Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAEA - REFAC Meeting_Nov_08Overview of Process and Issues Renewable Fund Advisory Committee November 25, 2008 Discussion Topics Approach and Schedule Summary of Proposals Received Review Process Steps Issues Approach and Schedule Fundamental approach Balance moving state funds into projects in a short timeframe, with Custodianship of state funds. Carefully read and assess proposals. Try to understand how they may be viable —not why they are flawed. Schedule Summary of Proposals Received –Round I & II Energy Development Region Apps/Region Funding Request Aleutians 5 $6,155,930 Bering Straits 4 27,653,406 Bristol Bay 8 26,093,500 Copper River/Chugach 8 12,942,225 Kodiak 2 9,875,000 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 10 20,765,370 Northwest Arctic 9 2,9053,362 Railbelt 20 12,9620,802 Southeast 21 102,935,093 Yukon -Koyukuk/Upper Tanana 12 34,425,863 Total 99 $402,111,199 Stage II: Stage I Apps not passed: 12 Round II: Total Apps 121 Total Funding Request $316,076,095 Total App Round I&II: 232 Total Funding Request Round I&II : $770,538,093 Review Process Phase 1 –Completeness and Eligibility 12 proposals did not pass Staff Butch White: Project and applicant eligibility Peter Crimp and Jim Strandberg: Completeness and minimum capabilities Review Process Phase 2 –Technical and Economic Feasibility Technical Review Led by AEA Program Manager Biofuels: James Jensen Hydro and Interties: Doug Ott Biomass: Ron Brown Wind: Martina Dabo Geothermal/Ocean: David Lockard Consistency review: Strandberg, Crimp Resource and Permitting: DNR Economic Review Economists Work with Program Managers Tom Lovas, Mike Hubbard Dick Emerman Linda Snow Robert Logan Northern Economics: Pat Burden, Leah Cuyno, Cal Kerr ISER: Fuel Price Projections and QA on analyses Allison Lake Hydro Example –> File Maker Review Process Phase 3 –Final Evaluation and Ranking Ranking (See draft Evaluation Guide) 1.Cost of Energy (30%): 1-10 based on residential cost of power (pp 9-12) 2.Matching Funds (25%): (p8) 3.Econ and Tech Feasibility (20%): score from stage 2 4.Project Readiness (5%): 5.Econ and Other Alaska Benefit (10%): 6.Sustainability (5%): 7.Local Support (5%): (p8) Statewide Balance of Funds. Rank by region Regions for Statewide Balance Criterion Issue: Ensure that public receives proper benefit from grant funded IPP-developed projects. Recommendation: Power Projects. Require that IPP obtain RCA CPCN. RCA establish cost-based tariff Heating Projects. No CPCN. AEA approve rate and periodically audit Issue: AEA Recommendations –Multi-phase funding. Recommendation: Fund all phases: Project can be constructed in 2009, and is well -defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk. 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. Issue: AEA recommendations –Competing/Interacting projects. Recommendation: 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. Railbelt: If installed capacity > 10 MW or system transmission constraints are likely, then construction funding not recommended til after Railbelt IRP Plan consideration. Issue: AEA Recommendations –Partial funding levels. Recommendation: Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are recommended. 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. Exception 2: Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor, fuel) not recommended for funding. Issue: Projects that may be less than optimal are proposed – e.g. small wind turbine instead of larger. Recommendation: Score as Proposed. Note concerns in comments. Issue: Eligibility of fuel projects (biodiesel, waste vegetable oil, fish oil, pellets, cordwood) Issues: Are proposers IPPs? How should economic analysis be conducted (e.g. savings over diesel?) Should grants for construction and equipment costs be made?Recommendation: Government projects eligible for construction/equipment funding Non-government : limit funding to preconstruction activities Issue: Eligibility of resource assessment projects. Recommendation: 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.