Transportation Considerations – pg. 71: Suggest removing this section as it is beyond the scope of the current NEVI phases and other efforts are ongoing to demonstrate the current capabilities of medium and heavy-duty EVs to support public transportation. The NEVI template used to develop the overall plan includes this section to identify other electrification efforts across the state, even if not NEVI related. No change is made. Planning towards a fully built-out determination – pg. 76: Suggest retaining some flexibility to make a determination on completion to allow for sites that have complied with all contractual obligations but have been unable to complete commissioning for reasons beyond their control. We are bound by the NEVI Standards and Requirements, and it is up to the discretion of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation when Alaska reached Fully Built-Out Determination. We will continue to engage at the federal level to achieve this status as soon as feasible. Public Utility Definition – pg. 77: Note that CVEA and AP&T are public utilities but are not regulated by the RCA. This section was updated to include this distinction. In general on page 32, we [CVEA] only have about an 80 mile stretch (not 107 miles) and on page 31, there is about a 40 mile stretch (not 70 miles). Additional information was added to the legend of the line diagrams to clarify that the number of miles shown indicates distances between hub communities, not the extent of electrical service. State of AlaskaElectric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation PlanAugust 2024 Find EV information at akenergyauthority.orgContact us at electricvehicles@akenergyauthority.org Denali Commission 550 West 7th Ave, Suite 1230 Anchorage, AK 99501 907.271.1414 (P) 888.480.4321(TF) www.denali.gov August 21, 2024 Curtis Thayer Executive Director Alaska Energy Authority 813 W. Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 *****Delivered via email to cthayer@akenergyauthority.org ***** RE: 2024 Denali Commission Program Grants FOA DC-WP-24-001 Dear Mr. Thayer, I am pleased to inform you that a selection committee recently evaluated your applications for 2024 Denali Commission Program Grant funds, and the following applications were approved for funding in the amounts listed: x Napaskiak Distribution Upgrade - $285,015 x Tuluksak Rural Power System Upgrade - $2,000,000 x Manokotak Disribution Upgrade - $667,885 Please note that this letter does not authorize you to incur costs or otherwise obligate Denali Commission funds until your financial assistance awards have been fully executed. Energy Program Manager Katie Conway will be in touch soon to assist you in identifying any additional information that may be relative to your projects and to negotiate your financial assistance awards. Congratulations on your three successful applications. We at the Denali Commission look forward to working closely with you on these important projects and offer our best wishes for your continuing success. If you have any questions regarding these awards, please feel free to contact Katie at 907-271-1414. Sincerely, Jocelyn Fenton Interim Federal Co-Chair cc: Katie Conway, Denali Commission Energy Program Manager Jocelyn Fenton Digitally signed by Jocelyn Fenton Date: 2024.08.22 11:45:50 -10'00' Janet Davis, Denali Commission Grants Officer Tim Sandstrom, AEA Chief Operating Officer Pamela Ellis, AEA Controller Ashley Streveler, AEA Assistant Project Manager Justin Tuomi, AEA Rural Assistance Manager DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCELOCATION TEAM MEMBERAugust 28, 2024 Panelist Alaska Defense Forum: Alaska Energy Security Virtual Tim SandstromAugust 27-28, 2024 Attendee/Moderator National Hydropower Association: Alaska Regional Meeting In Person, Juneau, AK Curtis W. ThayerAugust 26, 2024 Attendee Renewables/Utility Roundtable Hosted by Chugach Electric Association In Person, Anchorage, AKCurtis W. Thayer, Audrey AlstromAugust 20, 2024 Featured Speaker Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce In Person, Fairbanks, AK Curtis W. ThayerAugust 19, 2024 Media Inquiry Solar Farms, Jamie Deip, KBBI (Homer) Email Brandy M. DixonAugust 16, 2024 Exhibitor Booth Alaska State Fair: Energy DayIn Person, Palmer, AKQuinlan Harris, Yosty Storms, Curtis W. Thayer, Karen TurnerAugust 15, 2024 Attendee Solar Energy Roundtable Hosted by the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority In Person, Anchorage, AKCurtis W. Thayer, Audrey AlstromAugust 14, 2024 Media Interview AEA Update, Tim Bradner, Alaska Economic Report/Alaska Legislative Digest Phone Curtis W. ThayerAugust 13, 2024 Host Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group (AKEVWG) Technical Session: Utility Roundtable In Person/Virtual, Anchorage, AK Josi HartleyAugust 8, 2024 Newsletter AKEVWG August Newsletter Sent to 278 Recipients Email Brandy M. DixonAugust 6, 2024 Featured Speaker Greater Wasilla Chamber of Commerce In Person, Wasilla, AK Curtis W. ThayerAugust 1-2, 2024 AttendeeToured several facilities including the Eyak Substation, distribution facilities, battery energy storage system, Power Creek Hydroelectric Project, and the Orca Diesel PlanIn Person, Cordova, AK Curtis W. ThayerJuly 31, 2024 Host Governor's Energy Bills Signing: House Bills 50, 247, and 307 In Person, Anchorage, AK AEA TeamJuly 29, 2024 Media Interview Alaska Railbelt, Hal Bernton, Inside Climate News and Anchorage Daily News Phone, Anchorage, AK Curtis W. ThayerJuly 25, 2024 Presenter Alaska's EV Program Presentation to Fairbanks Chamber Transporation Committee Virtual Josi HartleyJuly 22, 2024 Featured Speaker Anchorage Chamber of CommerceIn Person, Anchorage, AK Curtis W. ThayerJuly 17, 2024 Newsletter AKEVWG July Newsletter Sent to 272 Recipients Email Brandy M. DixonJuly 8, 2024 Media Interview Grid Resilience Formula Grant Program Budget Update, Alan Bailey, Petroleum News Phone Curtis W. ThayerJuly 1, 2024 Press Release AEA and DOT&PF Invite Public Input to Update Alaska’s FY25 NEVI Plan Email/Social Media Brandy M. DixonJune 28, 2024 Media Interview AEA's role in the Akiak Power Outage, Evan Erickson, KYUK Phone Tim SandstromJune 27, 2024 Media Inquiry AEA's role in the Akiak Power Outage, Evan Erickson, KYUK Phone Brandy M. DixonJune 18, 2024 Host AKEVWG Technical Session: Utility Roundtable In Person/Virtual, Anchorage, AK Josi HartleyJune 13, 2024 Newsletter AKEVWG June Newsletter Sent to 271 Recipients Email Yosty StormsJune 13, 2024 Host Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Site Visit with Legislators In Person, Homer, AK Curtis W. ThayerJune 11, 2024 Host Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Site Visit with Legislators In Person, Homer, AK Curtis W. ThayerJune 4-6, 2024 Attendee Alaska Power Association: Federal Legislative Conference In Person, Washington, DC Curtis W. ThayerMay 21-23, 2024 Attendees/Exhibitor Booth Alaska Sustainable Energy ConferenceIn Person, Dena'ina Center, Anchorage, AKCurtis W. Thayer, Audrey Alstrom, Karen Bell, Bryan Carey, Brandy Dixon, Conner Erickson, Rebecca Garrett, Justin Glover, Quinlan Harris, Josi Hartley, Dawn Molina, Ashley Streveler, Wendy L. Sturdivant, Justin Tuomi, Karen TurnerAEA COMMUNITY OUTREACHLast Updated on August 28, 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 MEMBERMay 17, 2024 Exhibitor Booth Chugach Electric Association’s 11th Annual Member Appreciation Day In Person, Anchorage, AKBrandy M. Dixon, Quinlan Harris, Yosty StormsMay 14, 2024 Host Open House: Rampart Powerhouse Module In Person, Anchorage, AK AEA TeamMay 7, 2024 Panelist United States Energy Association: Regional Decarbonization Alaska Workshop In Person, Anchorage, AK Curtis W. ThayerMay 6, 2024 Newsletter AKEVWG May Newsletter Sent to 274 Recipients Email Brandy M. DixonApril 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/Presenter AKEVWG Technical Session: Microtrends and Winter vs. Summer Performance Virtual 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. DixonAEA Community OutreachPage 2 of 3 DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCELOCATION TEAM MEMBERMarch 11, 2024 Media Interview Railbelt Upgrades, Tim Lydon, Alaska Magazine Phone Curtis W. ThayerMarch 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. ThayerAEA Community OutreachPage 3 of 3 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG RGYAUTHORITY.ORG AEA Hosts Senator Lisa Murkowski and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Willie Phillips on a Tour of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project On Monday, August 26, the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer, Director of Owned Assets Bryan Carey, and General Counsel Mark Billingsley accompanied Senator Lisa Murkowski and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman Willie Phillips on a tour of AEA-owned Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project located 27-air miles from Homer on the Kenai Peninsula. As part of the visit, Senator Murkowski and FERC Chairman Phillips learned about the Dixon Diversion Project, which would divert water from Dixon Glacier to Bradley Lake through a five-mile underground tunnel and increase Bradley Lake's annual energy production by 50 percent, or the equivalent of up to 30,000 homes. The Project, which would be the third largest hydropower project in Alaska's history, would offset 1.5 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas starting in 2030. This displacement would account for about 7.5 percent of the projected 2030 natural gas shortfall of 20 Bcf in Cook Inlet gas supply. Homer utility board approves buying energy from what will be Alaska’s largest solar farm https://www.ktoo.org/2024/08/21/homer-utility-board-approves-buying-energy-from-what-will-be-alaskas-largest-solar-farm/ 1/3 The board of Homer Electric Association, or HEA, unanimously approved a purchase contract on Aug. 13 with Renewable IPP, a power producer that’s built several large solar farms in the state. Jenn Miller is the CEO of Renewable IPP. She said the company is working to give Alaskans energy options beyond natural gas. “When we started the company, our mission was to not only diversify Alaska’s energy generation mix, but to do it in a way that actually reduces energy costs for Alaskans,” Miller said. The path to get the project approved is years in the making. Renewable IPP has been working with HEA to build a solar farm on the Kenai Peninsula since 2021. They previously considered a site in Sterling before settling on the current location. Miller said they expect to finish construction by 2028. Homer utility board approves buying energy from what will be Alaska’s largest solar farm https://www.ktoo.org/2024/08/21/homer-utility-board-approves-buying-energy-from-what-will-be-alaskas-largest-solar-farm/ 2/3 “While folks might say, ‘Man, can’t you move faster?’” she said, “you know, we spent three years working it, and I think without that level of due diligence, you wouldn’t have a project that delivers value on so many fronts like you do with this Puppy Dog Lake Project.” The Puppy Dog Lake Project in Nikiski would be the largest solar farm in Alaska. Once it’s built, the farm could produce up to 30 megawatts, which is enough to power about 9,000 homes where the average household uses about 550 kilowatt hours a month. Renewable IPP also built the state’s current largest solar farm in Houston, which produces 8.5 megawatts of electricity — less than a third of the power the Nikiski project is expected to. The purchase agreement comes as Alaska’s railbelt faces a looming shortage of natural gas, with utilities looking for ways to import natural gas. Since Renewable IPP set its sights on the peninsula, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly also approved property tax exemptions for independent power producers. The new solar farm would double the amount of renewable energy the region uses from about 12% to 24%, according to HEA. Keriann Baker oversees strategy for the utility, and she said the contract will allow them to purchase electricity for less than what they currently pay for power. But, Baker said the utility continues to support developing natural gas. “We’d like to see some policies like royalty relief that makes it easier for producers here, because a strong and thriving natural gas environment is healthy for everyone, but at the same time, we also want to protect our members responsibly from the volatility that we’re seeing in the fuel market, and we want to diversify,” she said, “we just don’t want to do it in a way that provides rate shock to our members.” In addition to solar energy, the board also approved replacing an old, inefficient gas turbine at the power plant in Nikiski. The utility doesn’t expect the replacement to happen until late 2027 or early 2028. Once both projects are online, Baker said they could cut about one sixth of the natural gas currently being used. HEA’s board threw out its old energy portfolio goal at the end of last year, which was to have 50% of energy coming from renewable sources by 2025. They updated the utility’s strategic plan to simply diversify its energy sources instead. Baker said HEA is looking at other renewable energy sources outside of solar to accomplish that at the lowest cost to ratepayers. “Really it’s anything right now. We’ve talked to tidal groups. We’ve talked to geothermal groups. We’ve talked to nuclear groups. We’ve talked to wind groups. I mean, we really are an all of the above utility,” She said. Homer utility board approves buying energy from what will be Alaska’s largest solar farm https://www.ktoo.org/2024/08/21/homer-utility-board-approves-buying-energy-from-what-will-be-alaskas-largest-solar-farm/ 3/3 HEA currently has an agreement with GeoAlaska, which is collecting data on Augustine Island to see if it’s possible to connect geothermal energy to the peninsula and beyond. While the project and contract costs aren’t public until both parties finalize paperwork with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, Miller said they received a $2 million grant from the Alaska Energy Authority that’s bringing down overall costs for ratepayers. They expect to finish the filing in the next couple months. AEA presents plans to reduce energy costs at chamber luncheon https://www.webcenterfairbanks.com/2024/08/21/alaska-energy-authority-presents-plans-reduce-energy-costs-chamber-luncheon/ 1/2 Alaska Energy Authority presents plans to reduce energy costs at chamber luncheon “We’re going to see a boom,” says Alaska Energy Authority Executive Director FAIRBANKS, Alaska (KTVF) - Reducing energy costs was the topic of the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce weekly luncheon on Tuesday. How it’s going to happen was explained by Curtis Thayer, the executive director of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). Numerous projects and programs are being funded for a more affordable future in Alaska. “Five years ago... our budget was $21 million,” said Thayer. “Our capitol budget now is $713 million.” That is nearly a 4000% increase, however, Thayer claimed a 2600% increase. AEA presents plans to reduce energy costs at chamber luncheon https://www.webcenterfairbanks.com/2024/08/21/alaska-energy-authority-presents-plans-reduce-energy-costs-chamber-luncheon/ 2/2 Those funds are now being directed towards a more affordable future. An array of projects and programs were discussed at the luncheon, some aimed at rural energy costs and others aimed at the Railbelt. One of those projects is called the Dixon Diversion Project. This project will increase water at Bradley Lake and increase the power output from the hydroelectric facility, located near Homer. Currently, this facility produces 10% of the power going to the Railbelt, saving an estimated $20 million per year. The project will cost $342 million. “It is a lot of money but the one thing it does is it is cheaper than importing natural gas from the cook inlet,” Thayer said. However, that would increase power output to 20%, which could save an estimated $40 million per year. That means the savings would make up for the cost in less than a decade. AEA hopes to make decision on implementing the project next fall. There are also upgrades being planned for the Railbelt. Among those projects are a transmission line connecting Quatrz, Soldotna and Sterling. Another project includes upgrading the transmission lines heading toward Fairbanks. While the current lines have been in use for decades, “it’s just getting to the point where it needs to be upgraded,” Thayer said. The AEA wants to replace the old lines with High-Voltage Direct Current lines that would increase resiliency and redundancy. Those lines would go between Kenai and Beluga and then to Fairbanks. They also want to install a secondary line going to Healy from south central Alaska. This would create a back up that would help avoid a loss of power in emergencies and reduce reliance on imported natural gas from Cook Inlet. Related to that project are possible upgrades to the Alaska Intertie. Other programs and projects mentioned during the luncheon included efforts to improve and reduce energy costs in rural communities, as well as renewable energy projects and an expansion to electric vehicle infrastructure. One program, however, seeks to reduce energy costs and keep defense infrastructure functional. The Black Rapids training Site (BRTS) Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program has been created to extend transmission lines to the BRTS, preventing the need to preplace diesel generators that are end of life. Those end of life generators also threatened operations at the site according to Thayer. “We had a potential of losing this military training ground and now we’ve given it new life for the next 30, 40, 50 years,” Thayer said. While the work on these projects will take time, Thayer anticipates that it will boost both the economy and reduce energy costs for decades to come. Copyright 2024 KTVF. All rights reserved. Alaska Energy Authority director highlights Railbelt projects https://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/alaska-energy-authority-director-highlights-railbelt-projects/article_d98be104-5f50- 11ef-be0d-cf63191d4afb.html 1/3 Alaska Energy Authority director highlights Railbelt projects Jack Barnwell Aug 21, 2024 The Alaska Energy Authority has a lot of activity on its books over the next eight years, according to its executive director, Curtis Thayer. Thayer provided an update on the state’s various Alaska Railbelt energy projects during a Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Tuesday at Raven Landing. AEA’s budget has grown significantly over the past five years, from $21 million to $713 million thanks to federal funding. Thayer said key Railbelt projects, including the expansion of the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Dam 27 miles northeast of Homer, are reliant on each other as they move forward. The planned $342 million Dixon Diversion would divert additional water to the Bradley Lake Hydroelectrcic Dam and potentially power up to 30,000 additional homes from Homer to Fairbanks. The Dixon Diversion could replace an estimated 1.5 billion cubic feet of natural gas demand if completed in 2030, or about 7.5% of the projected shortfall the Railbelt faces Cook Inlet gas supplies face an uncertain future. “It will be the cheapest source of power on the Railbelt,” Thayer said. “We would save at least $20 million a year.” Thayer noted while $342 seems like a large price, “it will be a lot cheaper than importing natural gas.” Bradley Lake already helps provide power for 550,000 residents from Homer to Fairbanks, but it only generates 10% of it the Railbelt electrical needs. Golden Valley Electric Association, the Interior’s co-op utility, relies on the dam for nearly 17% of the Interior utilty’s power source. Thayer said AEA plans to move forward on Dixon Diversion environmental assessments next fall. Natural gas accounts for about 75% of Southcentral Alaska’s energy needs. For Golden Valley Electric Association and the Interior, the coal-fired Healy Power Plants serve as a mainstay, along with a diverse portfolio of other energy generation sources. Alaska Energy Authority director highlights Railbelt projects https://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/alaska-energy-authority-director-highlights-railbelt-projects/article_d98be104-5f50- 11ef-be0d-cf63191d4afb.html 2/3 Upgrading transmission lines Bradley Lake improvements will require improvements to the Railbelt’s transmission lines, including a 40-mile submarine line from Kenai Peninsula to Chugach Electric’s Beluga power plant. The submarine line will be a high-voltage line. Transmission line upgrades are also planned for {span}Quatrz, Soldotna and Sterling.{/span} “It’s (the current transmission lines) one of the reasons we have line loss and when you have line loss, it affects the energy transmission that goes to Fairbanks,” Thayer said. “We are starting construction of upgrading that line next year.” Alaska received $206.5 million in federal funding to help fund the project; the state will need to match another $206 million as part of the grant. “It’s about redundancy,” Thayer said. “It’s getting to the point where it needs to get upgraded.” He noted the 2019 Swan Lake Fire damaged transmission lines that distributed Bradley Lake power. The damaged lines disrupted the power across the Railbelt for nearly four months and cost residents $12 million in additional costs. “Everyone, including Anchorage, bought more natural gas and that cost was shipped to Fairbanks,” Thayer said. Thayer said the goal will eventually be to build a secondary transmission line to Healy to create additional redundancy on the Alaska Intertie. “If we were in the Lower 48, we would be required to have two lines,” Thayer said. “If Fairbanks were cut off [from the Intertie] it would cost GVEA ratepayers an additional $37 million for electricity.” The combined $413 million will also fund two battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, one each in Fairbanks and Southcentral. Thayer said the funding could be used to expand upon what GVEA has planned to construct a new BESS project to supplement its existing facility. He added it’s a mutual benefit, allowing GVEA to transmit power south to Southcentral Alaska should its utilities require additional power. Thayer said the Alaska Energy Authority has benefited from federal grants under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act beyond the $206 million grant. Alaska will receive about $60 million over the next five years from the Grid Resilience Formula Grant program to improve grid resilience against natural or disruptive events. Golden Valley received the initial $20.9 million. Alaska Energy Authority director highlights Railbelt projects https://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/alaska-energy-authority-director-highlights-railbelt-projects/article_d98be104-5f50- 11ef-be0d-cf63191d4afb.html 3/3 “Golden Valley got the first round because it had the greatest need,” Thayer said. Thayer added GVEA and AEA secured $12.7 million in federal grant funding to extend its transmission line by 34 miles to the U.S. Army’s Black Rapids Training Site. The training site uses three diesel generators to generate electricity but are nearing the end of their life. AEA secured the grant from the Department of Defense on GVEA’s behalf and received a supplemental $3 million to ensure the project will be done correctly. Thayer estimated Railbelt projects will require several years to complete. “There is going to be an energy boom and we will need lot of technical support and skilled employees,” Thayer said. Gov. Mike Dunleavy signs energy bills into law in Anchorage, Alaska, on July 31, 2024. (Provided by the Office of the Governor) Gov. Dunleavy signs 3 energy bills Local representative warns of possible increases in rates amid looming natural gas shortage By Jacob Dye Wednesday, August 7, 2024 11:53pm ❙NEWS AL ASKA LEGISL ATURE LOCAL NEWS OIL AND GAS STATE NEWS News Sports Outdoors and Recreation Opinion Life Arts and Entertainment Jobs Obituaries Marketplace Gov. Mike Dunleavy last week signed three energy bills into law, including one that may a ect local energy rates. According to a press release from the O ce of the Governor, House Bills 50, 307 and 273 were all signed on Wednesday, July 31, in Anchorage. Those bills, respectively, describe a regulatory framework for the use of carbon capture, utilization and storage; eliminates “wheeling rates” along Alaska’s Railbelt; and establishes the Alaska Energy Independence Fund as a subsidiary of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. “Energy is the lynchpin of modern society,” Dunleavy said in the release. “The bills I signed today will both help individual Alaskans secure more a ordable and reliable energy, and allow the State of Alaska to further develop its natural resources for the bene t of the people.” Rep. Justin Ru ridge, R-Soldotna, discussed two of those bills in an update to the Kenai and Soldotna chambers of commerce the same day they were signed. H.B. 307, targeting wheeling rates, is one that Ru ridge said he wasn’t in support of. He said the bill is intended to align every transmission line on the railbelt, connecting Bradley Lake near Homer to Fairbanks. Those lines would be managed by the Alaska Energy Authority to prevent wheeling rates, fees paid when energy is moved from one utility to another. Power is more expensive in Fairbanks, for example, because they’re paying to transfer power from Bradley Lake, where its owned by Homer Electric Association, through Chugach Electric, all the way north. “Fairbanks would see a reduction in their cost of power as a result of not having to pay those rates,” Ru ridge said. “Our rates would go up.” Ru ridge described the bill as subsidizing Fairbanks power. In Dunleavy’s release, AEA Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer said the bill is “one of the most important pieces of legislation a ecting energy policy for the Railbelt in over 30 years.” The release said that by eliminating wheeling rates, the “lowest cost power” will be distributed through the grid. The other bill Ru ridge discussed, H.B. 50 tackling carbon storage, is a step toward helping the state produce more energy, he said. As a forecast shortage of natural gas supply from Cook Inlet producers looms, Ru ridge said further action needs to be taken to promote energy development, and in the meantime, users might see their rates go up. “Be prepared,” he said. “For the idea of having to pay more for energy.” ©2024 Peninsula Clarion + Sound Publishing, Inc. + Black Press Media + Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Comments Policy The carbon storage bill was created at the request of the governor’s o ce, Ru ridge said, and seeks to promote resource production by allowing Alaska to engage with carbon storage and carbon o set plans. The governor’s release said that under the law, the State can charge producers to use public lands to sequester carbon dioxide. That move will allow for new revenue, it said. The bill also expands natural gas storage statutes, which the release said will allow the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority to make loans for oil and gas projects “needed to increase Cook Inlet production.” Ru ridge said railbelt energy “will continue to be a huge topic in the next legislative session.” Without further moves made to promote Cook Inlet production, Ru ridge said, local utilities may well be soon importing natural gas. He said that Enstar has already proposed construction of an import facility to bridge the foreseen gap between production and demand. “We are running out of Cook Inlet natural gas from the current players in that market,” he said. “Unless something is changed very soon, we may have to be paying a little bit more for our energy.” Reach reporter Jake Dye at jacob.dye@peninsulaclarion.com. 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 Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 1/12 Virtuous Circuit Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand By Rindi White and Scott Rhode Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 2/12 Tucked into a corner of the Cordova Electric Cooperative’s Humpback Creek Hydroelectric facility are two metal cabinets, each about 2 feet by 2 feet by 6 feet in size, that could contain the future of cloud computing. The cabinets house a virtual mountain of data and computing capability. A few years ago, the amount of data housed in the two cabinets would have taken forty server racks, all humming loudly and putting off considerable heat. The small but mighty data center represents the next step in cloud computing in two ways: a combination of advances in technology—the ever- present drive to shrink the space needed for computing capacity—and the symbiotic location with the hydroelectric facility, which not only provides power to run the data center’s logic circuits but also cools the processors via fingers of copper pipe circulating water and glycol, keeping the electronics at an ideal temperature. The data center is owned by Greensparc, an edge computing company led by Sam Enoka, who grew up in North Pole before he relocated to California. Enoka maintains his roots through years of involvement with Alaska Center for Energy and Power, a microgrid research group linked to UAF. By partnering with Hewlett Packard Enterprise, his company established the small but powerful-data center in November 2023, co-located with Cordova Electric Cooperative’s Humpback Creek plant. Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 3/12 An Ever-Growing Cloud Edge computing, the basis of Greensparc’s business model, brings distributed computation and data storage closer to sources of data. Ten years ago, many Alaska companies had local servers on which their data was housed. Lured by the convenience and relatively low cost of cloud computing, many slimmed down or eliminated their server banks, instead housing that data remotely. The cloud, however, is generally thousands of miles away. For some companies that means a hesitation of a few milliseconds or even a few seconds when accessing data; a price to pay, yes, but less costly over time than maintaining server banks locally. However, as data is more centralized, the cumulative costs through higher electricity prices—because more power must be generated to meet the data processing demand, along with potential security risks of housing data at a single, large location—add up. At a panel in May entitled “AI, Grid Integration, and the Energy Transition” at the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference in Anchorage, Amogh Bhonde, vice president of digital solutions for Siemens Energy, shared concerns about the ever-growing demand for places to house and process data. “Data centers are expected to be almost one-third of the US electricity consumption in the next four to five years,” Bhonde told the audience. He cited an example of Georgia Power, the primary power producer in that southern state. The company boosted its demand projections by a factor of sixteen due to the added load to its grid from data centers, advanced manufacturing, and artificial intelligence (AI) firms setting up shop in Georgia. Enoka, attending the same conference panel, noted that the problem is getting larger. Amazon Web Services, Google, Meta (Facebook’s parent company), Azure (Microsoft’s cloud platform), and other companies are demanding—and building—more and more data storage space. “The tier-one markets in the Lower 48 are out of power; that is now the binding constraint. You can’t build those hyper-scale data centers in those markets,” Enoka said. Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 4/12 But the drive to digitize everything, from manuals for a 1995 treadmill to an app for a local sandwich shop, isn’t going away. If anything, the drive toward incorporating AI into more basic functions is moving society toward more data crunching. “While there is no silver bullet, I firmly believe that software can help,” Bhonde said. “It’s ironic how the problem that we’re trying to solve was created primarily by AI—namely data centers—and we’re using AI to actually fix that problem.” Bhonde noted that AI, while requiring more data processing, can also analyze weather patterns to manage energy grids over a four- or eight-hour horizon; predict system failures, saving costs on preventive maintenance; and protect energy infrastructure by detecting cyberattacks in anomalous behavior patterns. It can collect valuable institutional knowledge from a long-time employee, interviewed before retirement, to create an AI co-pilot who can assist a new employee with the complex job of running a power plant. A plant that powers the AI that helps run the plant that powers the AI that helps run the plant that powers the AI, and on and on. Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 5/12 The Draw of Regional Data Centers To break the cycle, Enoka believes edge computing is part of the answer. Instead of making huge data centers in mid-sized cities and requiring power providers to build larger plants to meet those demands, edge computing could create a network of smaller, powerful data centers in smaller towns. Those would provide more reliable data storage and processing to rural areas while also making use of power margins—the unsold and sometimes renewable power that small power providers make that, because of their small consumer base, is “spilled” or unused. “When I explained our concept to Amazon, for instance, they understood what we’re trying to do. When you order an Amazon package, a truck with an Amazon logo shows up a few days later, and a person with an Amazon uniform gets out of that truck and delivers that Amazon package to your door,” Enoka explains. However, “That’s not Amazon; that’s a local distribution company that [it] contracts with. That employee is not an Amazon employee; they just do the distribution.” Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 6/12 By analogy, Enoka says Greensparc is seeking to be the data center distributor to local markets, providing users with better, closer data infrastructure so they get better service. Users don’t choose where the data is coming from; the back-end process is invisible. But using a local data center would support more responsive and reliable cloud-based services. Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 7/12 Cordova Embraces Innovation Clay Koplin, CEO of Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) quickly understood the potential of having a local data center. “It’s the intersection of energy, data, and telecommunications,” Koplin says. “The more data you store and process locally, the less you have to shift over telecom networks. The more renewable energy is available, the more you can fluctuate your data services. There’s a lot of opportunity.” Koplin also grew up in Alaska, on his family’s farm in Soldotna. His father was an electrician, traveling all over the state to maintain airports. Koplin got an engineering degree and was hired in Cordova when CEC transitioned its power lines underground. The community’s grid has, since 2011, been completely underground, resulting in minimal power outages, which is vital to its biggest industrial customers: seafood processors, for whom power outages can spell hours of interrupted work time. Koplin notes that CEC in 2023 generated about 75 percent of its power through two run-of-river hydroelectric plants—the Humpback Creek plant, installed in 1991, which provides about 10 percent of the community’s power, and Power Creek, installed in 2002, which provides about 65 percent of its power. The remaining power is provided by the Orca diesel plant, which is about forty years old. CEC is in the process of upgrading the Orca plant, going from one large, inefficient generator to two smaller and more efficient ones. Three-quarters of CEC’s diesel generated power is used in winter, when the community can’t tap the hydroelectric power; the remaining 25 percent of the diesel power generated is used for peak usage in summer, when seafood processors place more demand than the hydro plants can supply. CEC has a state-of-the-art battery storage system as a spinning reserve and cushion for the power load swings. Using creative management, Koplin says it has been able to coax more than 7 MW out of its 6 MW plant. CEC hopes to create a 70-foot dam at Humpback Creek to enable year-round hydroelectric capability, dramatically reducing its reliance on diesel. Reliable and competitive electricity rates in Cordova have motivated some seafood processors to move processing facilities onshore there, Koplin says. It’s not gone unnoticed: CEC was the only electric cooperative in the United States featured in a thirty-film documentary-style series the British Broadcasting Company created called “Humanising Energy,” which showcased innovations from across the energy ecosystem. Koplin says, “Outsiders look at Cordova and they get excited by the renewable energy and the technology that we use and the innovation. The exciting thing is, we have been able to deliver some of the most reliable energy—we have very few outages—and still support the seafood industry. Our seafood industry has moved onshore to take advantage of our reliable and relatively low-cost energy.” Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 8/12 Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 9/12 Soaking Up the Surplus Aside from peak summer power, Koplin says CEC frequently generates more renewable electricity than the community can use. That’s where Greensparc comes in. “We spill excess hydropower a lot of the time. We’re now, as we talk, spilling over a megawatt of excess power. We’d rather sell that to someone,” he said in June. “[Greensparc] can manage their use of the energy in concert with our ability to produce it.” Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 10/12 Greensparc’s servers, if CEC were powering them all the time, would require about 5 percent of the cooperative’s energy sales. Koplin told the panel at the Sustainable Energy Conference, “This is a market for us to sell and generate more revenue against fixed costs, keeping rates for the rest of our customers down while bringing these new tools into the economy.” He compared Greensparc, and distributed data centers generally, to an anchor tenant that props up other investments. As Koplin put it, “I mean, if you can’t quite get over the hump with a solar farm, maybe having a data server that can take that extra load helps you monetize that, lets you overbuild your solar. Then you get to decide as a community: do we need the energy Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 11/12 Don't Forget the Data While the decentralized data center is a focal point, and marketing its capacity to data consuming giants might allow Greensparc to expand around the country, the advantage of a local data system should not be left out of the picture. CEC is a Greensparc customer because Koplin saw the benefit to having the utility’s highly automated system function locally, not subject to potential outages at an Outside data center or vulnerable to cyberattacks. He can see a range of other local computing possibilities, he says, Virtuous Circuit: Cordova data center sparks renewable energy demand https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/virtuous-circuit/ 12/12 such as a dashboard for Alaska Department of Fish and Game managers to track resources in real time. “The opportunity to sell more excess energy was enough to get us there,” Koplin says of partnering with Greensparc. “But the other opportunities are so much more valuable. This is attracting partnerships and attention, and we’re part of it, here in Cordova, Alaska.” At a Greensparc demonstration in Anchorage last year, Enoka found a lot of interest from a variety of users. Those discussions have continued as Greensparc has continued to move forward. Enoka says he hopes to have deployments in Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau, and even some Alaska military bases. A data center on the North Slope would make sense, he notes, as it would add reliability to oil field technology. At the Sustainable Energy Conference panel, he suggested co-locating data servers with village airports might make sense too. “Then, when you get to that village, what else is there? A school? Great. A clinic? Great. Is there some other industry that could use maybe not AI but basic computing? That asset could be managed at a micro-level, down to kilowatts,” he noted. “Enterprises are going to be the low-hanging fruit right now. As we tap in and get more exposure to the [US] Department of Defense and those folks, we can demonstrate how we’ll be in the best position to help them out. Not just in places like Alaska, but it translates well to Hawaii or Guam, markets that are difficult to reach and hard to serve,” Enoka adds. Enoka sees plenty of good business reasons why distributed data centers tapping remote renewables makes sense. “We want to be a self-sustaining business, but the community benefit, the social impact, of setting this kind of business up to serve users in these communities, I think it will be transformative,” he says. “The results will bear out in the coming months and years, but a lot of us—not just us on the business side of this, but folks on the business side and on the user community—are embracing the opportunity.” Seeing the Light: Solar power under the midnight sun https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/seeing-the-light/ 1/6 Putting the role of solar energy into terms Alaskans can understand, Chris Rose draws an analogy. “It’s like fishing in the summer or hunting in the spring and fall,” says Rose. “While you can’t do these things year-round, you harvest what you can when you can so that you have it available when you need it.” Rose, founder and executive director of Renewable Energy Alaska Project, notes that half of the state’s electricity comes from natural gas, which is becoming a problem. Communities in Cook Inlet are already paying three times more than residents in the Lower 48 are paying for natural gas, and that amount is about to go up. Due to dwindling supplies, Alaska utilities are looking at importing liquified natural gas from Outside, which is expected to raise costs by 50 percent or more in the next five years. “Even though natural gas is a local resource, it’s not a cheap resource,” says Rose. “Fossil fuels are expensive and getting more expensive, so if we can generate local power with no fuel costs, there are a lot of advantages to that.” By using renewable energy most of the year, natural gas can be conserved for use during the winter. To this end, several projects—both at the state and community levels—are underway to harness the midnight sun. Federal funding is also supporting more projects, especially in rural areas, that could help the state become even more energy independent. Seeing the Light: Solar power under the midnight sun https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/seeing-the-light/ 2/6 Direct Currency In April 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency awarded $125 million to Alaska to build and expand solar energy projects as part of its Solar for All program. Part of a $7 billion program that funds community energy nationwide, Solar for All projects typically enable a group of people (like residents of an apartment block) to invest in solar projects and get credits on their utility bills when those projects deliver power to the electric grid. The $125 million splits between two projects: $62.5 million was awarded to a partnership between the Alaska Energy Authority and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) to fund solar energy infrastructure around the state. Alaska Energy Authority will use the grant for communities seeking to develop solar arrays, including battery storage, and AHFC will administer a program to subsidize residential rooftop solar installations for low-income households. The remaining $62.5 million was awarded to the Tanana Chiefs Conference, in partnership with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and AHFC, to invest in solar energy for thirteen tribal communities along the Railbelt, including Nenana and Chickaloon. In addition, the US Department of Energy recently funded five Alaska projects through the Energy Improvement in Rural or Remote Areas program, two of which are solar. The first provides $54.8 million to ensure reliable access to energy and heating for eleven Alaska Native villages in the Northwest Arctic Borough through the planned installation of solar, battery storage, and heat pump systems. The borough will use this money to install 850 residential heat pumps, or almost one for every home in Ambler, Buckland, Deering, Kiana, Kivalina, Kobuk, Noatak, Noorvik, Selawik, and Shungnak. NANA Regional Corporation is matching $5 million for this project, which builds on previous energy diversification efforts in the region. The second award, an Alaskan Tribal Energy Sovereignty project, provides $26 million to Tanana Chiefs Conference to expand solar projects in eight tribal communities including Minto, Huslia, Nulato, Kaltag, Grayling, Anvik, Shageluk, and Holy Cross. Instead of relying on diesel generators, solar panels and battery storage would be integrated into each community’s microgrid, a process that is expected to take approximately five years. The US Department of Agriculture’s Rural Energy for America program provided a $460,000 federal grant in March 2024 to expand a solar power system at Whistle Hill in Soldotna. The final phase of the two-stage project is expected to be completed this summer by Peninsula Solar, which is installing a 200 kW solar system with 500 kW of battery storage that will have the ability to generate and sell electricity to commercial indoor herb garden fresh365 and three other businesses on site. The annual production of the completed system is estimated to produce enough electricity to power nineteen homes. Seeing the Light: Solar power under the midnight sun https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/seeing-the-light/ 3/6 Solar by Subscription In January 2024, Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Alaska’s largest electric utility, filed a plan with regulators to create a 500 kW community solar project in Anchorage. Ratepayers would subscribe and pay the costs to build and maintain the panels, while the cost of solar-generated power would be subtracted from their bills. The 500 kW array, with 1,280 panels, would be built at the CEA substation south of the Dimond Center mall. In February, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska approved the utility’s request for an initial three-year pilot period. The utility’s first attempt to create a small community solar farm in Anchorage was rejected in 2019. The CEA program would allow members without their own rooftop solar array, such as renters, to benefit from renewable energy by subscribing to buy power from the solar farm. Under the plan, a member could subscribe to receive power from one panel or up to twenty panels, paying a monthly fee. The community solar project would generate electricity equivalent to an average of 0.02 percent of CEA’s retail energy sales annually. CEA would own the project, estimated to cost about $2.8 million. Member applications will be accepted beginning October 1, and construction is expected to be completed by the end of 2024, with the program going live by March 1, 2025. CEA is also planning to put solar panels on its two major power plants, the Southcentral Power Project near its headquarters along Minnesota Drive and the George M. Sullivan Plant along the Glenn Highway. The projects, which are anticipated to be roughly 100 kW each, will increase the efficiency of the plants and offset the use of natural gas. Solar panels will also be installed as part of a remodel of the operations building on CEA’s South Campus, which will add an additional estimated 165 kW of solar capacity to the system. “Renewable energy is becoming increasingly important, particularly with the decline in natural gas production in Cook Inlet… Every kilowatt provided by renewable energy uses one less kilowatt from gas, which can be put into storage for a later time.” Alaska Senat or Bill Wielechowski Seeing the Light: Solar power under the midnight sun https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/seeing-the-light/ 4/6 Plugged In and Charging Two recently completed projects are already generating power for communities as well as contributing to the electric grid. The $2.2 million solar farm at Shungnak, completed last fall, is now generating power for Shungnak and Kobuk. An electrical intertie connects the two villages, located about 10 miles apart on the Kobuk River. The farm on which the 225 kW project sits is owned by the two tribal governments, which enables them to sell the power to the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, the largest electric utility in rural Alaska. This spring, the solar farm produced so much power that the diesel-fed power plant shut down for several hours a day. Alaska’s largest solar farm, located in Houston, began operating in September 2023 and is now feeding power to Matanuska Electric Association. The 45 acre, 8.5 MW farm can provide about 5 percent of the utility’s output, powering about 1,400 homes at peak production, for roughly the same cost as gas-fired generation. Community Action The Alaska Legislature passed two bills this spring aimed at helping Alaskans access renewable energy. Senate Bill 152 (SB152) creates a streamlined framework to establish community energy projects in Alaska, including those powered by solar, hydroelectric, and wind. The bill, titled “Saving Alaskans Money with Voluntary Community Energy (SAVE) Act,” enables Alaskans to subscribe to community-owned solar arrays not located on their home or property. According to lead sponsor Senator Bill Wielechowski, SB152 opens clean energy access for the first time to more than 260,000 Alaskans who live in rental housing and 79,000 who are living below the federal poverty level. He expects subscribers could see 10 to 20 percent savings on their monthly electric bills. “Renewable energy is becoming increasingly important, particularly with the decline in natural gas production in Cook Inlet,” says Wielechowski. “It is also spurred by the desire of many to have cleaner energy and lower energy costs, which can be provided, in part, by renewable energies like solar and wind. This will not only benefit consumers in Southcentral Alaska but people across the state.” He notes that, by providing regulatory certainty to consumers and independent power producers, more people will become interested in virtual net metering—a solar incentive program that allows people to participate in the green energy economy without installing solar panels themselves. Seeing the Light: Solar power under the midnight sun https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/seeing-the-light/ 5/6 In addition to solar energy, SB152 supports access to other forms of renewable energy, including tidal and wind power, and it includes a component for battery storage to provide utilities with increased capacity. “This would help in areas like Southcentral, where this past January we weren’t able to produce enough gas or pull enough out of the storage wells,” says Wielechowski. “Every kilowatt provided by renewable energy uses one less kilowatt from gas, which can be put into storage for a later time.” Wielechowski also anticipates that SB152 could attract more solar companies to Alaska as well as create more jobs. With substantial current federal tax credits of 30 to 50 percent, there are also tremendous incentives to build right now. “Fossil fuels are expensive and getting more expensive, so if we can generate local power with no fuel costs, there are a lot of advantages to that.” Chris Rose Founder and Executive Director Renewable Energy Alaska Project Green Bank The second new piece of legislation leverages federal funding for an ongoing reservoir of renewable energy capital. On May 15, the Alaska Legislature passed HB273 to establish a state “green bank” as a subsidiary of AHFC. The legislation allows AHFC to set up private sector loans using a portion of the billions of dollars that are now available through the federal Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. According to Rose, green banks in other states have been instrumental in providing affordable loans to consumers who want to make energy efficiency improvements or install rooftop solar. “One of the problems with current programs is that, while you can get a 30 to 40 percent tax credit for using renewable energy, you have to have the upfront capital to build the project first,” he explains. “The green bank will provide a huge opportunity for average Alaskans to get affordable loans, install rooftop solar, and take advantage of federal tax credits.” Seeing the Light: Solar power under the midnight sun https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/seeing-the-light/ 6/6 Rose adds that excess electricity from these projects can feed the entire grid. “The utility pays nothing for those generation resources to be put on roofs; people buy them, and the federal government helps finance these solar projects,” he says. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, if Railbelt utilities produced 76 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2040, rate payers could save more than $1 billion over the next sixteen years. “While the economics are important, Alaskans also like to be independent and provide for themselves—that’s why we garden and hunt,” says Rose. “If we can also generate our own power, it provides even more independence. We can’t be very energy independent if we have to import our gas.” Cold Water, Warm City: The Seward Heat Loop Project https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/cold-water-warm-city/ 1/7 Cold Water, Warm City The Seward Heat Loop Project By Rachael Kvapil The Seward Heat Loop Poject is a unique alternative energy system firmly rooted in geothermal science, a concept that may sound like something out of science fiction. This innovative project, which has been in development for nearly a decade, combines tidal energy, gravel deposits, and thermal gradients to heat entire buildings. If successful, this demonstration project has the potential to revolutionize energy systems in other communities with similar natural resources. Cold Water, Warm City: The Seward Heat Loop Project https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/cold-water-warm-city/ 2/7 Go with the Flow In a nutshell, the Seward Heat Loop Project reduces the reliance on heating oil and electric heat in four city buildings by using a ground-source carbon dioxide (CO2) heat pump. Ground-source loops derive heat from a closed loop of vertical boreholes at Waterfront Park adjacent to Resurrection Bay. Tidal movements are key to providing an initial heat source: an influx of warm seawater from the Alaska Coastal Current flows into the bay each fall, then the North Pacific Gyre heats this current during a three-year circuit along the equator. Due to this influx, Resurrection Bay remains ice-free year-round. During winter months water temperatures can reach 50°F in November while the air temperature is 22°F, frequently causing steam. Andy Baker, founder and owner of YourCleanEnergy (YCE), is the designer who conceptualized the unique combination of heated water from Resurrection Bay with heat pump technology to heat an entire building. In 2012, Baker designed and installed a heat pump system using a synthetic refrigerant known as R-134a; however, Baker quickly replaced R-134a with CO2 to eliminate the synthetic refrigerant’s environmental impact. “Synthetic refrigerants contain PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] fluorination compounds that eventually leak from the heat pump circuit into the atmosphere,” says Baker. “By using CO2, we are preventing super greenhouse gases from rising into the air and ending up in the water.” Resurrection Bay already heats one building complex in Seward: the Alaska SeaLife Center. However, the Seward Heat Loop Project proposes a different configuration. The center pumps seawater directly from Resurrection Bay into a heat exchanger, but the Seward Heat Loop Project relies on the thermal mass of the seabed. Vertical loops will be inserted into 200 feet of gravel that is saturated by Resurrection Bay, resulting in a consistent temperatures of 45°F. A mixture of water and propylene glycol will be piped down the hole and back up to the surface, collecting tidal and groundwater heat along the way. The mixture is then piped to the heat pumps, which turn CO2 from a liquid into vapor. The vapor is then compressed to nearly 2,000 pounds per square inch, adding significantly more heat. The hot vapor circulates through a gas cooler that transfers much of its heat into a 100°F hydronic loop that is heated up to 194°F. The 194°F hydronic water leaving the heat pumps is blended into a large building loop that is kept at 140°F to 160°F and further distributed to Seward’s library, city hall, the city annex, and the fire hall. “Pumping seawater directly into the heat exchanger is high maintenance because saltwater is corrosive,” says Baker. “Using the tidal flush in deep gravel is a novel approach to heating buildings in coastal Alaska.” Cold Water, Warm City: The Seward Heat Loop Project https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/cold-water-warm-city/ 3/7 They Said Yes When first proposed in 2015, the Seward Heat Loop Project acquired $725,000 in grant funding from the Alaska Energy Authority. The design process continued through 2019, when the project stalled due to COVID-19, multiple changes in city managers, budgetary constraints, and necessary adjustments to the project’s concept and scope. In 2022, the City of Seward formed an ad hoc committee under the Port and Commerce Advisory Board (PACAB) composed of community volunteers to help find funding and develop a shovel-ready design. The PACAB Heat Loop Committee is one of five organizations that make up the Community Coalition Team involved with the development of this project. Additional members include the City of Seward, YCE, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC), a state-run industrial training school in Seward. Within six months of its formation, the Community Coalition Team won a highly competitive US Department of Energy (DOE) grant for $315,000. Out of fifty applicants, DOE selected only eleven projects for Phase 1 funding, which takes a project from concept to the point that it’s ready for construction. In September, the team will apply for $3.8 million in Phase 2 DOE funding for construction. In this round, the Seward Heat Loop Project will compete with ten other projects, of which three to six will be selected. “We are dedicated to bringing renewable energy to Seward,” says Mary Tougas of the PACAB Heat Loop Committee. “Andy’s design is such a genius idea. It’s such a simple concept that it makes you smack your head and ask, ‘Why didn’t we think of it sooner?’” The decision to heat only four city-owned buildings is mainly for funding purposes. Projects that benefit the public have a better chance to meet the grant criteria, so the team chose four public buildings in close proximity to one another with the most usage. Baker says making this project 100 percent public avoids inequities that could arise from creating a conventional heating district project. “This is a demonstration project that could be expanded at some point in the future if we are successful,” says Baker. The construction cost was estimated at $4.5 million when initially proposed in 2015. In 2022, the committee increased the cost estimate to $4.7 million for the DOE grant application. There are several reasons for the increase. Costs for materials and labor have gone up since the project started. Several add-ons, like heated sidewalks in front of the library, weren’t in the original proposal but are features community members would like included in the final project. Given all the factors, Baker hesitates to speculate on the construction cost without the final review of an estimator. Cold Water, Warm City: The Seward Heat Loop Project https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/cold-water-warm-city/ 4/7 “For DOE, it’s not just about the cost,” says Baker. “This is a new process, so installing it is more costly at first. It becomes more affordable as more people adopt it and we find ways to make it more scalable.” Cold Water, Warm City: The Seward Heat Loop Project https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/cold-water-warm-city/ 5/7 A Penny Saved… As the founder of YCE, Baker’s primary focus is developing alternative energy processes that decrease environmental impact. However, he is business savvy enough to know that a project isn’t going to succeed if it isn’t economically viable. According to the final design memorandum, heat pumps at the Alaska SeaLife Center have already proved beneficial. Even though the original heat pumps used the synthetic R-134a refrigerant, the system still reduced the center’s use of heating oil by 48,104 gallons, with a net CO2 emission reduction of 420,000 pounds and produced a financial net savings of $120,000. Since replacing the synthetic refrigerant with CO2, the SeaLife Center has produced net energy savings of $135,000 and reduced CO2 emissions by 1.3 million pounds. The memorandum also outlines the increasing cost of heating oil for the four buildings chosen for the Seward Heat Loop Project. In FY13, after the library was built, the total cost for heating all four buildings jumped to $67,605. In FY14, the price dropped slightly to $57,031 due to a global oil price crash. The library currently has an electric boiler installed as an alternative heating method; however, the oil-fired boiler is still a more cost-effective heating source. By using a ground-source CO2 heat pump system, the city estimates a 62 percent reduction in heating costs for the library compared to the existing electric boiler. For all four buildings, the reduced Cold Water, Warm City: The Seward Heat Loop Project https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/cold-water-warm-city/ 6/7 heating costs are estimated at around 52 percent compared to using existing heating boilers, at heating oil prices of $3.99 per gallon. “We have few cost-effective, environmentally friendly options to heat our buildings here in Seward,” says Tougas. “Other than heating fuel, we have electricity, firewood, and a small amount of propane. We don’t have natural gas.” Electricity from the primary grid still powers the heat pump system; however, the committee has identified solar panels as a clean energy source for this purpose. This add-on is not in the original proposal and depends on what DOE approves in the upcoming grant submission. “We have few cost-effective, environmentally friendly options to heat our buildings here in Seward… Other than heating fuel, we have electricity, firewood, and a small amount of propane. We don’t have natural gas.” Mary Tougas Recorder PACAB Heat Loop Committee Future Workforce for Future Technology Among a list of requirements, the Phase 1 DOE grant includes an allocation for workforce development. The PACAB committee used grant funds to purchase a SanCO2 residential heat pump, which employs the same carbon dioxide heat pump technology as the ones used in the proposed heat loop, for training purposes. Instructors from AVTEC are crafting a curriculum based on a recent intensive training and certification course with the system’s co-designer earlier this year. In a committee press release, AVTEC Director Cathy LeCompte expressed her excitement about the opportunity to weave this new training curriculum into the center’s existing program. AVTEC is a division of the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development that provides post-secondary workforce training that is flexible, accessible, affordable, and responsive to the dynamic needs of business and industry and serves Alaska’s diverse communities. AVTEC delivers training statewide in refrigeration, plumbing and heating, information technology, industrial electricity, construction technology, business and office Cold Water, Warm City: The Seward Heat Loop Project https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/cold-water-warm-city/ 7/7 technology, and more. A course in operating and maintaining the heat loop in Seward and future deployments will fit perfectly into AVTEC’s structure. As the Community Coalition Team works on the final requirements of the Phase 1 DOE grant, there is much optimism going into the Phase 2 application process. “The design system used in this demonstration project has the potential to benefit all coastal communities in Alaska,” says Tougas. “We look forward to the next stage and beyond.” Steady as She Flows: Government money pours into run-of-river hydro projects https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/steady-as-she-flows/ 1/10 Cold Water, Warm City The Seward Heat Loop Project By Rachael Kvapil The Seward Heat Loop Project is a unique alternative energy system firmly rooted in geothermal science, a concept that may sound like something out of science fiction. This innovative project, which has been in development for nearly a decade, combines tidal energy, gravel deposits, and thermal gradients to heat entire buildings. If successful, this demonstration project has the potential to revolutionize energy systems in other communities with similar natural resources. Go with the Flow In a nutshell, the Seward Heat Loop Project reduces the reliance on heating oil and electric heat in four city buildings by using a ground-source carbon dioxide (CO2) heat pump. Ground-source loops derive heat from a closed loop of vertical boreholes at Waterfront Park adjacent to Steady as She Flows: Government money pours into run-of-river hydro projects https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/steady-as-she-flows/ 2/10 Resurrection Bay. Tidal movements are key to providing an initial heat source: an influx of warm seawater from the Alaska Coastal Current flows into the bay each fall, then the North Pacific Gyre heats this current during a three-year circuit along the equator. Due to this influx, Resurrection Bay remains ice-free year-round. During winter months water temperatures can reach 50°F in November while the air temperature is 22°F, frequently causing steam. Andy Baker, founder and owner of YourCleanEnergy (YCE), is the designer who conceptualized the unique combination of heated water from Resurrection Bay with heat pump technology to heat an entire building. In 2012, Baker designed and installed a heat pump system using a synthetic refrigerant known as R-134a; however, Baker quickly replaced R-134a with CO2 to eliminate the synthetic refrigerant’s environmental impact. “Synthetic refrigerants contain PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] fluorination compounds that eventually leak from the heat pump circuit into the atmosphere,” says Baker. “By using CO2, we are preventing super greenhouse gases from rising into the air and ending up in the water.” Resurrection Bay already heats one building complex in Seward: the Alaska SeaLife Center. However, the Seward Heat Loop Project proposes a different configuration. The center pumps seawater directly from Resurrection Bay into a heat exchanger, but the Seward Heat Loop Project relies on the thermal mass of the seabed. Vertical loops will be inserted into 200 feet of gravel that is saturated by Resurrection Bay, resulting in a consistent temperatures of 45°F. A mixture of water and propylene glycol will be piped down the hole and back up to the surface, collecting tidal and groundwater heat along the way. The mixture is then piped to the heat pumps, which turn CO2 from a liquid into vapor. The vapor is then compressed to nearly 2,000 pounds per square inch, adding significantly more heat. The hot vapor circulates through a gas cooler that transfers much of its heat into a 100°F hydronic loop that is heated up to 194°F. The 194°F hydronic water leaving the heat pumps is blended into a large building loop that is kept at 140°F to 160°F and further distributed to Seward’s library, city hall, the city annex, and the fire hall. “Pumping seawater directly into the heat exchanger is high maintenance because saltwater is corrosive,” says Baker. “Using the tidal flush in deep gravel is a novel approach to heating buildings in coastal Alaska.” They Said Yes When first proposed in 2015, the Seward Heat Loop Project acquired $725,000 in grant funding from the Alaska Energy Authority. The design process continued through 2019, when the project stalled due to COVID-19, multiple changes in city managers, budgetary constraints, and necessary adjustments to the project’s concept and scope. In 2022, the City of Seward formed an ad hoc committee under the Port and Commerce Advisory Board (PACAB) composed of Steady as She Flows: Government money pours into run-of-river hydro projects https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/steady-as-she-flows/ 3/10 community volunteers to help find funding and develop a shovel-ready design. The PACAB Heat Loop Committee is one of five organizations that make up the Community Coalition Team involved with the development of this project. Additional members include the City of Seward, YCE, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and the Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC), a state-run industrial training school in Seward. Within six months of its formation, the Community Coalition Team won a highly competitive US Department of Energy (DOE) grant for $315,000. Out of fifty applicants, DOE selected only eleven projects for Phase 1 funding, which takes a project from concept to the point that it’s ready for construction. In September, the team will apply for $3.8 million in Phase 2 DOE funding for construction. In this round, the Seward Heat Loop Project will compete with ten other projects, of which three to six will be selected. “We are dedicated to bringing renewable energy to Seward,” says Mary Tougas of the PACAB Heat Loop Committee. “Andy’s design is such a genius idea. It’s such a simple concept that it makes you smack your head and ask, ‘Why didn’t we think of it sooner?’” The decision to heat only four city-owned buildings is mainly for funding purposes. Projects that benefit the public have a better chance to meet the grant criteria, so the team chose four public buildings in close proximity to one another with the most usage. Baker says making this project 100 percent public avoids inequities that could arise from creating a conventional heating district project. “This is a demonstration project that could be expanded at some point in the future if we are successful,” says Baker. The construction cost was estimated at $4.5 million when initially proposed in 2015. In 2022, the committee increased the cost estimate to $4.7 million for the DOE grant application. There are several reasons for the increase. Costs for materials and labor have gone up since the project started. Several add-ons, like heated sidewalks in front of the library, weren’t in the original proposal but are features community members would like included in the final project. Given all the factors, Baker hesitates to speculate on the construction cost without the final review of an estimator. “For DOE, it’s not just about the cost,” says Baker. “This is a new process, so installing it is more costly at first. It becomes more affordable as more people adopt it and we find ways to make it more scalable.” Steady as She Flows: Government money pours into run-of-river hydro projects https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/steady-as-she-flows/ 4/10 “I think we’re getting caught up, and a lot of people around the state are putting in a lot of hours to make sure that the state and its communities receive maximum funding.” Jacob Pomeranz, Senior Electrical Engineer, Electric Power Systems “This is something that has been tossed around for a while but never received funding,” says Pomeranz. “The state was teetering on it, everyone would get fired up and go back and forth, but ultimately it never happened.” Which is unfortunate, he explains, because hydropower projects typically possess a 100-year project life, whereas other plants—like natural gas, for example—are closer to twenty or thirty years. “So the hydro plant would pay for itself in the first thirty years, and then you’d have another seventy of making money,” he says, pointing to the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Plant near Homer as a good example of a hydroelectric project that paid off its debt and now serves as an economic driver. In many ways, the Susitna-Watana project can be seen as a microcosm of Alaska’s complicated relationship with renewable energy projects: financially, politically, and in technical execution. The private investment matching requirements in government grants often prove to be a stumbling block, or in some cases an outright barrier. Pomeranz recalls a recent grant that his team were encouraged to apply for, but the private investment match totaling a cool $100 million proved too costly. Access Infrastructure While there’s ample opportunity to tap into Alaska’s renewable energy resources, the infrastructure is lacking. Steady as She Flows: Government money pours into run-of-river hydro projects https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/steady-as-she-flows/ 5/10 “The biggest thing for Alaska in terms of our available renewable energy sources is that we don’t have the infrastructure there to connect them,” says Pomeranz. He points to the Rural Electrification Act of the ‘30s as an example of what government measures could be taken to address this. “As part of Roosevelt’s New Deal, they pumped tons of money into making sure that everybody in the United States had power. I mean, they had distribution lines in the Lower 48 that ran miles just to a single guy in a farm.” The Thayer Creek project reflects this reality all too well. A large portion of its funding will be allocated to the complex engineering and construction involved in accessing the creek situated seven miles from town and then transmitting electricity back to Angoon. “That’s why this is a $34 million project,” Wunrow says. “If it was just putting in the hydro, it would probably be closer to a $6 million project. Getting to the water and getting the power back to the community—that is the expense.” The fact that such a massive sum is being allocated to a town with a population smaller than your average American high school isn’t lost on Wunrow. However, he’s careful to note that Thayer Creek’s power production will far exceed Angoon’s current needs—by more than three times, according to DOE estimates—providing ample opportunity for future economic development and infrastructure upgrades. Steady as She Flows: Government money pours into run-of-river hydro projects https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/steady-as-she-flows/ 6/10 Shortcut to Energy One of the reasons Susitna-Watana was never executed, apart from its daunting scope, was concern about environmental damage from interrupting the flow of the fourth-longest undammed river in the country. Thayer Creek avoids that obstacle (almost literally), which helps explain why its construction is a cause for celebration. When Thayer Creek wraps construction in 2028, it’s expected to supply 99 percent of Angoon’s energy needs, displacing an estimated 120,000 gallons of diesel annually and providing its 400 residents with clean power and stable rates for years to come. That’s one environmental benefit, common to most hydropower. Better yet, unlike many other hydroelectric dams, Thayer Creek’s run-of-river design takes advantage of the creek’s natural elevation—often referred to as “head”—ensuring minimal impacts to Admiralty Island’s natural ecology. Instead of artificially elevating the creek level and harnessing power as gravity pulls the water downhill, the generator is placed at a bend in the river, where a shortcut channel taps part of the downstream flow. Steady as She Flows: Government money pours into run-of-river hydro projects https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/steady-as-she-flows/ 7/10 “Run-of-river is a really, really great way to generate hydro because the water gets diverted but it still flows,” Wunrow says. “And there’s all kinds of things that are engineered in to make sure that it doesn’t have an adverse effect on fish or marine life.” Wunrow says there were other creeks that may have been in contention, but none quite had that perfect combination of head, flow volume, and reflection of Kootznoowoo’s values as Thayer Creek. “It’s no coincidence that they [Angoon] decided on run-of-river. It’s part of a bigger stewardship mentality.” A Promise to Keep Thayer Creek’s journey to funding has been particularly unique, Wunrow admits. Back when the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) was being enacted, elders and community leaders from Angoon traveled to Washington, DC, to meet with congressional members and then-President Jimmy Carter. “Leaders of Angoon went to DC and said, ‘We love the idea of preserving the land we’ve been using for 10,000 years—but we want a couple of things in return,’” says Wunrow. One of those things, eventually included in ANILCA, was a single sentence that read: Kootznoowoo is granted the right to develop hydro power in the Admiralty Island National Monument. “And that’s all it says,” Wunrow says with a laugh. “There’s nothing about exactly where, or what that means. But the truth is that the leaders of Angoon at the time had enough foresight back then to say one of the things we want is low-cost, sustainable energy.” Fast forward a few decades, and it looks like Angoon’s leaders may finally have their wish. “Run-of-river is a really, really great way to generate hydro because the water gets diverted but it still flows… And there’s all kinds of things that are engineered in to make sure that it doesn’t have an adverse effect on fish or marine life.” Jon Wunrow, Director of Tourism and Natural Resources, Kootznoowoo Steady as She Flows: Government money pours into run-of-river hydro projects https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/steady-as-she-flows/ 8/10 With combined financial outlays from the DOE Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), the Alaska Energy Authority, the US Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, and two separate contributions from the Denali Commission—Thayer Creek has its green light. “This is a four-year project. There’s nothing that’s going to stop us from moving forward now,” says Wunrow, who is also the corporation’s tourism and natural resources director. Wunrow stressed the, in some instances, unlikely partnerships that Kootznoowoo cultivated along the way. “Historically, the Angoon Community Association have had a challenging relationship with the federal government in general, and the Forest Service specifically,” he explains. “The village is now surrounded by land that they no longer have any control over, and that’s been a challenge for the community to grapple with.” In this case, though, less so. “I say this to everybody I have a chance to: the US Forest Service have been 100 percent behind Thayer [Creek], and they have literally moved mountains to help us through the permitting process,” says an energized Wunrow, revealing how the US Forest Service helped save the project millions of dollars in timber cutting fees and other costs. Federal Spread Wunrow also recognizes the strategic legislative efforts from Senator Murkowski’s office. In the past, the Thayer Creek project couldn’t pursue other DOE funding opportunities because they explicitly prohibited hydro dams. “We couldn’t get around it. Even though we kept saying, ‘Run- of-river is different; it’s not what you think!’” he recalls. That situation changed thanks to the 2021 infrastructure law. Wunrow says, “This OCED funding that we got, I think there’s a couple of sentences written into that legislation that specifically targets run-of-river, remote rural Alaska—and that has everything to do with Senator Murkowski’s office.” The same announcement in March that Thayer Creek had been selected for DOE rural infrastructure money also spread some more around Alaska. Five projects split $125 million. The largest share, $54.8 million, goes to the Northwest Arctic region for solar, battery storage, and heat pumps, and $26.1 million goes to seven Interior villages for a similar setup. Two other run-of-river hydroelectric projects received funding as well. The Alutiiq Tribe of Old Harbor was allocated $10 million, and the Lake and Peninsula Borough was given $7.3 million for run-of-river hydro at Chignik Bay. Steady as She Flows: Government money pours into run-of-river hydro projects https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/steady-as-she-flows/ 9/10 Meanwhile, last year a study by Dillingham-based utility Nushagak Cooperative completed initial field studies for run-of-river hydro on the Nuyakak River, a tributary of the Nushagak in the world’s largest red salmon watershed. Work on that project continued this year with a public survey, to be published in December. Learning Quickly As Alaska continues to navigate its energy transition, it’s important to consider the broader context in which projects like these operate. Introduced in 1984, Power Cost Equalization (PCE) plays a major role in making energy affordable for rural Alaska communities. Historically, this state-funded program has subsidized the high cost of electricity by covering the difference between local energy costs and the average cost in urban centers. This subsidy is vital for economic viability of remote communities. However, integrating renewable projects such as Thayer Creek introduces a new dynamic. PCE subsidies are traditionally based on fuel usage, Pomeranz explains. Thus, as communities shift to renewable energy and reduce their reliance on diesel, the amount of PCE they receive would theoretically decrease. Steady as She Flows: Government money pours into run-of-river hydro projects https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/steady-as-she-flows/ 10/10 Independent power producers (IPPs) are a workaround solution. By creating IPPs, communities can sell power back to utilities at a reduced cost, effectively leveraging the benefits of renewable energy without reducing their PCE subsidies. IPPs ensure that the economic advantages of PCE are preserved while communities transition to more sustainable energy practices. Pomeranz stresses the importance of these partnerships, along with the creative measures Alaska’s energy leaders are taking to ensure its rural communities don’t get left behind. “Right now, if you want funding for a project, you need a group or partnership with multiple entities,” he says. “And what the government is really looking at is putting together projects that are a consortium of community members—including tribes, nonprofits, and utilities—to come together to create a sustainable energy future.” As with any landmark legislation—what US Representative Mary Peltola called a “once in a lifetime” opportunity for energy infrastructure—there’s always a learning curve. When asked about the time it took for the state to understand what was available and who was eligible, Pomeranz says, “I think we’re getting caught up, and a lot of people around the state are putting in a lot of hours to make sure that the state and its communities receive maximum funding.” Pomeranz and EPS have not yet played a role in the Thayer Creek project, but that may change when the engineering and construction aspects go out for bid in 2025. And if Wunrow’s experience is anything to go by, it’s not the worst way to put in the extra hours. “There are so many things I do with Kootznoowoo that are not as fun,” Wunrow says with a laugh. “But with this one, I know I can get on the phone—with the Forest Service or OCED or the mayor or whomever—[and] we’re all talking about the same thing and heading in the same direction. And that’s just rare.” Girding Up the Grid: Investments in Railbelt electricity transmission https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/girding-up-the-grid/ 1/6 James Pendleton | US Department of Agriculture The Railbelt has no redundancy. “If we have a power problem in Anchorage and the line to Fairbanks goes down, we don’t have a Plan B,” says Curtis W. Thayer, executive director of the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). Girding Up the Grid: Investments in Railbelt electricity transmission https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/girding-up-the-grid/ 2/6 In the past, natural disasters have forced parts of the electricity transmission grid from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks, a 700-mile corridor known as the Railbelt, to close. In 2019, a wildfire near Cooper Landing shut down part of the Sterling to Quartz Creek transmission line for four months in the summer. Not only were Chugach Electric Association (CEA) and Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) cut off from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project near Homer, forcing them to purchase more natural gas, but the water level at the dam overflowed, wasting energy. The ordeal cost Alaskan ratepayers more than $10 million. Last November, another section of that line was closed for around a week because of a snowstorm. It was fixed quickly, but the incident was a warning sign. “What happens if it was down for a month in the middle of winter? That would be very bad. This last winter we had this very bad cold snap, and we were using all the natural gas we can and using Bradley power as much as we can,” says Thayer, “but if that line was down, we would have had major problems; that’s 10 percent of our power needs.” The Railbelt grid also supplies power to five military bases, adding to the urgency for more reliability. Another problem is inefficiency due to the distance involved. Around 17 percent of power from Bradley Lake, the largest hydroelectric dam in the state, is reserved for Fairbanks. The miles of wire in between result in unavoidable “line loss.” Thayer says there are times of the year when one-fifth of the energy sent from Bradley Lake to Fairbanks just bleeds away into the air. These vulnerabilities have driven efforts to fortify the Railbelt grid, just as funding arrives to pay for the long-awaited improvements. Transmission Limits The Railbelt is the heart of Alaska’s energy grid. Feeding power to three-fourths of the state’s population, it is managed by AEA in cooperation with five regional power utilities: CEA, MEA, Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), Homer Electric Association, and City of Seward electric department. Although each entity is responsible for its own region, the Railbelt grid makes it easier to improve power generation, lower energy costs, and increase transmission capacity. But things are not perfect. “The transmission systems that make up the Railbelt were designed to meet the needs within each service area but have limited capacity to transmit power in several locations,” says Julie Hasquet, senior manager of corporate communications for CEA. “The result is congestion at these interties, which limits the transmission of power throughout the Railbelt.” Girding Up the Grid: Investments in Railbelt electricity transmission https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/girding-up-the-grid/ 3/6 Many of the transmission lines in the Railbelt are more than forty years old and need to be upgraded to meet current demand, according to Thayer. Also, a shortage of natural gas looms in the future. Historically, the Railbelt has relied on natural gas from Cook Inlet. In 2022, that fuel provided two-thirds of the energy used in the grid, according to a recent report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. However, that resource is declining, so utilities are looking for other resources. “A lot of wins for everyone involved in this, but at the end of the day, the ratepayers and the citizens on the Railbelt are going to benefit the most.” Curtis W. Thayer Executive Director Alaska Energy Authority Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project To address these issues, the Railbelt Innovation Resiliency project was devised as a multi- pronged strategy. One part aims to integrate high-voltage direct current (HVDC) submarine cables into the grid, parallel to existing lines carrying alternating current. These cables will run from the Kenai Peninsula, across Cook Inlet, and to the Beluga Power Plant, which services Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. As AEA explained to state legislators in April, HVDC across Cook Inlet will act as a redundant transmission system. AEA also wants to build one or two battery energy storage stations, one in Anchorage and one in Fairbanks. GVEA has pioneered utility-scale battery storage in Fairbanks, and a more modern technology is being tested in Soldotna. In June, the US Department of Agriculture awarded GVEA a $100 million loan for a lithium-ion system. Thanks to GVEA’s partnership with Doyon, Limited, the Alaska Native corporation for the Interior region, up to $60 million of the loan qualifies for forgiveness. Enhanced transmission and storage capacity outlined in the resiliency project would increase redundancy and security of the electric grid. As a bonus, upgrades would also simplify the integration of renewable energy into the Railbelt. Girding Up the Grid: Investments in Railbelt electricity transmission https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/girding-up-the-grid/ 4/6 “Expanding the capacity of these interties will allow for the lower-cost generation resources to be available to all customers on the Railbelt and will enable new utility-scale wind, solar, and hydroelectric renewable projects to be more cost effective for customers,” Hasquet says. “Renewable projects are built where the resources are located, and transmission must be built to bring that additional clean energy to consumers.” In addition to furthering long-term sustainability goals, Alaskans will see immediate benefits once the upgrade is complete. “The best part about that is if there’s an earthquake or a natural disaster or something, and that one line goes down, we’ve got that secondary line; we’ve still got power on,” Thayer says. Getting a GRIP If all that new energy infrastructure sounds expensive, it is. Luckily, the cost is being spread over a decade of installation, and some federal support is on the way. Last October, the US Department of Energy (DOE) distributed $3 billion across the country for the Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnership (GRIP). Alaska’s share is $206 million, to be administered by AEA for the Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project. “This is going to transform the Railbelt in Alaska,” says Thayer. The state would need to match that funding. While $206 million has not yet been set aside, the Railbelt upgrades will take around eight years to complete. And in the short term , the legislature set aside nearly $33 million for the Railbelt upgrades. “I’m optimistic that the State will match the grant funding,” says Representative Mary Peltola. “I’ve spoken to many legislators about this project, and they understand the gravity of affordable, reliable energy in the state. I understand our legislature has a lot of tough decisions about funding, but I’m going to continue to advocate for cheaper and more reliable energy on the Railbelt.” In its April presentation to the House Finance Committee, AEA projected that it will complete an environmental impact assessment and find a contractor by the end of 2027. That’s when the big spending will begin, according to Thayer. Girding Up the Grid: Investments in Railbelt electricity transmission https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/girding-up-the-grid/ 5/6 “The transmission systems that make up the Railbelt were designed to meet the needs within each service area but have limited capacity to transmit power in several locations… The result is congestion at these interties, which limits the transmission of power throughout the Railbelt.” Julie Hasquet Senior Manager of Corporate Communications Chugach Electric Association Energy Boost The actual construction of the upgrades is expected to start in 2030. Although the specific costs for each part of the Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project have not been hammered out, Thayer is confident that all parties involved will come to an agreement. “Considering we only got the award in October, and the legislation and the utilities were able to work together and bring almost $33 million to the table, I think you’ll see some sort of plan this year and next year to do that,” he says. “There’s a lot of support for it. Everybody understands the need for it.” Since DOE is matching what the state puts forward, Alaska should secure around $66 million when the grant agreement is done in the fall. Thayer believes that amount is more than enough to get started in the first year. The state expects 650 “highly paid jobs” while also establishing apprenticeship and internship programs during construction. “A lot of wins for everyone involved in this, but at the end of the day, the ratepayers and the citizens on the Railbelt are going to benefit the most,” Thayer says. For the one-quarter of Alaskans not plugged into the Railbelt grid, the project represents a statewide economic boost. “Whether you’re on the Railbelt or not, more energy supply means we all get more for less,” says Peltola. “For engineers, truckers, and workers, it means more jobs constructing an energy grid of the future.” Girding Up the Grid: Investments in Railbelt electricity transmission https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/august-2024/girding-up-the-grid/ 6/6 Completing the Circuit Strengthening the backbone of the Railbelt grid opens opportunities for its constituent utilities. MEA Chief Strategy Officer Julie Estey is already envisioning the possibilities. “We sit right in the center,” says Estey, “so we can buy and sell power between MEA and Chugach Electric pretty easily; we have some redundant transmission among us. But if we want to look at any projects on the Kenai or in the Interior, or if we want to do anything collaborative with Homer Electric or Golden Valley, we’re really limited in the current system in a couple different ways.” Those limits are primarily technological and administrative, according to Estey. The limitations include insufficient energy storage and transmission lines that are too small to move large amounts of electricity. “Right now, we have low transmission and storage capacity, meaning it’s not practical to build more energy production here,” says Peltola. “If a power plant makes more power than their surrounding area is consuming, that power can’t be stored, and it’s expensive to send it to the next community over. Those logistical challenges are stopping projects throughout the Railbelt.” The Railbelt grid was not built with interconnection in mind. Originally, the five different power utilities evolved to serve their local populations. “Because we all own our own small segment of the transmission line. It’s not necessarily operated as a whole,” Estey says. Over time, the regions grew bigger, and the populations became closer. A major step toward integration occurred in the ‘80s with the construction of the Alaska Intertie, a 170-mile transmission line between Willow and Healy. The more interconnected the grid is, and the more efficiently utilities can move electricity around, the less energy costs. In Mat-Su, energy costs $0.20 per kWh, and around $0.08, or 40 percent of that, is the cost of generating energy, according to Estey. As the grid becomes more integrated, and it is easier to access energy from other regions, that cost will decrease. Recognizing the advantages of cooperation, the utilities formed the Railbelt Reliability Council in 2022. The nonprofit gives each participant a voice in developing reliability and interconnection standards. The council is also a forum for joint planning, guiding the implementation of the Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project. The unified front helped convince DOE to award GRIP funding for the work to come. “The first and most important are the technical challenges, and that’s really what this GRIP is about,” Estey says. “That gets us a long way toward providing options as we look at our uncertain energy future.” Alaska Governor Signs Three Energy Bills to Boost Production, Sustainability https://www.youralaskalink.com/homepage/alaska-governor-signs-three-energy-bills-to-boost-production-sustainability/article_a7afb966-4f84-11ef-9cf4-9f05558d9d7e.html 1/2 Alaska Governor Signs Three Energy Bills to Boost Production, Sustainability Your Alaska Link Jul 31, 2024 Updated Aug 1, 2024 Governor Mike Dunleavy signed three bills into law in Anchorage to enhance energy production and sustainability in Alaska. Alaska's governor signed three bills into law Wednesday that would improve the production and use of energy in the last frontier. Governor Mike Dunleavy held the bill-signing ceremony in Anchorage. One of the new laws he signed allows the state to make money by storing carbon dioxide underground. According to the USGS, "Geologic carbon sequestration is the process of storing carbon dioxide (CO2) in underground geologic formations. The CO2 is usually pressurized until it becomes a liquid, and then it is injected into porous rock formations in geologic basins. This method of carbon storage is also sometimes a part of enhanced oil recovery, otherwise known as tertiary recovery, because it is typically used later in the life of a producing oil well. In enhanced oil Alaska Governor Signs Three Energy Bills to Boost Production, Sustainability https://www.youralaskalink.com/homepage/alaska-governor-signs-three-energy-bills-to-boost-production-sustainability/article_a7afb966-4f84-11ef-9cf4-9f05558d9d7e.html 2/2 recovery, the liquid CO2 is injected into the oil-bearing formation in order to reduce the viscosity of the oil and allow it to flow more easily to the oil well." The second bill would reduce the cost of moving electrical power along the Railbelt transmission system and would allow tax breaks for power plants. "The Alaska Railbelt is a 700-mile-long transmission corridor, built beside a vital rail line through Anchorage, north to Fairbanks, and south to the Kenai Peninsula. It is Alaska’s only intrastate transmission system and allows the co-ops and the city of Seward’s electrical system to share generation resources," according to the NRECA. The third bill focuses on making homes more energy efficient in Alaska and paying for sustainable energy development. "The urgency to ensure that Alaska has cheap, affordable energy is more important than it ever has been," said Dunleavy. The governor thanked state lawmakers for passing the bills in this last legislative session. Dunleavy signs three bills to address high energy costs and promote renewable power in Alaska https://www.adn.com/politics/2024/07/31/gov-dunleavy-signs-three-bills-to-address-high-energy-costs-and-promote-renewable-power-in-alaska/ 1/5 Dunleavy signs three bills to address high energy costs and promote renewable power in Alaska By Alex DeMarban Updated: July 31, 2024 Published: July 31, 2024 Wind turbines spin on Fire Island. (Loren Holmes / ADN) Gov. Mike Dunleavy signed three bills into law Wednesday to help address energy concerns in Alaska such as high costs and a lack of energy diversity. The bills won’t immediately resolve a looming shortage of natural gas from Cook Inlet, but they create important changes in the right direction, observers said. The bills are focused on helping the state tap into its energy sources to benefit Alaskans, including in areas such as wind, solar and geothermal power along with traditional fuels like natural gas, Dunleavy said. Dunleavy signs three bills to address high energy costs and promote renewable power in Alaska https://www.adn.com/politics/2024/07/31/gov-dunleavy-signs-three-bills-to-address-high-energy-costs-and-promote-renewable-power-in-alaska/ 2/5 The 8.5-megawatt Houston Solar Farm is comprised of 14,000 solar panels and sits on land that was burned during the devastating 1996 Miller's Reach Fire. (Loren Holmes / ADN ) The bills will also help set the stage for future initiatives, he said. “I think we all agree that we’re behind the eight ball, but this helps us catch up,” he said. “And I just would caution folks to get ready for this coming year because I think there’s gonna be a lot of good initiatives that will be discussed and hopefully get across the finish line.” The signing took place in Anchorage in the offices of the Alaska Energy Authority, a state entity tasked with reducing energy prices in Alaska. The state faces dire concerns about energy supply. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources expects natural gas from Cook Inlet to begin falling short by 2027. That’s expected to force utilities to import gas, leading to higher prices for electricity and heat. Enstar, the natural gas supplier in Southcentral Alaska, has said it’s working to resolve an estimated shortfall in its gas supply that could arise next year. Flanked by lawmakers and state officials, the governor signed: Dunleavy signs three bills to address high energy costs and promote renewable power in Alaska https://www.adn.com/politics/2024/07/31/gov-dunleavy-signs-three-bills-to-address-high-energy-costs-and-promote-renewable-power-in-alaska/ 3/5 House Bill 50: Creates a statutory framework that could allow, say, oil companies to store carbon dioxide in Alaska’s depleted oil and gas reservoirs. It’s designed to provide a revenue source for the state as companies lease the space as part of the fast-growing global carbon sequestration market. House Bill 273: Establishes a fund under the Alaska Housing Finance Corp. to assist with financing for the development of renewable energy projects. The fund would be intended to capture federal clean energy funding and offer loans for renewable energy projects such as residential solar power installations. House Bill 307: Establishes the integrated Railbelt electric transmission organization within the Alaska Energy Authority, an effort more than half a century in the making. The bill is designed to reduce power costs for ratepayers in the long term and integrate more renewable energy into the system. It phases out wheeling rates, which are fees charged by utilities to transmit power across their section of the grid. Backed by state lawmakers and state officials, Gov. Mike Dunleavy signed three energy bills into law on Wednesday, July 31, 2024, including House Bill 273 that establishes a fund to help finance sustainable energy projects at homes and businesses, such as solar power. (Alex DeMarban / ADN) Dunleavy signs three bills to address high energy costs and promote renewable power in Alaska https://www.adn.com/politics/2024/07/31/gov-dunleavy-signs-three-bills-to-address-high-energy-costs-and-promote-renewable-power-in-alaska/ 4/5 House Bill 307 will incentivize new energy development, Dunleavy said. Under the bill, renewable power producers would be exempt from municipal property and sales taxes on new projects. “House Bill 307 is one of the most important pieces of legislation affecting energy policy for the Railbelt in over 30 years,” said Curtis Thayer, head of the Alaska Energy Authority, who was also part of the signing ceremony. The bill will help the entity reduce the cost of energy for Alaskans, he said. The newly signed bills are a huge deal and will help the economy in a variety of ways, said state Sen. Cathy Giessel, an Anchorage Republican and co-chair of the Senate Resources Committee. They will not immediately resolve concerns about a future shortage of gas supply from Cook Inlet, said Giessel, who was part of the signing ceremony. But the carbon-capture bill could help resolve the shortage because it will allow the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority to provide loans to producers based on their reserves. That could potentially help small companies with limited financial resources pursue more gas production, she said. It also can help expand the availability of natural gas storage in Cook Inlet, she said. That could help ensure that more gas is available in winter when demand for heat and power soars. Concerns about those issues were highlighted in winter, when a severe cold streak boosted demand for gas and a critical gas storage facility in Cook Inlet struggled to deliver enough of the resource. Chris Rose, head of the Renewable Energy Alaska Project, said House Bill 307 will encourage more renewable-power producers to put their power on the Railbelt grid between Homer and the Fairbanks area. That can help conserve Cook Inlet natural gas, he said. Dunleavy signs three bills to address high energy costs and promote renewable power in Alaska https://www.adn.com/politics/2024/07/31/gov-dunleavy-signs-three-bills-to-address-high-energy-costs-and-promote-renewable-power-in-alaska/ 5/5 Solar panels cover the roof of the Egan Civic and Convention Center in downtown Anchorage. (Loren Holmes / ADN) Also, the fund under the Alaska Housing Finance Corp. will help provide affordable loans for Alaskans to help make their homes and businesses more energy efficient, he said. Widespread use of rooftop solar could provide a tremendous amount of summer electricity, reducing pressure for more natural gas, he said. The bills “are a step forward, but there’s more to do,” he said. The Legislature needs to establish a renewable portfolio standard to ensure that utilities provide a certain amount of renewable power, he said. “We still need a requirement that the Railbelt utilities increase the percentage of renewable energy that they’re generating,” he said. “They talk a lot about adding renewables, but the fact is we’re still about 80 to 85% relying on natural gas, which is going to get way more expensive in a few years.” https://www.frontiersman.com/news/governor-signs-alaska-energy-bills/article_cd957db0-4f92-11ef-b250- 3 1ef3646 .html Governor signs Alaska energy bills By Katie Stavick Frontiersman.com Jul 31, 2024 "The bills I signed today will both help individual Alaskans secure more a ordable and reliable energy," said Governor Mike Dunleavy a er signing HB 50, HB 273, and HB 307 on July 31, 2024. Courtesy of the governor's o ce On July 31, Governor Mike Dunleavy signed three energy bills into law while in Anchorage. "Energy is the lynchpin of modern society," said Governor Dunleavy. "The bills I signed today will both help individual Alaskans secure more a ordable and reliable energy, and allow the State of Alaska to further develop its natural resources for the bene t of the people." First is HB 50, which creates a regulatory framework for the State of Alaska to utilize its geologic resources for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). By creating the regulatory framework necessary for operation, HB 50 will enable the State to attract investment in CCUS and authorizes the State to charge operators for the use of public lands for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. Together with SB 48, which Governor Dunleavy introduced concurrently with HB 50 and signed into law in May 2023, Governor Dunleavy's carbon legislation is a milestone for the State, allowing Alaska to bene t from participating in global carbon markets. The legislation creates new sources of revenue to the state—half of which will be directed toward the permanent fund for future generations, and upholds Alaska's constitutional mandate to utilize and develop Alaska's resources for the maximum bene t of the people of Alaska. “Governor Dunleavy signing House Bill 50 today represents an important step forward for Alaska, ensuring that we continue to be open for business,” said John Boyle, Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. “Underground storage of CO2 complements Alaska’s existing oil and gas industry through enhanced oil recovery and enabling another voluntary pathway for companies within Alaska to meet their own carbon management goals, while DNR has the opportunity to maximize the value of a previously undeveloped state resource for the bene t of all Alaskans.” The bill also expands the Regulatory Commission of Alaska's jurisdiction to include natural gas and LNG storage, including facilities operated by a pipeline carrier. It modernizes geothermal resources statutes, aligning them with Alaska's oil and gas statutes. It also establishes reserve- based lending at the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, allowing AIDEA to make loans for oil and gas projects needed to increase Cook Inlet production. Next is HB 307, Integrated Transmission Systems, which prioritizes the reliability, stability, and cost to consumers for power along the interconnected Railbelt utilities and eliminates wheeling rates along the Railbelt. This bill eliminates wheeling rates on Alaska's Railbelt, allowing the lowest cost power to be distributed throughout the grid. It creates a Railbelt Transmission Organization within the Alaska Energy Authority to establish a transmission cost recovery mechanism to ensure nondiscriminatory open access to the Railbelt transmission system. It also incentivizes new energy development by extending tax-exempt statutes to independent power producers. “House Bill 307 is one of the most important pieces of legislation a ecting energy policy for the Railbelt in over 30 years,” said Alaska Energy Authority Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer. “The Governor set out clear expectations for AEA and the Railbelt utilities. Through our joint e orts, we have made transformative changes to the Railbelt in terms of funding, upgrades, and preparing for the future that have not been achieved since statehood.” He also said that this new legislation will change how AEA operates, enhancing AEA’s ability to meet its mission of reducing the cost of energy for Alaskans, and demonstrates our collective commitment to increasing reliability, resiliency, and redundancy.” Finally, HB 273 establishes the Alaska Energy Independence Fund as a subsidiary of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. It will assist in nancing sustainable energy development. The legislation unlocks tens of millions of Federal dollars from the In ation Reduction Act and will help Alaskans compete for funding opportunities to improve the energy pro le of their homes and businesses. “When the State of Alaska faces challenges, our team is ready to do what’s necessary,” said Bryan Butcher, CEO/executive director of Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. “Leveraging the tens of millions of federal funding in energy e cient technologies will be the aim of our new subsidiary whose work will be informed by the nearly $1 billion that the state and federal government have invested in residential energy e ciency at AHFC over the last 20 years.” Butcher added, “The genesis of House Bill 273 re ected the commitment from Governor Dunleavy to create new housing. It shouldn’t be overlooked that this legislation will provide meaningful opportunities for homebuyers whose down payment will decrease by as much as $10,000 in some markets at today’s interest rates. Coupled with the new construction rebate that the Governor supported in the capital budget, he and the Legislature are investing in AHFC’s core competency – providing Alaskans with access to safe, quality, a ordable housing.” Governor Dunleavy Signs Four Bills from Interior Legislators into Law https://gov.alaska.gov/governor-mike-dunleavy-signs-alaska-energy-bills/ 1/3 Governor Mike Dunleavy Signs Alaska Energy Bills July 31, 2024 Today in Anchorage Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy signed three energy bills into law. HB 50 creates a regulatory framework for the State of Alaska to utilize its geologic resources for carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS). HB 307 prioritizes the reliability, stability, and cost to consumers for power along the interconnected Railbelt utilities and eliminates wheeling rates along the Railbelt. HB 273 establishes the Alaska Energy Independence Fund as a subsidiary of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. It will assist in financing sustainable energy development. “Energy is the lynchpin of modern society,” said Governor Mike Dunleavy . “The bills I signed today will both help individual Alaskans secure more affordable and reliable energy, and allow the State of Alaska to further develop its natural resources for the benefit of the people.” HB 50: Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage By creating the regulatory framework necessary for operation, HB 50 will enable the State to attract investment in CCUS and authorizes the State to charge operators for the use of public lands for geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide. Together with SB 48, which Governor Dunleavy introduced concurrently with HB 50 and signed into law in May 2023, Governor Dunleavy’s carbon legislation is a milestone for the State, allowing Alaska to benefit from participating in global carbon markets. The legislation creates new sources of revenue to the state —half of which will be directed toward the permanent fund for future generations, and upholds Alaska’s constitutional mandate to utilize and develop Alaska’s resources for the maximum benefit of the people of Alaska. “Governor Dunleavy signing House Bill 50 today represents an important step forward for Alaska, ensuring that we continue to be open for business,” said John Boyle, Commissioner o f the Alaska Department of Natural Resources . “Underground storage of CO2 complements Alaska’s existing oil and gas industry through enhanced oil recovery and enabling another voluntary pathway for companies within Alaska to meet their own carbon managemen t goals, while DNR has the opportunity to maximize the value of a previously undeveloped state resource for the benefit of all Alaskans.” Governor Dunleavy Signs Four Bills from Interior Legislators into Law https://gov.alaska.gov/governor-mike-dunleavy-signs-alaska-energy-bills/ 2/3 HB 50 also expands the Regulatory Commission of Alaska’s jurisdiction to include natural gas and LNG storage, includi ng facilities operated by a pipeline carrier. It modernizes geothermal resources statutes, aligning them with Alaska’s oil and gas statutes. It also establishes reserve -based lending at the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, allowing AIDEA to make loans for oil and gas projects needed to increase Cook Inlet production. HB 307: Integrated Transmission Systems HB 307 eliminates wheeling rates on Alaska’s Railbelt, allowing the lowest cost power to be distributed throughout the grid. It crea tes a Railbelt Transmission Organization within the Alaska Energy Authority to establish a transmission cost recovery mechanism to ensures nondiscriminatory open access to the Railbelt transmission system. HB 307 also incentivizes new energy development b y extending tax-exempt statutes to independent power producers. “House Bill 307 is one of the most important pieces of legislation affecting energy policy for the Railbelt in over 30 years,” said Alaska Energy Authority Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer. “The Governor set out clear expectations for AEA and the Railbelt utilities. Through our joint efforts, we have made transformative changes to the Railbelt in terms of funding, upgrades, and preparing for the future that have not been achieved since stat ehood. This new law also fundamentally changes how AEA operates. It enhances AEA’s ability to meet its mission of reducing the cost of energy for Alaskans, and demonstrates our collective commitment to increasing reliability, resiliency, and redundancy.” HB 273: Alaska Energy Independence Fund HB 273 creates the Alaska Energy Independence Fund as a subsidiary of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to assist in financing sustainable energy development. The legislation unlocks tens of millions of Federa l dollars from the Inflation Reduction Act. The creation of this subsidiary will help Alaskans compete for historic funding opportunities to improve the energy profile of their homes and businesses. “When the State of Alaska faces challenges, our team is ready to do what’s necessary,” said Bryan Butcher, CEO/executive director of Alaska Housing Finance Corporation . “Leveraging the tens of millions of federal funding in energy efficient technologies will be the aim of our new subsidiary whose work will be i nformed by the nearly $1 billion that the state and federal government have invested in residential energy efficiency at AHFC over the last 20 years.” Governor Dunleavy Signs Four Bills from Interior Legislators into Law https://gov.alaska.gov/governor-mike-dunleavy-signs-alaska-energy-bills/ 3/3 The bill also enhances AHFC’s financial positioning by authorizing the Corporation to purchase loans with Loan-to-Value (LTV) as determined by its board of directors. Removing the existing statutory restriction that caps AHFC’s LTV at 95% will allow AHFC’s board of directors to respond to consumer needs and changing market conditions while continuing to adhere to the corporation’s fiscally responsible underwriting guidelines. Butcher added, “The genesis of House Bill 273 reflected the commitment from Governor Dunleavy to create new housing. It shouldn’t be overlooked that this legislation will provide mea ningful opportunities for homebuyers whose down payment will decrease by as much as $10,000 in some markets at today’s interest rates. Coupled with the new construction rebate that the Governor supported in the capital budget, he and the Legislature are investing in AHFC’s core competency – providing Alaskans with access to safe, quality, affordable housing.” Governor Dunleavy signs HB 50, HB 307, and HB 273 on July 31, 2024. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 1/23 Grant County, one of the nation’s largest potato producers, has transformed into a hub for data centers, including this Microsoft facility in Quincy, with its many backup diesel generators. Data centers, the internet’s backbone, are expected to grow with artificial intelligence. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) By Lulu Ramadan and Sydney Brownstone The Seattle Times & ProPublica First in a Seattle Times and ProPublica series about the impact of data centers in Washington. This article was produced for ProPublica’s Local Reporting Network in partnership with The Seattle Times. In a vast stretch of Central Washington’s high desert, the farms and small towns of Grant County sit on nothing short of a gold mine. Grant County’s utility district owns two public dams on the colossal Columbia River that are capable of powering more than 1.5 million homes. For decades, this sparsely populated county had enough clean hydroelectricity to meet its own power needs and sell the excess at a low cost across the Northwest. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 2/23 Enormous high-voltage power lines stretch across the Columbia River at Wanapum Dam, one of two major sources of hydroelectricity for the Central Washington farming community of Grant County. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times ) Grant County Public Utility District Commissioner Nelson Cox, a farmer, rattled some data center operators last fall after he suggested doubling the industry’s power rates. His comment was only meant to “shock and awe,” Cox later said. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 3/23 Then wealthy companies, catering to the insatiable demands of our digital world, arrived in the county. Attracted by the cheap electricity, they built power-guzzling data centers — the warehouses filled with computer servers that back the modern internet. Local officials welcomed the industry’s economic potential. But with demand soaring and the power from dams finite, Grant County has been forced to look to other sources of energy. The problem is so acute that the county is headed for a daunting choice in the next six years: violate a state green energy law limiting the use of fossil fuels or risk rolling blackouts in homes, factories and hospitals. At least three utilities in other Washington counties are similarly contending with the voracious demands of data centers. State lawmakers set the stage for this reckoning. In 2019, the Legislature passed a measure to make Washington’s utilities carbon-neutral by 2030. At the same time, in the name of bringing jobs to rural areas, lawmakers encouraged the explosive growth of the data center industry through a massive tax break. Remarkably, Washington in recent years has gotten a smaller share of its electricity from renewable sources than it did two decades ago, according to the most recent state data. That’s despite the fact the state produces a quarter of the nation’s hydropower. “Our existing hydro system is pretty much tapped out,” said Randall Hardy, an energy consultant and former administrator of Bonneville Power Administration, the federal agency that owns Washington’s largest dam. “So you’ve got a dilemma of how you’ll meet this additional load from data centers with clean resources or, frankly, with any resources.” Artificial intelligence, which requires extraordinary computing power, is accelerating the need to build data centers across the world, and experts say the industry’s global energy consumption as of just two years ago could double by 2026. Data centers also are relied upon every day by businesses and people for internet searches, storing photos on the cloud and streaming videos. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 4/23 Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 5/23 Some states and counties with large data center markets have tried to craft policies to mitigate the impact. For example, Virginia, home to the nation’s largest market for data centers, has contemplated making them improve energy efficiency and use more green power to qualify for tax breaks. Lawmakers recently ordered an assessment of the industry’s impact on power supply. Georgia lawmakers went further, passing a bill — ultimately vetoed by the governor — to suspend its tax breaks for data centers while officials completed a study on power impacts. Meanwhile, Washington undermined an effort to study data centers’ power usage. In 2022, Gov. Jay Inslee, one of the nation’s biggest champions of green energy, vetoed a plan — tucked into legislation that expanded the tax break — to understand how much power data centers consume. His office defended the veto, saying a study would be duplicative of work underway. Although regional power planners produced wide-ranging forecasts about data centers’ power use, no one has tracked their rapidly growing energy demands in Washington specifically or the impact of the state’s tax break on its power grid, The Seattle Times and ProPublica found. In a statement, Inslee’s office said the industry is not driving power problems statewide. When asked whether the state should study data center power usage, given its growth, Anna Lising, Inslee’s top energy policy adviser, said there’s no need. “I’m not concerned because we haven’t had resource adequacy issues or service issues as a result of it,” Lising said. LEFT: Grant County’s public utility district runs power generators inside Priest Rapids Dam in Mattawa. RIGHT: A central control room directs 10 turbines connected to Priest Rapids Dam’s generators. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) Inslee’s office said he is aware of the need to bring more renewable energy online, and the state is working on it. The statement said Inslee supports the state tax break but would be “open to considering changes.” He declined to be interviewed. As temperatures rise and Washington phases out fossil fuels, the need for more clean energy to meet everyone’s power demands becomes increasingly critical. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 6/23 “You get into this question of equity,” said Kevin Schneider, a senior research fellow at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy research facility. “Should people be sitting in overheating houses in order to supply the servers for AI?” This very dynamic has placed counties like Grant, despite their abundance of clean energy, in the difficult position of finding enough electricity to feed this power-hungry industry. Conversations about potentially costly growth have created rifts between generational farmers and the county’s ever-expanding tech sector, which also has many local supporters. State Rep. Alex Ybarra, a Republican lawmaker whose district includes most of Grant County, said he believes it’s necessary for the data center industry to continue to grow and considers the state’s climate deadlines unrealistic. “Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater,” Ybarra said about phasing out fossil fuels on the state’s timeline. “If you want to get rid of natural gas, replace it with something before you change it all out. Because if not, we’ll be stuck.” In Quincy, it is not uncommon to find large data center warehouses, with several backup generators, surrounded by farmland and homes. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 7/23 “Power to the People” Before the 1930s, most of Grant County had no electricity. Private utilities refused to serve rural areas like Grant County, tucked between the rugged Cascades and the sun-baked foothills of the Palouse. Frustrated locals banded together to create their own public utility amid a national push for rural electrification often called “Power to the People.” By the 1950s, the public utility used a federal loan and long-term contracts with utilities west of the Cascades to build one, then two, locally owned hydropower dams. Cheap hydro and the expansion of power lines allowed farmers to install electric irrigation pumps and transform the county from an expanse of desert brush and cheatgrass into one of the nation’s leading potato producers. A farmer works land in Quincy with a data center and electrical substation in the background. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) Cheap electricity — among the lowest rates in the country — also drew the burgeoning internet industry to the area. Microsoft and Yahoo in 2006 were among the first to break ground in Central Washington. In 2010, Washington lawmakers, hoping to spur economic growth east of the Cascades, began giving data centers a sales tax break on computer equipment, typically replaced every three to five years, and on their installation. For some companies, that amounted to millions of dollars in savings over time. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 8/23 Washington eventually became home to at least 87 data centers, according to the industry tracking website Baxtel as of July. Washington is among the top 10 largest data center markets by state, according to Baxtel. In Grant County, data centers grew to consume more power than any other category of ratepayer, including other industrial customers, residents, farm irrigation, local food processors and commercial businesses, according to utility officials. Data centers in 2022 accounted for nearly 40% of total demand, or about as much as 190,000 U.S. households, according to utility and state data. The increased demand made relying on the county’s traditional source of electricity, the dams, risky, Grant County utility officials said. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 9/23 Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 10/23 So the local utility launched a new arrangement. It signed contracts with big companies that trade in energy, including Shell and Morgan Stanley, agreeing to exchange most of its hydropower for a steady supply of electricity generated by other, “unspecified” sources of energy. Unspecified power comes from the open energy market, where utilities buy available electricity from a mix of fuels. The sources are usually carbon-emitting fuels like natural gas, according to experts. While the county as a whole grew far more reliant on unspecified power sources, some data centers in Grant County, including Microsoft’s, secured specialized contracts with the county’s utility for guaranteed access to hydroelectricity, enabling them to bank the renewable energy toward their own climate goals. In rural Quincy, in Central Washington, agricultural producers and related industries are joined by a data center, in the background. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) Right now, Grant County can produce or import enough power to meet its needs. But the county is experiencing an “energy crunch,” according to internal utility documents. By 2025, swapping out hydro for other sources of power will no longer be enough, according to utility officials and documents. The county will be forced to pay out of pocket for contracts with other power suppliers, build its own new sources of generation or consistently buy power on the open market. That’s risky when demand is high and utilities across the West are searching for energy. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 11/23 Utility officials have been reluctant to blame the dilemma exclusively on the data center industry, which county leaders would like to keep growing in hopes of more jobs and property tax revenue. But an analysis of electricity data by The Times and ProPublica shows the county’s growth in power demand from 2007 to 2022 roughly equaled the demand now attributable to data centers. Grant County surveyed residents about the energy crunch last year, hoping to gauge how familiar they were with the county’s need to quickly secure power. The survey produced some shocked responses from ratepayers who said they hadn’t realized how quickly demand was climbing, according to utility documents. “2025 seems pretty darn soon — that we’d be there that quickly. I knew we were growing and had increased demand for power, I just had no idea it would be that soon,” one customer replied during survey interviews. It will only get harder by 2030, when Washington’s climate laws require utilities to drastically curtail the amount of fuel coming from unspecified sources. At a meeting of the Grant County Public Utility District commission last fall, Ty Ehrman, left, chief customer officer at Grant PUD, speaks with Chuck Sutton, center left, from REC Silicon; Ryan Beebout, an executive with Sabey; and Matthew Kozma, right, associate director from NTT DATA. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times Ty Ehrman, a senior manager at Grant County Public Utility District, worries it will be impossible to generate enough clean electricity fast enough to meet state mandates. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 12/23 “You’ve really got to kind of start to wonder if we’re going to end up in a place where we end up with rolling blackouts or unintended outages because we haven’t had the full generation capacity to meet it from the green side,” Ehrman said. Data centers in neighboring Douglas County, which include cryptomining facilities, used about 39% of the county’s electricity in 2022, according to utility and state data obtained by The Times and ProPublica. In Seattle, which has several data centers that are much smaller than Grant County’s giant warehouses, the industry used at least 10% of the city’s power in 2022 — enough electricity for roughly 90,000 homes. The amount of power used by data centers grew fivefold since 2016, the earliest year of available data from Seattle City Light, the municipal utility. Wanapum Dam on the Columbia River is capable of generating nearly 1,200 average megawatts, or enough power for more than 950,000 U.S. homes. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) Dirty energy The energy predicament that places like Grant County are facing was far from the spotlight one sunny afternoon in May 2019, when Inslee stood in a Seattle park to sign legislation cementing Washington’s top spot among climate-conscious states. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 13/23 Inslee, who co-authored a book in 2007 calling for bold action against climate change and ran for president on climate issues, declared Washington would lead the nation by eliminating carbon- emitting energy sources. “We aren’t done,” Inslee said. “Our success this year is just a harbinger of successes to come. But we’re ready. We can do this.” Gov. Jay Inslee shakes the hand of then-Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan after signing landmark bills in 2019 to wean Washington off fossil fuels. Rising demand from data centers could affect the state’s clean energy plans. (Bettina Hansen / The Seattle Times) The Clean Energy Transformation Act calls for Washington’s utilities to become greenhouse gas “neutral” by 2030 and to have 100% renewable or non-carbon-emitting power by 2045. Washington was poised to struggle with this target because of the nature of renewable energy. Hydropower is a finite resource without building new dams — a hard sell because of the impact on endangered salmon. With current technologies, the availability of solar and wind power depends on weather conditions. The state has added miles and miles of wind turbines and solar farms to its grid in recent years, making up about 9% of its fuel mix in 2022, and is mandating more energy-efficient buildings in the name of power conservation. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 14/23 Wanapum Dam, on the Columbia River, is owned by Grant County Public Utility District. Dams in Washington, including those owned by the federal government, produce about a quarter of the nation’s hydropower (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) But those efforts compete against growing demand not just from data centers but also from the ongoing transition away from gas-powered vehicles, appliances and industries. Decisions like Grant County’s to exchange dam-generated power for unspecified sources have also reduced the amount of hydro in the state’s energy mix. The net result: The share of hydropower in Washington’s electricity supply fell from an annual average of two-thirds in the early 2000s to just 55% in the five years leading up to 2022, the latest year with data. The share for all renewables fell from 67% to 61%. Meanwhile, Washington’s reliance on natural gas and unspecified fuels has increased, accounting for about a quarter of the state’s electricity on average from 2018 through 2022. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 15/23 The dependence on unspecified fuel became the most pronounced in two Central Washington counties with major data center markets, state data shows. In Grant County, because it sold hydro in exchange for energy from other fuels, more than 80% of electricity came from unspecified sources in 2022. Douglas County also has experienced rapid growth in data centers, and it had a dramatic drop in its percentage of hydropower. Microsoft, which built data centers in both counties partly because of hydropower, also understands the limits of this energy source and is “not going to push something until a break,” said Noelle Walsh, who leads the team responsible for the company’s data center operations. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 16/23 The company has committed to eliminate its carbon emissions by 2030 and recently expanded data center operations in Arizona partly due to constraints on the availability of renewable energy in Washington, Walsh said. Microsoft operates one of the largest data centers in Quincy, Grant County. The nondescript campus houses giant warehouses and diesel-powered backup generators. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) The possibility that data centers would make it harder to phase out fossil fuels rarely came up when lawmakers created and then expanded the tax break that encouraged data center development since 2010. Reuven Carlyle, a former lawmaker who spearheaded Washington’s clean energy law, said, in hindsight, the cumulative impact has become clear. “The aggregation of demand today — now that is a serious concern,” he said. The concern finally came onto the Legislature’s radar in 2022, when lawmakers took up the latest proposed expansion of the tax break. They voted to authorize up to $400,000 to study data center power usage in Washington. “We wanted answers about this industry that we were about to unleash successfully in our state again,” said Rep. April Berg, D-Mill Creek, who sponsored the legislation. She and other Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 17/23 lawmakers had heard “anecdotally” about data center power usage but wanted more details, she said. “A study could have come back and said, ‘Here are all the potential issues.’” Inslee, the leading champion of clean energy goals, stood in the way of doing so in Washington. He vetoed the provision calling for an energy study — one of just 18 full or partial vetoes out of more than 300 bills that crossed his desk that year. Inslee’s office justified it by saying the Northwest Power and Conservation Council was already doing the work that was needed. The council does release regional power-use forecasts, including for the data center industry based on limited publicly available information and utility trends. Grant County’s public utility district directs 10 turbines connected to generators inside Priest Rapids Dam in Mattawa from a central control room. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times ) But the provision that Inslee vetoed was intended to provide answers that the council has not, its sponsors said: information specific to Washington’s data center industry and how the state’s tax incentives impact the power grid. The bill also included language designed to ensure the research wasn’t duplicative of the council’s work. The council’s forecasts for data centers this year were wide-ranging, where lawmakers had hoped for more precise data to inform future policy decisions. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 18/23 Sen. Matt Boehnke, who co-wrote the study provision, said he was shocked and frustrated by Inslee’s veto of a provision approved with bipartisan support. Lawmakers had been in touch with the governor’s office while writing the bill, he said. “Why veto it last-minute? Why not work with us to amend it?” said Boehnke, a Richland Republican. When asked about the impact of data centers on the ability of utilities to meet Washington’s clean energy mandate, Inslee’s office said that the increased use of unspecified power is driven by Grant and Douglas counties. Both have large data center markets. Sunrise in Quincy, Grant County, where agricultural facilities meet transmission lines. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) Inslee’s office said in its statement that Grant County’s choice to swap hydro for energy from unspecified fuel sources was “a business decision” by the utility and that it is still responsible for complying with the state’s green energy law. Asked to comment on the governor’s office’s position, officials in Grant County said they made choices they felt were necessary to keep the lights on. While Washington lawmakers didn’t get the study of state power use they authorized, the numbers for the region as a whole are eye-popping. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 19/23 The power and conservation council predicted this month that by 2029, data centers in the Northwest could grow to use more electricity than the average annual consumption of Puget Sound Energy, the region’s largest utility with more than 1.2 million residential, commercial and industrial customers. That’s a middle-of-the-road estimate. On the high end, the council estimated that power-guzzling data centers could push the grid past its limits in just five years. “The power demand from data centers,” said Hardy, the former Bonneville Power Administration official, “combined with other growing demands, and with that transition from fossil fuels to renewables, will inevitably lead to big rate increases.” Farmer John Stahl, center right, speaks at a Grant County Public Utility District meeting in Ephrata in November last year. Commissioners and attendees discussed raising power rates. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times ) Unease in Grant County In Grant County, the rise of data centers has created a sense of unease for some residents. In October, rumors about major rate hikes targeting Grant County’s data centers started to spread after utility Commissioner Nelson Cox said he supported doubling their rates. The utility wasn’t considering such a proposal — the comment was meant to “shock and awe” and spark conversation, Cox later said — but data center lobbyists and executives rallied. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 20/23 “If we are to have any chance of stopping this, WE NEED TO PACK THE COMMISSION ROOM ON TUESDAY 10/24,” read an email from Ryan Beebout, a vice president at Sabey, a Seattle-based company that owns data centers across the state. The email, obtained by The Times and ProPublica through a public records request to the utility, went out to a coalition of Central Washington data centers that included executives at Microsoft and Yahoo. Beebout and Sabey did not respond to requests for comment. Representatives from data center companies filled the commission chambers for the October meeting and pushed back against rate hikes for industrial customers. Grant County Public Utility District Commission President Nelson Cox, a farmer, rattled some data center operators last fall after he suggested doubling the industry’s power rates. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) Cox cut in. The timing of this entire discussion wasn’t right, the utility commissioner said, noting that it was the middle of harvest season, when farmers couldn’t take time to show up. He encouraged representatives from agriculture and tech to attend a November meeting. Come November, the commission chambers of the Grant County Public Utility District were as crowded as longtime employees had ever seen them. Half the room wore dirt-covered work boots and flannel shirts; the other half wore loafers and pressed button-downs. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 21/23 Grant County needed to raise power rates, commissioners said. How the utility would implement the increases turned into a debate over identity, pitting farmers against tech workers. The leading proposals that were on the table would hit farmers harder than data centers. Murray Van Dyke tends to his family alfalfa farm in Quincy. Van Dyke, who spoke at a public meeting about power rates, worries rate hikes will affect his and others’ ability to continue farming in the area. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) Murray Van Dyke, a hay and alfalfa farmer in his 70s, stood up and asked to speak. The need to build costly new infrastructure, a key factor behind talk of rate hikes, was driven by “one area of our town that uses a lot of power,” Van Dyke said, a reference to data centers. Van Dyke and other farmers shared concerns about being asked to bear the costs. “We’re just trying to be fair,” he later told The Times and ProPublica. As local utilities like the one in Grant County grapple with the impact data centers are having on the electrical grid, one influential Washington lawmaker is rethinking whether the state should promote the industry’s growth through tax breaks. Sen. Jamie Pedersen, D-Seattle, the majority floor leader, voted in favor of the data center tax break in 2022. But given the state’s goals for electrification and moving away from carbon, he said he doesn’t find the industry’s economic development promises as compelling as he once did. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 22/23 “It doesn’t any longer seem like it’s a great idea to put a bunch of super energy-hungry data centers in the middle of the state using a lot of our clean electricity,” Pedersen said. Transmission lines that carry power across the Columbia River Basin run along a highway and agricultural grounds near Vantage. (Karen Ducey / The Seattle Times) More information About the data The Washington Department of Commerce collects from public and private utilities annual data tracking the fuel used to deliver electricity to their customers. The data — available for 2000 through 2022 — breaks down a utility’s fuel mix into categories that include hydropower, natural gas and nuclear energy. Some electricity falls into the category “unspecified,” used for power purchased from an open market across the region. The power is untraceable as it is made up of a mix of available fuels. Experts say that most of that fuel is typically natural gas. Before 2018, Washington officials used an industry formula to break down how much unspecified fuel came from each of the named categories of fuel sources. The state abandoned the effort because the formula wasn’t necessarily an accurate way to attribute fuel sources, said Glenn Blackmon, Washington’s energy policy manager. Data centers guzzle power, threatening WA’s clean energy push https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how-the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ 23/23 Coincidentally, local data from Grant County shows 2018 was also a year when its use of unspecified power jumped after signing additional contracts to sell most of its hydro supply. The numbers indicate that the growth statewide that year was not merely attributable to Washington’s change in accounting methods. Increases in unspecified power use by Chelan and Douglas counties came well after the accounting change. Because water levels fluctuate from year to year, the amount of hydropower generated in Washington varies. Blackmon said it’s best to compare 2016 and 2022, the recent period when water levels were most stable. The share of hydropower in the state’s electricity mix dropped 10 percentage points. The overall share of renewables also declined. Without statewide figures on data center power usage, The Times and ProPublica attempted to track trends by collecting data from a handful of public utilities with large data center markets, including Grant County’s. Many utilities do not track data centers, and such data is not available from private utilities. Seattle City Light, the municipal utility, doesn’t track all data centers but formulated its best estimate of their energy use at our request. Credits Reporters: Lulu Ramadan and Sydney Brownstone, with Eli Sanders (contributor) Editors: Jonathan Martin and Steve Suo (ProPublica) Photographer: Karen Ducey Photo editors: Colin Diltz, Bettina Hansen and Peter DiCampo (ProPublica) Graphics: Mark Nowlin and Lena Groeger (ProPublica) Audience engagement: Qina Liu and Grace Palmieri (ProPublica) Design: Frank Mina and Rita Wong Project coordinator: Laura Gordon Lulu Ramadan: 206-464-2331 or lramadan@seattletimes.com; Lulu Ramadan is an investigative reporter at The Seattle Times and a distinguished fellow with ProPublica's Local Reporting Network. Sydney Brownstone: 206-464-3225 or sbrownstone@seattletimes.com Source URL: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/times-watchdog/power-hungry-how- the-data-center-boom-drained-wa-of-hydropower/ EIA forecasts $86 Brent this year; US crude to average 13.2 million bpd page 4 see BELUGA OWNERSHIP page 9 Chugach Electric reports cost benefits from Beluga ownership Anchorage based electric utility Chugach Electric Association has reported that its part ownership of the Beluga River gas field on the west side of Cook Inlet has brought substantial benefits for the utility’s members. The field ownership has saved members more than $100 million over the past 8 years, the utility announced in a July 1 press release. Chugach Electric uses natural gas as the primary fuel for its power generation. “We are very pleased to see the ongoing savings for our members from this invest- ment,” said Chugach Electric CEO Arthur Miller. “These savings translate to overall lower electric rates for the more than 91,000 members of the cooperative.” In 2016 Anchorage utilities Chugach Electric and Municipal Light & Power purchased ConocoPhillips’ interests in the Beluga River field. As a consequence Chugach Electric then owned 10% of the field. However, when Chugach Electric acquired ML&P in 2020 Chugach Electric’s ownership percentage increased by nearly another 57%. Hilcorp Alaska, the other field owner, with see MEGREZ 1 PLAN page 10 see MUSTANG EXPANSION page 12 Mustang applies to US Corps of Engineers to expand pad at field Mustang Holding, a Finnex Operating company, has applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expand the pad at the Mustang field in the Southern Miluveach unit. The corps is accepting comments through Aug. 8. Since Finnex acquired Mustang from the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority last fall, the company has been working to bring the field back into production. Mustang, which produces from the Kuparuk C sands, was in production for just a month in 2019 under developer Brooks Range Petroleum. Southern Miluveach lies between the Kuparuk River unit — to the east and south — and the Quokka unit to the west. The application is for a 5-acre expansion of the Mustang pad to provide space for employee housing. The corps said the expansion would be on the southeast corner of the Mustang pad at the road approach. An accompanying illus- tration shows the expansion as adjacent to the road on the south and to the southeastern edge of the existing pad. Great Bear files Megrez 1 plan targeting Sept. 1 project start Great Bear Petroleum has filed a unit plan of operations to build the Megrez gravel pad and drill the Megrez 1 exploration well 700 feet west of the Dalton Highway in the Talitha unit, 25 miles south of Deadhorse. The plan, filed with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Oil and Gas, is open for public comment until 4:30 p.m. Aug. 10. Following drilling and a review of logging while drilling data and identification of a further testing zone, Great Bear said it could possibly drill a short lateral in the target interval. Completion of the well might include fracture stimulation. Production testing would be followed by other well testing. Oil would be separated from produced water and gas onsite and trucked to a facility on the North Slope to be placed in the trans-Alaska oil pipeline and sold. The company said it would conduct sufficient production testing to determine the long-term production potential of the Vol. 29, No. 28 • www.PetroleumNews.com A weekly oil & gas newspaper based in Anchorage, Alaska Week of July 14, 2024 • $2.50 l GOVERNMENT l UTILTIES l FINANCE & ECONOMY Battling the feds ConocoPhillips, Bill Armstrong firms join in suits against BLM’s Final Rule By KAY CASHMAN Petroleum News O n June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its Loper Bright Enterprises decision, overruling the doc- trine of Chevron deference and holding that courts “must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority.”A 40-year precedent, the Chevron def- erence required courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations where there were ambi- guities in statutes — and the wording in almost all statutes is unclear. Basically, the Supreme Court decision removed power from all federal agen- cies, and returned that power to judges, likely triggering and strengthening recent lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court of Alaska by Native groups, local governments, the state of Alaska and oil companies. The first such suit was filed July 1, by the Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, on behalf of its 23 members and their North Slope constituents, against the U.S. Transmission upgrades Plans are moving ahead for major improvements to Railbelt electrical system By ALAN BAILEY For Petroleum News T he Alaska Energy Authority has suffi- cient funding to start work on devel- oping a new electricity transmission inter- tie between the Kenai Peninsula and the power transmission system at Beluga on the west side of Cook Inlet, Curtis Thayer, AEA executive director, has told Petroleum News. This intertie would provide a second transmission connection between the Kenai Peninsula and the Anchorage region, thus greatly improving the reliability and capacity of the transmis- sion infrastructure. The planned intertie would use high-voltage direct current technology and run under Cook Inlet. Improving the Railbelt transmission system is seen as critically important to the future of power supplies along the Railbelt, including the potential use of large-scale renewable energy sources. The single transmission lines that connect the Kenai Peninsula to the Anchorage region and Southcentral Alaska to the Fairbanks region in the Alaska interior have relatively low carrying capacities and represent potential single points of failure in the system. In October the U.S Department of Energy award- ed a $206.5 million grant to AEA for the planned new Beryl blows minimal Hurricane slams Houston area; spares GOM oil and gas infrastructure By STEVE SUTHERLIN Petroleum News After a perfect storm of bullish factors drove Alaska North Crude to a high of $88.49 July 5, a hurricane risk premium dissipated when Hurricane Beryl failed to materially disrupt oil production in the Gulf of Mexico — even as the storm hammered Houston and environs with floods, property damage and persistent power out- ages affecting millions of customers. Crude price levels were significantly lower by July 10, notwithstanding a 32-cent gain on the day for ANS, leading to a close of $86.08.West Texas Intermediate gained 69 cents to close at $82.10 and Brent gained 42 cents to close at $85.08. ANS enjoyed a $3.92 premium over WTI and a $1.00 premium over Brent on the day. U.S. crude consumption brought the bulls out, after the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that U.S. commercial crude inventories — excluding Strategic Petroleum Reserve levels see FINAL RULE LAWSUITS page 10 see RAILBELT UPGRADES page 12 see OIL PRICES page 9 ARTHUR MILLER BILL ARMSTRONG EREC ISAACSON CURTIS THAYER Supertankers headed for China dropped to a two-year low, fanning demand concerns in the second half of the year, according to a July 6 Fortune article. 12 PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 14, 2024 Gravel for the project would be from the original mine site adjacent to the pad, the corps said. Mustang has already received a land use permit and a plan of operations authorization from the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and an Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. The proposed expansion would require discharging 56,000 cubic yards of gravel, the corps said, with work beginning in September and taking some two months to complete. Brooks Range received a Section 404 permit authoriza- tion in 2013, authorizing some 99.2 acres of fill onto wet- lands for the original road, pad and gravel mine at Mustang. In its operational restart approval, received from DNR’s Division of Oil and Gas in June, Mustang Holding received approval of its plan for a phased approach, with phase 1 to include installation of an early production facility or EPF; re-installation of various tanks, equipment and production modules; re-entry of up to four existing wells; and recon- nection of the Mustang Pipeline to Alpine Transportation’s common carrier pipeline located 1,150 feet south of the pad. Subsequent phases will include drilling of additional wells, expanding waterflood and adding a produced water inj4ection pump system to the EPF. The company said in May that re-start at Mustang could be as early as third quarter or the beginning of the fourth quarter. The company has Doyon Rig 141 under contract. —KRISTEN NELSON continued from page 1 MUSTANG EXPANSION transmission line and for the installation of some battery energy storage systems in the Alaska Railbelt electrical grid. The federal funding was contingent on matching funds from the state. Thayer commented that, while regulated transmission systems in the Lower 48 typically have two or three levels of redundancy in their interconnections, the federal govern- ment has not invested in Alaska’s grid for well over 50 years. He said that the new federal funding announcement came too late to be considered for the provision of full matching funds in this year’s state budget. However, the state was able to allocate an initial $12.7 million towards the matching funds, while the Railbelt electric utilities had $20 million in bond funding available that could also be con- tributed, thus bringing the total funding currently available to $32.7 million. Work can start That is sufficient to start work this year and continue into next year, while discussions continue with the state and the utilities on how to raise further matching funds, Thayer said, adding that the Department of Energy had approved the plan — assuming that the state signs off on the plan with DOE in October, the state will have 8 years to raise the addi- tional matching funds and complete the project. Initial work will likely include preliminary engineering and transmis- sion line routing studies, with fieldwork being conducted in the summer of 2025. AEA has also applied for a federal grant for upgrading the northern intertie by building a new transmission line between Beluga and Healy. The agency anticipates a DOE decision on that funding in late August or September. The estimated cost of the project is $730 million, with a require- ment for matching state funds of $365 million, Thayer said. Meanwhile the utilities are currently using some of their available bond funding to conduct upgrades to the transmis- sion system on the Kenai Peninsula. Chugach Electric is making improvements to the existing transmission line to the peninsula from Anchorage. The Railbelt Transmission Organization Under House Bill 307, passed during this year’s legisla- tive session and anticipated to be signed off by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, AEA is in the process of establishing the Railbelt Transmission Organization, a new organization with over- sight of how the transmission system is operated, Thayer said. Working along similar lines to the committee that oversees the Bradley Lake hydropower system, each Railbelt electric utility and AEA will have representation on a committee, chaired by AEA. The RTO will be tasked with establishing an open access transmission tariff, to replace the current wheeling or compounding of the rates that indi- vidual utilities charge for use of their sectors of the system. This wheeling of rates constitutes a major impediment to the sharing of generated power across the system. Ahead of formally instituting the RTO, the utilities have formed a working group, with AEA being part of that group. There is some urgency to ensure that required filing deadlines with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska can be met. The Dixon Diversion Thayer also commented that work continues on plans to build the Dixon Diversion, a major extension to the Bradley Lake hydropower system in the southern Kenai Peninsula that could increase the power capacity of the system by around 50%. Currently Bradley Lake, a renewable energy system, supplies the cheapest power in the Railbelt but sits at the southernmost point in the Railbelt grid. A second transmission line from the Kenai Peninsula would clearly improve access across the Railbelt to Bradley Lake power. Changes to the development plans for the Dixon Diversion have made it possible to reduce the estimated cost of the project to a point where the likely cost of the power from the system would be less than the avoided cost from using less natural gas for power generation, Thayer said. Also, AEA has applied for federal grants totaling $342 million, which, if awarded, could completely fund the project, he said. Thayer characterized the electrical system work being planned and conducted for the Kenai Peninsula as a poten- tial economic boom for the region. There are more than $800 million in projects in play, he said. “That’s going to be some real economic development for Southcentral and Alaska as a whole,” Thayer said. l continued from page 1 RAILBELT UPGRADES https://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/radiant-sees-bright-future-for-nuclear-in-alaska/article_d1fedda2- 3e4d-11ef-ad33-73aaa441b1f8.html FEATURED Radiant sees bright future for nuclear in Alaska Jack Barnwell Jul 10, 2024 Small-scale nuclear microreactors could have a bright future in Alaska’s energy future if one company hits its projected regulatory and production deadlines, according to an industry director who spoke at Tuesday’s Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce luncheon. Brice Nzeukou, Radiant Nuclear ’s head of business development, answers questions about a microreactor his company is developing following a Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Tuesday. Jack Barnwell/News-Miner Jack Barnwell/News-Miner 1 of 2 Brice Nzeukou, the head of business development for the El Segundo, Calif-based Radiant Nuclear, outlined his company’s progress and eventual goal to mass produce a 1-megawatt microreactor by 2028. “Radiant believes this will be a key part of the energy future for the U.S., for Alaska and ultimately the world,” Nzeukou said. Radiant has been developing its Kaleidos reactor since the company was formed in 2020. Nzeukou said the design will ultimately serve as a portable, safe source of clean power. “We plan on doing that by mass-producing the world’s first microreactor,” Nzeukou said. “What helps bring the cost down to be cost-competitive with diesel, especially in high-cost areas, is that these will be factory-built and we have not seen that before.” Nzeukou said Alaska will be ideal for the initial deployment of the Kaleidos reactor. A one megawatt reactor could power 1,000 residential homes. “One is that energy costs are high and there is a real opportunity to reduce energy and heat costs,” Nzeukou said. The reactor could benefit North Slope oil and gas facilities, remote mining operations, small military installations and community benefits. “We see perhaps the most impact with community power and heating,” Nzeukou said. “There are a lot of rural communities that rely on diesel generators as a true lifeline during the winter.” Federal tax incentives and programs would help make it cost-affordable. The Inflation Reduction Act could provide tax credits up to 50%, while federal industrial decarbonization programs could match up 70% of a project. Based on market price, Nzeukou said the project would equate to $4 a gallon in diesel fuel. The reactor unit would weigh around 60 tons and benefit from remote automation and monitoring. “This is the lightest you can get for a nuclear reactor while still maintaining safety,” Nzeukou said. Nzeukou said the reactor would produce one megawatt of continuous power for up to five years before it requires refueling. Refueling would be a simple matter of powering down one cell, removing it and replacing it with a new cell; the plant itself would have a 20-year operational lifespan. A reactor core’s lifespan varies depending on the output. At 60% of efficiency, Kaleidos could last five years, while it would require replacement after three years at full capacity. A 30% output would extend the refueling period to seven years. It would also be capable of producing 1.9 megawatts of thermal energy that could heat water to 80 degrees Celsius. The thermal heat could be used to heat water, for district heating solutions or to desalinate water. Other benefits include a quick start-up time, up to two weeks to assemble a radiation shield and 48 hours after fuel installation, a 70-square-foot footprint based on a single concrete block design and ease of transport by sea, rail, vehicle or air. Nzeukou said should the reactor be removed after it’s no longer needed, the site could return to greenfield status within two years. “It would be almost as if we were never there,” Nzeukou said. The reactor will include TRISO fuel, a uranium-bearing sphere the size of a poppyseed. The spheres are coated in layers of graphite and ceramic. Nzeukou said TRISO fuel has been used since the 1970s, but advances have been made in its use over the decades. “TRISO fuel is meltdown-proof and it handles temperatures up to 1,600 degrees Celsius,” Nzeukou said. Other safety designs include a helium-based cooling system and a passive cooling air jacket to control temperatures for the fuel and its container if power is lost. Nzeukou said the helium cooling system differs from liquid-base coolant and doesn’t become radioactive if it needs to be released. “It would pose no harm to the environment and float away into the atmosphere,” Nzeukou said. The microreactor includes several other safety features, including shielded fencing around its site. Nzeukou said the Kaleidos reactor could be more economical than diesel generators over a 20-year cycle. “We are technically 110 times more energy-dense than diesel generation,” Nzeukou said. “Across 20 years, you could get 110 two-ton diesel fuel deliveries whereas with Radiant you would get one delivery of a Kaleidos reactor every five years.” The unit would conceivably have three slots to allow for refueling. A reactor core would require 30 days to cool down before it meets U.S. Department of Transportation standards for shipping radioactive material. A replacement core could be placed in an empty slot while the spent core cools down, avoiding power disruption. Radiant aims to test its first fully-fueled reactor by 2026, which requires doing so through a Defense Department process. Separately, the company jumped into its pre-application process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the federal agency responsible for licensing and regulation. Following the 2026 timeline, Radiant anticipates a minimum 36-month time until it secures a manufacturing license. Nzeukou credits the streamlined process because it designed software in- house. Nzeukou said Radiant has been working with the NRC to streamline site licensing from two to three years to six weeks, on par with diesel generators. “We want people in Alaska and remote parts of the U.S. to make that same choice for cleaner energy ... for a much longer period,” Nzeukou said. Nzeukou said Radian has garnered interest from Alaska’s leaders, including Sens. Dan Sullivan, Lisa Murkowski and Rep. Mary Peltola. Radiant counts McKinley Capital among its investors and it made a $10,000 donation to a University of Alaska Fairbanks youth engineering program. Gov. Mike Dunleavy has touted nuclear microreactors as one of several solutions for Alaska’s future needs. The Alaska Legislature approved legislation in 2023 that allows municipalities with planning authority to streamline site approval, though nuclear reactors still require NRC approval and licensing. jbarnwell Nzeukou told the News-Miner that the reactor could have wide scale applications, including for small communities off the Railbelt and to help balance or complement other renewable energy sources. “In Alaska, wherever you see a one megawatt generator, that’s where you could see one of our units,” Nzeukou said. “For small co-ops or communities that struggle with bringing new power generation sources online, Kaleidos could be a way to meet that demand and allow areas to grow and have more economic development.” Nzeukou said Radiant Nuclear will examine multiple business models, including direct sales. But the mostly like model for smaller communities would involve a power purchase agreement, where Radiant or another company would develop and operate the project and sell energy to a utility or company. Using a nuclear microreactor isn’t a new concept for Alaska, but experts stress the technology has advanced from the early reactor types such as the one pioneered at Fort Greely in the 1960s and 1970s. The U.S. Air Force selected Eielson Air Force Base as a pilot for a five-megawatt advanced microreactor with a target operational date by 2029. Eielson would serve as a Defense Department concept to determine if advanced microreactors would be a cost-effective solution for remote military bases. Copper Valley Electric Association in Valdez explored the concept a few years ago in partnership with Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation, but concluded a microreactor would be too costly for its ratepayers. Contact reporter Jack Barnwell at 907-459-7587 or jbarnwell@newsminer.com. Akiak residents say weeks without power have ruined frozen food stores, drained savings https://alaskapublic.org/2024/07/01/akiak-residents-say-weeks-without-power-have-ruined-frozen-food-stores-drained-saving 1/4 Akiak residents say weeks without power have ruined frozen food stores, drained savings By Sage Smiley, KYUK - Bethel - July 1, 2024 The lower Kuskokwim River community of Akiak is seen in 2023. (From Alaska DOTPF) Akiak has three diesel generators that are supposed to power the town, but they’ve been plagued by mechanical problems. Since mid-June, Akiak has been without consistent municipal power. It’s the second extended outage the 450-person community has faced in the past two months. In May, the community dealt with a five-day outage. City administrator Aleck Jackson has said that it’s part of a bigger pattern. “Power has been going on and off since last year,” Jackson said on Friday. He said that a series of cascading mechanical failures have taken Akiak down to one semi-functional generator. Akiak residents say weeks without power have ruined frozen food stores, drained savings https://alaskapublic.org/2024/07/01/akiak-residents-say-weeks-without-power-have-ruined-frozen-food-stores-drained-saving 2/4 “It’ll have to take two of those generators to power up the whole village and right now — there was only one generator working, so we had to disconnect the school, we had to disconnect the tribal office,” Jackson said. In May the city made a temporary fix, but just a few weeks later another issue sprang up. “From what power plant operators have been reporting to me, there has been oil leaking into the coolant system which runs through the whole generator,” Jackson said. “So they had to flushed that out. And then after they flushed it out and cleaned it out they tried to turn it on, but the power would be restored for about an hour and then shut off again,” Jackson said. The City of Akiak owns and operates its power plant. It’s not a part of the village electric cooperative that powers large swaths of the region. So Akiak power plant operators keep things running on a day-to-day basis, and the city brings in a contracted mechanic when things go wrong. “The mechanic had told our power plant operators to not not work on the generators anymore until he gets out here, because if they keep working on the generators and mess them up more, likely just that’ll just cost us more money to repair them,” Jackson said. Since the last generator stopped working a couple of weeks ago, Akiak has limped by with a patchwork of personal and tribally-owned backup generators. Jackson said that when the current issues started, Akiak’s tribal government bought larger generators to power the water plant and sewer pump stations during the day. They aren’t on at night. The local clinic reports that delivering health care has been more challenging during the extended power outage, but that the regional health corporation has provided generators, satellite phones, and extra staffing to keep the clinic able to treat patients. Jackson estimates that around half of the households in the community have personal generators. “There’s a number of households that lost all their food that they had stored in their refrigerators and freezers,” Jackson said. “Those are those (households) that did not have their own personal generators.” Akiak residents say weeks without power have ruined frozen food stores, drained savings https://alaskapublic.org/2024/07/01/akiak-residents-say-weeks-without-power-have-ruined-frozen-food-stores-drained-saving 3/4 Jackson said that Akiak residents have tried to buy generators from the Alaska Commercial Company in Bethel, but they’re hard to come by. That’s had a huge impact on the community. Olinka Jones is a tribal council member for Akiak Native Community. She said that she hasn’t lost food thanks to a personal generator. “We were fortunate that our daughter let us use her generator to keep our freezers working,” Jones said. “But there are people that have (lost food).” The broader Kuskokwim community has rallied to deliver non-perishable food to Akiak to help families who have lost hundreds of pounds of stored subsistence food. On Saturday, a local hovercraft company, Bering Marine Services, delivered 940 pounds of donated food to Akiak, and others are organizing air cargo shipments from Anchorage. But Jones said that beyond the lost food, it costs families a lot to keep personal generators running while the community generators are broken. “There’s people that will need some financial help for sure, since they’re using most of their resources to get gas for their generators,” Jones said. When Akiak dealt with its power outage in May, the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management said that it was exploring ways to get additional fuel to Akiak. The local Alaska Native corporation also donated a month’s worth of fuel to the community. Jackson, the city administrator, said that local municipal and tribal officials have asked for a state disaster declaration. But he said that they were told that because it’s mechanical and maintenance failure, and not a natural disaster, they’ve been denied. As of Sunday, the state hadn’t responded to requests for an update or comment on how it’s responding to the power crisis in Akiak. During previous power failures in Akiak, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) has stepped in to assist. It’s a state-owned corporation that supports training and emergency response for communities’ energy needs. “What’s happened in between May and now has been just intermittent bandaids on the problem,” said Tim Sandstrom, the chief operating officer of the energy authority. He said that the corporation has around $200,000 in emergency funding per year to help deal with crises, but at the tail end of the fiscal year there’s not much left to help Akiak. Akiak residents say weeks without power have ruined frozen food stores, drained savings https://alaskapublic.org/2024/07/01/akiak-residents-say-weeks-without-power-have-ruined-frozen-food-stores-drained-saving 4/4 “Unfortunately, throughout rural Alaska there’s more and more lack of operations and maintenance, which leads to more and more failures,” Sandstrom said. “Because the funding levels are lower, our ability to respond to emergencies is greatly limited by that amount of funding.” Sandstrom said that in recent months the AEA has had technicians go out to the village, as well as provided remote assistance. “There’s a very large unmet need in rural Alaska for rural power system upgrades and for bulk fuel upgrades,” Sandstrom said. “You have well over a billion dollars (in needs). AEA, with the funding levels we have now, is pretty much in a reactionary mode, trying to basically just stamp out fires as they come up. We’ve recently responded to the governor’s office with what we thought would be required to make that a more proactive, a proactive approach. When we’ll see where that goes.” Jones, the tribal council member, said that the months of inconsistent power have taken a toll beyond the physical loss of food and lack of lights. “It’s affected everyone one way or another,” Jones said. “It’s affected everyone mentally, emotionally, physically. It’s stressful, but I can see people are resilient here in the village and they’re helping each other, even though we’re having our personal issues and breakdowns here and there, but people are helping each other and they’re encouraging each other.” Akiak’s city administrator said that a mechanic should arrive in the village to work on the generators within the coming days. But to address the longer-term issues with the electrical system, Akiak’s tribal government is also working to apply for federal grants to buy new, larger generators. KYUK’s Evan Erickson contributed to this story. PRESS RELEASE Brandy M. Dixon Communications Director (907) 771-3078 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 1, 2024 AEA and DOT&PF Invite Public Input to Update FY25 Alaska NEVI Plan (Anchorage) — The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) are seeking help from the public to update Alaska’s Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Implementation Plan (The Plan). Comments on the fiscal year 2025 draft plan are welcome by emailing electricvehicles@akenergyauthority.org until Thursday, August 1, 2024, at 5 p.m. “Input from the public is essential to building Alaska’s EV charging infrastructure. The feedback we receive will help us understand community needs and preferences for charging stations, and guide the program’s strategy moving forward,” said AEA Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer. “Anyone with an interest in electric transportation is encouraged to participate.” “Stakeholder engagement is crucial to successful transportation infrastructure projects,” said DOT&PF Commissioner Ryan Anderson. “Each region, community, and charging site host faces its own needs and constraints. By coordinating early and often with key stakeholders, we can help ensure that their unique transportation needs meet diverse community needs and support fair access to EV charging infrastructure.” The evolving draft plan describes Alaska’s strategy, vision, and goals for spending Alaska’s $52 million share of federal funds over five years under the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Formula (NEVI) Program. The NEVI Program was established through the federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to fund direct-current EV charging infrastructure along interstate and United States highway corridors over five years. The Plan is considered a living document as AEA and DOT&PF engage with communities, laws or policies change, adoption projects alter, and additional guidance from the federal government is published. The Plan is not intended to impede other DOT&PF infrastructure improvements. These formula funds are being used to strategically deploy EV charging infrastructure and establish a statewide EV fast-charging network and community-based charging sites in rural and urban areas across Alaska. The NEVI program requires yearly updates to each state's plan and must be approved by the Federal Highway Administration. ### 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 Department of Transportation and Public Facilities The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities oversees 237 airports, 9 ferries serving 35 communities along 3,500 marine miles, over 5,600 miles of highway and 839 public facilities throughout the state of Alaska. The mission of the department is to “Keep Alaska Moving through service and infrastructure.” https://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/gvea-awarded-federal-funding-for-battery-projects/article_7ad97c30- 34a2-11ef-a68e-e3494da90026.html TOP STORY GVEA awarded federal funding for battery projects Jack Barnwell Jun 28, 2024 News-Miner file photo Electricians Jed Roland, front, and Tony Kappel, top back operating forklift, check the water level of the battery modules during a tour of GVEA’s BESS (Battery Energy Storage System) battery back-up system. News-Miner file photo Golden Valley Electric Association has secured federal funding for a $100 million U.S. Department of Agriculture loan for a new battery energy storage project. U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced the $100 million loan on Wednesday as part of a package of similar projects. The loan, funded through the USDA’s Powering Affordable Clean Energy (PACE) program, can be forgiven for up to $60 million. GVEA stated the loan will help fund a modern 46-megawatt battery energy storage system (BESS) facility adjacent to its existing battery site. “This funding will allow GVEA to significantly advance initiatives under our Strategic Generation Plan, benefiting our members and the broader community,” GVEA CEO Travis Million said in a news release. “We are committed to creating a sustainable energy future for Interior Alaska.” Doyon, Limited, Interior Alaska’s regional Alaska Native Corporation, helped secure the $100 million loan. Cheyena Kuplack, Doyon’s communications director, said 26% of Doyon’s 25,000 shareholders live in GVEA’s coverage area. “This fact makes this project very exciting for Doyon as it directly benefits these [shareholders’] families,” Kuplack said during a USDA press call. The money will also finance upgrades to GVEAs Nenana substation to support a 16-megawatt solar farm and install a half-mile connection circuit. GVEA’s board of directors recently approved a power purchase agreement with Nenana Solar Farm, LLC, to integrate the project’s supply into the utility’s grid. Kuplack said the BESS project and solar farm align directly with Doyon’s mission to promote and support shareholders’ economic and cultural way of life. “It creates jobs and training opportunities, reduces the cost of electricity and improves the infrastructure in Alaska,” Kuplack said. GVEA adopted a strategic generation plan in 2022 that calls for additional use of renewable energy sources, including a major wind power purchase agreement. Million told the News-Miner on Wednesday that the new BESS system will help regulate energy from the solar farm and the utility’s existing Eva Creek Wind Farm near Healy. “This newer technology has a faster response time for charging and discharging whereas the existing BESS can discharge really fast but doesn’t do well for regulating renewable energy sources,” Million said. The existing 40-megawatt BESS was built over 20 years ago and uses nickel cadmium technology. GVEA uses the battery system as a stopgap measure in case of a large outage and needs to spool up another power generation plant. “With our current battery, we can get about 25 megawatts for about 10 minutes,” Million said. “It’s good for what it does, which is for outage restoration and prevention.” Million said GVEA must still negotiate final terms of agreement, conduct environmental reviews and select contractors for the new BESS system and work on the Nenana substation. The Homer-based Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative also received a $100 million grant for a similar BESS project to be built adjacent to its Soldotna substation. Long-duration Healy project On Monday, Rep. Mary Peltola announced that Westinghouse Electric Company received a $5.48 million grant from the U.S. Energy Department for the first phase of a $50 million long-duration energy storage project in Healy. “Energy storage is a major barrier to a functioning modern energy grid,” Peltola said. “This project will make more kinds of energy feasible, from solar and wind to fossil fuels.” The project, called POLAR (Pumped Thermal Energy Storage in Alaska Railbelt) was selected by the USDE in September 2023 to test long-duration technology in Interior Alaska. GVEA and Westinghouse announced their partnership on the project at the same time. POLAR is designed to store up to 1,200 megawatts and provide a minimum output of 50 megawatts for 24 hours. It could store enough energy to power 2,000 homes for a month. According to the project summary, POLAR relies on a heat pump that draws electricity from the grid and converts it into heat that is stored in concrete blocks. “This is more for integration of large-scale wind resources,” Million said. jbarnwell GVEA’s strategic goals include the eventual large-scale wind power purchase agreement, possibly from the 210-megawatt Shovel Creek Wind Farm planned near Murphy Dome. The $5.48 million will fund planning activities related to budgeting, permitting, procurement, community and labor engagement, partnership development, and workforce planning over the next two years. Million said the work would thrust POLAR into a 30% design phase and “determine whether it will work the way we want it to for integration of wind.” “We have some higher study economics but this first step will help us to get more clarity into what it will cost,” Million said. “We would then decide whether to move forward with final engineering or say it’s not a good project for our members.” Million is cautiously optimistic and noted the project could be a game-changer for GVEA’s renewable energy goals. “If wind were to stay flat or die down for up to eight hours, this would allow us to produce up to 100 megawatts on the system for to 10 hours while deciding whether we need to bring another power source online or if the wind picks up,” Million said. Million said both the POLAR and its new BESS system, along with the funding Homer received, bodes well for the Railbelt as a whole. “It’s a great step in the right direction for the reduction of liquid fossil fuels that are being utilized currently,” Million said. “There’s still a long ways to go to make a large impact but this is a big benefit.” Contact reporter Jack Barnwell at 907-459-7587 or jbarnwell@newsminer.com. https://www.newsminer.com/news/local_news/in-looking-forward-alaska-governor-talks-energy-and-the- future/article_68ec7866-3348-11ef-a49b-7b292467df36.html TOP STORY In looking forward, Alaska governor talks energy and the future Jack Barnwell Jun 26, 2024 Gov. Mike Dunleavy talks about Alaska's potential be a leader in technological and energy during a Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce luncheon on Tuesday, June 25, 2024.. Jack Barnwell/News-Miner Gov. Mike Dunleavy laid out an optimistic view of Alaska’s forward march during a Tuesday address to the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce luncheon at the Westmark Hotel. Dunleavy stressed an “all-in” approach for both fossil and renewable energy sources, touted his carbon sequestration and offset legislation, and the need to expand the state’s policies to bolster its place as an economic hub — but only if Alaska learns to adapt, he said. Dunleavy used the now- extinct dodo bird as an example. “For centuries it was the master of its universe before a Portuguese ship landed,” Dunleavy said. “That began the rapid decline of the dodo ... and we want to avoid that fate going forward.” Dunleavy said Alaska’s route can either be “a nightmare on the left” or “unbelievably exciting on the right” when displaying images of a ruined city on one side and a futuristic image on the other. “It’s up to us,” Dunleavy said. Dunleavy noted the post-pandemic landscape shifted how supply chains, logistics and labor markets work. “Before Covid, we had systems in place whether it was politics, education or supply chains and it was a very stable system,” Dunleavy said. “Covid came along and everything changed, and we are still trying to make sense of that today.” Dunleavy challenged that a combination of artificial intelligence and server farms can help bolster Alaska’s economy and push forward progress on all types of energy. “For those who are helping to create this new future with AI, electric everything, supercomputers and server farms, the need for electricity will be phenomenal,” Dunleavy said. “It dwarfs the electrical needs the world currently uses.” For Alaska to court those industries, Dunleavy said the state needs to embrace all energy sources. “We simply don’t have the luxury to get rid of fossil fuels, but we can’t live without renewables,” Dunleavy said. “We need more and more energy to get to where we want to go.” He said those sources will include everything from solar panels and wind turbines to geothermal and hydroelectric resources. Dunleavy said he recently installed 50 solar panels on his homestead, adding to a coal stove used for his shop, propane tanks and heating fuel. “Alaska wants to be a leader in energy,” Dunleavy said. Dunleavy said he attended a recent conference hosted by NVIDA, a leading technology, AI and software company, where he was advised that a growing technological world will require a surplus of tradespeople such as electricians and plumbers. Dunleavy said Alaska can offer a combination of land, renewable energy sources and a dynamic tax system to incentivize such companies to set up shop. However, he said the state needs to address its population decline, which he predicted would only happen through a combination of a population boom, reasonable immigration policies and AI technology advancements. Dunleavy stressed the need for a robust economy. He said Alaska shares a few things in common with Iceland, namely its renewable energy resources and remote location. Where Iceland has few natural resources, Dunleavy said its national policies have benefitted aluminum production and energy development. “Policy level at a state level will have a tremendous impact on Alaska,” Dunleavy said. “For too long, we’ve viewed ourselves as a petrol state and too long we’ve relied on oil to fund our government.” Dunleavy touted his carbon bills as ways to bolster the state’s economy. The Alaska Legislature approved a carbon offset bill in 2023 and a carbon sequestration bill this year. The offset bill will allow the state to sell carbon offset carbons and create management projects that Dunleavy claims will actively change how Alaska manages its forests. The sequestration bill creates a framework for companies to store carbon emissions in the state’s depleted oil and gas basins. “The world is ready to pay large amounts of money to sequester carbon,” Dunleavy said. “In order to get our natural gas pipeline going, any firm that wants to invest in Alaska won’t do it unless there is a carbon sequestration component.” Dunleavy said the state must develop its other resources as well, from lumber to the natural gas line pipeline. Dunleavy pivoted back to Alaska’s potential to host large tech companies. jbarnwell “There is no other place on the face of the Earth that has the resources we do,” Dunleavy said. “If we could come together like we did this last [legislative] session and develop solid policies centered on taxation, land use, storing elements and developing better ways to manage our trees, the opportunities are limitless.” Contact reporter Jack Barnwell at 907-459-7587 or jbarnwell@newsminer.com. News June 26, 2024 – Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) has been awarded a $100 million loan from the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Powering Affordable Clean Energy (PACE) program, with $60 million of this loan amount reduced through loan forgiveness. As part of its proposal, GVEA included: Battery Energy Storage System (BESS): Construction of a 46 megawatt (MW) / 92 megawatt-hour (MWh) BESS in Fairbanks, Alaska, interconnecting at GVEA’s existing Wilson substation Substation Upgrades: Enhancements to the Nenana Substation to support a 16 MW solar Power Purchase Agreement with Nenana Solar Farm, LLC 24.9kV Express Distribution Circuit: Installation of a half-mile long circuit to connect the Nenana Solar Farm to the Nenana Substation These initiatives aim to reduce fuel costs, lower reliance on fossil fuels, and enhance energy diversity; ultimately bene ting GVEA members with more stable, affordable electric rates. Loan Forgiveness In addition to receiving the full amount of funding requested for these projects, GVEA was able to obtain loan forgiveness at the maximum level of 60% through the support of Doyon, Limited during the application process. Golden Valley Electric Association Awarded $100 Million Loan from USDA Powering Affordable Clean Energy Program, with $60 Million in Loan Forgiveness “This is an exciting project for Doyon as it directly bene ts our shareholder families and homes. Over a quarter of Doyon’s shareholder base resides in the GVEA service area,” says Tanya Kaquatosh, Senior Vice President of Administration of Doyon, Limited. “Doyon’s mission to promote the economic and social well-being of our shareholders and future shareholders, and to strengthen our Native way of life, directly aligns with the value this project will bring to its ratepayers by creating jobs and training opportunities, reducing the cost of electricity and improving long-term infrastructure for Interior Alaska. We’d like to thank GVEA for spearheading this project, and for their efforts and commitment to the members, which include our shareholders.” Further increasing the economic bene ts of this project, in addition to the $60 million in loan forgiveness provided under the PACE Program, the BESS could also qualify for an additional 30-50% in tax credits. Community Benefit Plan GVEA’s Community Bene t Plan (CBP) is a core component of the successful loan award, a draft of which was shared with GVEA members in May 2024. The CBP will seek to extend bene ts to the communities GVEA serves beyond the scope of the awarded project, guided by the PACE program goals to fortify the American workforce in Interior Alaska, promote energy ef ciency and carbon reduction, integrate clean energy into traditional agriculture and increase diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility through a transformative clean energy economy. To review GVEA’s CBP, click here. Looking Ahead As work on these transformative projects begins, GVEA remains dedicated to our mission of providing reliable, affordable and sustainable energy solutions to our members. This substantial funding marks a signi cant milestone in the cooperative’s pursuit of more affordable, reliable energy. “This funding will allow GVEA to signi cantly advance initiatives under our Strategic Generation Plan, bene ting our members and the broader community. We are committed to creating a sustainable energy future for Interior Alaska,” says GVEA CEO, Travis Million. “Our collaboration with Doyon underscores the importance of community partnerships in achieving these goals. We look forward to continued teamwork with additional community stakeholders as things advance.” GVEA is enthusiastic about the positive impacts that these projects will bring, including job creation, reduced energy costs and improved infrastructure. GVEA will now work with Rural Utilities Service, the entity administering the PACE program, to negotiate the award agreement in the third quarter of 2024, and to nalize project milestones, construction and purchase agreements associated with these projects to begin the construction process. https://www.frontiersman.com/analysis-renewable-energy-is-a-pocketbook-not-political-issue-for-mat-su- residents/article_a58d8868-3281-11ef-a5c2-b30620186627.html Analysis: Renewable energy is a pocketbook, not political, issue for Mat-Su residents By Tim Bradner For the Frontiersman Jun 24, 2024 The pictured solar project is in Willow. Frontiersman le photo Renewable energy may not be popular among political conservatives. Legislators in the Mat-Su delegation have been criticized for supporting renewable and energy legislation during the Legislature that ended May 15. This stems from an association of renewable energy, like wind and solar, with e orts to replace traditional fossil fuels like natural gas and oil. It’s basically a partisan argument linking fossil fuel replacement to climate change and policies of President Joe Biden, who is squared o against Donald Trump in the presidential election this fall. But what renewable energy is really about for Mat-Su residents is their pocketbooks and utility bills. Added to this, it’s about keeping homes, schools and businesses warm through the winter. Natural gas production from Cook Inlet will be declining, the state Division of Oil and Gas says. Gas now supplies fuel for space heating and power generation. Without more gas supply, electric utilities like Matanuska Electric Association, or MEA, as well as Enstar Natural Gas, will have to import lique ed natural gas, or LNG, at a cost about twice that of gas now produced from Cook Inlet. Utility bills will jump. Enstar says it has enough natural gas under contract from gas producing companies in the Inlet for the coming winter, the 2024-2025 heating season. But it is short of contracted, or guaranteed, supply for the winter of 2025-2026, the company says. The state oil and gas division says annual reduction of gas production will begin in 2027 and will deepen by 2030.E orts are underway to develop more gas in the Inlet and unboubtably the gas is there. But developing it will take time. It will be more expensive, too. In the meantime more hydro, wind and solar-generated power can help o set the gas shortages for the electric utilities. This will also help Enstar, which supplies fuel for space heating. Unlike electric utilities Enstar has no alternative to gas. Utilities like MEA and Anchorage’s Chugach Electric, can meet some of their needs with renewable energy, which preserves gas supplies for Enstar. This spring, legislators’ attention focused on ways to boost energy. A major bill that passed was House Bill 307, which will streamline movement of electricity through transmission lines along making tax changes to help independent power producers, mostly private developers working on renewable energy. HB 307 is vital legislation. Without it new renewable energy projects along the Southcentral-Interior “railbelt” transmission system would likely not be economic. Independent power producers, or IPPs, need to be able to sell their renewable energy to customers all along the railbelt power grid, from Homer to Fairbanks and not be restricted to just the utility in the region where the IPP is located. At present they generally are, because the “pancaking” of di erent transmission fees, one piled atop another, makes selling power to customers elsewhere on the grid mostly uneconomic. Huge Anniversar y Deals Wayfair HB 307 will require the state’s Alaska Energy Authority to set a uniform set of transmission fees, which will give independent developers economic certainty and enable them to nance their projects. In the near term, two large renewable energy projects planned in Southcentral Alaska may be expanded because of the passage of the bill. Both projects are in the Mat-Su region northwest of Anchorage. One is a wind project near Mount Susitna, and the other is a solar project now operating at Houston, north of Wasilla. Chugach Electric Association is working with developers of the wind project near Mount Susitna, which is not yet approved. Matanuska Electric Association is looking to join Chugach Electric in purchasing the wind power, which will allow it to expand. Meanwhile MEA now buys power from the Houston solar project and is looking at buying more, which could allow it to also expand. Houston solar has turned out to be a good deal for MEA because it now sells power to MEA for less than the utility’s “avoided cost,” or what it pays for natural gas. Renewables LLC, the developer at the Houston and a smaller one near Willow, says solar alone could make a dent in Southcentral Alaska’s natural gas supply de cit. The company, which is Alaskan-owned, estimates that seven to 14 solar farms of 30 Megawatts each could replace 10 percent to 20 percent of Southcentral Alaska electricity generated with natural gas. On another project, state’s Alaska Energy Authority, or AEA, is working with the U.S. Dept. of Energy on grants to upgrade the Southcentral-Interior “railbelt” transmission line, which is now aged and lacks the capacity to move power from new generation projects through the grid. OOFOS® Official Website OO FO S OOFOS Men's OOcoozie Thermo Mule - Black Size 9 in Black Thermo NEW drop for the temperature drop! Get the ultimate Active Recovery for the elements. Step out with OOfoam technology and Primalo hi-lo ultra… The AEA is now nalizing terms for a $213 million federal grant, matched equally by the state, for phase one of an upgrade of the railbelt system. AEA plans a submarine cable link from the Kenai Peninsula to the Beluga power station on the Inlet’s west side. This will create a new loop to move power to Mat-Su and Anchorage around the congested, and limited, existing transmission line on the Kenai Peninsula. Chugach Electric Association and AEA are now also upgrading the Kenai Peninsula terrestrial line but the new sub-sea line across the Inlet to Beluga will add a backline, making the grid more reliable and e cient. AEA’s application for federal funds for phase two of the railbelt grid upgrade, to expand capacity of the existing transmission line from the Mat-Su to Healy line, went to the Department of Energy in April. The state authority expects DOE’s response in August. The Mat-Su to Healy line was built decades ago and is aged. At Healy the new line, when and if built, will connect with Golden Valley Electric Association’s existing and more modern transmission line to Fairbanks. On the Bradley Lake hydro expansion, the AEA expects to hear in late August or early September on federal government approval of a separate $348 million grant to build the Dixon Diversion. If the money comes through it could expand Bradley Lake’s hydro output by 50 percent and be operating by 2030, AEA says. According to the Division of Oil and Gas estimates Cook Inlet gas production will be falling fast by then. New hydro from Bradley Lake could reduce electric utilities’ requirements for natural gas by 1.5 billion cubic feet per year and o set 7.5 percent of gas supply de cit by 2030, the authority said. The Dixon Diversion project could still move forward even if the federal grant is not approved. As an alternative AEA could fund construction with debt repaid by the railbelt utilities, similar to the way the original Bradley Lake project was nanced. The AEA now has geotechnical work under way to support the project. Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 1/14 A view of Angoon from a floatplane on Friday. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire) Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ Angoon hydropower groundbreaking comes after four decades of effort, seeks to stabilize future costs By Jasz Garrett Tuesday, June 18, 2024 11:25am “You can see the whales just from right here,” Nadine Demmert, a senior at Angoon High School, said. “Jumping right now. That’s what I want to preserve. It’s amazing.” Demmert was nervous speaking in front of her community at the Thayer Creek hydroelectric project celebration Friday in the Angoon Elementary School gymnasium, but she said she overcame her fear because she’s passionate about clean energy. Demmert helped film the celebration with See Stories, an Alaskan nonprofit that works with youths on social awareness filmmaking and podcasting projects. Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 2/14 “I think it’s important because we only have one planet and it’s best to protect it,” Demmert said in her speech. “If you look at the difference between towns in the Lower 48 and towns here, it’s really drastic. This is our home — the longer we protect it from being all smoggy, we can keep it in the beautiful shape it’s been in for so long. I hope that this also encourages other towns to start an amazing project like this to help protect our home.” Nadine Demmert, a senior at Angoon High School, gives a speech at the community celebration on Friday. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire) Thayer Creek is considered a modest creek at 75 feet across, but will produce 850 kilowatts of electricity, roughly three times the size of Angoon’s current needs. Power will be generated by a waterfall that causes turbines to turn. It will replace Angoon’s diesel plant, which will be preserved as a backup. The switch to renewable energy will save 250,000 gallons of fuel each year. It will be operated by the nonprofit Inside Passage Electric Cooperative and be built upstream of a natural salmon barrier. Thayer Hydro is a run-of-the-river project, meaning there won’t be a huge dam or reservoir created. No fish will be harmed, according to the cooperative. Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 3/14 A humpback whale spouts in Angoon. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire) Not only will Thayer Hydro provide excess power that holds its own realm of possibilities, but run-of-the-river projects provide long-term solutions. For example, the Gold Creek Power Plant in Juneau has been around for over 100 years and is still providing power. Honoring the past of Thayer Creek Next Stay Auto (360p) 225p 360p Subtitles Off Subtitles EN English Angoon Tribal, corporation and community leaders traveled more than 43 years ago to Washington, D.C., to negotiate a deal granting Kootznoowoo Inc. the rights to develop hydropower for the community of Angoon. In 1978, President Jimmy Carter proclaimed Admiralty Island a National Monument, setting the island aside until Congress could resolve its long-term status. Lobbyists met with legislators, environmental groups and President Carter to ensure, through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, that “nothing in ANILCA would affect the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by the residents of Admiralty Island, that the people of Angoon would have the right to quiet enjoyment of Mitchell Bay and the watershed around it, and that Angoon would have the right to develop hydropower in Thayer.” Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 4/14 The right to develop the hydroelectric resources within the Thayer Creek watershed was granted to Kootznoowoo by Section 506 of ANILCA in 1980, but with no funding. Angoon has depended on diesel generation for decades, paying between four and eight times more for electricity than the national average. The Angoon Youth Dance Group files into the Angoon Elementary School gymnasium. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire) Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 5/14 On Friday, Angoon’s celebration focused on the estimated cost of the project — $34 million — being fully funded by the Alaska Energy Authority, the Denali Commission, the Department of Energy Office of Clean Energy Development, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Tribal Electrification Program, Inside Passage Electric Cooperative and Kootznoowoo Inc. Almost $27 million of the funding came from the bipartisan infrastructure bill on Feb. 27, led by U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan. Historian Peter Metcalfe called the hydroelectric power solution “one of the most creative and effective Congressional lobbying campaigns in American history.” He was the Kootznoowoo director of corporate communications from 1985 to 1994, and from 1999 to 2001. Metcalfe presented a historical presentation at Angoon’s community celebration on Friday to honor past tribal and community leaders. “Most lobbying efforts in Congress are exceedingly well funded,” Metcalfe said. “At the time, 1977 through 1980, Kootznoowoo was really underfunded. And they were able to support Sterling (Bolima) in Washington, D.C, and they were able to support sending elders to testify. But they weren’t paying a lobbyist $250,000 a piece. And you compare it to something like, say BP or Exxon, where they have armies of lobbyists. That’s a typical lobbying effort in Washington, D.C.” “Here, you have this little village. It’s one guy who happens to be a genius, Sterling and Eve (Reckley) was his assistant. Those were the lobbying efforts. And here they saved this island of a million acres, as well as the preservation of a way of life dating back several thousand years.” Metcalfe added if it wasn’t for the testimonies of the elders and letters written by schoolchildren, the lobbying efforts wouldn’t have been successful. Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 6/14 A slide presented as part of the history of the Thayer Creek hydroelectric project shows a map of the area and a description by Sterling Bolima, a lobbyist for Angoon, of negotiations with officials in Washington, D.C., before compromise agreement was reached in 1980. (Slide by Peter Metcalfe) State Rep. Rebecca Himschoot, a Sitka independent, also recognized how long the community of Angoon has been waiting for Thayer Hydro to begin. “I see people here who are patient and persevere,” she said. “And the thing that I appreciate the most is the elders who had the foresight to look ahead and see what was going to be needed, and what your community needed to look like. And this slide show today was really an illustration of how deeply rooted the elders were in this community and knowing what needed to happen and how best to make that happen. So I’m just very impressed by the community.” Last year, Kootznoowoo received a special use permit from the National Forest Service to build Thayer. K.J. Metcalf was the first Forest Service ranger of Admiralty Island when it was proclaimed a national monument in 1978. In 1980, he left the Forest Service to live in Angoon. He said living in the community helped him understand the connection of the Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 7/14 people of Angoon with the land. He’s now the president of Friends of Admiralty Island, an all-volunteer, nonprofit organization “dedicated to publicly advocating for the continued protection of the Island’s wilderness values.” “This is one step in making Angoon a healthier, more livable community,” Metcalf said regarding Thayer. “This cheaper power, dependable power: it’s a dream of the elders.” At 1,700 square miles, Admiralty Island island is the seventh largest in the United States. Most of the island’s 1,500 square miles is within the Kootznowoo Wilderness Area. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire) The mayor of Angoon, Peter Duncan, said Thayer Hydro came to full realization through different entities working together in what he called a rare occurrence. “Because we are all working together is why all of this is happening I feel,” he said. “We’re working together, the tribe, the corporation, the city, and it hasn’t happened for a while. If we continue to keep that up and work together, a lot of other good things are going to happen for the people of Angoon.” Michael Downs, Juneau and Admiralty Island National Monument district ranger for the U.S. Forest Service, echoed Duncan’s sentiment. “This day marks a significant milestone for the community,” Downs said. “Your journey to this point has been long and challenging. And yes, we recognize the Forest Service Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 8/14 has been part of that challenge. But we stand here together to celebrate the progress and much-anticipated funding of the Thayer Hydro project, which is not just a development. It is a symbol of sustainable progress, and a brighter future for Angoon that promises to provide clean, reliable energy, enhance your economy and preserve the natural beauty that we all hold dear.” The Angoon Youth Dance Group performs in the Angoon Elementary School gymnasium for the Thayer Creek hydroelectric project celebration on Friday. (Jasz Garrett / Juneau Empire) “Team Thayer” was also thanked, which consisted of Southeast Conference, IPEC, Angoon Community Association, the city of Angoon, Kootznoowoo , Alaska’s congressional delegation and the Denali Commission. ACA tribal president Mary Jean Duncan said the hydro project has been in the works “since time immemorial” and she looks forward to the renewable energy Thayer Hydro will provide the community. The future of hydropower in Angoon and across Southeast During this summer and into the fall, “heritage” work will be done to ensure any ground disturbed by Thayer Hydro doesn’t impact any historic or cultural artifacts and structures. A mitigation plan will be developed to address adverse effects. Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 9/14 By the end of 2024, the project team will prepare contract documents to go out to bid for the first phase of construction of a barge landing and staging area, and a connecting road between Stillwater Bay and Thayer Creek. The project team will also do procurement documents for long-lead items such as the turbine and generator. The project is estimated to be completed in 2028. Thayer Creek is located just outside of Angoon. (Photo courtesy of Jon Wunrow) Jon Wunrow, Kootznoowoo executive director of tourism and natural resources and Thayer Hydro project manager, estimated 50 to 75 jobs will be created from Thayer Hydro spanning the next four years. Angoon’s population as of 2023 is 343. New jobs include cutting down trees to build a road, building the road, building a dock, monitoring animal and marine mammal life, monitoring cultural and historic sites, heavy equipment operators, and diesel mechanics. “Part of our role, when we put these contracts out for bid is we’ll give lots of points to the contractors that either create apprenticeships training programs as part of what they offer, or a commitment to hire locally, maybe a commitment to help us provide training Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 10/14 for these jobs,” Wunrow said. “That will be part of how we solicit companies to do this work is how can they help us in the job training and then ultimately, employment.” There are other infrastructure projects coming to Angoon, such as a water -sewer project, an airport project, and visitor’s center project. Jobs like tree-cutters and heavy equipment operators could be shared through an array of projects in the community in the future. He added if employees come from Angoon, not only does it benefit the local economy and provide living wage jobs, but it also helps projects’ affordability. The excess energy from Thayer Hydro also provides various opportunities for the community. “There’s enough generation to meet all of the needs plus, during most of the year, there’s going to be one to two times excess electricity, and that excess electricity can be used to electrify other things within the community,” said Devany Plentovich, Thayer Hydro’s project engineer. “So they can install heat pumps and displace heating oil boilers with heat pumps and electrify all of the heating needs. That’s another 100,000 gallons of heating oil that could be displaced, a huge amount. Electric cars could become a thing in the community where they are charging at night when there’s not a heavy load on the community. But there’s still water running through the river. And there’s economic development opportunities. You could easily put in a sawmill or do some small manufacturing with inexpensive excess hydro.” Beyond the possibility for electric cars like Plentovich suggests, electric boat motors and electric ferries are being considered. Still, some would like to see something that may sound simple to most, but a “big deal” for Angoon: a restaurant. “I believe a restaurant, or a coffee shop would be really good,” Melissa Kookesh, former board chair and current treasurer for Kootznoowoo, said. “I think if we could get that here, that would be awesome. I know we have a lot of people here that cook and that do a lot of catering, but having a space for them to be able to do that would be great.” Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 11/14 Kootznoowoo Inc. former board chair Melissa Kookesh thanks U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski for securing the funding for the Thayer Creek hydroelectric project through the bipartisan infrastructure bill. (Photo courtesy of Melissa Kookesh) Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 12/14 Kookesh added with reduced electricity costs, there’s the potential for Angoon’s renovated museum to start being used as a carving shed or classroom space for weaving, beading and carving. Jodi Mitchell, chief executive officer for IPEC, said it’s “her dream” for each community they serve to be able to afford an affordable restaurant. “I’ve always been disappointed that the only community in our service area that can have a sustainable restaurant is Hoonah,” Mitchell said. “But part of that reason is because they have a larger population, they have closer to 800 year-round residents. And they have the tourism industry that brings in a lot of people from outside. I’m also hoping that the community (of Angoon) will embrace some kind of small amount of tourism. Electric boats could offer tourism opportunities.” Thayer Hydro will stabilize Angoon’s costs. It will also benefit the other four communities IPEC serves: Kake, Hoonah, Chilkat Valley and Klukwan. “The way IPEC operates is we treat our systems as if they were all linked together on one grid,” Mitchell said. “That’s how we do our accounting and our billing. So everybody pays the same amount, the same rate, which we call a postage stamp rate. So the cheaper it is, for any community, it gets shared with all of the communities. Any reduction in cost for our four microgrids, it spreads the benefit over all our 1,400 members.” When Mitchell first joined IPEC in 1993, it was 100% diesel generation. “I did the math, and right now we’re at 29% renewable power from hydro,” Mitchell said. “After that project (Thayer Hydro) is put online, at current levels of consumption, we (IPEC) would be at 50% hydropower.” Angoon is the last IPEC community that is on 100% diesel, and one of the last two hydropower projects written into an Energy Plan by the IPEC board and Mitchell when she became CEO in 2008. At that time, IPEC identified possible hydro projects near the towns it was serving. In 2006, IPEC received a grant to buy the 10-mile Haines Highway project, which provides 60% of power in Chilkat Valley and Klukwan, two communities that share a microgrid. In 2015, IPEC completed a hydroelectric project in Hoonah at Gartina Falls, and in 2020, IPEC completed the Kake Hydro project at Gunnuk Creek. The last two projects under the IPEC Energy Plan will be Thayer Hydro and IPEC’s Water Supply Creek project, Hoonah’s second hydroelectric project. Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 13/14 Water Supply Creek is “shovel-ready” according to Mitchell. She’s applied for two grants for the project from the federal government, and IPEC received $3.5 million from the state of Alaska Renewable Energy Fund — $8 million is still needed. “As long as it’s 100% grant funded, we won’t have to pay debt service on loans,” Mitchell said. “And so that’s the goal is to have it 100% grant funded and not have to take on any debt.” When IPEC built the Gartina Falls project in Hoonah back in 2015, they built power lines from the town to the falls. The Water Supply Creek project will be able to use some of the same distribution lines, meaning only half a mile of line will need to be added to bring additional power to the community. “The other thing that’s really exciting is that Hoonah’s power load keeps growing because of the tourism industry,” Mitchell said. “The Water Supply Creek project will add about another 25% of Hoonah’s electric load, which would make them more like 50% hydro, but probably not as much in the summer because of the higher load. But one of the goals and standards for a utility like ours with limited hydro is to be able to turn the diesel engines off, so that we’re not burning diesel at all. This project at Water Supply Creek will allow us to turn our diesel engines off in the fall and in the spring when there’s a lot of rain. That’s huge.” Thayer Creek Hydro project fulfills ‘dream of the elders’ https://www.juneauempire.com/news/thayer-creek-hydro-project-fulfills-dream-of-the-elders/ 14/14 A slide presented as part of the history of the Thayer Creek hydroelectric project quotes Dan Johnson Sr., one of the early directors of Kootznoowoo Inc., in a letter to Congressman John Seiberling advocating for Angoon’s land protection. (Slide by Peter Metcalfe) Alaska Power Association|703 W Tudor Road, Suite 200|Anchorage, AK 99501|907-771-5700 The Unified Voice of Alaska’s Electric Utilities Alaska Power Association 2024 Federal Legislative Conference Washington, D.C. June 4-6, 2024 Trip Report The annual Alaska Power Association Federal Legislative Conference brings a concentrated group of electric utility leaders from across the state to meet with federal officials and Alaska’s congressional delegation each year in June. Through the sweltering heat and humidity in Washington, D.C., this year’s trip saw 14 Alaskans traipse and Uber across the capital to share the story of Alaska’s electric utilities and the challenges and opportunities in our great state. And while traveling to Washington, D.C. is a time and financial commitment, the face time with decision makers within the federal government can pay dividends into the future. The old saying is “out of sight, out of mind,” and the APA Federal Legislative Conference exists to make sure that doesn’t happen. This year’s conference received a great assist from the Arctic Energy Office. By working with the office’s director, Erin Whitney, and its chief-of-staff, AnneMarie Horowitz, APA was able to have targeted meetings at the Department of Energy with key officials who are working on programs that can be of great benefit to APA’s member utilities. Those meetings, along with meeting with Alaska’s congressional delegation, among others, made the D.C. conference a great success in terms of professional connections, continued advocacy, and awareness of our issues. Those in attendance this year were: Arthur Miller, CEO, Chugach Electric Association; Trish Baker, senior manager of government and business affairs, Chugach Electric Association; Travis Million, CEO, Golden Valley Electric Association; Linda Freed, director, Kodiak Electric Association and APA President; Julie Estey, chief strategic officer, Matanuska The APA group starts the 2024 federal fly-in at the Department of Energy headquarters. Alaska Power Association|703 W Tudor Road, Suite 200|Anchorage, AK 99501|907-771-5700 The Unified Voice of Alaska’s Electric Utilities Electric Association; Brian Hickey executive director, Railbelt Regional Coordination; Alec Mesdag, president and CEO, Alaska Electric Light & Power; Robert Siedman, CEO, Southeast Alaska Power Agency; Jaime Matthews, CEO, Copper Valley Electric Association, Brad Janorschke, general manager, Homer Electric Association; Gary Hennigh, city administrator, City of King Cove; Curtis Thayer, executive director, Alaska Energy Authority. From APA – Crystal Enkvist, executive director, and Michael Rovito, deputy director. What follows is a brief travelogue of the 2024 APA Federal Legislative Conference: Day 1 The historic Phoenix Park Hotel has been the home base for the APA Federal Legislative Conference for many, many years. Just down the street from the capitol building and the jumble of House and Senate offices, the hotel’s location is prime real estate to begin each day. To kick off the conference, APA invites representatives from the national trade associations to brief our group on their main issues in front of Congress and the federal agencies. This year, we were joined by Hannah Hardin, senior manager, legislative affairs with National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), Matthew Allen, director of legislative affairs with the National Hydropower Association (NHA), and Desmarie Waterhouse, vice president of government relations and counsel with the American Public Power Association (APPA). The briefings are a great chance for APA and the national trades to exchange information, so each party knows what is important to the other. It’s also always a good idea to check in with the national trades who spend their days deep in Washington, D.C. advocating for many of the same issues APA works on. Following the briefings, we braved temperatures in the upper 80s with probably 100 percent humidity to head to the Department of Energy (DOE) headquarters (ok, we took Ubers. It was way too hot for us Alaskans to walk in that!). Sometimes you have to pack into an Uber. Especially when it’s in the upper 80s. Way too hot for Alaskans! Alaska Power Association|703 W Tudor Road, Suite 200|Anchorage, AK 99501|907-771-5700 The Unified Voice of Alaska’s Electric Utilities With the help of the Arctic Energy Office, APA and our members were able to meet with the leadership of key offices within DOE. Our first meeting was with the Grid Deployment Office (GDO). That meeting saw the group engage with Maria Robinson, the director of the GDO and someone who definitely has a grasp of Alaska issues. The meeting focused on the variety of grant programs administered by GDO that seek to assist electric utilities with infrastructure buildouts. APA and our members were able to give constructive feedback not only about the grant programs, but about how GDO might be helpful in the future and what kind of needs exist in the state. Following the GDO meeting, leadership from the Office of State and Community Energy Programs (SCEP) met with the APA group to discuss their funding and technical support opportunities. The SCEP works with state, local, and Tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, schools, and community partners to provide technical assistance and invest in place-based clean energy projects that aim to catalyze local economic development and create jobs, reduce energy costs, and avoid pollution. It was productive to meet with the SCEP staff and we came away with a better understanding of the kinds of programs available. Every bit of information gleaned in D.C. can be helpful in the long run. From DOE, it was another air-conditioned Uber right to the Hart Senate Office Building to meet with Alaska’s senior senator Sen. Lisa Murkowski. APA as a statewide association focused on three main policy areas during this trip: 1. The EPA Power Plant Rule – although Alaska has a “deferment” from this rule right now, the EPA has made clear they are watching the state and may determine at a later date to bring any new coal power plants or natural gas plants under the EPA Power Plant Rule. NRECA has recently filed a lawsuit against the EPA’s rule, calling it unlawful, unreasonable, and unachievable. 2. Catastrophic Wildfire Mitigation – Alaska, like many western states, is dealing with longer wildfire seasons and increased conditions ripe for wildfires. In many areas, Alaska also contends with trees killed by spruce bark beetles, creating a dangerous Meeting with Sen. Lisa Murkowski in her Senate office. Alaska Power Association|703 W Tudor Road, Suite 200|Anchorage, AK 99501|907-771-5700 The Unified Voice of Alaska’s Electric Utilities situation where those trees abut powerline rights-of-way. APA advocated for some specific legislation included in the annual Farm Bill that would address wildfire mitigation, but also for more federal funding and engagement from the federal government to remove spruce bark beetle killed trees on public lands that pose a threat to electric infrastructure. 3. Hydropower Licensing and Relicensing Reform – this is an ongoing issue that APA and many utilities and other associations from across the country have advocated on for many years. The timeframes and costs to license and relicense a hydropower project are unreasonable. Multi-year and multi-million-dollar processes are a significant hit to Alaska communities where often times the only alternative to hydropower is diesel generated electricity. APA is advocating for Congress to legislatively designate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the lead agency for hydropower licensing and relicensing with the power to set timeframes that must be followed by other federal agencies to avoid delay to project approvals. There was broad recognition of this issue in our meetings, however it’s unclear what the sausage making of Congress might come up with. We discussed these issues and more with Sen. Murkowski and her staff. The senator discussed ongoing energy issues in Congress and listened as the electric utility members in the room discussed their projects and goals. It is always great to meet with Sen. Murkowski and to reinforce the issues of Alaska’s electric utilities. From the Hart Senate Office Building we cruised down Independence Avenue to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) building to meet with Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Assistant Administrator Chris McLean. Chris is an old friend of APA and Alaska’s electric utilities. You might recognize his name from APA’s 2023 annual meeting in Valdez, where Chris presented on a variety of RUS programs. And that’s just what we talked about in D.C. RUS is currently operating numerous programs authorized and funded in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. The RUS has been around for almost 90 years, first constituted as the Rural Meeting with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). This was a high-level meeting. Alaska Power Association|703 W Tudor Road, Suite 200|Anchorage, AK 99501|907-771-5700 The Unified Voice of Alaska’s Electric Utilities Electrification Administration in 1935, so their experience and work in rural America and with electric utilities has a lot of history. Day 2 Day two of the APA Federal Legislative Conference dawned just as hot and muggy as day one. Building Washington, D.C. on a swamp wasn’t the best choice for summertime comfort. The APA group jumped into our morning conveyances for the trip back to the DOE headquarters for more meetings with key offices. We began by meeting with the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE). EERE says they have five goals: decarbonizing the electricity sector, decarbonizing transportation, decarbonizing industry, reducing the carbon footprint of buildings, and decarbonizing the agriculture sector. One of the individuals in our meeting was Alejandro Moreno, the associate principal deputy assistant secretary of EERE. Alejandro is someone APA has come to know over the years, and he noted that our visits to D.C. during the annual fly-ins are impactful to people like him. Alejandro has been to Alaska numerous times, and our visits help reinforce what he sees in our state. Following a very robust meeting with EERE, we huddled with the Arctic Energy Office for a mid-conference debrief. This was a good meeting for our electric utility members to explain some of the challenges they may have with federal programs and to give and get feedback from the Arctic Energy Office folks about working with federal agencies. After a quick food break it was time to meet with the leadership of the DOE Office of Electricity. The Office of Electricity leads the Department of Energy’s research, development, and demonstration programs to strengthen and modernize the nation’s power grid to maintain a reliable, resilient, and secure electricity delivery infrastructure. That mission fits perfectly with what APA’s electric utility members work on every day. While information on programs can be researched online, there is no substitute for having Meeting with Sen. Dan Sulivan. Alaska Power Association|703 W Tudor Road, Suite 200|Anchorage, AK 99501|907-771-5700 The Unified Voice of Alaska’s Electric Utilities the very people who administer these programs with us in person to really dig down into what would be most helpful. Finally, we had a quick drop in with the stakeholder engagement manager for the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED). The OCED office was created in 2021 with a mission of scaling emerging technologies to commercial viability. As we always say, if it works in Alaska, it can work anywhere. With all of our DOE meetings now finished, we went back up the hill to the Hart Senate Office Building again to meet with Sen. Dan Sullivan. During that meeting, we focused on the three policy issues mentioned above, and our members in attendance were able to give updates from their own utilities. Sen. Sullivan was keenly interested in the interactions between APA’s electric utility members and federal permitting agencies and encouraged us to call his office if we have any issues getting results when pursuing permits or other items. Day two ended with a productive meeting with Rep. Mary Peltola’s energy staff. Unfortunately, we were unable to align our schedule with Rep. Peltola's, but the meeting with staff was successful since we were able to get into the weeds on some issues where Congressional action would be helpful. After a day packed with six different meetings, it was time to reenergize that night and get ready to finish strong on day three. Day 3 With the end of the advocacy trip in sight, APA trekked on a blissfully cooler (though not cool) day to the Dirksen Senate Office Building for a meeting with Pat McCormick, the minority chief counsel for the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Pat previously worked under Sen. Murkowski when she chaired the committee, and he is very Meeting with the Grid Deployment Office earlier in the conference. Alaska Power Association|703 W Tudor Road, Suite 200|Anchorage, AK 99501|907-771-5700 The Unified Voice of Alaska’s Electric Utilities aware and supportive of Alaska’s issues. Just like advocacy efforts in Juneau with the state, building and keeping relationships at the federal level is just as important. During the meeting, we hit on APA’s three federal issues with examples and expertise from our members. We learned that many other states have similar issues, so it was good to add Alaska’ perspective to the heap as some in Congress try to remedy the problems. The last stop of the 2024 APA Federal Legislative Conference took place in the Hall of States. There, we visited Jerry Moses, the director of state and federal relations for the state of Alaska. Jerry is an Alaskan himself, so he was aware of many of the issues we brought to his attention. Ending with Jerry was good way to recap what we learned, what we advocated for, and what we still need help with. Conclusion Advocacy on the state and federal level can often feel tedious. In Washington, D.C., the federal government is complex, and it deals with many issues far outside the realm of electric utility policy. But just like hiking a long trail, or building a cabin by hand, with enough perseverance and work you can really make progress. The APA Federal Legislative Conference is one of the most significant tools in APA’s federal government relations toolkit to bring our message to the people who need to hear it. Braving the heat of D.C., the security lines, the traffic, and the crowds pays dividends when our message is heard and noted. Through meeting with our congressional delegation and all the agency leaders we spent time with, this year’s conference was a success. Alaska’s electric utilities provide power in some of the most challenging conditions on Earth. We have our challenges, but we also have successes. By coming all the way to Washington, D.C. and talking about them, more people know about it and can become our allies in the daily mission to provide safe, reliable, and affordable power to all Alaskans. Most of the APA group stops for a photo in front of the capitol building.