Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
AEA - REF Round9 Status Rpt 2016
May 2016 STATUS REPORT AND ROUND IX RECOMMENDATIONS RENEWABLEENERGY FUNDakenergyauthority.org ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 813 W Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503 (907) 771-3000 www.akenergyauthority.org Clockwise from top left: Wood storage Prince of Wales Island, Chip auger Tok, Biomass boiler Mentasta and Heat recovery Hoonah Gartina Falls Hydro, Hoonah Alaska 2 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT The Alaska Renewable Energy Fund (REF) provides benefits to Alaskans by assisting communities across the state to both reduce and stabilize the cost of energy. The program also creates jobs, uses local energy resources, and keeps money in local economies. Currently generating REF projects have an overall benefit cost ratio of 2.50 and that is considering total project cost, of which state funding is only a portion. Investing in stable priced renewable energy is a wise investment that will save Alaska communities millions of dollars for decades to come. The REF is managed by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and provides public funding for the development of qualifying and competitively selected renewable energy projects in Alaska. The program is designed to produce cost- effective renewable energy for heat and power to benefit Alaskans statewide. As the program matures, the quality of the proposed projects continues to rise as does the knowledge base for designing, constructing, and operating renewable energy in Alaska’s diverse climates and terrain. Renewable Energy Fund appropriations totaling $257 million have been issued since 2008. This funding has been matched with hundreds of millions in funding from local sources. State funding in the early, higher-risk stages of project development create opportunity to leverage significant private investment to see projects through to completion. INTRODUCTION CONTENTS: This 2016 status report has two parts and a separate appendix: 1. A summary analysis of projects funded to date, including the performance and savings associated with projects that are currently generating heat and power. (pg. 1 - 8) 2. A summary of AEA’s recommendations to the Legislature for funding in 2016 (Round IX). (pg. 9 - 19) An appendix of individual project scopes and statuses for funded projects accompanies this report. It is available in searchable PDF form at www.akenergyauthority.org Additional information on this year’s recommendations and all current and past grants are available on AEA’s website www.akenergyauthority.org and includes: • Appendix of project statuses (Rounds I - VIII) • Economic evaluations • Application summaries This report only includes performance of REF funded projects and so is not a complete view of renewable energy production in Alaska. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2009Actual 2010Actual 2011Actual 2012Actual 2013Actual 2014Actual 2015Actual 2016Projected 2017Projected 2018ProjectedFuel Displaced (diesel equivalent, gallons)MillionsBiomass Heat Pump Heat Recovery Hydro Biofuel Solar Transmission Wind Wind to Heat FUEL DISPLACED (diesel equivalent, gallons)MILLIONSFigure 1 shows continued strong growth in energy generation and fuel displacement. Renewable Energy Fund projects saved Alaska communities an estimated 27.8 million gallons of diesel fuel (equivalent) in 2015, a savings of more than $73.7 million dollars. Two significant hydro projects came online in that period; Whitman Lake and Blue Lake expansion. 2010 ACTUAL 2011ACTUAL 2012ACTUAL 2013ACTUAL 2014 ACTUAL 2015ACTUAL 2016PROJECTED 2018PROJECTED 25 20 15 10 5 0 Wind / Heat Wind Transmission Biofuel Solar PV Hydro Heat Recovery Heat Pumps Biomass MAY 2016 | 19 RECONNAISSANCE: A preliminary feasibility study designed to ascertain whether a feasibility study is warranted. FEASIBILITY/CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: Detailed evaluation intended to assess technical, economic, financial, and operational viability and to narrow focus of final design and construction. This category also includes resource assessment and monitoring. FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING: Project configuration and specifications that guide construction. Includes land use and resource permits and leases required for construction. CONSTRUCTION: Completion of project construction, commissioning, and beginning of operations. This category also includes follow- up operations and maintenance reporting requirements. DIESEL EQUIVALENT GALLON: Most REF communities are displacing diesel fuel (Diesel #2), however some projects displace natural gas, naphtha, propane or Diesel #1. In those instances the displaced fuel is converted to BTUs and then expressed as diesel equivalent gallons for reporting purposes. B/C: The B/C, or benefit/cost ratio is the total net present value of savings over the life of a project divided by the net present value of a project’s total cost. The assumed project life is 50 years for hydro and transmission, 30 years for solar DEFINITIONS ANSWERS TO COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS PV and 20 years for all others. The B/C is one component of the overall project score; it is possible for a project to score high enough in other areas (e.g. being high cost of energy) to be recommended with a B/C of less than 1. B/C ratios are calculated using best available data appropriate for the project’s development phase. Early phase projects use assumptions based on prior similar experience, late phase projects use refined project models and are much more certain. AEA attempts to be as realistic as possible when using assumptions for early phase projects, while also attempting to avoid rejecting potentially good early-phase projects due to overly conservative assumptions. TECHNICAL/ECONOMIC SCORE: This score is based on a project’s technical and economic viability. The technical score considers resource availability, maturity of the proposed technology, the technical viability of the proposed project, and the qualifications and experience of the project team. The economic score is based on the projected costs and benefits associated with the project including consideration of the future price of fuel, current and future local demand for energy and the ability of the applicant to finance the project to completion. ENERGY COST BURDEN: Household energy cost divided by household income. WHAT IMPACT DO REF PROJECTS HAVE ON RATES? It depends, some electrical projects will lower rates immediately and some may only stabilize rates and keep them from increasing over time due to inflation and changing fuel costs. Heating projects result in immediate and direct fuel savings costs to the building owners. DO POWER COST EQUALIZATION (PCE) COMMUNITIES BENEFIT FROM THE REF? Yes, in a number of ways: 1. Statewide, in PCE communities, about 30 percent of total kWhs sold are eligible for the PCE subsidy. That means that any savings from REF projects are passed directly to the other 70 percent of kWhs sold. Schools and privately owned businesses benefit greatly from reduced cost of electricity. 2. REF projects provide stability in the face of uncertain and often volatile fuel prices. 3. 100 percent of the value created by heat projects stays in the community. 4. REF projects create local employment opportunities and local energy independence. WHAT PROJECT ARE THE BEST FIT FOR REF FUNDING? • Technically strong • Economically viable • Located in high energy cost communities • Provides public benefit • Matching funds provided HOW MUCH ARE REF PROJECTS REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS? 2009-2016, an estimated 584,828 metric tons of CO2. 2017PROJECTED 30 The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) is comprised of nine members, five of whom are appointed by the governor to staggered three-year terms, with representation from each of the following groups: • One member from a small Alaska rural electric utility, Brad Reeve • One member from a large Alaska urban electric utility, Bradley Evans • One member from an Alaska Native organization, Jodi Mitchell • One member from businesses or organizations engaged in the renewable energy sector, Chris Rose • One member from the Denali Commission, Kathleen Wasserman • Four remaining members come from the legislature: • Two members of the House of Representatives, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Bryce Edgmon and Rep. Jim Colver • Two members of the Senate, appointed by the President of the Senate, Sen. Lyman Hoffman and Sen. Anna MacKinnon RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE In establishing the program, the REFAC worked with AEA to define eligibility criteria for the Renewable Energy Fund grants, to develop methods for ranking projects, and to adopt regulations identifying criteria to evaluate the benefit and feasibility of projects seeking legislative support. The REFAC continues to consult with AEA, offering valuable guidance and policy direction regarding the application and evaluation process, and final funding recommendations. Following is a summary of REFAC involvement with REF Round VIII. • AEA staff and REFAC members met in May and October, 2015 to discuss issues including the schedule and details of the Round IX request for applications, progress on funded projects, possible changes to the program evaluation, community assistance efforts and potential financing of REF projects. • A staff and REFAC members met in January, 2016 following AEA evaluation of all applications to review the AEA recommendations for Stage 4 (regional distribution). The REFAC supported AEA staff recommendations and requested a few improvements to the way that the information was presented in the REF status report to the legislature. 18 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 Millions MAY 2016 | 3 Figure 4 shows cumulative grant funding by AEA energy region totaling to $257 million in rounds I-VIII. The three highest recipients to date are Southeast with $60 million, Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim with $36.6 million, and Railbelt with $28.2 million. $0 FUNDED GRANTS BY ENERGY REGION ($ millions) ROUNDS I-VIII FUNDED GRANTS BY ENERGY RESOURCE ($ millions) ROUNDS I-VIII Figure 2 below demonstrates the wide geographic distribution of REF projects across all areas of the state. Most funding is provided to high cost-of-energy communities. Figure 3 shows funding by energy resource, with wind and hydro grants making up just less than 70 percent of total funding. RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PROJECTS ROUNDS I-VIII Hydro $84.8 Biomass $27.0 Heat Recovery $20.3 Heat Pumps $16.4 Trans-mission $12.5 Ocean/ River $3.9 Solar $0.5 Other $0.1 Wind $91.5 Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River/Chugach Kodiak Lower Y-K North Slope Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Statewide Y-K/Upper Tanana $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 Brad Reeve Senator Hoffman Senator MacKinnonRep. ColverRep. Edgmon Jodi Mitchell Kathy WassermanBradley Evans Chris Rose $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 PV Capital Cost PV Benefits$ MillionsREF CURRENTLY OPERATING PROJECTS Biofuel Biomass Heat Pumps Heat Recovery Hydro Solar Transmission Wind • The present value of the capital expenditures used to build 55 currently generating projects is $497M and the present value of benefits is $1,238M. Based on the present value of capital cost and future benefits, these projects have an overall benefit-cost ratio of 2.5. • For every dollar invested, these projects have an estimated return of $2.50. It is important to note that the REF invested $128.8 million of total project costs in these 55 projects. The balance was invested from other sources. • The technology with the largest number of generating projects is wind, at 31 percent. This share is declining; moving from 40 percent in 2013 to 34 percent in 2014 and now 31 percent in 2015. Hydro projects continue to gain share, up to 18 percent of total generating projects in 2015. • There are currently ten operational biomass projects, 18 percent of total count, and an additional nine are expected to come online in the next two years. • More than half of the projects included in the calculation for future projected energy generation are heat projects, either biomass, heat recovery or heat pumps. • Though still small as a percentage of total capital cost or benefits, the number of heat projects comprise a substantial portion, 39 percent, of total projects. • See pages 6 and 7 for information about where these $1.2 billion of benefits accrue. Renewable Energy Fund Rounds I – VIII Grant and Funding Summary Round I Round II Round III Round IV Round V Round VI Round VII Round VIII Totals Applications received 115 118 123 108 97 85 86 67 799 Applications funded 80 30 25 74 19 23 26 10 287 Current active grants 13 6 8 30 18 22 26 10 133 Amount requested1 ($M) $ 453.8 $ 293.4 $ 223.5 $ 123.1 $ 132.9 $ 122.6 $ 93.0 $ 43.8 $ 1,486.1 AEA recommended ($M) $ 100.0 $ 36.8 $ 65.8 $ 36.6 $ 43.2 $ 56.8 $ 59.1 $ 20.6 $ 418.9 Appropriated ($M) $ 100.0 $ 25.0 $ 25.0 $ 26.62 $ 25.9 $ 25.0 $ 20.03 $ 9.54 $ 257.0 Grant match Budget5 ($M) $ 23.6 $ 4.5 $ 11.0 $ 61.6 $ 9.0 $ 5.7 $ 36.7 $ 1.2 $ 153.3 1. Total amount requested by all applicants 2. $26.6 million was appropriated for round IV, and an additional $10 million was re-appropriated from previous rounds for use in round IV. 3. $20 million was appropriated for round VII, and an additional $2.8 million was re-appropriated from previous rounds for use in round VII. 4. $9.5 was re-appropriated from the Mt. Spur geothermal project (FSSLA 2011 CH5, P137) for round VIII, and an additional $2.0 million was re-appropriated from previous rounds for use in round VIII. 5. Represents only amounts recorded in the grant document and does not capture all funding needed to complete the project 1 s 2 s 3 s 4 s 5 s 1. Total grant amount requested by all applicants. 2. $26.6 million was appropriated for round IV, and an additional $10 million was re- appropriated from previous rounds for use in round IV. 3. $20 million was appropriated for 4 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT PERFORMANCE & SAVINGS REF CURRENTLY OPERATING PROJECTS GRANT AND FUNDING SUMMARY round VII, and an additional $2.8 million was re-appropriated from previous rounds for use in round VII. 4. $9.5 million was re-appropriated from the Mt. Spurr geothermal project (FSSLA 2011 CH5, P137) for round VIII, and an additional $2.0 million was re-appropriated from previous rounds for use in round VIII. 5. Represents only amounts recorded in the grant document and does not capture all funding need to complete all phases of the project. NOTES: MAY 2016 | 17 RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ROUND IX | RECOMMENDED HEAT PROJECTS $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River/ Chugach Kodiak Lower Yukon- Kuskokwim North Slope Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/ UpperTanana $ Millions$0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0 Biomass Heat Pumps Heat Recovery $ Millions HEAT PROJECTS BY RESOURCE HEAT PROJECTS BY REGION The two bar charts show Round IX recommended projects by energy resource and by region for heat projects. Not all of these projects fit into the Governor’s proposed $5 million budget for REF Round IX. All three heat projects that fall within the Governor’s budget are heat recovery projects, two in the Bering Straits and one in the Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana energy regions. $MILLIONSFigure 5 shows the present value (PV) of the 55 projects that have been completed to date. 16 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ROUND IX | RECOMMENDED STANDARD PROJECTS $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River/ Chugach Kodiak Lower Yukon- Kuskokwim North Slope Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper… $ Millions$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 Hydro Other Solar PV Storage of Renewable Transmission Wind $ Millions STANDARD PROJECTS BY RESOURCE STANDARD PROJECTS BY REGION The two bar charts show Round IX recommended funding by energy resource and by region for standard projects. Not all of these projects fit into the Governor’s proposed $5 million budget for REF Round IX. Four standard projects, two wind and two hydro, fit within the Governor’s budget. These four projects fall within the Copper River/Chugach, Aleutians and Bering Straits energy regions. The communities of Chevak and Gambell are together saving 15,800 gallons of fuel every year by using excess electrical production from a previously installed wind-diesel system to help heat their water systems. Both of these projects were developed through a collaboration between the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) using $480,520 in Renewable Energy Fund grants and $25,290 in matching funds. In all hybrid systems there are times, during peak production or when demand is low, that there is excess electrical production. The experience gained through REF and earlier projects has demonstrated the importance of addressing excess electrical production from both a technical and economic standpoint; in current hybrid system design, secondary loads are installed to use this otherwise wasted energy. The Gambell and Chevak projects retrofitted the community water treatment plant with electric boilers to serve as secondary loads when excess wind energy is generated and to heat the domestic water loop, water storage tanks and facility space. In 2015 fuel prices in Chevak and Gambell hovered around $4 per gallon. At this price, the new system is saving just over $63,000 in fuel costs annually. There is value to community residents in both direct cost savings from the water utility (as a result of lower operating costs) and potential rate reductions at the electric utility (as a result of new revenue from sale of RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND SUCCESS STORY MAY 2016 | 5 REF AWARDS | $480,000 MATCHING FUNDS | $26,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST | $506,000 GAMBELL and CHEVAK EXCESS WIND for WATER SYSTEM HEAT: using excess wind generation to heat water systems and optimize wind-diesel hybrid power systems. renewable energy heat). AVEC charges $0.05/kWh for the excess energy used for heat. AVEC uses revenue from heat sales to pay for: operations and maintenance associated with delivering excess wind energy, improving the local utility infrastructure and to reduce rates. At current prices, a little less than half the value of the fuel savings goes to the electric utility and the rest to the water utility. The electric utility also benefits from the availability of new dispatchable loads for their wind-diesel hybrid systems. As with most renewable resources, wind power is variable and relatively unpredictable. Even with modern controls, the sudden addition or loss of a large amounts of power can be a problem for these power systems. The ability to divert excess power whenever necessary is a valuable tool for ensuring the utility’s safe, reliable and efficient operation. Chevak is a community of just under 1,000 residents located in western Alaska in the Kusilvak census area in the Calista region. Chevak has a hybrid power system with about one third of the electricity generated from wind and two-thirds generated with diesel. Project metrics: • Total project cost of $253K • Annual fuel savings of more than 8,600 gallons of diesel • Benefit-cost ratio of 2.50 Gambell is a community of more than 700 residents located on St. Lawrence Island, 200 miles southwest of Nome, in the Bering Sea. Gambell has a hybrid power system with around 14 percent of the electricity generated from wind and the balance generated from diesel. Project metrics: • Total project cost $253K • Annual fuel savings of more than 7,200 gallons of diesel • Benefit-cost ratio 2.07 Chevak wind turbines Gambell Alaska, photo credit Carl Remley 6 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Technology Type Fuel Displaced Grantee Project Name Start date Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) 1 Hydro Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co-op Gartina Falls - Hoonah 07/15 - - - -$ 568 - 38 144$ 568 - 38 144$ 2 Hydro Diesel Chignik Lagoon Power Utility Packers Creek 03/15 - - - -$ 562 - 52 235$ 562 - 52 235$ 3 Hydro Diesel City of Akutan Akutan Hydro 12/14 - - - -$ 11 - 1 5$ 11 - 1 5$ 4 Hydro Diesel City and Borough of Sitka Blue Lake Expansion 11/14 8,755 - 674 2,155$ 59,272 - 4,559 14,594$ 68,027 - 5,233 16,749$ 5 Hydro Diesel City of Ketchikan Whitman Lake 10/14 2,487 - 191 809$ 8,762 - 674 2,851$ 11,249 - 865 3,660$ 6 Hydro Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Terror Lake 01/14 12,406 - 827 3,680$ 118,044 - 8,432 34,233$ 127,349 - 9,052 36,993$ 7 Hydro Diesel Cordova Electric Co-op Humpback Creek 07/11 2,814 - 217 762$ 3,074 - 236 768$ 14,469 - 1,108 3,955$ 8 Hydro Diesel Gustavus Electric Falls Creek 07/09 1,871 - 144 557$ 2,149 - 165 613$ 12,052 - 892 3,316$ 9 Hydro Diesel City of Atka Chuniixsax Creek 12/12 287 - 22 121$ 381 - 29 150$ 1,057 - 81 434$ 10 Landfill Gas Nat Gas Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage Landfill Gas 08/12 56,167 - 5,352 2,416$ 50,032 - 4,783 1,079$ 152,913 - 14,586 7,545$ 11 Solar PV Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Kaltag Solar 10/12 9 - 1 2$ 8 - 1 2$ 26 - 2 7$ 12 Transmission Diesel AK Electric Light & Power Snettisham - Juneau 01/14 1,247 - 96 150$ 1,871 - 144 225$ 1,871 - 144 225$ 13 Transmission Diesel Alaska Power & Telephon North Prince of Wales Intertie 09/11 931 - 72 259$ 1,352 - 104 289$ 4,524 - 312 1,049$ 14 Transmission Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Wind Transmission 10/10 986 - 61 206$ 1,650 - 102 307$ 7,148 - 427 1,339$ 15 Wind Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Peak Wind Expansion 08/13 1,283 - 78 266$ 1,642 - 100 304$ 3,537 - 216 692$ 16 Wind Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.Eva Creek 10/12 71,770 - 5,054 13,074$ 72,639 - 5,115 8,324$ 229,119 - 16,135 36,673$ 17 Wind Diesel Kotzebue Electric Association Kotz Wind-Battery-Diesel 05/12 3,374 - 229 811$ 2,511 - 171 542$ 9,908 - 674 2,349$ 18 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Shaktoolik Wind 04/12 312 - 24 97$ 283 - 22 84$ 934 - 72 284$ 19 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind 09/11 485 - 34 136$ 327 - 23 84$ 1,887 - 134 519$ 20 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Quinhagak Wind Farm 11/10 415 - 32 130$ 403 - 31 115$ 2,338 - 176 688$ 21 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Mekoryuk Wind Farm 11/10 173 - 12 47$ 180 - 13 48$ 940 - 64 239$ 22 Wind Naphtha Alaska Environmental Power Delta Area Wind Turbines 09/10 2,251 - 145 392$ 2,013 - 130 351$ 9,046 - 566 1,456$ 23 Wind Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Pillar Mountain Wind 09/10 23,039 - 1,622 5,066$ 29,107 - 2,050 5,417$ 124,684 - 8,775 28,081$ 24 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Toksook Wind Farm 08/09 42 - 3 12$ 168 - 12 46$ 1,159 - 82 304$ ELECTRICAL PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 191,102 - 14,890 31,148 357,010 - 26,989 70,809 785,377 - 59,686 146,939 25 Hydro Diesel City of Pelican Pelican Hydro Upgrade 03/13 1,004 431 76 339$ 1,298 - 93 415$ 3,011 431 220 984$ 26 Biomass Diesel AK Gateway School District Tok Wood Heating 10/10 269 6,106 59 146$ 306 6,136 59 124$ 575 25,422 239 663$ 27 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Unalaska Unalaska Heat Recovery 09/14 80 - 6 21$ 470 19 36 114$ 550 19 42 135$ 28 Wind/Heat Diesel Tuntutuliak Comm Svs Assoc.Tunt Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 01/13 158 256 12 47$ 215 128 17 64$ 565 696 44 179$ 29 Wind/Heat Diesel Kwigillingok Power Company Kwig Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 02/12 180 168 14 58$ 464 238 38 126$ 723 544 59 217$ 30 Wind/Heat Diesel Aleutian Wind Energy Sand Point Wind 08/11 1,105 394 81 371$ 974 360 72 326$ 3,838 773 282 1,291$ 31 Wind/Heat Diesel Puvurnaq Power Company Kong Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 12/10 322 551 30 111$ 330 435 29 96$ 1,238 1,612 109 423$ 32 Wind/Heat Diesel Unalakleet Valley Electric Co Unalakleet Wind Farm 12/09 1,090 236 83 322$ 972 228 72 273$ 5,636 779 404 1,442$ ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 4,208 8,142 361 1,416$ 5,029 7,544 416 1,537$ 16,138 30,276 1,399 5,333$ 33 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Chevak Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 - - - -$ - 121 1 6$ - 121 1 6$ 34 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Gambell Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 - 34 0.3 1$ - 174 2 6$ - 209 2 7$ 35 Biomass Diesel Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Pen Wood Boilers 01/15 - - - -$ - 45 0.4 2$ - 45 0 2$ 36 Biomass Diesel Interior Regional Housing Wood Heating Interior Commmunities 01/15 - - - -$ - 272 3.8 16$ - 272 4 16$ 37 Biomass Diesel Mentasta Traditional Council Mentasta Community Facility Heat 10/14 - - - -$ - 542 5 22$ - 542 5 22$ 38 Biomass Diesel City of Tanana Tanana City-Tribe Biomass 01/14 - 1,972 17 40$ - 1,360 11 57$ - 3,332 28 97$ 39 Biomass Diesel Southeast Island School District Thorne Bay School Biomass 01/13 - 1,633 15 36$ - 2,121 19 64$ - 3,754 34 100$ 40 Biomass Diesel Native Village of Eyak Cordova Wood Processing 12/11 - 540 4 10$ - 840 7 28$ - 4,920 40 148$ 41 Biomass Diesel Chilkoot Indian Association Haines Central Wood Heating 10/11 - 267 3 4$ - 141 2 2$ - 852 8 18$ 42 Biomass Diesel Delta/Greely School District Delta Wood Chip Heating 09/11 - 4,673 45 165$ - 3,339 32 105$ - 15,037 145 471$ 43 Biomass Diesel Gulkana Village Council Gulkana Central Wood Heating 10/10 - 920 9 25$ - 198 2 6$ - 3,998 37 123$ 44 Heat Pumps Diesel City of Seward Sealife Center Seawater Heat Pump 11/11 - 4,809 46 126$ - 4,179 40 105$ - 14,509 140 373$ 45 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Airport Ground Source Heat Pump 05/11 - 6,400 46 153$ - 6,400 46 153$ - 29,717 220 755$ 46 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Aquatic Cntr Ground Source Heat Pump 04/11 - 4,222 36 95$ - 4,621 39 68$ - 14,965 127 320$ 47 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Saint Paul Electric Utility Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade 02/15 - - - -$ - 5,680 51 265$ - 5,680 51 265$ 48 Heat Recovery Diesel Sleetmute Traditional Council Heat Recovery to Water Plant 11/14 - - - -$ - 175 2 9$ - 175 2 9$ 49 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Ambler Ambler Heat Recovery 10/13 - 426 4 48$ - 494 5 26$ - 1,010 10 85$ 50 Heat Recovery Diesel North Slope Borough Point Lay Heat Recovery 08/13 - 2,153 20 98$ - 1,555 15 71$ - 3,708 35 169$ 51 Heat Recovery Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co-op Hoonah Heat Recovery Project 08/12 - 4,869 47 210$ - 4,099 39 148$ - 14,805 142 588$ 52 Heat Recovery Diesel City and Borough of Wrangell Wrangell Hydro Electric Boilers 02/11 - 8,162 84 145$ - 7,588 78 25$ - 37,678 383 665$ 53 Heat Recovery Diesel McGrath Light & Power McGrath Heat Recovery 05/10 - 2,427 23 176$ - 2,390 23 95$ - 13,992 131 749$ 54 Heat Recovery Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.North Pole Heat Recovery 11/09 - 2,706 50 193$ - 2,040 23 93$ - 15,212 264 751$ 55 Solar Thermal Propane Golden Valley Electric Assoc.McKinley Village Solar Thermal 06/10 - 108 1 10$ - 120 1 11$ - 661 7 43$ HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL - 46,321 450 1,535$ - 48,494 447 1,384$ - 185,194 1,815 5,782$ GRAND TOTAL 195,310 54,463 15,700 34,099$ 362,039 56,038 27,851 73,729$ 801,516 215,470 62,900 158,053$ HEAT PROJECTS ELECTRICAL PROJECTS Energy Production Fuel Displaced ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL Cumulative Total (2009 - 2015)2014 Energy Production Fuel Displaced 2015 Energy Production Fuel Displaced PERFORMANCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PROJECTS PROJECTS IN OPERATION DURING THE PERIOD 2009- 2015 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Not Recommended Applications CountEnergy Region ID Project Name Applicant Energy Source B/C Ratio Household Energy Cost Tech/ Econ Score State- wide Rank Project Cost Through Construction Applicant Grant Requested Applicant Match Offered Requested Phase(s)AEA Recomnd 40 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1204 Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project: Phase II Alaska Power Company Hydro 0.74 $7,963 37.00 40 $15,400,000 $386,000 $100,000 Feas DNP Stage 2 41 Railbelt 1229 Knik Arm Power Plant Biomass to Power Central Environmental Inc.Biofuel 0.42 $5,594 31.17 41 $3,000,000 $400,000 $2,600,000 Recon DNP Stage 2 42 Southeast 1203 Craig Water Treatment Plant Micro-Hydro City of Craig Hydro 1.07 $7,351 N/A 42 $386,000 $80,000 $10,000 Feas, Design Not Recomnd 43 Aleutians 1206 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study City of False Pass Hydrokinetic 0.13 $8,145 N/A 43 $6,300,000 $440,319 $62,500 Feas Not Recomnd 44 Southeast 1227 Hoonah Waste-to-Energy Project City of Hoonah Biofuel 0.54 $9,956 N/A 44 $5,289,000 $5,282,000 $277,000 Constr Not Recomnd 45 Railbelt 1228 Point McKenzie Correction Farm Solar SOA Dept. of Corrections Solar 0.29 $6,260 N/A 45 $448,663 $140,000 $210,000 Recon, Feas, Design, Constr Not Recomnd 46 Northwest Arctic 1230 Kotzebue 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Kotzebue Electric Association, Inc.Solar 0.43 $11,759 N/A 46 $800,000 $384,730 $64,448 Design, Constr Not Recomnd 47 Southeast 1236 West Creek Hydroelectric Project Municipality of Skagway Borough Hydro 0.47 $7,750 N/A 47 $168,000,000 $320,000 $25,000 Design Not Recomnd 48 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1241 Minto PV Solar Project Minto Development Corporation Solar 0.37 $9,471 N/A 48 $86,400 $140,000 $210,000 Recon, Feas, Constr Not Recomnd 49 Copper River/Chugach 1243 Maximizing Cordova Hydro with Controlled Systems Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.Heat Hydro 1.15 $11,122 N/A 49 $392,959 $95,733 $61,996 Feas Not Recomnd 50 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1251 Circle 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Circle Utilities, Inc.Solar 0.44 $9,399 N/A 50 N/A $75,000 $10,000 Feas Not Recomnd 51 Bristol Bay 1252 Igiugig RivGen© Power System Igiugig Electric Company Hydrokinetic 0.20 $16,003 N/A 51 $2,131,740 $1,490,077 $641,663 Design, Constr Not Recomnd 52 Southeast 1240 Solar Panels for Kake Community Buildings City of Kake Solar N/A $11,412 N/A 52 N/A $255,000 $0 Feas, Design, Constr DNP Stage 1 Totals, Not Recommended Projects $202,234,762 $9,488,859 $4,272,607 Not Recommended Projects Project Cost Recommendation MAY 2016 | 15 Savings are equal to the value of the displaced fossil fuel minus the cost of the renewable energy fuel, where appropriate (e.g. the cost of wood for a biomass project). For projects with no renewable fuel costs (e.g. wind, hydro), savings are equal to the value of the fossil fuel displaced. These savings estimates do not account for changes in operation and maintenance costs or additional costs associated with pur- chasing and/or selling renewable energy through an independent power producer. Allison Creek Hydro recieved feasibility and construction funding through REF. Construc- tion is underway on the $39 million project which will provide 6.5 megawatts of clean renewable power to more than 8,000 consumers in the Copper Basin Region by fall 2016. Photo credit: Copper Valley Electric Association 14 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Not Recommended Applications CountEnergy Region ID Project Name Applicant Energy Source B/C Ratio Household Energy Cost Tech/ Econ Score State- wide Rank Project Cost Through Construction Applicant Grant Requested Applicant Match Offered Requested Phase(s)AEA Recomnd 40 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1204 Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project: Phase II Alaska Power Company Hydro 0.74 $7,963 37.00 40 $15,400,000 $386,000 $100,000 Feas DNP Stage 2 41 Railbelt 1229 Knik Arm Power Plant Biomass to Power Central Environmental Inc.Biofuel 0.42 $5,594 31.17 41 $3,000,000 $400,000 $2,600,000 Recon DNP Stage 2 42 Southeast 1203 Craig Water Treatment Plant Micro-Hydro City of Craig Hydro 1.07 $7,351 N/A 42 $386,000 $80,000 $10,000 Feas, Design Not Recomnd 43 Aleutians 1206 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study City of False Pass Hydrokinetic 0.13 $8,145 N/A 43 $6,300,000 $440,319 $62,500 Feas Not Recomnd 44 Southeast 1227 Hoonah Waste-to-Energy Project City of Hoonah Biofuel 0.54 $9,956 N/A 44 $5,289,000 $5,282,000 $277,000 Constr Not Recomnd 45 Railbelt 1228 Point McKenzie Correction Farm Solar SOA Dept. of Corrections Solar 0.29 $6,260 N/A 45 $448,663 $140,000 $210,000 Recon, Feas, Design, Constr Not Recomnd 46 Northwest Arctic 1230 Kotzebue 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Kotzebue Electric Association, Inc.Solar 0.43 $11,759 N/A 46 $800,000 $384,730 $64,448 Design, Constr Not Recomnd 47 Southeast 1236 West Creek Hydroelectric Project Municipality of Skagway Borough Hydro 0.47 $7,750 N/A 47 $168,000,000 $320,000 $25,000 Design Not Recomnd 48 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1241 Minto PV Solar Project Minto Development Corporation Solar 0.37 $9,471 N/A 48 $86,400 $140,000 $210,000 Recon, Feas, Constr Not Recomnd 49 Copper River/Chugach 1243 Maximizing Cordova Hydro with Controlled Systems Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.Heat Hydro 1.15 $11,122 N/A 49 $392,959 $95,733 $61,996 Feas Not Recomnd 50 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1251 Circle 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Circle Utilities, Inc.Solar 0.44 $9,399 N/A 50 N/A $75,000 $10,000 Feas Not Recomnd 51 Bristol Bay 1252 Igiugig RivGen© Power System Igiugig Electric Company Hydrokinetic 0.20 $16,003 N/A 51 $2,131,740 $1,490,077 $641,663 Design, Constr Not Recomnd 52 Southeast 1240 Solar Panels for Kake Community Buildings City of Kake Solar N/A $11,412 N/A 52 N/A $255,000 $0 Feas, Design, Constr DNP Stage 1 Totals, Not Recommended Projects $202,234,762 $9,488,859 $4,272,607 Not Recommended Projects Project Cost Recommendation APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING NOTES FOR TABLES PAGES 10-11 Individual project summaries are available on AEA’s website www.akenergyauthority.org If REF 9 funding is limited to $5M exactly, #1233 Grayling Water System Heat Recovery (italicized in recommended list) would be partially funded. To fully fund the project, a total of $5,011,599 must be appropriated. B/C = AEA Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project. The rows that appear in bold font are those projects in underserved regions. Applications #1238, 1233 and 1223 were moved up the list during stage four regional distribution. Impacted Population includes the population of a community(s) or utility service area(s) which a project is located in or may impact. The Household Energy Cost is a measure of the annual heating and electricity costs for a typical household in a given community. The technical and economic score is the total stage 2 score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2. Match offered is applicant’s offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable. If the awarded funding amount is reduced from the requested amount, the required match will also be reduced. The Energy Region Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana was shortened to Y-K/Upper Tanana for printing purposes. †The economic benefits of this project were ineligible for consideration in the REF evaluation because the project displaces renewable hydro generated energy. #1207, Yerrick Creek Hydro, is in an under-served region but was not elevated because the funding request was $4 million and only $38,401 was available. Instead #1233, a smaller project from the same region was elevated for nearly full funding. SP = Special Provisions 2 3 4 5 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Technology Type Fuel Displaced Grantee Project Name Start date Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) 1 Hydro Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co-op Gartina Falls - Hoonah 07/15 - - - -$ 568 - 38 144$ 568 - 38 144$ 2 Hydro Diesel Chignik Lagoon Power Utility Packers Creek 03/15 - - - -$ 562 - 52 235$ 562 - 52 235$ 3 Hydro Diesel City of Akutan Akutan Hydro 12/14 - - - -$ 11 - 1 5$ 11 - 1 5$ 4 Hydro Diesel City and Borough of Sitka Blue Lake Expansion 11/14 8,755 - 674 2,155$ 59,272 - 4,559 14,594$ 68,027 - 5,233 16,749$ 5 Hydro Diesel City of Ketchikan Whitman Lake 10/14 2,487 - 191 809$ 8,762 - 674 2,851$ 11,249 - 865 3,660$ 6 Hydro Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Terror Lake 01/14 12,406 - 827 3,680$ 118,044 - 8,432 34,233$ 127,349 - 9,052 36,993$ 7 Hydro Diesel Cordova Electric Co-op Humpback Creek 07/11 2,814 - 217 762$ 3,074 - 236 768$ 14,469 - 1,108 3,955$ 8 Hydro Diesel Gustavus Electric Falls Creek 07/09 1,871 - 144 557$ 2,149 - 165 613$ 12,052 - 892 3,316$ 9 Hydro Diesel City of Atka Chuniixsax Creek 12/12 287 - 22 121$ 381 - 29 150$ 1,057 - 81 434$ 10 Landfill Gas Nat Gas Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage Landfill Gas 08/12 56,167 - 5,352 2,416$ 50,032 - 4,783 1,079$ 152,913 - 14,586 7,545$ 11 Solar PV Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Kaltag Solar 10/12 9 - 1 2$ 8 - 1 2$ 26 - 2 7$ 12 Transmission Diesel AK Electric Light & Power Snettisham - Juneau 01/14 1,247 - 96 150$ 1,871 - 144 225$ 1,871 - 144 225$ 13 Transmission Diesel Alaska Power & Telephon North Prince of Wales Intertie 09/11 931 - 72 259$ 1,352 - 104 289$ 4,524 - 312 1,049$ 14 Transmission Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Wind Transmission 10/10 986 - 61 206$ 1,650 - 102 307$ 7,148 - 427 1,339$ 15 Wind Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Peak Wind Expansion 08/13 1,283 - 78 266$ 1,642 - 100 304$ 3,537 - 216 692$ 16 Wind Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.Eva Creek 10/12 71,770 - 5,054 13,074$ 72,639 - 5,115 8,324$ 229,119 - 16,135 36,673$ 17 Wind Diesel Kotzebue Electric Association Kotz Wind-Battery-Diesel 05/12 3,374 - 229 811$ 2,511 - 171 542$ 9,908 - 674 2,349$ 18 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Shaktoolik Wind 04/12 312 - 24 97$ 283 - 22 84$ 934 - 72 284$ 19 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind 09/11 485 - 34 136$ 327 - 23 84$ 1,887 - 134 519$ 20 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Quinhagak Wind Farm 11/10 415 - 32 130$ 403 - 31 115$ 2,338 - 176 688$ 21 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Mekoryuk Wind Farm 11/10 173 - 12 47$ 180 - 13 48$ 940 - 64 239$ 22 Wind Naphtha Alaska Environmental Power Delta Area Wind Turbines 09/10 2,251 - 145 392$ 2,013 - 130 351$ 9,046 - 566 1,456$ 23 Wind Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Pillar Mountain Wind 09/10 23,039 - 1,622 5,066$ 29,107 - 2,050 5,417$ 124,684 - 8,775 28,081$ 24 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Toksook Wind Farm 08/09 42 - 3 12$ 168 - 12 46$ 1,159 - 82 304$ ELECTRICAL PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 191,102 - 14,890 31,148 357,010 - 26,989 70,809 785,377 - 59,686 146,939 25 Hydro Diesel City of Pelican Pelican Hydro Upgrade 03/13 1,004 431 76 339$ 1,298 - 93 415$ 3,011 431 220 984$ 26 Biomass Diesel AK Gateway School District Tok Wood Heating 10/10 269 6,106 59 146$ 306 6,136 59 124$ 575 25,422 239 663$ 27 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Unalaska Unalaska Heat Recovery 09/14 80 - 6 21$ 470 19 36 114$ 550 19 42 135$ 28 Wind/Heat Diesel Tuntutuliak Comm Svs Assoc.Tunt Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 01/13 158 256 12 47$ 215 128 17 64$ 565 696 44 179$ 29 Wind/Heat Diesel Kwigillingok Power Company Kwig Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 02/12 180 168 14 58$ 464 238 38 126$ 723 544 59 217$ 30 Wind/Heat Diesel Aleutian Wind Energy Sand Point Wind 08/11 1,105 394 81 371$ 974 360 72 326$ 3,838 773 282 1,291$ 31 Wind/Heat Diesel Puvurnaq Power Company Kong Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 12/10 322 551 30 111$ 330 435 29 96$ 1,238 1,612 109 423$ 32 Wind/Heat Diesel Unalakleet Valley Electric Co Unalakleet Wind Farm 12/09 1,090 236 83 322$ 972 228 72 273$ 5,636 779 404 1,442$ ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 4,208 8,142 361 1,416$ 5,029 7,544 416 1,537$ 16,138 30,276 1,399 5,333$ 33 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Chevak Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 - - - -$ - 121 1 6$ - 121 1 6$ 34 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Gambell Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 - 34 0.3 1$ - 174 2 6$ - 209 2 7$ 35 Biomass Diesel Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Pen Wood Boilers 01/15 - - - -$ - 45 0.4 2$ - 45 0 2$ 36 Biomass Diesel Interior Regional Housing Wood Heating Interior Commmunities 01/15 - - - -$ - 272 3.8 16$ - 272 4 16$ 37 Biomass Diesel Mentasta Traditional Council Mentasta Community Facility Heat 10/14 - - - -$ - 542 5 22$ - 542 5 22$ 38 Biomass Diesel City of Tanana Tanana City-Tribe Biomass 01/14 - 1,972 17 40$ - 1,360 11 57$ - 3,332 28 97$ 39 Biomass Diesel Southeast Island School District Thorne Bay School Biomass 01/13 - 1,633 15 36$ - 2,121 19 64$ - 3,754 34 100$ 40 Biomass Diesel Native Village of Eyak Cordova Wood Processing 12/11 - 540 4 10$ - 840 7 28$ - 4,920 40 148$ 41 Biomass Diesel Chilkoot Indian Association Haines Central Wood Heating 10/11 - 267 3 4$ - 141 2 2$ - 852 8 18$ 42 Biomass Diesel Delta/Greely School District Delta Wood Chip Heating 09/11 - 4,673 45 165$ - 3,339 32 105$ - 15,037 145 471$ 43 Biomass Diesel Gulkana Village Council Gulkana Central Wood Heating 10/10 - 920 9 25$ - 198 2 6$ - 3,998 37 123$ 44 Heat Pumps Diesel City of Seward Sealife Center Seawater Heat Pump 11/11 - 4,809 46 126$ - 4,179 40 105$ - 14,509 140 373$ 45 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Airport Ground Source Heat Pump 05/11 - 6,400 46 153$ - 6,400 46 153$ - 29,717 220 755$ 46 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Aquatic Cntr Ground Source Heat Pump 04/11 - 4,222 36 95$ - 4,621 39 68$ - 14,965 127 320$ 47 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Saint Paul Electric Utility Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade 02/15 - - - -$ - 5,680 51 265$ - 5,680 51 265$ 48 Heat Recovery Diesel Sleetmute Traditional Council Heat Recovery to Water Plant 11/14 - - - -$ - 175 2 9$ - 175 2 9$ 49 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Ambler Ambler Heat Recovery 10/13 - 426 4 48$ - 494 5 26$ - 1,010 10 85$ 50 Heat Recovery Diesel North Slope Borough Point Lay Heat Recovery 08/13 - 2,153 20 98$ - 1,555 15 71$ - 3,708 35 169$ 51 Heat Recovery Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co-op Hoonah Heat Recovery Project 08/12 - 4,869 47 210$ - 4,099 39 148$ - 14,805 142 588$ 52 Heat Recovery Diesel City and Borough of Wrangell Wrangell Hydro Electric Boilers 02/11 - 8,162 84 145$ - 7,588 78 25$ - 37,678 383 665$ 53 Heat Recovery Diesel McGrath Light & Power McGrath Heat Recovery 05/10 - 2,427 23 176$ - 2,390 23 95$ - 13,992 131 749$ 54 Heat Recovery Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.North Pole Heat Recovery 11/09 - 2,706 50 193$ - 2,040 23 93$ - 15,212 264 751$ 55 Solar Thermal Propane Golden Valley Electric Assoc.McKinley Village Solar Thermal 06/10 - 108 1 10$ - 120 1 11$ - 661 7 43$ HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL - 46,321 450 1,535$ - 48,494 447 1,384$ - 185,194 1,815 5,782$ GRAND TOTAL 195,310 54,463 15,700 34,099$ 362,039 56,038 27,851 73,729$ 801,516 215,470 62,900 158,053$ HEAT PROJECTS ELECTRICAL PROJECTS Energy Production Fuel Displaced ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL Cumulative Total (2009 - 2015)2014 Energy Production Fuel Displaced 2015 Energy Production Fuel Displaced MAY 2016 | 7 The generation amounts presented in the table are the annual amounts produced by projects that have received REF invest- ment. In certain cases the interactions between REF-funded and previously existing or subsequently built projects are impos- sible to seperate. These cases are noted and total renewable generation is provided. Project specific notes: Row 4 - Blue Lake Expansion: REF funds assisted in the expan- sion of the Blue Lake hydro facility. The production numbers shown are for the whole system. Row 6 - Terror Lake Hydro: REF funded the installation of turbine three at Terror Lake. The production numbers shown are for the whole hydro system, of which turbine three is one part. Years prior to 2015 reported modelled estimates of turbine three contributions. The cunmmulative total is the sum of all years as reported. Row 12 - Snettisham Transmission Line Avalanche Mitigation: actual production values are not available, the figures reported are estimates based on initial economic valuation. Row 19 - Emmonak Wind: generation is lower in 2015 due to a fire at their substation which eliminated wind generation from mid-May to late August. Rows 22 and 24 - Delta and Toksook wind performance report- ed is only for REF funded turbines, not the whole wind farm. Row 26 - Tok Wood Heating: the project produces energy used for space heating and electricity production. The REF program funded the space heating component but performance report- ing is provided for the whole system. Row 28 - Tuntutuliak Wind: actual reported values were not available for the project. Electric values are estimates based on the PCE reporting by the utility. Heat values are estimates based on past reporting. Row 29 - Kwigillingok Wind: fourth quarter performance is estimated based on prior years performance. Q1 - Q3 are actual generation values. Row 37 - Mentasta Biomas: the project is currently not opera- tional and awaiting parts for repair. Row 40 - Cordova Wood Processing: production data was not provided. Estimates averaging all prior year production is pre- sented. Row 45 - Juneau Airport Ground Source Heat Pump: the project does not have metering that can provide exact heat displace- ment. The values reported are estimates based on information provided by the grantee. Totals may not equal sum of individual figures due to independent rounding. Some not recommended projects’ B/C ratios may not be listed due to incomplete information In 2015 Chignik Lagoon experienced a dramatic change within the community. The noise and emissions from the diesel generator plant ceased but the power was still on. The shift from powering the community with diesel to a water powered generator, a vastly simpler system, occurred with the flick of a switch. Yet the path to building the hydroelectric generation project was not so simple. Chignik Lagoon, with a 2010 census population of 78, is one of three communities in the vicinity of the Chignik River located on the south shore of the Alaska Peninsula 450 miles southwest of Anchorage. In 1980 a regional reconnaissance study found two economical projects (Through Creek and Crazy Creek). The next known investigation was the 1995 feasibility for development on Packers Creek. The rising price of oil in the mid 2000’s and the desire to create economic development opportunities prompted proactive residents and the utility to pursue the development of a local hydroelectric resource. The main objectives were to reduce electrical costs to the city and to reduce dependency on diesel fuel. 8 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND SUCCESS STORY PACKERS CREEK HYDRO REF AWARD | $4,500,000 MATCHING FUNDS | $1,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COST | $5,500,000 EXPECTED LIFE | 50 YEARS The utility quickly discovered that developing a hydroelectric project was not as simple as the technology. Development stalled because of a lack of funding for the costly upfront engineering and permitting expenses. Then in 2008 the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grant program was able to help provide the funding needed for this early work. Alaska’s REF grant program jump started the development and later awarded grants for final design and construction. The 167 kW project now generates about 85 percent of Chignik Lagoon’s electrical needs. Construction of the project also improved other infrastructure and opportunities in the community. A new mile-long gravel road leading to the Packers Creek dam nearly doubles the total amount of road in Chignik Lagoon opening up new areas for recreation and subsistence. The project also improved electrical distribution, reduced noise and diesel emissions, and will potentially motivate new business and stimulate the local economy due to lower cost power. The switch from diesel electric generation to hydroelectric generation in Chignik Lagoon was summed up in a poem written by 10th grader Isabelle Erickson: “I can finally hear the birds, they’re singing in the sky, the noise, that noise is gone. Oh, I can already smell a change, the air is fresh and clean, the clouds, those black clouds are gone. I can see a time ahead, with more space for a town to grow. The days, those cramped days are gone.” MAY 2016 | 13 REF ROUND IX RECOMMENDED PROJECTS WITH LOW B/C RATIOS Packers Creek ribbon cutting in Chignik Lagoon. Packers Creek powerhouse and tailrace. The benefit-cost (B/C) ratio is an estimate of a project’s life cycle present value (benefits) divided by present costs. A ratio of 1.0 is generally considered the break-even point where the benefits equal the costs, however, this economic metric is only an estimate. Benefits counted in the REF economic evaluation mostly take the form of displaced diesel fuel but this value will fluctuate as it follows the global price of oil. The B/C ratios become more reliable as projects move to later phases of development because more comprehensive cost and benefit information is available and there is less time for circumstances to change before construction. By design in statute and regulations, the B/C ratio is only one portion of the overall project score. The REF evaluation considers other measures such the local cost of energy, the statewide distribution of grant funds, the amount of matching funds provided, the project’s technical feasibility, project readiness, other economic development impacts, and other criteria. This mix of weighted factors allows projects with B/C ratios of less than 1.0 to be recommended if other project merits are high. See Round IX Project Summaries for more information. Early phase projects such as reconnaissance or feasibility studies are designed to determine economic and technical feasibility based on the renewable energy resource available. If there is a rea- sonable chance of improving economics, projects with moderately low B/C ratios often can advance through the REF evaluation process. Projects receive no points in the scoring criteria if the B/C ratio is below 0.9, and only 1 out of 10 points for 0.9 to 1.0. Below is more project-specific information about projects with B/C ratios of less than 1.0. 1223 Shishmaref wind: The applicant requested funding for the feasibility stage. The B/C ratio could potentially increase based on site specific meteorological data once it is available for analysis. The state-wide wind model often under-predicts the wind resource on the west coast of Alaska. Wind measurement at the specific targeted site through the requested feasibility study will increase the confidence of the project economics. 1233 Grayling water heat recover: The applicant requested design and construction funding. AEA recommends funding only the final design. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the final design phase that can significantly improve the project economics. 1249 Indian River hydro: The grant request is to augment existing funding to reduce the new debt applicant requires to complete the project. The project recently completed the first phase of construction and is expected to resume construction in the first half of 2016. The additional funding request would cover project costs that are above the original estimates. As the overall project cost has increased and the benefit has remained constant the B/C ratio has declined to slightly less than 1.0. If grant funded the appli- cant anticipates that the grant will reduce energy costs to residents by $0.13 per kWh. 1215 Huslia water and clinic biomass: The applicant requested design and construction funding. AEA recommends funding final design only with an emphasis on improving the project economics before committing to construction. If constructed, the project will save the community an estimated 8,474 gallons of fuel per year and would provide local wood fuel jobs. Many of the costs in the B/C ratio would remain in the local economy for wood harvest and biomass plant operator jobs. 1218 Saxman heat pump: The applicant requested funding for final design and construction of an air source heat pump to replace existing oil-fired boilers that are nearing the end of life. The project would replace 100 percent of their heating oil by efficiently using hydro-powered electricity through an air source heat pump to heat the low-income multi-family complex. The economics are challenged by the high renovation costs to allow for lower temperature emitters in the building. 1248 Crater lake hydro: The applicant requested funding for final design. The B/C ratio is based upon initial findings from a draft feasibility study that had not yet been finalized at the time of evaluation, nor accepted by the applicant or AEA. Once the final feasibility study is finalized, the B/C ratio may change up or down. AEA’s issuance of the final design grant is contingent upon acceptance of the feasibility study that demonstrates a technically and economically feasible project. 1210 Chugach community solar: The project is recommended for partial funding as AEA believes the feasibility can be completed at half of the applicant’s estimated total phase cost. The feasibility study will help determine the project economics, including possible use of federal incentives. 1239 Ouzinkie hydro: The applicant has recently reconstructed a failed dam which provides drinking water for the community. That project was funded through water project funding sources. The REF application seeks design and construction funding to rebuild the end-of-life penstock and hydro turbine to provide electricity. AEA’s economic evaluations capture the full cost of each project. In this case the full cost of the dam is counted as a cost, and the full benefits of all hydro power displacing diesel gener- ation is counted as the benefit. This method, while fair and consistent to all applicants, may be a conservative approach due to the dam construction having been completed with other funding. If only the turbine costs and the full hydro benefit are used in the model, the economics are very good. The AEA B/C ratio of 0.73 provides information about the net value of the overall project (drinking water and energy) over its lifetime. 1220 Waterfall creek hydro: This project is currently under construction however project costs have exceeded the original budget. The applicant is seeking additional grant funding to offset additional loans to reduce energy costs for ratepayers. 1231 Kaktovik wind: The applicant requests funds for final design for wind project. The budget is high due to arctic conditions but the application scored well elsewhere in the evaluation and wind may be the community’s only renewable energy option. 12 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT MAY 2016 | 9 AEA recommended 39 out of 52 applications reviewed for Round IX funding. These 39 projects requested $40.9 million in funding and offered $33.2 in matching funds. Following AEA’s technical and economic reviews and scoring, AEA recommends funding of $36.1 million for these 39 projects. To meet the Governor’s budget target of $5 million, and following consultation with the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) on regional distribution, AEA recommends seven projects that fit within this proposed budget. One of the projects would need an additional $11,599 beyond the $5 million budget to receive the recommended funding. REVIEW PROCESS The recommendation process involves three stages of review and scoring and a fourth stage where regional distribution is applied. The first three stages evaluate and score: eligibility, technical and economic feasibility, cost of energy, experience and qualifications, and ranking based on criteria established in statute and regulation. The technical and economic evaluation is a thorough vetting process conducted by AEA technical reviewers, economists, and the Department of Natural Resources. Following the third stage of evaluation, AEA presents a ranked list of recommended projects, a list of not recommended projects, and a regional distribution recommendation to the REFAC to ensure that there is regional equity in the cumulative rounds I through IX funding. ADVISORY COMMITTEE/REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION Below is the approach to regional distribution. Calculating a regional funding target: Use a regional population weighted “burden of energy cost” metric to establish regional funding bands. The burden of energy cost for a household is calculated based on regionally appropriate average annual residential heating fuel equivalent consumption, 6,000 kWh per year electric consumption and household income. Burden of energy cost = (HH cost of electric + heat energy) / HH income A regional population weighted burden of energy cost is calculated for each energy region in the state. The burden number is then used to calculate a target funding level for each region, such that regions with high energy cost burden are eligible to receive more funding cumulatively across all years of the REF. Underserved: In order for a region to be classified as underserved they must have received less than 50 percent of the calculated target. Projects in underserved regions will be moved up on the list (if the project they are replacing is in an adequately or overserved region). • Based on Round I-VIII funding both Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana and Bering Straits are considered underserved. In Round IX three projects were moved into the Governor’s $5 million budget. Overserved: For a region to be considered overserved they must have received more than two times their calculated target. To achieve a better balance of funding across the state, regions that are determined to be overserved will be capped so their share of the overall fund cannot grow. • Based on Round I-VIII funding both Southeast and the Railbelt are considered overserved; neither region had a project that ranked within the Governor’s budget so this rule did not affect any region this round. AEA’S RECOMMENDATIONS The REFAC met on January 13, 2016 and voted to accept the REF recommended project list presented by AEA staff and provided guidance on several points. With the support of the committee, AEA presents the legislature with the following tables of recommended projects for a funding determination. Pages 10 and 11 identify all projects that are recommended for funding by AEA in ranked order. The first $5 million of projects that fit within the Governor’s budget appear above a bold line denoting $5 million in cumulative recommended funding. Standard electric projects are blue and heat projects are orange. Notes for both recommended and not recommended project tables appear after the not recommended list on page 14. ROUND IX RECOMMENDED APPLICATIONSPARTIAL FUNDING ROUND IX RECOMMENDED PROJECTS In the table on pages 10 and 11 there are a number of projects with a recommendation for partial funding. The table below provides the rationale behind each of these recommendations. 1245 Adak hydro: Application requested funding for feasibility, design and construction. AEA recommends partial funding to complete only the feasibility study. 1238 Koyuk water heat recovery: Application was for funding final design and construction. AEA recommends limiting funding to final design to evaluate the potential to improve project economics and better assess value. 1233 Grayling water heat recovery: Application was for funding final design and construction. AEA recommends funding only the design phase to allow for more refined construction cost estimates prior to making a determination about funding the construc- tion phase. Additionally, the funds requested for design were higher than expected. AEA recommends partial funding for final design phase only. 1221 Old Harbor hydro: Applicant requested funding for final design, including extensive geotechnical work. AEA recommends fully funding the design and partially funding geotech work with the recommendation that ground penetrating radar and/or seismic surveys be done prior to investing in costly helicopter supported drilling. 1214 Eek water heat recover: Application was for final design and construction. AEA recommends funding only the design phase to allow for more refined construction cost estimates prior to making a determination about funding the construction phase. Additionally, funds requested for design are higher than expected. AEA recommends partial funding for final design phase only. 1235 Scammon Bay hydro: Application requested funding for stream gauging and preliminary design. AEA recommends the proj- ect for partial funding to complete stream gauging to better understand the hydroelectric resource potential of Hillside Creek. 1215 Huslia water and clinic biomass: Application was for funding final design and construction. Recommend partial funding of $53,116 to complete the design phase only and to better evaluate the potential for an economic project. 1201 Unlaska inline micro-turbines: Application was for funding feasibility, final design and construction. AEA recommends par- tially funding the feasibility and final design phases of this project to better understand operation of power recovery turbine and pressure reduction valve under varying flow conditions and events such as load rejection. 1217 Klawock school biomass: Application requested funding for final design and construction. While the economics of this proj- ect are good, the engineering will be challenging due to the site constraints. Recommend partial funding for the development of final design and a business/operating plan. 1210 Chugach community solar: The application for a 500 kW solar garden project is recommended for funding at 50% of the re- quested level. AEA estimates that the applicant should be able to complete the proposed feasibility study, conceptual design and cost estimate within this reduced budget. 1209 Ketchikan schools central heating: Application requested feasibility and design funding. AEA recommends partial funding of for a feasibility study phase only to better assess the potential economic benefit. 10 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT REF ROUND IX RECOMMENDED PROJECTS RANK LIST Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Final Recommended Applications and Funding CountEnergy Region ID Project Name Applicant Energy Source B/C Ratio Impacted Pop. Household Energy Cost Tech/ Econ Score State- wide Rank Project Cost Through Construction Applicant Grant Requested Applicant Match Offered Recommended Phase(s) AEA Recomnd Recommended Funding Cumulative Funding 1 Copper River/Chugach 1226 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI)Hydro 1.71 116 $12,269 75.67 1 $6,589,090 $3,400,000 $2,600,000 Constr Full $3,400,000 $3,400,000 2 Aleutians 1237 Sand Point High Penetration Wind System Sand Point Generating, TDX Wind 2.19 946 $10,793 83.33 2 $1,067,309 $649,030 $423,275 Design, Constr Full $649,030 $4,049,030 3 Bering Straits 1234 Wales Water System Heat Recovery City of Wales Heat Recovery 1.44 146 $17,269 72.50 3 $653,277 $650,047 $6,566 Design, ConstrFull $650,047 $4,699,077 4 Aleutians 1245 Adak Hydro Power Generator TDX Adak Generating, TDX Hydro 1.75 247 $14,961 59.50 4 $1,750,000 $294,102 $126,044 Feas Partial $19,600 $4,718,677 5 Bering Straits 1238 Koyuk Water System Heat Recovery City of Koyuk Heat Recovery 1.06 321 $18,742 61.50 8 $695,269 $688,386 $6,884 Design Partial $90,922 $4,809,599 6 Bering Straits 1223 Shishmaref Wind Feasibility & Conceptual Design Alaska Village Electric Coop Wind 0.93*607 $15,812 52.50 18 $2,529,400 $152,000 $8,000 Feas Full SP $152,000 $4,961,599 7 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1233 Grayling Water System Heat Recovery City of Grayling Heat Recovery 0.98*191 $12,652 54.50 21 $431,982 $427,705 $4,277 Design Partial $38,401 $5,000,000 7 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1233 Grayling Water System Heat Recovery City of Grayling Heat Recovery 0.98*191 $12,652 54.50 21 $431,982 $427,705 $4,277 Design Partial $11,599 $5,011,599 8 Railbelt 1242 Heat Pump System for City of Seward City of Seward Heat Pump 1.97 2,768 $9,005 83.17 5 $955,458 $725,000 $125,000 Design, Constr Full $725,000 $5,736,599 9 Southeast 1244 IPEC Gunnuk Creek Hydro Rehab in Kake Inside Passage Electric Coop Hydro 2.23 1,913 $10,561 73.00 6 $5,715,000 $3,920,000 $1,545,000 Constr Full SP $3,920,000 $9,656,599 10 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1224 Mountain Village-St. Mary's Wind Intertie Alaska Village Electric Coop Trans, Wind 1.00 1,524 $12,362 66.00 7 $6,196,000 $3,196,000 $3,000,000 Design, Constr Full SP $3,196,000 $12,852,599 11 Southeast 1250 Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting Elfin Cove Utility Commission Hydro 1.22 16 $12,008 67.33 9 $3,705,000 $88,000 $22,000 Design Full $88,000 $12,940,599 12 Northwest Arctic 1216 Shungnak Wind-Diesel Conceptual Design Native Village of Shungnak Wind 1.04 460 $17,752 50.00 10 $5,598,500 $135,000 $39,000 Feas Full SP $135,000 $13,075,599 13 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1222 Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery Module Alaska Village Electric Coop Heat Recovery 2.16 6,241 $10,766 71.67 11 $8,233,369 $2,555,489 $283,943 Constr Full SP $2,555,489 $15,631,088 14 Bristol Bay 1247 Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project City of Chignik Hydro 1.86 96 $8,746 73.67 12 $7,783,428 $1,025,175 $60,251 Design Full $1,025,175 $16,656,263 15 Kodiak 1221 Old Harbor Hydro Geotech & Final Design Alaska Village Electric Coop Hydro 1.38 213 $12,095 68.50 13 $9,317,500 $1,092,500 $57,500 Design Partial $792,500 $17,448,763 16 Kodiak 1202 Upper Hidden Basin Geotech Investigation Kodiak Electric Association Hydro, Storage 4.24 8,465 $7,047 79.00 14 $79,247,000 $750,000 $750,000 Feas Full $750,000 $18,198,763 17 Southeast 1249 Indian River Hydroelectric Project - Construction Tenakee Springs Electric Hydro 0.94*128 $11,498 56.33 15 $5,473,280 $809,000 $1,115,280 Constr Full $809,000 $19,007,763 18 Northwest Arctic 1212 Cosmos Hills Hydro Design & Permitting NANA Regional Corporation Hydro 1.08 734 $15,410 40.50 16 $50,797,871 $341,335 $37,200 Design Full $341,335 $19,349,098 19 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1214 Eek Water System Heat Recovery City of Eek Heat Recovery 1.01 349 $12,572 59.50 17 $311,394 $308,311 $3,083 Design Partial $50,000 $19,399,098 20 Southeast 1211 Sitka Wastewater Plant Effluent Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Heat Pump 1.13 9,061 $6,991 72.50 19 $826,067 $667,000 $113,000 Design, Constr Full $667,000 $20,066,098 21 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1207 Yerrick Creek Hydro Construction Upper Tanana Energy Hydro 1.23 1,539 $7,963 57.17 20 $20,744,264 $4,000,000 $15,000,000 Constr Full SP $3,925,000 $23,991,098 22 Southeast 1205 Neck Lake Hydropower Project: Phases II-III Alaska Power Company Hydro 1.21 39 $9,630 63.17 22 $3,016,475 $395,200 $98,800 Feas, Design Full $395,200 $24,386,298 23 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1235 Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project City of Scammon Bay Hydro 1.25 528 $12,698 49.67 23 $4,283,056 $305,000 $3,050 Feas Partial $90,000 $24,476,298 24 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1215 Huslia Water & Clinic Biomass Boiler City of Huslia Biomass 0.72*338 $13,795 44.67 24 $496,526 $491,610 $4,916 Design Partial $53,116 $24,529,414 25 Aleutians 1219 False Pass Hydro Feasibility & Conceptual Design City of False Pass Hydro 1.87 34 $8,145 73.67 25 $4,380,000 $187,000 $33,000 Feas Full $187,000 $24,716,414 26 Aleutians 1246 St. Paul Island 80% Renewable Energy Feasibility TDX Power, Inc.Other, Wind 1.66 436 $8,560 48.83 26 $5,731,500 $265,200 $66,300 Recon, Feas Full $265,200 $24,981,614 27 Northwest Arctic 1213 Ambler Washeteria and City Office Biomass Heating City of Ambler Biomass 1.06 274 $11,345 49.17 27 $484,691 $429,892 $54,799 Design, Constr Full SP $429,892 $25,411,506 28 North Slope 1232 Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting North Slope Borough Trans, Other 2.02 4,698 $3,417 78.00 28 $32,840,509 $2,017,818 $201,782 Design Full $2,017,818 $27,429,324 29 Southeast 1218 Saxman Low-Rent Multifamily Air Source Heat Pump Tlingit-Haida RHA Heat Pump 0.93*8,314 $6,194 60.83 29 $438,341 $296,038 $213,193 Design, Constr Full $296,038 $27,725,362 30 Aleutians 1201 Unalaska Water Treatment Inline Micro Turbines City of Unalaska Hydro 1.24 4,689 $7,677 58.00 30 $1,340,000 $1,100,000 $240,000 Feas, Design Partial $144,000 $27,869,362 31 Southeast 1208 Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass 1.33 8,314 $6,194 82.67 31 $1,365,890 $1,251,000 $0 Constr Full $1,251,000 $29,120,362 32 Southeast 1217 Klawock School Biomass Fuel Boiler Project Klawock City School District Biomass 1.38 802 $7,488 59.67 32 $858,556 $833,556 $25,000 Design Partial $111,986 $29,232,348 33 Copper River/Chugach 1248 Crater Lake Power and Water Project Cordova Electric Cooperative Hydro, Storage 0.91*2,286 $11,122 45.17 33 $17,306,696 $1,227,000 $420,680 Design Full SP $1,227,000 $30,459,348 34 Railbelt 1210 Chugach Electric Solar Project Chugach Electric Association Solar 0.36*172,380 $3,751 59.67 34 $1,814,049 $100,000 $100,000 Feas Partial $50,000 $30,509,348 35 Railbelt 1225 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC Hydro 1.10 49,918 $6,643 56.67 35 $58,936,366 $4,000,000 $875,528 Design Full $4,000,000 $34,509,348 36 Kodiak 1239 Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project City of Ouzinkie Hydro 0.73*171 $7,460 40.67 36 $4,603,385 $397,427 $4,014 Design, Constr Full SP $397,427 $34,906,775 37 Aleutians 1220 Waterfall Creek Hydro Construction City of King Cove Hydro 0.72*905 $6,054 41.83 37 $6,874,498 $675,000 $5,525,000 Constr Full $675,000 $35,581,775 38 North Slope 1231 Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design North Slope Borough Wind 0.79*251 $6,293 58.17 38 $7,606,795 $440,000 $44,000 Design Full $440,000 $36,021,775 39 Southeast 1209 Ketchikan Schools Recreation Heating Plant Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass N/A†8,314 $6,194 62.00 39 $2,600,000 $220,000 $0 Feas Partial $40,000 $36,061,775 Sub Totals, All Recommended Projects $374,029,773 $40,933,526 $33,240,642 $36,061,775 Recommended Projects Project Cost Recommendation MAY 2016 | 11 See page 14 for table notes Individual project summaries are available on AEA’s website Blue cells indicate a standard electric generation application Orange cells indicate a heat project application