HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE Fund Evaluation Summary and Guide v0 - July2009Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 1
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Summary of Methodology for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation
January 20, 2009
Overview of Review Process
Renewable Energy Fund applications were evaluated in three stages. For more detail
please refer to Evaluation Guidelines in the appendices and to documents posted on
the Renewable Energy Fund webpage
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund.html.
In the first stage each application was evaluated for completeness, eligibility, and
responsiveness to the request for applications (RFA). This evaluation was conducted
by Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) staff.
The second stage evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of the proposed
projects. This stage was conducted by AEA staff with the assistance of DNR staff,
outside economists, and other consultants.
The third stage was a final scoring based on the specific guidelines in the RFA that
was conducted by AEA staff. The scoring was done based on a number of matrices
and pre-established weighting for each of the criteria.
1. Cost of Energy (30%):
2. Matching Funds (25%)
3. Economic and Technical Feasibility (20%): score from stage 2
4. Project Readiness (5%)
5. Economic and Other Alaska Benefit (10%)
6. Sustainability (5%)
7. Local Support (5%)
Upon completion of the evaluation all applications were ranked by region with the final
funding recommendation being made based on the number and rank of applications
with each region, the cost of energy, and a balance of statewide funding.
Projects may have been recommended for partial funding if they were viable but:
Documentation submitted with the application was not sufficient to justify full
funding for more than one phase of a project.
Project construction was scheduled for 2010 or later, the project was expensive
or higher risk, or there were competing projects for which planning is desirable
The applicant requested AEA to manage the project and the AEA program
manager could confidently estimate a lower cost.
The proposal included operating costs or other costs not recommended for
funding.
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 2
In addition AEA adopted a maximum funding cap to provide for the ability to award
more projects.
Where AEA offers less than the requested amount, AEA will work with grantees to
assure that the revised scope of the final grant award is consistent with the grantee’s
proposal and meets the public purposes of the program.
Roles of AEA Staff and the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee
AEA staff requested and received input from the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory
Committee regarding the process and final funding recommendations. Following is a
summary of Committee involvement.
AEA staff prepared a draft RFA package including the RFA, application form,
worksheet form, and a sample grant agreement in summer 2008. The Advisory
Committee met on 8/22 and 8/25 to discuss the RFA package. AEA staff revised the
draft and issued the finalized RFA on 9/3 taking into account the Committee’s
comments.
Midway through the AEA staff review of the Round 1 applications AEA met with the
Committee on 11/21 to brief them on the process and how AEA was handling specific
issues. Issues addressed included ensuring that grant funding to independent power
producers would benefit the public appropriately, protocols for offering partial or multi-
phase funding, handling competing and interacting projects, eligibility of biofuel
projects, and eligibility of statewide resource assessment projects.
On 12/18 during the last stages of AEA Round 1 review, AEA briefed the Committee on
how AEA was addressing issues discussed in the November meeting, the draft
evaluation guidelines, and schedule.
Following AEA evaluation of all Round 1 applications, AEA staff and the Committee
met on 1/12 to establish how to address the HB152 requirement for a statewide
balance of matching funds. Based on this discussion AEA has finalized its
recommendations.
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 3
APPENDIX A
Evaluation Guidelines and Instructions for Evaluation of RFA for
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Projects
General:
Applications that do not comply with AS 42.45.45 and all of the material and
substantial terms, conditions, and requirements of the RFA may be rejected.
If an application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing that its
application has been rejected and the basis for rejection.
The Authority may waive minor requirements of the RFA that do not result in a
material change in the requirements of the RFA and do not give an applicant an
unfair advantage in the review process.
Upon submission of the final recommendations to the Legislature the Authority will
make all applications available for review on the Authority’s web site.
All communications with applicants during the evaluation process will go through
the Grant Manager.
The Executive Director is the Executive Director of AEA, Program Managers are
staff at AEA who have oversight for AEA programs (e.g. biomass, hydroelectric,
wind energy, geothermal, etc.). Program Managers are the subject matter technical
experts, and the Grant Manager is the person responsible for overseeing the grant
process for the Authority.
All applications will be reviewed using the same process and criteria established in
the RFA.
Decisions made in each stage of the review process will be documented in writing
and made a part of the grant file.
If reviewers think they may have a potential conflict of interest, (financial or
personal interest, such as friend or family members) they should inform their
supervisor immediately of the potential nature of the conflict.
Reviewers should make notes of any questions they may have about an application.
Reviewers should not contact applicants directly.
If reviewers have questions about an application or process contact they should
contact the Grant Manager. If reviewers have technical questions they should
contact the Program Managers.
If an application is rejected or not recommended the applicants will be sent a letter
from the Grant manager explaining why their application has been rejected or not
recommended. Reviewers will be required to provide to the Grant Manager the
reasons for why the application is being rejected
Notes should be made directly into the database on line. All written notes should
be kept with the application file.
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 4
All notes are considered public records and subject to Alaska public records act
disclosure requirements.
Any appeals from rejected applicants in Stage 1 or Stage 2 reviews will be directed
to the Grant Manager. The Grant Manager will review the appeal with the
Executive Director, Senior Program Manager, and Legal staff as required to
determine an appropriate course of action.
Stage 1 Review Process:
All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by the Authority staff to
assess if the application is complete, meets the minimum submission requirements, and
has adequate information to proceed to Stage 2 – Technical Evaluation.
Reviewers –
Grant Manager and two Senior Program Managers
Criteria
All criteria are scored pass/fail. Failure to meet any of these criteria results in
rejection of the Application.
1. The application is submitted by an Eligible Applicant (sec 1.4).
2. The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.5).
3. A resolution or other formal authorization of the applicant’s governing
body is included with the application to demonstrate the applicant’s
commitment to the project (sec 1.4).
4. The application provides a detailed description of the phase(s) of
project proposed—i.e. reconnaissance, feasibility analysis/conceptual
design, final design/permitting, and/or construction (sec 2.2).
5. The application is complete in that the information provided is
sufficiently responsive to the RFP to allow AEA to consider the
application in the next stage of evaluation.
6. The applicant provides evidence of having the minimum technical,
financial, and management capability to complete the work as proposed
in the grant or a reasonable plan to obtain it.
Process
The Grant Manager will evaluate criteria 1-3 above.
The Senior Program Managers or Program Managers will evaluate criteria 4-6
above.
If it appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor
additional data the Program Managers may make a recommendation to the Grant
Manager for additional information. The Grant manager will request clarifying
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 5
information from the applicant. The applicant will have a specified amount of time
to provide the requested information. Failure of the applicant to respond timely or
provide information that completes their application will result in the application
being rejected.
Applications that are determined by the Grant Manager and Program Managers and
determined to be incomplete or fail to meet the minimum requirements will be
reviewed by the Executive Director with the assistance of Legal or procurement
staff prior to being rejected at Stage 1.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their
application failed stage 1.
Any requests for reconsideration from rejected applicants in Stage 1 will be
directed to the Grant Manager. The Grant Manager will review the request with
the Executive Director, Senior Program Manager, and Legal staff as required to
determine an appropriate course of action.
Stage 2 Review Process:
All applications that pass Stage 1 will be reviewed for feasibility in accordance with the
criteria below.
Reviewers –
Program Managers – the AEA technical subject matter experts.
Staff from Department of Natural Resources – technical experts providing specific
review and comment on projects that may have issues related to permitting and
natural resource development.
Economists - Contracted economist who will review cost benefit and other cost
and pricing information provided for each application submitted for the purpose of
providing the authority and independent assessment of the economics of the
proposed project.
ISER – University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research – is providing
Quality Assurance review of Economic Analysis work.
Senior Program Manager – Overseer of the work of the Program Managers
Criteria
Each of the numbered criteria below will be scored with a numerical score 1-10
and weighted per the percentages below.
Criteria Weight
1. Project Management, Development, and Operation
a. The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in
20%
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 6
adequate detail.
b. Project development, operation, maintenance, fuel, and other
cost and savings estimates are realistic.
c. The project team’s method of communicating, monitoring, and
reporting development progress is described in adequate detail.
d. Logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating
and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable
and described in adequate detail.
2. Qualifications and Experience
a. The applicant, partners, and contractors have sufficient
knowledge and experience to successfully complete, and
operate the project
b. The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to
successfully complete and operate the project.
c. The project team is able to understand and address technical,
economic, and environmental barriers to successful project
completion and operation.
d. Use of local labor and training of local labor workforce.
20%
3. Technical Feasibility
a. The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable
basis and project permits and other authorizations can
reasonably be obtained.
b. A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system.
c. Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable.
d. The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver
energy as planned.
e. If a demonstration project is being proposed:
specific benefits of proposed technology are likely (such
as application in other areas of the State);
need for this project is shown; (and
risks of the proposed system are reasonable and warrant
demonstration.
20%
4. Economic Feasibility
a. The project is shown to be economically feasible
b. The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of the
grant-funded phase and has considered options for funding
subsequent phases of the project.
20%
5. Benefits
Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated.
20%
Process
Program Managers will carefully review the proposals for their assigned
technology group and provide an initial feasibility score on all criteria and a
funding recommendation.
An economist hired by AEA will review the performance and economic information
and provide an independent analysis of cost and benefits of each project. The
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 7
reviewers will consider the independent analysis when scoring the economic
feasibility and benefits criteria.
Reviewers will use the formula and criteria in the Scoring Matrix Guide (see below)
for designated criteria in Stage 2.
If the Program Manager believes they need additional information they will
coordinate their request for follow-up information with the Grant Manager. The
purpose of follow-up is for clarification and to help the Project Manager gain
sufficient understanding of the project proposed.
Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Manager to the
applicant by e-mail, Bcc to Program Manager, with a response time of 7 days or
less.
Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide an adequate clarification as
requested will result in the application being rejected in Stage 2.
The Senior Program Managers will meet with the Program Managers to review the
applications and discuss final stage 2 scoring. Scoring per the stage 2 criteria may
be adjusted based on final discussions between the Program Manager, Senior
Program Managers, Economists, and Executive Director.
A final weighted “feasibility” score will be given for each application reviewed.
Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may
not be recommended for funding or further review.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their
application failed stage 2.
The Authority will develop a preliminary list of feasible applications based on the
Stage 2 review with AEA recommendations on technical and economic feasibility
and a recommended funding level to be considered in the Stage 3 review.
Stage 3 Review Process:
The third stage of evaluation will result in the final score, ranking by region, and
recommendation of projects for grant funding.
The Feasibility score from Stage 2 will be automatically weighted and scored in Stage
three.
The average of the Economic and Public Benefit score of stage 2 will be used for initial
scoring of Economic and Other Public Benefit Score. This score will be reviewed by the
Program Managers.
The Grant Manager, with staff assistance, will score the cost of energy, type and amount of
matching funds, and local support, using the formulas and methods outlined in the Scoring
Matrix Guide (Appendix B).
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 8
Two Senior Program Managers will review the scoring of the Program Managers and
Grant Manager and provide a score for readiness and previous success, and sustainability.
AEA will develop a regional ranking of applications and a draft ranking of all projects for
the Advisory committee to review.
The Advisory Committee will review the final Stage 3 scores regional ranking
recommendations of the Authority. The Committee may make recommendations to assist
in achieving a statewide balance but will not be rescoring based on the criteria.
Reviewers –
Grant Manager (Local Support and Match Criteria)
Program Managers (i.e. specialists in hydro, wind, biomass, geothermal,
ocean/river, biofuels)
Two Senior Program Managers
Executive Director of AEA.
Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations)
Criteria
Criteria noted below will be scored and weighted as noted.
Criteria Weight
Cost of energy per resident in the affected project area
relative to other areas (From Worksheet)
30
The type and amount of matching funds and other
resources an applicant will commit to the project. (See
formula)
25
Project feasibility (Score from Stage 2 weighted) 20
Project readiness. How quickly the proposed work can
begin and be accomplished and/or success in previous
phases of project development.
5
Economic & Other Alaska Public Benefit (such as ability to
use technology in other parts of Alaska).
10
Sustainability – Operations and Maintenance 5
Local Support (See formula) 5
Process
Each application will be given a single weighted score.
Where more than one evaluator is scoring a specific criterion the scores of all
evaluators for that criterion will be averaged.
Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Manager by e-
mail, Bcc to Program Manager, with a response time of 7 days or less.
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 9
The evaluation team may conduct interviews of applicants to determine a more
complete understanding of the technical or financial aspects of their application.
(Refer to RFA Section 4 Stage 3 Review.) However given the time constraints this is
not likely for this round of applications.
Recommendation Guidelines
The final recommendations will be one of the following:
o Recommend – Full funding per application
o Recommend – Partial funding with a recommended funding amount
o Do not recommend for grant funding – (basis for not recommending to be
explained)
Final AEA recommendations may also suggest specific terms or conditions be
imposed on the grantee to assure the project is successful and the public receives
proper benefit for the funds to be expended
Multi-phase funding guidelines
o Fund all phases: Project can be constructed in 2009, and is well-defined,
relatively inexpensive, and low-risk.
o Fund fewer than all phases: Project construction in 2010+, not well-defined,
expensive, higher risk, or there are competing projects for which planning is
desirable.
Competing or interactive projects guidelines
o If AEA is aware of the potential for substantial interaction among proposed
and/or other known projects, then recommend planning with appropriate
level of analysis and public input before committing substantial funding to
one or more alternatives.
o Railbelt: If installed capacity > 10 MW or system transmission constraints
are likely, then construction funding not recommended until after Railbelt
integrated resource plan (IRP) consideration.
Partial Funding Guidelines
o Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that
are recommended.
o Exception 1: If proposal asks AEA to manage the project, and AEA thinks
project can be built for less, then lower figure can be recommended.
o Exception 2: Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor, fuel)
not recommended for funding.
o Exception 3 – AEA proposes to limit funding to a maximum dollar limit for
specific areas, groups, or types of projects in order to increase the total
number of projects that may be awarded and address the statewide balance
of funds.
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 10
Guidelines for recommendations for biofuel projects for Private vs Governmental
entities
o Government projects eligible for construction/equipment funding
o Non-government : limited to funding recommended preconstruction
activities
Consideration of Resources Assessment Projects
o Resource assessment associated with one or more site-specific projects is
eligible for phase 2 funding. General regional or statewide assessment, not
tied to particular proposed projects, is not eligible, and more appropriately
done through the DNR/AEA Alaska Energy Inventory Data project.
Recommendation Guidelines will be documented and a part of the grant file.
Ranking of Applications and Funding Recommendations
Upon completion of scoring and specific project recommendations by AEA all
applications will be grouped within geographical regions,
o See Map Delineating regions
http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund_map.html
Each group of applications will be ranked within their geographical region based
on the final stage three score.
Each application under consideration for funding will have stage three score and
regional rank.
A draft recommendation of projects for funding (based on available funds) will be
presented to the Advisory Committee for Review along with the complete list of all
projects.
To be able to provide support for a maximum number of projects the maximum
recommended funding per grant will be limited to:
1. $2,000,000 for Railbelt and Southeast where the Cost of Energy score is19
or less
2. $4,000,000 for all other regions and Southeast communities with Cost of
Energy score 20 or greater
The final list of recommended projects for funding will provide a reasonable
statewide balance of funds taking into consideration the overall score, the cost of
energy, the rank of projects within a region.
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 11
Recommendations to the Legislature
The final recommendation to the legislature will include:
A list of recommended grants to applications based on 09 funding
A list of recommended grants to applications based on 10 funding.
A list of applications recommended if additional funds may be available.
A list of applications not recommended for funding.
A list of applications rejected as ineligible.
The Final recommendation to the legislature will also contain specific information
for each project as requested by the legislature and a summary of each project.
Applicants may be required to provide additional information to the Legislature upon
request (RFA Section 1.21).
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 12
APPENDIX B
Scoring Matrix Guide
General Scoring Criteria
Pass/Fail scoring means either the criteria are met or they are not.
A weighted score for each of the criteria will calculated and each complete
application will be given a total score at the end of the Stage 2 and Stage 3 review
process unless the application is determined not to meet the requirements of the
RFA.
Reviewers should use the following weighted scoring of criteria as a guide in
addition to the specific formula scoring matrices for some criteria defined in
Appendix A of these procedures.
Score Guidelines (Intent to provide a range
10 A+ The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the
criteria requirements and completely addresses them thoughtful
manner. The application addresses the criteria in a manner
clearly superior to other applications received. There is no need
for additional follow-up with the applicant to understand how they
meet the requirements of the criteria
7 B The application provides information that is generally complete
and well-supported. Evaluators may still have a few questions
regarding how the applicant meets the criteria but it is clear the
applicant understands what is required.
5 C The application addresses the criteria in an adequate way. Meets
minimum requirements under each of the criteria. Some issues
may still need to be clarified prior to awarding a grant.
3 D The application information is incomplete or fails to fully address
what is needed for the project or information has errors. The
Authority may need more info to be able to complete the
evaluation or need to resolve issues before recommending or
awarding a grant.
0 F The application fails to demonstrate understanding of the criteria
requirements or project proposed. Required information is poor
or absent in the proposal.
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 13
Stage 2, Criterion 4 Economic Benefit Review Guideline
Compare AEA and Applicant B/C and determine which
of the B/C ranges below are appropriate. If there is
wide discrepancy between the two B/C ratios use
judgment to assign a score. Reduce the score to the
extent that you judge that the project does not show
that it has an adequate financing plan for completion of
the grant-funded phase or has not considered options
for funding subsequent phases of the project. Scores
must be >= 0.
Benefit / Cost (B/C)
Ratio Value
Score
Less than 0.80 0
=>0.80 – =<0.90 3
>0.90 – =<1.00 4
>1.00 – =<1.10 5
>1.10 – =<1.50 6
>1.50 – =<1.60 7
>1.60 – =<1.80 8
>1.80 - < 2.00 9
=>2.0 10
Stage 3 Criteria – Match
Total of 25 points will be calculated as follows
Type of Match 5
Pts
+ Percentage of
Match to total
Grant Request
15
Pts
+ Total Amount of
Match (1)
5
Pts
Support of any kind referenced but
not given a specific value IE housing
offered to outside workers,
administration of project without
compensation
1 .01% - <5% of
Grant =
4 > $1 - < $15K 1
Previous investment towards project
completion 2 =>5% - =<10% of
Grant =
6 $15K - <$100K 2
Another grant [State] as Match 3 >10% - =<15% of
Grant =
8 $100K <$1 mil 3
Other (Grant Fed) Or private 4 >15% - =<30% of
Grant
11 $1 mil - <$6 mil 4
Loan or Local Cash or any
documented In-kind Match 5 >30% - =<49% of
Grant =
13 > $6 mil
5
> 49% of Grant 15
(1) If there are multiple types of Match that with highest value is scored.
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 14
Stage 3 Criteria Local Support
Total of 5 Points Available
Documented unresolved issues concerning the application no points
will be given if these exist regardless of demonstrated support
0 points
Resolution from city or village council 2 points
Support demonstrated by local entity other than applicant 3 points
Support demonstrated by two local entities other than the applicant 4 points
Support demonstrated by three or more local entities other than the
applicant
5 points
Stage 3 Criteria Cost of Energy
Based on Cost of Power by Community Location
Posting Description
RCA
Total
Res
Rate
Utility Last
Reported
Residential
Rate
Use for
RE
Fund
Raw
RE
Fund
Score
(1-10)
Adj RE
Fund
Score (1-
10)
Anchorage 0.0893 0.0893 1.12 1.12
Juneau 0.1103 0.1103 1.38 1.38
Anchorage 0.1171 0.1171 1.46 1.46
Matanuska Valley 0.1271 0.1271 1.59 1.59
Homer-North Kachemak Bay 0.1387 0.1387 1.73 1.73
Homer-South Kachemak Bay 0.1423 0.1423 1.78 1.78
Fairbanks 0.1729 0.1729 2.16 2.16
North Slope 0.1781 0.1781 2.23 2.23
Dillingham/Aleknagik PCE 0.2278 0.2278 2.85 2.85
Haines/Covenant Life PCE 0.2304 0.2302 0.2302 2.88 2.88
Skagway PCE 0.2304 0.2302 0.2302 2.88 2.88
King Cove PCE 0.2400 0.2400 3.00 3.00
Craig PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 3.23
Hollis PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 3.23
Hydaburg PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 3.23
Klawock/Kassan PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 3.23
Thorne Bay/Kasaan PCE 0.2599 0.2581 0.2581 3.23 3.23
Nome PCE 0.3169 0.3169 3.96 3.96
Cordova PCE 0.3183 0.3183 3.98 3.98
Kipnuk PCE 0.5094 0.3200 0.3200 4.00 4.00
Akutan PCE 0.3230 0.3230 4.04 4.04
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 15
Unalakleet PCE 0.3900 0.3368 0.3368 4.21 4.21
Ouzinkie PCE 0.3400 0.3400 4.25 4.25
Naknek/S.Naknek/Kng Slmn
PCE 0.3562 0.3562 4.45 4.45
Kotzebue PCE 0.3605 0.3605 4.51 4.51
Toksook Bay PCE 0.3889 0.3889 4.86 4.86
Tununak PCE 0.3889 0.3889 4.86 4.86
Galena PCE 0.3980 0.3980 4.98 4.98
Larsen Bay PCE 0.4000 0.4000 5.00 5.00
Buckland PCE 0.4036 0.4036 5.05 5.05
Kasigluk PCE 0.4165 0.4165 5.21 5.21
Nunapitchuk PCE 0.4165 0.4165 5.21 5.21
Elfin Cove PCE 0.4200 0.4200 5.25 5.25
Chenega Bay PCE 0.4350 0.4350 5.44 5.44
Kwethluk PCE 0.4400 0.4400 5.50 5.50
Koyukuk PCE 0.4500 0.4500 5.63 5.63
Manokotak PCE 0.4500 0.4500 5.63 5.63
Shishmaref PCE 0.4519 0.4519 5.65 5.65
Fort Yukon PCE 1.0406 0.4529 0.4529 5.66 5.66
Minto PCE 0.4553 0.4553 5.69 5.69
Old Harbor PCE 0.4606 0.4606 5.76 5.76
Lower Kalskag PCE 0.4621 0.4621 5.78 5.78
Upper Kalsag PCE 0.4621 0.4621 5.78 5.78
Togiak PCE 0.4644 0.4644 5.81 5.81
Mt. Village PCE 0.4666 0.4666 5.83 5.83
St. Michael PCE 0.4672 0.4672 5.84 5.84
Shaktoolik PCE 0.4709 0.4709 5.89 5.89
Emmonak PCE 0.4739 0.4739 5.92 5.92
Hooper Bay PCE 0.4761 0.4761 5.95 5.95
Elim PCE 0.4766 0.4766 5.96 5.96
Koyuk PCE 0.4815 0.4815 6.02 6.02
Marshall PCE 0.4818 0.4818 6.02 6.02
Pitkas Point PCE 0.4820 0.4820 6.03 6.03
St. Mary's/Andreafsky PCE 0.4820 0.4820 6.03 6.03
Mekoryuk PCE 0.4821 0.4821 6.03 6.03
Russian Mission PCE 0.4830 0.4830 6.04 6.04
Brevig Mission PCE 0.4878 0.4878 6.10 6.10
Chevak PCE 0.4888 0.4888 6.11 6.11
Dot Lake/Dot Lake Village
PCE 0.4708 0.4925 0.4925 6.16 6.16
Tetlin PCE 0.4708 0.4925 0.4925 6.16 6.16
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 16
Tok/Tanacross PCE 0.4708 0.4925 0.4925 6.16 6.16
Wales PCE 0.4925 0.4925 6.16 6.16
Alakanuk PCE 0.4963 0.4963 6.20 6.20
Eek PCE 0.4987 0.4987 6.23 6.23
Quinhagak PCE 0.4989 0.4989 6.24 6.24
Stebbins PCE 0.4995 0.4995 6.24 6.24
Ekwok PCE 0.5000 0.5000 6.25 6.25
Kwigillingok PCE 0.5000 0.5000 6.25 6.25
Levelock PCE 0.5000 0.5000 6.25 6.25
Koliganek PCE 0.5000 0.5000 6.25 6.25
Nikolai PCE 0.5000 0.5000 6.25 6.25
Platinum PCE 0.5000 0.5000 6.25 6.25
Pilot Station PCE 0.5004 0.5004 6.26 6.26
Savoonga PCE 0.5010 0.5010 6.26 6.26
Nightmute PCE 0.5041 0.5041 6.30 6.30
Kaltag PCE 0.5067 0.5067 6.33 6.33
Central PCE 0.7399 0.5089 0.5089 6.36 6.36
Goodnews Bay PCE 0.5106 0.5106 6.38 6.38
Selawik PCE 0.5114 0.5114 6.39 6.39
New Stuyahok PCE 0.5145 0.5145 6.43 6.43
Chignik Lagoon PCE 0.5159 0.5159 6.45 6.45
Gambell PCE 0.5177 0.5177 6.47 6.47
Nelson Lagoon PCE 0.5200 0.5200 6.50 6.50
Tuntutuliak PCE 0.5200 0.5200 6.50 6.50
Holy Cross PCE 0.5236 0.5236 6.55 6.55
Huslia PCE 0.5260 0.5260 6.58 6.58
Grayling PCE 0.5283 0.5283 6.60 6.60
Nunam Iqua PCE 0.5300 0.5300 6.63 6.63
Yakutat PCE 0.5318 0.5318 6.65 6.65
Noorvik PCE 0.5333 0.5333 6.67 6.67
Kivalina PCE 0.5368 0.5368 6.71 6.71
Scammon Bay PCE 0.5392 0.5392 6.74 6.74
Golovin PCE 0.5400 0.5400 6.75 6.75
Tenakee Springs PCE 0.5400 0.5400 6.75 6.75
Kiana PCE 0.5413 0.5413 6.77 6.77
Nulato PCE 0.5424 0.5424 6.78 6.78
Unalaska PCE 0.5433 0.5433 6.79 6.79
Beaver PCE 0.5500 0.5500 6.88 6.88
Chefornak PCE 0.5500 0.5500 6.88 6.88
Kongiganak PCE 0.5500 0.5500 6.88 6.88
Twin Hills PCE 0.5500 0.5500 6.88 6.88
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 17
Atka PCE 0.5520 0.5520 6.90 6.90
Anvik PCE 0.5603 0.5603 7.00 7.00
Teller PCE 0.5614 0.5614 7.02 7.02
Tanana PCE 0.5962 0.5693 0.5693 7.12 7.12
Kotlik PCE 0.5712 0.5712 7.14 7.14
Takotna PCE 0.5810 0.5810 7.26 7.26
Shageluk PCE 0.5813 0.5813 7.27 7.27
Chitina PCE 0.5850 0.5850 7.31 7.31
Bethel/Oscarville PCE 0.5251 0.5972 0.5972 7.47 7.47
Naukati PCE 0.5407 0.5995 0.5995 7.49 7.49
Akiak PCE 0.6000 0.6000 7.50 7.50
Akiachak PCE 0.6000 0.6000 7.50 7.50
Karluk PCE 0.6000 0.6000 7.50 7.50
Diomede PCE 0.6000 0.6000 7.50 7.50
Napaskiak PCE 0.6000 0.6000 7.50 7.50
Pedro Bay PCE 0.6000 0.6000 7.50 7.50
Tuluksak PCE 0.6000 0.6000 7.50 7.50
Nikolski PCE 0.6000 0.6000 7.50 7.50
White Mountain PCE 0.6000 0.6000 7.50 7.50
Manley Hot Springs PCE 0.9017 0.6010 0.6010 7.51 7.51
Iliamna/Newhalen/Nondalton
PCE 0.6024 0.6024 7.53 7.53
Igiugig PCE 0.6030 0.6030 7.54 7.54
Coffman Cove PCE 0.5471 0.6045 0.6045 7.56 7.56
McGrath PCE 0.5216 0.6078 0.6078 7.60 7.60
Sand Point PCE 0.6008 0.6091 0.6091 7.61 7.61
Hughes PCE 0.6100 0.6100 7.63 7.63
Angoon PCE 0.8354 0.6126 0.6126 7.66 7.66
Chilkat Valley PCE 0.8354 0.6126 0.6126 7.66 7.66
Hoonah PCE 0.8354 0.6126 0.6126 7.66 7.66
Kake PCE 0.8354 0.6126 0.6126 7.66 7.66
Klukwan PCE 0.8354 0.6126 0.6126 7.66 7.66
Deering PCE 0.6215 0.6215 7.77 7.77
Chignik PCE 0.5816 0.6270 0.6270 7.84 7.84
Atmautluak PCE 0.6400 0.6400 8.00 8.00
St. Paul PCE 0.6400 0.6400 8.00 8.00
Eagle/Eagle Village PCE 0.5891 0.6453 0.6453 8.07 8.07
Whale Pass PCE 0.5572 0.6578 0.6578 8.22 8.22
Napakiak PCE 0.6601 0.6601 0.6601 8.25 8.25
Circle PCE 0.6700 0.6700 8.38 8.38
Chistochina PCE 0.6552 0.6856 0.6856 8.57 8.57
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Proposal Evaluation Guide
Jan 20, 2009
Page 18
Kokhanok Bay PCE 0.6900 0.6900 8.63 8.63
Northway/Northway Village
PCE 0.6261 0.6915 0.6915 8.64 8.64
Bettles/Evansville PCE 0.6213 0.6921 0.6921 8.65 8.65
Port Alsworth PCE 0.7022 0.7022 8.78 8.78
Cold Bay PCE 0.9850 0.7024 0.7024 8.78 8.78
Newtok PCE 0.7200 0.7200 9.00 9.00
Shungnak PCE 0.7364 0.7364 9.21 9.21
Slana PCE 0.6082 0.7452 0.7452 9.32 9.32
Noatak PCE 0.7572 0.7572 9.47 9.47
Tatitlek PCE 0.7600 0.7600 9.50 9.50
Gustavus PCE 1.2277 0.7669 0.7669 9.59 9.59
Chuathbaluk PCE 0.8191 0.7749 0.7749 9.69 9.69
Crooked Creek PCE 0.8191 0.7749 0.7749 9.69 9.69
Red Devil PCE 0.8191 0.7749 0.7749 9.69 9.69
Sleetmute PCE 0.8191 0.7749 0.7749 9.69 9.69
Stony River PCE 0.8191 0.7749 0.7749 9.69 9.69
Mentasta PCE 0.7178 0.7750 0.7750 9.69 9.69
Allakaket/Alatna PCE 0.7166 0.7805 0.7805 9.76 9.76
Aniak PCE 0.6934 0.8013 0.8013 10.02 10.00
Healy Lake PCE 0.7541 0.8090 0.8090 10.11 10.00
Ambler PCE 0.8259 0.8259 10.32 10.00
Ruby PCE 0.9800 0.9800 12.25 10.00
Egegik PCE 1.5128 0.9841 0.9841 12.30 10.00
Stevens Village PCE 1.0700 1.0700 13.38 10.00
Lime Village PCE 1.5156 1.1700 1.1700 14.63 10.00