The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRE Fund Round 2 Recommendation vRebecca EditProject ID 317 271 315 306 248 249 246 251 288 303 297 205 301 258 304 265 238 300 232 279 318 204 280 290 236 316 226 218 217 207 263 274 286 319 215 210 273 302 299 298 212 237 272 309 320 219 233 259 245 244 243 242 307 235 284 278 321 222 254 310 282 213 289 255 220 230 241 269 229 234 239 253 257 268 270 285 295 296 313 275 223 277 211 305 231 206 262 276 264 209 294 225 214 216 202 221 224 227 228 267 208 240 256 283 308 292 293 314 260 287 250 252 261 266 281 291 311 312 Project Name Sand Point Wind_AWE Unalaska Heat Recovery Adak Diesel Hybrid_TDX Power Aleutian Peninsula Broadcasting Wind Loud Creek Hydro_Akutan Akutan Hydrosystem Repair and Upgrade Hot Springs Bay Valley_Akutan AEB Geothermal Assessment_AGDAP St Paul Wind Construction_City of St. Paul Shaktoolik Wind_AVEC Teller Wind Analysis_AVEC Banner Wind Construction_Nome Stebbins Wind Analysis_AVEC Pilgrim Hot Springs Assessment_ACEP Geothermal Resource Assessment Seward Pen Kvichak River_Igiugig Pilot Point High Penetration Wind/Diesel/CHP New Stuyahok Wind Analysis_AVEC Bristol Bay Fish Waste_NEA Tanalian River Hydro_AGE Chignik Lake CBM_AGE Grant Lake Phase III & IV_Nushagak Alternative Energy Assessment_Perryville NVOP Packers Creek Hydro_CLPU Fivemile Creek_Chitna Electric Tatitlek High Penetration Wind Carlson Creek Hydro_APT Cordova District Heat_NVE Camp Hill Wind_NVE PetroStar HR_VFDA Alternative Energy Feasibilty_CSD Wind Recon_NPRHA Slana Wind Construction_AWP Wood Pellet Plant_AHTNA Terror Lake Capacity_KEA Kiseralik_Chikuminuk Hydro_AVCP Housing Tuntutuliak High Penetration Wind Diesel Emmonak Wind and Transmission_AVEC Scammon Bay Wind Analysis_AVEC St. Mary's Wind Analysis_AVEC Akiachak Wind_ANCEC Kotlik Pellet Stove_KYE Akiak Wind Orutsaramiut Native Council Marshall Wood Fired Boiler High Penetration Wind Diesel Heat_Kipnuk Crooked Creek Hydro Kinetic Mountain Village Wind_City and Tribe Barrow_Atqasuk Transmission Point Lay Heat Recovery Wainwright Heat Recovery Wainwright Coal Bed Methane Phase III Ambler HR_City of Ambler Kotzebue HR and Ammonia Power Cycle Kotzebue Solid Waste_City of Kotzebue Solar Hot Water NWAB_NIHA Noatak Biomass_Native Village of Noatak Kenai Winds_Nikiski Victor Creek Hydro_Kenai Hydro ORPC Cook Inlet Tidal Tidal Feasibility_City of Homer Jack River Recon_Cantwell Glacier Fork Hydro Chena Hot Springs Reservoir Modeling_ACEP Heat Recovery at UMED_MLPUAA Wood Gasification_KISKIL Natural Gas Distribution_AGPA WCA Hydrokinetic_Tanana River AVTEC Wind Knik Arm CHC_KAPP Biomassheat Anchorage_Earth Run Energy Chena Power Hydrogen Mt. Spur Resource Assessment_Ormat UAF Absorption Chiller UAF Photovoltaic Delta Wind Construction_AWP Delia Creek Hydro_HPML Archangel Creek Hydro_AGP Nenana Biomass Feasibility Nenana Healy Hydro Phase II_GVEA Neck Lake Hydro_APT Angoon HR_IPEC Thorne Bay Wood Boiler_SEISD Connelly Lake Hydro_APT Crooked Creek Hydro_Elfin Cove Whitman Lake Hydro Construction_KPU West Creek Hydro_Muni Skagway Integrated Resource Plan_FDPPA Yakutat Wave Energy Conversion Kasaan Wood Boiler_Village of Kasaan Sitka CHP_City and Borough Triangle Lake_Metlakatla Indian Community Air Source Heat Pump Little Port Walter Hydro Ruth Lake Hydro Phase II _PMPL Kake Biomass gasifer_ccthita Haines Assistant living GSHP_Apt AK_BC Intertie_Wrangell Sunrise Lake Hydro_Wrangell Mobile Biodiesel Processing Plant_CCTHIA Coffman Cove Wood Boiler_SEISD Wasteoil for Heat_#2 Fuel Statewide Heat Pump Analysis_ACEP Statewide Biomass Assessment_UAF Plasma Gasification_Solena Group Chalkyitsik District Heat_Village Council Venetie District Heat_Village Council McGrath Biomass Feasibility Biomass Hydronic Heating_YKSD Tok Wind Construction_VWP Galena Hydrokinetic Manley Village Council Geothermal Alternative Energy Recon_YKSD Birch Creek Solar Tanana Alternative Energy Assessment McGrath District Heat_MPL Tanana Biomass Feasibility Tanacross Biomass Feasibility Total ($25M) Applicant Aleutian Wind Energy City of Unalaska, Department of Public Utilities TDX Adak Generating, LLC Aleutian Peninsula Broadcasting, Inc. City of Akutan City of Akutan City of Akutan Aleutians East Borough City of St. Paul Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Banner Wind, LLC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative UAF Alaska Center for Energy and Power Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Igiugig Electric Company City of Pilot Point Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Naknek Electric Association Alaska Green Energy, LLC Alaska Green Energy, LLC (AGE) Nushagak Electric & Telephone Company, Inc Native Village of Perryville Chignik Lagoon Power Utility Chitna Electric Inc, (CEI) Tatitlek IRA Council/ Tatitlek Electric Utility Alaska Power Company (subsidiary of AP&T) Native Village of Eyak Native Village of Eyak Valdez Fisheries Development Association Chugach School District North Pacific Rim Housing Authority Village Wind Power, LLC Ahtna, Incorporated Kodiak Electric Association AVCP Regional Housing Authority Tuntutuliak Community Services Association Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Akiachak Native Community Electric Company Kotlik Yupik Enterprise Akiak Power Utilities Orutsaramiut Native Council Incorporated Ohogamiut Traditional Council Kipnuk Light Plant Crooked Creek Traditional Council Asa'carsarmuit Tribal Council North Slope Borough North Slope Borough North Slope Borough North Slope Borough City of Ambler Kotzebue Electric Association City of Kotzebue Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority Native Village of Noatak Kenai Winds, LLC Kenai Hydro, LLC ORPC Alaska LLC City of Homer Native Village of Cantwell Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC UAF Alaska Center for Energy and Power UAA and Anchorage Municipal Light & Power Delta Mine Training Center, Inc. Alaska Gasline Port Authority Whitestone Community Association Alaska Vocational Technical Center KAPP ,LLC EarthRun Energy Chena Power, LLC Ormat Nevada, Inc UAF UAF Alaska Wind Power, LLC HPML LLC Archangel Green Power, LLC Nanana Native Council Golden Valley Electric Association Alaska Power & Telephone Company Inside Passage Electric Company Southeast Island School District Alaska Power and Telephone Company Community of Elfin Cove Utility Commission Ketchikan Public Utilities Borough and Municipality of Skagway Four Dam Pool Power Agency Yakutat Power Organized Village of Kasaan City and Borough of Sitka Metlakatla Indian Community Baranof Island Housing Authority Ameresco, Inc City of Petersburg Municipal Power & Light Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska AP&T and Haines Assistant Living, Inc. City and Borough of Wrangell City and Borough of Wrangell Tlingit Haida Central Council Southeast Island School District Daniel A Pryse UAF Alaska Center for Energy and Power University of Alaska, Fairbanks Solena Group Chalkyitsik Village Council Venetie Village Council McGrath Traditional Council Yukon-Koyukuk School District Village Wind Power, LLC City of Galena Manley Village Council Yukon-Koyukuk School District Birch Creek Village Council Tanana Power Company McGrath Power and Light Tanana Tribal Council Tanacross Tribal Council Energy Region Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Bering Straits Bering Straits Bering Straits Bering Straits Bering Straits Bering Straits Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Kodiak Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim North Slope North Slope North Slope North Slope Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Applicant Type IPP Utility Utility IPP Government Government Government Government Utility Utility Utility IPP Utility Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Utility IPP IPP Utility Government Utility Utility Government Utility Government Government IPP Government Government IPP IPP Utility Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Government Government Utility Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Utility Government Government Government IPP IPP IPP Government Government IPP Government Utility IPP Government Government Government IPP IPP Utility IPP Government Government IPP IPP IPP Government Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Utility Utility Government Government Utility Government Government Government Government IPP Utility Government Utility Government Government Government Government IPP Government Government IPP Government Government Government Government IPP Government Government Government Government Utility Utility Government Government Project Type Wind Heat Recovery Other Wind Hydro Hydro Geothermal Geothermal Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Geothermal Geothermal Ocean/River Wind Wind Biofuels Hydro Biofuels Hydro Other Hydro Hydro Wind Hydro Biomass Wind Heat Recovery Other Wind Wind Biomass Hydro Hydro Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Biomass Wind Gas Biofuels Wind Ocean/River Wind Transmission Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Other Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Biofuels Solar Biomass Wind Hydro Ocean/River Ocean/River Hydro Hydro Geothermal Heat Recovery Biomass Gas Ocean/River Wind Biomass Biomass Geothermal Geothermal Heat Recovery Solar Wind Hydro Hydro Biomass Hydro Hydro Heat Recovery Biomass Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Other Ocean/River Biomass Biomass Hydro Other Hydro Hydro Biomass Geothermal Transmission Hydro Biofuels Biomass Other Geothermal Biomass Biofuels Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Wind Ocean/River Geothermal Other Solar Other Biomass Biomass Biomass 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 35, Homer-Seward 36, Kodiak 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 36, Kodiak 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 6, Interior Villages 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 6, Interior Villages 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 32, Chugach State Park 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 36, Kodiak 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 38, Bethel 39, Bering Straits 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 6, Interior Villages 38, Bethel 6, Interior Villages 39, Bering Straits 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 34, Rural Kenai 35, Homer-Seward 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 35, Homer-Seward 8, Denali-University 16, Chugiak-South Mat-Su 7, Farmers Loop-Steese Highway 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 11, North Pole 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 35, Homer-Seward 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 7, Farmers Loop-Steese Highway 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 9, City of Fairbanks 9, City of Fairbanks 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 15, Rural Mat-Su 6, Interior Villages 8, Denali-University 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 1, Ketchikan 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 1, Ketchikan 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 1, Ketchikan 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 1, Ketchikan 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 3, Juneau-Downtown-Douglas 1, Ketchikan 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 9, City of Fairbanks 9, City of Fairbanks 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages Benefit / Cost AEA 4.55 4.62 1.66 3.78 1.61 3.19 3.49 1.51 1.56 1.63 0.93 1.78 0.36 1.28 0.59 1.03 0.6 0.89 1.83 1.16 1.04 2.07 1.89 -0.58 -0.63 7.31 2.51 1.56 0.99 1.3 1.44 2.11 2.55 1.37 1.14 1.34 7.66 1.09 2.94 0.18 0.1 2.7 -0.16 0.13 0.43 0.19 1.92 2.92 1.36 2.26 3.18 1.88 1.66 7.9 1.26 0.48 5.49 0.58 1.43 -0.72 1.41 0.92 1 3.11 0.59 Applicant 4.75 4.77 1.72 5.61 1.84 3.19 3.22 1.84 1.56 1.88 0.93 1.3 0.39 1.2 0.59 1.03 0.64 0.91 2.41 1.31 0.99 7.52 1.54 3.93 4.83 6.53 5.37 1.94 0.91 1.3 1.44 0.46 3.43 1.64 1.14 1.57 9.12 0.98 2.94 0.32 0.24 3.26 -0.15 0.2 0.43 0.19 2.3 3.45 1.1 3 3.75 1.94 1.96 9.15 1.22 0.6 6.03 0.58 0.74 19.73 1.23 0.78 0.8 3.36 0.4 Funding yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes no no no no yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no no yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no no no no no no no no yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no no no Stage 3 Review Scores (max) 1. Cost of Energy (30) 22.84125 20.37375 28.875 22.84125 19.5525 19.5525 12.1125 17.65875 21.0525 11.88375 18.73125 11.88375 22.6125 18.75 19.29375 8.5425 26.3325 21.9375 28.5 24.57 11.93625 11.93625 7.14 22.395 19.5 18.19125 20.22 18.075 22.5 30 21.45 17.625 30 13.51875 13.51875 18.375 5.20125 5.20125 3.34875 5.20125 6.48375 4.76625 6.48375 24.6675 22.9725 9.67875 8.6325 15.75 3.7725 8.6325 4.395 19.9425 9.67875 3.92625 3.7725 30 28.125 22.7925 19.00125 18.46875 2. Match (25) 23 21 16 18 0 0 0 16 10 20 10 0 11 11 10 20 0 16 10 19 11 13 23 23 22 17 10 10 16 18 14 14 14 21 19 10 25 18 21 23 10 0 0 19 15 18 19 15 20 20 18 11 12 12 0 18 18 17 11 0 3. Tech & Econ Feas (20) 17.8666666666667 17.3333333333333 15.4666666666667 12.5333333333333 17.3333333333333 15.0666666666667 17.3333333333333 14.8 15.7333333333333 13.6 14.2666666666667 17.7333333333333 13.8666666666667 13.8666666666667 12.5333333333333 10.5333333333333 8.53333333333333 17.0666666666667 13.7333333333333 12.1333333333333 15.7333333333333 12.5333333333333 18.6666666666667 15.4666666666667 13.6 13.2 14.4 14.9333333333333 7.33333333333333 14 13.2 13.2 13.8666666666667 18.6666666666667 12 11.4666666666667 13.4666666666667 16.5333333333333 13.4666666666667 12 8.4 12.9333333333333 11.6 12.6666666666667 17.2 17.4666666666667 13.8666666666667 13.0666666666667 17.3333333333333 13.6 15.3333333333333 11.7333333333333 12.2666666666667 13.6 15.3333333333333 13.3333333333333 13.4666666666667 15.2 10 14.1333333333333 4. Readi-ness (5) 4.5 4.33333333333333 5 2.33333333333333 4 5 4.5 4.5 4.5 1.66666666666667 4 5 4.16666666666667 4.5 4.5 3.66666666666667 1.5 4.16666666666667 4.5 4.5 5 4 4.5 4.33333333333333 3.66666666666667 3.5 4 4.5 2 3.66666666666667 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 4 4.5 4.5 3.5 3.33333333333333 4.5 4.5 4.16666666666667 2.83333333333333 2.83333333333333 5 4 5 5 4 3.33333333333333 4 4.33333333333333 5 3.66666666666667 5 5 4.5 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 5 3.5 2 5. Benefits (10) 8.16666666666667 8.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 7.5 8.5 7.16666666666667 8.83333333333333 5.66666666666667 7.16666666666667 7.83333333333333 5.83333333333333 9 4.5 6.5 3.5 4 4.5 8.5 5.66666666666667 4.5 8.5 6.33333333333333 9.33333333333333 9 6.66666666666667 5.16666666666667 6.83333333333333 6.5 2.5 8.16666666666667 6.83333333333333 6.83333333333333 6.16666666666667 9.5 4.33333333333333 3.33333333333333 5 7.5 4 3.5 6.33333333333333 7.5 1.83333333333333 5.16666666666667 7.5 8.66666666666667 7.16666666666667 6.5 8.16666666666667 6.5 4.66666666666667 3 2.5 4 7.5 6 6 4 2.5 8 6. Local Support (5) 2 2 2 3 3 2 4 2 2 5 2 2 5 2 2 0 5 2 4 0 5 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 4 5 2 5 2 5 2 3 5 0 0 5 3 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 7. Sustain-ability (5) 4.66666666666667 4 4.66666666666667 1.83333333333333 3.66666666666667 4.16666666666667 3.66666666666667 5 4.5 2 4.5 5 3.5 3.83333333333333 4.5 3.66666666666667 1.5 4 3.16666666666667 3.16666666666667 3.5 3.66666666666667 5 2.33333333333333 3.5 4.33333333333333 4.33333333333333 4 2 3 2.5 2.5 4.5 5 2.16666666666667 4 4.83333333333333 4.33333333333333 3.16666666666667 3.16666666666667 3.66666666666667 3 5 3.66666666666667 4.5 3.5 2.5 3.33333333333333 5 2.66666666666667 5 2.83333333333333 4.33333333333333 3.66666666666667 4.5 3.16666666666667 3.16666666666667 3.5 3.33333333333333 3.5 Total (100) 83.04125 77.7070833333333 76.3416666666667 68.04125 56.0525 52.9525 50.4458333333333 65.6254166666667 64.9525 61.98375 59.33125 50.6170833333333 64.6458333333333 60.45 56.3270833333333 50.4091666666667 47.3658333333333 73.6708333333333 69.5666666666667 67.87 60.6695833333333 53.4695833333333 69.64 80.5283333333333 72.9333333333333 63.39125 61.7866666666667 60.0083333333333 52.3333333333333 78.8333333333333 63.8166666666667 59.9916666666667 74.5333333333333 74.1854166666667 55.51875 54.675 61.8345833333333 58.0679166666667 54.4820833333333 53.0345833333333 42.7170833333333 33.0329166666667 32.9170833333333 74.1675 72.1725 62.3120833333333 60.1658333333333 59.9833333333333 58.2725 57.7325 54.395 52.1758333333333 47.77875 44.1929166666667 37.6058333333333 76.3333333333333 75.5916666666667 70.4925 51.3345833333333 48.1020833333333 Statewide Rank (60) 1 4 5 17 39 46 51 19 20 25 34 50 21 29 38 52 55 11 16 18 28 44 15 2 12 23 27 31 47 3 22 32 8 9 40 41 26 36 42 45 57 59 60 10 13 24 30 33 35 37 43 48 54 56 58 6 7 14 49 53 Regional Rank () Cost and Request Project Cost 3104443 2011412 900000 146750 1795450 45000000 6000000 1760000 2727960 4436800 5157000 5750000 2349751 4600000 2396830 1798360 4436800 100000 4097000 1995000 38000000 95581 1900000 4659500 1672388 6300000 1850320 8945073 35000000 1380439 313000 6940000 15760000 15907950 400000 3360000 10733179 4436800 6310000 4500000 626400 200000 357152 10188000 368000 133255 14000000 4257116 3612000 3612000 500000 1215627 1520000 996000 50000 21000000 19860400 7858177 2498591 200000 330000000 198168 55000000 6134785.5 30000 3965660 708936 40000000 42000 2482803 15700582 15000000 370000 135300000 1550000 6420000 38264.61 24000000 2440000 617934 220179 33235000 2203497 17750000 140000000 312000 6944000 32000 32000 17722000 142000 1430000 109975000 5000000 2379007 5033414 4637616 1572050 355056 116625 95984 454828 100000000 1540023 1308500 43940 1300000 8100000 279331 187361 120500 112200 393298.5 1590092 39869 38843.58 Grant Request 639806 1300000 800000 126750 237772 1795450 2995000 4336950 1600000 2465664 117610 4126000 103256 2349751 4301950 2302630 910180 117610 75000 4097000 1995000 20000000 95581 1750000 4159500 164358 520000 1850320 522633 6000000 1380439 30500 6940000 8630000 500000 250000 1760000 9670361 117610 110000 4500000 626400 200000 339452 8588000 368000 122100 400000 3995116 3300000 3300000 435000 915627 15000 986000 50000 5850000 88320 1787476 482387 194540 5000000 198168 35000000 2034216.9 30000 3880660 634968 15000000 42000 1241402 4478345 10000000 320000 13000000 1550000 100000 29064.61 2200000 1952000 545934 178179 988000 347200 12020000 6864000 252000 6900000 30000 30000 500000 121000 50000 2000000 4750000 1432906 4433414 4367616 1500000 341056 116625 80984 454828 300000 88500 88500 34740 288500 8100000 223464 144107 112000 89600 303060 822950 30669 29643.58 Match Offered 437900 619807 100000 20000 70000 160000 262296 6190 1031000 5435 145000 94200 45280 6190 25000 18000000 500000 8030 130000 27750 29440 350000 15000 7130000 500000 150000 1600000 1062818 6190 5500 600000 50000 17700 1600000 11155 100000 262000 312000 312000 65000 300000 5000 10000 15150000 22080 640825 672125 5460 20000000 778003.8 85000 73995 25000000 1241402 20178927 5000000 50000 700000 50000 60000 9200 550000 488000 72000 42000 247000 48000 3000000 1716000 60000 44000 2000 2000 21000 10000 520000 250000 946101 600000 72050 14000 15000 300000 20000 20000 9200 17500 55866 43254 8500 22600 90238.5 767142 9200 9200 Recommendation Type Full Full Partial Full Full Partial Full Not recomm Not recomm Full Full Full Full Full Not recomm Partial Full Full Full Partial No pass S1 Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Full Full Full Full Full Full Partial No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Partial Partial Partial No pass S1 Full Full Full Partial No pass S1 Full Full Full Full Full Partial Full No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Withdrawn Partial Full Full Partial Full Full Partial Full Partial Full Full Full No pass S1 No pass S1 Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Withdrawn No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 Partial Partial Full Partial Partial Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Funding 639806 1300000 85835 126750 237772 162000 2995000 2465664 117610 4126000 103256 2349751 718175 910180 117610 75000 92000 0 303000 138210 40000 50000 32597 500000 250000 1760000 9670361 117610 110000 15000 175000 395912 300000 435000 915627 15000 101000 5850000 88320 1787476 482387 194540 500000 198168 0 0 108000 545934 178179 428000 347200 12020000 236000 252000 632500 30000 30000 500000 0 0 0 32500 32500 34740 16550 130000 Cumulative 639806 1939806 2025641 2152391 2390163 2552163 5547163 2465664 2583274 6709274 6812530 9162281 718175 1628355 1745965 1820965 1912965 303000 441210 481210 531210 563807 500000 750000 2510000 12180361 12297971 12407971 12422971 175000 570912 870912 435000 1350627 1365627 1466627 5850000 5938320 7725796 8208183 8402723 8902723 9100891 108000 653934 832113 1260113 1607313 13627313 13863313 14115313 14747813 14777813 14807813 15307813 32500 65000 99740 116290 246290 Reconn / Feasibility Final Design Construction Project ID 317 210 245 271 315 292 293 307 235 223 236 273 277 314 215 316 306 226 303 297 265 244 302 211 205 222 299 218 238 305 298 243 231 301 206 254 262 300 248 284 278 310 276 217 282 249 212 264 260 258 246 232 287 209 279 294 213 225 289 255 Not recommended (Did not Pass Stage 2 Review) 202 204 207 219 221 224 227 228 229 233 234 239 250 251 252 253 257 259 261 263 266 267 268 270 274 280 281 285 286 288 290 291 295 296 304 311 312 313 319 Ineligible or Incomplete Applications (Did not Pass Stage 1 Review) 214 216 220 230 237 240 241 242 256 269 272 283 308 309 318 320 321 Withdrawn 208 275 GRAND TOTAL Project Name Sand Point Wind_AWE Kiseralik_Chikuminuk Hydro_AVCP Housing Barrow_Atqasuk Transmission Unalaska Heat Recovery Adak Diesel Hybrid_TDX Power Chalkyitsik District Heat_Village Council Venetie District Heat_Village Council Ambler HR_City of Ambler Kotzebue HR and Ammonia Power Cycle Neck Lake Hydro_APT Fivemile Creek_Chitna Electric Tuntutuliak High Penetration Wind Diesel Angoon HR_IPEC McGrath Biomass Feasibility Terror Lake Capacity_KEA Tatitlek High Penetration Wind Aleutian Peninsula Broadcasting Wind Carlson Creek Hydro_APT Shaktoolik Wind_AVEC Teller Wind Analysis_AVEC Kvichak River_Igiugig Point Lay Heat Recovery Emmonak Wind and Transmission_AVEC Thorne Bay Wood Boiler_SEISD Banner Wind Construction_Nome Kenai Winds_Nikiski Scammon Bay Wind Analysis_AVEC Cordova District Heat_NVE Pilot Point High Penetration Wind/Diesel/CHP Connelly Lake Hydro_APT St. Mary's Wind Analysis_AVEC Wainwright Heat Recovery Crooked Creek Hydro_Elfin Cove Stebbins Wind Analysis_AVEC Whitman Lake Hydro Construction_KPU Victor Creek Hydro_Kenai Hydro West Creek Hydro_Muni Skagway New Stuyahok Wind Analysis_AVEC Loud Creek Hydro_Akutan Kotzebue Solid Waste_City of Kotzebue Solar Hot Water NWAB_NIHA ORPC Cook Inlet Tidal Integrated Resource Plan_FDPPA Camp Hill Wind_NVE Tidal Feasibility_City of Homer Akutan Hydrosystem Repair and Upgrade Akiachak Wind_ANCEC Yakutat Wave Energy Conversion Biomass Hydronic Heating_YKSD Pilgrim Hot Springs Assessment_ACEP Hot Springs Bay Valley_Akutan Bristol Bay Fish Waste_NEA Tok Wind Construction_VWP Kasaan Wood Boiler_Village of Kasaan Tanalian River Hydro_AGE Sitka CHP_City and Borough Jack River Recon_Cantwell Triangle Lake_Metlakatla Indian Community Glacier Fork Hydro Chena Hot Springs Reservoir Modeling_ACEP TOTAL Ruth Lake Hydro Phase II _PMPL Grant Lake Phase III & IV_Nushagak PetroStar HR_VFDA High Penetration Wind Diesel Heat_Kipnuk Kake Biomass gasifer_ccthita Haines Assistant living GSHP_Apt AK_BC Intertie_Wrangell Sunrise Lake Hydro_Wrangell AVTEC Wind Crooked Creek Hydro Kinetic Knik Arm CHC_KAPP Biomassheat Anchorage_Earth Run Energy Galena Hydrokinetic AEB Geothermal Assessment_AGDAP Manley Village Council Geothermal Chena Power Hydrogen Mt. Spur Resource Assessment_Ormat Mountain Village Wind_City and Tribe Alternative Energy Recon_YKSD Alternative Energy Feasibilty_CSD Birch Creek Solar Mobile Biodiesel Processing Plant_CCTHIA UAF Absorption Chiller UAF Photovoltaic Wind Recon_NPRHA Alternative Energy Assessment_Perryville NVOP Tanana Alternative Energy Assessment Delta Wind Construction_AWP Slana Wind Construction_AWP St Paul Wind Construction_City of St. Paul Packers Creek Hydro_CLPU McGrath District Heat_MPL Delia Creek Hydro_HPML Archangel Creek Hydro_AGP Geothermal Resource Assessment Seward Pen Tanana Biomass Feasibility Tanacross Biomass Feasibility Nenana Biomass Feasibility Wood Pellet Plant_AHTNA TOTAL Air Source Heat Pump Little Port Walter Hydro Heat Recovery at UMED_MLPUAA Wood Gasification_KISKIL Kotlik Pellet Stove_KYE Wasteoil for Heat_#2 Fuel Natural Gas Distribution_AGPA Wainwright Coal Bed Methane Phase III Statewide Heat Pump Analysis_ACEP WCA Hydrokinetic_Tanana River Akiak Wind Statewide Biomass Assessment_UAF Plasma Gasification_Solena Group Orutsaramiut Native Council Chignik Lake CBM_AGE Marshall Wood Fired Boiler Noatak Biomass_Native Village of Noatak TOTAL Coffman Cove Wood Boiler_SEISD Nenana Healy Hydro Phase II_GVEA TOTAL Applicant Aleutian Wind Energy AVCP Regional Housing Authority North Slope Borough City of Unalaska, Department of Public Utilities TDX Adak Generating, LLC Chalkyitsik Village Council Venetie Village Council City of Ambler Kotzebue Electric Association Alaska Power & Telephone Company Chitna Electric Inc, (CEI) Tuntutuliak Community Services Association Inside Passage Electric Company McGrath Traditional Council Kodiak Electric Association Tatitlek IRA Council/ Tatitlek Electric Utility Aleutian Peninsula Broadcasting, Inc. Alaska Power Company (subsidiary of AP&T) Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Igiugig Electric Company North Slope Borough Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Southeast Island School District Banner Wind, LLC Kenai Winds, LLC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Native Village of Eyak City of Pilot Point Alaska Power and Telephone Company Alaska Village Electric Cooperative North Slope Borough Community of Elfin Cove Utility Commission Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Ketchikan Public Utilities Kenai Hydro, LLC Borough and Municipality of Skagway Alaska Village Electric Cooperative City of Akutan City of Kotzebue Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority ORPC Alaska LLC Four Dam Pool Power Agency Native Village of Eyak City of Homer City of Akutan Akiachak Native Community Electric Company Yakutat Power Yukon-Koyukuk School District UAF Alaska Center for Energy and Power City of Akutan Naknek Electric Association Village Wind Power, LLC Organized Village of Kasaan Alaska Green Energy, LLC City and Borough of Sitka Native Village of Cantwell Metlakatla Indian Community Glacier Fork Hydropower, LLC UAF Alaska Center for Energy and Power Count = 60 City of Petersburg Municipal Power & Light Nushagak Electric & Telephone Company, Inc Valdez Fisheries Development Association Kipnuk Light Plant Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska AP&T and Haines Assistant Living, Inc. City and Borough of Wrangell City and Borough of Wrangell Alaska Vocational Technical Center Crooked Creek Traditional Council KAPP ,LLC EarthRun Energy City of Galena Aleutians East Borough Manley Village Council Chena Power, LLC Ormat Nevada, Inc Asa'carsarmuit Tribal Council Yukon-Koyukuk School District Chugach School District Birch Creek Village Council Tlingit Haida Central Council UAF UAF North Pacific Rim Housing Authority Native Village of Perryville Tanana Power Company Alaska Wind Power, LLC Village Wind Power, LLC City of St. Paul Chignik Lagoon Power Utility McGrath Power and Light HPML LLC Archangel Green Power, LLC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Tanana Tribal Council Tanacross Tribal Council Nanana Native Council Ahtna, Incorporated Count = 39 Baranof Island Housing Authority Ameresco, Inc UAA and Anchorage Municipal Light & Power Delta Mine Training Center, Inc. Kotlik Yupik Enterprise Daniel A Pryse Alaska Gasline Port Authority North Slope Borough UAF Alaska Center for Energy and Power Whitestone Community Association Akiak Power Utilities University of Alaska, Fairbanks Solena Group Orutsaramiut Native Council Incorporated Alaska Green Energy, LLC (AGE) Ohogamiut Traditional Council Native Village of Noatak Count = 17 Southeast Island School District Golden Valley Electric Association Count = 2 Count = 118 Energy Region Aleutians Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim North Slope Aleutians Aleutians Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Southeast Copper River/Chugach Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Kodiak Copper River/Chugach Aleutians Copper River/Chugach Bering Straits Bering Straits Bristol Bay North Slope Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Bering Straits Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Copper River/Chugach Bristol Bay Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim North Slope Southeast Bering Straits Southeast Railbelt Southeast Bristol Bay Aleutians Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Copper River/Chugach Railbelt Aleutians Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Bering Straits Aleutians Bristol Bay Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Bristol Bay Southeast Railbelt Southeast Railbelt Railbelt Southeast Bristol Bay Copper River/Chugach Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Railbelt Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Aleutians Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Railbelt Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Copper River/Chugach Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Railbelt Railbelt Copper River/Chugach Bristol Bay Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Railbelt Copper River/Chugach Aleutians Bristol Bay Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Railbelt Railbelt Bering Straits Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Railbelt Copper River/Chugach Southeast Southeast Railbelt Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Statewide Railbelt North Slope Statewide Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Statewide Statewide Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bristol Bay Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Southeast Railbelt Applicant Type IPP Government Government Utility Utility Government Government Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Government IPP Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Government IPP IPP Utility Government Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Utility Utility IPP Government Utility Government Government Government IPP Government Government Government Government Utility Utility Government Government Government Utility IPP Government IPP Government Government Government IPP Government Utility Utility IPP Utility Government Utility Government Government Government Government IPP IPP Government Government Government Utility IPP Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Government Utility IPP IPP Utility Utility Utility IPP IPP Utility Government Government Government IPP Government IPP Utility IPP Government IPP Government Government Government Government Utility Government IPP Government IPP Government Government Government Utility Project Type Wind Hydro Transmission Heat Recovery Other Biomass Biomass Heat Recovery Heat Recovery Hydro Hydro Wind Heat Recovery Biomass Hydro Wind Wind Hydro Wind Wind Ocean/River Heat Recovery Wind Biomass Wind Wind Wind Biomass Wind Hydro Wind Heat Recovery Hydro Wind Hydro Hydro Hydro Wind Hydro Biofuels Solar Ocean/River Other Wind Ocean/River Hydro Wind Ocean/River Biomass Geothermal Geothermal Biofuels Wind Biomass Hydro Biomass Hydro Hydro Hydro Geothermal Hydro Hydro Heat Recovery Wind Biomass Geothermal Transmission Hydro Wind Ocean/River Biomass Biomass Ocean/River Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal Wind Other Other Solar Biofuels Heat Recovery Solar Wind Other Other Wind Wind Wind Hydro Biomass Hydro Hydro Geothermal Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Other Hydro Heat Recovery Biomass Biomass Other Gas Other Geothermal Ocean/River Wind Biomass Biofuels Gas Biofuels Biofuels Biomass Biomass Hydro 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 38, Bethel 40, Arctic 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 6, Interior Villages 38, Bethel 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 6, Interior Villages 36, Kodiak 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 6, Interior Villages 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 36, Kodiak 40, Arctic 39, Bering Straits 1, Ketchikan 39, Bering Straits 34, Rural Kenai 39, Bering Straits 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 39, Bering Straits 40, Arctic 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 39, Bering Straits 1, Ketchikan 35, Homer-Seward 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 1, Ketchikan 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 35, Homer-Seward 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 38, Bethel 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 6, Interior Villages 39, Bering Straits 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 6, Interior Villages 1, Ketchikan 36, Kodiak 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 8, Denali-University 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 16, Chugiak-South Mat-Su 7, Farmers Loop-Steese Highway 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 38, Bethel 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 35, Homer-Seward 6, Interior Villages 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 6, Interior Villages 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 6, Interior Villages 7, Farmers Loop-Steese Highway 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 39, Bering Straits 6, Interior Villages 32, Chugach State Park 6, Interior Villages 3, Juneau-Downtown-Douglas 9, City of Fairbanks 9, City of Fairbanks 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 6, Interior Villages 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 6, Interior Villages 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 6, Interior Villages 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 15, Rural Mat-Su 35, Homer-Seward 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 39, Bering Straits 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 11, North Pole 40, Arctic 9, City of Fairbanks 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 38, Bethel 9, City of Fairbanks 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 38, Bethel 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 6, Interior Villages 40, Arctic 1, Ketchikan 8, Denali-University Benefit / Cost AEA 4.55 2.51 2.55 4.62 0.92 1 1.34 7.66 1.36 1.83 1.56 2.26 7.31 1.16 1.66 1.04 1.51 1.56 0.36 1.37 0.99 3.18 1.63 1.09 1.3 2.07 1.28 1.88 1.44 1.14 1.66 0.93 7.9 2.94 1.26 0.59 3.78 0.18 1.89 0.1 1.61 0.48 1.78 3.19 3.11 1.03 5.49 2.7 0.6 2.11 0.58 1.43 -0.16 0.13 0.59 -0.72 0.43 0.19 -0.58 0.89 1.92 -0.63 3.49 2.92 1.41 Applicant 4.75 5.37 3.43 4.77 0.78 0.8 1.57 9.12 1.1 2.41 1.94 3 6.53 1.31 1.72 0.99 1.84 1.56 0.39 1.64 0.91 3.75 1.88 0.98 1.3 7.52 1.2 1.94 1.44 1.14 1.96 0.93 9.15 2.94 1.22 0.59 5.61 0.32 1.54 0.24 1.84 0.6 1.3 3.19 3.36 1.03 6.03 3.26 0.64 0.46 0.58 0.74 -0.15 0.2 0.4 19.73 0.43 0.19 3.93 0.91 2.3 4.83 3.22 3.45 1.23 Funding yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no Stage 3 Review Scores (max) 1. Cost of Energy (30) 22.84125 22.395 30 20.37375 28.875 30 28.125 30 13.51875 24.6675 21.9375 19.5 22.9725 22.7925 7.14 28.5 22.84125 24.57 17.65875 21.0525 22.6125 21.45 18.19125 9.67875 11.88375 5.20125 20.22 11.93625 18.75 8.6325 18.075 17.625 15.75 18.73125 3.7725 5.20125 8.6325 19.29375 19.5525 13.51875 18.375 3.34875 4.395 11.93625 5.20125 19.5525 22.5 19.9425 19.00125 11.88375 12.1125 8.5425 18.46875 9.67875 26.3325 3.92625 6.48375 3.7725 4.76625 6.48375 2. Match (25) 23 23 18 21 16 18 18 14 21 19 16 22 15 17 23 10 18 19 16 10 11 14 17 18 20 25 10 11 11 19 10 14 15 10 20 18 20 10 0 19 10 21 18 13 23 0 16 11 11 0 0 20 0 12 0 12 10 0 0 0 3. Tech & Econ Feas (20) 17.8666666666667 15.4666666666667 14 17.3333333333333 15.4666666666667 13.3333333333333 13.4666666666667 13.8666666666667 18.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 17.0666666666667 13.6 17.2 15.2 18.6666666666667 13.7333333333333 12.5333333333333 12.1333333333333 14.8 15.7333333333333 13.8666666666667 13.2 13.2 17.4666666666667 13.6 13.4666666666667 14.4 15.7333333333333 13.8666666666667 13.8666666666667 14.9333333333333 13.2 13.0666666666667 14.2666666666667 17.3333333333333 16.5333333333333 13.6 12.5333333333333 17.3333333333333 12 11.4666666666667 13.4666666666667 15.3333333333333 12.5333333333333 12 15.0666666666667 7.33333333333333 11.7333333333333 10 17.7333333333333 17.3333333333333 10.5333333333333 14.1333333333333 12.2666666666667 8.53333333333333 13.6 8.4 15.3333333333333 12.9333333333333 11.6 4. Readi-ness (5) 4.5 4.33333333333333 3.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 5 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 4 4.5 4 4.16666666666667 3.66666666666667 5 5 4.5 4.5 2.33333333333333 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.16666666666667 3.83333333333333 3.5 5 1.66666666666667 3.33333333333333 4 5 4.5 4 4.5 3.83333333333333 3.33333333333333 4 4 4.5 4.33333333333333 4.5 4 4.5 3.5 4.5 5 4 4.16666666666667 5 2 3.66666666666667 3.5 5 4.5 3.66666666666667 2 5 1.5 5 2.83333333333333 4.5 2.83333333333333 5 5. Benefits (10) 8.16666666666667 9 8.16666666666667 8.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 6 6 6.16666666666667 9.5 5.16666666666667 8.5 6.66666666666667 7.5 4 9.33333333333333 5.66666666666667 7.5 4.5 5.66666666666667 7.16666666666667 4.5 6.83333333333333 5.16666666666667 8.66666666666667 7.83333333333333 5 6.83333333333333 8.5 6.5 7.16666666666667 6.5 6.83333333333333 6.5 5.83333333333333 8.16666666666667 7.5 6.5 3.5 8.5 4.33333333333333 3.33333333333333 4 4.66666666666667 6.33333333333333 3.5 7.16666666666667 2.5 3 2.5 9 8.83333333333333 4 8 2.5 4.5 4 6.33333333333333 7.5 7.5 1.83333333333333 6. Local Support (5) 2 4 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 5 2 4 0 3 2 4 3 0 2 2 5 2 2 0 5 5 2 5 2 5 2 2 3 2 0 2 2 2 3 0 4 5 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 4 0 2 2 5 2 5 2 2 3 7. Sustain-ability (5) 4.66666666666667 2.33333333333333 3 4 4.66666666666667 3.16666666666667 3.16666666666667 4.5 5 3.66666666666667 4 3.5 4.5 3.5 5 3.16666666666667 1.83333333333333 3.16666666666667 5 4.5 3.5 2.5 4.33333333333333 3.5 2 4.83333333333333 4.33333333333333 3.5 3.83333333333333 2.5 4 2.5 3.33333333333333 4.5 5 4.33333333333333 2.66666666666667 4.5 3.66666666666667 2.16666666666667 4 3.16666666666667 5 3.66666666666667 3.16666666666667 4.16666666666667 2 2.83333333333333 3.33333333333333 5 3.66666666666667 3.66666666666667 3.5 4.33333333333333 1.5 3.66666666666667 3.66666666666667 4.5 3 5 Total (100) 83.04125 80.5283333333333 78.8333333333333 77.7070833333333 76.3416666666667 76.3333333333333 75.5916666666667 74.5333333333333 74.1854166666667 74.1675 73.6708333333333 72.9333333333333 72.1725 70.4925 69.64 69.5666666666667 68.04125 67.87 65.6254166666667 64.9525 64.6458333333333 63.8166666666667 63.39125 62.3120833333333 61.98375 61.8345833333333 61.7866666666667 60.6695833333333 60.45 60.1658333333333 60.0083333333333 59.9916666666667 59.9833333333333 59.33125 58.2725 58.0679166666667 57.7325 56.3270833333333 56.0525 55.51875 54.675 54.4820833333333 54.395 53.4695833333333 53.0345833333333 52.9525 52.3333333333333 52.1758333333333 51.3345833333333 50.6170833333333 50.4458333333333 50.4091666666667 48.1020833333333 47.77875 47.3658333333333 44.1929166666667 42.7170833333333 37.6058333333333 33.0329166666667 32.9170833333333 Statewide Rank (60) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Regional Rank () Cost and Request Project Cost 3104443 400000 14000000 2011412 900000 1540023 1308500 500000 1215627 2440000 4659500 3360000 617934 43940 15907950 1672388 146750 6300000 2727960 4436800 2396830 4257116 10733179 220179 5157000 21000000 4436800 1850320 1798360 33235000 6310000 3612000 2203497 5750000 17750000 19860400 140000000 4436800 1520000 996000 7858177 312000 8945073 2498591 1795450 4500000 6944000 1300000 2349751 45000000 100000 8100000 32000 4097000 32000 200000 17722000 330000000 198168 796800918 109975000 38000000 35000000 10188000 5000000 2379007 5033414 4637616 708936 368000 40000000 42000 279331 6000000 187361 2482803 15700582 133255 120500 1380439 112200 1572050 15000000 370000 313000 95581 393298.5 135300000 6940000 1760000 1900000 1590092 1550000 6420000 4600000 39869 38843.58 38264.61 15760000 471409442.69 142000 1430000 55000000 6134785.5 626400 116625 30000 3612000 95984 3965660 200000 454828 100000000 1995000 357152 50000 174210434.5 355056 24000000 310069139.5 1752489934.69 Grant Request 639806 250000 400000 1300000 800000 88500 88500 435000 915627 1952000 4159500 1760000 545934 34740 500000 164358 126750 520000 2465664 117610 2302630 3995116 9670361 178179 4126000 5850000 117610 1850320 910180 988000 110000 3300000 347200 103256 12020000 88320 6864000 117610 237772 15000 986000 1787476 252000 522633 482387 1795450 4500000 6900000 288500 2349751 2995000 75000 8100000 30000 4097000 30000 194540 500000 5000000 198168 111539448 2000000 20000000 6000000 8588000 4750000 1432906 4433414 4367616 634968 368000 15000000 42000 223464 4336950 144107 1241402 4478345 122100 112000 1380439 89600 1500000 10000000 320000 30500 95581 303060 13000000 6940000 1600000 1750000 822950 1550000 100000 4301950 30669 29643.58 29064.61 8630000 130778729.19 121000 50000 35000000 2034216.9 626400 116625 30000 3300000 80984 3880660 200000 454828 300000 1995000 339452 50000 48579165.9 341056 2200000 62494170.9 353391513.99 Match Offered 437900 150000 100000 619807 100000 20000 20000 65000 300000 488000 500000 1600000 72000 9200 500000 8030 20000 130000 262296 6190 94200 262000 1062818 42000 1031000 15150000 6190 27750 45280 247000 5500 312000 48000 5435 3000000 22080 1716000 6190 5000 10000 640825 60000 29440 672125 600000 44000 17500 25000 2000 2000 5460 30605216 520000 18000000 350000 1600000 250000 946101 600000 73995 25000000 55866 70000 43254 1241402 20178927 11155 8500 22600 72050 5000000 50000 15000 90238.5 700000 160000 767142 50000 60000 145000 9200 9200 9200 7130000 83238830.5 21000 10000 20000000 778003.8 50000 312000 15000 85000 300000 17700 21588703.8 14000 550000 22932403.8 158365154.1 Recommendation Type Full Full Partial Full Partial Partial Partial Full Full Partial Partial Full Full Full Full Partial Full Partial Full Full Partial Partial Full Full Full Full Full Partial Full Partial Full Partial Full Full Full Full Partial Full Full Full Partial Full Full Partial Full Partial Partial Partial Partial Full Full Full Partial Full Partial Full Full Full Partial Full Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm Not recomm No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 No pass S1 Withdrawn Withdrawn Funding 639806 250000 175000 1300000 85835 32500 32500 435000 915627 108000 303000 1760000 545934 34740 500000 138210 126750 40000 2465664 117610 718175 395912 9670361 178179 4126000 5850000 117610 50000 910180 428000 110000 300000 347200 103256 12020000 88320 236000 117610 237772 15000 101000 1787476 252000 32597 482387 162000 15000 632500 16550 2349751 2995000 75000 130000 30000 92000 30000 194540 500000 500000 198168 56601720 0 0 0 0 0 0 56601720 Cumulative 639806 889806 1064806 2364806 2450641 2483141 2515641 2950641 3866268 3974268 4277268 6037268 6583202 6617942 7117942 7256152 7382902 7422902 9888566 10006176 10724351 11120263 20790624 20968803 25094803 30944803 31062413 31112413 32022593 32450593 32560593 32860593 33207793 33311049 45331049 45419369 45655369 45772979 46010751 46025751 46126751 47914227 48166227 48198824 48681211 48843211 48858211 49490711 49507261 51857012 54852012 54927012 55057012 55087012 55179012 55209012 55403552 55903552 56403552 56601720 Reconn / Feasibility 250000 85835 32500 32500 82000 34740 500000 138210 40000 117610 718175 117610 50000 428000 110000 103256 88320 236000 117610 237772 15000 41000 1071082 252000 32597 482387 65656 15000 16550 2349751 299500 75000 30000 92000 30000 194540 500000 500000 198168 9780369 0.181426975058628 Final Design 175000 125000 16250 105000 26000 303000 199500 395912 199500 19360 300000 347200 60900 716394 96344 632500 130000 3847860 7.13782476151044E-02 Construction 639806 1175000 418750 810627 1760000 545934 126750 2266164 9471131 158819 4126000 5850000 910810 12020000 40279791 0.747194777326268 1300000 435000 915627 108000 2465664 9670631 178179 101900 1787476 53908020 Energy Region Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River/ Chugach Kodiak Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Statewide TOTAL Energy Region Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Bering Straits Bering Straits Bering Straits Bering Straits Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Kodiak Kodiak Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Copper River/ Chugach Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide Project ID 58 89 90 11 95 52 50 47 106 64 62 63 40 6 14 18 7 55 21 22 26 27 15 46 2 103 73 122 110 107 67 70 72 91 71 35 113 96 59 75 76 77 85 56 74 83 121 68 57 94 109 53 93 87 34 105 66 102 98 78 48 86 97 112 108 8 3 39 5 4 16 17 43 44 45 51 79 92 -- 23 29 10 104 111 37 33 60 38 42 28 20 41 65 9 19 1 101 12 13 25 -- 61 54 84 49 24 30 31 -- 88 36 82 32 81 Project Name Chuniisax Creek Hydroelectric Construction Nikolski Wind Integration Construction St. George Wind Farm Construction Aleutians East Borough Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Makushin Geothermal Feasibility Study TOTAL Nome/Newton Peak Wind Farm Construction Unalakleet Wind Farm Construction Nome Banner Peak Wind Farm Transmission Construction Nome/ Banner Peak Wind Farm Construction TOTAL Lake Pen Borough Wind Feasibility Study Chignik Lake Area Wind-Hydro Final Design Lake Pen Borough Wood Heating Final Design Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Lake Elva Hydropower Construction Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Final Design Pike's Ridge Geothermal Final Design Naknek/King Salmon Fish Waste Feasibility Study Snake Mountain Wind Farm Construction (Withdrawn) TOTAL Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Construction Cordova Heat Recovery Construction Cordova Wood Processing Plant Construction Allison Lake Hydro Feasibility Study Chistochina Central Wood Heating Construction Kenny Lake Wood Heating Construction Gulkana Central Wood Heating Construction TOTAL Pillar Mountain Wind Farm Construction Old Harbor Hydroelectric Final Design TOTAL Bethel Wind Power Project Times 4 Kongiganak Wind Farm Construction Kwigillingok Wind Farm Construction Bethel Wind Farm Construction (BNC land) Quinhagak Wind Farm Construction Mekoryuk Wind Farm Construction Napaimute Solar PV Construction Toksook Bay Wind Farm Expansion Construction Hooper Bay Wind Farm Construction Napaskiak Wind Farm Feasibility Study Crooked Creek Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Study TOTAL Kobuk River Valley Woody Biomass Feasibility Study Ambler Solar PV Construction Noatak Solar PV Construction Shungnak Solar PV Construction Kotzebue Wind Farm Expansion Construction Buckland/Deering/Noorvik Wind Farm Construction Upper Kobuk Region Hydroelectric Feasibility Kotzebue Wind Farm Red-Ox Flow Battery Storage Construction Ambler Solar and Wind Power Construction TOTAL Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity Construction South Fork Hydroelectric Construction Nikolaevsk Wind Farm Final Design Eva Creek Wind Farm Construction North Pole Biomass Electricity/Heat Construction Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity Final Design Fishhook Hydroelectric Construction Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydro Feasibility Study North Pole Heat Recovery Construction Coal Mine Road Wind Farm Final Design Delta Junction Wind Farm Construction Nikiski Wind Farm Construction Girdwood Gas CHP/Hydro/Wind Solar Construction Whittier Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Nenana Hydrokinetic Construction Delta Junction Wood Chip Heating Feasibility Study McKinley Village Solar Thermal Construction Anchorage Geothermal District Heating Feasibility Study Anchorage Waste Gasification Feasibility Study Delta Junction Barley/Wood Pellet Central Heating Construction Fairbanks Waste Gasification Feasibility Study Palmer Waste Gasification Feasibility Study Mt. Redoubt/Mt. Spur Geothermal Construction Jack River Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Palmer Gas CHP Construction Whittier Gas CHP Construction Anchorage Wood Processing and Heating Construction Mt. Alice Harbor Renewable Energy Construction Palmer Coal Bed Methane CHP Construction Delia Creek Hydro Construction Kenai Hydro Recon Assessment TOTAL Coffman Cove-Naukati Intertie Construction Kake-Petersburg Intertie Final Design Falls Creek Hydroelectric Construction Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Construction Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump Construction (Aquatic Center) Whitman Lake Hydro Construction Haines Central Wood Heating System Construction (Low Income Housing Project) Yakutat Biomass Gasification Construction Ruth Lake Hydro Reconnaissance Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Hoonah - Hawk Inlet Intertie Construction Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Construction Haines Central Wood Heating Feasibility Study (Community Buildings) Indian River Hydroelectric Construction Wrangell Hydro Based Electric Boilers Construction Gustavus/Angoon/Wrangell/Nikiski Tidal Feasibility Study Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Ketchikan Biomass Gasification Construction Juneau Waste Gasification Reconnaissance Study Ketchikan Waste Gasification Reconnaissance Study Haines Ground Source Heat Pump Construction Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump Construction (Airport) TOTAL McGrath Heat Recovery Construction Galena Wood Heating Construction Ruby Hydrokinetic Construction Tok Wood Heating Construction Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Construction McGrath Central Wood Heating Construction Fort Yukon Central Wood Heating Construction Manley Hot Springs Geothermal Construction TOTAL Statewide Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study Statewide Heat Recovery Demonstration Project Juneau Based Statewide Hydro/Ammonia Electricity Construction Statewide Biomass Reconnaissance Study Statewide Heat Recovery/Electric Demonstration Construction TOTAL Applicant City of Atka Umnak Power / Nikolski IRA Council City of St. George - St. George Municipal Electric Utility Aleutians East Borough Kiiguusi Suuluta Land Company, LLC City of Nome d/b/a Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (UVEC) City of Nome d/b/a Nome Joint Utilities System Banner Wind, LLC Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Peninsula Borough City Of Chignik Nushagak Electric & Telephone Cooperative, Inc Chignik Lagoon Power Utility (CLPU) Naknek Electric Association Naknek Electric Association Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation Cordova Electric Cooperative Cordova Electric Cooperative Native Village of Eyak Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc (CVEA) Cheesh'na Tribal Council Copper River School District Gulkana Village Council Kodiak Electric Associaiton, Inc. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative City of Bethel Puvurnaq Power Company Puvurnaq Power Company Village Wind Power, LLC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Native Village of Napaimute Alaska Village Electric Cooperative City of Hooper Bay Napaskiak Utility (electric) - City of Napaskiak Crooked Creek Traditional Council Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Kotzebue Electric Association Northwest Arctic Borough Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Kotzebue Electric Association City of Ambler Municipality of Anchorage, Solid Waste Services Dept South Fork Hydro, LLC Alaska Wind Energy, LLC, d/b/a Wind Energy Alaska (WEA) Golden Valley Electric Association Chena Power Utility, LLC Alaska Wind Energy, LLC, d/b/a Wind Energy Alaska (WEA) Fishhook Renewable Energy, LLC Kenai Hydro, LLC Golden Valley Electric Association Alaska Wind Power, LLC Alaska Environmental Power LLC Kenai Winds, LLC Alaska Green Energy, LLC City of Whittier Independence Power, LLC University of Alaska Fairbanks, Office of Sponsored Programs Delta/Greely School District Golden Valley Electric Association Iceland America Energy, Inc. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC State of AK, Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC Cook Inlet Power Native Village of Cantwell Alpine Energy, LLC Alpine Energy, LLC EarthRun Energy Mt. Alice Development, Inc. Alaska Green Energy, LLC HPML, LLC Homer Electric Associtation Alaska Power & Telephone Company Kwaan Electric Transmission Intertie Cooperative, Inc (KWETICO) Gustavus Electric Company Haida Power, Inc. City & Borough of Juneau Ketchikan Public Utilities- Electic Division Chilkoot Indian Association Yakutat Power City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal & Light Burro Creek Holdings, LLC Kwaan Electric Transmission Intertie Cooperative, Inc (KWETICO) Metlakatla Indian Community Haines Borough City of Tenakee Springs City and Borough of Wrangell Alaska Tidal Energy Company City & Borough of Sitka Diesel Brewing Company, LLC dba Diesel Brewing of Ketchikan Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC Haines Assisted Living, Inc City & Borough of Juneau McGrath Light & Power, Co. Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council Alaska Gateway School District Alaska Power & Telephone Company McGrath Power and Light Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company TDX Power Thomas Ravens, Ph.D. and Myree McDonald, Ph.D. Precision Power, LLC Alaska Electric Light & Power University of Alaska, Fairbanks Ormat Nevada Inc. Applicant_Address PO Box 110772 PO Box 105 PO Box 929 3380 C Street, Suite 205 116 Delmar Street PO Box 70 PO Box 186 PO Box 70 P.O. Box 1129 PO Box 495 PO Box 495 PO Box 495 PO Box 110 PO Box 350 P.O. Box 31 PO Box 118 PO Box 118 PO Box 130 PO Box 20 PO Box 20 PO Box 1388 PO Box 45 Mile 33 Tok Cutoff, P.O. Box 241 PO Box 108 PO Box 254 P.O. Box 787 4831 Eagle Street P.O. Box 1388 P.O. Box 5069 P.O. Box 5069 10600 Prospect Dr. 4831 Eagle Street 4831 Eagle Street PO Box 1301 4831 Eagle Street PO Box 29 PO Box 6078 PO Box 69 PO Box 331 4831 Eagle Street 4831 Eagle Street 4831 Eagle Street PO Box 44 PO Box 10 4831 Eagle Street PO Box 44 P.O. Box 9 PO Box 196650 1503 W. 33rd Ave., Suite 310 2525 C Street, Suite 500 PO Box 71249 PO Box 58740 2525 C Street 1503 West 33rd Ave., Suite 310 2525 C Street, Suite 500 PO Box 71249 10600 Prospect Dr. 3411 Airport Way C/O BQ Energy 20 Jon Barrett Rd., Suite 2 1150 S. Colony Way, Suite #333 PO Box 608 1503 West 33rd. Ave., Suite 310 PO Box 755910 PO Box 527 PO Box 71249 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4500 9360 Glacier Hwy Ste. 202 PO Box 1149 9360 Glacier Hwy Ste. 202 9360 Glacier Hwy Ste. 202 PO Box 876 PO Box 94 PO Box 436 PO Box 436 515 W. 20th Ave PO Box 25 1150 S. Colony Way P.O. Box 91187 PO Box 3222 PO Box 35466 P.O. Box 102 P.O. Box 89 155 South Seward Street 1065 Fair Street PO Box 490 PO Box 129 PO Box 329 PO Box 271 PO Box 35466 PO Box 8 PO Box 1209 PO Box 52 P.O. Box 531 1785 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 100 105 Jarvis Street P.O. Box 4483 P.O. Box 584 P.O. Box 584 PO Box 916 PO Box 52 PO Box 12 725 Christensen Drive, Suite 3 PO Box 226 PO Box 3222 PO Box 52 PO Box 9 3211 Providence Drive, School of Engineering 200 E. Commercial Drive 5601 Tonsgard Ct. PO Box 757140 6225 Neil Road Applicant_City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Applicant_Contact_Email goldcreekwater@yahoo.com eanderson@apicda.com eanderson@apicda.com rjuettner@aeboro.org jackwood@gv.net johnh@njus.org uvec@gci.net johnh@njus.org merickson@snc.org ljcotten@gci.net ljcotten@gci.net ljcotten@gci.net cityoffice@chignik.org fcorbin@nushagak.coop diana.clpu@ak.net dvukich@nea.coop Tom@TomCantrell.com mnewson@bbahc.org clay@cordovaelectric.com clay@cordovaelectric.com bruce@nveyak.org Matthews@cvea.org esinyon@cheeshna.com thand@crsd.k12.ak.us ryoung@gulkanacouncil.org dscott@kodiak.coop bpetrie@avec.org jsargent@cityofbethel.net puvurnaq@starband.com puvurnaq@starband.com lapres@gci.net bpetrie@avec.org bpetrie@avec.org Napaimute@starband.net bpetrie@avec.org cityhpb@yahoo.com carl_maxie@yahoo.com bbcc@starband.net gadams@NIHA.com bpetrie@avec.org bpetrie@avec.org bpetrie@avec.org k_keith@kea.coop k_keith@kea.coop bpetrie@avec.org k_keith@kea.coop SHJones@Starband.net maddenmg@muni.org earle@polarconsult.net steveg@enxco.com KKLamal@gvea.com recycle@polarnet.com steveg@enxco.com dan@polarconsult.net SteveG@enxco.com kkl@gvea.com lapres@gci.net macraft@acsalaska.net Josh.berkow@bqenergy.com rgross@akgreenenergy.com citymanager@whittieralaska.gov joel@polarconsult.net fygrcon@uaf.edu pjford@dgsd.k12.ak.us tmh@gvea.com hiddat@icelandamericaenergy.com donwest@aol.com al.edgren@alaska.gov donwest@aol.com donwest@aol.com ccpwow@gci.net hallvc@mtaonline.net hobbsalaska@msn.com hobbsalaska@msn.com erin.d.phillips@gmail.com pointmarineak@yahoo.com rgross@akgreenenergy.com jilreese@gmail.com glen.m@aptalaska.com jmitchell@alaska.com richardlevitt@cs.com toddtew@starband.net Rod_Swope@ci.juneau.ak.us eds@city.ketchikan.ak.us gstuckey@chikoot-nsn.gov yakpower@ptialaska.net pmpl@ci.petersburg.ak.us madam@aptalaska.net jmitchell@alaska.com paul.brendible@metlakatla.com tbolen@haines.ak.us artbloom@gmail.com linedept@gci.net ccooper@trsolutions.com Charlie@cityofsitka.com Jeff@northwestwind.com donwest@aol.com donwest@aol.com St.vincentdepaul.juneau@gci.net ernie@raventechservices.com bketzler@irha.org bhirsch@yritwc.org smacmanus@agsd.us glen.m@aptalaska.com Williamwall11@gmail.com williamwall11@gmail.com aftmr@uaa.alaska.edu dstrickland@prepower.net tim.mcleod@aelp.com ffcel@uaf.edu Cduncan@ormat.com Applicant_Contact_Name Kim Clarkson Everette Anderson Everette Anderson Robert Juettner Jack Wood John Handeland Isaiah Towarak John K. Handeland Melinda Erickson Lamar Cotten Lamar Cotten Lamar Cotten Richard Sharpe Frank Corbin Diana Moore Donna Vukich Thomas Cantrell Mark Newson Clay Koplin Clay Koplin Bruce Cain Jamie L. Matthews Elaine Sinyon Tim Hand Rick Young Darron Scott Brent Petrie John Sargent Harvey Paul Harvey Paul David W. Lappi Brent Petrie Brent Petrie Mark Leary Brent Petrie Joseph Bell Carl D. Maxie, Sr. Daniel Felker Guy Adams Brent Petrie Brent Petrie Brent Petrie Katherine Keith Katherine Keith Brent Petrie Katherine Keith Scott Jones Mark G. Madden, P.E. Earle Ausman, PE Steve Gilbert Kathryn K. Lamal Bernie Karl Steve Gilbert Daniel Hertrich, PE Steve Gilbert Kate Lamal David W. Lappi Mike Craft Josh Berkow Robert Gross Mark Earnest Joel Groves, PE Maggie Griscavage PJ Ford Slack, PhD Todd Hoener Hildigunnur Thorsteinsson Donald W. West Al Edgren Donald W. West Donald W. West Don Johnson Gordon Carlson Randy Hobbs Randy Hobbs Erin Phillips Timothy L. McDoonald Robert Gross, P.E. Jill Reese Glen Martin Jodi Mitchell Richard Levitt Todd Tew Rod Swope Ed Schofield Greg Stuckey Scott Newlun Joe Nelson Janice C. Wrentmore Jodi Mitchell Paul Brendible Tom Bolen Arthur Bloom Steve Henson Charles Cooper Charlie Walls Jeff Raines Donald W. West Donald W. West Dan Austin Ernie Baumgartner Bear Ketzler Brian Hirsch Scott MacManus Glen D. Martin William A Wall, PhD William A Wall PhD Thomas Ravens & Myree McDonald David Strickland Tim McLeod Carol E Lewis Colin Duncan Applicant_Contact_Phone (907) 522-0384 (206) 369-5952 (206) 782-1776 (907) 274-7555 (530) 320-7200 (907) 443-6587 (907) 624-3474 (907) 443-6587 (907) 443-4035 (907) 301-8737 (907) 301-8737 (907) 301-8737 (907) 749-2280 (907) 842-6315 (907) 840-2277 (907) 246-4261 (801) 355-2005 (907) 842-9221 (907) 424-5026 (907) 424-5026 (907) 424-7738 (907) 822-8311 (907) 822-3503 (907) 822-3234 (907) 822-3172 (907) 486-7739 (907) 565-5358 (907) 543-1386 (907) 557-5616 (907) 557-5616 (907) 248-7188 (907) 561-1818 (907) 565-5358 (907) 543-2887 (907) 565-5358 (907) 758-4310 (907) 737-7432 (907) 432-2247 (907) 442-3450 (907) 565-5358 (907) 565-5358 (907) 565-5358 (907) 442-3491 (907) 442-3491 (907) 565-5358 (907) 442-3491 (907) 445-2157 (907) 343-6279 (907) 258-2420 (907) 333-0810 (907) 451-5645 (907) 488-1505 (907) 333-0810 (907) 258-2420 (907) 333-0810 (907) 451-5645 (907) 248-7188 (907) 388-9917 (845) 228-3485 (907) 746-4796 (907) 472-2327 (907) 258-2420 (907) 474-7301 (907) 895-4657 (907) 451-5607 (213) 683-1700 (312) 804-4454 (907) 895-4225 (312) 804-4454 (312) 804-4454 (907) 262-7893 (907) 768-2591 (907) 232-4409 (907) 232-4409 (907) 317-0749 (907) 224-6014 (907) 746-7496 (907) 232-9648 (360) 385-1733 (907) 789-3196 (907) 697-2299 (907) 285-3721 (907) 586-5240 (907) 225-5505 (907) 766-2323 (907) 784-3242 (907) 772-4203 (907) 983-2413 (907) 789-3196 (907) 886-4441 (907) 766-2231 (907) 736-2222 (907) 874-3602 (978) 656-3567 (907) 747-1870 (503) 588-8028 (312) 804-4454 (312) 804-4454 (907) 321-5222 (907) 524-3390 (907) 452-8315 (907) 258-3337 (907) 883-5151 (360) 385-1733 (406) 210-9984 (406) 210-9984 (907) 786-1993 (907) 746-7797 (907) 780-2222 (907) 474-7083 (775) 336-0134 Applicant_File_Name 58_CityofAtkaSmallHydroelectricProject_CityofAtka.pdf 89_UmnakIslandWind-DieselandJacketHeatRecovery_UmnakPower/NikolskiIRACouncil.pdf 90_St.GeorgeWindTurbineIntoADieselPowerGenerationSystemProject_CityofSt.George-St.GeorgeMunicipalElectricUtility.pdf 11_Renewable Energy Resources for Cold Bay, False Pass and Nelson Lagoon_AleutiansEastBorough.pdf 95_MakushinGeothermalResourceProject_KiiguusiSuulutaLandCompany,LLC.pdf 52_NJUSRenewableEnergyFundWindProject_NomeJointItilitySystem.pdf 50_UnalakleetRenewableEnergyFundWindProject_UnalakleetValleyElectricCooperative,Inc.pdf 47_BeringStraits-SitnasuakWindFarm24.9kVOH/UGIntertie.pdf 106_BannerWindProjectNome,Alaska_BannerWind,LLC.pdf 64_WindPowerOpportunitiesAroundtheLake&PeninsulaBorough_LakeandPeninsulaBorough.pdf 62_Wind/HydroHybridIntertieFeasibilityStudyforChigniks_LakeandPeninsulaBorough.pdf 63_InstallationofHighEfficiencyLowEmissionsWoodBoilers_LakeandPeninsulaBorough.pdf 40_ChignikHydro_CityofChignik.pdf 6_NushagakElectric&TelephoneCooperativeInc_NushagakAreaHydropowerProject.pdf 14_ChignikLagoonHydroelectricProject_ChignikLagoonPowerUtility(CLPU).pdf 18_SouthwestAlaskaRegionalGeothermalEnergyProject_NaknekElectricAssociation.pdf 7_BristolBayFishOil_NaknekElectricAssociation.pdf 55_BristolBayAreaHealthCorporationWindProject_BristolBayAreaHealthCorporation.pdf 21_HumpbackCreekHydroelectricFacilityIntake&Diversion_CordovaElectric Cooperative.pdf 22_OrcaPlantEfficiencyUpgrade_CordovaElectricCooperative.pdf 26_CordovaWinterFirewoodSupplyProject_NativeVillageofEyak.pdf 27_AllisonLakeProject_CopperValleyElectricAssociation,Inc..pdf 15_ChistochinaCommunityCentralWoodHeatingProject_Cheesh'naTribalCouncil.pdf 46_KennyLakeSchoolProject_CopperRiverSchoolDistrict.pdf 2_CommunityFacilitiesCentralWoodHeating_GulkanaVillageCouncil.doc 103_PillarMountainWindProject_KodiakElectricAssociation,Inc.pdf 73_HydroelectricPermittingandDesign,OldHarbor,AK_AVEC.pdf 122_BethelWindPowerProjectTimes4_CityofBethel.pdf 110_Installationof5WindTurbinesinKongiganak,AK_PuvurnaqPowerCompany.pdf 107_Installationof5WindTurbines_PuvurnaqPowerCompany.pdf 67_BethelWindProject_VillageWindPower,LLC.pdf 70_WindTurbinesandControls,Quinhagak,AK_AVEC.pdf 72_WindTurbinesandControls,Mekoryuk,AK_AVEC.pdf 91_VillageofNapaimuteBatteryStoragesystemCoupledWithSolarPalansProject_NativeVillageofNapaimute.pdf 71_WindTurbine,TooksookBay,AK_AVEC.pdf 35_HooperBayTwo-towerWindEnergySystem_CityofHooperBay.pdf 113_WindEnergy/WindTurbineSystematVacinityCommunityLocation,Napaskiak,AK_NapaskiakUtility(Electric)-CityofNapaskiak.pdf 96_CrookedCreekAssessmentofEnergySources_CrookedCreekTraditionalCouncil.pdf 59_UpperKobukWoodBiomassProject_NorthwestInupiathousingAuthority.pdf 75_PhotovoltaicArray,Ambler,AK_AVEC.pdf 76_PhotovoltaicArray,Noatak,AK_AVEC.pdf 77_PhotovoltaicArray,Shungnak,AK_AVEC.pdf 85_HighPenetrationWind-Battery-DieselSystem_KotzebueElectricAssociation.pdf 56_Wind-dieselProjectforBuckland,DeeringandNoorvik_NorthwestArcticBorough.pdf 74_HydropowerFeasibilityStudies,KobukRiverValley,AK_AVEC.pdf 83_VanadiumRed-OxFlowBatteryStorageProject_KotzebueElectricAssociation.pdf 121_AmblerSolarandWindPower_CityofAmbler.pdf 68_AnchorageRegionalLandfill,LandfillGas-to-EnergyProject_MOASolidWasteServicesDepartment.pdf 57_SouthForkHydroelectricProject_SouthForkHydro,LLC.pdf 94_NikolaevskWindGenerationProject_AlaskaWindEnergy,LLC,dbaWindEnergyAlaska(WEA).pdf 109_EvaCreekWindProject_GVEA.pdf 53_400kWBiomassPowerPlantatK&KRecyclingFacility_ChenaPower,LLC.pdf 93_LandfillGastoEnergyProject_AlaskaWindEnergy,LLC,dbaWindEnergyAlaska(WEA).pdf 87_FishhookHydroelectricProject_FishhookRenewableEnergy,LLC.pdf 34_5to7MWGrantLake/FalsCreekHydroProject_KenaiHydro,LLC.pdf 105_NPEPWasteHeatRecoveryProject_GVEA.pdf 66_DeltaWindProject_AlaskaWindPower,LLC.pdf 102_DeltaJunctionWindFarm_AlaskaEnvironmentalPowerLLC.pdf 98_WindTurbineFacilityonTesoroAlaska'sNikiskiRefinery_KenaiWinds,LLC.pdf 78_GirdwoodRenewableApplicationofNewTechnology_AlaskaGreenEnergy.pdf 48_HydropoweronWhittierCreek_CityofWhittier.pdf 86_FourthofJulyCreekHydroelectricProject_IndependencePower,LLC.pdf 97_TestProgramfortheOceanRenewablePowerCorp(ORPC)UnitatNenana_UAF,OfficeofSponsoredPrograms.pdf 112_Delta/GreelySchoolDistrictWoodChipBoilerHeatingSystemProject_Delta/GreelySchoolDistrict.pdf 108_McKinleyVillageDenaliEducationCenterSolarWaterHeatingSystemProject_GVEA.pdf 8_AnchorageGeothermalDistrictHeatingProject_IcelandAmericaEnergy,Inc.pdf 3_AnchorageWasteGasificationPlantStudy_AlaskaRecyclingEnergyLLC.pdf 39_Barley/WoodPelletBoilerBiofuelPilotProject_SOADNRDivisionofForestryDeltaAreaOffice.pdf 5_FairbanksNorthStarBoroughWasteGasificationPlant_AlaskaRecycylingEnergy,LLC.pdf 4_MatanuskaSusitnaBoroughWasteGasificationPlant_AlaskaRecyclingEnergyLLC.pdf 16_10MWUtility-GradeGeothermalDevelopment_CookInletPower.pdf 17_HydroelectricProjectOnJackRiver_NativeVillageofCantwell.pdf 43_PioneerEnergyProject_AlpineEnergy,LLC.pdf 44_WhittierEnergyProject_AlpineEnergy,LLC.pdf 45_SustainableUrbanForestryandCombustionofHarvestedBiomass_EarthRunEnergy.pdf 51_Mt.AliceHarborDevelopmentProject_Mt.AliceDevelopment,Inc.pdf 79_RuralArcticReadyEnergySolutions_AlaskaGreenEnergy.pdf 92_DeliaCreekAlternativeEnergyProject_HPML,LLC.pdf 23_NorthPrinceofWalesIsland(POW)IntertieProject_AlaskaPower&TelephoneCompany.pdf 29_Kake-PetersburgIntertie_KwaanElectricTransmissionIntertieCooperativeInc.pdf 10_FinishConstructionoftheFallsCreekHydroelectricProject,Gustavus,Alaska_GustavusElectricCompany.pdf 104_ReynoldsCreekHydroelectricProject_HaidaPower,Inc.pdf 111_DimondParkAquaticCenter_City&BoroughofJuneau.pdf 37_WhitmanLakeHydroelectricProject_KetchikanPublicUtilitiesElectricDivision.pdf 33_Wood-firedDistrictHeatingSystem_ChilkootIndianAssociation.pdf 60_YakutatPower-WoodGasificationBiomassProject_YakutatPower.pdf 38_RuthLakeHydroelectricProject_CityofPetersburg,Alaskad/b/aPetersburgMunicipalPower&Light.pdf 42_BurroCreekHydro_BurroCreekHoldings,LLC.pdf 28_HoonahIntertie_KwaanElectricTransmissionIntertieCooperativeInc.pdf 20_Metlakatla-KetchikanIntertie_MetlakatlaIndianCommunity(MIC).pdf 41_Wood-firedHydronicHeatingSystem_HainesBorough.pdf 65_HydroelectricGenerationFacilityUtilizingIndianRiver_CityofTenakeeSprings.pdf 9_ConversionDieselFiredBoilerstoElectricFiredBoilers_CityandBoroughofWrangell.pdf 19_FeasibilityStudyandPrototypeTestingofTidalinStreamEnergyConversionDevices_AlaskaTidalEnergyCompany.pdf 1_TakatzLakeHydroelectricInvestigation_CityandBoroughof Sitka.pdf 101_DieselBrewingRenewableEnergyProject_DieselBrewingCompany,LLC.pdf 12_CityandBoroughofJuneauWasteGasificationPlantReconStudy_AlaskaRecyclingEnergy,Inc.pdf 13_CityandBoroughofKetchikanWasteGasificationPlantReconStudy_AlaskaRecyclingEnergy,LLC.pdf 25_HainesAssistedLiving,Inc_HainesAssistedLiving.pdf 61_McGrathLight&PowerforaHeat RecoverySystemProject_McGrathLight&Power,Co.pdf 54_InstallationofBiomassandSolarEnergySystemstotheGalenaAssistedLivingFacility.pdf 84_25kWRun-of-RiverHydrokineticTurbineontheYukonRiver_YukonRiverInter-TribalWatershedCouncil.pdf 49_TokSchoolBiomassHeatingProject_AlaskaGatewaySchoolDistrict.pdf 24_YerrickCreekHydroelectricProject_AlaskaPower&TelephoneCompany.pdf 30_McGrathWoodEnergyProgram_McGrathPowerandLight.pdf 31_FortYukonGwitchyaaZheeBiomassforEnergy_GwitchyaaZheeUtilityCompany.pdf 88_HydrokineticEnergy-RuralAlaska_UniversityofAlaskaAnchorage.pdf 36_HeatRecoveryORCApplicationsforBushAlaska_PrecisionPower,LLC.pdf 82_HydroelectricEnergytoAnhydrousAmoniaFuel_AlaskaElectricLight&Power.pdf 32_FeasibilityofSustainable,EconomicUseofAgriculturalandForestryBiomassinAK.pdf 81_RecoveredEnergyGeneration_OrmatNevadaInc.pdf Applicant_State AK AK AK AK CA AK AK AK AK AK AK AK Ak AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK NY AK AK AK Ak Ak AK CA AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK WA AK AK AK AK AK Ak AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK DC AK OR IL IL AK Ak AK AK AK WA Ak AK AK AK AK AK NV Applicant Type Utility Government Government Government IPP Utility Utility Utility IPP Government Government Government Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Utility Government Utility Government Government Government Utility Utility Government Utility Utility IPP Utility Utility Government Utility Government Utility Government Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Utility Government Government IPP IPP Utility Utility IPP IPP IPP Utility IPP IPP IPP IPP Government IPP Government Government Utility IPP IPP Government IPP IPP IPP Government IPP IPP IPP Government IPP IPP Utility Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Government Utility Utility IPP Utility Government Government Utility Government IPP Government IPP IPP IPP IPP Government Utility Government IPP Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Government IPP Utility Government IPP Applicant_Zip 99511 99638 99503 94117 99762 99864 99762 99762 99613 99613 99613 99564 99576 99565 99633 99633 99576 99574 99574 99574 99588 99588 99586 99615 99503 99559 99507-6494 99503 99503 99559-1301 99503 99604 99559 99575 99752 99503 99503 99503 99752 99752 99503 99752 99786 99519 99503 99508 99707 99711 99508 99503 99503 99707 99507-6494 99709 12563 99645 99693 99503 99775-5910 99737 99707 90017 99801 99737 99801 99801 99669 99729 99645 99645 99503 99664 99645 99509 98368 99803 99826 99222 99801 99901 99801 99689 99833 99840 99803 99926 99827 99841 99929 20036 99835 97302 60566 60566 99827 99627 99701 99501 99780 98368 99627 99740 99645 99801 99775 89511 Auth_Doc Construct_Co AP&T Gustavus Electric Company AP&T Econ_Ben_Cost Applicant states that approximately $2 million was spent in 2005 to build an access road and a powerhouse structure, plus purchase of a turbine-generator. The City of Atka has a $1.3 million federal grant to apply towards the remaining cost plus an approved loan from the Power Project Fund. If approved, this renewable energy grant would substitute for the PPF loan. All of the electricity demand for the City utility is now supplied by the City’s diesel generators, and all of the electricity demand for the local seafood processor is now supplied by the processor’s diesel generators. Applicant states that all of that energy – utility and processor -- would be supplied by the hydro project instead. Based on the remaining cost to complete the project combined with the City’s assumption on serving 100% of existing demand, the B/C ratio is estimated at 5.89. The project was also evaluated under somewhat more conservative assumptions on the amount of diesel generation that would be displaced by hydro. Based on earlier indications, the alternative evaluation assumed that the hydro project would supply the City for 10.5 months per year due to water constraints in late winter and early spring, and that it would serve half – not all – of the processor’s requirements. This, in turn, was based on the idea that the project would supply the processor’s “house loads” such as lights but would not be relied upon to run the processing lines. The B/C ratio under these alternative assumptions still came out at 4.09. Umnak Power/Nikolski IRA Council provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $451,030, O&M: $6,000 1st year, $3,500 years 2 – 4, $6,500 year 5. Assume cycle for years 2 – 5 repeats thereafter, generation: 262,000 kWh with part to heating fuel offsets, and displaced fuel: 10,248 gallons electric generation, 5,252 heat as provided by Applicant. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 2.81 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $1,681,turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $4,158, displaced fuel for power (7,393 gal) based on revised displaced diesel generation and stated generating efficiency of 11.37 kWh/gal (PCE statistics not available). Heating fuel displacement based on revised total generation and ratio of Applicant data, generation (AEA provided): 189,000 kWh/year. The primary reason for the lower B/C ratio is the lower wind generation provided by AEA. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 2.04 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. City of Saint George provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $3.0 million, O&M: $30,000(green tags of $0.0045/kWh ignored), generation: 975,980 kWh of displaced diesel generation, and displaced fuel: 74,509 gallons as stated by the Applicant. Ignores potential heating fuel offsets. Based on the above data with no load growth, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.93 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh = $10,224, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh = $11,247, displaced fuel based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics, generation (AEA provided): 511,221 kWh/year. The primary reason for the lower B/C ratio is the much lower wind energy provided by AEA. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.01 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. The three areas combined use about 289,000 gallons per year in diesel fuel to generate electrical power at prices estimated to exceed $6.00 per gallon in the coming years by ISER. Two of the three area generators reported efficiencies barely over 12 kWh per gallon. Nelson Lagoon represents about 10% of that fuel consumption whereas False Pass is about 15%, and Cold bay is 75%. It is very likely alternative energy will be cost-effective for the generation of power in this region. There are scoping-level questions such as the implications of bird migration on the potential for wind power in Nelson Bay this study will address. For illustration a $10 million aggregate investment would need to produce about one-third of the kWh of generation across the three communities to have a B/C ratio of 1 for projects that had 20 year horizons. Currently B/C ratio is estimated at 0.0. Applicant requests funding for a feasibility study for a geothermal project to serve Unalaska/Dutch Harbor. This community is home to several large fish processing plants, which each use a large amount of power. Several of these processors have their own diesel generating plants. The completed project would supply enough geothermal power to replace all diesel generation in the community, with room for growth. B/C ratio is 7.45. The City of Nome and the NJUS, the utility in Nome are requesting for funding for final design, permitting, and construction of a 3 MW wind farm. The total project cost is $15,534,309; amount requested is $13,952,326. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $16.1 million using applicant’s data and $21.2 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $14.4 million (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The more favorable B/C ratio using AEA information is primarily due to a lower benchmark O&M cost of $.022 per kWh or about $150,000 per year compared to the applicant’s stated annual O&M costs of $523,786. The applicant also used the gross energy output of the wind turbines rather than the net energy output; AEA B/C calculation used an estimate of net energy output. The calculated B/C ratios are: 1.12 using the applicant’s data and 1.47 using AEA information. UVEC, the electric utility in Unalakleet is requesting for funds for final design, permitting, and construction of a 1.2 MW wind farm. Total project cost is $8,996,832; amount requested is $8,774,080. The favorable B/C ratio using AEA information is primarily due to a lower benchmark O&M cost of $.022 per kWh or $51,584 per year compared to the applicant’s stated annual O&M costs of $292,160. The applicant also used the gross energy output of the wind turbines rather than the net energy output; AEA B/C calculation used an estimate of net energy output. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits amount to $7.54 million using applicant’s data and $10.82 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $8.32 million (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The calculated B/C ratios are: 0.91 using the applicant’s data and 1.30 using AEA information. The City of Nome and the NJUS, the utility in Nome are requesting for funding for transmission and control infrastructure to link the 1 MW Banner Peak wind farm to the utility’s transmission and distribution infrastructure. The total project cost for the transmission and control infrastructure is estimated to be $890,000; amount requested is $801,000. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $1.82 million using applicant’s data and $1.54 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to about $838,910 (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The applicant estimated the amount of displaced fuel to be 200,000 gallons per year; however, using the utility’s diesel generation efficiency of 15.81 kWh/gal, the AEA calculation for displaced fuel amounted to only 185,705 gallons per year. The benefits in this analysis were adjusted to reflect only a portion of the economic benefits of the total project including the wind generation component. This was done by using the ratio of the transmission and control project cost to total project cost including the Banner Wind project cost. The applicant did not provide any data on the economics or the costs of the Banner Wind Project; the analysis therefore used AEA recommendations on benchmark installed costs of $5,000 per kW (capacity). The calculated B/C ratios are: 2.17 using the applicant’s data and 1.84 using AEA information. Applicant states that the project will produce 2,789,200 kWh on an assumed 29% capacity factor and 95% availability. The applicant indicates displacement of 176,420 gallons of diesel fuel on the assumption of the average generation efficiency of 15.8 kWh/gallon for the Nome Joint Utility System. Applicant did not supply unit-specific O&M; AEA assumption of $0.02/kWh was used. The wind project O&M is stated as $75K years 1-5, $90K years 6-10, and $111,568 years 11-20. Considering the project life of 20 years (AEA and Banner LLC assumption), the applicant’s data indicates a benefit /cost ratio of 1.88. AEA analysis uses $5,000/kW capital cost, the applicant estimate of 29% capacity factor, but with the AEA assumed 80% availability. Thus, fuel savings are reduced, as is displaced diesel O&M. Additionally, AEA assumes $0.022/kWh for wind O&M. AEA assumptions with a higher capital cost and lower availability gives a B/C ratio to the project of 1.44. Lake and Peninsula Borough is requesting for funds for a regional wind energy assessment for 6 communities. The total project cost is estimated to amount to $8 million; amount requested for the study is $184,000. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $9.4 million using applicant’s data and $15.2 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $7.3 million (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The more favorable B/C ratio using AEA information is primarily due to higher estimated fuel displacement calculated using each of the utility’s stated diesel efficiencies and estimated annual renewable energy generation. The calculated B/C ratios are: 1.28 using the applicant’s data and 2.08 using AEA information. Lake and Peninsula Borough is requesting funds for a wind/hydro hybrid intertie feasibility study for the communities of Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, and Chignik Lake. The total project cost is estimated to be $8,150,000 including development and construction costs. The amount requested is $375,000. There is no information in the application, however, that shows the breakdown of cost by project component—i.e. wind, hydro, intertie, and development costs. The benefits of the project should be proportioned between the various components so as not to use the total benefits for two or three grant applications. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $7.86 million using applicant’s data and $6.5 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $7.34 million using the applicant’s data and $13.8 million using AEA information. The main difference in the calculation is the addition of R&R costs in the AEA B/C calculation. Since there is a hydro component, the analysis was done over 50 years. The R&R costs for the wind component are based on AEA benchmark costs of $5,000 per kW capacity with replacement occurring every 20 years. The R&R costs for the hydro component are based on data from Attachment E showing $50,000 of R&R costs every 5 years. The calculated B/C ratios are: 1.07 using the applicant’s data and 0.47 using AEA information. Applicant presents that a small, aging hydro project currently exists at Indian Creek, and is owned by Trident Seafoods. It supplies water to the seafood plant, water to the City, and a small amount of power to the seafood plant. The proposal is to upgrade and expand the aging hydro project. Estimates of monthly electricity demand for Trident and for the City were provided by the applicant, as well as monthly estimates of hydroelectric generation. Trident demand is more than sufficient to absorb nearly all of the estimated hydroelectric production. Alternatively, it could be said that the hydro production could supply virtually all of the City demand and still contribute most of its expected output to the Trident operation. For this evaluation, no distinction is made between the two loads. The projected benefit of the proposed project is therefore estimated as the diesel fuel cost that would be incurred by either Trident or the City if all of the hydro production were supplied by diesel generators instead. On this basis, the B/C ratio is estimated at 4.40. Applicant states that a feasibility study of the project is currently underway and is due for completion in February 2009. Meanwhile, applicant states that all of the output from Lake Elva would displace existing diesel generation starting in its first year of operation. Based on applicant’s estimates of project capital cost, net impact on system O&M, and volume of fuel displacement, the B/C ratio is estimated at 1.83. Applicant states that the project would displace 85% of the 50,000 gallons per year now consumed for diesel power generation. Based on this estimate as well as the applicant’s estimates of project capital and O&M costs, the B/C ratio is estimated at 3.13. Applicant proposes one 25 MW generator, with the option to bring on another 25 MW generator as demand warrants. In the applicant’s B/C analysis, they assumed an average of 37.5 MW of generation capacity for the life of the project. For the AEA B/C analysis, no growth in demand was assumed, only 25 MW of generation capacity for the life of the project. Construction and interconnection are the most expensive and challenging parts of this project, and funding for those elements have yet been identified. That in mind, the B/C ratio is 8.99 based on the information provided. The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) is requesting for funding for the development of a 1 MW wind farm in Snake Mountain near Dillingham. The total project cost is $13.1 million; amount requested is $10.1 million. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $10.54 million using applicant’s data and $11.14 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $12.38 million (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The economic benefit of the project is primarily driven by the value of displaced fuel estimated to be on average about $920,000 per year over the 20-year period; not enough to offset capital costs of the project. The calculated B/C ratios are: 0.85 using the applicant’s data and 0.90 using AEA information. Humpback Creek functioned successfully in Cordova as a run-of-river project until rendered inoperative by flooding and unstable site geology. The capital improvement now underway involves not only repair but also upgrade and revision of the project to protect it from future damage from similar events and conditions. The B/C ratio benefits from the fact that $4 million of the total $11.6 million cost has already been spent. Most of the project’s potential output will displace an equivalent amount of diesel generation in Cordova as soon as the project comes back online. A small surplus from the project will still be available in the summer and may be absorbed by increased demand from fish processing operations. This evaluation, however, is based solely on the displacement of current diesel generation at the current level of electricity demand in Cordova. Based on these assumptions on remaining capital cost and the benefit of diesel generation displacement, the B/C ratio is estimated at 4.54. Applicant capital cost figures were reviewed and accepted, totaling $5,260,000 for installation of the complete waste heat recovery system. In this analysis, only the heat recovery efficiency gains were weighed against the $1.78 million in capital costs for this component of their project. Construction is expected to be completed in 2009 and heat recovery operational in fall of 2009. Operation and maintenance expenditures were forecasted to be the same as current O&M. The Benefit/Cost calculation relies on the capital cost vs. future fuel savings. In the B/C analysis no fuel savings were calculated for 2009, it is conservative. The efficiency gains replace about 880,000kWh of generation annually, and the estimated annual savings exceed $300,000. The technology is well known, the applicant clearly capable of performing the work and the benefits carefully measured. Benefit cost ratio 2.43. Applicant proposed to construct a wood processing plant. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. This short-term project (five years) will process existing biomass (wood) for Year one and Year two, while supplies for Years three to five are less defined. Estimated B/C ratio is 19.92 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 20.31. Copper Valley Electric Assoc. (CVEA) serves Valdez, Glennallen, and several smaller load centers in between. The Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project supplies all of CVEA’s requirements during the summer but, due to limited storage capability, contributes much less during the winter. In an average year, Solomon Gulch supplies approximately 60% of CVEA’s requirements while oil-based generation supplies the other 40%. The Allison Lake hydro project would address this seasonal issue –during the winter it would supply power to displace oil-fired generation; during the summer its reservoir would be refilled. The largest share of CVEA’s oil-based generation is supplied from a cogeneration plant located at the Petro Star refinery in Valdez. The plant produces electricity for the utility as well as process heat for the refinery. CVEA indicates that most of the oil-fired generation that Allison Lake would displace would come from this cogeneration plant. The evaluation therefore includes as its major benefit the oil fuel that is now consumed at the cogeneration plant but would be displaced by Allison Lake hydro. What the evaluation does not account for is the additional fuel that the refinery would need to consume for its process heat requirements once deprived of the heat produced from the cogeneration plant. This is due to lack of information at this early stage of project consideration. The price of fuel used in this evaluation is the price supplied by CVEA. For whatever reason(s), it is significantly below the price that would have been used had it been based on AEA’s fuel price methodology. So, while accounting for Petro Star’s need to use additional fuel would have reduced the B/C ratio, a fuel price consistent with AEA methodology would have increased it. These qualifications having been stated, the B/C ratio for this evaluation came out to 4.81. Applicant proposed to construct a central wood heating system for the Kenny Lake School. Chistochina fuel prices were used for analysis while quoted wood chip prices from a local provider were used for biomass costing. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. Estimated B/C ratio is 0.67 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is also 0.67. Applicant proposed to construct a central wood heating system. Chistochina prices were used for analysis and adjusted upward by $0.50 per gallon in the AEA analysis, per directions from AEA. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. The applicant used a compound annual growth rate of 5.0 percent on oil, 3.5 percent on wood, and 2.5 percent as a “real discount rate.” Estimated B/C ratio is 0.63 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 0.61. Applicant states that the project will produce 15,607,166 kWh on an assumed 40.4% capacity factor and 98% availability. That will displace 1,202,775 gallons of diesel fuel on the marginal unit – a combined cycle unit with a generation efficiency of 12.97 kWh/gal. Considering the project life of 20 years (AEA and KEA assumption), the applicant’s data indicates a benefit /cost ratio of 4.77. Applicant did not supply specific unit O&M, so assumed AEA value of $0.02/kWh. AEA analysis uses the assumption of $5,000/kW at applicant’s 40.4% capacity factor, but only 80% availability. Thus, fuel savings are reduced, as is displaced diesel O&M. Additionally, AEA assumes $0.022/kWh for wind O&M, while the applicant assumed $0.017/kWh. Applicant indicates possibility of green tag sales. If possible, the sale of green tags @$.03/kWh would increase the AEA B/C ratio to 4.26. AEA estimated B/C is 3.89. Applicant states that 95% of existing diesel generation at Old Harbor would be displaced by the proposed hydro project. The B/C ratio estimated for this project is based entirely on this estimated benefit, and comes to 1.59. Applicant also states that the project could generate substantial surplus energy during high flow months and that this surplus could be used to displace heating fuel in the community. However, this potential benefit is not accounted for in this evaluation as no specifics are available at this time in the application. City of Bethel provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $3,197,986, O&M: $164,719/year, generation: 1,040,000 kWh (all usable to displace diesel electric generation), and displaced fuel: 82,605 based on BUCI COPA projections. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.78 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $16,340, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $17,974, displaced fuel (59,810 gallons) based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics, and generation (AEA provided): 817,000 kWh/year. The primary reason for the higher B/C ratio is the much lower O&M costs assumed. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.83 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Puvurnaq Power Company provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $2,884,833 (net of $400,000 sunk costs), O&M: $30,000 (green tags of $10,000/turbine ignored – appears quite high), generation: Somewhat vague. Appears to be 1.1 million total, but part for boiler heat at school and part for home heat, and displaced fuel: Existing loads at 37,750 gal (electric), 2,480 gal (school), and 9,000 gal (home heat) for a total of approx 50,000 gal. With load growth, 70,000 gallon offset. Analysis based on existing load. Based on the above data with no load growth, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.98 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to assumed displaced diesel generation = $14,853, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $25,674, displaced fuel for power (60,772 gal) based on revised displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics (12.22 kWh/gal). Heating fuel displacement based on revised total generation and ratio of Applicant data, and generation (AEA provided): 1,167,000 kWh/year (total). Allocations to power and heat based on ratio of Applicant data. The primary reason for the higher B/C ratio is the higher displaced generating fuel for the AEA-based analysis. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.63 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. The applicant is an independent power producer (Village Wind Power, LLC) that intends to sell wind energy to the local utility (Bethel Utilities Corporation); with no power purchase agreement to date. The project is a 2 MW wind farm with an estimated cost of $8.71 million and a grant request of $6.96 million. AEA information has slightly lower renewable energy generation and therefore a lower amount of fuel displaced compared to the applicant’s data given the same diesel generation efficiency. The O&M costs stated by the applicant are slightly higher (at $.03/kWh) than the AEA benchmark O&M costs for rural energy projects (at $.022 per kWh). The value of fuel displaced is based on projected fuel prices provided by AEA (average price of fuel in Bethel over the 20-year analysis period is $6.36). The calculated B/C ratios are: 4.25 using the applicant’s data and 3.86 using AEA information. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $4,313,603, O&M: $5,250/year (Applicant estimate of $0.02/kWh in Green Tags not included in analysis.), generation: 730,880 kWh (70,000 kWh of this amount used to displace heating oil), and displaced fuel: 41,260 gallons plus 1,962 gallons for heat from HOMER analysis. (Note: higher estimates that appeared to be inconsistent with this amount also provided, and Applicant-based B/C ratio based on the smaller amount.) Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.71 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $12,984, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $15,840, displaced fuel for power (48,303 gal) based on revised displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics (13.44 kWh/gal). Heating fuel displacement based on revised total generation and ratio of Applicant data, and generation (AEA provided): 720,000 kWh/year (total). The B/C ratio for the AEA-based analysis of 0.83 is higher than the Applicant-based analysis due primarily to the lower fuel savings projected by the Applicant in its HOMER analysis. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is requesting funds for construction and installation of two (2) 100 kW wind turbines in the village of Mekoryuk. With this project the community will produce 480,000 gross kWh or electricity and offset 34,359 gallons of fuel at $4.657/gallon resulting in an average annual fuel cost savings of $160,000. Considering the project life of 20 years (applicant and AEA assumption), the applicant’s data indicates a benefit /cost ratio of 0.71. AVEC estimates an annual capacity factor of 27% for the wind turbines, including an 18% outage, the estimated cost of the system was $17,522/kW. AEA estimates $11,250/kW, including the integrating control system. The savings in diesel fuel for generation (28,307 gallons per year) plus the offset heating fuel (at the assumed volume of 3,000 gallons per year) amounts to $142,819/year at AEA estimated fuel costs. The cost of boilers to offset the heating fuel was not identified in the application, nor included in the analysis. The possible sale of green tags @$.03/kWh has not been credited to the wind project, but would increase the AEA B/C ratio to 1.12. The estimated B/C ratio without the boilers is 1.02. The community of Napaimute serves as a seasonal location for subsistence fishing and gathering, and is not occupied year around. The applicant estimates that the location is occupied to some extent for 10.5 months per year. The applicant runs a private generator, and is not part of the Power Cost Equalization program. Consequently, no diesel fuel costs are gathered for Napaimute. For this analysis, we used diesel fuel prices at Chuathbaluk, a nearby village similarly located on the Kuskokwim River. AEA estimates were used for O&M costs of the current diesel generator ($.02 per kWh), and the proposed solar photovoltaic system ($1% of capital costs annually). B/C ratio using these assumptions is 2.99. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $1,153,056, O&M: $3,500/year, generation: 228,000 kWh (conflicting data provided in application, but immaterial since economics based on stated displaced fuel.), and displaced fuel: 7,600 gallons for electric, 3,400 gallons for heating (from HOMER model run)Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.65 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $3,319, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $6,798, displaced fuel for power (11,904 gal) based on revised displaced diesel generation and stated generating efficiency (13.94 kWh/gal). Heating fuel displacement based on revised total generation and ratio of Applicant data, and generation (AEA provided): 309,000 kWh/year – ratio to power/heat based on Applicant data. The B/C ratio for the AEA-based analysis of 1.00 is higher than the Applicant-based analysis due to higher wind generation (provided by AEA) and calculation of fuel savings using generating efficiency in lieu of HOMER analysis. Applicant is requesting funds for final design and construction of a 200kW wind farm to supply wind energy to the waste treatment plant (WTP). The requested amount is the total project cost of $2,220,141. The economic benefit of the project is primarily driven by the value of displaced fuel estimated to be $1.57 million over the 20-year period compared to the project cost $2.22 million. In present value terms, using a 3 percent discount, total benefits are $928,702 and total costs are $2,092,696. There are no differences in renewable energy generation and capital costs between the applicant data and AEA information. The only difference between the applicant and AEA calculation which is insignificant is in the estimated O&M costs of less than $200 per year. The calculated B/C ratio is 0.44 (both using applicant data and AEA information). No information was provided by Napaskiak Utility. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the following: Construction cost: $5,000/kW x 2,000 kW = $1,000,000, displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $10,900, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to generation = $11,990, displaced fuel based on displaced diesel generation, PCE generating statistics, and generation (AEA provided): 545,000 kWh/year. The results should be considered quite high due to the speculative nature of the numbers and the relative results estimated for the other applications. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 3.82 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Applicant proposes a reconnaissance study to look at supplement or replacement for using heating oil. No B/C ratio could be determined with the information provided. Applicant assumes a 30-year project life. AEA estimates a 20-year project life for rural solar photovoltaic arrays. The applicant assumes annual O&M costs at the current plant of $146,480, and annual O&M costs at the new plant of $0. For this analysis, the annual O&M cost estimate used for the current plant was $27,486, based on AEA benchmark O&M cost estimates for rural areas. AEA estimates for the proposed solar PV system is $6,050, based on 1% of capital costs annually. These differences compounded for a 30-year life assumption by the applicant, and a 20-year life assumption by AEA results a wide difference in net present value of benefits estimate from O&M savings through installation of the new generators. Net present value of the project benefit based on the applicant’s assumptions is $3,166,644, while net present value of the project benefit based on AEA‘s assumptions is $599,703. The estimated B/C ratio, using AEA’s assumptions is 0.93. Applicant assumes a 30-year project life. AEA estimates a 20-year project life for rural solar photovoltaic arrays. The applicant assumes annual O&M costs at the current plant of $146,480, and annual O&M costs at the new plant of $0. For this analysis, the annual O&M cost estimate used for the current plant was $29,723, based on AEA benchmark O&M cost estimates for rural areas. AEA estimates for the proposed solar PV system is $6,050, based on 1% of capital costs annually. These differences compounded for a 30-year life assumption by the applicant, and a 20-year life assumption by AEA results a wide difference in net present value of benefits estimate from O&M savings through installation of the new generators. Net present value of the project benefit based on the applicant’s assumptions is $3,290,363, while net present value of the project benefit based on AEA‘s assumptions is $685,141. The estimated B/C ratio, using AEA’s assumptions is 1.13. Applicant assumes a 30-year project life. AEA estimates a 20-year project life for rural solar photovoltaic arrays. The applicant assumes annual O&M costs at the current plant of $146,480, and annual O&M costs at the new plant of $0. For this analysis, the annual O&M cost estimate used for the current plant was $29,853, based on AEA benchmark O&M cost estimates for rural areas. AEA estimates for the proposed solar PV system is $6,050, based on 1% of capital costs annually. These differences compounded for a 30-year life assumption by the applicant, and a 20-year life assumption by AEA results a wide difference in net present value of benefits estimate from O&M savings through installation of the new generators. Net present value of the project benefit based on the applicant’s assumptions is $3,216,537, while net present value of the project benefit based on AEA‘s assumptions is $622,902. The estimated B/C ratio, using AEA’s assumptions is 1.03. Kotzebue Electric Association provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $14,829,535, O&M: $50,000/year, generation: 5,980,145 kWh (not all usable without battery system); benefits without battery system stated to be approximately 60% of those with batteries, and displaced fuel: 412,424 gallons based on energy and stated efficiency of 14.5 kWh/gallon. Amount is less than the 575,288 gallons stated by Applicant. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.57 over a 20-year period. A separate case was run that limited fuel savings to 60% of that stated above based on estimated reductions if there was no battery. In this alternative case, the B/C ratio was 0.92. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation without battery = $160,320, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to generation without battery = $176,352, displaced fuel (323,226 gallons) based on 60% of AEA-provided energy (to account for no battery for energy storage) and PCE generating statistics, and generation (AEA provided): 8,016,000 kWh/year. The primary reason for the higher B/C ratio is the higher wind energy provided by AEA. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.25 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Northwest Arctic Borough (Buckland) provided the following estimates: Construction cost: 5,279,369, O&M: $22,000/year, replacement costs: $30,000 for drive-trains every 10 years and $80,000 for blades every 15 years, generation: 682,000 kWh (all usable to displace diesel electric generation), displaced fuel: 49,420 gallons based on energy and stated efficiency of 13.8 kWh/gallon. Amount is less than the 54,560 gallons stated by Applicant. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.62 over a 25-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $13,080, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $14,388, displaced fuel (54,545 gal) based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics (11.99 kWh/gal), and generation (AEA provided): 654,000 kWh/year. Even though the energy generation is lower for the AEA-based analysis, the inclusion of avoided non-fuel variable costs for diesel generation and lower O&M results in a slightly higher B/C ratio for the AEA basis. B/C ratio of 0.77 was calculated for this project. 56b. Northwest Arctic Borough (Deering) provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $2,690,191, O&M: $22,000/year, replacement costs: $30,000 for drive-trains every 10 years and $80,000 for blades every 15 years, generation: 510,000 kWh (all usable to displace diesel electric generation),and displaced fuel: 37,778 gallons based on energy and stated efficiency of 13.5 kWh/gallon. Amount is less than the 40,800 gallons stated by Applicant. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.94 over a 25-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $9,760, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $10,736, displaced fuel (43,262 gal) based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics (11.28 kWh/gal), and generation (AEA provided): 488,000 kWh/year. Even though the energy generation is lower for the AEA-based analysis, the inclusion of avoided non-fuel variable costs for diesel generation and lower O&M results in a slightly higher B/C ratio of 1.25 for the AEA basis. 56c. Northwest Arctic Borough (Noorvik) provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $2,951,869, O&M: $22,000/year, replacement costs: $30,000 for drive-trains every 10 years and $80,000 for blades every 15 years, generation: 473,000 kWh (all usable to displace diesel electric generation), and displaced fuel: 36,329 gallons based on energy and stated efficiency of 13.02 kWh/gallon. Amount is less than the 37,840 gallons stated by Applicant. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.98 over a 25-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $7,260, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $7,986, displaced fuel (27,273 gal) based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics (13.31 kWh/gal), and generation (AEA provided): 363,000 kWh/year. The B/C ratio for the AEA-based analysis of 0.83 is lower than the Applicant-based analysis due to the significantly lower energy provided by AEA. Applicant requests funds to examine the feasibility of various hydroelectric prospects in the Upper Kobuk region, to serve the communities of Ambler, Shungnak, Kobuk, and/or Kiana. These include both reservoir projects and run-of-river projects. Of the possible reservoir projects, the least costly is a $62 million project on the Shungnak River that would produce an estimated 42.7 million kWh per year -- almost all during the May through October time frame. By comparison, the total annual electricity demand in the 4 named villages in 2007 was 4.4 million kWh, most of which was consumed during the winter months. It is clear from these basic numbers that the reservoir projects cannot proceed without a much larger demand to justify their size and expense -- presumably one or more mines. Further consideration of the reservoir projects would require more information about the proposed mine(s), and would seem to be premature until such a mine is approaching actual development. AEA finds that feasibility review of run-of-river hydro prospects near the Upper Kobuk villages of Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk, is a more practical concept in the near term. As representative of these prospects, this evaluation considers Cosmos Creek using data from a 1981 reconnaissance study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That study considered a 144 kW run-of-river project with average annual energy production of 331,000 kWh during a period of 5 months per year. AEA updated the capital cost estimate to $9,060,750 in 2008 dollars, and the annual O&M estimate to $135,000. Given these assumptions the B/C ratio for the project came to only 0.01. Applicant estimated operating and maintenance costs of the flow battery system were at about $91,000 per year. AEA changed that value to $30,000/yr after consultation with the applicant. An error in some of the diesel efficiency curves in the HOMER model caused an over estimation of fuel savings. After obtaining updated diesel efficiency curves from the applicant, the estimated diesel savings dropped from 137,821 gallons /yr to 58,400 gallons/yr. The adjusted fuel savings was used in AEA’s Benefit Cost calculation. B/C ratio is estimated at 0.70. City of Ambler provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $145,551, O&M: $800/year, generation: 25,000 kWh of displaced diesel generation (no back-up to estimates, represents 42 percent capacity factor), and displaced fuel: 1,834 gallons based on PCE stats for AVEC – Ambler. Based on the above data with no load growth, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.88 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the following: Construction cost: $5,000/kW x 1.5 kW (wind) + $100,000 (solar) = 107,500. Solar amount represents approximate amount included by Applicant, displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh = $48, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh = $53. Assumes same amount ($/kWh) for wind and solar, displaced fuel based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics, and generation (AEA provided): 2,421 kWh/year. The low energy production assumed by AEA. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 0.13 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Applicant capital cost figures were supplied by SCS Energy. They were reviewed and accepted, totaling $7.4 million for the project. It is a conservative approach with a 15 year horizon -20 years is assumed in this analysis. The capital infrastructure placed will allow increases in generation capacity with moderate cost. Present transmission capacity would need to be enlarged in order to do so, but nevertheless the present approach is conservative. The avoided kWh cost is based on ISER figures. The technology is well known, so there is very little project risk. The $5 million municipal gas handling system required for environmental compliance has resulted somewhat higher construction costs. Avoided costs begin at $1.6 million per year and increase thereafter, making for a B/C ratio of 3.54. The evaluation assumes that South Fork hydro would displace natural gas-fired generation in the Railbelt and the primary benefit is therefore the estimated avoided cost of natural gas. The applicant intends to sell the output to a Railbelt utility at the utility’s avoided cost. This suggests that rates for Railbelt consumers could be unaffected by the project – to the extent natural gas costs escalate, so would the utility’s avoided cost along with the associated price of energy from the hydro project. The applicant does refer to a number of other benefits that could result from the project, and these are not included in this evaluation. Based on these assumptions combined with the applicant’s estimated project costs, the B/C ratio comes to 5.41. Alaska Wind Energy, LLC provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $21,673,000, O&M: Approximately $29,434/year in current dollars, or $0.002/kWh. This includes land lease payments to CIRI, production tax credit (PTC) of $0.019/kWh. Current tax law stipulates that these credits are for the initial 10 years of operation, and generation: 14,716,800 kWh (all usable to displace fossil-fueled generation). Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.13 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced variable O&M: $0.005/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $107,925, turbine O&M: $0.018/kWh applied to full generation = $388,530, displaced fuel based on AEA data, adjusted to not include the $0.005/kWh for variable O&M, generation (AEA provided): 21,585,000 kWh/year. The primary reason for the higher B/C ratio is the higher energy provided by AEA. PTC were not included in the AEA-based analysis, and inclusion would increase the B/C ratio to 1.50. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.34 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Applicant proposed to construct a combined heat and power system. The project estimated displaced diesel fuel at 7,500 gallons, based on the applicant’s submission and experience. Displaced fuel for power generation followed AEA guidance and spreadsheet figures. The full cost of biomass tipping fees, at $61 per ton, was used as a proxy for redirected values and community benefit. Estimated B/C ratio is 2.45 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 1.64. AEA determined that the $60,000 towards the heat exchanger system in the application is nominal and insignificant insofar as the B/C calculation is concerned. Mechanical, electrical, and other components of the inter-building heating system are not accounted for and it is unclear what the heating requirements are for the buildings targeted. The proposal is therefore evaluated strictly on the electrical output and capital costs net of $60,000. This facility will displace around $2 million per year in fossil fuel-based power and provide a B/C ratio of 3.38. The evaluation assumes that Fishhook Creek hydro would displace natural gas-fired generation in the Railbelt and the primary benefit is therefore the estimated avoided cost of natural gas. The applicant intends to sell the output to a Railbelt utility at the utility’s avoided cost. This suggests that rates for Railbelt consumers could be unaffected by the project – to the extent natural gas costs escalate, so would the utility’s avoided cost along with the associated price of energy from the hydro project. The applicant does refer to a number of other benefits that could result from the project, and these are not included in this evaluation. Based on these assumptions combined with the applicant’s estimated project costs, the B/C ratio comes to 4.13. The evaluation assumes that Grant Lake hydro would displace natural gas-fired generation in the Railbelt and the primary benefit is therefore the estimated avoided cost of natural gas. The applicant’s estimate of average annual energy from the project is 29 million kWh, based on a 1984 feasibility study. Based on that assumption combined with the applicant’s estimated project costs, the B/C ratio comes to 2.95. AEA notes that previous consultation with resource agencies raised significant issues with minimum stream flows and the volume of water to be diverted through the project powerhouse. Based on that earlier experience, an alternative B/C ratio was estimated based on annual average production of 25 million kWh – the resulting B/C ratio is 2.51. Applicant capital cost figures were reviewed and accepted, totaling $1,050,000 for installation of the new waste heat recovery system. Construction is expected to be completed in 2009 and heat recovery operational in fall of 2009. Operation and maintenance expenditures were forecasted to be the same as current O&M. The B/C calculation relies on the capital cost vs. future fuel savings. The avoided fuel cost is based on per kWh AEA assumptions. Annually 1,476,000 kWh are avoided based on net electrical savings for a total of $234,860 in avoided costs per year. This produces a B/C ratio of 3.44. Alaska Wind Power, LLC, an independent power producer is requesting for funds for avian studies amounting to $105,000. The total project cost, including the wind infrastructure is estimated to be $96 million. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $248 million using applicant’s data and $315 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $87.9 million (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The more favorable B/C ratio using AEA information is primarily due to higher annual wind generation output assumption; which is based on information used in the previous analysis for the Delta Wind Project. The value of displaced energy is based on the avoided cost of energy for GVEA expressed in $/kWh. The calculated B/C ratios are: 2.82 using the applicant’s data and 3.58 using AEA information. Alaska Environmental Power, LLC provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $8,363,886, O&M: $100,646/year in current dollars, reclamation reserve: $100,000/year for first ten years (non escalating), and generation: 4,468,020 kWh (all usable to displace fossil-fueled generation). Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.17 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced variable O&M: $0.00267/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $8,397, turbine O&M: $0.018/kWh applied to full generation = $56,556, displaced fuel based on AEA data, adjusted to not include the $0.00267/kWh for variable O&M, and generation (AEA provided): 3,142,000 kWh/year. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 0.92 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. The B/C ratio is lower due to the assumed energy provided by AEA is 70 percent of that estimated by the Applicant. Kenai Winds, LLC provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $46,735,000, O&M: $891,825/year in current dollars, and generation: 46,831,000 kWh (all usable to displace fossil-fueled generation) Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.25 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced variable O&M: $0.005/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $238,915, turbine O&M: $0.018/kWh applied to full generation = $896,094, displaced fuel based on AEA data, adjusted to not include the $0.005/kWh for variable O&M, and generation (AEA provided): 49,783,000 kWh/year. The primary reason for the higher B/C ratio are the assumed displaced variable O&M and the higher wind energy production assumed by AEA. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.43 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Applicant provided an estimated capital cost for construction through commissioning of $890,000. This appears reasonable approximation given data from elsewhere although a contingency is added in the AEA calculations due to several uncertainties covered in the existing pre-feasibility study. Some uncertainties are construction issues (e.g. tying in to Chugach Electric Association transmission lines and certain logistics for the penstock) whereas others are operating or capacity issues (e.g. net generation 10% or more seasonally from minimum flow requirements or ice conditions). A construction contingency of 10% was added for AEA calculation. Generation at a capacity factor of 68% is reasonably conservative given experience with a similar sized facility near Palmer. Estimated operating and maintenance costs for the mini hydro were not provided in the application. A figure of $8,250 per year was used for the B/C calculation. When producing 750,000kWh/year evaluated at the avoided cost of power the annual fuel savings start at nearly $60,000. These assumptions yield a B/C of 1.47. This evaluation assumes that Whittier Creek hydro would displace natural gas-fired generation in the Railbelt and the primary benefit is therefore the estimated avoided cost of natural gas. Whittier is connected to the Railbelt grid and receives power from Chugach Electric Association. Estimated annual output from the project is very preliminary, as is the capital cost estimate. As for annual output, the applicant states only that “dependable capacity” is estimated at 175 kW for 9 months per year. For this evaluation, annual output was simply assumed to be 175 kW, 24 hours per day for 9 months, with no production during the remaining 3 months. Based on that assumption combined with the applicant’s estimated project costs, the B/C ratio comes to 1.00. Applicant states that Seward relies on local diesel generators when the transmission line to the Railbelt is out of service. However, this evaluation does not include any displacement of diesel fuel because transmission outages are most likely to occur during the winter, a time when the run-of-river hydro project is unlikely to generate much power. The evaluation assumes that Fourth of July Creek hydro would displace natural gas-fired generation in the Railbelt and the primary benefit is therefore the estimated avoided cost of natural gas. Based on that assumption combined with the applicant’s estimated project costs, the B/C ratio comes to 3.29. Applicant is proposed a project for Nenana due to its close proximity and easy access to the applicant’s home offices. While this project is worthwhile as a pilot or demonstration project, because it is located within the Railbelt electrical grid where energy costs are low, the energy cost savings over the life of the project do not outweigh the construction costs. B/C ratio is 0.06. Applicant supplied project costs on the basis of previous technical reports. They were reviewed and accepted by AEA at approximately $2,868,000. Ample factors included for remote construction, escalation, and contingency. The analysis is likely conservative in this respect. Delivered chip costs of $80 per ton were verified by the supplier, and it appears the additional O&M costs of $3200 per year in labor and 55,000 kWh of electricity were adequate. (It is not known what applicant means by $195,000 per year on the cost application and the reference on p 16 of the application. Spreadsheet back-up clearly shows otherwise). The analysis follows applicant’s proposal with 2009 being the final design and construction through 2010. The first two years have slightly higher operating costs, and by the third year net fuel savings are around $170,000. The B/C ratio for a 20 year project life is 0.77. While this project is worthwhile as a pilot or demonstration project, it’s location within the Railbelt electrical grid where energy costs are low; the energy cost savings over the life of the project do not outweigh the construction costs. If this project were constructed in a rural area with high cost diesel generation, it could create positive net benefits from foregone costs of fuel and high O&M costs. B/C ratio is 0.44. Applicant estimated capital cost of building the project, including the feasibility study, is $1,070,000,000. The applicant assumes sales price of power from this project to be between $8.00 and $16.00 per mmBtu over the life of the project, for an average of $12.00 per mmBtu. The applicant also assumes the price of displaced fuel to be $8.57 per mmBtu. The AEA project director for this application accepts these assumptions. Consequently, since the cost of energy from the project is higher than the cost of energy forgone, estimated B/C ratio is 0.71. AEA surveyed capital costs for eleven recently proposed, constructed, or under construction plasma facilities. Commercial scale facilities are much more expensive in terms of both capital and operating costs than the present system of Municipal Solid Waste disposal in Anchorage. Applicant indicates that since forming the company in 2006 a patented procedure will make their process less expensive than such proposed facilities. But no evidence or estimates were submitted. Field experience with new technology like this points to additional capital expense through retrofits, delays or additional construction as the learning curve is climbed. There is technology risk. The evidence suggests plasma technology will be both a more expensive way of processing waste in addition to being a more expensive means of producing electricity for Anchorage. In the B/C analysis that lesson is applied, showing higher capital and operating costs, despite significant electrical output as a byproduct. If the evaluator uses the average capital cost for facilities and adjust by 25% for Alaska the capital costs then similar technology applied in Alaska would cost over $400 million. The operating and maintenance costs would probably be well in excess of $70 per ton. B/C estimated at 0.06. Applicant presents that existing boilers are a combined 244,000 BTU system running at about 70% efficiency. The proposed biomass boiler is a 300,000 BTU system operating at 80% efficiency. Present diesel fuel use was estimated at about 2,500 gallons per year, of which 90% is forecasted to be replaced. In the calculation of BTU equivalents, a modification was made to their analysis. The correct biomass equivalent to 2,500 gallons appears to be 18 tons/yr at 8200 BTU/lb of wood chips as opposed to the 15 tons forecasted, and accounts for the difference in the AEA analysis vs. the submitted analysis. The capital cost of $831,223 produces a net fuel savings of just over $7,000 per year based on AEA conversion numbers. Inclusion of heat savings for the new building and the calculation of heating costs on the basis of some combination of barley and wood pellets would improve the benefit/cost ratio, but the capital costs are still quite high for the level of fuel savings. The B/C ratio is 0.08. AEA surveyed capital costs for eleven recently proposed, constructed, or under construction plasma facilities. Commercial scale facilities are much more expensive in terms of both capital and operating costs than the present system of Municipal Solid Waste disposal in Fairbanks. Applicant indicates that since forming the company in 2006 a patented procedure will make their process less expensive than such proposed facilities. But no evidence or estimates were submitted. Field experience with new technology like this points to additional capital expense through retrofits, delays or additional construction as the learning curve is climbed. There is technology risk. The evidence suggests plasma technology will be both a more expensive way of processing waste in addition to being a more expensive means of producing electricity for Fairbanks. In the B/C analysis that lesson is applied, showing higher capital and operating costs, despite significant electrical output as a byproduct. If the evaluator uses the average capital cost for facilities and adjust by 25% for Alaska the capital costs then similar technology applied in Fairbanks would cost over $100 million. The operating and maintenance costs would probably be on the order of $100 per ton. B/C estimated at -0.14. AEA surveyed capital costs for eleven recently proposed, constructed, or under construction plasma facilities. Commercial scale facilities are much more expensive in terms of both capital and operating costs than the present system of Municipal Solid Waste disposal in Palmer. Applicant indicates that since forming the company in 2006 a patented procedure will make their process less expensive than such proposed facilities. But no evidence or estimates were submitted. Field experience with new technology like this points to additional capital expense through retrofits, delays or additional construction as the learning curve is climbed. The evidence suggests plasma technology will be both a more expensive way of processing waste in addition to being a more expensive means of producing electricity for Palmer. In the B/C analysis that lesson is applied, showing higher capital and operating costs, despite significant electrical output as a byproduct. If the evaluator uses the average capital cost for facilities and adjust by 25% for Alaska the capital costs then similar technology applied in Palmer would cost over $75 million. The operating and maintenance costs would probably be on the order of $100 per ton. B/C estimated at -0.55. Applicant proposes a reconnaissance study to look at supplement or replacement of some of the lowest cost energy in the state. There is a very high capital cost. No B/C ratio could be determined with the information provided. For evaluation of the Reynolds Creek hydro project, an electricity demand forecast was used that shows significant growth for all communities on Prince of Wales (POW) Island. This forecast is the “reference case” developed for the 2007 AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study, adjusted upwards for expected demand from a new cold storage facility in Craig and for significant conversions from oil to electric heat starting in 2012 rather than 2020. For consistency, this forecast is used to evaluate the proposed North POW intertie that would connect Coffman Cove and Naukati Bay to the existing grid. However, by assuming such demand growth, the existing surplus of hydroelectric energy on POW Island would be quickly used up. Since the rationale of the North POW intertie is to displace diesel generation in Coffman Cove and Naukati Bay with surplus hydroelectric power, this demand growth assumption quickly negates the economic benefits of the proposed line unless additional hydroelectric resources become available. For this reason, the North POW intertie proposal is evaluated only in conjunction with the proposed Reynolds Creek hydroelectric project. Given the demand growth forecast, the intertie cannot be cost-effective unless combined with additional hydroelectric resources on the island. When Reynolds Creek and the North POW intertie are evaluated as if they were a single, combined project, the B/C ratio is estimated at 3.08. Applicant states that the intertie project will offset 196,027 gallons of diesel fuel equal to 2,531,000 kWh of generation at 12.9 kWh/gallon. The applicant’s B/C calculations, with intertie in operation in 2012, indicate a portion of generation will remain, presumably for line outages and other system requirements, estimated at 3% of full diesel requirements. Applicant estimated displaced variable O&M at $.08/kWh. Capital costs are provided by the applicant for the Base Case and Renewable Case. An entry of $4.1 million in capital costs are included in the base case with no explanation, and have been removed pending additional support. Applicant B/C analysis, before adjustment, is 0.92 and after 0.84 after adjustment. Applicant did not include replacement energy for displaced generation, the B/C ratio is only from the installed cost of the intertie and the displaced diesel fuel and O&M. AEA analysis uses $40,000,000 capital cost and includes replacement energy at the Applicant expected cost of $0.068/kWh beginning in 2013, the anticipated first year of intertie operation. Estimated B/C ratio is 0.56. The Falls Creek project has been under construction since April 2006 and is expected to begin producing power by the end of 2008. As in all of the economic evaluations, sunk costs are excluded from the analysis since, having already been incurred; they are common to all possible scenarios. The B/C ratio benefits from the fact that nearly all of the project cost has already been spent, leaving only $750,000 as the capital cost needed to complete the project. The project is expected to provide 90% of the electricity demand in Gustavus, all of which is presently supplied by diesel generators. Given the value of this diesel displacement and the fact that most of the project cost is “sunk,” the B/C ratio is estimated at 22.06. Applicant proposes installing a ground source heat pump hybrid heating system with electrical heating as a back up for a new pool facility in place of a purely electrical heating system. As neither system is currently built, we used the additional costs for building the hybrid system over the purely electrical system as estimated by the applicant for capital cost of the system. The applicant provided life cycle cost analysis for four alternative systems with the application, however, they used different assumptions than AEA uses. We used the applicant’s estimates of O&M costs and energy costs for the electrical and hybrid systems from their cost worksheet for our analysis. It is assumed that electrical generation offset would be from diesel generation. Based on these assumptions, B/C ratio is 5.12. Applicant notes Swan-Tyee intertie is scheduled for completion in 2010, at which time the communities of Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan will be tied together in a single electrical grid. Energy projects in any of these communities must therefore be evaluated in the context of this interconnected system. The existing Tyee Lake hydroelectric project currently supplies most of the electricity used in Petersburg and Wrangell, and still has a substantial surplus of energy each year that could be used if there were sufficient demand. Excess energy will still be available from Tyee Lake after Ketchikan is connected to the system in 2010. The load forecast that has been used for the evaluation of proposed projects in the interconnected system of Wrangell, Petersburg, and Ketchikan is the "reference" forecast used in the 2007 AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study, shown in the graph below. Also shown is the average annual energy capability of the existing hydro projects serving the interconnected system. According to these projections, the existing hydro surplus is used up by 2014. The applicant’s present schedule anticipates that Whitman Lake will be online in 2013. According to the load forecast, all of Whitman Lake’s average annual energy will be used by 2018 and in all subsequent years. The project cost is favorable not only because the project is located close to the City and its electrical system but also because there is an existing dam at Whitman Lake that already creates the project reservoir. As a result of these factors and other assumptions, the B/C ratio is estimated at 8.26. Applicant proposed a wood-fired district heating project. Evaluator used Skagway fuel prices and AEA biomass cost calculation, then linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. Heating oil displacement was set at 90 percent for AEA analysis, as biomass will be supplement (backed-up) by oil, as needed. Estimated B/C ratio is 4.23 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 3.50. AEA reviewed the capital costs submitted by Yakutat Power and an additional $300,000 was added to equipment/capital for chipping and drying/processing. It appears that applicant made an error in the calculation of wood biomass requirements after the system boosts from 75% to 95% availability. Nevertheless, fuel savings quickly rise from $300,000 to over $1.4 million per year with the biomass system. Assuming all stages of the project are successfully completed and a 20 year horizon is used the estimated B/C ratio is 1.94. The Swan-Tyee intertie is scheduled for completion in 2010, at which time the communities of Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan will be tied together in a single electrical grid. Energy projects in any of these communities must therefore be evaluated in the context of this interconnected system. The existing Tyee Lake hydroelectric project currently supplies most of the electricity used in Petersburg and Wrangell, and still has a substantial surplus of energy each year that could be used if there were sufficient demand. Excess energy will still be available from Tyee Lake after Ketchikan is connected to the system in 2010. If no demand growth were assumed to occur in the future, there would be no point in considering the Ruth Lake project. Petersburg currently generates about 1 million kWh per year from its diesel generators when Tyee Lake is down for maintenance or when transmission outages occur, but Ruth Lake would be designed to supply 70 million kWh per year. Nearly all of this energy would therefore be wasted. AEA directed that a demand growth scenario be used to evaluate this project and other projects in the region. A key factor in AEA’s decision is that numerous conversions from oil heat to electric heat have recently occurred due to the sharply rising fuel prices combined with the availability of surplus hydroelectricity from Tyee Lake. As a result, the “reference case” load forecast from the September 2007 AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study was used for this evaluation. That load forecast assumes growth in customers, growth in use per customer, and continued conversions from oil to electric heat. That forecast for Ketchikan, Wrangell, and Petersburg is shown in the graph below. Also shown is the current annual average energy capability from existing hydroelectric projects now connected to the grid, plus the expected output from the Whitman Lake hydro project starting in 2013. The applicant estimates that Ruth Lake would come online in approximately 2018 and the evaluation extends for 50 years through 2067. The benefit/cost analysis assumes that electricity demand shown in the graph above existing hydro capability would be served either by the Ruth Lake project or by diesel generators. Based on these assumptions, the B/C ratio came out to 3.97. Applicant presents a small, private hydro project exists at this site which the applicant proposes to upgrade for sale of power to the utility serving Skagway. Little is known about the costs of such upgrade or the potential project output. Estimates used in this evaluation, including the capital cost, are essentially concept numbers based on knowledge of the existing project and discussion with the local utility, and are intended to provide a rough order of magnitude. Based on discussion with the local utility, which currently operates both hydro and diesel plants in the Skagway area, applicant estimates that Burro Creek could displace 1-2 million kWh of diesel generation in the April to June time frame. Applicant also suggests that the project might be able to operate at a low level throughout the winter, displacing additional diesel generation. And finally, applicant suggests that some summer energy from Burro Creek might be usable to serve visiting cruise ships if they decide to connect to shore power. As the latter two possibilities seem more speculative than the first, this evaluation assumes the high estimate of diesel displacement for the April-June time frame (i.e. 2 million kWhs) but does not assume additional displacement for winter operation or supplying cruise ships. The B/C ratio estimated on the basis of these assumptions is 2.40. Applicant provided the following estimates: construction cost: $37.4 million, O&M: $47,180/year - this is offset in part by $2,866/year savings in air permit fees, displaced diesel generation: 4,878,261 kWh, displaced fuel: 376,451 gallons based on achieved efficiency of 12.96 kWh/gallon for year. Based on this data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.15 over a 40-year period. It is assumed that all replacement generation is from hydro and any marginal costs of generation are not included in the analysis. AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the following estimates: construction cost: use same as applicant, displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $97,565, intertie O&M: use same as applicant, and displaced fuel based on displaced diesel generation, PCE generating statistics The primary reason for the difference is the difference in generating efficiency assumed. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.10 was calculated for a 50-year analysis period. Applicant estimates that the project will provide for an offset of around 600,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually with 8,500,000 kWh or average annual energy delivered over the intertie. The applicant’s reported B/C calculations, with intertie in operation in 2011, estimated the available diesel generation that could be displaced in Ketchikan at greater than 18,000,000 kWh/year and increasing, thus providing the opportunity for full utilization of MIC surplus capacity. Using Applicant’s estimated fuel costs for Ketchikan of $3.10/gallon (escalated at AEA rates) and a replacement energy cost to Ketchikan of $0.085/kWh, the B/C ratio is 6.19. An AEA analysis uses the same capital cost, but assumes 13 kWh /gal., the AEA fuel price estimate of $5.07, escalated, and replacement energy at the Applicant expected cost of $0.085/kWh beginning in 2011, the anticipated first year of intertie operation. However, the sales potential to Ketchikan is limited, as Tyee surplus will meet additional energy requirements for the foreseeable future. An assumption of 98% availability of Swan Lake and Tyee surplus to meet the needs provides a market opportunity of approx. 2,000,000 kWh. At that level of sales, the B/C is 2.26. Applicant proposed a reconnaissance biomass project. Four public buildings would be heated by a wood biomass. Skagway fuel prices were used and AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. Heating oil displacement was set at 90 percent for AEA analysis, as biomass will be supplement (backed-up) by oil, as needed. Estimated B/C ratio is 0.59 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is also estimated at 0.59. Applicant recently obtained funds to conduct a feasibility study of the project but that study has not yet been done. At this stage, however, the applicant estimates that the Indian River project would displace all diesel generation for the local utility and would also produce surplus energy to displace an additional 20,000 gallons of heating fuel in the community. Based on these projections and the City’s capital cost estimate, the B/C ratio for the project is estimated at 3.99. AEA notes that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a $3.0 million cost estimate for the same project in 1984. This translates into approximately $6.1 million in 2008 dollars, compared with the $2.4 million estimate put forward by the applicant. AEA also considers the projected displacement of heating fuel to be speculative at this stage of project definition. As a result, an alternative B/C ratio was calculated to incorporate these two changes: (1) a capital cost estimate of approximately $6.1 million, and (2) exclusion of the projected displacement of heating fuel using surplus project energy. The B/C ratio under these revised assumptions came to 0.98. Applicant states Swan-Tyee intertie is scheduled for completion in 2010, at which time the communities of Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan will be tied together in a single electrical grid. Energy projects in any of these communities must therefore be evaluated in the context of this interconnected system. The basis for this economic evaluation is that, at the time of the proposed conversion of Wrangell municipal facilities from oil-fired boilers to electric boilers, there is sufficient surplus hydroelectricity available from the Tyee Lake project to serve all of the new heating demand. The cost of providing this surplus energy is zero. Therefore, at least initially, the economic benefit of the conversion is essentially equal to the entire cost of the displaced heating fuel. The question that arises is whether this economic benefit continues to be realized once the Tyee Lake surplus is used up as a result of load growth. The load forecast that has been used for the evaluation of proposed projects in the interconnected system of Wrangell, Petersburg, and Ketchikan is the "reference" forecast used in the 2007 AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study. According to these projections, the existing hydro surplus is used up by 2014. New hydro projects can be built but the energy from these new projects cannot be considered "free." Increasing diesel generation would be costly. It is also much more fuel efficient to supply heat with oil-fired boilers than with electricity produced from diesel generators. This evaluation therefore assumes that the City of Wrangell municipal facilities would switch back to its oil-fired boilers within several years after the hydro surplus is used up. Specifically, it is assumed that the City would realize fuel displacements benefits from the proposed electric boilers for a period of 10 years but would then switch back to oil-fired boilers. At that point, according to the load forecast s, system electricity demand would exceed the existing hydro resource by over 20 GWh, approx. 4 GWh of which is due to the City's proposed electric heat conversions. Based on these and other assumptions, the B/C ratio is estimated at 1.91. Applicant provides information that merits a feasibility study. However, Petersburg (in Wrangell Narrows) has an excess of low-cost renewable hydroelectric energy, Gustavus is expected to bring a low-cost hydroelectric plant on line in early 2009, and Nikiski is connected to the Railbelt low-cost energy grid. The economics of these three projects are not likely to show a favorable benefit/cost ratio due to the existing infrastructure. No B/C ratio could be determined for this project with the information provided. Applicant states there is surplus hydroelectric energy available in Sitka from existing projects. Further, the City is engaged in an expansion of its Blue Lake hydro project that will add significant new hydroelectric supply to the system. At the same time, Sitka has recently experienced significant electricity demand growth and this year commissioned a new demand forecast for the next 20 years. The highest three years were used for this evaluation. Among its assumptions are that, over the next several years, use of electric heat by residential customers will increase from about 33% to 66%, and that most of Sitka’s passenger vehicles at the end of 20 years will be electric as well. A major additional load was then added in 2022 – the anticipated first year of Takatz Lake operation. This additional load represents the use of nearly half of Takatz Lake energy to supplant 1.8 million gallons per year of heating fuel for large, “interruptible” customers such as schools, hospitals, and public buildings. This last assumption accounts for roughly 2/3 of the economic benefits estimated for the project in this evaluation. Based on these assumptions, the B/C ratio is estimated at 1.09. Basic assumptions on moisture content of feedstock, type of processing used at each stage, and efficiency must be determined along with location-specific construction costs, shipping, etc. before a benefit-cost analysis can in good faith be prepared exercising due diligence. Applicant proposes doing a feasibility study after a construction grant has already been made. Capital cost data is unclear regarding “gasifier” cost vs. pre-treatment, gas cleaning, compressor, turbines, etc. It is impossible to establish what component parts are included or even the basic type of gasifier to be constructed. Applicant submitted a “project cost” figure of $25.6 million, where “project costs” include operating costs in years after construction is completed. AEA reviewed capital cost data supplied by the applicant and determined that the proposed capital costs of the facility were $19.2 million. This seems unrealistically low in view of other facilities under construction with reported capital costs. Facility construction was scheduled to be completed in the first year. Total operating plus capital costs in year one were approximately $21.1 million. The requested amount of $20.5 million is essentially full funding of a turnkey operation. If the grant fully pays for a turnkey operation then it is unclear what is meant by Diesel Brewing co’s “match”. B/C estimated at 0.0. Applicant submitted no data other than what is included in the project description. There is a pre-existing regional reconnaissance study by DMC Technologies applicant did not cite, and it also appears Klawock has done some investigation of Plasma technology for MSW disposal. DMC study was technical feasibility and not economic feasibility per se. AEA assesses the potential for cost savings in processing of MSW exists in the region based on technical feasibility report by DMC Technologies. But AEA cannot do reasonable benefit/cost calculation without its own report. AEA does assess that at least $30 million capital for a facility of this type in the Juneau area would be required to process the annual municipal waste stream. It is unclear whether it could process MSW at what amounts to a lower tipping fee than the Municipal landfill which at current rates has a 30 year capacity. B/C estimated at 0.0. Applicant submitted no data other than what is included in the project description. There is a pre-existing regional reconnaissance study by DMC Technologies applicant did not cite, in addition to feedstock supply report for Sealaska. It also appears Klawock has done some investigation of Plasma technology for MSW disposal. DMC study was technical feasibility and not economic feasibility per se. AEA assesses the potential for cost savings in processing of MSW exists in the region based on technical feasibility report by DMC Technologies. But AEA cannot do reasonable benefit/cost calculation without its own report. B/C estimated at 0.0. Applicant capital cost figures were reviewed and accepted, totaling $991,815 for installation of the new heat recovery system. The benefit-cost analysis excludes the cost of the new generator and calculates benefits strictly stemming from the heat recovery system. The estimated cost of construction for the system without including the new generator and its associated cost is $855,961, and the amount of fuel savings is 32,000 gal per year. Construction is expected to be completed in 2009 and heat recovery operational in fall of 2009. The aggregate benefits of this project accrue to the recipients of waste heat at rates less than half that of fuel heat, and to ML&P customers through lower operating costs and power sales. The value of displaced fuel was based on a weighted average of fuel oil savings in the buildings tying in to the waste heat recovery system and ML&P customers buying power. Estimated B/C ratio is 2.13 as evaluated. Applicant proposed a combination (construction) biomass and solar project. Fuel costs for Galena were adjusted upward by $0.50 per gallon for both applicant and AEA analysis. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. Solar power impacts were used as presented and appear to be based on experienced results from Tanana and its biomass and solar powered washeteria. Estimated B/C ratio is 2.90 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 2.62. Applicant used 9.8 kWh/gallon for the current plant efficiency ratio. Upgrades to the current diesel generator are being undertaken soon, resulting in increased efficiency. The applicant made a calculation error in project funding in their budget summary. To correct this error, $10,000 was added to the cost of deployment of the 25 kWh generator to $290,200. The applicant assumes annual O&M costs at the current plant of $41,182, and annual O&M costs at the new plant of $9,600. For this analysis, the annual O&M cost estimate used for the current plant was $9,917, based on AEA benchmark O&M cost estimates for rural areas. AEA’s O&M estimates for the proposed hydrokinetic generators are $13,859, based on 3% of capital costs annually. These differences compounded for a 20-year life assumption by the applicant, and a 15-year life assumption by AEA results a wide difference in net present value of benefits estimate from O&M savings through installation of the new generators. Net present value of the project benefit based on the applicant’s assumptions is $895,228, while net present value of the project benefit based on AEA‘s assumptions is $163,999. The estimated B/C ratio using AEA assumptions is 0.33. Applicant proposed a reconnaissance to construction biomass project. Several capital cost estimates were referenced in the submittal and the selected version was reduced by $500,000 for the AEA analysis. This amount reflects sunk costs in the form of existing wood biomass. Also, wood costs estimated at $60 per ton by local State employees were adjusted upward for AEA analysis (to $65 per ton) based on quoted prices in the Glennallen area. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. Estimated B/C ratio is 0.82 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 0.94. Applicant states that Yerrick Creek hydro would displace approximately 40% of existing diesel generation for Tok and connected, nearby communities. During high flows in the summer, the project might be able to serve 100% of the connected load. During low flows in the winter, however, the utility would continue to rely mostly on diesel generation. Based on the applicant’s estimate of hydro output and project costs, the B/C ratio is estimated at 2.76. Applicant proposed to construct a central wood heating system. This capital intensive project will substitute for 16 older boilers. Initial applicant fuel cost was $7 per gallon, however, for consistency, ISER prices were used. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. New systems are proposed to come on line in 2011 and no fuel displacement is forecast until then. Estimated B/C ratio is -0.06 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 0.01. Applicant proposed to construct a central wood heating system. Fuel displacement is estimated to occur at 90 percent overall for eight oil-fired boilers at the School, Gym, AC Store and other locations. The system life was forecast at 15 years with fuel displacement from three boilers fueled with wood chips. ISER fuels costs for Fort Yukon were used for both applicant and AEA calculations; AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. In addition, the AEA operational life was extended to 20 years to meet project standards. Estimated B/C ratio is 0.92 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 1.14. Applicant proposed a project that would determine the potential for in-stream sources of renewable energy. There is not enough information available to perform a full B/C analysis on this project. AEA did analyze potential benefits and costs of a possible in-stream hydrokinetic project at Eagle, and found a B/C ratio of approximately 1.66. However, the economics of individual projects will vary by location and circumstances. The project to assess the resource potential has merit on its own, and individual projects should be examined separately for economics. B/C ratio could not be determined based on the information included in the application. Applicant states in the application that benefit is to be determined by the reconnaissance study. Typically, in this situation a rough Benefit/Cost ratio could be calculated without concrete numbers. However, in this case, the project was not defined clearly enough to calculate a B/C ratio of any kind. Applicant proposes a demonstration in Juneau due to the availability of hydroelectric power. The resulting ammonia fuel is easily stored and transported to all areas of the state, and byproducts from the process of conversion to ammonia fuel and back to hydroelectric energy is pure water. About 40% efficiency of energy is lost converting to ammonia, and about 35% efficiency is lost converting ammonia fuel back to clean energy. To examine the costs and benefits of this project, AEA used Angoon as the rural location to receive and utilize the ammonia fuel. AEA assumptions for this B/C estimate include a 20 year life of the project, the building of a fuel converter at Angoon to convert the ammonia back to useable power (for an additional $50,000), the loss of efficiency in the conversion process mentioned above, and O&M costs of the new system of 2% of capital costs per year. While the costs outweighed the benefits in this analysis, the benefits would increase greatly with a larger scale conversion system. B/C ratio could not be determined with the information provided in the application. Election_District 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 36, Kodiak 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 36, Kodiak 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 36, Kodiak 36, Kodiak 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 6, Interior Villages 38, Bethel 39, Bering Straits 38, Bethel 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 17, Eagle River 34, Rural Kenai 8, Denali-University 11, North Pole 17, Eagle River 13, Greater Palmer 35, Homer-Seward 11, North Pole 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 34, Rural Kenai 32, Chugach State Park 32, Chugach State Park 35, Homer-Seward 6, Interior Villages 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 8, Denali-University 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 9, City of Fairbanks 13, Greater Palmer 6, Interior Villages 1, Ketchikan 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 3, Juneau-Downtown-Douglas 1, Ketchikan 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 1, Ketchikan 3, Juneau-Downtown-Douglas 1, Ketchikan 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 13, Greater Palmer 3, Juneau-Downtown-Douglas Engineer_Firm Polarconsult Alaska Polarconsult Alaska Inc. EES Consulting Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. R&M Consultants/Hatch Acres Hatch Acres Corporation Polarconsult Alaska NANA Pacific/Polarconsult Alaska Polarconsult Alaska Polarconsult Alaska HDR Alaska U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Polarconsult Alaska Alaska Power & Telephone HDR Alaska Hatch Acres Corporation Hatch Acres Corporation Electric Power Systems. Inc. Electric Power Systems Inc. Hatch Acrea/Current Consulting/EES Consulting/EPS/etc. Alaska Power & Telephone Est_Benefit 251692 94000 484309 500000000 1755238 770299 700000 930000 400000 122151 63171000 3800000 10000000 0 1000000 1199471 5260000 1578797 4830000 806007 27452 1257766 4190542.09 4000000 496456 3000000 216643 160000 55000 74668 192000 943480 2210194 650166 907374 21600 1400000 0 4334600 11500000 595383 25300000 0 41000000 7000000 5000000 71194805 21500 0 2868000 193600 1200000 192673 1500000 1000000 503500000 0 30000000 30000000 9000 2500000 54000 0 3053154 52000000 3000000 2880000 1103100 584000 280000 60000 57786933 2000000 108717 67000 3200000 2500000 50000000 2505600 1482000 294000 71060 25673 39000000 184300000 864850 879755 0 7500000 Project_Description A small, 271-kW, cross-flow turbine, generation system with a darn and power house (approximately latitude 52° 11' 28" N and longitude 174° 11' 37" W) which utilizes hydro-electric stored kinetic energy in a reservoir dam on Chuniisax Creek approximately 3/4-mile southwest of the old Atka village site (approximately T92S, R176W, Seward Meridian) and replacement electrical distribution system. The project will displace use of high cost fossil fuels with a renewable energy resource using proven technology. Energy costs to all users in Atka will be significantly reduced while providing the current and future energy requirements. The village has secured additional funding from EDA to complete the most of the remaining 55%. (45% was previously completed using RUS, AEA, and city funding.) This grant plus our cash and in-kind contribution will complete the balance. This medium penetration wind-diesel and jacket heat recovery project is located on Umnak Island, approximately 100 miles west of Unalaska/Dutch Harbor. The community of Nikolski will be directly served by this project. In addition, the community of pilots and passengers who make international flights over this area will benefit greatly. A communications gap, long a problem for international flights, was recently remedied by the installation of communications equipment in Nikolski by the FAA. The Nikolski IRA Council, Chaluka Corporation, the management of Umnak Power, TDX Power and the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association/APICDA will be involved in ensuring this project succeeds. The City of St. George operates a traditional diesel power plant which currently uses multiple diesel fueled engine generators to supply all required electric power to the community of St. George Island. With fuel and fuel handling cost now at historically high levels, the community, through their partner APICDA, seeks technology alternatives to provide long term fuel-savings impact. As wind/diesel technology has been proven viable in a variety of remote applications in Alaska and internationally, APICDA has allocated resources to determine if a wind retrofit at St. George can provide a meaningful, cost effective benefit. The City of St. George, APICDA and TDX Power are all involved in delivering a high penetration wind diesel hybrid project for the community. The Aleutians East Borough (AEB) stretches from the tip of the Alaska Peninsula to the easternmost Aleutian Islands. This isolated region is bordered on one side by the North Pacific Ocean and the other by the Bering Sea. It has been home to generations of Aleut families since the Second Ice Age in Akutan, False Pass, King Cove, Nelson Lagoon, and Sand Point. Cold Bay was developed during World War II. In this region, called “the birthplace of the winds”, renewable energy resources abound -- not only wind power, but also hydro, geo-thermal, current and tidal. Some waste heat recovery opportunities also exist. The larger AEB communities of Akutan, King Cove and Sand Point, which have personnel resources and comparatively healthy city budgets, have alternative energy projects operating or on the drawing board. This project requests funding to conduct a renewable energy reconnaissance report for the smaller (populations less than 100) communities of Cold Bay, False Pass and Nelson Lagoon which require assistance to decrease their energy costs and reduce their dependence on diesel fuel. A reconnaissance report will summarize the assessment and findings. This project will be administered and managed by the AEB and will be conducted by a consultant chosen by the AEB. Geothermal energy remains an underdeveloped renewable and sustainable energy resource within the State of Alaska. Aside from Chena Hot Springs, which currently has an installed capacity of 400 kW of power from a low temperature (about 73°C) geothermal source, there are presently no other geothermal-electric energy producers in the State. The Makushin project’s primary goal is to produce a minimum of 40 MW of power from the geothermal resource and supply that power to the City of Unalaska, independent power producers and other energy users in the vicinity. The current generating capacity within Unalaska consists of UniSea (Fairbanks- Morris (12± MW)), Westward Seafood (9± MW Wartsila), Alyeska Seafood (5.5± MW), and the City of Unalaska (currently 7.5 MW; in addition the City has purchased, but not installed, 10 MW capacity Wartsila diesel gensets (and perhaps an additional 10 MW of diesel generation) for the potential of 44+ MW, in the future which is contemplated to be utilized as emergency back-up Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 29 10/8/2008 generation. The base load of all Unalaska to be supplied by the Geothermal-electric Project is estimated near 10 mW/hr. The combined base and peak loads are estimated to be near 32 mW/hr. The project could supply more than 50 percent of the electrical load for the City and other power producers in Unalaska. Any unutilized electric energy available above any total load requirements, and the Project’s installed electric capacity will be utilized in four ways: 1. For electric resistive heating within Unalaska to displace expensive fuel oil now used for domestic space heat and man-camp heat systems or to augment or replace thermal energy heat exchanged from some present diesel generation jacket heating loops. 2. To supply electric fuel/energy for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) to displace higher and unstable priced gasoline and diesel, as an imported fuel. The PHEV technology has the additional ability to feed electricity back in the grid for emergencies from the PHEV batteries. This project will retrofit two local F-150 pickup fleet trucks to PHEV to increase the fuel economy of these vehicles from 16 mpg to 41 mpg on roads within the City of Unalaska. This will be an important step to demonstrate how sustainable green transportation at reduced and stable costs for “fuel” will work in Unalaska. 3. Electric energy conversion into other “manufactured and transportable” fuels, like ammonia, methane, and hydrogen which could augment or displace costly diesel fuel now used by the local fishing fleet. This utilization or transporting “stranded renewable energy” could create new local business opportunities for diversification of local business infrastructure. 4. Lower temperature “waste heat” from the geothermal-electric facility could be used for heating greenhouses and other industries requiring stable energy values. KSLC is the fee simple, surface and subsurface land owner of 7,200± acres known as the Makushin geothermal resource area, and as such will be the lead grant recipient. KSLC anticipates working closely with the City of Unalaska, the Ounalashka Village Corporation, the Native Village Tribe and the group of noted civil and electrical engineers, geologists and other scientists identified in this proposal to complete 16 tasks that include further assessing the resource, developing facility siting plans, evaluating the electrical integration of the geothermal power with the local power, evaluating the transmission lines required (including new and reconducting), and developing 35 percent level cost estimates for each of three alternatives for facility locations. The team members include Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL), RSA Engineering (RSA), TDX Power, University of Manitoba, University of California Santa Cruz, Alaska Volcano Observatory, and specialty contractors to assist in select areas of the project. As part of the assessment of the resource we will develop a searchable database for the substantial existing literature and data gathered since 1978, and conduct geochemical studies and spectral imaging in order to refine the existing model of the geothermal resource system. Seismic data gathered from previous studies will be inputted into the refined model. In order to develop 35 percent project cost estimates, a number of factors will have to be evaluated including: conceptual design of facilities including a dock and other needed infrastructure, power plant size and type, power transmission and electrical integration with existing electrical system, and evaluation of permitting issues. The NJUS Renewable Energy Fund Wind Project involves the installation of five 600 kW wind turbines on Newton Peak located approximately one mile north of Nome. The completed project, with a total size of three MW, will be owned and operated by NJUS. The wind turbines will be connected into NJUS’s electrical distribution system through a constructed transmission line. The project will offer benefits to the community of Nome and its electric customers through a system-wide reduction and stabilization of energy prices. NJUS has assembled a project team, headed by STG Incorporated, that is prepared to immediately begin work on an accelerated schedule. The project team includes members from Intelligent Energy Systems LLC, DNV Global Energy Concepts Inc, Electrical Power Systems, Duane Miller Associates LLC, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell LLC, BBFM Engineers and Aurora Consulting. All aspects of the Final Design/Permitting and Construction project, detailed in the following pages of this application, can be completed by fall 2010. The Unalakleet Renewable Energy Fund Wind Project involves the installation of two 600 kW wind turbines on a project site located approximately one and a half miles northeast of Unalakleet. The completed project, with a total size of 1.2 MW, will be owned and operated by UVEC. The wind turbines will be connected into UVEC’s electrical distribution system through a constructed transmission line. The project will offer benefits to the village of Unalakleet and its electric customers through a system-wide reduction and stabilization of energy prices. UVEC has assembled a project team, headed by STG Incorporated, that is prepared to immediately begin work on an accelerated schedule. The project team includes members from Intelligent Energy Systems LLC, DNV Global Energy Concepts Inc., Electrical Power Systems, Duane Miller Associates LLC, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell LLC, BBFM Engineers and Aurora Consulting. All aspects of the Final Design/Permitting and Construction project, which are detailed in the following pages of this application, can be completed by fall 2010. Located in Nome, this project will install a 2-mile transmission line and a 8-mile fiber control cable to connect a 1MW wind farm to be operated by Banner Wind LLC, an independent power producer, to the City of Nome/Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) power distribution grid. The project will place an underground 25kv distribution line adjacent to a new road, and include a fiber control cable run from the wind generators to the utility power plant. Banner Wind LLC is an IPP formed in partnership between Bering Straits Native Corporation & Sitnasuak Native Corporation. NJUS will be primarily responsible for the project construction activities, as well as the reporting and financial control of the intertie project. The installation of this wind power project will provide a maximum output of 1,170 kW to the Nome Joint Utility electric grid in Nome, Alaska over a 20 year extendable project timeframe. The owners of the project are committed to sell the energy at a price below the avoided cost calculations, even without any grant funding. Grant funding will allow further reduction in the price of approximately $0.03 per kWH for every one million in grant funds. Selling the energy at a rate below avoided costs will provide savings to the utility to help to lower the energy costs in the Nome area and provide some energy produced locally that is not dependent on imported oil. Furthermore, this project helps enable future village installations in the region by helping with a base of operations, spare parts location, local training facility and regional hub. Providing for renewable energy projects in villages should help reduce the dependency on oil in those locations where oil must be flown or barged in and ultimately help reduce energy rates in those locations as well. Through implementing a power sales agreement, this project is unique in that it takes advantage of federal tax credit incentives for wind energy projects which help offset the actual cost of energy. Overall, this project provides a cash and tax credit based revenue stream, provides jobs and keeps money working in the community while increasing overall power generation reliability by producing it locally. Banner Wind LLC (jointly owned by Bering Straits Native Corporation and Sitnasuak Native Corporation) owns the wind farm while the construction and initial operations are managed by Western Community Energy LLC. The profits from the project which are ultimately distributed to the shareholders of BSNC and SNC will help provide income to an area where many have very limited incomes. This is an excellent demonstration of a commercial opportunity that needs to be eagerly developed. This project is a regional Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual design of Wind Power opportunities around the Lake & Peninsula Borough. It is designed to build upon existing wind resource assessment efforts, including wind met tower data in some communities, as well as data from existing micro-scale (10kW) wind turbines that are in operation. The communities included in this package are: Pedro Bay Port Alsworth Egegik Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton Port Heiden Pilot Point In addition to the Borough Management and staff working closely with the local utilities, the Borough intends to hire HDR as their lead engineering consulting firm for these assessments. The intended outcome of this work is a set of bid documents for a regional Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract. The proposed project is a wind/hydro hybrid intertie feasibility study for Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon and Chignik Lake (hereafter “Chigniks”.) The Chigniks have a combined population of 277 people - the largest community is Chignik Lake with 128 people. The cost of fuel to create electricity is becoming beyond reach in the area, the purpose of the proposed project is to provide affordable and stable-price energy to create sustainable communities. Wind: There is existing wind data confirming class 5 wind in the area, strong enough to be a good energy source. However, at the sites where data was collected the wind was “too turbulent” to be utilized for wind energy generation. Part of the feasibility study will involve determining the most advantageous site for wind turbines by collecting supplemental met data. Hydro: The Chignik Alaska Draft Small Hydropower Feasibility Report and EIS, by the Army Corps of Engineers, July 1984, evaluated hydro resources at Packers Creek, Mud Bay Lake and Indian Creek. The study found that Indian Creek had the best potential for economical development with a potential head of 409 ft and modest flows on the order of 22cfs. See Hydro Screening Attachment G for details The Lake and Peninsula Borough will provide management for the project, overseeing the work of HDR Alaska who will act as the owner representative in developing the feasibility study for a wind/hydro intertie project. The Lake and Peninsula Borough seeks funding for design and permitting to install High Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE) wood boilers in five communities in the Lake and Peninsula Borough providing heat to the local school and adjacent teacher housing. The communities to be considered are Pedro Bay, Newhalen/Iliamna, Nondalton, Kokhanok and Port Alsworth. The schools in these communities served 225 children in the 07-08 school year. All of these communities are in heavily wooded areas and with the exception of Port Alsworth they are have few or no land use issue that need to be resolved. The wood resource near Port Alsworth resides in Federal Park land and ANCSA land, the Borough will utilize area experts to resolve any impediments to sustainable wood harvest. An initial feasibility indicates that these communities could displace tens of thousands of gallons of diesel currently used to heat the facilities. Actual fuel consumption for school year 07/08 was used in the analysis. A simple payback analysis offered periods of 1.6 to 2.9 years. The Lake and Peninsula Borough will work with the school district and a HELE unit vendor to complete the project. Contract employee, Bob Loeffler will work with local authorities to ensure that any land issues related to a sustainable wood fuel harvest are resolved. The City of Chignik will partner with Trident Seafoods (holder of FERC License 620) to study the engineering, electronics, and economics of restoring the antiquated hydropower system on Indian Creek in Chignik, Alaska. (See attached Project Area maps.) The “Chignik Hydro” project would benefit the residents of Chignik by offsetting the cost of fuel currently used to generate electricity for homes and community buildings such as the Subsistence Building and the school. Electricity generated by the new hydropower system will also benefit the new small boat harbor, the Trident Seafoods fish processing plant, and the Harris Sub-Regional Clinic, which will serve residents of Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Lake, Perryville, and Port Heiden. In addition, by re-building the dam and conveyor pipeline, the project would also be reinforcing the infrastructure that supports the city’s water system, as well as the fish plant water supply. The Lake Elva facility will consist of a dam constructed 8,500 feet downstream from the existing outlet of the lake. A rock fill structure with a projected height of 120 feet above the estimated base; the dam crest will be 625 feet long and 20 feet wide with a 2.5:1 upstream and a 2.1:1 downstream slope. This dam will increase the existing lake from its’ initial surface area of 300 acres at 325 El. The reservoir formed by the dam will provide 26,800 acre feet of active storage above the minimum operational pool at 320 El. The lake surface area will be 820 acres at normal pool El 370. A 50 foot wide spillway with 10 feet of freeboard to the dam crest will discharge over natural terrain into the existing creek channel. Cresting at El 370 the spillway is designed to discharge the probable maximum flood of 3,790 cfs. A buried concrete pipe will provide the power conduit from the power intake to the power house. A 60 inch diameter vertical shaft power intake will be set at El 310, ten feet below minimum operation pool. The intake will be protected with a steel trash-rack. The 60 concrete encased steel water conduit will be used to divert flows during construction. Upon completion this conduit will transition to an electrically controlled 36 inch butterfly valve downstream for inspection and emergency closure operations. The control valve will transition to a 48 inch steel pipe and then into concrete sections following the terrain where it will be connected to a 24 inch steel bifurcation 100 feet above the power house. The powerhouse will contain two 750 kW turbines. Under a rated net head of 280 feet each unit will drive a 900 kVa, 0.9 pf, 2.4 kV generator. This steel framed structure will be located approximately 1,800 feet upstream from the Elva Creek confluence with Lake Nerka. It is planned to be on a 20 by 80 foot concrete foundation with a height of 20 feet above the generator floor. The average discharge head from the power house will be 60 cfs. This project will necessitate the construction of approximately 33 miles of new three phase transmission tie line from the project site to close proximity of the village of Aleknagik. The Nushagak Area Hydropower Project will initially serve the communities of Aleknagik, Dillingham, and Kanakanak in the Nushagak and Wood River areas (future interties to Manokotak and Ekwok - New Stuyahok - Koliganek are under consideration). This first phase with inter-tie is estimated to cost $22 million and replace 500,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually, for a yearly savings of $2,105,700 at today’s fuel prices. Currently all power in the area is generated with diesel by Nushagak Cooperative (NETC), with a current residential rate at $0.463 cents per kilowatt hour. Nushagak Cooperative would develop, maintain, and operate the Lake Elva facility and associated infrastructure. The Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Project is located on Packers Creek in Chignik Lagoon. The 190 kW project can provide for most of the communities current power needs, which peak at about 125 kW. The plant would eliminate about 85% of 50,000 gallons of diesel consumed by the generators annually. There will also be excess energy that could be used for heating the school and other local structures. The project would also enable the community to add a freezer/processing facility to further improve the local economy. The Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project is a long-term energy solution to rising and unpredictable costs of energy in rural and remote regions with geothermal energy potential. The next phase of the project and the subject of this application is geothermal energy resource confirmation and qualification. Phase III includes design, engineering and construction of a deep well preceded by funding and permit acquisition, road and well site improvements and drilling and drill management contracts. Subsequent to resource confirmation and qualification, NEA proposes constructing a 25 MW geothermal plant and interconnection infrastructure that will supply 25+ communities in the Bristol Bay and Lake Region with low-cost electricity that effectively decreases the cost of power 70% by displacing 5.4 million gallons of diesel fuel currently used to meet regional electrical and heating energy requirements. The project will be the first utility grade geothermal development in Alaska establishing long-term firm, reliable and cost effective alternative energy that will enhance rural sustainability and the development of renewable and strategic natural resources. Although the project focuses on the production of electricity the identification and development phases will bring geothermal technology transfer and demonstration that is applicable to other geothermal sites in the region. Power to the People – from fish! It Isn’t Easy To Be Green; But It Is Entirely possible. Feasibility Study This study examines the opportunity, analyzes the possibility, and determines the feasibility of providing a stand-alone fish waste-processing facility that produces and uses clean energy from renewable resources. It serves the commercial fishery and processing plants (7 land based processing facilities, 3 floating processing facilities and several smaller independent seller/operators) and the community of Naknek, King Salmon, and South Naknek, Alaska. It is a model plant that, when proven successful, will be recreated throughout the fisheries of the State and the nation, and the world. This facility serves the ecology and the economy as it provides supplemental clean energy from renewable sources to the locally owned cooperative energy association. This energy counteracts the drain on the power grid during the fish processing season – which is what creates the drain. In short, this model plant and its subsequent generations are usage neutral. A wonderful and significant side-benefit of this proposed facility is that it utilizes the approximately 30-40% waste of fish products currently being dumped into the environment as waste. While this waste is generally bio-degradable and may not always be environmentally unfriendly, it represents a huge waste of resources; resources that required energy to obtain; resources that could be (and, now, will be) transformed into fuel (and other useful and healthy value added products) instead of simply being dumped back into the environment as garbage. This type of facility need not be a “highly profitable” business in the traditional sense in order to be highly beneficial to the local economy and, eventually, the world economy,. While providing supplemental clean energy fuel, it reduces unnecessary waste with its inherent potential harm to the environment. Even though it may be argued that such potential harm is negligible, such waste and potential harm, no matter how slight offends the sensibilities, especially when it is unnecessary waste of environmental products (fish) which, in this case, also happen to be living creatures – and particularly when the alternative is transforming such waste into useful by products including clean, supplemental energy. Bristol Bay Borough and Naknek Electric Association have joined in this responsible and cooperative scientific effort in the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world to perform this study and assess the initial, as well as its ultimate, practicality and profitability of such a facility. The creation of this facility carries with it an opportunity for the local population, including the indigent native population, to operate a model business that produces clean energy and healthy, useful products as it achieves an ideal of Native American traditionalists and Green Planet idealists: Self sustaining, environmentally friendly production – with no waste. 1) Market Issues – This study will prove that there is a huge future need as well as adequate demand currently for the energy (and the value added products) produced and conserved by this facility. This facility will serve as a model of a clean renewable energy production and conservation and the reduction of waste of environmental products (fish) which, as stated are also living creatures. 2) Organizational Issues – This project combines the skills and talents – and idealistic objectives – of technical and scientific communities with the local workforce and values. This facility can and will be staffed and managed to a significant extent by qualified locals. The feasibility study will demonstrate how that will be done effectively and profitably. 3) Technical issues – The equipment and technology needed – where it can be obtained – cost of technology and equipment – when it can be operational – etc. will be determined by the feasibility study. There will be extensive study into best practices to deal with the amount of possible waste to be processed and disposed of according to regulatory, practical, and ideal (e.g. ecological) requirements. 4) Financial issues – Start up costs – operating costs – revenue and energy projections – sources of financing – profitability analysis – etc. are impossible to determine until the feasibility study is complete. The feasibility study is what will determine and propose the processes, resources and equipment necessary to create the final products and services to be produced. The ideal objective of our facility is to produce clean energy from fish waste to reduce to zero the waste produced in processing fish – and operate from its own clean energy produced from such waste (which will then no longer be considered “waste”). We collect undesired fish processing waste from cooperating commercial processors and render it into value added products and resources. In so doing, we use as much as possible only renewable sources of energy particularly those created or released in commercial fish processing. That ideal objective achieves the high standard of Native American traditionalists and Green Planet idealists: No waste – and no harm to the environment. In reaching that ideal objective, we produce and utilize only clean energy from renewable sources such as fish oil biofuel rendered from fish processing and energy obtained by harnessing wind and solar power in a cogeneration situation. 1-100% of the fish processing waste is cost-effectively or profitably converted to fish oil and fish pellets and other value added products and 2-100% of the fuel is cost effectively produced from renewable energy sources (specifically fish oil, biofuel, wind and solar) Our practical objective is to approach the ideal objective ever closer until the ideal is achieved – however long that takes. The practical objective in its first phase – that justifies the initial human effort and financial cost of creating and operating the facility is considered successfully accomplished as… 1-[?]% of the fish processing waste is cost-effectively or profitably converted to alternative or supplemental fuels and value-added products. and 2-[?]% of the fuel used is from renewable energy sources (specifically fish oil, bio-fuel, wind and solar). What are the percentages [?]. That will be determined by the feasibility study. The study will also determine where this facility should be located and how. This facility is created and developed with the end in mind of organizing techniques and technologies and proceeding with processes that smaller fish processing plants can share and larger plants can share or build. Further, the physical, financial and human resources management systems that are created and established can and will be duplicated and promoted through written and spoken mediums, convention and association presentations, study publishing, consulting, etc. This is a first-cut look at these issues. We have examined carefully the relevant facts and related experiments, both successful and unsuccessful, already available to us. We have discovered that nearly every significant technology and resource has been discovered and utilized to some extent. This is an effort to bring all such techniques and technologies together into an operating facility. The Bristol Bay fishery is reknown throughout the world and would be the best location for a leading trend to be set as a model. It is clear that this feasibility study is an excellent investment and is likely to achieve a profitable, earth friendly, payoff within the first year of operation – and will move ever closer to its ideal goal until it is at least 99% achieved – likely within the decade, perhaps sooner. This project focuses on the development of 1 megawatt of wind power located in an area AEA suspects to be have a Class 7 resource. The location is approximately 14 miles Northwest of the City of Dillingham, less than 5 miles Northeast of Manakotak, and approximately 8 miles South of Alegnagik near Snake Mountain. Due to the specific need of the development of this resource for the Healthcare organization, this project will benefit all the communities that rely on the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation to remain ‘the only’ critical access medical facility in the Bristol Bay Region. Although the project is being proposed by a Tribal Organization, it has the support of the local electrical cooperative [Nushagak] as well as many of the residents of Dillingham. Our project development team has tapped into the resources of TDX, Power Corp., MAP Consulting, STG Inc, and Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation. After a decade of declining performance and three years of no operation (2005 – 2008), due to unstable site geology and flooding, CEC has focused intense efforts on re‐designing its Humpback Creek hydro‐electric facility. Humpback Creek, named for the pink salmon that spawn in its mouth, is located five miles north of Cordova and is accessible only by boat. Sub‐marine cable from the plant to Cordova City limits, and buried transmission lines to the CEC plant, connect the facility to Cordova. Because of its steep grade, fish are not able to migrate upstream and thus no fish populations will be affected by this project. From the original in‐take structure to tidewater, Humpback Creek flows about 0.7 miles and drops from an elevation of 276 feet to where it enters saltwater Orca Inlet. Site visits by the project team to other small hydro‐electric projects with a variety of in‐take arrangements and a project workshop held in December, 2007 culminated in a new design with an intake/diversion that includes a tunnel, conventional side intake with provisions for sluicing sediment and a diversion dam with a sluice gate that will allow removal of stream bed material that may collect outside the intake. The new location facilitates much‐improved access, a location with shallower bedrock substrate, and a better hydrological analysis. This project has been CEC’s and the community of Cordova’s top priority for the past three years, ever since October, 2006’s 3,500‐year return period flood event destroyed the intake/diversion facility. Project partners include the City of Cordova, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Eyak Corporation (for access). CEC proposes to serve as a model for rural Alaska utilities by installing an ORC heat recovery unit that will capture waste heat and increase diesel generator electrical production by an additional four to six percent. The average electric production efficiency of CEC’s Orca Power Plant is 13.65 kWh/gallon of diesel. CEC has placed a deposit on a new, 3.6 MW rated, EMD 710 series, 20 cylinder diesel generator. The efficiency of the new generator is expected to peak at 15 kWh/gallon. Cordova Electric Cooperative desires fit the EMD with an organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) heat recovery system that will capture additional BTUs that would otherwise be wasted energy. Cordova Electric Cooperative is the sole provider of power to the City of Cordova, Alaska. We are a member-owned cooperative with 17 full time employees. CEC’s CEO Clay Koplin, Manager of Power Production Danny Ackmann, Manager of Finance Valerie Covel and the engineering firm of Marsh Creek make up the project team for implementing this renewable energy project. The project is located in Cordova, Alaska. Because of astronomical home heating costs, we need to provide an affordable form of energy this winter. Affordable fuel wood is available to the community, from donated lots at an old sort yard and from an airport clearing project. We need assistance with purchasing a processing mill, yarding the logs, and cutting the logs into split firewood. The Eyak Corporation owns several log sort yards which they have generously donated to the village for firewood use. The State of Alaska has offered down logs from the airport clearing project. To efficiently process this wood, we will purchase a firewood processing mill, set it up and train the operators. The mill will enable us to process firewood in a timely manner to be able to distribute an abundant amount of firewood to the community. We will mill approximately 3,421 cords of firewood. The supply for this will come from existing log decks and the airport clearing project. The firewood will be distributed to our elders at no cost and the rest of the community will be asked to contribute $50 per cord to sustain the program. The money generated will help pay for labor costs of processing the firewood in future years. This project will provide 37.2 billion BTU's of low cost energy for home heating and will offset 312.6 thousand gallons of fuel oil and save $1.58 million this winter in home heating costs for Cordova. The Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project is located adjacent to the Prince William Sound, immediately south of Valdez, Alaska. CVEA is a member-owned electric cooperative providing central station electrical service to a relatively large geographical area of Eastern Interior and Gulf Coast Alaska. CVEA is a stand-alone (not interconnected to another power system) electric utility. The service territory is divided into two districts, the Valdez district and the Copper River Basin district. The Valdez district is comprised of the organized area of the City of Valdez. The Copper Basin district incorporates many outstretched communities including: Glennallen, Gakona, Gulkana, Tazlina, Copper Center, Kluti-Kaah, Copperville, Kenny Lake, Tolsona, Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 15 9/3/2008 Mendeltna, Nelchina, Eureka, and Sheep Mountain. CVEA’s corporate office is located in Glennallen while the engineering and power production functions are managed from the Valdez district office. CVEA’s personnel are extensively involved with the Allison Lake Project. CVEA has hired Hatch Acres to assist in coordinating the work and field studies and license application. The project will be located at the mile 33 of the Tok Cutoff Highway in Chistochina, Alaska and will be managed and owned by the Cheesh’na Tribal Council (CTC). The project provides a (cordwood) biomass system to provide heat and hot water for all community facilities located in a “campus” area. Existing facilities that will be served by the project are owned and operated by CTC and include the CTC Tribal Office Building, Chistochina Community Hall and the Education/Library facility. Two new facilities that will be served by the project are scheduled to be constructed in the coming year; Mt Sanford Tribal Consortium multiuse facility with health clinic and CTC’s Washateria. The final design work will build upon the feasibility study and preliminary design work completed as of October, 2008. A bulk fuel wood boiler will be built at the Kenny Lake K-12 school to displace 18,035 gallons of fuel oil. The current boilers will be used for backup and low load periods. This project will involve school district personnel, local contractors, design engineers and Alaska Energy Authority. This project will employee local residents in project management, construction and chip material delivery. We will be integrating a wood fired hydronic heating system with existing boiler system in some of the buildings and retrofitting hot water heat to other buildings. The project will require a greater initial investment and higher annual OM&R costs than for an equivalent oil or gas system alone; however, the savings in fuel costs (wood vs. fossil fuel) will pay for the initial investment and cover the additional OM&R costs in a relatively short period of time. After the initial investment is paid off, the project will continues to save money (avoided fuel cost) for the life of the heating system. Since inflation rates for fossil fuels are typically higher than inflation rates for wood fuel, increasing inflation rates result in greater fuel savings and thus greater project viability. The potential financial viability of this project depends not only on the relative costs and cost savings, but also on the financial objectives and expectations of the Gulkana Village, which will be getting free firewood from another program. The existing oil-fired furnaces, which would remain in place for back up purposes, and the installation of two Garn WHS 32000 wood fired hydronic heaters will supply heat to four duplexes, teen center, community hall administration, fitness center, shop, new offices, clinic, and the new bus garage. It will also feed into the water system through the water distribution made. The initial investment would be $898,000 which would include the cost a combined heat building and wood storage, pex insulated pipe, adapting buildings to hot water heat that do not already have it. The Pillar Mountain Wind project is KEA's next step to achieve its Vision Statement "Endeavor to produce 95% of energy sales with cost effective renewable power solutions by the year 2020. This renewable energy project will consist of three 1.5 MW General Electric (GE) SLE wind turbines. it is estimated that ths project will produce 15.6 million kWh's annually and thereby eliminate over 1.2 million gallons of diesel each year. The wind project will utilize the 20MW Terror Lake Hydroelectric facility as an energy storage system to mitigate the fluctuations of wind power. Wind and water will work in concert together to produce an estimated 91% of our current power generation needs. This renewable energy project will benefit the Cityof Kodiak; United States Coast Guard Intergrated Support Command Kodiak, Bells Flats and Russian Creek areas, as well as the villages of Chiniak, Pasagshak and Port Lions. There are numerous people involved in making this project a reality. These groups of individuals are mainly Alaskans, primary from Kodiak. KEA is proud to be helping our community lower is dependence on diesel and very thankful for the overwhelming community support for this project. Pillar Mountain is located directly southwest fo the City of Kodiak. Attached is a survey map depiciting the land ownership of the area and the portion of land where the wind turbines will be located. The topographical map illustrating the six (6) turbine sites is also attached. This phase of the wind project KEA will be developing three of the six sites depicted on the map. These maps are found in the Appendix-Exhibit G. The many different contractors involved in this project have been listed in Section 3.4. The Project is a 300 kW run of the river hydroelectric plant with a diversion structure, pipeline, powerhouse, and electric line. The project involves collecting up to 7 cfs of water year round from a tributary (Mountain Creek) of Barling Bay Creek and transporting it across a basin boundary to Big Creek. The Project will be developed by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) and it will provide for most of the electrical needs of Old Harbor. AVEC will employ consultants and contractors as needed to complete the Project. AVEC may utilize local or other personnel for project maintenance. Bethel Wind Power Project Times 4 calls for the purchase and installation of four 100kW wind turbines, tubular towers, foundations, and related appurtenances on land owned by the city of Bethel. The City of Bethel will own, operate, and maintain all four wind turbines and act as an independent power producer by selling 100% of the electricity generated to the privately owned utility in Bethel. The regulated electric utility is Bethel Utilities Corporation. The community of Bethel, with a population of 5,650, will be the community and boundary area served. The City of Bethel, the City's volunteer Alternative Energy Committee, the city's public Works Committee, the City's Planning Commission, and Bethel Utilities Corporation will be involved with the project. The work plan constitutes of the installation, control and integration of five major components: 1. Five Wind Matic 17-S Wind turbines on 80 foot lattice towers. 2. Diesel Station upgrade 3. Dnergy recovery boiler at the washeteria for frequency control 4. Smart metering system 5. 20 Thermal Stoves in residents of village elders The wind turbines will be installed 300 foot apart on pile foundations, and connected via individual three phase transformers to the existing power lines with buried armored cable. Connections between the turbines will be via above ground armored cable. A fiber optic cable will be buried along side the power cable to provide a communications link with the powerplant. The US FWS has expressed an interest in keeping overhead transmission to a minimum, to reduce any potential hazards to passing migrating birds. The energy from the turbines will be integrated into the diesel power systems. Three methods will be used: 1. power electronics connected with a heat recovery boiler for frequency control 2. adaptations to diesel generators to enable low load operation 3. an integrated control system that operates both the wind turbine and diesel generators in a coordinated manner with ceramic thermal storage located in the residents of village elders. Two existing gensets will be modified to operate at low loads and low fuel consumption for extended periods of time. The mail features of the conversion will consist of the addition of a boiler and boiler grid interface to provide reverse power protection to absorb wind gusts when operating at near zero kW, and to increase operating temperatures to eliminate cylinder glazing and wet stacking. The Smart Grid consists of a network of advanced meters, which receive information about the availability of green, or excess wind energy and make this energy available to the community at reduced rates ,and enable devices to capture this energy. The meters communicate wirelessly, provide a user interface for customers, and account for energy sold at different rates. The devices that are located in the homes of 20 village elders, and these stoves capture and store excess wind energy for later use. The Smart Metering and the stoves create a system that allows wind energy to be sold as heat for 1/2 the cost of diesel heating. The work plan consists of the installation, control and intergration of five major components: 1. Five Wind Matic 17-S Wind turbines on 80 foot lattice towers 2. Diesel Station upgrade 3. Energy recovery boiler at the washerteria for frequency control 4. Smart metering system 5. 20 Thermal Stoves in residents of village elders The wind turbines will be installed 300 foot apart on pile foundations, and connected via individual three phase transformers to the existing power lines with 15kV metal clad buried armored cable. Connections between the turbines will be via above ground armored cable. A fiber optic cable will be buried along side the power cable to provide a communications link with the powerplant. The US FWS has expressed an interest in keeping overhead transmission to a minimum, to reduce any petential hazards to passing migrating birds. The energy from the turbines will be intregrated into the diesel power systems. Three methods will be used: 1. power electronics connected with a heat recovery boiler for frequency control. 2. adaptations to diesel generators to enable low load operation 3. an integrated control system that operates both the wind turbine and diesel generators in a coordinated manner with ceramic thermal storage located in the residents of village elders. Two existing gensets will be modified to operate at low loads and low fuel consumption for extended periods of time. The main features of the conversion will consist of the addition of a boiler and boiler grid interface to provide reverse power protection to absorb wind gusts when operating aat neat zero kW, and to increase operating temperatures to eliminate cylinder glazing and wet stacking. The Smart Grid consists of a network of advanced meters, which receive information about the availability of green, or excess wind energy and make this energy available to the community at reduced rates, and enable devices to capture this energy. The meters communicate wirelessly, provide a user interface for customers and account for energy sold at different rates. The meters can be programmed for prepayment. The Smart Grid enables 20 thermal storage devices that are located in the homes of 20 village elders and these stoves capture and store excess wind energy for later use. The Smart Metering and the stoves create a system that allows wind energy to be sold as heat for 1/2 the cost of diesel heating. The Bethel Wind Project is designed to contribute clean, renewable wind power to the Bethel energy grid. The project area is about 1.5 miles northwest of the Bethel Airport on hilltop land owned by Bethel Native Corporation. Our power will be sold wholesale to BUC for distribution to its customers as normal. The size of our project is dependent on our ability to sell power, not on the wind resource, but we expect that a two MW project will be viable. The communities served could include Napakiak and Bethel. The grant participants will be Village Wind Power LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alaska Wind Power LLC). Alaska Wind Power LLC is owned by Alaska Power & Telephone Company, a certificated Alaska public utility, and LAPP Resources, Inc., a private Alaskan natural resource developer. We have invited both Bethel Native Corporation (BNC), whose land we are proposing to use for the wind farm site, and BUC who will distribute the electricity, to join us in this project as partners. Nether has made a decision on this yet. BNC entered into an exclusive use agreement with us for our evaluation of their site several months ago. We recently supplied a draft land lease to them and are currently negotiating its terns. We expect that the land lease will be in place by the end of the year, and equipment orders can be placed for delivery and construction in 2009. The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative is proposing to complete design, permitting and installation of three Northern 100B Wind Turbines, and new control modules, to provide wind power to the community of Quinhagak, which is located on the coast of the Bering Sea, west of Bethel in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta area. According to the "Quinhagak, ALaska Wind Resource Update Report" by V3 Energy LLC, Quinhagak has good wind power development potential. It classifies Quinhagak as a Class 4 wind resource with a projected 400 Watts per square meter wind power density at 50 meters. Project management is a collaborative approach. AVEC will provide overall project management, and electrical system engineering for the project. AVEC is in the process of hiring a construction management firm, who will be responsible for the design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbines, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. The supplier of the Northwind 100B wind turbines will also provide start-up training and commissioning services. Site control has been secured and permitting for installation of the wind turbines to the US Fish and Wildlife resulted in a no adverse impact determination. Our project involves the final design, permitting, construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of two wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Mekoryuk. Participants in the project include AVEC, STG, and Northern Power. AVEC will provide overall project management and electrical system engineering for the project. STG will be the general contractor, responsible for the design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbines, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. Northern Power will provide Northwind 100 wind turbines and startup & commissioning services. Site control has already been completed. The foundation design is completed. Permitting is underway, having already relocated the turbines in response to input from Fish & Wildlife. The Native Village of Napaimute, governed by its Traditional Council, is deliberately focused on the goal of its elders: to resettle the village. Using a combination of local resources, local labor, unwavering vision and hard work coupled with a think-outside-the-box approach the tribe has successfully leveraged in-kind, State or Federal funding to create its Community Plan; construct a village offices and a community building using local material; log and mill local wood to construct rental cabins and kits for sale; site, clear, survey and construct a pioneer airstrip; and to build a landfill. Since Napaimute received its land base through unusual means, it was through Administration for Native American funding that survey of its community lands was completed. This enabled the tribe to open a Home Site Program; people are resettling, the village growing. Napaimute Enterprises sells fuel; operates a small package store; rents cabins and the community center; operates a sawmill; has a coin-op washer and dryer; and offer showers. Commerce and our economic base are slowly growing, in accordance to our Community Plan. The cost of providing linked energy to rural Alaskan villages is staggering; individual energy systems must smartly utilize energy by reducing use of petroleum products. Our village, located on the Kuskokwim River, about 30 miles from Aniak works to be a model village where refuse is contained, development is planned and residents demonstrate their care and respect for the environment by minimizing their dependence on diesel; this is also a demonstration of the harsh economic environment. Our proposal will serve current and future members of the community (25 or so residential homes) along with a couple of families that live across the river and the countless river commuters who come to wash clothes and take a shower. NVN’s Director Development & Operations Mark Leary and Environmental Coordinator Mitchell Dammeyer will be directly involved in the management of this project. Both men are highly respected in the Kuskokwim and Mr. Leary has overseen most of Napaimute's development, literally from the brush up. Our project involves the final design, permitting, construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of one additional wind turbine to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Toksook Bay. Participants in the project include AVEC, STG, and Northern Power. AVEC will provide overall project management and electrical system engineering for the project. STG will be the general contractor, responsible for the design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbine, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. Northern Power will provide the Northwind 100 wind turbine and startup & commissioning services. The site is already under control and already contains three Northwind 100 wind turbines. Existing permits are in place and can be extended to cover the additional wind turbine. The project involves the installation of two wind turbines near the water treatment plant (WTP) in Hooper Bay, Alaska (see attached Project Area Maps, and Figure 1 for WTP Site Map). The two Northwind 100B 100kW wind turbines will provide a dedicated energy source for the WTP’s water heating system, providing approximately 539,000 kWh per year dedicated to an electric boiler inside the WTP. Wind-powered energy will offset the use of 15,995 gallons of fuel currently used in the three fuel oil-burning boilers. Northern will provide the wind towers and turbine technology, and STG will perform the installation of the towers and turbines. HDL will provide the geotechnical survey expertise and conduct environmental permitting. BBFM will do the structural design of the tower foundations. CE2 Engineers, the firm that designed and built the WTP, will supervise the engineering and wiring of the new boiler system. Wind Energy! Wind turbine system at vacinity community location Napaskiak, AK about 7 miles below Bethel, Alaska which service over 100 customers to commercial to residence. Wasteheat from generators to heat nearby facility-church, garage. The community of Crooked Creek, Ak along the Kuskokwim River, have long been interested in renewable power and have already researched a variety of possibilities, this year’s project initially will be to develop a finale list of potentially feasible methods, to explore feasibility studies and cost evaluation. We'll collect the necessary data by testing the feasibility of these considerations; by building prototypes that will supply us with the solid data to base our decisions on, to aid us in reduce our dependency on Fossil Fuels. This may require the combination of available technologies, some we're considering are Thermopile technology, Hydro power (four sources available here), Solar power, Wind, Residential producers, Wood gas and heat power production, We'll be verifying permitting requirements, Land right of ways and environmental, permitting obstacles identified. A Full study of Village Creek flow, explore methods to increase and extend its annual usage. As much as this is a fact finding mission, it is also a call to arms by the population of Crooked Creek. Our IGAP program will, with this grant, will ready us for all consideration. This project will be located in the upper Kobuk River Valley and will serve the villages of Kobuk, Shungnak, and Ambler. The applicant is Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority; other cooperating organizations include NANA Regional Corporation, Maniilaq Association, NANAPacific, WHPacific Inc., and Kobuk, Shungnak and Ambler Village Councils. An initial woody biomass site assessment was sponsored by NANAPacific in August, 2008 under a Department of Energy Tribal Energy Grant. Bill Wall, PhD conducted an initial reconnaissance study to determine the viability of a wood energy project. Dr. Wall also held presentations in each of the three villages to acquaint them with the scope and components of a wood energy program. The study determined that a wood energy program is viable and that all three of the villages are very interested in proceeding. In conjunction with the site visit a report completed in 1981 was reviewed which determined that woody biomass use was sustainable for region (citation attached). The proposed project will develop following analysis and fully complete each of the outline of tasks for a reconnaissance and feasibility study: 1. Resource Assessment will determine the sustainable level of biomass harvest in the Upper Kobuk; utilize Geographic Information Systems for future harvest planning; 2. Harvest System Assessment will assess a harvest cost delivery model based on two different scales: small individual village scale or a regional harvest scale to service all three villages; 3. Wood yard conceptual design that links production of wood products chips or cord wood with appropriate boiler configuration and a wood processing cost model; 4. Boiler feasibility and conceptual design to determine the most cost effective and best fit for chip or round wood boilers and the amount of annual wood usage, determination with a level one feasibility cost summary, the type of boiler locations and potential for district heating major buildings or houses. 5. Preliminary Business Models to determine the initial appropriate organization and ownership of harvest systems, wood yards, and wood energy utilities and basic costs and cash flows for each village. Many sources will be utilized including the Cold Climate Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska. 6. Communication process to fully involve the communities in supporting, empowering, and making the decisions on appropriate structure for sustainable wood utilization in the region. 7. Final Presentation to inform project partners and especially villages of the wood energy feasibility, business model, and key pros and cons of moving forward with program construction and implementation. Ambler is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, batteryless 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm in Ambler . It consists of 225 ea 224-watt panels on adjustable 6300 ft2 racking mounted directly on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation system. Each adjustable array utilizes one 7000 watt inverter providing 277 VAC power. Noatak is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, batteryless 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm in Noatak . It consists of 225ea 224-watt panels on adjustable 6,300 ft2 racking mounted on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation. Each adjustable array utilizes one 7000 watt inverter providing 277 VAC power. Shungnak is a village that can benefit from solar energy. it is proposed that a grid tied,batteryless 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm. it consists of 225ea 224-watt solar panels on an adjustable 6300 ft2 rack that is supported on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation. Multiple 7000 watt inverters provide 277 VAC power. Rural residents in NW Alaska are facing some of the highest costs anywhere in the nation. In order to proactively address the region’s energy crisis, KEA is working to implement long term energy options. While there are a variety of alternative energy options available to the Kotzebue region, such as wind, solar, and geothermal; wind energy has a proven track record of success in this community. The goals of the proposed project are: • To increase the wind capacity of KEA from 1.14 MW to 4.39 MW using 5 Fuhrlander 650kWs. • To integrate the increased wind capacity with a 600 kW / 1800 kWh Vanadium Red- Ox Flow Battery. • To utilize the excess electricity in a distributed heating system. This is a two year project. Year one involves performing all pre-construction and foundation construction tasks. Year two involves the wind turbine erection and commissioning. Rural Alaskans in the Northwest Arctic Borough, NWAB, are facing some of the highest costs anywhere in the nation. In order to proactively address the region’s Energy Crisis, declared by the NWAB in September 2008, the NWAB is working to implement long term energy options. While there are a variety of alternative energy options available in NW Alaska, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass; wind energy has a proven track record of success in our communities. Installing and integrating wind turbines in three villages is a big step toward securing the future of rural Alaska. The goals of the proposed project are: • To develop the wind energy potential in the communities of Buckland, Deering, and Noorvik, • To develop appropriate wind generation engineering plans and designs, and • To construct the necessary wind generation facilities (fully integrated with diesel power systems). This is a two year project. Year one involves performing both pre-construction and construction tasks in Deering and Noorvik as well as pre-construction tasks in Buckland. Year two involves construction tasks in Buckland. AVEC proposes a resource assessment/feasibility analysis/conceptual design project of hydropower sites in the Upper Kobuk region. We will evaluate at least twelve sites regarding their hydroelectric potential and will create conceptual designs for the most promising sites. The project will potentially serve the communities Kobuk, Ambler, Shungnak, and Kiana, as well as possible future industrial developments, which for the purposes of this application will be referred to collectively as the Upper Kobuk region. Key partners in the project will include NANA Pacific/NANA Regional Corporation, NovaGold/Mantra Mining and additional engineering consultants. NANA Pacific/NANA Regional Corporation will be responsible for coordination of all activities, developing and managing sub-contracts with appropriate sub-contractors and consultants, providing technical assistance, and completing the final report. Kotzebue Electric Association’s Cost of Energy Reduction Program will achieve a 25% reduction is diesel based power by installing, in part, a Vanadium Red-Ox Flow Battery Energy Storage System (VRFB) which will be able to provide 600 kW of power for three hours. This battery bank will increase voltage stability, increase the efficiencies of operating diesel generators, and capture excess wind energy during off-peak hours. While this installation will serve Kotzebue, the demonstrated technology could offer significant benefits to other villages as more wind energy is harnessed. The VRFB will benefit the KEA existing system in three specific ways. Diesel turbines run most efficiently when operating to the fullest capacity. Charging the battery, when the generator would otherwise operate below ideal conditions, will increase overall system efficiency. Secondly, KEA runs one EMD year round and supplements this with a second CAT generator when the load demands it. Instead of starting the second generator, the VRFB will supply the electricity. Normally, the CAT gen set is run approximately 3,200 hrs per year. This will be reduced less than 350 hrs per year with the VRFB online. This results to a direct reduction in diesel consumption. Thirdly, in order to realize the benefits of increasing the level of wind penetration in Kotzebue, energy storage MUST be utilized. The simple payback for the VRFB is under three years. Project consists of a combination of Solar and Wind power to offset the high cost of electricity to run City Hall, the washeteria and the Water Plant. The equipment providing this power would be adjacent and/or attached to the City Hall. The project manager and other needed project employees would be hired from the community. This project would serve the community of Ambler by way of a more efficiently run City Government. To lower the cost of running our City government and Water-sewer-plant is the most important work we have in front of us. Without this to offset the cost, the plant may have to be closed down. Current cost for water and sewer in Ambler is $ 120.00/houshold and actual cost to balance the budget would be about 400.00/houshold. The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Solid Waste Services Department (SWS) intends to develop an electric power generating plant to be located at the Anchorage Regional Landfill (ARL). The plant will use landfill gas (LFG), a byproduct of anaerobic waste decomposition, as its primary fuel. Electricity generated by the project will be sold and delivered to the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) distribution system to provide power to Eagle River and Southcentral Alaska. SWS will negotiate a power sales agreement with the end power user, likely MEA, and select of a development partner to design, build and operate the plant. The South Fork hydroelectric project is a low-impact run-of-river project located in Eagle River, Alaska. The project will be located on a private homestead off Hiland Road in Eagle River. Energy from the project would be provided into the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) grid. South Fork Hydro, LLC (SFH) is the project proponent, and would contribute funding, own, and operate the project. SFH has already completed reconnaissance, feasibility, and permitting efforts. Final design is currently in progress, and construction is planned for 2009. Final design would be completed by members of South Fork Hydro, LLC. Construction would be completed by South Fork Construction, Inc., with some construction tasks subcontracted as appropriate. Subcontractors for significant budget items would be selected through a competitive bidding process. Wind Energy Alaska (WEA), plans to construct a 6 megawatt (MW) wind generation facility on CIRI-owned land near the village of Nikolaevsk, located on the southern Kenai Peninsula (Figure 1 of Section 7). The electricity generated by the project will be interconnected to the Anchor Point Substation, which is owned and operated by the Homer Electric Association (HEA). The project includes the construction of the wind generation plant, with four 1.5 MW GE wind turbines, a new 1.9 mile access road, and a distribution line approximately 10 miles in length from the plant to the Anchor Point Substation in Nikolaevsk. See Appendix J photographs representative of the GE wind turbines and the distribution line proposed for the project. HEA is one of the six prime electric cooperatives, or utilities, that serves the Alaska Railbelt transmission grid. This grid includes Anchorage, Fairbanks, Matanuska–Susitna, and the Kenai Peninsula and serves about 75 percent of Alaska’s population. This portion of the population consumes more than 85 percent of the State’s electrical power. HEA is a memberowned electric cooperative that serves most of Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula. HEA serves approximately 20,153 members at 28,547 metered locations, 2,200 miles of energized line, within a service area of 3,166 square miles. WEA, CIRI, and enXco are project proponents. WEA is investigating other prospective wind sites on the Kenai Peninsula in the Caribou Hills area. HEA and Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach) are potential power customers. WEA has contracted URS/Tryck, Nyman and Hayes to provide design engineering, permitting, and construction management of the project. GVEA has been monitoring the wind resource at the Eva Creek Site since 2003 or for five years and has found a resource with approximately a 33% to 36% capacity factor. The Eva Creek Wind Project’s proximity to the Northern Intertie is key to its value, making the interconnection viable. The site is located on the east side of the Nenana River near Ferry, Alaska, in the GVEA service territory in the Interior. The area could support up to 150 MW of wind generation but GVEA would like to start by installing a 24 MW wind project. The proposed site is on a dirt road system that was developed to provide access to numerous mining claims in the area which would need some improvements,. The dirt road system is not connected to the highway system. Currently, access is gained by walking across a Railroad bridge. Some infrastructure improvements will need to be made including road improvements for access to the site, a substation, and a way to get equipment across the Nenana River. Eva Creek is located near Ferry, Alaska, near Healy off the Parks Highway. The entire GVEA service area will be served by this renewable energy project and the entire Railbelt potentially could be served by future expansion. GVEA has had an alternative energy team in place for the past decade. Wind has been a focal point of interest and investment. In 2002 GVEA contracted with Sterling Management Services to begin a series of studies evaluating the potential capacity of several sites within the service area after which it became clear Eva Creek had the best potential for success. Communities to be served: GVEA service 3,893 square miles extending 130 miles south including communities from Cantwell on the Parks Highway north through Healy, Anderson, Nenana, Ester, Fairbanks and 100 miles south on the Richardson through North Pole and Salcha to Delta Junction. More than 100,000 residents are in the area with 33,000 members and 43,000 meters. The members of the team who will be involved in the grant project will combine the talents and experience of existing GVEA staff and wind expert consultants and at the appropriate time the contractor for construction. GVEA personnel and contracted consultants will be working on this project. The GVEA team includes: • Kathryn K. Lamal, Vice President of Power Supply, GVEA • Mike Wright, PE, Vice President of Transmission and Distribution, GVEA • Tim DeVries, PE, Manager of Engineering Services, GVEA • Paul Morgan, Wind Specialist and Alternative Energy Team member, GVEA • Daniel R. Bishop, PE, Senior Engineer, GVEA • Henri Dale, PE, GVEA Power System Manager • Paul Parks, PE, Power Supply Engineer, GVEA Sterling Energy Management, LLC of California is the contractor wind consulting firm, naming senior consultants Ron Fawcett, Jake Drews and Jon Lantz to this project. This project is designed to demonstrate power generation using combusted biomass as a heat source to drive an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) power plant module designed and developed by United Technologies Corporation. The module is based on the award-winning geothermal power plant installed at Chena Hot Springs Resort; however the biomass version will operate at significantly higher efficiency. These efficiency improvements are necessary because unlike the geothermal fluid, biomass material is not a ‘free’ fuel. In addition to being designed for maximum thermal efficiency, the power plant includes load following capability, and independent, simple, remotely monitored operation at low pressures that do not require special training to operate. This is important because while the project will be located in North Pole, Alaska, the power plant is specifically designed for rural Alaskan applications. The project will be constructed and managed by Chena Power, LLC and will be located at the K&K Recycling Facility located at Mile 9 on the Richardson Highway. Design work and assembly of the power plant will be completed by United Technologies Corporation through their Research Center (UTRC). Wind Energy Alaska (WEA) wishes to construct a 3.2 megawatt (MW) Landfill Gas (LFG) to Energy Generation Facility at the Anchorage Regional Landfill, located east of the Glenn Highway near Eagle River, Alaska. The Anchorage Regional Landfill is owned and operated by the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), Solid Waste Service (SWS). With an in-service date of April, 2010, this project is designed for incremental growth beginning with 3.2 MW and up to 6.4 MW within the next 15 years with additional capacity as needed. Landfill gas flow records and projected fill rates at the landfill over the next 20 years support the potential for this level of electric power production. MOA would receive royalty payments to compensate for use of land and LFG for the project. This revenue could be used to offset tipping fees at the landfill to benefit the public. In addition to power generation, the proposed project will include a heat recovery system that will recover waste heat from the LFG engines to be used in nearby office and storage building presently heated with a natural gas. The natural gas fuel cost savings will reduce landfill operating costs. The landfill is located near the existing power lines that feed into the electric system and the Railbelt grid. The U.S. Army Fort Richardson, Elmendorf Air Force Base, ML&P, Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), MOA’s Anchorage Regional Landfill and SWS are potential power customers. WEA has contracted HDR Alaska, Inc. to provide design engineering, permitting, and construction management of the project. HDR has LFG design experience and has assisted in the development of cost estimates for this project. The Fishhook Creek hydroelectric project is a low-impact run-of-river project located in Hatcher Pass, Alaska. The project will be located on a combination of mostly state land and some borough land off Hatcher Pass Road. Energy from the project would be provided into the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) grid. Fishhook Renewable Energy, LLC (FRE) is the project proponent, and would contribute funding, own, and operate the project. FRE has already completed reconnaissance, feasibility, and conceptual design efforts, and is currently in the permitting and contract negotiation processes for the project. With timely completion of permitting, contract negotiations, and financing, construction will occur in 2009. Final design would be completed by members of FRE. Construction would be completed by qualified contractors and subcontractors selected through a competitive bidding process. The proposed 5 to 7-MW Grant Lake/Falls Creek hydro project is located near Moose Pass, Alaska (see map in HDR’s attached site assessment). Kenai Hydro seeks to develop the project in compliance with current low impact hydro guidelines and practices. The scope of this project will also involve looking at the feasibility of a design that includes diverting flows from Falls Creek into Grant Lake. Kenai Hydro has secured a Preliminary Permit for this project, issued by FERC on October 7, 2008. A copy of the Preliminary Permit is attached in the Section 7 appendices. Power from the project would be available to customers of Homer Electric Association and other areas served by the existing Railbelt transmission grid. Kenai Hydro, LLC is a partnership among Homer Electric Association (HEA), enXco and Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) that was formed for the purpose of evaluating and developing this site as a low impact hydroelectric facility. Additional information on this project may be found in the attached initial site assessment reported by HDR Alaska, Inc. The NPEP Waste Heat Recovery Project consists of installing 520' of underground supply and return piping, a glycol distribution piping system inside NPPP, installing 12 glycol unit heaters with VFDs, and HVAC controls. GVEA will manage and administrate the project, perform the electrical/control installation, commissioning, and startup of the system. The mechanical portion of the work will be performed by a mechanical contractor. Electric power conservation/fuel savings will benefit all of GVEA's 33,000 members from Cantwell to Delta Junction. The Delta Wind Project is designed to contribute clean, renewable wind power to the railbelt energy grid. The project area is about 25 miles south of Delta Junction on Coal Mine Road. We are currently funding an Interconnection Study with Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) to identify costs associated with putting wind power on their transmission system near Delta Junction. The results of the interconnection study will be used to formulate a power tariff for sale of our power to GVEA. The size of our project is dependent on our ability to sell power, not on the wind resource, but we expect that a 40 to 50 MW project could be achievable. The communities served will include all communities within the GVEA’s service area that purchase power from GVEA, including Delta Junction, North Pole, Fairbanks, Fox, College, Nenana, and Healy, as well as two major gold mines, Fort Knox and Pogo. The grant participants will include Alaska Wind Power LLC (the project owner) and an environmental contactor, yet to be selected, to conduct the field work and report the results. The federal Bureau of Land Management has not identified any threatened or endangered species of wildlife in the project area. However, the area does include “potential” habitat for at least four species of birds currently listed on BLM-Alaska’s Sensitive Status Species List. Pre-development surveys should be conducted within the project area to locate any sensitive species of concern. The avian surveys that are the subject of this grant application are described below. Task 1—Raptor Survey To locate eagle nests in the vicinity of the wind farm, we would conduct a fixed-wing aerial survey to search for active Bald or Golden eagle nests within 10 miles of all proposed wind farm facilities. A raptor biologist will accompany a pilot (Piper Supercub) for 1 day of surveys. Task 2—Spring Migration Surveys (Diurnal) Spring migration occurs in the area from about early April to mid May, with peak periods for species varying during that time span, thus prolonged sampling would be cost-prohibitive. Instead, we suggest a targeted approach to sample periods when the most birds and species would be moving through the area. A biological technician will collect daily observations during two 10-day windows (20 days total) to help characterize the species, relative abundance, and distributional use (geographic and altitudinal) of birds using the proposed wind farm. Task 3—Summer Bird Use at the Wind farm Site Summer bird use of the wind farm area is primarily associated with the local breeding populations, and the objective of this task is to characterize use of the area by breeding birds. A biological technician will collect bird observations during six 1-day visits to the wind farm site in summer. Two visits will occur in each month during June, July, and August. Task 4—Fall Migration Surveys (Diurnal) Fall migration in the area is more prolonged than spring migration, but most larger migratory birds (waterfowl and cranes) move through the area in late August to early October. To characterize fall migration, a biological technician will collect daily observations during three 9-day periods and record species, relative abundance, and distribution (geographic and altitudinal) of birds using the proposed wind farm site. Task 5—Fall Migration Surveys (Nocturnal) Because many species groups (e.g., waterfowl, passerines) migrate during the night, nocturnal techniques (such as radar) are required to assess migration. We propose to measure nocturnal migration rates and characteristics (e.g., altitude and direction) with a mobile radar lab, concurrent with diurnal investigations for three 9-day periods. We are recommending radar monitoring only for fall migration because 1) the nocturnal period then is longer than during spring, 2) more birds, including young-of-the-year (i.e., less experienced flyers) travel through the Tanana Valley in fall, and 3) we believe some nocturnal studies will occur in spring 2009 close to Delta Junction . This project will consist of twenty (20) wind turbines to make a collective 2MW "wind farm" in Delta Junction and will be the first project of its kind to integrate into the Railbelt Grid using an "experimental" program by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), by using "proven" cold-weather technology (Northwind 100 turbines with direct-drive motors) which have already been successfully used in Alaska's cold weather, as well as a proven "test" turbine (the first of twenty 100kW turbines) at the same location just erected and successfully tested by GVEA. This will serve all the communities that are on the Railbelt Grid and can produce enough electricity to power 600 homes each year without any emissions or environmental harm of any kind. Mike Craft, Managing Partner for Alaska Environmental Power, LLC (AEP) will be spearheading this project as its P.M. (Project Manager), in conjunction with Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), and a team of well qualified individuals and businesses necessary for the construction and erection of the wind turbines for final connection to GVEA's power source connecting it to the Railbelt Grid and all those consumers who receive power from the Grid. We are ready to install at 2009 break-up. We have secured a contract with the manufacturer-Northern Power Systems (Exhibit C), the crane company-Precision Crane (Exhibit D), the bold manufacturer-Williams Form Engineering (Exhibit E), the PVC supplier-Crescent Electric (Exhibit F), embedment rings and concrete forms-Greer Tank and Welding (Exhibit T), concrete and pump truck-University Redi-Mix (Exhibit U) and a twenty-year experimental power purchase agreement (PPA) with Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) (Exhibit G), at a 5.59 meters per second wind regime as determined by our meteorological data. The Kenai Winds project is a 15-18MW wind energy generation facility located in the Nikiski Industrial Area, in Nikiski, on the Kenai peninsula. The project will consist of 10 wind turbines disbursed throughout the site, electrically interconnected to the Tesoro Alaska Refinery. A discussion of the refinery and its direct benefits to the community is included in Appendix O. At times when the Kenai Winds generation exceeds the needs of the refinery, power will be sold to others. Electric energy will be delivered and sold to the oil refinery, providing low-cost power, and helping ensure the economic viability of the refinery. This project is located in Girdwood (See Exhibit A). AGE proposes to install a natural gas powered CHP plant with its efficiency enhanced by the TEG unit that will provide heat and power to Girdwood Elementary and the Girdwood public by feeding power into the local electrical grid. Thermal energy will be provided to Girdwood Elementary for space heating, snow melt, and heated pedestrian walkways as well as the research center itself. Two micro-hydro projects located at California and Virgin Creeks will provide hydro power generation to supplement the CHP/TPG plant during periods of sufficient flow estimated at 8 months per year. Again, many rural communities have micro-hydro potential. Small scale solar and wind energy will be developed at the proposed CHP/TPG site adjacent to Girdwood Elementary near California Creek again to demonstrate how alternative sources can supplement an efficient power plant in rural settings. This Construction Project is based on the following reconnaissance level findings: · CHP and TEG power generation systems are proven technologies that, together, are more than twice as efficient as current power generation systems in Girdwood and will reduce the schools carbon footprint by more than half. · Several steep, rapid-flow streams are located in Girdwood. · Solar and wind levels are adequate for demonstration and research purposes. · Available Geo-thermal and tidal energy will provide future research and educational opportunities for UAA staff and students. Finally, other public and private grant funds will be sought to construct a Renewable Energy Research and Discovery Center for UAA. The center is proposed to be constructed on donated Municipality of Anchorage land adjacent to the Girdwood Elementary School. This center will house and showcase the CHP/TEG, and have a small wind generator and solar panels. The micro-hydro projects will be tied into the CHP/TEG. In the same building will be classroom and research space for UAA researchers and students. The public Renewable Energy Discovery Center will be in the front of this building and will be staffed by UAA students. This center will facilitate the study of other renewable sources of energy such as tidal and fuel cells. The City of Whittier proposes conducting a renewable energy project consisting of a reconnaissance level effort to examine the viability of hydropower on Whittier Creek in Whittier, Alaska. The work will include engineering analysis, an economic study, and two years of stream guage data gathering. The final product will include an estimated generation capacity, a preliminary cost estimate for a hydropower facility, and a preliminary analysis of the potential benefits (i.e. power cost savings over time). This effort will be performed by the Alaska District Corps of Engineers with assistance from the Corps of Engineers Hydroelectric Design Center based out of Portland, Oregon, with stream guaging to be performed by the USGS. The City of Whittier proposes conducting a renewable energy project consisting of a reconnaissance level effort to examine the viability of hydropower on Whittier Creek in Whittier, Alaska. Although Chugach Electric currently provides electricity to Whittier, frequent and prolonged outages, particularly during the winter months, necessitates the need to develop alternate energy sources for a local generation system that could also supply the Railbelt when not needed as a primary provider to the community. The project would assess the potential for the development of Whittier into a sustainable community that utilizes renewable energy systems. The Fourth of July Creek hydroelectric project is a low-impact run-of-river project located near Seward, Alaska. The project would be located east of the Spring Creek Correctional Facility, across Resurrection Bay from the city of Seward. Energy from the project would be provided into the Seward Electric System grid. Independence Power, LLC (IP) is the project developer, and would contribute funding and own and operate the project. IP would manage the pre-construction study process, completing some efforts internally, and contracting out other activities to qualified consultants as appropriate. Construction would be completed by qualified contractors selected through a competitive bidding process. The proposed project will take place on the Tanana River adjacent to the community of Nenana. Nenana was chosen due to a combination of strong local support for the project, available technical assistance and infrastructure, and location on the road system within close proximity to the University of Alaska Fairbanks. These factors increase the likelihood of project success while minimizing costs. This project will be administered by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, with significant contributions from the University of Maine, Yukon River Intertribal Watershed Council, the Tribal and City Councils of Nenana, and Ocean Renewable Power Corporation (ORPC). The primary purpose of the project is to successfully address the numerous challenges associated with installing hydrokinetic devices in Alaska’s riverine environments. This will be accomplished through a comprehensive resource assessment (biological and physical), followed by the installation of a ‘dummy’ open architecture turbine to assess operations in challenging environments (including interactions with ice and debris) without damaging expensive real turbine equipment. Finally, this project will involve the design, construction, deployment and initial testing of a first commercial hydrokinetic device at the site. It is hoped that beyond the scope of this project, the University of Alaska will continue to operate the Nenana site as a test center to assess other devices and work with manufacturers to improve designs. It is also hoped that ORPC, as the holder of the FERC permit for the site, will continue to manage their operation in conjunction with the testing center and supply electric power to the local grid. The Delta/Greely School District proposes a Wood Chip Boiler Heating System to heat 77,000 sq. ft. of educational space in the sub-arctic. The legal description of the Delta High School complex is 64 degrees 02' 35.66" N 145 degrees 42' 57.10"W. The building would be located 50 feet away from the Delta High School new mechanical room. This Wood Chip Boiler Heating System constructs and installs the following: Cement building to house wood chip boiler, chip storage room, 4 chip storage trailers, and a chip feeding and chip drying process. The direct impact of this Wood Chip Boiler Heating System will be the Delta High School complex staff and students as well as the community groups that use this facility on a weekly basis. The following communities are served by this facility: Delta Junction, Fort Greely Garrison and its contractors, Gerstle River, and the greater Deltana area. The businesses, non-profit agencies, Farm Forum, Relay for Life, Fish and Game, Department of Motor Vehicles, Delta Chamber of Commerce, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts to name a few groups. All use the Delta High School complex during the year. Finally, the following groups will be involved in this project: Delta/Greely School District (DGSD), the Delta/Greely School Board, DGSD Facilities Committee, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Forestry, CTA, CE2 Engineers, T.R. Miles Technical Consultants, Delta Logging and Milling Associates, and USKH (an architecture, engineering, land surveying and planning company). Golden Valley Electric Association proposes the construction of a solar water heating system to be used by the Denali Education Center (DEC). This proposed solar water heating system would be used to displace fossil fuel energy (specifically, electricity) that is currently used to heat water and space for these end-users. DEC is located just south of the 64th northern latitude, about eight miles south of the Denali NAtional Park entrance at mile post 231.1 on the east side of the Parks Highway bridge that crosses over the Nenana River. It is a non-profit research, education and communication organization with cooperative interaction to Denali National Park and all its summer-time visitors. The DEC's campus serves people who visit and stay there during the summer tourist season. There are 13 cabins on the campus, a campus center and other outbuildings. Currently, the peak number who lodge and work at the Center during the summer in about 75 people, with an anticipated near-future growth up to 100 people. GVEA also plans to work ABS Alaskan and Jim Norman, principal and owner. The reconnaissance study, followed by a more detailed feasibility study will analyze the feasibility of supplying the town of Anchorage, Alaska with heat from geothermal energy sources. IAE has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Municipality of Anchorage to facilitate such a study. The Municipality of Anchorage has agreed to support the feasibility study efforts by providing information about the potential for geothermal energy use in Anchorage as well as right of way information. If the results of the feasibility study prove to be positive for development, IAE will work towards developing the project. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Anchorage and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the Anchorage Municipal Landfill adjacent to Route 1 on the Glenn Highway just east of town. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the Anchorage Solid Waste Services. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Services Sector for the Municipality of Anchorage. The proposed plant project will convert the Anchorage waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with Anchorage Solid Waste Services and City staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. The Division of Forestry at Milepost 267.5 Richardson Highway, Delta Junction, Alaska is proposing a pilot project using barley/wood pellets for heating a governmental building. The boiler system will combine two heating systems, a 3840 square foot (sf) main office building, proposed 3000 sf addition, and a 1792 sf warehouse. The boiler will be located in a separate building which will house a heating system and barley/wood pellet storage. The grant will involve local contractors for construction and maintenance. The agricultural industry will provide barley as a biomass fuel. Excess barley not currently used for animal or human consumption is available from the local farming community. Two pellet facilities are being constructed in Delta Junction. End of the Alcan is in the final stages of completing a commercial pellet manufacturing facility. Logging and Milling Associates (LMA) has purchased wood pellet manufacturing equipment and is in the process of installation of the equipment. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for FNSB and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the FNSB Municipal Landfill in Fairbanks. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the FNSB Solid Waste Division. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Division for FNSB. The proposed plant project will convert the FNSB waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with FNSB Solid Waste Services and Borough staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Mat-Su and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the Mat-Su Municipal Landfill in Palmer. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the Mat-Su Solid Waste Division. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Division for Mat-Su. The proposed plant project will convert the Mat-Su waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with Mat-Su Solid Waste Services and Borough staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. We are proposing the first 10 MW Utility-Grade Geothermal Development in Alaska. This 10 MW project would be able to extract geothermal power from the base of either Redoubt or Spur by 2105. The reference Project would begin with the Remote Construction... The Native Village of Cantwell wishes to improve the reliability and lower the cost of the community of Cantwells power system. Currently they obtain power from the line between MEA and GVEA. To accomplish this they propose to build a hydroelectric project on the Jack River a short distance from Cantwell. The installed capacity of this plant will be in exccess of 1 MW. It will be comprised of a dam and a short tunnel. A feasibility design and scoping are required to provide the parameters of the project. 5 MW natural gas fired Combined Heat & Power Project (“CHP” or “Cogeneration”), sited at the Alaska State Fair in Palmer (the “Fair) as the centerpiece of an Alaska Energy Center, to showcase renewable and alternative energy technologies, provide the energy needs of the Fair and operations sited at the Fair, provide the thermal energy needs of commercial, institutional and agricultural customers within economic reach of the Project, and provide firm power to help MEA meet new generation needs. 5 MW natural gas fired Combined Heat & Power Project (“CHP” or “Cogeneration”), sited near the Begich Tower, to provide the energy needs of the Begich Tower and thermal energy needs of City of Whittier, Public School and commercial customers within economic reach of the Project, and provide firm power to help Chugach meet new generation needs and improve service reliability to Whittier. EarthRun Energy will provide a sustainable source of high grade wood chips for biomass heating in the city of Anchorage, Alaska while strengthening and beautifying the urban forests. In Anchorage, urban forests are currently overgrown presenting fire and disease problems. It is the right time to make a sick forest a productive and healthy forest. EarthRun has worked hard to come up with the cleanest, quietest and least interruptive way of harvesting the dead and unhealthy trees from our urban forests, chipping them, and heating one municipal building, the Russian Jack greenhouse. EarthRun Energy will work closely with the municipality to return the forests to a healthy state. Mt. Alice Harbor Development project is in and around Seward at mile 2 Nash Rd. the service road to the NE side of Ressurection bay 1.5 miles across from the municipal boat harbor on the NW side, serving the needs of the local population as a community and destination resort, boating access and public access to the Fishing resources of the area. Also serving the needs of the international community supporting Seward,s role as a burgeoning Summertime international tourism hub and promoting the sustainability of year round tourism. Local Engineers, Surveyors, Municipal department heads etc. have expressed positive input and eagerness to work on the project. The Architects, Project managers are ready to proceed. AGE’s management and engineering team in collaboration with the UAA School of Engineering is proposing this PROJECT that when proven will provide rural communities with CBM resources an inexpensive energy source that will provide sustainable heat and power 24/7 365 days a year. This PROJECT will develop an Arctic Ready Combined Heat and Power Unit powered by CBM gas that will have direct application to rural communities with viable CBM resources. The PROJECT has three parallel components with appropriate milestones. · Component 1 will construct and complete Fowler Oil and Gas’s (FOG) Kircher CBM Well located at the corner of Trunk and Bogard Roads, Palmer, Alaska (see Exhibit A). . This well is located near the Colony Middle/High School Complex (Colony Schools). FOG’s Kircher Well is permitted, bonded and construction can be initiated as soon as grant funding is available. · Component 2 will pipe CBM gas from the Kircher well to a prototype skid mounted Arctic Ready Combined Heat and Power Unit at the Colony Schools. AGE will be the IPP that will own and operate this CHP system. · Component 3 will assess the CBM resources at 7 communities located through out rural Alaska. The seven communities will be selected from the 38 villages identified by the State of Alaska as having potential CBM resources (see Exhibit B). AGE has completed the initial reconnaissance assessment of these communities with the results summarized in Exhibit C These 38 communities are within the boundaries of 7 of the 13 Regional Native Corporations. AGE recommends selecting one community from within each Native Corporation boundary to ensure that the test projects will cover a broad geographic area. The final selection of the seven communities will be a public process with input from a proposed Project Assessment Team made up of AGE and our sub-consultants, USGS, BLM, DNR-DGGS, local power producers such as AVEC and Regional Corporations. All PROJECT Components are related but can stand alone if required. For example, if the Kircher Well does not produce CBM, then the Colony Schools Prototype CHP can be operated using available natural gas. Confirming FOG’s CBM technology will address the critical environmental and social concerns associated with CBM well spacing and produced water management that have plagued Lower 48 CBM developments. FOG’s process uses directional/horizontal drilling that allows well spacing on one well per Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 18 2008-Oct-08 Z:\AEA Grant 2008\Artic Ready CHP CBM\AR AEA Grant Application-final.doc 640 acres compared to one vertical well per 10 acres used in standard CBM development. FOG’s technology uses in-ground dewatering compared to above ground management and disposal of produced water. FOG’s technology will revolutionize CBM development within the state and nationally. Most importantly, FOG’s process will result in a sustainable technology that can be easily managed and operated in rural Alaska communities with minimum social and environmental impacts. The Applicant owns and operates Motherload Lodge located near the Little Susitna River. The 4.9 acre plot of land is privately owned but segments of the proposed project will be locataed on land owned by the State of Alaska Park Service. The Motherload Lodge currently utilizes 3 diesel fuel generators to power the facility and accounts for a significant percentage of annual operating expenses. The company plans to construct a 50kW run of river project on Delia Creek. The proposed project, The Delia Creek Alternative Energy Project (DCAEP), will utilize water flow from the Delia Creek to power electricity to the Motherload Lodge. The project will include an intake site, underground penstock and powerhouse. The hydroelectric system will be intergrated with the current fuel generator system. Out of the 3 gensets, 2 gensets will be removed immediately and the third genset, replaced with a smaller genset. DCAEP will be headed by Project Manager, Jill Reese, Owner and sole member of HPML LLC. This project is called the North Prince of Wales Island Intertie Project (Project). AP&T proposes to construct a line extension to the communities of Coffman Cove and Naukati Bay, placing these communities on the Prince of Wales Island (POW) electric grid which is supplied with renewable energy from two hydroelectric projects. Both of these communities currently rely on 100% diesel generation for electricity. The total line is to be 48 miles (Coffman Cove = 37 miles; Naukati Bay = 11 miles) of overhead 4/0 ACSR three-phase 34.5 kV line with a 1/0 ACSR neutral conductor on single pole wood structures. This line extension will come off the existing 34.5 kV line from between Klawock and Thorne Bay, near Control Lake. The route is shown on enclosed diagrams in Section 7 – Appendices. Naukati Bay is 11 miles off the main road to Coffman Cove. Phase I: Reconnaissance This phase is already completed with previous reconnaissance along the highway to determine how many poles, etc. will be needed to complete project. Phase II: Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design A feasibility assessment based on the condition of the new highway and right-of-way (ROW) to access the proposed pole locations, including anchoring and corner structure and transformers, to develop the conceptual design of project components will need to occur. AP&T is presently in discussion with SHPO as to whether an archaeological survey is necessary for this project. No other environmental surveys are anticipated due to the project being in or adjacent to the highway ROW which passes through some clear-cut's as well. Phase III: Final Design & Permitting In this phase permits will be acquired, acquiring legal access to lands, and final design for the construction phase including a final survey of the route. Permits needed: COE permit, Forest Service Special-Use Permit, Alaska Dept. of Transportation easement, and SHPO review. Phase IV: Construction Construction phase would include mobilization (acquiring materials, i.e. wood poles, conductor, cross-arms, transformers, etc., contracting with local companies to provide materials and equipment, and preparing ROW, i.e. brushing, etc. and installing the transmission line; and interconnecting with AP&T's existing infrastructure in both Coffman Cove and Naukati Bay. A monthly report can be made during construction to AEA of progress and expenditures (or AEA Renewable Energy Fund NORTH POW INTERTIE PROJECT Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 18 10/7/2008 quarterly on expenditures to reduce paperwork). The applicant, along with the State Department of Transportation (ADOT), proposes to build a road and 69-kV transmission line to connect the community of Kake with Petersburg. The road/intertie will allow the delivery of surplus hydropower available from the Tyee project to Kake and eliminate its total reliance upon diesel generation. The community of Kake will continue to be served by the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC). The transmission line infrastructure will be owned and operated by the Kwaan Electric Intertie Cooperative, Inc. (KWETICO, the applicant), who will charge IPEC for wheeling power to Kake. The road project will allow Kake citizens access to Petersburg's infrastructure including major air transportation, medical facilities, more frequent ferry service, engine repair facilities, and various services and industries not available in Kake. The Intertie will also provide broadband telecommunications to the community of Kake, and savings to the State's Power Cost Equalization Program. The project is part of the overall Southeast Intertie plan commissioned and supported by Southeast Conference and regional leaders. The road/Intertie dual construction will save money for both ADOT and KWETICO, and will facilitate access to the transmission line for repairs and maintenance. The Falls Creek Hydro Electric Project is an 800 kW run-of-river hydroelectric facility, located in Gustavus Alaska, which will provide electric power to the community of Gustavus. The project is being built by Gustavus Electric Company to displace existing diesel generation. Construction of the project is approximately 90% complete and will provide 90% of the communities electric needs.. The Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Project (“Reynolds Creek” or the “Project”) is a 5.0 MW hydroelectric resource to be constructed on Prince of Wales Island approximately ten miles east of Hydaburg. The Project will interconnect with the existing transmission grid on the island and will be used by the residents and businesses of Craig, Klawock, Hollis, Hydaburg, Thorne Bay, and Kasaan. In addition, once the interconnected grid is expanded to Coffman Cove and Naukati, those two communities will also directly benefit from Reynolds Creek. The Project will be constructed and owned by the Haida Power, Inc., a joint venture between the Haida Corporation and Alaska Power & Telephone. The proposed hybrid ground source heat pump system at the new Dimond Park Aquatic Center is to be located in Juneau’s Mendenhall Valley, adjacent the new Thunder Mountain High School and Riverbend Elementary on the Dimond Park site. The facility will primarily serve Juneau residents, but will also serve visitors from nearby southeast Alaska communities and other visitors to Juneau. The City & Borough of Juneau Engineering and Parks and Recreation Departments are directly involved with the design and construction of the facility, as is the Juneau School District. A professional design team led by local architectural firm Jensen Yorba Lott, Inc. is responsible for the project design and construction administration. The City & Borough of Juneau Engineering Department is responsible for design and construction Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 18 9/3/2008 management and progress reports to grant agencies as required. The City & Borough of Juneau Finance Department is responsible for project funding and financial reporting to grant agencies as required. A “Pool Advisory Task Force” consisting of twelve community representatives is also participating in the oversight of the project design. The project’s construction contractor will be selected by competitive bid per the City & Borough of Juneau ordinances and is not known at this time. The use of a hybrid ground source heat pump system in lieu of conventional oil or electric heat systems at the Dimond Park Aquatic Center is supported by the Pool Advisory Task Force, the City & Borough of Juneau Engineering and Parks Departments, the Juneau School District, and the City & Borough of Juneau Assembly and Administration. The proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11841 (Project) is located near the southeast end of Revillagigedo Island, approximately four miles east of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska. KPU proposes to install 4.6 MW of hydropower generating capacity at KPU’s existing Whitman Lake Dam to provide an additional source of clean renewable energy to KPU’s customers, in the city of Ketchikan and the Borough area including Saxman Village, while also enhancing the conversion of oil heat to electric heat and displacing expensive and nonrenewable diesel generation. The Project will be interconnected to KPU’s existing distribution system and the grant project will involve KPU. Haines, within Southeast Alaska, will benefit from reasonably-priced housing. The Chilkoot Indian Association is proposing to construct and operate four-plex housing (four buildings with sixteen units) incorporating a cordwood-fired boiler system. The project is initiated by our Housing Department, who will manage the subsidized, low-income housing project. A separate boiler/fuel storage building will be built on one lot and recirculate hot water to be used in each four-plex for building heat and domestic hot water. Architectural, civil, mechanical, and electrical design is complete except for an engineering refit to accommodate the wood boiler system. Our proposal will be for heating system redesign and construction. Yakutat Power is located in Yakutat, Alaska. The City and Borough of Yakutat has a population of 631, and is located at the mouth of Yakutat Bay along the Gulf of Alaska, 225 miles northwest of Juneau and 220 miles southeast of Cordova. Yakutat receives monthly barge service during the winter and more frequent service during summer. Yakutat is equipped with two jet-certified runways and receives jet service daily. The U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service have offices in Yakutat. This project will convert readily available biomass to a producer gas (wood gasification) that will be used to reduce diesel fuel consumption at the Yakutat Power plant. The Biomax 75 is based on proven technology with recent additional improvements for use in cold weather climates. Direct beneficiaries of this project include all Yakutat Power electric service customers. Participants in the project include Yakutat Power, the City and Borough of Yakutat, the U.S. Forestry Service, National Park Service, and Community Power Corp - the Biomax 75 developer, Yakutat Power ill be the Grantee under the Renewable Energy Fund grant. Yakutat Power has teamed up with the engineering firm of Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (AE&E) to provide design, permitting, and system integration and construction management. AE&E has a long history of successful energy-related projects throughout Alaska, and has worked with Yakutat Power on several energy-related projects dating back to 1991. The proposed project would be located in an unincorporated area, northeast of the City of Petersburg, Alaska. Development of hydroelectric power at the site will include construction of a lake tap, arch dam, unlined tunnel, power penstock, power plant, tailrace, and transmission line segments. Project features would include: • Reservoir. Ruth Lake is fed primarily by rainfall and snowmelt, with some smaller firn or hanging glaciers that contribute melt water during the summer months. . The Project would include a dam to provide a potential usable stored capacity of 17,000 acre-feet. • Lake Tap / Power Conduit. The inlet works would consist of an arch dam and lake tap. As presently planned water would initially flow through a 10-foot diameter tunnel for approximately 3,500 feet. The remaining 7,800 feet of the conduit system would consist of a 6-foot diameter buried or surface steel penstock. • Powerhouse. The powerhouse would be located within 2,000 ft. of the confluence of Delta Creek and would house three impulse turbines, each with a total rated head of 1,300 ft. The rated installed capacity of the powerhouse would be 20 MW and the energy output would be roughly 70 GWh. • Access Roads. The Project is separated from the nearest town of Petersburg by Frederick Sound. The only access for either construction or long-term operation and maintenance of the Project will be via boat or aircraft. A dock would be located on Thomas Bay for loading and unloading people and supplies from a boat. A road would be constructed between the powerhouse and dock. Construction access would also be provided by helicopter in association with a limited local temporary access road system to transfer equipment within the construction area. During operation, the Project would be fully automated and access would be provided via boat or aircraft. • Transmission Lines. Power generated by the Project would be transmitted by a new overhead / submarine, 138 kilovolt (KV) transmission segment roughly 20-miles long running generally southwest from the powerhouse to Petersburg. The transmission segment would integrate the project to the Southeast Intertie which currently connects Petersburg to Wrangell to the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project on Bradfield Canal. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 21 9/3/2008 • Other Structures. An intake structure housing controls would be constructed at Ruth Lake. Housing would be provided for power plant operators, staging areas for construction and substation facilities Power generated by the Project would provide the interconnected Southern Southeast Alaska regional utilities with increased system reliability; replace current dependency on diesel generation; and enable regional utilities to meet the increasing demand for electricity as customers convert from oil to electric heat and new construction is designed for electric heat. interconnected southern southeast Alaska regional utilities. Burro Creek, formerly the Burro Creek Farms Hatchery, is an existing, operational hydro system located on 121 acres of private land approximately one and a half miles south of Skagway on the west side of upper Lynn Canal. A grant is requested to obtain expert analysis of the feasibility of upgrading the existing hydro system in order to wholesale power to Alaska Power and Telephone or the City of Skagway. Existing AP&T hydro projects supply electricity to Haines and Skagway but the communities must still rely on diesel during certain times of the year. Also, existing hydro projects do not generate enough power to supply the cruise lines who have expressed an interest in connecting to shore power as a means of reducing air quality emissions. The project will begin at the Hawk Inlet submarine cable termination yard on Admiralty Island as a continuation of the 69-kV line from Juneau. The cable termination yard will be located on the eastern shore approximately 2.75 miles up Hawk Inlet just inland from the shoreline and the submarine cable will be buried as it leaves the yard and proceeds offshore. The total length of the submarine cable is approximately 25 miles. Kwaan Electric Intertie Cooperative, Inc. (KWETICO) will own and operate the transmission line however Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) will continue as the utility providing electrical service to the Hoonah area. IPEC will purchase power from Alaska Electric Light & Power (AEL&P) and KWETICO will charge IPEC a wheeling rate for providing power to Hoonah who will be the primary community served along with the old Whitestone Logging Camp. The project is part of the overall Southeast Intertie plan commissioned and supported by Southeast Conference and regional leaders. The Southeast Alaska Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) 2008 Update lists the intertie as the number one priority for the City of Hoonah. Jodi Mitchell the CEO/General Manager of IPEC will be the contact person on the project. Additional personnel from AEL&P that will be involved are Tim McLeod President and General Manager and, Eric Eriksen Vice President Transmission and Distribution Engineer. The proposed Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie is a 34.5-kV transmission line that will interconnect the electric systems of Metlakatla Power & Light (MP&L) and Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). The Intertie will include 16 miles of overhead wood pole transmission line to be constructed on Annette Island between Metlakatla and Race Point and an approximate one mile submarine cable crossing of Revillagigedo Channel between Race Point and KPU’s Mountain Point Substation. The project will also include control system upgrades to allow for the integrated operation of the interconnected systems’ generating plants. The Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie will provide benefits to both Ketchikan and Metlakatla, allowing for significantly improved utilization of Metlakatla’s existing hydroelectric generating resources while reducing diesel generation in Ketchikan. The Haines Borough proposes to explore the potential for use of low-emission nontoxic wood biomass as the source for wood-fired boilers to provide heat (through an insulated pipe distribution system) initially to four buildings located within the Borough: the K-12 School, the Voc-Ed Building, the Municipal Administration Building, and the Public Library. The Borough would begin to reduce our dependence on costly fossil fuels, while employing cleaner, renewable, and locally available resources, through the use of locally available wood biomass. The Haines Borough will contract qualified consultants to perform reconnaissance and feasibility studies, and guide us through the 35% concept design. Contracting will be in accordance with the Borough’s standard procurement policies. Replace diesel generation of electricity for the community of Tenakee Springs with renewable hydroelectric power. The City of Tenakee Springs proposes to construct a hydroelectric project on Indian River. This will be a low head, run-of-river plant displacing the use of at least 33,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Design, engineering, and construction will involve the City of Tenakee Springs, multiple state and federal agencies, private contractors, and the Alaska Energy Authority. The City and Borough of Wrangell (City), through Wrangell Municipal Light and Power (WMLP), has established a fuel displacement rate of $.08/KWH for all heat and hot water. There is a possibility of an interruptible rate of $.05/KWH from the Four Dam Pool Power Agency. This special rate is due to Tyee Lake Hydroelectric facilities spilling of excess water (water not used in power production). A feasibility study has been conducted by Electric Power Systems, Inc. to determine what the savings would be per year if the city buildings were converted from diesel fired boilers to electric boilers, develop a rough order magnitude cost estimate (ROM), and provide estimated engineering design fees for replacing the boilers. The study was conducted on 11 public buildings in Wrangell and the study found significant savings to progress this project to the design, permitting and construction phase. WMLP would like funding to convert these 11 public facilities from diesel fired boilers to electric boilers. The community served by this project is Wrangell, Alaska. Directly involved in this project is the City and Borough of Wrangell and Wrangell Municipal Light and Power. The proposed project is a combination of selective reconnaissance, prototype testing, conflict assessment and comprehensive feasibility assessment to establish the feasibility of prospective pilot tidal energy development projects at four sites where Preliminary Permits have been issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The four sites and respective communities served are: • Icy Passage Icy Straits, serving the community of Gustavus; • Angoon, serving the local Kootznoowoo community; Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 59 9/3/2008 • Wrangell Narrows, potentially serving the community of Petersburg; and • Central Cook Inlet near Nikiski, potentially supplying the communities in the service area of the Homer Electric Association. The map locations of the sites are provided in figures included in the Section 2 Overview above. The proposed grant recipients are two prospective IPPs, AKTidal Energy Company (developer of the Icy Passage, Wrangell Narrows and Central Cook sites) and Natural Currents Alaska, LLC. (developer of the Angoon site), in partnership with the City of Gustavus and the Tlingit – Haida Tribal Council as the umbrella organization representing the local Kootznoowoo at Angoon. Takatz Lake Project – Alaska, a hydroelectric project of about 27.7 MW in size capable of producing an average of about 106,900 MWH per year to serve the City of Sitka and other communities in Southeast Alaska as the communities become electrically interconnected. See the attached application to FERC dated June, 2008 for a more detailed description. The proposed project is to convert bio-mass (forest products residuals) to liquid fuels, specifically heating fuels and diesel, and electricity through gasification of the bio-mass and converting the resulting synthesis gas (SynGas) to #1 heating fuel and diesel for transportation applications. Electricity is a by-product of the proposed process and will be produced to meet facility electrical needs with any excess electricity made available to the local utilities. The technologies used in the process are, for the most part, well known and proven technologies in use since the mid-1930’s. The gasses produced will be converted to liquids fuel using a catalytic conversion process called Fischer-Tropsch, and the electricity will be produced and generated by capturing the waste heat and making steam through heat exchangers and standard turbines and generators. The preferred site for this facility is Ketchikan, AK, specifically at the industrial park located adjacent to the airport and co-located with one of the mills in the area. Ketchikan has a large volume of woody bio-mass available from both the National Forest and the local wood products industries. Long term supply appears to be available and transportation of the raw material and the finished product is limited to very short distances. It is envisioned that the majority of the finished product will be consumed in the local area, off-setting high transportation costs for heating oil and diesel and providing a nominal amount of electricity to the industrial park, local area and community as needed. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a reconnaissance study prior to pursuing a Resource Assessment, Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Juneau and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project location is at the Juneau Landfill currently owned and operated by Waste Management. The project will principally serve Juneau and those communities that the proposed study shows can be reasonably served. This study will provide the information about present patterns for disposal of municipal solid waste and other types of waste in the general area, logistics considerations, feedstock sources that can be identified and evaluated that would be available to support the proposed plant and such other information that can lead to a feasibility analysis, how such a proposed plant would supplement, integrate into or supplant existing energy resources, potential markets for such a plant and its products, possible site and cost analysis for future studies addressing the preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to meet future grant applications for such a study and project. The proposed plant project will convert the Juneau waste, landfill and sanitary sludge into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Robert Loescher, and Alaska Recycling Energy in conjunction with Juneau City and Borough staff and the Southeast Conference. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a reconnaissance study prior to pursuing a Resource Assessment, Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Ketchikan and the communities of the Southeast Conference. The proposed plant project location must be determined but initial consideration is being given to a site at Ward Cove, site of the old Ketchikan Pulp Mill. The project will serve Ketchikan and those communities that the proposed study shows can be reasonably served. This study will provide the information about present patterns for disposal of municipal solid waste and other types of waste in the general area, logistics considerations, feedstock sources that can be identified and evaluated that would be available to support the proposed plant and such other information that can lead to a feasibility analysis, how such a proposed plant would supplement, integrate into or supplant existing energy resources, potential markets for such a plant and its products, possible site and cost analysis for future studies addressing the preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to meet future grant applications for such a study and project. The proposed plant project will convert the waste, landfill and the Ketchikan Pulp Mill superfund site into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Robert Loescher, Richard Smith and Alaska Recycling Energy in conjunction with Ketchikan City and Borough staff and the Southeast Conference. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. In July 2008, Haines Assisted Living, Inc.(HAL) began construction on a senior assisted living/ residential complex comprising a total of 26,000 SF. The building site is on lots fronting Third St. from Dalton to Union. Residents of Haines and Southeast Alaska will utilize the senior assisted living and senior affordable housing being built in 2008—2010. The project is a collaboration seven years in development and funded by the Denali Commission, the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Rasmuson Foundation and the community of Haines. The first phase of the project will be completed in the fall of 2009 at a cost of over $4 million. Key to the long term sustainability of the facility is the installation of a Ground Source Heat Pump to extract geothermal energy from the earth and circulate it through a radiant in-floor heating system. The initial feasibility and design has been completed as the follow-up to an extensive energy life-cycle cost analysis performed in 2007and updated in October 2008.The designed system estimate of 210% efficiency will eliminate fossil fuel consumption in favor of renewable geo-thermal heat source and local hydro-electric power and result in significant operational savings for the life of the facility. Haines Assisted Living, Inc., Dan Austin, Project Manager and Jim Rehfeldt, Alaska Energy Engineering LLC are the principals involved in this grant project. Resumes attached. McGrath Light and Po er is located in McGrath, Alaska. McGrath has a population of 315, and is located 221 miles northwest of Anchorage and 269 miles southwest of Fairbanks in Interior Alaska. It borders the Kuskokwim River directly south of its confluence with the Takotna River. The remote location of McGrath and frequently difficult river conditions lead to some of the highest barge-delivered fuel costs in the state. Direct beneficiaries of this project include the Iditarod Area School District (IASD) McGrath complex, and three commercial facilities adjacent to the ML&P power plant. Indirect beneficiaries include all ML&P electric customers, as the project will provide increased revenues from the sale of recovered heat, as well as improved electric generating efficiency and reduced operations and maintenance costs. ML&P will be the Grantee under the Renewable Energy Fund. ML&P has teamed up with the engineering firm of Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (AE&E). AE&E has a long history of successful energy related projects throughout Alaska, and has worked with both ML&P and IASD on numerous projects dating back to 1995. IRHA proposes to install a biomass heat source for the Yukon-Koyukuk Assisted Living Center, a NAHSDA, Denali Commission, ICDBG, FHLB, and AHFC funded project that will provide a 9 unit housing complex for the elderly of the Yukon Koyukuk Region. The design includes a multi-purpose area, office space, and dormitory-type housing for transient village health care workers. Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) is designated by the owner, Louden Tribal Council, to be the Construction/Contractor of the Galena Assisted Living Facility. In addition Interior Regional Housing Authority functions as the Construction Manager for the project, and is directed to act with full authority of the Owner, in all matters of coordination of design work performance of the A&E Consultant, Construction Scheduling and Implementation, Management of funding dollars, in accordance with the Payment Schedule, and Management of any and all Subcontractor entities required to produce satisfactory work completion. On behalf of the Louden Tribal Council and the Y-K Senior Living Center Consortium, Interior Regional Housing Authority is proposing to install an energy efficient biomass and solar system to the project. The project site is bordered by the Yukon River and Campion Road within seciton 4, T9S, T10E, Kateel River Meridian, Nulato Recording District, and contains 3.42 acres. The Biomass Center would be located within 100 feet of the Center building site, a 8,000 SF building under construction. Selecting the System The biomass Center wood system costs include the initial capital costs of purchasing and installing the equipment, non capital costs (engineering, permitting, etc.) the costs of the fuel storage building and boiler building, the fuel costs, and the other costs associated for operating with operating and maintaining the heating system, including labor. Comparative Costs of Fuels The selection of fuel system for the Galena Assisted Living Facility has been based in part on the success of the Energy Center recently built in Tanana, Alaska. Comparative Costs of Fuels for the Tanana Energy Center were derived from the Preliminary Feasibility Assessment for High Efficiency, Low Emission Wood HEating in Tanana, Alaska, May 8, 2007 by Daniel Parrent, Juneau Economic Development Council. According to the study, at high efficiency, heat from white spruce cordwood (MC30) at $353.30 per cord is equal t the cost of oil at $3.50 per gallon, before considering the costs of equipment and operation, and maintenance and repair. It is interesting to note since this study was completed, the cost of oil per gallon has increased and is currently $7.00 per gallon and expected to rise. Current estimates from suppliers in Galena place a cord of wood at $250.00 per cord. Initial Investment Cost Estimates The Biomass System would provide a sustainable resource energy source for heat to the facility. The oil system designed for the building will remain in place as a back-up system to the Biomass System. If the Biomass System can be installed during the construction phase, installation costs for the Biomass System will be reduced because the plumbing and piping system, the most significant costs besides the boiler, can be installed during the installation of the oil system. The payback period for the Biomass Heating Units and the fuel storage building are expected to be recovered within a year three year span. The Solar Panel System is an additional source of renewable heat, hot water, and electricity for the Center. We are proposing to enhance and expand the first in-stream hydrokinetic energy conversion device successfully deployed in the United States in Ruby, Alaska. In the summer of 2008, the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council (YRITWC), along with the Tribe and City of Ruby, the local electric utility (owned and operated by the City of Ruby), and ABS Alaskan, deployed, tested, and removed a 5 kW Encurrent vertical axis hydrokinetic turbine in the Yukon River at Ruby, Alaska, before winter ice formation. This proposal is for a two-year project that will begin in 2009 with a revised resource assessment, re-design certain aspects of the turbine deployment such as anchoring and debris diversion, finalize permit acquisition, and re-deploy the 5 kW device. Based on the performance of the 5 kW turbine, and modeling feasibility for a larger system with a turbine re-designed to optimally perform at a lower current speed, in 2010 we will install a 25 kW version of the hydrokinetic turbine. All project partners will remain in place, along with Terrasond and re vision LLC, who will assist with resource assessment and feasibility analysis. The proposed biomass heating system will take place at Tok School, in Tok, Alaska, and will serve to initiate the beginnings of a systemic regional conversion from fossil heating fuel to clean, renewable biomass heating systems. An outbuilding to house the boilers will be constructed behind the school, in a central location where access to the outbuildings can also be had. The building will have 3 bays for fiber wagons that will to feed into the a feeder bin inside the boiler room. The boiler will be able to be fed from the inside or the outside of the building, to accommodate for downtime on the biomass feed systems. The biomass boiler will fed into the current boiler infrastructure, which will serve as a back up system, and will heat the outbuildings. The project has the advantage of being designed by firms having extensive experience with biomass systems, and is heavily supported by the community. It was written in partnership with the Tok Area Forestry, CTA Engineering, and by Alaska Gateway School District staff. AP&T proposes to construct the 2.0 MW Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project) located on Yerrick Creek, approximately 20 miles west of Tok. The Project would off-set diesel generation which presently supplies power to the communities of Tetlin, Tanacross, Dot Lake, and Tok. The Project will consist of a small diversion structure, approximately 15,000 feet of penstock, powerhouse with a single generating unit, tailrace, small substation, and transmission line. The Project operation will be run-of-river; annual generation is expected to be approximately 4,900 MWh/yr (approximately 40% of the interconnected load). The Project will provide clean, renewable electricity, as well as rate stabilization. The cost to maintain a hydro project is also significantly lower than diesel generation. This application supports a wood heating project in McGrath, Alaska. Local partners include the City of McGrath, Village Safe Water, MTNT Corporation, and McGrath Light & Power (ML&P) (applicant). A wood energy supply analysis, and a Level 2 Feasibility (in writing phase) and conceptual design analysis has been completed for a district heating loop for downtown McGrath to include in addition to residences, larger consumers; , School District Office Building (offices, Museum, Library), Captain Snow Center, (including Water Treatment Plant, Southcentral Foundation offices and current Health Center, Alaska State Troopers, Washeteria & Showers, District Court, city offices and meeting hall), Post Office, new Health Center, (to be built), DNR Forestry & Wildfire Center, new Tribal Center (Village Council offices and Community Hall), and KSKO Public Radio Station. This Level 2 study has not yet been coordinated with an analysis for a heat recovery project being proposed by ML:&P and AE&E. The biomass project will link and integrate with the heat recovery project in future iterations of design and cost analysis in order to capture the synergies from both to create an optimum design. A side by side analysis of both chip boilers (Köb) and stick fired boilers (Garn) with estimated cost analysis and net simple payback for individual buildings was conducted in the feasibility assessment (calculations attached). In most cases the chip boilers made more economic sense in an integrated model with forest management and harvest operations. The chip fired boilers will require approximately 2000 tons of chips annually modeled at 40% moisture content to displace up to 125,000 gallons of fuel or 98% of oil used in these commercial buildings at a cost of between $28.88 – $36.10/MMBTUs or between $4-$5 on a per gallon equivalent compared to $50.54/MMBTU for fuel oil ($7.00/gal). This project is planned to be conducted in concert with the Village Safe Water project to replace the entire water main system in McGrath in 2009-2011. The integration of these two projects has the potential to produce significant cost savings for installation of piping, the most expensive portion of the project. Both projects have been developed through technical support from Alaska Village Initiatives, and McGrath Light & Power and e-Four Engineering. Principle personnel to date include Bill Wall, PhD, Peter Olsen, Ernie Baumgartner, and Greg Koontz, ME, George Wilson, ME of Village Safe Water. Linkages are planned with Steven J. Stassel, P.E., president AE&E. Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation Board is the authorizing Board for Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility the Applicant. This application supports a wood heating project in Fort Yukon, Alaska. Local partners include the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (DOE recipient of biomass grant support $1.2 million), Gwitchyaa Zhee Native Corporation & Utility Company and Gwitchyaa Gwichin Tribal Government, Yukon Flats School District and City of Fort Yukon. A wood energy supply analysis, and a feasibility and conceptual design analysis has been completed for a district heating loop for downtown Fort Yukon to include the School, Gym, AC Store, School District Office, Water Plant, Post Office and two stand alone boilers; one at the new CATG Clinic and the other heating the Voc Ed Complex. A side by side analysis of both chip boilers (Köb) and stick fired boilers (Garn) with estimated cost analysis and net simple payback for individual buildings was conducted in the feasibility assessment. In each case the chip boilers made more economic sense in an integrated model with forest management and harvest operations. The three chip fired boilers will require approximately 2000-2500 tons of chips depending on moisture content to displace up to 135,347 gallons of fuel or 90% of oil used in these commercial buildings at a cost of approximately $20/MMBTU ($200/ton) for chips compared to $46.93/MMBTU for fuel oil ($6.50/gal). This project is being conducted in concert but as a separate project with a project funded by Denali Commission, US DOE through an Alaska Village Initiatives earmark, and GZ Corporation to develop a wood harvesting system, wood yard and a wood energy utility to supply and maintain the boilers. Both projects have been developed through technical support from Alaska Village Initiatives, and CATG Resource Department and e-Four Engineering. Principle personnel to date include Bill Wall, PhD, Peter Olsen, Bruce Thomas, and Greg Koontz, ME. We propose a 2 year project to estimate in-line (hydrokinetic) renewable energy potential for rural Alaska. We will begin creating a list of about 24 sites/communities which appear to have the greatest potential. We plan to study 8 sites in year 1 and 16 sites in year 2. At this point, Alaska’s larger rivers (i.e., the Yukon, Koyukuk, Kuskokwim and Susitna Rivers) are obvious places to look for in-stream energy. We will examine available data, and work with project partners (including Re vision, AEA and ANSEP) to come up with a list of river stretches and community partners. The UAA-SOE Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program (ANSEP) has well established relationships with many communities throughout Alaska and has agreed to assist the faculty in establishing working relationships with the communities. Following site selection, we will select student research assistants (3 in year 1 and 5 in year 2) who will be trained in hydrographic surveying and velocity measurement. Then, working in cooperation with the communities, we will survey the selected river stretches during the summer of 2009 and 2010 to obtain bathymetric and current distribution data. Next, using data from United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations, we will estimate the long term hydrologic (i.e, velocity/depth) conditions at the selected rural sites. The USGS provides discharge rates at nearly 400 sites around the state, covering most river systems. The long-term velocity/depth distribution data obtained will be used to determine the hydrokinetic energy available for power generation. This proposal seeks to design and make commercially available a system that utilizes renewable energy as an option to the basic rural Alaska electrical power generating system. This is multi part concept that utilizes advanced technology to improve the over-all efficiency of prime power diesel generating systems. The elements of the new system are divided into three separate parts each bringing their own value contribution. They include waste heat recovery, conversion of waste heat using the Organic Rankine Cycle in combination with Controlled Environment Agriculture, and biomass incineration. At this time Precision Power LLC is the singular participant in the project. High-efficiency solid state ammonia synthesis (SSAS) will be advanced from laboratory to proof of-concept and pre-commercialization pilot-plant stage. An SSAS module will be built, capable of synthesizing anhydrous ammonia (NH3) at ~10 kWe input from renewable-source electric energy, fresh water, and atmospheric nitrogen. The NH3 will be stored in a pressurized steel tank, and will fuel an internal-combustion-engine (ICE) generating set delivering to the utility electricity grid or isolated load. A complete system will be located in Juneau at the Alaska Electric Light & Power (AEL&P) site. Hydroelectric energy will be converted, at ~ 10 kW scale, to NH3, stored as a liquid at 250 psi in steel tanks, and regenerated to electric energy in an ammonia-fueled internal combustion energy (ICE) generating set and returned to the electricity grid or isolated load. This system will model a village-scale system that could store enough surplus renewable-source energy, as liquid NH3 in surface tanks, to supply the village’s total year-round energy needs as firm energy, assuming enough local renewable energy production capacity is in place to generate this total energy. The goal is village and other “energy island” energy independence via renewable-source energy and annual-scale firming storage, replacing all diesel electricity generation and oil heating. Deploying the project initially at AEL&P allows hydro energy input and lower project technical risk via Juneau’s benign climate and favorable transportation access; the project may later be relocated to a smaller community for further evaluation and test. The project addresses the availability, quality andfeasibility ofsustainable, economic use of agricultural and forestry biomass in Alaska. This must be considered before the myriad of biofuel projects proposed & envisioned can move forward, and before existing, commercially available technologies that use biomass to produce energy for heat, fuel, & power can be most effectively, and most successfully, deployed. The goal ofthe project is to 1) assimilate all existing information on the total forest and crop biomass available in Alaska into one data base, 2) determine the gaps in the data base and the information needed to fill the gaps, and 3) determine the biological, physical, and economic feasibility ofusing Alaskan biomass as biofuels. The impetus for the Study is the biomasslcoal-to-liquids plant proposed for the Fairbanks area ofinterior Alaska, and its needfor commercial/industrial-scale volumes of biomass fuel stocks. However, the Study will have major statewide application as it will serve as the basisfor all agricultural andforestry biomass-based energy projects; the greatest number of which are being proposedfor rural and village communities. Work will take place in Fairbanks and Palmer, Alaska. Project cooperators are the School ofNatural Resources and Agricultural Sciences(SNRAS) and the Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station(AFES) at the University ofAlaska Fairbanks(UAF) (project primary/agricultural energy crops andforest biomass), Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation(FEDC) (logistics, data support, and information dissemination), and the Alaska Division ofForestry (forest biomass, and harvest, transport, and storage technologies), The project will be located at a site yet to be determined within the Alaska state boundaries. Once the exact site location is determined, then an evaluation of the communities to be served can be provided. Also involved in this project will be contractors and subcontractors to be hired for various engineering, design, construction and supply aspects related to the project activities. Specifically, Ormat will be working with Precision Power LLC who will be the construction contractor for this project to perform the construction of the project on site. Project_Description_Short The project proposed is a small, 271-kW, cross-flow turbine, generation system with a darn and power which utilizes hydro-electric stored kinetic energy in a reservoir dam on Chuniisax Creek approximately 3/4-mile southwest of the old Atka village site and replacement electrical distribution system. The project will displace use of high cost fossil fuels with a renewable energy resource using proven technology. Energy costs to all users in Atka will be significantly reduced while providing the current and future energy requirements. The village has secured additional funding from EDA to complete the most of the remaining 55%. (45% was previously completed using RUS, AEA, and city funding.) This grant plus our cash and in-kind contribution will complete the balance. This project requests funding to conduct a renewable energy reconnaissance report for the smaller (populations less than 100) communities of Cold Bay, False Pass and Nelson Lagoon which require assistance to decrease their energy costs and reduce their dependence on diesel fuel. This region, called “the birthplace of the winds”, renewable energy resources abound -- not only wind power, but also hydro, geo-thermal, current and tidal. Some waste heat recovery opportunities also exist. A reconnaissance report will summarize the assessment and findings. This project will be administered and managed by the Aleutians East Borough (AEB) and will be conducted by a consultant chosen by the AEB. The Nome Joint Utilities System (NJUS) Renewable Energy Fund Wind Project involves the installation of five 600 kW wind turbines on Newton Peak located approximately one mile north of Nome. The completed project, with a total size of three MW, will be owned and operated by NJUS. The wind turbines will be connected into NJUS’s electrical distribution system through a constructed transmission line. The project will offer benefits to the community of Nome and its electric customers through a system-wide reduction and stabilization of energy prices. NJUS has assembled a project team, headed by STG Incorporated which is prepared to immediately begin work on an accelerated schedule. The project team includes members from Intelligent Energy Systems LLC, DNV Global Energy Concepts Inc, Electrical Power Systems, Duane Miller Associates LLC, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell LLC, BBFM Engineers and Aurora Consulting. All aspects of the Final Design/Permitting and Construction project, detailed in the following pages of this application, can be completed by fall 2010. The Unalakleet Renewable Energy Fund Wind Project involves the installation of two 600 kW wind turbines on a project site located approximately one and a half miles northeast of Unalakleet. The completed project, with a total size of 1.2 MW, will be owned and operated by Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative (UVEC). The wind turbines will be connected into UVEC’s electrical distribution system through a constructed transmission line. The project will offer benefits to the village of Unalakleet and its electric customers through a system-wide reduction and stabilization of energy prices. UVEC has assembled a project team, headed by STG Incorporated which is prepared to immediately begin work on an accelerated schedule. The project team includes members from Intelligent Energy Systems LLC, DNV Global Energy Concepts Inc., Electrical Power Systems, Duane Miller Associates LLC, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell LLC, BBFM Engineers and Aurora Consulting. All aspects of the Final Design/Permitting and Construction project, can be completed by fall 2010. Located in Nome, this project will install a 2-mile transmission line and a 8-mile fiber control cable to connect a 1MW wind farm to be operated by Banner Wind LLC, an independent power producer, to the City of Nome/Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) power distribution grid. The project will place an underground 25kv distribution line adjacent to a new road, and include a fiber control cable run from the wind generators to the utility power plant. Banner Wind LLC is an IPP formed in partnership between Bering Straits Native Corporation & Sitnasuak Native Corporation. NJUS will be primarily responsible for the project construction activities, as well as the reporting and financial control of the intertie project. This project is a regional Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual design of Wind Power opportunities around the Lake & Peninsula Borough. It is designed to build upon existing wind resource assessment efforts, including wind met tower data in some communities, as well as data from existing micro-scale (10kW) wind turbines that are in operation. The proposed project is a wind/hydro hybrid intertie feasibility study for Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon and Chignik Lake (hereafter “Chigniks”.) There is existing wind data confirming class 5 wind in the area, strong enough to be a good energy source. Part of the feasibility study will involve determining the most advantageous site for wind turbines by collecting supplemental met data. The Chignik Alaska Draft Small Hydropower Feasibility Report and EIS, by the Army Corps of Engineers, July 1984, evaluated hydro resources at Packers Creek, Mud Bay Lake and Indian Creek. The study found that Indian Creek had the best potential for economical development. The Lake and Peninsula Borough will provide management for the project, overseeing the work of HDR Alaska who will act as the owner representative in developing the feasibility study for a wind/hydro intertie project. The Lake and Peninsula Borough seeks funding for design and permitting to install High Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE) wood boilers in five communities in the Lake and Peninsula Borough providing heat to the local school and adjacent teacher housing. The communities to be considered are Pedro Bay, Newhalen/Iliamna, Nondalton, Kokhanok and Port Alsworth. The schools in these communities served 225 children in the 07-08 school year. The City of Chignik will partner with Trident Seafoods (holder of FERC License 620) to study the engineering, electronics, and economics of restoring the antiquated hydropower system on Indian Creek in Chignik, Alaska. (See attached Project Area maps.) The “Chignik Hydro” project would benefit the residents of Chignik by offsetting the cost of fuel currently used to generate electricity for homes and community buildings such as the Subsistence Building and the school. Electricity generated by the new hydropower system will also benefit the new small boat harbor, the Trident Seafoods fish processing plant, and the Harris Sub-Regional Clinic, which will serve residents of Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Lake, Perryville, and Port Heiden. In addition, by re-building the dam and conveyor pipeline, the project would also be reinforcing the infrastructure that supports the city’s water system, as well as the fish plant water supply. This project proposes a facility at Lake Elva that will consist of a dam constructed 8,500 feet downstream from the existing outlet of the lake. The powerhouse will contain two 750 kW turbines. The steel framed structure will be located approximately 1,800 feet upstream from the Elva Creek confluence with Lake Nerka. It is planned to be on a 20 by 80 foot concrete foundation with a height of 20 feet above the generator floor. This proposed project will necessitate the construction of approximately 33 miles of new three phase transmission tie line from the project site to close proximity of the village of Aleknagik. The Nushagak Area Hydropower Project will initially serve the communities of Aleknagik, Dillingham, and Kanakanak in the Nushagak and Wood River areas (future interties to Manokotak and Ekwok - New Stuyahok - Koliganek are under consideration). This first phase with inter-tie is estimated to cost $22 million and replace 500,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually, for a yearly savings of $2,105,700 at today’s fuel prices. Currently all power in the area is generated with diesel by Nushagak Cooperative (NETC), with a current residential rate at $0.463 cents per kilowatt hour. Nushagak Cooperative would develop, maintain, and operate the Lake Elva facility and associated infrastructure. The Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Project is located on Packers Creek in Chignik Lagoon. The 190 kW project can provide for most of the communities current power needs, which peak at about 125 kW. The plant would eliminate about 85% of 50,000 gallons of diesel consumed by the generators annually. There will also be excess energy that could be used for heating the school and other local structures. The project would also enable the community to add a freezer/processing facility to further improve the local economy. The Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project is a long-term energy solution to rising and unpredictable costs of energy in rural and remote regions with geothermal energy potential. The next phase of the project and the subject of this application is geothermal energy resource confirmation and qualification. Phase III includes design, engineering and construction of a deep well preceded by funding and permit acquisition, road and well site improvements and drilling and drill management contracts. Subsequent to resource confirmation and qualification, NEA proposes constructing a 25 MW geothermal plant and interconnection infrastructure that will supply 25+ communities in the Bristol Bay and Lake Region with low-cost electricity that effectively decreases the cost of power 70% by displacing 5.4 million gallons of diesel fuel currently used to meet regional electrical and heating energy requirements. The project will be the first utility grade geothermal development in Alaska establishing long-term firm, reliable and cost effective alternative energy that will enhance rural sustainability and the development of renewable and strategic natural resources. This proposal will examine the opportunity, analyzes the possibility, and determines the feasibility of providing a stand-alone fish waste-processing facility that produces and uses clean energy from renewable resources. It will serve the commercial fishery and processing plants (7 land based processing facilities, 3 floating processing facilities and several smaller independent seller/operators) and the community of Naknek, King Salmon, and South Naknek, Alaska. The study produced will look at a model plant that, when proven successful, will be recreated throughout the fisheries of the State and the nation, and the world. Bristol Bay Borough and Naknek Electric Association have joined in this responsible and cooperative scientific effort in the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world to perform this study and assess the initial, as well as its ultimate, practicality and profitability of such a facility. This project focuses on the development of 1 megawatt of wind power located in an area AEA suspects to be have a Class 7 resource. The location is approximately 14 miles Northwest of the City of Dillingham, less than 5 miles Northeast of Manakotak, and approximately 8 miles South of Alegnagik near Snake Mountain. Due to the specific need of the development of this resource for the Healthcare organization, this project will benefit all the communities that rely on the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation to remain ‘the only’ critical access medical facility in the Bristol Bay Region. Although the project is being proposed by a Tribal Organization, it has the support of the local electrical cooperative [Nushagak] as well as many of the residents of Dillingham. Our project development team has tapped into the resources of TDX, Power Corp., MAP Consulting, STG Inc, and Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation. After a decade of declining performance and three years of no operation (2005 – 2008), due to unstable site geology and flooding, Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) has focused intense efforts on re‐designing its Humpback Creek hydro‐electric facility. Humpback Creek, named for the pink salmon that spawn in its mouth, is located five miles north of Cordova and is accessible only by boat. Sub‐marine cable from the plant to Cordova City limits, and buried transmission lines to the CEC plant, connect the facility to Cordova. Because of its steep grade, fish are not able to migrate upstream and thus no fish populations will be affected by this project. From the original in‐take structure to tidewater, Humpback Creek flows about 0.7 miles and drops from an elevation of 276 feet to where it enters saltwater Orca Inlet. Site visits by the project team to other small hydro‐electric projects with a variety of in‐take arrangements and a project workshop held in December, 2007 culminated in a new design with an intake/diversion that includes a tunnel, conventional side intake with provisions for sluicing sediment and a diversion dam with a sluice gate that will allow removal of stream bed material that may collect outside the intake. The new location facilitates much‐improved access, a location with shallower bedrock substrate, and a better hydrological analysis. This project has been CEC’s and the community of Cordova’s top priority for the past three years, ever since October, 2006’s 3,500‐year return period flood event destroyed the intake/diversion facility. Project partners include the City of Cordova, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Eyak Corporation (for access). Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) proposes to serve as a model for rural Alaska utilities by installing an ORC heat recovery unit that will capture waste heat and increase diesel generator electrical production by an additional four to six percent. The average electric production efficiency of CEC’s Orca Power Plant is 13.65 kWh/gallon of diesel. CEC has placed a deposit on a new, 3.6 MW rated, EMD 710 series, 20 cylinder diesel generator. The efficiency of the new generator is expected to peak at 15 kWh/gallon. Cordova Electric Cooperative desires fit the EMD with an organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) heat recovery system that will capture additional BTUs that would otherwise be wasted energy. CEC is the sole provider of power to the City of Cordova, Alaska. The project is located in Cordova, Alaska. Affordable fuel wood is available to the community, from donated lots at an old sort yard and from an airport clearing project. We are asking for assistance with purchasing a processing mill, yarding the logs, and cutting the logs into split firewood. The Eyak Corporation owns several log sort yards which they have generously donated to the village for firewood use. The State of Alaska has offered down logs from the airport clearing project. To efficiently process this wood, we will purchase a firewood processing mill, set it up and train the operators. The mill will enable us to process firewood in a timely manner to be able to distribute an abundant amount of firewood to the community. We will mill approximately 3,421 cords of firewood. The supply for this will come from existing log decks and the airport clearing project. The firewood will be distributed to our elders at no cost and the rest of the community will be asked to contribute $50 per cord to sustain the program. The money generated will help pay for labor costs of processing the firewood in future years. This project will provide 37.2 billion BTU's of low cost energy for home heating and will offset 312.6 thousand gallons of fuel oil and save $1.58 million this winter in home heating costs for Cordova. The Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project is located adjacent to the Prince William Sound, immediately south of Valdez, Alaska. Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) is a member-owned electric cooperative providing central station electrical service to a relatively large geographical area of Eastern Interior and Gulf Coast Alaska. CVEA is a stand-alone (not interconnected to another power system) electric utility. The service territory is divided into two districts, the Valdez district and the Copper River Basin district. The Valdez district is comprised of the organized area of the City of Valdez. The Copper Basin district incorporates many outstretched communities including: Glennallen, Gakona, Gulkana, Tazlina, Copper Center, Kluti-Kaah, Copperville, Kenny Lake, Tolsona, Mendeltna, Nelchina, Eureka, and Sheep Mountain. CVEA’s personnel are extensively involved with the Allison Lake Project. CVEA has hired Hatch Acres to assist in coordinating the work and field studies and license application. The project will be located at the mile 33 of the Tok Cutoff Highway in Chistochina, Alaska and will be managed and owned by the Cheesh’na Tribal Council (CTC). The project provides a (cordwood) biomass system to provide heat and hot water for all community facilities located in a “campus” area. Existing facilities that will be served by the project are owned and operated by CTC and include the CTC Tribal Office Building, Chistochina Community Hall and the Education/Library facility. Two new facilities that will be served by the project are scheduled to be constructed in the coming year; Mt Sanford Tribal Consortium multiuse facility with health clinic and CTC’s Washateria. The final design work will build upon the feasibility study and preliminary design work completed as of October, 2008. A bulk fuel wood boiler will be built at the Kenny Lake K-12 school to displace 18,035 gallons of fuel oil. The current boilers will be used for backup and low load periods. This project will involve school district personnel, local contractors, design engineers and Alaska Energy Authority. This project will employee local residents in project management, construction and chip material delivery. This project looks at the integration of a wood fired hydronic heating system with existing boiler system in some of the buildings and retrofit hot water heat to other buildings. The project will require a greater initial investment and higher annual OM&R costs than for an equivalent oil or gas system alone; however, the savings in fuel costs (wood vs. fossil fuel) will pay for the initial investment and cover the additional OM&R costs in a relatively short period of time. After the initial investment is paid off, the project will continue to save money (avoided fuel cost) for the life of the heating system. Inflation rates for fossil fuels are typically higher than inflation rates for wood fuel, increasing inflation rates result in greater fuel savings and thus greater project viability. The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) proposes a 300 kW run of the river hydroelectric plant with a diversion structure, pipeline, powerhouse, and electric line in Old Harbor. The project involves collecting up to 7 cfs of water year round from a tributary (Mountain Creek) of Barling Bay Creek and transporting it across a basin boundary to Big Creek. This project will provide for most of the electrical needs of Old Harbor. AVEC will employ consultants and contractors as needed to complete the Project. AVEC may utilize local or other personnel for project maintenance. The Bethel Wind Project is designed to contribute clean, renewable wind power to the Bethel energy grid. The project area is about 1.5 miles northwest of the Bethel Airport on hilltop land owned by Bethel Native Corporation. Our power will be sold wholesale to BUC for distribution to its customers as normal. The size of our project is dependent on our ability to sell power, not on the wind resource, but we expect that a two MW project will be viable. The communities served could include Napakiak and Bethel. The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative is proposing to complete design, permitting and installation of three Northern 100B Wind Turbines, and new control modules, to provide wind power to the community of Quinhagak, which is located on the coast of the Bering Sea, west of Bethel in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta area. This project involves the final design, permitting, construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of two wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Mekoryuk. Participants in the project include AVEC, STG, and Northern Power. AVEC will provide overall project management and electrical system engineering for the project. STG will be the general contractor, responsible for the design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbines, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. Northern Power will provide Northwind 100 wind turbines and startup and commissioning services. Site control has already been completed. The foundation design is completed. Permitting is underway, having already relocated the turbines in response to input from Fish & Wildlife. This project involves the final design, permitting, construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of one additional wind turbine to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Toksook Bay. Participants in the project include AVEC, STG, and Northern Power. AVEC will provide overall project management and electrical system engineering for the project. STG will be the general contractor, responsible for the design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbine, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. Northern Power will provide the Northwind 100 wind turbine and startup & commissioning services. The site is already under control and already contains three Northwind 100 wind turbines. Existing permits are in place and can be extended to cover the additional turbines. The project involves the installation of two wind turbines near the water treatment plant (WTP) in Hooper Bay, Alaska. The two Northwind 100B; 100kW wind turbines will provide a dedicated energy source for the WTP’s water heating system, providing approximately 539,000 kWh per year dedicated to an electric boiler inside the WTP. Wind-powered energy will offset the use of 15,995 gallons of fuel currently used in the three fuel oil-burning boilers. Northern will provide the wind towers and turbine technology, and STG will perform the installation of the towers and turbines. CE2 Engineers, the firm that designed and built the WTP, will supervise the engineering and wiring of the new boiler system. This project will be located in the upper Kobuk River Valley and will serve the villages of Kobuk, Shungnak, and Ambler. The applicant is Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority; other cooperating organizations include NANA Regional Corporation, Maniilaq Association, NANAPacific, WHPacific Inc., and Kobuk, Shungnak and Ambler Village Councils. An initial woody biomass site assessment was sponsored by NANAPacific in August, 2008 under a Department of Energy Tribal Energy Grant. Bill Wall, PhD conducted an initial reconnaissance study to determine the viability of a wood energy project. The study determined that a wood energy program is viable and that all three of the villages are very interested in proceeding. The proposed project will develop following analysis and fully complete a reconnaissance and feasibility study. Ambler is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, battery-less 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm in Ambler. It consists of 225 ea 224-watt panels on adjustable 6300 ft2 racking mounted directly on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation system. Each adjustable array utilizes one 7000 watt inverter providing 277 VAC power. Noatak is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, battery-less 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm in Noatak . It consists of 225ea 224-watt panels on adjustable 6,300 ft2 racking mounted on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation. Each adjustable array utilizes one 7000 watt inverter providing 277 VAC power. Noatak is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, battery-less 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm in Noatak . It consists of 225ea 224-watt panels on adjustable 6,300 ft2 racking mounted on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation. Each adjustable array utilizes one 7000 watt inverter providing 277 VAC power. 77. Shungnak is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, battery-less 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm. It consists of 225ea 224-watt solar panels on an adjustable 6300 ft2 rack that is supported on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation. Multiple 7000 watt inverters provide 277 VAC power. Rural Alaskans in the Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) are facing some of the highest costs anywhere in the nation. This project proposes to: develop the wind energy potential in the communities of Buckland, Deering, and Noorvik; develop appropriate wind generation engineering plans and designs, and; construct the necessary wind generation facilities (fully integrated with diesel power systems). This is a two year project. Year one involves performing both pre-construction and construction tasks in Deering and Noorvik as well as pre-construction tasks in Buckland. Year two involves construction tasks in Buckland. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) proposes a resource assessment/feasibility analysis/conceptual design project of hydropower sites in the Upper Kobuk region. We will evaluate at least twelve sites regarding their hydroelectric potential and will create conceptual designs for the most promising sites. The project will potentially serve the communities Kobuk, Ambler, Shungnak, and Kiana, as well as possible future industrial developments, which for the purposes of this application, will be referred to collectively as the Upper Kobuk region. Key partners in the project will include NANA Pacific/NANA Regional Corporation, NovaGold/Mantra Mining and additional engineering consultants. The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Solid Waste Services Department (SWS) intends to develop an electric power generating plant to be located at the Anchorage Regional Landfill (ARL). The plant will use landfill gas (LFG), a byproduct of anaerobic waste decomposition, as its primary fuel. Electricity generated by the project will be sold and delivered to the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) distribution system to provide power to Eagle River and Southcentral Alaska. SWS will negotiate a power sales agreement with the end power user, likely MEA, and select of a development partner to design, build and operate the plant. The South Fork hydroelectric project is a low-impact run-of-river project located in Eagle River, Alaska. The project will be located on a private homestead off Hiland Road in Eagle River. Energy from the project would be provided into the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) grid. South Fork Hydro, LLC (SFH) is the project proponent, and would contribute funding, own, and operate the project. SFH has already completed reconnaissance, feasibility, and permitting efforts. Final design is currently in progress, and construction is planned for 2009. Final design would be completed by members of South Fork Hydro, LLC. Construction would be completed by South Fork Construction, Inc., with some construction tasks subcontracted as appropriate. This project is designed to demonstrate power generation using combusted biomass as a heat source to drive an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) power plant module designed and developed by United Technologies Corporation. The module is based on the award-winning geothermal power plant installed at Chena Hot Springs Resort; however the biomass version will operate at significantly higher efficiency. These efficiency improvements are necessary because unlike the geothermal fluid, biomass material is not a ‘free’ fuel. In addition to being designed for maximum thermal efficiency, the power plant includes load following capability, and independent, simple, remotely monitored operation at low pressures that do not require special training to operate. This is important because while the project will be located in North Pole, Alaska, the power plant is specifically designed for rural Alaskan applications. The project will be constructed and managed by Chena Power, LLC and will be located at the K&K Recycling Facility located at Mile 9 on the Richardson Highway. Design work and assembly of the power plant will be completed by United Technologies Corporation through their Research Center (UTRC). The proposed 5 to 7-MW Grant Lake/Falls Creek hydro project is located near Moose Pass, Alaska. Kenai Hydro seeks to develop the project in compliance with current low impact hydro guidelines and practices. The scope of this project will also involve looking at the feasibility of a design that includes diverting flows from Falls Creek into Grant Lake. Kenai Hydro has secured a Preliminary Permit for this project, issued by FERC on October 7, 2008. Power from the project would be available to customers of Homer Electric Association and other areas served by the existing Railbelt transmission grid. Kenai Hydro, LLC is a partnership among Homer Electric Association (HEA), enXco, and Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) that was formed for the purpose of evaluating and developing this site as a low impact hydroelectric facility. The Delta Wind Project is designed to contribute clean, renewable wind power to the railbelt energy grid. The project area is about 25 miles south of Delta Junction on Coal Mine Road. We are currently funding an Interconnection Study with Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) to identify costs associated with putting wind power on their transmission system near Delta Junction. The results of the interconnection study will be used to formulate a power tariff for sale of our power to GVEA. The size of our project is dependent on our ability to sell power, not on the wind resource, but we expect that a 40 to 50 MW project could be achievable. The communities served will include all communities within the GVEA’s service area that purchase power from GVEA, including Delta Junction, North Pole, Fairbanks, Fox, College, Nenana, and Healy, as well as two major gold mines, Fort Knox and Pogo. This project is located in Girdwood. AGE proposes to install a natural gas powered CHP plant with its efficiency enhanced by the TEG unit that will provide heat and power to Girdwood Elementary and the Girdwood public by feeding power into the local electrical grid. Thermal energy will be provided to Girdwood Elementary for space heating, snow melt, and heated pedestrian walkways as well as the research center itself. Two micro-hydro projects located at California and Virgin Creeks will provide hydro power generation to supplement the CHP/TPG plant during periods of sufficient flow estimated at 8 months per year. This Construction Project is based on reconnaissance level findings. The City of Whittier proposes conducting a renewable energy project consisting of a reconnaissance level effort to examine the viability of hydropower on Whittier Creek in Whittier, Alaska. The work will include engineering analysis, an economic study, and two years of stream gauge data gathering. The final product will include an estimated generation capacity, a preliminary cost estimate for a hydropower facility, and a preliminary analysis of the potential benefits (i.e. power cost savings over time). This effort will be performed by the Alaska District Corps of Engineers with assistance from the Corps of Engineers Hydroelectric Design Center based out of Portland, Oregon, with stream gauging to be performed by the USGS. This is a request for reconnaissance study, followed by a more detailed feasibility study that will analyze the feasibility of supplying Anchorage with heat from geothermal energy sources. IAE has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Municipality of Anchorage to facilitate such a study. The Municipality of Anchorage has agreed to support the feasibility study efforts by providing information about the potential for geothermal energy use in Anchorage as well as right of way information. If the results of the feasibility study prove to be positive for development, IAE will work towards developing the project. Specific focus on the market available, what type of organization will be needed for the project, technical, and financial issues. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Anchorage and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the Anchorage Municipal Landfill adjacent to Route 1 on the Glenn Highway just east of town. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the Anchorage Solid Waste Services. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Services Sector for the Municipality of Anchorage. The proposed plant project will convert the Anchorage waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with Anchorage Solid Waste Services and City staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. The Division of Forestry at Milepost 267.5 Richardson Highway, Delta Junction is proposing a pilot project using barley/wood pellets for heating a governmental building. The boiler system will combine two heating systems, a 3840 square foot (sf) main office building, proposed 3000 sf addition, and a 1792 sf warehouse. The boiler will be located in a separate building which will house a heating system and barley/wood pellet storage. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the FNSB Municipal Landfill in Fairbanks. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the FNSB Solid Waste Division. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Division for FNSB. The proposed plant project will convert the FNSB waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with FNSB Solid Waste Services and Borough staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Mat-Su and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the Mat-Su Municipal Landfill in Palmer. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the Mat-Su Solid Waste Division. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Division for Mat-Su. The proposed plant project will convert the Mat-Su waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with Mat-Su Solid Waste Services and Borough staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained.aska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Mat-Su and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the Mat-Su Municipal Landfill in Palmer. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the Mat-Su Solid Waste Division. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Division for Mat-Su. The proposed plant project will convert the Mat-Su waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. This project proposes the first 10 MW Utility-Grade Geothermal Development in Alaska. This 10 MW project would be able to extract geothermal power from the base of either Mt. Redoubt or Spurr by 2105. The Native Village of Cantwell proposes to improve the reliability and lower the cost of the community of Cantwell’s power system. Currently Cantwell obtains power from the line between MEA and GVEA. To accomplish improved reliability, we propose to build a hydroelectric project on the Jack River a short distance from Cantwell. The installed capacity of this plant will be in excess of 1 MW. This project will be comprised of a dam and a short tunnel. A feasibility design and scoping are required to provide the parameters of the project. The proposal is for a 5 MW natural gas fired Combined Heat & Power Project (“CHP” or “Cogeneration”), sited at the Alaska State Fair in Palmer (the “Fair) as the centerpiece of an Alaska Energy Center, to showcase renewable and alternative energy technologies, provide the energy needs of the Fair and operations sited at the Fair, provide the thermal energy needs of commercial, institutional and agricultural customers within economic reach of the Project, and provide firm power to help Matanuska Electric Association meet new generation needs. The proposal is for a 5 MW natural gas fired Combined Heat & Power Project (“CHP” or “Cogeneration”), sited near the Begich Tower, to provide the energy needs of the Begich Tower and thermal energy needs of City of Whittier, Public School and commercial customers within economic reach of the Project, and provide firm power to help Chugach meet new generation needs and improve service reliability to Whittier. EarthRun Energy will provide a sustainable source of high grade wood chips for biomass heating in the city of Anchorage while strengthening and beautifying the urban forests. In Anchorage, urban forests are currently overgrown presenting fire and disease problems. It is the right time to make a sick forest a productive and healthy forest. EarthRun has worked hard to come up with the cleanest, quietest and least interruptive way of harvesting the dead and unhealthy trees from our urban forests, chipping them, and heating one municipal building, the Russian Jack greenhouse. EarthRun Energy will work closely with the municipality to return the forests to a healthy state. Mt. Alice Harbor Development project is in and around Seward at mile 2 Nash Rd. the service road to the NE side of Ressurection bay 1.5 miles across from the municipal boat harbor on the NW side, serving the needs of the local population as a community and destination resort, boating access and public access to the Fishing resources of the area. Local Engineers, Surveyors, Municipal department heads etc. have expressed positive input and eagerness to work on the project. The Architects, Project managers are ready to proceed. This proposal is for the North Prince of Wales Island Intertie Project (Project). Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) proposes to construct a line extension to the communities of Coffman Cove and Naukati Bay, placing these communities on the Prince of Wales Island (POW) electric grid which is supplied with renewable energy from two hydroelectric projects. Both of these communities currently rely on 100% diesel generation for electricity. The total line is to be 48 miles (Coffman Cove = 37 miles; Naukati Bay = 11 miles) of overhead 4/0 ACSR three-phase 34.5 kV line with a 1/0 ACSR neutral conductor on single pole wood structures. This line extension will come off the existing 34.5 kV line from between Klawock and Thorne Bay, near Control Lake. Naukati Bay is 11 miles off the main road to Coffman Cove. The applicant, along with the State Department of Transportation (ADOT), proposes to build a road and 69-kV transmission line to connect the community of Kake with Petersburg. The road/intertie will allow the delivery of surplus hydropower available from the Tyee project to Kake and eliminate its total reliance upon diesel generation. The community of Kake will continue to be served by the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC). The transmission line infrastructure will be owned and operated by the Kwaan Electric Intertie Cooperative, Inc. (KWETICO, the applicant), who will charge IPEC for wheeling power to Kake. The road project will allow Kake citizens access to Petersburg's infrastructure including major air transportation, medical facilities, more frequent ferry service, engine repair facilities, and various services and industries not available in Kake. The Intertie will also provide broadband telecommunications to the community of Kake, and savings to the State's Power Cost Equalization Program. The project is part of the overall Southeast Intertie plan commissioned and supported by Southeast Conference and regional leaders. The road/Intertie dual construction will save money for both ADOT and KWETICO, and will facilitate access to the transmission line for repairs and maintenance. The Falls Creek Hydro Electric Project is an 800 kW run-of-river hydroelectric facility, located in Gustavus Alaska, which will provide electric power to the community of Gustavus. The project is being built by Gustavus Electric Company to displace existing diesel generation. Construction of the project is approximately 90% complete and will provide 90% of the community electric needs. The proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11841 (Project) is located near the southeast end of Revillagigedo Island, approximately four miles east of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska. KPU proposes to install 4.6 MW of hydropower generating capacity at KPU’s existing Whitman Lake Dam to provide an additional source of clean renewable energy to KPU’s customers, in the city of Ketchikan and the Borough area including Saxman Village, while also enhancing the conversion of oil heat to electric heat and displacing expensive and nonrenewable diesel generation. The Project will be interconnected to KPU’s existing distribution system and the grant project will involve KPU. The Chilkoot Indian Association is proposing to construct and operate four-plex housing (four buildings with sixteen units) incorporating a cordwood-fired boiler system. The project is initiated by our Housing Department, who will manage the subsidized, low-income housing project. A separate boiler/fuel storage building will be built on one lot and recirculate hot water to be used in each four-plex for building heat and domestic hot water. Architectural, civil, mechanical, and electrical design is complete except for an engineering refit to accommodate the wood boiler system. Our proposal will be for heating system redesign and construction. This project will convert readily available biomass to a producer gas (wood gasification) that will be used to reduce diesel fuel consumption at the Yakutat Power plant. The Biomax 75 is based on proven technology with recent additional improvements for use in cold weather climates. Direct beneficiaries of this project include all Yakutat Power electric service customers. Participants in the project include Yakutat Power, the City and Borough of Yakutat, the U.S. Forestry Service, National Park Service, and Community Power Corp - the Biomax 75 developer. The proposed project would be located in an unincorporated area, northeast of the City of Petersburg, Alaska. Development of hydroelectric power at the site will include construction of a lake tap, arch dam, unlined tunnel, power penstock, power plant, tailrace, and transmission line segments. The powerhouse would be located within 2,000 ft. of the confluence of Delta Creek and would house three impulse turbines. The rated installed capacity of the powerhouse would be 20 MW and the energy output would be roughly 70 GWh. Power generated by the Project would be transmitted by a new overhead / submarine, 138 kilovolt (KV) transmission segment roughly 20-miles long running generally southwest from the powerhouse to Petersburg. The transmission segment would integrate the project to the Southeast Intertie which currently connects Petersburg to Wrangell to the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project on Bradfield Canal. Project would provide the interconnected Southern Southeast Alaska regional utilities with increased system reliability; replace current dependency on diesel generation; and enable regional utilities to meet the increasing demand for electricity as customers convert from oil to electric heat and new construction is designed for electric heat. Burro Creek, formerly the Burro Creek Farms Hatchery, is an existing, operational hydro system located on 121 acres of private land approximately one and a half miles south of Skagway on the west side of upper Lynn Canal. A grant is requested to obtain expert analysis of the feasibility of upgrading the existing hydro system in order to wholesale power to Alaska Power and Telephone or the City of Skagway. Existing AP&T hydro projects supply electricity to Haines and Skagway but the communities must still rely on diesel during certain times of the year. Also, existing hydro projects do not generate enough power to supply the cruise lines who have expressed an interest in connecting to shore power as a means of reducing air quality emissions. Hoonah-Hawk Intertie will begin at the Hawk Inlet submarine cable termination yard on Admiralty Island as a continuation of the 69-kV line from Juneau. The cable termination yard will be located on the eastern shore approximately 2.75 miles up Hawk Inlet just inland from the shoreline and the submarine cable will be buried as it leaves the yard and proceeds offshore. The total length of the submarine cable is approximately 25 miles. Kwaan Electric Intertie Cooperative, Inc. (KWETICO) will own and operate the transmission line however Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) will continue as the utility providing electrical service to the Hoonah area. IPEC will purchase power from Alaska Electric Light & Power (AEL&P), KWETICO will charge IPEC a wheeling rate for providing power to Hoonah who will be the primary community served along with the old Whitestone Logging Camp. This project is part of the overall Southeast Intertie plan commissioned and supported by Southeast Conference and regional leaders. This application proposes a Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie with 34.5-kV transmission line that will interconnect the electric systems of Metlakatla Power & Light (MP&L) and Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). The Intertie will include 16 miles of overhead wood pole transmission line to be constructed on Annette Island between Metlakatla and Race Point and an approximate one mile submarine cable crossing of Revillagigedo Channel between Race Point and KPU’s Mountain Point Substation. The project will also include control system upgrades to allow for the integrated operation of the interconnected systems’ generating plants. The Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie will provide benefits to both Ketchikan and Metlakatla, allowing for significantly improved utilization of Metlakatla’s existing hydroelectric generating resources while reducing diesel generation in Ketchikan. The Haines Borough proposes to explore the potential for use of low-emission nontoxic wood biomass as the source for wood-fired boilers to provide heat (through an insulated pipe distribution system) initially to four buildings located within the Borough: the K-12 School, the Voc-Ed Building, the Municipal Administration Building, and the Public Library. The Borough would begin to reduce our dependence on costly fossil fuels, while employing cleaner, renewable, and locally available resources, through the use of locally available wood biomass. The Haines Borough will contract qualified consultants to perform reconnaissance and feasibility studies, and guide us through the 35% concept design. Replace diesel generation of electricity for the community of Tenakee Springs with renewable hydroelectric power. The City of Tenakee Springs proposes to construct a hydroelectric project on Indian River. This will be a low head, run-of-river plant displacing the use of at least 33,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Design, engineering, and construction will involve the City of Tenakee Springs, multiple state and federal agencies, private contractors, and the Alaska Energy Authority. The City and Borough of Wrangell (City), through Wrangell Municipal Light and Power (WMLP), has established a fuel displacement rate of $.08/KWH for all heat and hot water. There is a possibility of an interruptible rate of $.05/KWH from the Four Dam Pool Power Agency. This special rate is due to Tyee Lake Hydroelectric facilities spilling of excess water (water not used in power production). A feasibility study has been conducted by Electric Power Systems, Inc. to determine what the savings would be per year if the city buildings were converted from diesel fired boilers to electric boilers, develop a rough order magnitude cost estimate (ROM), and provide estimated engineering design fees for replacing the boilers. The study was conducted on 11 public buildings in Wrangell and the study found significant savings to progress this project to the design, permitting and construction phase. WMLP would like funding to convert these 11 public facilities from diesel fired boilers to electric boilers. Directly involved in this project is the City and Borough of Wrangell and Wrangell Municipal Light and Power. This project is a combination of selective reconnaissance, prototype testing, conflict assessment and comprehensive feasibility assessment to establish the feasibility of prospective pilot tidal energy development projects at four sites where Preliminary Permits have been issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The four sites and respective communities served are: Icy Passage Icy Straits, serving the community of Gustavus; Angoon, serving the local Kootznoowoo community; Wrangell Narrows, potentially serving the community of Petersburg; and Central Cook Inlet near Nikiski, potentially supplying the communities in the service area of the Homer Electric Association. Takatz Lake Project – Alaska, a hydroelectric project approximetily 27.7 MW in size capable of producing an average of about 106,900 MWH per year to serve the City of Sitka and other communities in Southeast Alaska as the communities become electrically interconnected. See the attached application to FERC dated June, 2008 for a more detailed description. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a reconnaissance study prior to pursuing a Resource Assessment, Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Juneau and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project location is at the Juneau Landfill currently owned and operated by Waste Management. The project will principally serve Juneau and those communities that the proposed study shows can be reasonably served. This study will provide the information about present patterns for disposal of municipal solid waste and other types of waste in the general area, logistics considerations, feedstock sources that can be identified and evaluated that would be available to support the proposed plant and such other information that can lead to a feasibility analysis, how such a proposed plant would supplement, integrate into or supplant existing energy resources, potential markets for such a plant and its products, possible site and cost analysis for future studies addressing the preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to meet future grant applications for such a study and project. The proposed plant project will convert the Juneau waste, landfill and sanitary sludge into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Robert Loescher, and Alaska Recycling Energy in conjunction with Juneau City and Borough staff and the Southeast Conference. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a reconnaissance study prior to pursuing a Resource Assessment, Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Ketchikan and the communities of the Southeast Conference. The proposed plant project location must be determined but initial consideration is being given to a site at Ward Cove, site of the old Ketchikan Pulp Mill. The project will serve Ketchikan and those communities that the proposed study shows can be reasonably served. This study will provide the information about present patterns for disposal of municipal solid waste and other types of waste in the general area, logistics considerations, feedstock sources that can be identified and evaluated that would be available to support the proposed plant and such other information that can lead to a feasibility analysis, how such a proposed plant would supplement, integrate into or supplant existing energy resources, potential markets for such a plant and its products, possible site and cost analysis for future studies addressing the preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to meet future grant applications for such a study and project. The proposed plant project will convert the waste, landfill and the Ketchikan Pulp Mill superfund site into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Robert Loescher, Richard Smith and Alaska Recycling Energy in conjunction with Ketchikan City and Borough staff and the Southeast Conference. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. In July 2008, Haines Assisted Living, Inc. (HAL) began construction on a senior assisted living/ residential complex comprising a total of 26,000 SF. Residents of Haines and Southeast Alaska will utilize the senior assisted living and senior affordable housing being built in 2008—2010. The first phase of the project will be completed in the fall of 2009 at a cost of over $4 million. Key to the long term sustainability of the facility is the installation of a Ground Source Heat Pump to extract geothermal energy from the earth and circulate it through a radiant in-floor heating system. The initial feasibility and design has been completed as the follow-up to an extensive energy life-cycle cost analysis performed in 2007and updated in October 2008.The designed system estimate of 210% efficiency will eliminate fossil fuel consumption in favor of renewable geo-thermal heat source and local hydro-electric power and result in significant operational savings for the life of the facility. Haines Assisted Living, Inc., Dan Austin, Project Manager and Jim Rehfeldt, Alaska Energy Engineering LLC are the principals involved in this grant project. McGrath Light and Power (ML &P) is proposing a heat recovery project. Direct beneficiaries of this project include the Iditarod Area School District (IASD) McGrath complex, and three commercial facilities adjacent to the ML&P power plant. Indirect beneficiaries include all ML&P electric customers, as the project will provide increased revenues from the sale of recovered heat, as well as improved electric generating efficiency and reduced operations and maintenance costs. ML&P will be the Grantee under the Renewable Energy Fund. ML&P has teamed up with the engineering firm of Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (AE&E). AE&E has a long history of successful energy related projects throughout Alaska, and has worked with both ML&P and IASD on numerous projects dating back to 1995. Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) proposes to install a biomass heat source for the Yukon-Koyukuk Assisted Living Center, a NAHSDA, Denali Commission, ICDBG, FHLB, and AHFC funded project that will provide a 9 unit housing complex for the elderly of the Yukon Koyukuk Region. The design includes a multi-purpose area, office space, and dormitory-type housing for transient village health care workers. The proposed biomass heating system will take place at Tok School, in Tok, Alaska, and will serve to initiate the beginnings of a systemic regional conversion from fossil heating fuel to clean, renewable biomass heating systems. An outbuilding to house the boilers will be constructed behind the school, in a central location where access to the outbuildings can also be had. The building will have 3 bays for fiber wagons that will to feed into the feeder bin inside the boiler room. The boiler will be able to be fed from the inside or the outside of the building, to accommodate for downtime on the biomass feed systems. The biomass boiler will fed into the current boiler infrastructure, which will serve as a back-up system, and will heat the outbuildings. The project has the advantage of being designed by firms having extensive experience with biomass systems, and is heavily supported by the community. It was written in partnership with the Tok Area Forestry, CTA Engineering, and by Alaska Gateway School District staff. Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) proposes to construct the 2.0 MW Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project) located on Yerrick Creek, approximately 20 miles west of Tok. The Project would off-set diesel generation which presently supplies power to the communities of Tetlin, Tanacross, Dot Lake, and Tok. The Project will consist of a small diversion structure, approximately 15,000 feet of penstock, powerhouse with a single generating unit, tailrace, small substation, and transmission line. The Project operation will be run-of-river; annual generation is expected to be approximately 4,900 MWh/yr (approximately 40% of the interconnected load). The Project will provide clean, renewable electricity, as well as rate stabilization. The cost to maintain a hydro project is also significantly lower than diesel generation. This application supports a wood heating project in McGrath, Alaska. A wood energy supply analysis, and a Level 2 Feasibility (in writing phase) and conceptual design analysis has been completed for a district heating loop for downtown McGrath to include in addition to residences, larger consumers; School District Office Building (offices, Museum, Library), Captain Snow Center, (including Water Treatment Plant, Southcentral Foundation offices and current Health Center, Alaska State Troopers, Washeteria & Showers, District Court, city offices and meeting hall), Post Office, new Health Center, (to be built), DNR Forestry & Wildfire Center, new Tribal Center (Village Council offices and Community Hall), and KSKO Public Radio Station. This Level 2 study has not yet been coordinated with an analysis for a heat recovery project being proposed by ML&P and Alaska Energy and Engineering (AE&E). The biomass project will link and integrate with the heat recovery project in future iterations of design and cost analysis in order to capture the synergies from both to create an optimum design. A side by side analysis of both chip boilers (Köb) and stick fired boilers (Garn) with estimated cost analysis and net simple payback for individual buildings was conducted in the feasibility assessment (calculations attached). The chip fired boilers will require approximately 2000 tons of chips annually modeled at 40% moisture content to displace up to 125,000 gallons of fuel or 98% of oil used in these commercial buildings at a cost of between $28.88 – $36.10/MMBTUs or between $4-$5 on a per gallon equivalent compared to $50.54/MMBTU for fuel oil ($7.00/gal). This project is planned to be conducted in concert with the Village Safe Water project to replace the entire water main system in McGrath in 2009-2011. The integration of these two projects has the potential to produce significant cost savings for installation of piping, the most expensive portion of the project. Both projects have been developed through technical support from Alaska Village Initiatives, and McGrath Light & Power and e-Four Engineering. Principle personnel to date include Bill Wall, PhD, Peter Olsen, Ernie Baumgartner, and Greg Koontz, ME, George Wilson, ME of Village Safe Water. Linkages are planned with Steven J. Stassel, P.E., President AE&E. This application supports a wood heating project in Fort Yukon, Alaska. A wood energy supply analysis, and a feasibility and conceptual design analysis has been completed for a district heating loop for downtown Fort Yukon to include the School, Gym, AC Store, School District Office, Water Plant, Post Office and two stand alone boilers; one at the new CATG Clinic and the other heating the Voc Ed Complex. The three chip fired boilers will require approximately 2000-2500 tons of chips depending on moisture content to displace up to 135,347 gallons of fuel or 90% of oil used in these commercial buildings at a cost of approximately $20/MMBTU ($200/ton) for chips compared to $46.93/MMBTU for fuel oil ($6.50/gal). This project is being conducted in concert but as a separate project with a project funded by Denali Commission, US DOE through an Alaska Village Initiatives earmark, and GZ Corporation to develop a wood harvesting system, wood yard and a wood energy utility to supply and maintain the boilers This proposal seeks to design and make commercially available a system that utilizes renewable energy as an option to the basic rural Alaska electrical power generating system. This is multi part concept that utilizes advanced technology to improve the over-all efficiency of prime power diesel generating systems. The elements of the new system are divided into three separate parts each bringing their own value contribution. They include waste heat recovery, conversion of waste heat using the Organic Rankine Cycle in combination with Controlled Environment Agriculture, and biomass incineration. The project addresses the availability, quality and feasibility of sustainable, economic use of agricultural and forestry biomass in Alaska. The goal of the project is to 1) assimilate all existing information on the total forest and crop biomass available in Alaska into one data base, 2) determine the gaps in the data base and the information needed to fill the gaps, and 3) determine the biological, physical, and economic feasibility of using Alaskan biomass as biofuels. The impetus for the Study is the biomass/coal-to-liquids plant proposed for the Fairbanks area and its need for commercial/industrial-scale volumes of biomass fuel stocks. Work will take place in Fairbanks and Palmer, Alaska. Project_Lat 52.191111 52.93 56.6 55.2 53.886389 64.5 63.87 64.5 64.5 59.78 56.23 59.78 56.3 59.611389 56.33 58.72 58.72 58.97 60.6125 60.55 60.55 61.12 62.57 61.72 62.27 57.788611 57.2 60.78 59.87 59.85 60.78 59.75 60.38 61.53 60.52 61.52 60.7 61.87 66.92 67.08 67.57 66.87 66.9 65.98 66.92 66.9 67.08 61.22 61.32 59.83 63.85 64.75 61.32 61.6 60.488889 64.75 64.03 64.03 60.73 60.93 60.77 60.12 64.57 64.03 63.655489 61.22 61.22 64.03 64.83 61.6 61.3 63.38 61.6 60.77 61.22 60.12 61.6 56.02 56.97 58.4 55.2 58.3 55.333333 59.23 59.55 56.991389 59.45 58.1 55.12 59.23 57.77 56.47 58.4 57.136833 55.33 58.3 55.33 59.23 62.95 64.73 64.75 63.33 63.395278 62.95 66.57 61.22 61.6 58.3 64.83 Project_Location Atka Umnak Island St George Cold Bay, False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, AK Unalaska Nome. AK Unalakleet, AK Nome Nome, AK Pedro Bay, Newhalen/Ilimna, Nondalton, Port Alsworth, Egegik, port Heiden and Pilot Point Chignik bay, Chignik Lagoon and Chignik lake Pedro Bay, Newhalen/Ilimna, Nondalton, Kokhanok and Port Alsworth Chignik Lake Elva Packers Creek in Chignik Lagoon, AK Pike's Ridge site in King Salmon Bristol Bay Snake Mountain Humpback Creek Orca Plant/ Cordova Cordova Near Valdez, AK Chistochina, AK Kenny Lake Gulkana Village Kodiak, AK Old Harbor, AK Bethel, AK Kongiganak, AK Kongiganak Bethel, Ak Quinhagak, AK Mekoryuk, AK Village of Napaimute Toksook Bay, AK Hooper Bay, AK Napaskiak, AK Crooked Creek, AK Upper Kobuk River Valley Ambler, AK Noatak, AK Shungnak, AK Kotzebue Buckland, Deering and Noorvik Upper Kobuk Valley, Alaska - Ambler, Shungnak, Kobuk, Kiana Kotzebue Ambler, AK Anchorage Regional Landfill Eagle River, AK Village of Nikolaevsk, Southern Kenai Peninsula Eva Creek near Ferry, AK North Pole Alaska Regional Landfill / Eagle River Fishhook Creek in Hatcher Pass Moose Pass, AK North Pole Expansion Plant Coal Mine Rd , south of Delta Junction Delta Junction, AK Nikiski on the Kenai Penisula Girdwood, AK Whittier Seward Tanana River by Nenana Delta Junction Denali Education Center Anchorage, AK Anchorage Delta Junction Fairbanks Matanuska-Susitna Borough Redoubt or Spur Jack River Palmer Whittier Anchorage Mt. Alice Harbor Palmer, AK Little Susitna River North Prince of Wales Island Kake - Petersburg Gustavus, AK Prince of Whales Island, AK Juneau's Mendenhall Valley Revillagigedo Island near Ketchikan Haines Yakutat, AK City of Petersburg Skagway City of Hoonah Between Metlakatla and Ketchikan Haines Borough Tenakee Wrangell, AK Icy Passage/Icy Straits near Gustavus,Angoon,Wrangell Narrows, central Cook Inlet Takatz Lake Ketchikan, AK Juneau, AK Ketchikan, AK Haines Mcgrath, Ak Galena Yukon River Tok Yerrick Creek McGrath, AK Fort Yukon, AK Statewide Statewide Juneau, AK Statewide To Be Determined Project_Lon 174.193611 -168.85 -169.53 -162.7 -166.931111 -165.42 -160.78 -165.42 -165.42 -154.1 -158.78 -154.1 -158.4 -159.135556 -158.48 -157 -157 -159.05 -145.682222 -145.75 -145.75 -146.27 -144.67 -144.93 -145.38 -152.435556 -153.3 -161.75 -163.03 -163.13 -161.75 -161.9 -166.18 -158.68 -165.1 -166.08 -161.9 -158.1 -156.87 -157.87 -162.97 -157.15 -162.58 -161.13 -156.87 -162.58 -157.87 -149.88 -149.57 -151.58 -148.97 -147.35 -149.57 -149.1 -149.306389 -147.35 -145.73 -145.73 -151.32 -149.17 -148.68 -149.43 -149.08 -145.73 -148.834642 -149.88 -149.88 -145.73 -147.72 -149.1 -152.25 -148.93 -149.1 -148.68 -149.88 -149.43 -149.1 -132.83 -133.93 -135.73 -132.82 -134.4 -131.53 -135.43 -139.73 -132.731389 -135.3 -135.43 -131.57 -135.43 -135.22 -132.37 -135.73 -134.867833 -131.63 -134.4 -131.63 -135.43 -155.58 -156.93 -155.5 -142.98 -143.55 -155.58 -145.27 -149.88 -149.1 -134.4 -147.72 Project Type Hydro Wind Wind Other Geothermal Wind Wind Transmission Wind Wind Wind Biomass Hydro Hydro Hydro Geothermal Biofuels Wind Hydro Heat Recovery Biomass Hydro Biomass Biomass Biomass Wind Hydro Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Solar Wind Wind Wind Other Biomass Solar Solar Solar Wind Wind Hydro Wind Other Biofuels Hydro Wind Wind Biofuels Biofuels Hydro Hydro Heat Recovery Wind Wind Wind Other Hydro Hydro Ocean/River Biomass Solar Geothermal Biofuels Biomass Biofuels Biofuels Geothermal Hydro Gas Gas Biomass Other Other Hydro Hydro Transmission Transmission Hydro Hydro Geothermal Hydro Biomass Biofuels Hydro Hydro Transmission Transmission Biomass Hydro Other Ocean/River Hydro Biofuels Biofuels Biofuels Geothermal Geothermal Heat Recovery Biomass Hydro Biomass Hydro Biomass Biomass Geothermal Ocean/River Heat Recovery Other Biofuels Heat Recovery Project Phase C C C D R F C D C C D C F D F D F F C D F D F D F F C C D C D C D F C D F C D F C D C D F C D C C C C D C D C D F C C D F R F R C D C C C C D F C C D F C C D C D F R C D C D C D F C D C C F R C D F R C D F C D F C F R F C D F F C D F R F C C C C D F R C C D R C D C C C D D C D F C D R F C D C D F R C D F C D F R F C D F R R R C C C D C C D F C D F C D C D C D C D F C D C D R C Project_Rank_Region Public_Benefit 2.56 94000 484309 96000000 94830 32280 7200000 930000 11423098 122151 0 2000000 15000000 200000 20000000 516000 1578797 0 3000000 1257766 4859211 2000000 367969 5260000 1200000 14152205 1152593 1190571 1075656 2210194 4106500 6837061 7000000 27560000 29000000 12677660 135000 9400 2000000 0 0 0 503500000 0 30000000 30000000 3053154 1634625 52000000 25000000 1850000 20000000 0 32997044 0 4049524 25000 3200000 1000000 19000000 5137439 50000 107326 105500000 12972750 13196325 960000 Rank_Overall Rank_Region Record_Edit 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 4:00:29 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 12:57:44 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 2:37:07 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 1:27:55 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 3:20:12 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 2:09:05 PM 1/9/2009 10:32:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 2:54:37 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 3:49:28 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 1:30:28 PM 1/9/2009 12:56:03 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 1:54:55 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 4:01:57 PM 1/8/2009 11:39:54 AM 1/9/2009 3:39:59 PM 1/9/2009 4:04:55 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 2:39:24 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 4:04:12 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 11:44:42 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM S1_Auth_Doc y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y n n y y y y y y n y y y y y n y y y y n y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y n y y y y y n n n n y n y y n n y n y y y y y y y n y y y y y n y y y y n n y y y y y y y y y n y n n S1_Comments Application signed / resolution ok Match offered Application signed / resolution ok Isn't there some history with this community (Nikolski)? Application signed / no resolution found - will need one if grant awarded. Grantee already has a $1,000,000 Alt Eng grant Application signed / resolution ok (draft submitted - need enacted one) Proposal does not specify energy systems to be developed, but does outline reasonable process for identifying systems to be installed. Application signed / resolution ok Unable to determine if this entity has access to the site Match offered is reduction in lease payments and royalty payments? Application signed / resolution ok Application signed / resolution ok Match offered Application signed / resolution ok Application not signed / only one resolution here (should be one from each entity involved in project / Also did not see anything from Nome Joint Utilities about interacting with this project. Application not signed / resolution ok Match offered Could not find where the borough had coordinated with local utilities. Application not signed / resolution ok Match offered Could not find where the borough had coordinated with local utilities. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Pass all three to stage 2 review but if funded recommend consider requiring the 3 applicants to coordinate on study and milestones. This study appears to be expensive. Consider offering less funding. Application not signed / resolution ok Match offered Could not find where the borough had coordinated with local utilities. Application signed. It appears Trident Seafoods owns the site to be improved - is this really eligible? No resolution from the City Council Peter and Jim recommend pass. Letters from city council good enough? Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Pass all three to stage 2 review but if funded recommend consider requiring the 3 applicants to coordinate on study and milestones. Applicant did not provide feasibility and final design documentation to justify proceeding to construction. Application signed, resolution not detailed as specified in the RFA. y Project interacts with No. 55 - Bristol Bay Health Corp Wind project. Application does not provide sufficient documentation and project definition to proceed to construction. Recommend we consider providing feasibility fund for this project in conjunction with Project No. 55. Given scale of these projects, cooperative planning approach is needed between applicants, utilty and community. Application signed / resolution ok Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Pass all three to stage 2 review but if funded recommend consider requiring the 3 applicants to coordinate on study and milestones. No resolution and application not signed If this moves on, will need to get a resolution No resolution found, application not signed Budget and cost work sheets are blank. No reconnaissance level work is demonstrated. Team has inadequate technical background. There appears to no arrangement to handle technical analysis. Application not signed / resolution ok Project interacts with No. 6 - Nushagak regional hydro project. Application does not provide sufficient documentation and project definition to proceed to construction. Recommend we consider providing feasibility fund for this project in conjunction with Project No. 6. Given scale of these projects, cooperative planning approach is needed between applicants, utilty and community. Resolution ok / application not signed Eligible project IF the heat is currenlty being wasted / unable to tell at this time. Application not signed; resolution not specific Possibly eligible project based on 10/8/08 meeting. Resolution ok Discuss during further review. Application signed and resolution not as detailed as specified in the RFA Application not signed / resolution ok Preliminary work funded by a grant from Alt Energy solicitiation. Application not signed and no resolution Would need a resolution if this is recommended for funding Project construction will be delayed if funding limited to feasibility--project size and complexity relatively small, so stage 2 and 3 review should consider recommending full funding upon achieving milestones. CE2 report appears to provide recon/feasibility data. Applicaiton not signed? Resolution ok Application signed / resolution ok Received funding from the Alt Eng for this project ($1 Million) Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Need to review hard copy Note that proposal was not available for stage 1 review. However, we are passing the proposal to stage 2 provisionally, since it is likely a follow-up of the earlier DC/AEA AE RFP proposal. PM should make initial assessment that stage 1 criteria 4-6 are fulfilled, and if in question pass back to Peter and Jim for full stage 1 review. Application signed / no resolution - will need to get resolution if grant awarded; or use resolution with App #107 Application signed / resolution names Kongiganak (?) Application signed / resolution submitted names another project (Delta) If grant awarded, will need a resolution The Utility has not yet agreed to support integration of large wind power development into their network. Arrangements for interconnection, land access for the project, tariff, and permitting are not in place. Therefore recommend PM consider funding to feasibility. Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Electronic version of grant app is for Toksook Bay. Refer to paper. Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Application signed / resolution ok Battery Storage System - eligible project? Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Application signed / no resolution Application signed / no resolution - if grant awarded, will need to get a resolution Applicant requests AEA assistance. Recommend PM consider funding for resource assessment and feasibility assistance; Consider AEA assuming role of project manager. PM to set budget for recon/feasibility. Applicaiton not signed / resolution signed - uncompatiable format (reviewed hard copy) Proposal did not provide enough description of tasks, milestones, and deliverables. Proposers appear to have excellent skills and interests in community system operation, but appear not to have sufficient energy resource/systems assessment skills. Application signed / resolution ok Match offered Appears that adequate reconnaissance work has been accomplished to justify funding to completion of feasibility/concept design. Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA This project's feasibility interacts with feasibility of the app#74, Kobuk River hydro feasibility. Recommend consider do not construct until results of Kobuk feas study are available. At that time hydro and PV should be considered together in an IRP. Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA No information availalbe on line No electronic version of this app. Assume same proposal as for Ambler. This project's feasibility interacts with feasibility of the app#74, Kobuk River hydro feasibility. Recommend consider do not construct until results of Kobuk feas study are available. At that time hydro and PV should be considered together in an IRP. Application signed / resolution ok Application presented as a report Report provided in the form of the 'application' Resolutions provided from the Norhtwest Arctic Borough, Deering and Buckland. Did not see one from Noorvik. Project appears to be eligible However, Deering (Ipnatachiaq Elec Co) has a grant from Alt Energy for wind assessment. Suggest project manager confirm wind resource and turbine placement have been established during review. Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Appliation signed / resolution ok I can't tell if this is an elgible project (battery techonolgy?) Application presented as a report This project appears to be eligible; It involves the direct use of wind energy. Application not signed / resoluiton ok Note app #75 AVEC proposes a 50 kW PV system without batteries. Recommend PM assess feasibility, merits of combined and separate systems. Not clear what wind resource is. Recommend that PM work with wind PM on joint review. Application signed / draft resolution only (Assembly will meet and approve the resolution - I was aware of this) Match offered Application signed / resolution not as specific as defined in RFA Applciation signed / resolution ok Application not signed / resolution ok Did not see power generation going to the public Applicaiton signed / resolution not as detailed as specifed in RFA. Jim: The project team does not include an Alaska based engineer. The proposal requests funds for feasibility, design and construction. Suggest moving forward to Stage 2 for Project Manager Review. Project involves creation of a biomass waste process not yet in existance. Suggest full funding, with first funding to confirm feasibility and complete design, and construction funds on PM approval. Some feasibility information included in proposal. Application signed / resolution ok This applicant does not have approval yet to even use the landfill. MoA - SWS also submitted a similar application. Project looks fine, but is the same as gas owner Munic Anchorage Solid Waste Services proposal #68. Recommend PM coordinate review of the two proposals, but score each separately. Application not signed / resolution ok These folks have grants from the Alternative Energy fund already. Application not signed / resolution not as detailed as specified in RFA Match offered Application signed / resolution ok Project eligible if no waste heat recovery system in place already Application signed / resolution ok Application signed / resolution ok Initially selected for funding by Alt Eng - later rejected by LB&A committee Application signed / didn't find a resolution Is this an eligible project? I don't see how - power for a private facility? Page 16 states that the wind farm would export power less than 5% of the time. This is less than that which is required to meet the definition of IPP. Application not signed / Resolution ok Match offered Multiple energy sources suggested I can't really tell if this is an eligible project? Applicant claims IPP status. Therefore, recommend evaluation of the power producing parts of the proposal and consider the funding of these discrete projects. Do not consider other portions of the project, since they are not within the intent of the program. Recommend PM consider funding up to feasibility stage for the power projects. This is actually a recon study. Application not signed - draft resolution only. City Council needs to act on it 10/10/08. (I was aware of this when Whittier submitted their application - CR and I decided this was ok.) Looked at description at the ftp site. Application not signed / resolution ok Suggest PM review adequacy of existing reconn and feasibility work. Consider partial funding for reconn/feasibility for this grant cycle. Application signed / no resolution No support from Nenana City goverment - local traditional council did offer support. Nothing found from the local utility either. Application signed / resolution ok Application signed (by an Energy Specialist ???) and not a corporate official / resolution ok Application signed / resoluiton ok If the MoA and this company already have a MoU to do this project; why is a grant needed? Recommend DGGS verify potential resource Recommend PM consider partial funding to recon level. Is this an IPP? Project eligible? Resolution is from Don West, sole managing member and the resolution is not signed. Note to PM: No recon study appears available to justify feasibility phase. Possibility of funding only reconnaissance, however, note two competing applications that are based on existing reconn/feasibility reports proposing to construct projects using landfill gas. A grant to another State agency? A project to heat their office? Application not signed (typed in) and no resolution - where would it come from? Jim and Peter: project is eligible. IPP? Project? Resolution is from Don West, sole managing member and the resolution is not signed - nor is the appliation signed. Note to PM: No recon study appears available to justify feasibility phase. Consider possibility of funding only reconnaissance. IPP? Project? Resolution is from Don West, sole managing member and the resolution is not signed / nor is the application signed Note to PM: No recon study appears available to justify feasibility phase. Consider possibility of funding only reconnaissance. IPP? No CD, so no information on line / Will need to review hard copy. Still need to see a resolution Request is for 2 year Phase I study. ($500,000, $200,000, $250,000) In preliminary review, we could not ascertain whether the applicant has legal access to the resource. This should be verified in State 2 evaluation. No resolution and application not signed No budget or cost worksheet was included. Application did not respond to subsections 3.2-4, 3.6 and section 4. Application not signed / Resolution not very specific. Unsure if this is an eligible applicant and whether it is an elgible project. Local support not demonstrated. The project is of a size where the power will flow into the Railbelt Grid and serve other communities; therefore the assertion that it serves a community less than 10,000 appears incorrect. On that basis, Peter/Jim feel the project is ineligible, and should not be further considered. Application not signed / Resolution not very specific. Unsure if this is an eligible applicant and whether it is an elgible project. No indication of local support. The City of Whittier also has submitted a project on their own. The project is of a size where the power will flow into the Railbelt Grid and serve other communities; therefore the assertion that it serves a community less than 10,000 appears incorrect. On that basis, Peter/Jim feel the project is ineligible, and should not be further considered. Does not appear to be an eligible applicant, project eligibility ? and no resolution - application also is not signed. $300,000 to save $9,000???? This project capitalizes logging operation. Initial indications that applicant has minimum capabilities. Further assessment required. No apparent arrangement for MOA to buy heat or log forest. Applicant doesn't appear eligible / project doesn't appear eligible Application is not signed / no resolution Application signed / resolution ok Can't really tell if this is an eligible project? Peter and Jim: Project is natural gas -fired in a grid serving more than 10,000 people that has viable renewable energy resources. Not eligible. CBM assessment best done in context of Alaska Energy Inventory project. Application signed / no resolution Project benefits a private lodge near Hatcher Pass Peter, Jim reviewed paper submittal - Applicant did not identify how much power would be donated to state facility (i.e. >50%?), so eligibility as IPP in question. Not clear to us whether or not state facility satisfies "public". Applicant does not supply feasibility documentation, although they say both recon and feas studies are complete. Resolution is not specific as detailed in the RFA / Application signed Is this a real utility? application signed / resolution not as specific as detailed in the RFA Application not signed / Resolution of comunity support demonstrated (City of Gustavus resolution 2008-12) Application signed / resolution ok Application not signed / resolution ok Application signed / resolution ok Note supply of hydro to Ktn is in addition to Mahoney, Metlakatla, Tyee, Ruth L, ... Planning required. We discussed this one in our meetings and made the decision to accept the application. Application not signed / Resolution also not signed or evidence that it was acted on. Will need to get resolution if recommended for funding Match offered Application signed / no resolution found (letter of committment only). Will need resolution if grant awarded Although applicant references recon level work, no feasibility analysis appears to have been done. Issues that should be addressed include technical risk since biopower unit is precommercial, and availability/delivered cost of wood fuel. These items should be assessed in stage 2 review. Suggest this project be funded only for feasibility. Application signed / resolution ok Same consultant as for the Ketchikan project. Good description; ask for clarification on the date under section 2.1 of the grant application that Petersburg would seek a FERC application for preliminary permit. App says 2/1/2008; date has passed; what is correct date. Application signed / Resolution ok. Appears this will be a legitimate IPP if the project were completed as proposed. Is this a real utility? appliation signed, resolution ok; but not as detailed as specified in the RFA Resolution and application signed Application signed / Resolution not as detailed as specified in RFA / It appears this project is eligible. Application not signed / no resolution found This is a simple effective project that may have sufficient definition to allow for funding though construction. Suggest requirement of project manager approval before beginning construction, to assure regulatory compliance and adequate design. Application signed / no resloution found - will need one if a grant is awarded; but is this an eligible project - converting boilers from diesel to electric? Recommend PM explore the potential use of heat pumps with applicant. Resolutions from Angoon and Gustavus (draft) and the companies involved. Eligible project? Project is selective recon, prototype testing, conflict analysis and detailed feasibility for 4 sites, Icy Straits, Angoon, Wrangell Narrows, and Central Cook Inlet. Application signed / Resolution ok Application not signed / resolution ok No local support found, access to the site??? Note to PM: Project is very expensive and project is not well enough defined for feasibility or construction. Consider partial funding to accomplish reconnaissance. Is this an IPP? Project eligible? Resolution is from Don West, sole managing member and the resolution is not signed. This passes Stage 1. Recommend PM review as high level review raises concerns that travel and perdiem are hgh and labor budget is low. Overall cost for recon appears high. Is this an IPP? Project eligible? Resolution is from Don West, sole managing member and the resolution is not signed. This passes stage 1; recommend PM review project budget, as high level review raises concerns that travel and per diem budget are high and labor budgets are low, and overall cost for reconnaissance appears high. Haines Assisted Living, Inc. is not eligible; not an IPP or any of the other 3 choices. Further, applicaion modified to appear as an eligible applicant. (See page 2 of the application; changes made to IPP definition.) Application signed / resolution ok Project eligibile as heat is currently being wasted per application. Application signed / resolution incomplete Application not signed / resolution ok Application signed / resolution ok Match offered Resolution is not specific as detailed in the RFA / Application signed Application signed / Resolution ok, not detailed as specified. Match offered Application signed / Resolution ok. Before any funding decisions made for this project, need to determine exact amount of all funidng being put towards this project. This project received $808,500 from the Alt Energy solicitation and at least one federal grant. Same consultant prepared this application and the McGrath one. Unsure if this is an eligible project? Also unsure if applicants are eligible (private individuals) Application not signed / no resolution This is in a grey area between statewide assessment and site specific resource assessment that is eary work for a discrete energy project. We pass this through stage one for further consideration by the pm. Applicant appears to be a vendor, wanting to do a project Application not signed / no resolution Project description is not well expressed; concern that the concept is valid. Recommend further review by project manager of level of technical definition and feasibility. There is a duplicate of this application @ #80 Application signed / resolution ok Someone else needs to determine if this an eliglible project (I don't know) This project demonstrates a technology to construct a 10 KW fuel maker, that employs electrical energy from a hydro facility that would otherwise be spilled over a dam, to produce an ammonia fuel, which could then be conveyed to small towns and villages. It is of moderate size and is "a project that generates energy from or involves the direct use of.....hydropower. This fuel is to be used to fire an intercombustion generator that will be interconnected to the Juneau AEL&P network. Application signed / no resolution; but letters of support. Also, budget has indirect costs detailed - not eligible. Project goal is to assess biomass resources, but assessment is not directed to one or more specific projects. Proposal is more closely associated with the Alaska Energy Inventory project. Vendor / no specific project / no resolution No specific application is given. The description of the proposed system is very generic. No particular source or description of recovered heat is provided. The project appears to have a total budget of $28M. Applicants are requesting funding to identify a site, and configure the project to the community. However, the project description on page 7 of the grant application indicates Ormat intends to use the exhaust stream of an existing GE LM2500 gas turbine that is presently in operation "at the project site". Proposers need to better describe the proposed project, as the application appears to be internally inconsistent. S1_Complete y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y n n y n y y y n y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n n S1_Eligible_Applicant y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y n y n n S1_Eligible_Project y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y n n n n n n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y n S1_Evaluator Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter and Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Jim, Peter Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Peter, Jim, Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Crimp Butch, Peter and Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter and Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Peter, Jim, Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, peter, Jim Butch, Peter and Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter and Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim S1_Follow_Up S1_Min_Tech_Fin_Mgmt y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y S1_OK_Description y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y n n y y y y y n y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n S1_Pass_Fail y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n n n n n n n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y n n S2_Comments This project is approximately 45% complete and has received funding support from Deanli Commission through AEA's rural power system upgrade program. Currently the project is halted due to insufficient construction funding. There are no other major barriers to development. While the project did not indicate a particular team, the application describes a process underway with EDA for selection of a design and construction team. AEA recommends full funding with the following conditions before funding is made available: 1) City of Atka provide a revised and detailed project schedule, including outstanding permits, and budget, 2) submit management team resumes for approval by AEA, 3) submit revised final design and cost estimate for AEA approval. This project would result in a medium penetration wind project in a community with very high diesel prices. AEA completed a new power plant in 2006. TDX Power installed a 65 kW wind turbine on behalf of the utility in 2007 using USDA RUS grant and APICDA funding, Currently the turbine is wired to the power plant but not connected. This proposal would provide funding to integrate the turbine into the power system and develop a heat recovery system in the existing power plant and provide for electric boilers in the lodge and school to use excess wind energy. Nikolski is very remote and difficult to access at times due to weather, has a harsh environment, and the proposed wind-diesel system is technically complex. Recommend with condition that prior to AEA providing grant funds, the grantee establish a five-year operation and maintenance contract with an contractor acceptable to AEA that has expertise in this area. This application proposes a 225 kW high penetration wind system that would serve the St. George power system, including a new lodge and fish processing facility to be developed by APICDA. The project would be located on St. George Tanaq Native Corporation land. The City and Corporation have not yet come to formal agreement on using the land, but the application states that there are no problems with site ownership, and the Corporation submitted a support letter for the project. The introduction of a high penetration system into a moderate-sized community that includes remotely controlled dumploads brings along a significant level of complexity. Successful performance will require commitment to providing skilled and timely operation and maintenance. Recommend full funding with the following conditions that must be met before funds are disbursed: 1) AEA approval of final design, 2) the grantee establish a five-year operation and maintenance contract with an contractor acceptable to AEA that has expertise in this area. Proposal requests assistance for recon assessment of alternatives in Cold Bay, False Pass, and Nelson Lagoon. The proposal plans to look at current and tidal potential; these options should only be covered briefly in the study since there is little chance of immediate help from these emerging technologies. Recommend full funding with condition of AEA review and approval of RFP and consultant before AEA disbursement of grant funds. The project file contains correspondence indicating lack of agreement and poor communication between the two critical stakeholders: the City of Unalaska as the certificated utility, and KSLC LLC, the resource owner. See DGGS comment above under DMLW. The fish processors are not partners to this proposal, nor have they endorsed the concept which depends almost completely on their participation. The project budget is too high. Project appears to be championed by outside interests and has not adequately included the local community, government, or power utility. Project not recommended for funding because of lack of communication, support, and coordination among stakeholders. Recommend prior to any state funding that critical stakeholders determine project development approach and leadership in order to ensure state funds benefit residents of the State of Alaska. The 3 MW Newton Peak wind project proposed by local utility Nome Joint Utilities Systems (NJUS) represents substantial additional wind generation capacity for the Nome system. It is consistent with the Nome Regional Energy Assessment findings. It is part of a joint effort to coordinate a bulk purchase of large turbines within the region. The separate 1,170 kW Banner Peak Wind project (proposal #106) has recently been constructed in a different area. NJUS has requested funding for the intertie that connects the Banner Peak project to the Nome system (proposal #47). The three proposals do not indicate coordination between wind projects, and AEA is concerned that this may result in unnecessarily high development, integration, and operation costs. The application states NJUS is preparing a feasibility assessment for the Newton Peak project that will address the quality of the wind energy resource, wind system design and integration into the existing power system, operation and maintenance, land ownership and other development issues. This study should provide valuable information for integrating the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms into the NJUS system. Recommend full funding with the condition that before any funds are disbursed NJUS provide to AEA, and AEA approves, a feasibility assessment and conceptual design that addresses integration of the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms and other developent issues. This project represents substantial additional wind generation capacity that directly integrates into the utility. It is part of a joint effort to coordinate a bulk purchase of large turbines within the region Recommend monitor current power system upgrade and coordinate final integration design. Recommend up to full funding $8,770,080. This project, scheduled for completion in December 08, provides transmission from Banner Wind (proposal #106) to the Nome electrical system. We note there is a separate proposal for larger turbines on Newton Peak #52, consistent with the USDOE/AEA-supported Nome Region Energy Assessment. The three proposals do not indicate coordination between wind projects, and AEA is concerned that this may result in unnecessarily high development, integration, and operation costs. NJUS is preparing a feasibility assessment for the Newton Peak project that will address the quality of the wind energy resource, wind system design and integration into the existing power system, operation and maintenance, land ownership and other development issues. This study should provide valuable information for integrating the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms into the NJUS system. Recommend full funding of up to ____ for expenses incurred after August 20 with the following conditions: 1) before any funds are disbursed NJUS provide to AEA, and AEA approves, a feasibility assessment and conceptual design that addresses integration of the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms and other developent issues, 2) Banner Wind LLC has petitioned RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 3) a power purchase agreement for the Banner Peak project is in place with NJUS prior to release of construction grant funds. Independent power producer Banner Wind LLC has erected 18 Entegrity EW15 turbines providing installed capacity of 1,170 kW. Banner Wind LLC is owned by Bering Straits Native Corporation and Sitnasuak Native Corporation. Nome Joint Utilities System has requested funding for the 2-mile intertie between Banner Wind farm and the Nome power system, completed in December 2008, through a separate proposal (Nome Banner Peak transmission #47). We also note there is a separate proposal for larger turbines on Newton Peak #52, consistent with the USDOE/AEA-supported Nome Region Energy Assessment. The three proposals do not indicate coordination between wind projects, and AEA is concerned that this may result in unnecessarily high development, integration, and operation costs. NJUS is preparing a feasibility assessment for the Newton Peak project that will address the quality of the wind energy resource, wind system design and integration into the existing power system, operation and maintenance, land ownership and other development issues. This study should provide valuable information for integrating the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms into the NJUS system. Recommend full funding of up to ____ for expenses incurred after August 20, 2008 with the following conditions: 1) before any funds are disbursed NJUS provide to AEA, and AEA approves, a feasibility assessment and conceptual design for the Newton Peak project that addresses integration of the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms and other developent issues, 2) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with NJUS prior to release of construction grant funds. Recommend specialized experts to consult in wind-diesel integration work. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Because all three proposals request feasiblity assistance, the proposed wind/hydro integration/transmission budget is too large. Milestones 7 to 13 are final design and permitting activities that should only be undertaken if a decision is made to interconnect the three communities. Recommend that feasbility milestones 1, 3-6 be funded at this time and that the three applicants be required to coordinate on data collection, study and milestones. Recommend. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Recommend this proposed feasibility study be funded up to $207,500 and that the three applicants be required to coordinate on data collection, study and milestones. We note that Trident Seafoods holds the FERC license for the current project and the applicant proposes to negotiate the use of Trident's license to expand the hydro project and generate electricity for the community at large. Recommend that an agreement that ensures access to the resource be signed by City and Trident before expenditure of any grant funds. Applicant did not provide feasibility and final design documentation to justify proceeding to construction. Project would have interacted with No. 55 - Bristol Bay Health Corp Wind project, now withdrawn. Recommend providing feasibility funding for Lk Elva project. Given scale of project and potential interaction with other projects, however, cooperative planning approach is needed between applicants, utilty and community. Recommend partial funding of $300,000 for "comprehensive feasibility assessment and ongoing consultative support" referenced in section 6 of the grant application. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Recommend this proposed feasbility study be funded up to $150,000 and that the three applicants be required to coordinate on data collection, study and milestones. The major weakness of this application is the lack of evidence of a geothermal resource, per the DGGS opinion. For this reason we cannot assess economic feasibility or other benefits. Other aspects, including the proposed team, are impressive and would bode well for a successful project. AEA does not recommend this project for further consideration. Applicant requested proposal be withdrawn. Cordova Electric proposes to relocate and refurbish the existing Humpback Creek hydro project, currently inoperational after a fire and a flood in 2005 and 2006 thus doubling the life of the project and increasing energy output by 60%. 90% design is complete, and there is substantial support from the local Native corporation and fish procesors, cost share by FEMA. FERC has issued or soon will issue a license for the rebuild. Construction schedule indicates completion by end of 2009. Recommend full funding of $5,500,000. Project appears viable but proposer does not provide adequate level of detail on design, cost estimate, ORC equipment and integration, and schedule. Recommend full funding and careful review of final design by AEA project manager prior to release of construction funds. Project appears to be well-conceived and a practical way to use a local energy resource. We are concerned about efficiency of the current residential woodstoves and possible health impacts from increased smoke. We do not recommend funding for processing and distributing the firewood. Recommend funding for only firewood processor equipment and freight as quoted ($147,720). Recommend at lower project cost. Recommend up to full funding for feasibility and design/permitting. Project is low risk and potentially very beneficial. Long term wood supply is reliable and sustainable. However at $839,000 the project is expensive compared to wood heating installations in Tanana and Ionia, so B/C is poor. AEA would manage project per request in proposal. AEA Project manager thinks this project can be built for $500,000. Wood storage may not be required and bulding cost at $150/sf, not $350/sf, is appropriate. Project can be coordinated with Gulkana for economy. Recommended. At lower cost. AEA will manage project. Given relatively small fuel displacement chip-fired system is too expensive. Recommend partial funding for feasibility assessment and final design (tasks 2 and 3) to consider options with higher B/C ratio. Project is low risk and potentially very beneficial. Long term wood supply is reliable and sustainable. However at $898,000 the project is expensive compared to wood heating installations in Tanana and Ionia, so B/C is poor. AEA would manage project per request in proposal. AEA Project manager thinks this project can be built for $500,000. Wood storage may not be required and bulding cost at $150/sf, not $350/sf, is appropriate. Project can be coordinated with Gulkana for economy. Recommended. At lower cost. This application proposes to expand the planned Pillar Mt. windfarm from 1.5 MW to 4.5 MW, thus boosting renewable energy production from the current 80% to 91%, and displacing 1.2 million gallons of diesel per year. The project development team is experienced, and project economics are favorable. Recommend full funding. AEA has already allocated funding of $1 million of RE Fund dollars. Therefore, recommended additional funding is the proposed $9.65 million minus $1 million = $8.65 million. Recommend. There are two entities planning wind energy projects in Bethel: 1) the City of Bethel (# 122) is proposing a 400 kW construction project in addition to a 100 kW project that was approved by the AEA and the Denali Commission in the alternative energy RFP, and 2) Village Wind Power is proposing construction of up to 2 MW (# 67). Additionally AVCP Regional Housing Authority is proposing study of hydro at the Kiseralik and Chikuminuk Rivers in Round 2 of the RE Fund. Therefore, there is a need for a regional integrated resource energy plan in the Bethel area to coordinate when and where energy projects should be developed. This proposal should be considered in the context of an integrated plan to assure proper sizing, timing, and integration of multiple energy projects. Recommend full funding but require interconnection study and power purchase agreement to be finalized prior to releasing funds. This application is for installation of 475 kW of wind turbines in Kwigillingok, upgrades to the existing diesel system, recovered heat at the washeteria, and smart meters and thermal stoves in 20 residences to displace fuel oil with excess wind energy. The project would be located on village corporation land, and the applicant states that, based on discussions with USFWS, FAA, and Corps of Engineers, no further authorizations are needed. The introduction of a high penetration system into a moderate-sized community that includes remotely controlled dumploads at the washeteria and 20 residences as well as a low load diesel component brings along a significant level of complexity. Recommend full funding with the follwing conditions that must be met before funds are disbursed: 1) AEA approval of final design, 2) the grantee establish a five-year operation and maintenance contract with an contractor acceptable to AEA that has expertise in this area. Given the substantial demonstration value of this project AEA will require close monitoring of system performance. This application is for installation of 475 kW of wind turbines in Kwigillingok, upgrades to the existing diesel system, recovered heat at the washeteria, and smart meters and thermal stoves in 20 residences to displace fuel oil with excess wind energy. The project would be located on village corporation land, and the applicant states that, based on discussions with USFWS, FAA, and Corps of Engineers, no further authorizations are needed. The introduction of a high penetration system into a moderate-sized community that includes remotely controlled dumploads at the washeteria and 20 residences as well as a low load diesel component brings along a significant level of complexity. Recommend full funding with the following conditions that must be met before funds are disbursed: 1) AEA approval of final design, 2) the grantee establish a five-year operation and maintenance contract with an contractor acceptable to AEA that has expertise in this area. Given the substantial demonstration value of this project AEA will require close monitoring of system performance. There are two entities planning wind energy projects in Bethel: 1) the City of Bethel (# 122) is proposing a 400 kW construction project in addition to a 100 kW project that was approved by the AEA and the Denali Commission in the alternative energy RFP, and 2) Village Wind Power is proposing construction of up to 2 MW (# 67). Additionally AVCP Regional Housing Authority is proposing study of hydro at the Kiseralik and Chikuminuk Rivers in Round 2 of the RE Fund. Therefore, there is a need for a regional integrated resource energy plan in the Bethel area to coordinate when and where energy projects should be developed. This proposal should be considered in the context of an integrated plan to assure proper sizing, timing, and integration of multiple energy projects. A 2 MW wind project will likely impact system reliability and stability of the existing diesel power system. However there is no allowance in the proposed work plan and budget to integrate the project into the existing network to ensure continued reliability. Without the integration work the viability of the project cannot be assured. On the basis of our integration concerns, AEA recommends not awarding funding for construction. Installed capacity cost is $14,379/kW. Proposal is well thought out and permitting risks appear low because of previous USFWS consultation. Construction budget is detailed and realistic. The project appears to result in high wind penetration, but the proposal does not provide detailed information regarding integration of wind into the existing system. Given a fuel displacement of 29,000 gallons and a project cost of $ 3.5 million, net monetary benefits over the life of the project appear to be less than project cost. Prior to release of construction funding AEA requires the applicant to produce detailed integration documentation and dispatch strategy for the wind-diesel system. Analysis does not account for inverter losses or roundtrip battery storage efficiency. P.10: the project would increase fuel consumption significantly due to 24/7 generation vs the existing 16 hour/day system. A diesel generator and heat recovery system would provide more economic benefit. If funding provided AEA recopmmends that and efficient diesel system with heat recovery be included as part of the project. Proposal is well thought out, and given existing turbines in Toksook, permtting risks are low. Construction budget is detailed and realistic. The project appears to result in high wind penetration, but the proposal does not provide detailed information regarding integration of wind into the existing system. Given a fuel displacement of 11,000 gallons and a project cost of over $1 million, net monetary benefits over the life of the project appear to be less than project cost. As a part of final design AEA requires the applicant to produce detailed integration documentation and dispatch strategy for the wind-diesel system. Applicant proposes to install 200 kW of wind turbine to provide heat. Recommend that applicants consult with the community and power utility to integrate the project into the community energy system. Recommend funding be limited to feasibility analysis that matches heating load profile with resource availability, and develop alternate scenarios. Develop two scenarios--1) interconnected with utility grid, 2) stand alone for water treatment plant only. The City of Napaskiak requested that AEA develop and manage a wind energy project. The application did not include cost estimate and budget, a schedule, or a project description sufficent for evaluation. AEA has proposed to the Denali Commission a conceptual design to be prepared as part of the Rural Power System Upgrade program. A meteorological tower should be installed as soon as possible to provide data on which to base assessment of wind energy feasibility as part of the power system design. Recommend no funding for this project through the RE fund because the project application does not provide suffient information to allow AEA to evaluate the application. However, we recognize that the applicant contacted AEA staff repeatedly requesting technical assistance in assessing wind feasibility and support for filling out the RE Fund RFA application. AEA did not have available staff time to assist the City. AEA will assess staffing priorities in March 2009 for providing met tower and wind energy planning assistance for Napaskaiak and other communities in similar situations. Community wood heating appears to be conomically viable, and the project could result in the development of valuable biomass resource and utilization information. Applicant proposes to install 50 kW of photovoltaic in the existing Ambler power system. Resulting project would be the largest hybrid PV-diesel system in the state. PV system would generate an average of 5 kW and displace ___ gallons per year of diesel. AEA has the following concerns about the system: 1) O&M costs may include panel cleaning, rreplacement of broken panels, electrical component replacement (inverters, controls, relays), snow removal from panels and twice annual panel angle adjustment. They are not zero. During rare periods of peak PV output (50kW) and miminum electrical loads (80kW?) will there be system stability issues? Will the diesel genset efficiency and reliability of the smallest genset (314kW) be adversely affected? O&M costs may include panel cleaning, rreplacement of broken panels, electrical component replacement (inverters, controls, relays), snow removal from panels and twice annual panel angle adjustment. They are not zero. During rare periods of peak PV output (50kW) and miminum electrical loads (80kW?) will there be system stability issues? Will the diesel genset efficiency and reliability of the smallest genset (314kW) be adversely affected? O&M costs may include panel cleaning, rreplacement of broken panels, electrical component replacement (inverters, controls, relays), snow removal from panels and twice annual panel angle adjustment. They are not zero. During rare periods of peak PV output (50kW) and miminum electrical loads (85kW?) will there be system stability issues? Will the diesel genset efficiency and reliability of the smallest genset (202kW) be adversely affected? NOTE: On Jan 9, 2009 scoring was adjusted in light of information from a November 18, 2008 press release on VRB Power Systems' website. The press release revealed that the company was unsuccessful in seeking offers for the merger, sale, refinance or other strategic alternatives for the company. As a result VRB Power Systems has laid-off or given notice terminating most of its employees, and has ceased accepting new orders. AEA was unsuccessful in contacting VRB Power Systems by phone. Based on this information a VRB flow battery will likely not be part of the Kotzebue Wind Farm Expansion Project. Alternate storage and/or integration options will need to be considered. This project is attractive because it will result in a high penetration wind farm in Alaska's first large-scale wind farm. There are two other proposals for wind development in the Nome (52) and Unalakleet (50) utilities that are proposed be developed jointly--e.g. potentially sharing turbine purchase and cranes. Due to the issues with the proposed energy storage system (VRB Flow Battery) and its role in mantaining power quality under increased wind penetration, more assessment and modeling will be required to define system architecture and potential performance. Because of the importance of the project and its relationship to the projects in Unalakleet and Nome, we recommend full funding with the condition that prior to the release of construction funds the applicant must provide for AEA's review and approval detailed final design, detailed construction budget, and detailed integration plans based on emperical load and wind resource data. It is likely that viable projects with proposed energy savings can be completed. Recommend full funding with requirement that prior to disbursement of construction funding applicant submit feasibility and final design documents acceptable to AEA that indicate viable project. NANA has prepared a regional plan for this area, that recommends further work in hydro development for this subregion. The applicants propose detailed hydro assessment work in the area near Ambler, Kobuk, Shungnak, and Kiana. There are no far north utility hydroelectric projects currently in operation in Alaska. Because of this there are risks with hydro development in this region. The economic analysis shows little savings compared to project cost assuming the hydro development serves only local communities. If the project were to serve a large load, such as a mine, project economics would likely improve. Recommend. NOTE: On Jan 9, 2009 scoring was adjusted in light of information from a November 18, 2008 press release on VRB Power Systems' website. The press release revealed that the company was unsuccessful in seeking offers for the merger, sale, refinance or other strategic alternatives for the company. As a result VRB Power Systems has laid-off or given notice terminating most of its employees, and has ceased accepting new orders. AEA was unsuccessful in contacting VRB Power Systems by phone. After reconsidering the project AEA is no longer recommending funding for this project for funding. The following text shows AEA's original comments: [The applicant states that there will be a 15% reduction in diesel peak power which will directly lower the cost of electrical generation while allowing for a higher level of wind penetration. AEA's review suggests limited economic benefits without installing more wind capacity, but there will be significant field demonstration benefits that could facilitate field deployment of the flow battery technology. The applicant's modeling effort, which was based on HOMER, focused on economic dispatch and did not address critical power quality and stability considerations. Both economics and power quality/stability should be addressed under this project. This project is attractive because it demonstrates a promising mass energy storage technology. The application is related to a separate proposal (85) for an identical energy storage system that includes 3MW of wind capacity. NREL prepared a technical review of proposal 85 for AEA. They conclude that the system is technically viable, although "...still in its deployment infancy." We recommend full funding for either this proposal 83 (flow battery only) or proposal 85 (battery and additional wind generation), but not both.] This application proposes a residential-sized system (4.9 kW photovoltaic and 1.8 kW wind) to serve the Ambler City Hall, washeteria, and the water plant. AEA requested, but did not receive, information to support the claimed generation estimate of 25,000 kWh/yr (average 2.9 kW output). Therefore AEA modeled system performance based on AEA's high resolution wind map (wind class 1--"Poor") and a federal solar database via National Renewable Energy Lab's HOMER model. Results indicate a yearly output of 900 kWh for photovoltaic and 1700 kWh from wind based on HOMER modeling--a small fraction of Ambler's 1.3 million kWh/yr electrical load. Given minimum impact on the community energy system and an installed cost that is high relative to the savings and displaced diesel, AEA does not recommend this project for funding. Given overall Muni of Anchorage support and extent of matching funds we expect successful power sales agreement negotiations. Note proposal 93 - Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity requests funding for Alaska Wind Energy LLC to do similar work. While both have technical and economic merit, the application by the owner of the landfill may simplify the project. Under this project the Muni can work with an Alaska Wind or another IPP to develop and operate the project. Additionally the Muni proposes 50% match. We recommend that either proposal 68 or proposal 93 be funded, but not both. . This appears to be a viable hydro resource that will benefit the Railbelt network. At 1 MW, the project's relatively small capacity and energy output will likely not impact regional planning. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with MEA prior to release of construction grant funds. Recommend with conditions. This wind energy project would supply most of its output during the winter months, when load is greatest. Applicant Alaska Wind Energy is a partnership of Cook Inlet Region Inc. and renewable energy developer EnXco Development Corp. The project would be located on CIRI land. The project would tie into the HEA system at the Anchor Point substation. A 10-mile 24.9 kV line would connect the wind turbines to the substation. The final location of the line is not yet established. The line may cross CIRI, Native Village of Ninilchik, Kenai Borough, and State land. The applicant references a number of existing project feasibility analyses, but does not provide the analyses or their content in detail. The application includes a letter of support from local utility Homer Electric. Project risks indicated in the application are the ability to obtain a power purchase agreement with HEA and powerline right-of-way with land owners. By December 2009 the applicant proposes to obtain all permits and rights-of-way, complete all necessary field studies, complete a design-build package, finalize design, and substantially complete construction. Given the uncertainty of obtaining necessary permits and rights-of-way, allocation of construction funding for the project appears premature. Recommend partial funding for Final Design and Permitting with requirements that before the disbursement of grant funds that AEA review and approve feasibility studies. In the application there is no indication that the plan has the approval of RCA. As noted in the application this project will affect not only HEA but other Railbelt utilities. Recommend partial funding for final and design and permitting (phase 3 tasks 1-10 excluding task 11 the downpayment on wind turbines) with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the release of funds applicant is required to submit, and AEA must approve, a detailed plan to obtain RCA regulatory approval of power purchase agreements and certification 2) Because this project involves public funds AEA will require that all power produced by this project be sold to a public utility. Applicant requests feasibility assessment, final design and permitting, and construction funding for a 24 MW wind energy project near Healy. Feasibility work would begin in 2009 and be completed by March 2010. Final design and permitting would be complete by October 2011. Construction would complete by the end of 2012. GVEA has performed substantial onsite wind assessment since 2003 and confidently estimates a capacity factor of 33-36%, indicating a good to excellent resource. Since the project is not fully defined at this point, the proposal does not indicate who owns the land that the project would occupy, but lists a number of public and private landowners in the project vicinity. Permit requirements include USACE wetland and river crossing, FAA, Alaska Railroad, and State DNR easements and historical/archaeological approvals. GVEA has studied avian impacts in the area as part of the Northern Intertie. The project area has been identified as a major sandhill crane migration route and will require further study for potential mitigation activities. The proposal is for a major Railbelt energy project that would require substantial study for proper integration and operation. Development should be coordinated with the Railbelt Integrated Resource Plan. Recommend funding for Task 2--Detailed Feasibility, minus the initial wind turbine payment. Recommended amount is $6,770,260 - $3,770,260 (initial wind turbine payment) - $28,000 (grant from Denali Commission/AEA alternative energy RFP for wind interconnection study) = $2,972,000. Since GVEA has committed to a 15% match in Task 2, we recommend 85% of $2,972,000, or $2,526,200. Applicant proposes construction of a 400 kW (net) biomass (wood and paper)-fired combined heat and power plant in the North Pole area. The project would include two 250 UTC Pure Cycle ORC units; a biomass boiler; fuel processing, storage, and handling equipment; cooling pond; controls and grid tie-in. As a small biomass-fired CHP system the project holds considerable value as a demonstration project for rural heat and power production. Note that $1 million of the requsted $2 million has been approved for RE Fund funding already. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with GVEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($2,000,000) minus amount already offered ($1,000,000). The proposer offers a significant match and claims monetary benefits to the Muni of Anchorage; however there is no discussion of power purchase agreement in section 4.4.3 (Power Purchase/Sale) although a 6 cents/kWh is indicated in Section 2.5.5. Primary hurdles for the applicant are the lack of gas purchase agreement, land for project site, and power purchase agreement. Proposal 68-Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity Construction submitted by the Muni requests funding to do similar work. While both proposals have technical and economic merit, the application by the Muni may simplify the project. Under project 68 the Muni could work with Alaska Wind Energy LLC or another IPP to develop and operate the project. We recommend that either proposal 68 or proposal 93 be funded, but not both. AEA considered this project in the Denali Commission / AEA alternative energy RFP, and has offered $553,071 in state grant funds to the projects. This appears to be a viable hydro resource that will benefit the Railbelt network. At 2 MW, the project's relatively small capacity and energy output will likely not impact regional planning. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with MEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($2,242,961) minus amount already offered ($553,071). AEA is providing $100,000 for reconnaisance assessment under the DC/AEA Alternative Energy RFP. Recommend full funding for feasibility and FERC permit preparation with requirement that AEA approve recon study indicating project viability before any AEA funds are expended. This project is ready to go. Mechanical work to be awarded via bid process. Recommend. Applicant will be required to cooperate and share data, including interconnection study analysis and outputs, on a non-confidential basis with the ongoing AEA-sponsored Railbelt Regional Integrated Resource Plan project. Applicant seeks funding for a 2 MW wind energy project in the Delta area. The project, as submitted, would install 20 Northwind 100 kW turbines. In a letter dated November 13, after the submittal deadline, the applicant requested an amendment to the project that would result in substituting 2 Americas Wind Energy 900 kW turbines for eighteen of the Northwind 100 turbines, yielding a reduced cost. Since AEA received the requested amendment after the deadline, the evaluation here is based on the original submittal. AEA will evaluate the amended proposal in Round 2 of the RFA. The applicant has already received $801,500 in RE Fund funding from AEA for installation of NorthWind 100 wind turbines on the proposed site. The applicant's current proposal would bring the total number of NorthWind 100 turbines up to twenty. Based on AEA's high resolution wind map, the wind resource at the proposed location is Class 1 (poor). However the applicant provided 10 months of wind data that indicates a better wind resource. For the purpose of this evaluation, AEA has assumed a Class 3 resource (fair). Recommend partial funding with the following grant conditions: 1) AEA will require confirmation of an acceptable wind resource prior to dispersing funds to the project. 2) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with GVEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($6,269,750) minus amount already offered ($801,500). The applicants request funding for final design and permitting and construction funds for a 15-18 MW wind farm to be located at or near the Tesoro refinery in Nikiski. Because Tesoro is a customer of HEA and, under this proposal, would purchase power from BQ Energy, the only member of applicant Kenai Winds, there appears to be regulatory implications. In the application there is no indication that the plan has the approval of RCA. As noted in the application this project will affect not only HEA but other Railbelt utilities. Recommend partial funding for final and design and permitting (phase 3 tasks 1-10 excluding task 11 the downpayment on wind turbines) with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the release of funds applicant is required to submit, and AEA must approve, a detailed plan to obtain RCA regulatory approval of power purchase agreements and certification 2) Because this project involves public funds AEA will require that all power produced by this project be sold to a public utility. This proposal includes four components: 1) Final design and construction of a natural gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) plant, 2) final design and construction of a thermoelectric generator (TEG) using heat from the CHP plant, 3) final design and construction of a 125 kW microhydro plant at California Cr. and feasibility through construction of microhydro at Virgin Cr., and 4) reconnaissance through construction of wind and solar power generation. We exclude from consideration the combined CHP /TEG facility, since it is fueled by natural gas in an area that has viable renewable energy resources. We exclude the wind and solar plants because the application did provide enough information to evaluate the component of the project. We limit consideration to California Creek microhydro, since this is the only component of the application that is defined in suffient detail for meaningful evaluation. California Cr. hydro appears to be a valid stand-alone project. However, the feasibility analysis does not adequately address interconnection with Chugach Electric, permitting, land use agreements, and resource availability. Recommend partial funding for reconaissance. For economic viability this project will likely need to be interconnected to the Railbelt grid. Recommend project team evaluate technical and regulatory issues associated with interconnection. Recommend. This proposal seeks complete development funding for a hydro resource that, while promising, is currently undefined. The proposal does not include reconaissance-level analysis that would justify further stages of development. However the rough assessment provided is sufficient to justify funding reconnaissance level assessment. Recommend partial funding for reconnaissance study (task 1). The project team is excellent. The cost of the ORPC turbine ($1m) seems excessive. Reduce the recommended funding amount? The primary benefit of this project to the State of Alaska is the demonstration and testing of a technology with significant potential in rural Alaska. Project costs appear excessive. At $975,000, (p13) cost of generating unit is of concern especially in regard to eventual technology commercialization. Funding should exclude this cost however provide an allowance of $80,000 for the power generation unit. This project is linked to a previously funded renovation and energy upgrade of the Delta HS that includes the heating system and the external thermal envelop. Together the projects will result in the development of a fully fuctional, energy efficient facility that uses local sources of renewable energy. There is substantial accessible biomass wood supply in the upper Tanana from sawmills, two pellet mills in development, and state-owned forest land. Tok Umbrella Corp received a grant for a whole tree chipper which can potentially be used to supply fuel for this project. Recommend. The economics are not compelling. In order to minimize risk of scalding and provide adequate energy storage this project will have to include significant O&M and controls costs. Currently GVEA is working on a feasibility analysis, not yet complete. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA approve feasibility analysis and conceptual design in progress. The projected costs of this project are greater than the present cost of heating energy in Anchorage (page 16). The applicant's CEO, Magnus Johanneson, resigned as of 11/7/008. See DGGS opinion above--resource is not likely to be available. Concept of piping hot water from the Susitna Valley is questionable. Recommend no funding. This proposal requests substantial funding for proprietary pre-commercial technology. It is one of five very similar proposals that request funding for solid waste-to-energy conversion in Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. The project team has technically competent staff. We have the following concerns about supporting demonstration of the proposed technology: 1) installed and O&M cost estimates are inadequate, 2) little information on what form of energy would be produced and who would buy it, 3) the project manager Mr. West is the managing member of Alaska Recycling Energy, president of WFT Management Company, and advisor to Plasma Waste Recycling (PWR). We are concerned that with these executive duties that he will have adequate time to manage the project. 4) since no evidence is provided that PWR's technology has been demonstrated at either a pilot or commercial scale, technical and environmental risk is substantial. 5) at a $200 million project cost the applicant's project savings of $2 million/yr do not appear to predict an economically viable project., 6) while the applicant indicates informal discussions with the Anchorage Solid Waste Service (SWS), there is no formal support and, in fact, SWS is proposing a different method for recovering energy from the city waste stream. The project has merit in that it demonstrates the use of a local fuel, for which a local producer is willing to sell at $100/ton. However, at $831,203, project is too expensive for relatively small benefit. This proposal requests substantial funding for proprietary pre-commercial technology. It is one of five very similar proposals that request funding for solid waste-to-energy conversion in Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. The project team has technically competent staff. We have the following concerns about supporting demonstration of the proposed technology: 1) installed and O&M cost estimates are inadequate, 2) little information on what form of energy would be produced and who would buy it, 3) the project manager Mr. West is the managing member of Alaska Recycling Energy, president of WFT Management Company, and advisor to Plasman Waste Recycling (PWR). We are concerned that with these executive duties that he will have adequate time to manage the project. 4) since no evidence is provided that PWR's technology has been demonstrated at either a pilot or commercial scale, technical and environmental risk is substantial. 5) at a $100 million project cost the applicant's project savings of $1.5 million/yr do not appear to predict an economically viable project. This proposal requests substantial funding for proprietary pre-commercial technology. It is one of five very similar proposals that request funding for solid waste-to-energy conversion in Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. The project team has technically competent staff. We have the following concerns about supporting demonstration of the proposed technology: 1) installed and O&M cost estimates are inadequate, 2) little information on what form of energy would be produced and who would buy it, 3) the project manager Mr. West is the managing member of Alaska Recycling Energy, president of WFT Management Company, and advisor to Plasman Waste Recycling (PWR). We are concerned that with these executive duties that he will have adequate time to manage the project. 4) since no evidence is provided that PWR's technology has been demonstrated at either a pilot or commercial scale, technical and environmental risk is substantial. 5) at a $60 million project cost the applicant's project savings of $1million/yr do not appear to predict an economically viable project. Agree with DGGS comments regarding access and the pre-existing rights of Ormat at Mt. Spurr. Applicant has limited background in geology and development of geothermal powerplants. No economic analysis was prepared for this project. Not enough information is available to justify funding. Recommend up to full funding of $3,752,181. This project is structured as an integrated road-intertie project in a 300' right-of-way through USFS land that was previously granted to DOT/PF through federal congressional action. The project will address both the road and intertie in a cost-effective manner. Savings for intertie construction are calculated to be $8 million if projects occur together. The intertie would result in lowering Kake power costs significantly. AEA expects DOT/PF to fully participate in the project. Design documents would be useful in the preparation of a regional integrated resource plan for the southern Southeast network. An integrated resource plan should be prepared before significant construction funding is provided to projects to be interconnected to this network. If the project receives state funds, AEA will require as a grant condition that ratepayers of Kake and its distribution utility IPEC receive generation and transmission rate treatment equal to other distribution utilities on the network. Recommend. Project under construction. Recommend full funding. AEA considered this project in the Denali Commission / AEA alternative energy RFP, and has offered $1.1 million in state and Denali Commission grant funds to the project. In addition the Southeast Conference has received $2 million from the state legislature for this project. This appears to be a viable hydro resource that will benefit the Prince of Wales network especially given recent funding allocated to an extension of the network to the northern portion of the island and load growth in the existing. This hydropower project will apparently be dispatched in conjunction with AP&T's Black Bear Lk and South Fork hydros. The applicants state that the proposed project will only be used after the existing projects are fully dispatched. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant joint venture will be required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with AP&T prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount appropriated, offered, and requested from the state and Denali Commission ($13,600,000) minus amount already offered and appropriated ($3,100,000). Excellent technical analysis and detailed cost info. Recommend full funding for design and permitting. This project would interconnect with an existing power network that serves Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg. There are proposals to expand this network to include Metlakatla and Kake. There are other projects being proposed for this network and potential load increases on the network. There is a need to integrate these projects. On this basis we recommend approval of the proposal to assist the integration process. Design documents would be useful in the preparation of a regional integrated resource plan for the southern Southeast network. An integrated resource plan should be prepared before significant construction funding is provided to projects to be interconnected to this network. If the project receives state funds, AEA will require as a grant condition that ratepayers of all connected utilities receive equal generation and transmission rate treatment. Good demonstration project for southeast Alaska. Recommend. Technology demonstration appears valuable, however the demonstration project is not defined well enough to assure that the construciton project will be successful. Reconnaisance and feasibility work is not finalized and incomplete. There is no evidence of a technology review and selection process. There is no detailed assessment of delivered biomass fuel cost and long-term availability. There is no detailed budget for equipment and contractual. Because the concept appears promising, recommend partial funding for design, NEPA permitting, and resource selection. Prior to granting any funds, the applicants will be required to submit a detailed budget for these activities. This project would serve the Southeast Alaska Power Authority (SEAPA) area. Note that SEAPA is projected to come into existence in early 2009 in restructuring the Four Dam Pool PA. A private company, Cascade Creek LLC, currently holds a preliminary permit on this project from FERC that expires on 1/31/09. [ref FERC webpage status of preliminary permits]. The applicant proposes to file a preliminary permit on 2/1/09. This project would interconnect with an existing power network that serves Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg. There are proposals to expand this network to include Metlakatla and Kake. There are other projects being proposed for this network and potential load increases on the network. There is a need to integrate these projects. On this basis we recommend approval of the proposal to assist the integration process. Design documents would be useful in the preparation of a regional integrated resource plan for the southern Southeast network. An integrated resource plan should be prepared before significant construction funding is provided to projects to be interconnected to this network. If the project receives state funds, AEA will require as a grant condition that ratepayers of all connected utilities receive equal generation and transmission rate treatment. Recommend. Recommend for full funding. This project would result in significant savings to the Hoonah ratepayer but the project has a very high capital cost. According to the brief economic analysis completed as part of AEA review, the project has a benefit to cost ratio over 1 if it is assumed that hydropower is available from the Alaska Electric Light and Power system. The estimated capital cost has risen from $37 million to over $40 million. Other factors that might influence economics are decreased availability of potentially recoverable heat in Hoonah if diesel generation is curtailed, and the existence of other potentially viable hydro and geothermal projects in the Hoonah area. If the project receives state funds, AEA will require as a grant condition that Hoonah residents receive rate treatment equal to Juneau residents. If the intertie connects to Hoonah, the Two-County Rule introduces considerable uncertainty in the tax-exempt status of the Snettisham Hydro project, the main generation source for the Juneau area. AEA understands that, although there have been attempts to resolve the issue, at present there is no resolution. Therefore, the continuing uncertainty of the intertie on the Snettisham project’s tax exempt financing is considered in AEA’s review of this proposal. AEA does not recommend that this project be funded because: 1) the high capital cost of the project, 2) continuing uncertainty of the impact of the project on Snettisham financing, and 3) the existence of other potentially viable hydro and geothermal projects in the Hoonah area. This project would follow an existing road and require a short submarine cable to interconnect the hydro resources of Metlakatla with the Ketchikan electric system. With the completion of the Swan-Tyee intertie this would extend the southern Southeast electical network to Metlakatla. This project is one of a number of transmission and generation projects that would interconnect with the existing network. Because the Swan-Tyee intertie is expected to go into operation in late 2009, substantial excess Tyee hydro power will be available to Ketchikan. Therefore the Metlakatla-Ketchikan intertie may not be needed in the near term. Permitting and design documents would be useful in the preparation of a regional integrated resource plan for the southern Southeast network. However, an integrated resource plan should be prepared before significant construction funding is provided to projects to be interconnected to this network. If the project receives state funds, AEA will require as a grant condition that ratepayers of all connected utilities receive equal generation and transmission rate treatment. Recommend partial funding for design and permitting (tasks 1-3). Project as presented in the application appears uneconomic. Expect alternate configurations that have a better benefit to cost ratio, will be considered in the feasibility work covered under this funding. The City of Tenakee has received funding for assessing feasibility of this project under the DC/AEA alternative energy grant program. Recently AEA has learned there is potential for a regional power solution that would interconnect Tenakee, Hoonah, and Pelican. It would allow hydro (and possibly geothermal) resources to be shared. This proposal, while well-conceived from the standpoint of serving only Tenakee, may not be optimal for a regional solution. AEA does not recommend funding for this proposal. AEA will work with Southeast Conference and other stakeholders to move toward a regional power solution. Concern that widespread use of resistance heating will exhaust available hydro capacity and energy. However we recognize value of this project for demonstration. Therefore, recommend full funding with the following provisions: 1) Prior to final design analyze relative merits of heat pump vs resistance heating design concepts, 2) Make results available in near future for regional integrated resource plan. The proposal is detailed and there is significant interest in tidal energy development for Alaska. However, Gustavus will have hydro by 2009, Wrangell already has hydro, Angoon has an undeveloped hydro resource with the potential to provide excess and baseload power, and Nikiski has relatively cheap railbelt grid power as well as other alternatives (wind and hydro) that are commercial technologies. Although this is a demonstration project, the sites selected are less than optimal. The recon portion of the project could be useful for gathering energy planning data. Not recommended for funding. CB of Sitka requests funding for assessing feasibility of potential 28 MW Takatz Lake hydro project. Project is consistent with findings of the 2008 Sitka Power Supply Plan and would follow less expensive alternatives, including increasing capacity of the existing Blue Lk Hydro project, in order to avoid more costly diesel generation. There is potential for developing road and marine facilities associated with the project that would provide access to eastern Baranof Island. FERC has issued a preliminary permit to Sitka to assess feasibility of Takatz. Given the widespread interest in linking major electric generation and loads in Southeast, development of Takatz should be coordinated with the SE Alaska Regional Energy Plan. Recommend. This proposal requests $20.5 million for construction of a plant that would convert 33,000 dry tons/yr of sawmill waste into 1.63 million gallons/yr of liquid fuel and 33,600 MWh/yr of power. Although the proposal references recon, feasibility, and final design as development stages, it lumps the development stages together and does not provide individual timelines or budgets for development stages. Thus it is not possible to recommend funding for any intermediate stages. We have the following concerns regarding the application: 1) No evidence of experience in projects similar to the one proposed, 2) No demonstration of local support or interest in the developing the project or purchasing fuel and power from the project, 3) Little documentation of feedstock availability and delivered cost, 4) Overly optimistic timeline for preconstruction activities, 5) No examples of facilities that the team has developed that use the proprietary fuel and power production processes. Recommend no funding. This proposal requests substantial funding for reconnaisance work in assessing application of proprietary pre-commercial technology. It is one of five very similar proposals that request funding for solid waste-to-energy conversion in Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. The project team has technically competent staff. We have the following concerns about supporting demonstration of the proposed technology: 1) installed and O&M cost estimates are inadequate, 2) little information on what form of energy would be produced and who would buy it, 3) since no evidence is provided that PWR's technology has been demonstrated at either a pilot or commercial scale, technical and environmental risk is substantial. 4) the proposal does not tie-in with the ongoing Juneau Solid Waste Management Strategy and would likely duplicate existing efforts., 5) the budget of $25,500 for travel, meals, and Per Diem appears excessive, 6) the remaining budget of $64,500 for contractual services is unspecified and no technical consultant is identified. This proposal requests substantial funding for reconnaisance work in assessing application of proprietary pre-commercial technology. It is one of five very similar proposals that request funding for solid waste-to-energy conversion in Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. The project team has technically competent staff. We have the following concerns about supporting demonstration of the proposed technology: 1) installed and O&M cost estimates are inadequate, 2) little information on what form of energy would be produced and who would buy it, 3) since no evidence is provided that PWR's technology has been demonstrated at either a pilot or commercial scale, technical and environmental risk is substantial. 4) the budget of $35,220 for travel, meals, and Per Diem appears excessive, 5) the remaining budget of $65,400 for contractual services is unspecified and no technical consultant is identified. Proposal includes a new 456 kW genset in addition to the exhaust and jacket water heat recovery system. Recommend partial funding for the complete heat recovery system development, but excluding the genset and associated freight. The genset is not considered an element of the "waste heat recovery" system eligible for funding under the RE Fund legislation. Proposal number 30 requests funding for development of a community wood heating system that would likely interact with this proposal. Proposal 30 refers to integration with a water project with Village Safe Water and refers to future coordination with this project. We note there are different engineering teams supporting the two projects. On this basis we require coordination of design of both projects. Recommend. The short-term economics of this project are moderately beneficial, however its primary value is as a pilot project to prove the technical feasibility of this technology. The technology is just recently migrating into the commercial realm and has significant potential in rural Alaska. The applicant team has proven its competence in the 2008 season. Recommend full funding. There is substantial accessible biomass wood supply in the upper Tanana from sawmills, two pellet mills in development, and state-owned forest land. Tok Umbrella Corp received a grant for a whole tree chipper which can potentially be used to supply fuel for this project. Recommend. The powerhouse, access road, and a portion of the penstock would be located on Tanacross Inc. land. AEA contact with village corp president Bob Brean indicates potential controversy. Feasibility analysis funded through DC/AEA Alt Energy RFP is pending. AP&T has $1.675 million from USDA Rural Utilities Service for the project. Recommend no funding at this time. Following completion of design and permitting, including resolution of land use authorizations with Tanacross Inc., AP&T can apply to the RE Fund for construction funding. Application refers to a feasibility study that has not been finalized. This is a community wood heating system that combines wood harvest and transport, combustion, district heating and energy sales. The project will likely interact with proposal number 61-McGrath (diesel) heat recovery, but is expensive and appears uneconomic as proposed. Since this is a large project with considerable risk and uncertainty, it should be developed in a stepwise manner with stakeholder input. AEA and MP&L jointly defined a diesel heat recovery and wood heated district heating system project in 2001 that appeared economically viable. We recommend granting $225,000 to MP&L for feasibility and final design (milestones 1-8) in conjunction with proposal 61. If the project is favorable, then ML&P can request construction funding from the RE Fund during round 3. Recommend at lower funding level. The proposal is somewhat unclear as to who will manage the project. Sec 3.1 applicant states "A construction manager will be hired through AEA..." We assume that the applicant will manage the project. This project was configured using stick-fired combustors under the application received by AEA and the Denali Commission. Chip-fired systems proposed are more complex and costly. We question whether they are appropriate for a remote community. Application refers to a feasibility study that has not been finalized. This is a community wood heating system that combines wood harvest and transport, combustion, district heating and energy sales. Since this is a large project with considerable risk and uncertainty, it should be developed in a stepwise manner. Economics appear favorable, and there has been considerable federal investment in the project (DC and USDOE). Recommend funding to final design and permitting (stages 1-8) only because applicant has not yet established final design concept. Recommend at lower funding level. How will seasonal fluctuations in flowrates be estimated? Excellent use of university resources. Good training for Alaskan students in alternative energy technologies that may be deployed in Alaska. High velocity currents can be very site-specific. How will the team determine where onsite to measure currents? How will the sites be chosen? Following detailed review by project manager, we conclude that the project is not adequately defined. The proposer would investigate ways to utilize heat recovered from diesel generation or biomass combustion. The stated goal of this project is to prove concepts that have been already been demonstrated. Introducing the uncertainty and risk of a pre-commercial ammonia production process (SSAS) does not benefit the primary goal of this proposal, which is to demonstrate ammonia production from a renewable energy resource in Alaska. Should this effort be prefaced by a paper study on the economics and feasibility of the concept? S2_Criteria_Total_Score 46 38.6666666666667 40.6666666666667 27.3333333333333 29 41 38.9166666666667 37.0833333333333 32 39.3333333333333 33.3333333333333 32 45.6666666666667 27.3333333333333 44.3333333333333 16 47.6666666666667 44 39 48.3333333333333 38.3333333333333 35.3333333333333 36 46.6666666666667 38 39.6666666666667 38.3333333333333 37.3333333333333 33 33.6666666666667 35 19.6666666666667 35 27 20 32.3333333333333 30 30 30 36 34.3333333333333 24.6666666666667 21.6666666666667 19 48 47.6666666666667 40 43 38 43 44 41.6666666666667 35.6666666666667 41 31.6666666666667 33 28.3333333333333 28.3333333333333 34 34.3333333333333 39.3333333333333 24 15 20.3333333333333 24.6666666666667 21 20.3333333333333 5.33333333333333 47.6666666666667 33.6666666666667 50 45 46 49.3333333333333 47.3333333333333 31.6666666666667 47.3333333333333 37.3333333333333 29.3333333333333 46.6666666666667 36 30 44.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 37.6666666666667 17 13.6666666666667 14.3333333333333 46.3333333333333 49 34.6666666666667 39.6666666666667 42 27 31.3333333333333 34.6666666666667 11.6666666666667 34 S2_Criteria_Total_Weight 92 77.3333333333333 81.3333333333333 54.6666666666667 58 82 77.8333333333333 74.1666666666667 64 78.6666666666667 66.6666666666667 64 91.3333333333333 54.6666666666667 88.6666666666667 32 95.3333333333333 88 78 96.6666666666667 76.6666666666667 70.6666666666667 72 93.3333333333333 76 79.3333333333333 76.6666666666667 74.6666666666667 66 67.3333333333333 70 39.3333333333333 70 54 40 64.6666666666667 60 60 60 72 68.6666666666667 49.3333333333333 43.3333333333333 38 96 95.3333333333333 80 86 76 86 88 83.3333333333333 71.3333333333333 82 63.3333333333333 66 56.6666666666667 56.6666666666667 68 68.6666666666667 78.6666666666667 48 30 40.6666666666667 49.3333333333333 42 40.6666666666667 10.6666666666667 95.3333333333333 67.3333333333333 100 90 92 98.6666666666667 94.6666666666667 63.3333333333333 94.6666666666667 74.6666666666667 58.6666666666667 93.3333333333333 72 60 88.6666666666667 30.6666666666667 75.3333333333333 34 27.3333333333333 28.6666666666667 92.6666666666667 98 69.3333333333333 79.3333333333333 84 54 62.6666666666667 69.3333333333333 23.3333333333333 68 S2_Criteria1_Score 9 9 7.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 2.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 7.33333333333333 9 6 9 9 3 8.66666666666667 8 10 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 8.66666666666667 8 8 8 6 9 9.33333333333333 6 9.33333333333333 6.83333333333333 1.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 8 8 8 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6 7.33333333333333 6.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 8 9.66666666666667 6.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 9 8 9 8 8 7 5.66666666666667 7 8 8 9 4.66666666666667 4 5.33333333333333 6.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 1.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 10 10 10 10 10 10 4.66666666666667 10 6.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 9 10 7 8 5.66666666666667 8 2.66666666666667 2.66666666666667 2.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 7 7.33333333333333 8 2.33333333333333 9 S2_Criteria1_Score_Eval1 9 9 7 7 3 9 9 8 9 9 6 9 9 3 10 8 10 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 6 9 9 6 9 6.5 2 10 8 8 8 9 9 3 7 7 9 10 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 8 7 6 6 8 8 10 4 4 6 7 6 6 1 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 6 8 9 10 7 6 7 8 3 3 3 9 10 8 9 10 7 8 8 3 9 S2_Criteria1_Score_Eval2 9 9 8 8 2 8 8 8 5 9 6 10 9 3 7 8 10 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 6 9 9 6 9 6 2 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 10 9 8 10 6 9 9 8 9 8 8 7 5 7 8 8 9 5 4 5 7 5 5 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 6 9 9 10 7 9 6 8 2 3 2 10 9 9 8 9 6 7 8 3 9 S2_Criteria1_Score_Eval3 9 9 7 8 2 9 9 7 8 9 6 8 9 3 9 8 10 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 6 9 10 6 10 8 1 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 6 10 10 8 10 6 9 9 8 9 8 8 7 6 8 8 8 8 5 4 5 5 5 5 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 10 7 9 9 10 7 9 4 8 3 2 2 10 9 9 9 9 8 7 8 1 9 S2_Criteria1_Weight 18 18 14.6666666666667 15.3333333333333 4.66666666666667 17.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 14.6666666666667 18 12 18 18 6 17.3333333333333 16 20 18 16 20 20 20 20 20 17.3333333333333 16 16 16 12 18 18.6666666666667 12 18.6666666666667 13.6666666666667 3.33333333333333 18.6666666666667 16 16 16 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 12 14.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 19.3333333333333 19.3333333333333 16 19.3333333333333 12.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 18 16 18 16 16 14 11.3333333333333 14 16 16 18 9.33333333333333 8 10.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 10.6666666666667 10.6666666666667 3.33333333333333 18.6666666666667 20 20 20 20 20 20 9.33333333333333 20 12.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 18 20 14 16 11.3333333333333 16 5.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 4.66666666666667 19.3333333333333 18.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 18.6666666666667 14 14.6666666666667 16 4.66666666666667 18 S2_Criteria2_Score 8.66666666666667 8 9.66666666666667 8 5 8.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 6.41666666666667 6.66666666666667 7 6 7 8 6.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 6.66666666666667 10 7.33333333333333 8 9.33333333333333 10 10 8.66666666666667 10 8 8 7 7 6 9 10 6 10 6.66666666666667 1 9.33333333333333 9 9 9 8.66666666666667 8.33333333333333 7 8.33333333333333 6.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 9 6 8.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 7 7.66666666666667 6.66666666666667 5 9.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 10 8 6 6 6.33333333333333 6 6 1 10 8 10 10 9 10 9 5.33333333333333 10 7 9 9 10 7 9.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 3 2.66666666666667 4 10 10 8.33333333333333 9 9.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 7 7.66666666666667 5 8.66666666666667 S2_Criteria2_Score_Eval1 8 8 9 8 7 9 9 9.25 9 7 6 7 8 7 9 6 10 7 9 9 10 10 9 10 9 8 7 7 6 9 10 6 10 6 1 10 10 10 10 9 9 5 8 6 8 10 10 9 6 8 10 10 8 7 8 7 4 8 10 9 10 8 6 6 8 6 6 1 10 8 10 10 9 10 9 6 10 5 9 9 10 7 10 6 10 3 4 5 10 10 8 9 10 8 7 8 4 8 S2_Criteria2_Score_Eval2 9 8 10 8 4 8 8 5 4 7 6 8 8 6 8 7 10 7 8 9 10 10 8 10 7 8 7 7 6 9 10 6 10 6 1 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 9 7 9 9 10 9 6 9 8 9 9 7 8 6 7 10 8 8 10 8 6 7 6 7 7 2 10 8 10 10 9 10 9 5 10 8 9 9 10 7 9 4 9 3 2 4 10 10 9 9 9 7 7 8 5 9 S2_Criteria2_Score_Eval3 9 8 10 8 4 9 9 5 7 7 6 6 8 6 9 7 10 8 7 10 10 10 9 10 8 8 7 7 6 9 10 6 10 8 1 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 9 10 8 9 6 9 10 10 9 7 7 7 4 10 8 9 10 8 6 5 5 5 5 0 10 8 10 10 9 10 9 5 10 8 9 9 10 7 10 4 10 3 2 3 10 10 8 9 9 7 7 7 6 9 S2_Criteria2_Weight 17.3333333333333 16 19.3333333333333 16 10 17.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 12.8333333333333 13.3333333333333 14 12 14 16 12.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 13.3333333333333 20 14.6666666666667 16 18.6666666666667 20 20 17.3333333333333 20 16 16 14 14 12 18 20 12 20 13.3333333333333 2 18.6666666666667 18 18 18 17.3333333333333 16.6666666666667 14 16.6666666666667 13.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 19.3333333333333 18.6666666666667 18 12 17.3333333333333 18.6666666666667 19.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 14 15.3333333333333 13.3333333333333 10 18.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 20 16 12 12 12.6666666666667 12 12 2 20 16 20 20 18 20 18 10.6666666666667 20 14 18 18 20 14 19.3333333333333 9.33333333333333 19.3333333333333 6 5.33333333333333 8 20 20 16.6666666666667 18 18.6666666666667 14.6666666666667 14 15.3333333333333 10 17.3333333333333 S2_Criteria3_Score 9 6.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 6.66666666666667 9 6.91666666666667 6.33333333333333 4.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6 8 9.33333333333333 2.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 1.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 8 4.66666666666667 10 10 6.33333333333333 9 8.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 8 8 8 4.33333333333333 8 8 5.66666666666667 8 5.83333333333333 6.33333333333333 6.66666666666667 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 5 6.66666666666667 4 1 2.66666666666667 10 10 8.33333333333333 8 8 5.66666666666667 10 6.66666666666667 6 8 6 8.33333333333333 6.66666666666667 3 2.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 6 3 2.66666666666667 8 3.33333333333333 2.66666666666667 1 9 7.66666666666667 10 8.66666666666667 9 10 10 6.33333333333333 9 7.33333333333333 2 10 7 7 10 2 7 3.33333333333333 2 2.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 10 8 10 5 5.33333333333333 5 9 1.66666666666667 7.33333333333333 S2_Criteria3_Score_Eval1 9 7 7 7 8 9 8.75 8 5 8 5 8 9 2 8 1 10 7 6 10 10 7 9 9 9 8 8 8 5 8 8 5 8 5.5 7 7 8 8 8 5 8 3 1 3 10 10 9 8 8 7 10 7 7 8 6 8 7 3 3 8 9 4 4 4 8 4 4 0 7 7 10 8 9 10 10 6 8 6 2 10 7 7 10 2 7 5 2 4 8 10 8 10 7 6 5 9 3 8 S2_Criteria3_Score_Eval2 9 5 8 8 6 9 6 6 5 8 6 8 9 3 8 1 9 8 4 10 10 5 9 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 6 8 7 7 5 9 9 9 5 5 3 1 2 10 10 8 8 7 5 10 5 7 8 6 9 7 3 2 7 9 7 3 2 8 4 2 2 10 7 10 9 9 10 10 7 9 8 2 10 7 7 10 2 5 2 2 2 9 10 8 10 4 5 5 9 1 7 S2_Criteria3_Score_Eval3 9 7 8 8 6 9 6 5 3 9 7 8 10 3 10 2 10 9 4 10 10 7 9 8 9 8 8 8 4 8 8 6 8 5 5 8 8 8 8 5 7 6 1 3 10 10 8 8 9 5 10 8 4 8 6 8 6 3 2 8 10 7 2 2 8 2 2 1 10 9 10 9 9 10 10 6 10 8 2 10 7 7 10 2 9 3 2 2 9 10 8 10 4 5 5 9 1 7 S2_Criteria3_Weight 18 12.6666666666667 15.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 13.3333333333333 18 13.8333333333333 12.6666666666667 8.66666666666667 16.6666666666667 12 16 18.6666666666667 5.33333333333333 17.3333333333333 2.66666666666667 19.3333333333333 16 9.33333333333333 20 20 12.6666666666667 18 16.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 16 16 16 8.66666666666667 16 16 11.3333333333333 16 11.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 13.3333333333333 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 10 13.3333333333333 8 2 5.33333333333333 20 20 16.6666666666667 16 16 11.3333333333333 20 13.3333333333333 12 16 12 16.6666666666667 13.3333333333333 6 4.66666666666667 15.3333333333333 18.6666666666667 12 6 5.33333333333333 16 6.66666666666667 5.33333333333333 2 18 15.3333333333333 20 17.3333333333333 18 20 20 12.6666666666667 18 14.6666666666667 4 20 14 14 20 4 14 6.66666666666667 4 5.33333333333333 17.3333333333333 20 16 20 10 10.6666666666667 10 18 3.33333333333333 14.6666666666667 S2_Criteria4_Score 10 10 9 0 10 6 6 9 6 6 7 0 10 9 10 0 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 10 7 8 7 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 3 0 10 10 6 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 4 6 6 4 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 5 10 0 4 9 0 5 3 0 0 10 10 0 2 10 0 2 0 0 0 S2_Criteria4_Weight 20 20 18 0 20 12 12 18 12 12 14 0 20 18 20 0 20 20 20 20 0 0 0 20 14 16 14 12 18 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 14 6 0 6 0 20 20 12 18 16 20 20 20 20 20 8 12 12 8 20 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 20 20 20 20 18 20 20 10 20 0 8 18 0 10 6 0 0 20 20 0 4 20 0 4 0 0 0 S2_Criteria5_Score 9.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 7 4 5 8.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 9 8.33333333333333 8 9.33333333333333 6.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 0 8 9.66666666666667 8.33333333333333 9 8.33333333333333 9 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 5.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 2 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 5 7 4.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 7 8 7.66666666666667 2 3.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 10 5.66666666666667 7.33333333333333 2 8 6 5 5 5 5 10 10 5.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 6.33333333333333 4 6.33333333333333 6.33333333333333 1.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 8 10 6.33333333333333 8 9.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 9 5 7.66666666666667 3 8 5 6.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 8 9.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 10 8.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 10 10 2.66666666666667 9 S2_Criteria5_Score_Eval1 10 6 8 2 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 6 10 0 9 10 8 10 8 9 8 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 9 9 5 7 4 4 4 7 9 5 3 3 9 10 8 7 10 10 7 7 2 9 5 5 3 4 5 10 10 6 2 7 5 7 7 1 10 8 10 6 8 10 9 8 8 5 4 9 9 5 9 3 8 5 7 7 8 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 4 9 S2_Criteria5_Score_Eval2 8 5 6 5 5 8 8 5 5 8 7 7 10 5 5 0 5 9 9 7 7 9 9 7 5 5 8 8 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 7 6 8 1 3 10 5 9 8 9 10 5 5 2 5 6 5 7 4 5 10 10 5 2 7 5 7 7 2 8 8 10 5 8 8 7 6 7 5 5 8 9 5 7 3 7 4 7 7 7 9 9 10 5 8 10 10 2 9 S2_Criteria5_Score_Eval3 10 5 7 5 4 9 9 9 9 10 9 8 10 8 10 0 10 10 8 10 10 9 8 9 5 9 8 8 9 9 9 2 9 9 5 7 5 5 5 7 9 10 2 4 10 10 8 7 10 10 5 10 2 10 7 5 5 7 5 10 10 5 2 5 2 5 5 2 10 8 10 8 8 10 9 5 10 10 5 9 9 5 7 3 9 6 5 2 9 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 2 9 S2_Criteria5_Weight 18.6666666666667 10.6666666666667 14 8 10 17.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 18 16.6666666666667 16 18.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 0 16 19.3333333333333 16.6666666666667 18 16.6666666666667 18 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 11.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 15.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 4 15.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 10 14 9.33333333333333 9.33333333333333 9.33333333333333 14 16 15.3333333333333 4 6.66666666666667 19.3333333333333 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 14.6666666666667 19.3333333333333 20 11.3333333333333 14.6666666666667 4 16 12 10 10 10 10 20 20 10.6666666666667 4 12.6666666666667 8 12.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 3.33333333333333 18.6666666666667 16 20 12.6666666666667 16 18.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 13.3333333333333 9.33333333333333 17.3333333333333 18 10 15.3333333333333 6 16 10 12.6666666666667 10.6666666666667 16 19.3333333333333 19.3333333333333 20 16.6666666666667 14.6666666666667 20 20 5.33333333333333 18 S2_DGGS_Comments_Feasibility The Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS) has reviewed this proposal and recommends against providing funding. The available geological data and regional scientific information, as well as the information provided in this proposal, does not provide sufficient evidence for the existence of a sufficient geothermal resource, nor does it provide sufficient evidence for the potential of such a resource in the project area. If other data exists that provides reasonable evidence of a geothermal resource, ADGGS would be willing to include such new data in the interpretation and re-evaluate the potential for the project’s success. The Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical surveys has reviewed this proposal and recommends against providing funding. The available geological data and regional scientific information, as well as any information provided in this proposal, does not indicate the existence of a geothermal resource, nor a reasonable chance of the existence of a sufficient geothermal resource for the planned project. If non-public information is available that indicates the existence of a geothermal resource, we encourage the proposal writers to include that in a revised proposal. Reject because of no identified method of accessing geothermal resouces It was our understanding that HB 152 does not provide funding for CBM projects unless other alternate forms of energy are not available. Nevertheless, CBM potential at the proposed test site in Palmer is unknown at this time. There is a reasonable chance that methane will be produced, but ultimate permeability and saturation are unknown, and close monitoring with long-term tests will be required to substantiate the existence of a sustainable resource. Component 2 should not be funded until that resource has been identified and proven sustainable. Component 3 of the project description sites that 38 communities were identified by State and Federal agencies has having CBM potential. This list was generated by DGGS, USGS, and BLM in the early 1990s and very general. The authors of this proposal were told in a meeting in Fairbanks with DGGS personnel (October 2008) that the potential in many of these 38 communities has been discounted or significantly reduced. Only very few communities are now thought to maintain reasonable CBM potential and the State is in the process of better quantifying that potential across the state. Based on work already being performed by the state, and the fact the data justifying component 3 of the proposal is outdated and in the process of being replaced, DGGS recommends that component 3 of this proposal not be funded. S2_DGGS_Comments_Geohazards *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment All projects proposing the development of perminent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of recieving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment S2_DMLW_Comments_Feasibility Underway The Geothermal resource identified in this proposal is well understood from prior scientific, drilling and geophysical evaluations. It is clearly a viable resource that should be developed if proper commercial terms can be reached between all interested parties. It would not be prudent for the State to spend Public funds on further scientific evaluation of this resource, and such funds would be better utilized in drilling and development. DGGS reccomends this project is not funded in it current form. Project appears viable. The area has a wood supply, including a lot of beetle-killed spruce. Permitted to Trident Seafoods. May be challenge with second applicant. Wood Tikchik State Park- know of strong public opposition. Parks may have a challenge in permitting, but it is recognized as a compatible use. state land The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project; it is a viable medium heat-demand project. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project; it is a small project and easy to accomplish. Being permitted. Possible competetive interest which may make for more challenging permitting. Although this is moving forward and possible, there is a risk that an associated lawsuit about land ownership being given to the University could effect this project. No state permits yet. DNR Division of Forestry is involved with this project. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project and recommended it for construction. Large heat demand makes this a viable project. DNR Division of Forestry is involved with this project, and it is a demonstration project for a state office building. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force recommended this as a demonstration project. They didn't get geothermal bids - Ormat did. Where do they get access to the geothermal resources? Probably major show stopper. Red flag: Should not proceed. Harvesting would be on Municipality of Anchorage land, but proposers have not yet contacted the Muni. Major pitfalls in project. Proposers are high school students, which is impressive -- they deserve encouragement, but not $300,000. Palmer project will require a number of drilling permits and produced fluids permits from AOGCC, DEC and possibly the Div. of Oil & Gas. Underway Underway This is one of 3 projects in same area. Is AEA considering other energy projects that are proposed for same area to evaluate whether it is necessary to do all projects? The Gustavus portion of the project may have certain issues that may effect National Park land and waters, depending on where they place it. Permitting challenges will be high for any project that is in park waters or are seen as directly affecting marine life going into the park. Gustavus just got a hydro project funded (part of another grant proposal) and in construction that may supply all power needs. Beluga whales were just placed on the endangered species list and therefore permitting just became more difficult for the Nikiski portion. This project has good merit but may have some permitting challenges. FERC permitted area to another company. This project was completed without permits and is now in process to get permits. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project. Large heat demand makes this a viable project. The DNR Division of Forestry is involved with this project, which has particularly strong community support. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project. Large heat demand makes this a viable project. Lands for biomass harvesting have not yet been identified. Alder is the proposed biomass source. Proposed boilers are both manual feed which will require commitments of personnel. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project; large heat demand makes it a viable project. The DNR Division of Forestry participated in development of a forest stewardship plan for Native lands around Fort Yukon in support of this project. S2_Economist Emerman Tom Lovas Tom Lovas Robert Logan Linda Snow Northern Economics Northern Economics Northern Economics Tom Lovas Northern Economics Northern Economics Northern Economics Emerman Emerman Emerman Linda Snow Northern Economics Emerman Robert Logan Northern Economics Emerman Robert Logan Northern Economics Northern Economics Tom Lovas Emerman Tom Lovas Northern Economics Tom Lovas Northern Economics Tom Lovas Tom Lovas Linda Snow Tom Lovas Northern Economics Tom Lovas Robert Logan Linda Snow Linda Snow Linda Snow Tom Lovas Tom Lovas Emerman Robert Logan Tom Lovas Robert Logan Emerman Tom Lovas Northern Economics Northern Economics Robert Logan Emerman Emerman Robert Logan Northern Economics Tom Lovas Tom Lovas Robert Logan Emerman Emerman Linda Snow Robert Logan Linda Snow Linda Snow Robert Logan Robert Logan Robert Logan Linda Snow Emerman Tom Lovas Emerman Emerman Linda Snow Emerman Northern Economics Robert Logan Emerman Emerman Tom Lovas Tom Lovas Northern Economics Emerman Emerman Linda Snow Emerman Robert Logan Robert Logan Robert Logan Robert Logan Northern Economics Linda Snow Northern Economics Emerman Northern Economics Northern Economics Linda Snow Robert Logan Linda Snow S2_Evaluator1 Ott Dabo Jensen James Jensen David Lockard Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo Brown Ott Ott Ott David Lockard WITHDRAWN Ott James Jensen Brown Ott Brown Brown Brown Dabo Ott Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo David Lockard Dabo Dabo Dabo Brown David Lockard David Lockard David Lockard Jensen Dabo Ott Jensen Jensen James Jensen Ott Jensen Jensen Crimp James Jensen Ott Ott Jensen Dabo Jensen Jensen Jensen Ott Ott David Lockard Brown David Lockard David Lockard James Jensen Crimp James Jensen James Jensen David Lockard Ott Ott Ott Ott David Lockard Ott Brown James Jensen Ott Ott Ott Ott Brown Ott Ott David Lockard Ott Jensen James Jensen James Jensen James Jensen Brown David Lockard Brown Ott Brown Crimp David Lockard James Jensen David Lockard S2_Evaluator2 Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Brown Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Brown Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Brown Crimp Crimp Crimp S2_Evaluator3 Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Standberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg S2_Feas_Ben_Ave 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 8 2 7.5 7.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6.83333333333333 7.5 7.66666666666667 4 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 0 9 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 9.5 4.16666666666667 4.5 4.16666666666667 9.16666666666667 6.33333333333333 7.83333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 1 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 5.5 3.5 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 7 5.5 3.83333333333333 2.5 1.66666666666667 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.16666666666667 8.83333333333333 10 7.83333333333333 8.66666666666667 6 9 5 5.5 5.5 4.5 7.5 5 5.5 2.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 3.16666666666667 2 3.16666666666667 3.16666666666667 0.833333333333333 9.66666666666667 4 10 8.16666666666667 9 9.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 4.83333333333333 9.33333333333333 4.5 4.5 8.33333333333333 1.5 6.5 4 3.16666666666667 2.66666666666667 9 9.83333333333333 4.83333333333333 6 9.16666666666667 3.66666666666667 6 5 1.33333333333333 4.5 S2_Feas_Ben_Factor S2_Project_Manager Doug Ott Martina Dabo James Jensen James Jensen David Lockard Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Ron Brown Doug Ott Doug Ott Doug Ott David Lockard Martina Dabo Doug Ott James Jensen Ron Brown Doug Ott Ron Brown Ron Brown Ron Brown Martina Dabo Doug Ott Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo David Lockard Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Ron Brown David Lockard David Lockard David Lockard Jensen Martina Dabo Doug Ott James Jensen Jensen James Jensen Doug Ott Jensen James Jensen Brown James Jensen Doug Ott Doug Ott James Jensen Martina Dabo Jensen James Jensen James Jensen Doug Ott Doug Ott David Lockard Ron Brown David Lockard David Lockard James Jensen Ron Brown James Jensen James Jensen David Lockard Doug Ott Doug Ott Doug Ott Doug Ott David Lockard Doug Ott Ron Brown James Jensen Doug Ott Doug Ott Jim Strandberg Doug Ott Ron Brown Doug Ott Doug Ott David Lockard Doug Ott Jensen James Jensen James Jensen James Jensen Ron Brown David Lockard Ron Brown Doug Ott Ron Brown Ron Brown David Lockard James Jensen David Lockard S2_Rec_Fund_Tot 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 S3_Comments_Benefits The B/C computation was based upon a 1981 study by the US ACE for a seasonal run-of-river hydro on Cosmos Creek to serve Shungnak/Kobuk. The project capital costs and O&M costs were escalated in 2008 dollars. The applicant B/C was computed without the cost of the replacement energy purchased from AEL&P and included an unsupported additional cost of $4.1M in the base case. AEA added in the cost of the replacement hydro energy and did not include the $4.1M capital cost in computing its B/C. The AEA assumptions are considered to be valid adjustments and therefore the AEA B/C ratio has been used to compute the benefits score in Stage 2. The plan describing the future financing for the construction cost ($40M intertie + $40 M road) has not been identified. The main differences between the AEA and the applicant computed the B/C ratios were the generated kWh versus the sold kWh and the annual O&M costs. AEA used the more conservative assumptions for these items; the Stage 2 score was based upon these assumptions. The B/C ratio was calculated at 6.19 using MIC assumptions that all excess energy from Annette Island would be purchased by Ketchikan. AEA believes this is overly optimistic and chose a more conservative set of assumptions. Based upon Swan-Tyee Intertie in place, providing cheap abundant power to meet KTN needs, AEA computed a B/C ratio of 2.26 based upon a 98% availability of Swan-Tyee power. The 2% outage rate assumption would allow MIC to sell approx. 2 MkWh in annual sales. The AEA B/C was estimated based upon capital costsof $3M from a 1984 US Army Corps study for a 270 kW run-of-river hydro plant escalated to today's dollars at $6.14M. The applicant's capital estimate is $2.4M. Given AEA's experience with the high historical costs of hydro construction, it appears the applicant's estimate of capital costs is low. It is also highly likely the project will require a FERC license which has not been costed out by the applicant. Consequently, the AEA B/C has been used in computing the score. S3_Comments_Benefits Copy S3_Comments_Funding 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 4 for type (other federal grants included) 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered no match offered directly - reduced royalties offered as match 8 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 4 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered (in-kind) 11 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type (in-kind) 11 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type (in-kind) match No match offered 15 points for %, 5 points for amount, & 5 for type of match no match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match 11 for %, 2 for amount, & 5 for type of match 11 for %, 4 for amount and 5 for type of match 15 for, % 5 for amount, and 5 for type of match 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match 15 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match (in-kind) 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 4 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered no match offered; however value of land offered, but no amount was provided. Therefore, minimum given for Amount (1) and % (4) and 5 points given for land as in-kind. No matfch offered 11 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 3 for type of match offered (State grant per call to Harvey Paul, manager Kong Power) 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 3 for type of match offered (State grant per call to William Igkurak, manager Kwig Power) 11 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 points for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type 8 for %, 3 for amount and 5 for type of match offered no match offered no match offered Applicant basically asked for AEA help and to complete a feasibilty study 15 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type (multiple types, but cash is part of the match) 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered This match is not confirmed and partially composed of a $2,000,000 bond which has not yet been issued. Budget worksheet amounts do not match the grant application amounts; application amounts used. 4 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 6 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered Amount of match should be = $586,000 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered no match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered Application and budget worksheet have different amounts. Application amounts used. 15 for %, 4 for amount and 5 for type of match Match of $17,588,400 shown in the application / need to determine if this is for this phase 15 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type 11 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type Match of $6,157,850 documented in the application / need to determine if this applies to this phase 15 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 2 for amount, 5 for type of match offered 13 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered Applicant requested to lower request to $3,450,00 and a match of $2,825,000 to be provided. (Match score changes to 24 with this change - 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered.) 15 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type (land) This amount of match ($7,000,000) is an estimate and not firm at all; at least $6 Million is in future 'donations'. 15 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered (in-kind for part of the match) 15 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type 4 for %, 2 for amount, and 1 for type of match offered Match offered is a 'reduced' rate for overhead - this application also budgeted for indirect costs which are not eligilble. no match offered 4 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type 6 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for Type no match offered; however in narrative it dicuss grant administration at no cost, therefore eligible for 1 point as some match was offered no match offered no match offered no match clearly identified for 1st phase 4 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 4 for type of match (other grants) no match offered However, previous investments were counted Grant request is really only $10,500,000 13 for %, 4 for amount, and 4 for type of match offered 13 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match (in-kind) 6 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match 11 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 4 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 6 for %, 3 for amount, and 4 for type of match (federal grant) 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 4 for %, 3 for amount, and 4 for type of match offered (other federal grant) 4 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, 5 for type of match Concern: Application's budget has indirect costs in certain areas / these costs are not eligible Previous investment taken into account 11 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered no match offered no match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered (land) Match source(s) were not clearly identified - will need to make sure of this if this becomes a grant 4 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match 13 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 13 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match no match offered However, the application does discuss a lower rate for certain studies and staff time as a match too 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match no match offered S3_Comments_Support resolution from council 2 letters of support submitted 1 letter of support submittted / a letter from AIPCDA also was submitted; however they also participating in the project, therefore this letter was not counted in the tally for support resolution from AEB known differences between City and grant applicant exist / therefore no points awarded for local support; per matrix 3 letters of support provided 4 letters of support provided resolution from council Numerous letters of support provided Resolution from Borough Assembly resolution from Borough Assembly resolution from Borough Assembly 3 letters of support provided resolution from utility board resolution submitted no local support demonstrated and no resolution noted no local support demonstrated and no resolution included resolution from board 2 letters of support 3 letters of support 3 letters of support submitted resolution from utility board no local support noted Support offered from wood supplier for proposed project Resolution from council Resolution from utility board no local support needed resolution from city no local support demonstrated - however, resolution at #107 says 'Kongiganak' ??? resolution names Kongiganak??? no local support demonstrated resolution from another entity no local support noted resolution from council submitted no local support noted resolution of support referenced in letter from mayor no local support demonstrated resolutions from impacted communities and other entities in the area no local support noted no local support noted no local support noted resolution from utility board resolutions from 3 communities impacted and from the NWAB and NANA no local support noted reolution from NWAB submitted One letter of support and resolution provided resolution from assembly no local support demonstrated letter from KPB Assembly There also was a letter from HEA, but they are particpating in the project, therefore not counted in the tally for local support Resolution from utility no local support demonstrated no local support documented no local support demonstrated board resolution Resolution from board no local support demonstrated no local support demonstrated no local support demonstrated A letter of support was provided from BQ Energy; but this entity is participating in the project one letter of support provided from University, a co-applicant? This is a questionable score. resolution from council no local support demonstrated one letter of support submitted Numerous resolutions and letters of support provided Numerous letters of support provided MOU with Anchorage provided IPP, with no local support demonstrated no local support demonstrated IPP, no local support demonstrated IPP, no local support demonstrated no local support demonstrated 4 letters of support submitted no sprecific board resolution or letters of support found several letters of support submitted City resolution included Numerous letters and resolutions of support provided resolution from assembly resolution from council resolution from council 3 letters of support submitted resolution from council Two letters of support provided Several letters of support submitted from Hoonah businesses letter of support from Ketchikan Public Utilities Two letters of local support provided and a resolution from the borough assembly none found resolution from City resolutioin from one of the impacted communities included Resolution from City & Borough of Sitka no local support provided no local support submitted no local support submitted letter of support submitted no local support demonstrated 3 letters of support provided two letters of support submitted Known differences with another local entity; therefore per the scoring matrix score is zero resolution and two letters of support (local) One letter of local support found 2 letters of support from within the University system (?) no support demonstrated resolution from utility's board S3_Comments_Sustain 1. No obvious obstacles Project organization structure is complex. May be difficult to achieve all project goals. S3_Criteria_Total_Score 60.9 49.8333333333333 53.59375 49.4883333333333 17.29125 51.96125 47.21 48.6279166666667 43.1279166666667 52.3570833333333 51.1708333333333 48.885 39.1708333333333 53.5141666666667 35.94875 29.7858333333333 22.4525 24.8475 61.3120833333333 60.8120833333333 53.1454166666667 52.5725 42.4033333333333 39.5725 28.2391666666667 51.5466666666667 45.0908333333333 49.6316666666667 52.5416666666667 53.4166666666667 45.465 45.0695833333333 45.8595833333333 37.68625 44.6945833333333 24.1179166666667 17.6666666666667 9.68625 55.8720833333333 45 44.465 44.205 47.50625 44.3270833333333 38.5545833333333 46.3395833333333 26.6666666666667 57.19375 52.8604166666667 54.5670833333333 51.16 53.16 52.6145833333333 50.5270833333333 50.73375 48.9933333333333 44.66 47.66 47.9004166666667 43.7154166666667 45.04875 38.9645833333333 35.66 33.16 36.66 xxx 30.61625 21.66 17.66125 17.08875 3.79 17.66 1.69375 1.54875 1.415 1.13125 5 0 60.1916666666667 54.9908333333333 42.58625 52.0595833333333 53.35375 51.9241666666667 49.0441666666667 40.3141666666667 50.7054166666667 50.2108333333333 39.4908333333333 46.5908333333333 46.3775 34.5833333333333 40.38125 35.4558333333333 31.5416666666667 31.2575 16.87875 16.2575 2.8775 57.5975 58.8083333333333 49.8333333333333 55.15625 48.65625 48.2641666666667 48.66125 35 25.3333333333333 25.1870833333333 5 5 Benefit / Cost AEA 4.09 1.19 1.73 0 8.02 2.38 2.06 1.86 1.63 1.71 1.58 0.65 4.4 1.83 3.13 0 4.54 2.33 20.31 4.81 0.45 0.67 0.61 3.89 1.59 1.83 1.13 1.63 3.86 0.83 0.66 1 0.45 1.36 0.57 0.22 0.37 0.26 1.25 0.95 0.01 0.69 0.13 3.54 5.41 1.34 2.68 1.64 3.38 4.13 2.51 3.44 3.58 0.92 1.43 1.47 1 3.29 0.06 0.77 0.44 0 0.084 0 0 0 3.08 0.56 22.06 3.29 5.12 8.26 3.5 1.94 3.97 2.4 1.1 2.26 0.59 0.98 1.91 1.09 0.79 0 0 1.76 2.13 2.62 0.33 0.94 2.76 0.01 1.14 1.12 0 Applicant 5.89 2.81 1.93 0 8.07 1.28 1.13 2.17 1.88 1.45 1.07 0.65 4.4 1.83 3.13 15.8 4.54 2.33 19.92 4.81 0.44 0.67 0.63 4.59 1.59 1.78 1.46 1.35 4.25 0.71 0.71 0.65 0.5 0 1.39 0.49 0.69 0.57 1.57 0.85 0.01 1.78 0.88 3.54 5.41 1.13 1.87 2.45 3.35 4.13 2.95 4.19 2.82 1.17 1.25 1.52 1 3.29 0.26 0.77 0.7 0 0.097 0 0 0 3.08 0.84 22.06 3.29 4.93 8.26 4.23 2.81 3.97 2.4 1.15 6.19 0.59 3.99 1.91 1.09 2.5 0 0 1.84 2.9 1.84 0.82 2.76 0.06 0.92 0 S3_Criteria1_COE 0.552 0.6 0.3675 0.5724 0.5433 0.3169 0.3368 0.3169 0.3169 0.6819 0.627 0.6308 0.627 0.2278 0.5159 0.3562 0.3562 0.2278 0.3183 0.3183 0.3183 0.1658 0.6856 0.1658 0.1658 0.1904 0.4606 0.5972 0.55 0.5 0.5972 0.4989 0.4821 0.7749 0.3889 0.4761 0.6 0.7749 0.6431 0.8259 0.7572 0.7364 0.3605 0.5195 0.6177 0.3605 0.8259 0.1355 0.1355 0.1387 0.2128 0.2128 0.1025 0.1355 0.1387 0.2128 0.2128 0.2128 0.1387 0.1239 0.1239 0.0905 0.2128 0.2128 0.2128 0.1032 0.0893 0.2128 0.1729 0.1271 0.1032 0.2128 0.1355 0.1239 0.1132 0.0905 0.4 0.602 0.6126 0.7669 0.2581 0.1083 0.1006 0.2302 0.5318 0.1231 0.2302 0.6126 0.1006 0.2302 0.54 0.1105 0.4098 0.11 0.1006 0.1103 0.1006 0.2302 0.6078 0.398 0.98 0.4925 0.4925 0.6078 0.4529 0.4 0.4 0.1083 0.4 0.4 S3_Criteria1_Score 6.9 7.5 4.59375 7.155 6.79125 3.96125 4.21 3.96125 3.96125 8.52375 7.8375 7.885 7.8375 2.8475 6.44875 4.4525 4.4525 2.8475 3.97875 3.97875 3.97875 2.0725 8.57 2.0725 2.0725 2.38 5.7575 7.465 6.875 6.25 7.465 6.23625 6.02625 9.68625 4.86125 5.95125 7.5 9.68625 8.03875 10 9.465 9.205 4.50625 6.49375 7.72125 4.50625 10 1.69375 1.69375 1.73375 2.66 2.66 1.28125 1.69375 1.73375 2.66 2.66 2.66 1.73375 1.54875 1.54875 1.13125 2.66 2.66 2.66 1.29 1.11625 2.66 2.16125 1.58875 1.29 2.66 1.69375 1.54875 1.415 1.13125 5 0 7.525 7.6575 9.58625 3.22625 1.35375 1.2575 2.8775 6.6475 1.53875 2.8775 7.6575 1.2575 2.8775 6.75 1.38125 5.1225 1.375 1.2575 1.37875 1.2575 2.8775 7.5975 4.975 10 6.15625 6.15625 7.5975 5.66125 5 5 1.35375 5 5 Stage 3 Review Scores (max) 1. Cost of Energy (30) 20.7 22.5 13.78125 21.465 20.37375 11.88375 12.63 11.88375 11.88375 25.57125 23.5125 23.655 23.5125 8.5425 19.34625 13.3575 11.93625 11.93625 11.93625 6.2175 25.71 6.2175 6.2175 7.14 17.2725 22.395 20.625 18.75 22.395 18.70875 18.07875 29.05875 14.58375 17.85375 22.5 24.11625 30 28.395 27.615 13.51875 19.48125 23.16375 13.51875 30 5.08125 5.08125 5.20125 7.98 7.98 3.84375 5.08125 5.20125 7.98 7.98 7.98 5.20125 4.64625 4.64625 3.39375 7.98 7.98 7.98 3.87 3.34875 7.98 6.48375 4.76625 3.87 22.575 22.9725 28.75875 9.67875 4.06125 3.7725 8.6325 19.9425 4.61625 8.6325 22.9725 3.7725 8.6325 20.25 4.14375 15.3675 4.125 3.7725 4.13625 3.7725 22.7925 14.925 30 18.46875 18.46875 22.7925 16.98375 15 15 4.06125 S3_Criteria2_Score 23 15 24 21 1 17 12 15 20 18 18 18 0 25 0 24 25 24 23 19 10 10 0 20 15 19 22 22 20 16 16 14 16 0 0 23 15 15 15 19 12 13 19 0 24 24 25 21 24 25 24 19 19 18 24 25 25 23 25 7 0 10 24 14 1 0 0 0 24 23 1 21 21 19 15 14 18 17 12 13 15 11 12 19 2 20 0 0 19 24 10 19 20 23 22 1 15 0 2. Match (25) 23 15 24 21 1 17 12 15 20 18 18 18 0 25 0 24 25 24 23 19 10 10 0 20 15 19 22 22 20 16 16 14 16 0 0 23 15 15 15 19 12 13 19 0 24 24 25 21 24 25 24 19 19 18 24 25 25 23 25 7 0 10 24 14 1 0 0 0 24 23 1 21 21 19 15 14 18 17 12 13 15 11 12 19 2 20 0 0 19 24 10 19 20 23 22 1 15 0 S3_Criteria3_Score 3. Tech & Econ Feas (20) 18.4 15.4666666666667 16.2666666666667 10.9333333333333 11.6 16.4 15.5666666666667 14.8333333333333 12.8 15.7333333333333 13.3333333333333 12.8 18.2666666666667 10.9333333333333 17.7333333333333 6.4 19.0666666666667 17.6 15.6 19.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 14.1333333333333 14.4 18.6666666666667 15.2 15.8666666666667 15.3333333333333 14.9333333333333 13.2 13.4666666666667 14 7.86666666666667 14 10.8 8 12.9333333333333 12 12 12 14.4 13.7333333333333 9.86666666666667 8.66666666666667 7.6 19.2 19.0666666666667 16 17.2 15.2 17.2 17.6 16.6666666666667 14.2666666666667 16.4 12.6666666666667 13.2 11.3333333333333 11.3333333333333 13.6 13.7333333333333 15.7333333333333 9.6 6 8.13333333333333 9.86666666666667 8.4 8.13333333333333 2.13333333333333 19.0666666666667 13.4666666666667 20 18 18.4 19.7333333333333 18.9333333333333 12.6666666666667 18.9333333333333 14.9333333333333 11.7333333333333 18.6666666666667 14.4 12 17.7333333333333 6.13333333333333 15.0666666666667 6.8 5.46666666666667 5.73333333333333 18.5333333333333 19.6 13.8666666666667 15.8666666666667 16.8 10.8 12.5333333333333 13.8666666666667 4.66666666666667 13.6 S3_Criteria4_Score 9.66666666666667 10 8.33333333333333 10 1 9.33333333333333 9.33333333333333 10 3.33333333333333 9 7.66666666666667 10 7 8.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 0.666666666666667 9.66666666666667 8 8 10 9.66666666666667 10 10 9 10 5 9 9 4.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 10 6.66666666666667 10 3.66666666666667 1 10 10 10 10 6 7.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 9 6.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 8 8 8.33333333333333 9 6.33333333333333 7 10 9.66666666666667 8 8 6.66666666666667 5 9 2 10 10 9 5 7 8 7 7 1 9 7 10 7 10 10 10 3.66666666666667 10 9.33333333333333 2 10 10 4.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 6.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 3.33333333333333 7 7 10 10 10 10 3.66666666666667 5 5 10 2.33333333333333 8 S3_Criteria4_Score_Eval1 9 10 8 10 1 9 9 10 5 9 7 10 8 9 9 0 10 7 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 5 9 9 5 8 10 8 10 4 1 10 10 10 10 6 8 8 9 6 9 8 8 9 9 7 7 10 9 8 8 6 5 9 2 10 10 9 5 7 8 7 7 1 8 7 10 7 10 10 10 4 10 9 2 10 10 3 9 7 9 4 7 7 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 10 3 8 S3_Criteria4_Score_Eval2 10 10 9 10 1 9 9 10 2 9 7 10 7 9 10 1 9 8 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 5 9 9 4 8 10 6 10 3 1 10 10 10 10 6 7 9 9 7 10 8 8 8 9 6 7 10 10 8 8 7 5 9 2 10 10 9 5 7 8 7 7 1 9 7 10 7 10 10 10 3 10 9 2 10 10 6 8 5 10 3 7 7 10 10 10 10 3 5 5 10 2 8 S3_Criteria4_Score_Eval3 10 10 8 10 1 10 10 10 3 9 9 10 6 8 10 1 10 9 6 10 9 10 10 9 10 5 9 9 4 9 10 6 10 4 1 10 10 10 10 6 7 9 9 7 10 8 8 8 9 6 7 10 10 8 8 7 5 9 2 10 10 9 5 7 8 7 7 1 10 7 10 7 10 10 10 4 10 10 2 10 10 4 9 7 10 3 7 7 10 10 10 10 3 5 5 10 2 8 4. Readiness (5) 4.83333333333333 5 4.16666666666667 5 0.5 4.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 5 1.66666666666667 4.5 3.83333333333333 5 3.5 4.33333333333333 4.83333333333333 0.333333333333333 4.83333333333333 4 4 5 4.83333333333333 5 5 4.5 5 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.16666666666667 4.16666666666667 5 3.33333333333333 5 1.83333333333333 0.5 5 5 5 5 3 3.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 4.5 3.33333333333333 4.83333333333333 4 4 4.16666666666667 4.5 3.16666666666667 3.5 5 4.83333333333333 4 4 3.33333333333333 2.5 4.5 1 5 5 4.5 2.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 0.5 4.5 3.5 5 3.5 5 5 5 1.83333333333333 5 4.66666666666667 1 5 5 2.16666666666667 4.33333333333333 3.16666666666667 4.83333333333333 1.66666666666667 3.5 3.5 5 5 5 5 1.83333333333333 2.5 2.5 5 1.16666666666667 4 S3_Criteria5_Score 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 8 2 7.5 7.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6.83333333333333 7.5 7.66666666666667 4 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 0 9 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 9.5 4.16666666666667 4.5 4.16666666666667 9.16666666666667 6.33333333333333 7.83333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 1 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 5.5 3.5 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 7 5.5 3.83333333333333 2.5 1.66666666666667 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.16666666666667 8.83333333333333 10 7.83333333333333 8.66666666666667 6 9 5 5.5 5.5 4.5 7.5 5 5.5 2.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 3.16666666666667 2 3.16666666666667 3.16666666666667 0.833333333333333 9.66666666666667 4 10 8.16666666666667 9 9.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 4.83333333333333 9.33333333333333 4.5 4.5 8.33333333333333 1.5 6.5 4 3.16666666666667 2.66666666666667 9 9.83333333333333 4.83333333333333 6 9.16666666666667 3.66666666666667 6 5 1.33333333333333 4.5 S3_Criteria5_Score_Eval1 2 10 10 10 S3_Criteria5_Score_Eval2 1 7 7 5 S3_Criteria5_Score_Eval3 2 8 9 10 5. Benefits (10) 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 8 2 7.5 7.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6.83333333333333 7.5 7.66666666666667 4 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 0 9 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 9.5 4.16666666666667 4.5 4.16666666666667 9.16666666666667 6.33333333333333 7.83333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 1 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 5.5 3.5 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 7 5.5 3.83333333333333 2.5 1.66666666666667 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.16666666666667 8.83333333333333 10 7.83333333333333 8.66666666666667 6 9 5 5.5 5.5 4.5 7.5 5 5.5 2.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 3.16666666666667 2 3.16666666666667 3.16666666666667 0.833333333333333 9.66666666666667 4 10 8.16666666666667 9 9.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 4.83333333333333 9.33333333333333 4.5 4.5 8.33333333333333 1.5 6.5 4 3.16666666666667 2.66666666666667 9 9.83333333333333 4.83333333333333 6 9.16666666666667 3.66666666666667 6 5 1.33333333333333 4.5 S3_Criteria6_Score 2 4 3 2 0 5 5 2 5 2 2 2 5 2 2 0 4 5 5 2 0 3 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 5 0 3 3 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 5 2 2 2 5 2 4 5 3 4 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 5 4 0 4 3 4 0 2 6. Local Support (5) 2 4 3 2 0 5 5 2 5 2 2 2 5 2 2 0 4 5 5 2 0 3 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 5 0 3 3 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 5 2 2 2 5 2 4 5 3 4 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 5 4 0 4 3 4 0 2 S3_Criteria7_Score 9.66666666666667 5.66666666666667 5.66666666666667 7.33333333333333 1 9.33333333333333 9.33333333333333 9.33333333333333 4 7.33333333333333 8 7 9.66666666666667 7.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 0.666666666666667 9.66666666666667 10 4 10 10 10 10 9 8 8.33333333333333 7 7 5.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 10 4.33333333333333 10 8.66666666666667 3.66666666666667 6.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 9 8 5.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 10 10 9.66666666666667 9 8.66666666666667 10 10 9.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 7 8 9 3.66666666666667 5 3.33333333333333 8 10 7.33333333333333 3 5.33333333333333 8 5.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 0.666666666666667 10 8.33333333333333 10 7.66666666666667 10 10 10 3.33333333333333 10 8.66666666666667 8 10 10 8 8 1.5 10 2.66666666666667 5.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 9 10 10 10 9.66666666666667 5 7 10 1.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 S3_Criteria7_Score_Eval1 10 6 5 8 1 9 9 9 5 8 7 7 9 8 8 0 9 10 4 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 8 8 5 9 10 5 10 8 3 7 7 7 7 9 8 3 9 6 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 9 9 7 8 9 3 5 3 8 10 6 2 6 8 6 6 0 10 7 10 7 10 10 10 3 10 8 7 10 10 8 8 1 10 3 6 6 8 10 10 10 10 5 7 10 1 8 S3_Criteria7_Score_Eval2 9 5 6 7 1 9 9 10 4 6 8 7 10 6 8 1 10 10 4 10 10 10 10 9 7 8 7 7 6 5 10 5 10 9 5 5 8 8 8 9 7 5 8 5 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 9 10 7 8 10 5 5 5 8 10 8 5 5 8 5 5 1 10 8 10 8 10 10 10 5 10 8 8 10 10 8 7 2 10 3 5 5 9 10 10 10 9 5 7 10 2 10 S3_Criteria7_Score_Eval3 10 6 6 7 1 10 10 9 3 8 9 7 10 8 10 1 10 10 4 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 6 6 5 9 10 3 10 9 3 7 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 5 10 10 9 9 7 10 10 10 10 7 8 8 3 5 2 8 10 8 2 5 8 5 5 1 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 2 10 10 9 10 10 8 9 10 2 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 5 7 10 2 10 7. Sustain-ability (5) 4.83333333333333 2.83333333333333 2.83333333333333 3.66666666666667 0.5 4.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 2 3.66666666666667 4 3.5 4.83333333333333 3.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 0.333333333333333 4.83333333333333 5 2 5 5 5 5 4.5 4 4.16666666666667 3.5 3.5 2.66666666666667 3.83333333333333 5 2.16666666666667 5 4.33333333333333 1.83333333333333 3.16666666666667 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 4.5 4 2.66666666666667 4.16666666666667 2.66666666666667 5 5 4.83333333333333 4.5 4.33333333333333 5 5 4.66666666666667 4.83333333333333 3.5 4 4.5 1.83333333333333 2.5 1.66666666666667 4 5 3.66666666666667 1.5 2.66666666666667 4 2.66666666666667 2.66666666666667 0.333333333333333 5 4.16666666666667 5 3.83333333333333 5 5 5 1.66666666666667 5 4.33333333333333 4 5 5 4 4 0.75 5 1.33333333333333 2.66666666666667 2.66666666666667 4.5 5 5 5 4.83333333333333 2.5 3.5 5 0.833333333333333 4.66666666666667 S3_Evaluator1 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & # 6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Butch #2 & #6, Jensen Dabo Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott//Butch #2 & #6 Lockard, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch / #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 &# 6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 lockard Butch #2 & 6 Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & # 6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen & Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 &#6 Lockard, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen,Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch#2 & #6 Ott Butch / Match & Local Support Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 S3_Evaluator2 Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Crimp Crimp S3_Evaluator3 Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg T_Grant 2340000 451030 3000000 40000 3225500 15534309 8996832 890000 5157000 224000 471000 95000 207500 22000000 150000 10000000 11600000 5260000 628825 2860000 839000 1200000 898000 11650000 250000 3197986 3200000 3200000 8710000 4313603 3506406 123494.29 1153056 2220141 498480 605000 605000 605000 14875535 10921428 1075625 3930399 150000 7400000 3087000 4334600 93341555 4007900 2100000 4555922 1020000 1050000 131250 8363886 46800000 12231750 200000 15675000 1937072 2868000 193600 8342810 1200000 831203 775000 650000 98150000 6155019 5490000 750000 10500000 1950000 1620000 316668.7 3633600 205000 60000 37459970 7652000 140500 2500000 3383000 2455000 2000000 25625000 95000 105620 991815 5042539 457505 3805349 14500000 4005000 4145991 565439 360000 800000 Total (100) 83.4333333333333 72.4666666666667 72.0479166666667 66.065 41.47375 66.9504166666667 61.8633333333333 61.7170833333333 60.18375 76.97125 72.3458333333333 68.955 64.7791666666667 62.1425 57.4129166666667 44.4241666666667 78.6695833333333 77.3695833333333 70.7029166666667 66.0508333333333 65.0433333333333 47.8508333333333 36.7841666666667 65.9733333333333 62.8058333333333 73.7616666666667 73.625 72.85 68.7616666666667 63.00875 61.9120833333333 59.4254166666667 58.4170833333333 40.65375 38.3333333333333 76.71625 68.1666666666667 66.5616666666667 65.7816666666667 63.41875 63.38125 56.86375 55.3520833333333 48.2666666666667 69.9479166666667 66.3145833333333 65.20125 65.0133333333333 64.8466666666667 64.2104166666667 63.0145833333333 61.20125 58.9133333333333 58.88 57.6466666666667 56.7345833333333 53.8129166666667 52.4795833333333 52.1604166666667 45.7133333333333 44.2133333333333 43.4133333333333 41.87 34.8154166666667 28.8466666666667 24.2170833333333 22.2329166666667 7.67 84.8083333333333 76.1058333333333 71.75875 69.17875 64.46125 64.1725 63.7325 62.7758333333333 62.71625 61.8991666666667 61.5391666666667 57.7725 56.5325 53.9166666666667 52.54375 47.9175 39.525 37.5725 18.93625 18.3391666666667 81.8258333333333 78.3583333333333 73.7 73.3354166666667 71.1020833333333 69.2591666666667 66.5170833333333 48.8666666666667 38 32.8279166666667 Statewide Rank (99) 2 15 17 31 84 27 54 55 58 7 16 24 39 51 65 80 4 6 20 32 36 78 90 33 48 10 12 14 25 47 52 59 62 85 87 8 26 28 34 44 45 66 69 76 21 30 35 37 38 41 46 57 60 61 64 67 71 73 74 79 81 82 83 91 93 94 95 98 1 9 18 23 40 42 43 49 50 53 56 63 68 70 72 77 86 89 96 97 3 5 11 13 19 22 29 75 88 92 Cost and Request Project Cost 2440000 451030 3000000 40000 250000000 255931030 15534309 8996832 890000 5157000 30578141 8000000 8150000 1265000 207500 22000000 1900000 10020000 100000 13100000 64742500 11600000 5260000 628825 45058000 839000 1200000 898000 65483825 23319539 4100000 27419539 3197986 3200000 3200000 8710000 4313603 3506406 123494.29 1153056 2220141 178000 29802686.29 7500000 605000 605000 605000 14807535 10921428 1500000 3930399 150000 40624362 7400000 3087000 21923000 93341555 4007900 8257850 4555922 26924120 1050000 96000000 8363886 46800000 12231750 3000000 15675000 1937072 2868000 190000 1070000000 200000000 831203 100000000 60000000 98150000 200000 15000000 15000000 300000 140229650 20824011 600000 2078747919 6155019 40000000 10153000 17145000 1950000 17750000 441229 3633600 109975000 60000 37459970 7652000 2090500 2500000 3260000 225000000 25625000 2379007 1076000 514305325 991815 382779 461950 3805349 14500000 4005000 4285161 1880000 30312054 565439 7000000 800000 286149 28000000 36651588 3174598969.29 Grant Request 996000 409430 1500000 25000 3225500 6155930 13951326 8774080 801000 4126000 27652406 184000 375000 77000 207500 10000000 150000 5000000 80000 10100000 26173500 5500000 1780000 364225 2288000 827000 1200000 898000 12857225 9650000 225000 9875000 2598320 1700000 1600000 6960000 3882243 3155765 109471.29 1037750 2220141 137543 23401233.29 249500 550000 550000 550000 12075535 10758928 1025000 3144399 150000 29053362 3700000 1000000 4334600 79340322 2000000 2100000 2142961 816000 840000 105000 6269750 11700000 5231750 85000 7837500 1854026 2868000 190000 4047230 1100000 831203 775000 650000 950000 194540 7500000 7500000 300000 14673250 19401411 50000 190387543 3752181 2990000 750000 10500000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 3393600 160000 48000 36709970 7152000 120500 2400000 3260000 1940000 2000000 20500000 95000 105620 1432906 1026000 101373999.3 824815 382779 446950 3245349 11600000 3052000 2945991 1880000 24377884 565439 300000 800000 286149 495000 2446588 453754670.59 Grant_Fund_Request_Tot 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 2254243352.95 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 1803394682.36 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 4057638035.31 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 3155940694.13 450848670.59 450848670.59 901697341.18 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 4959335376.49 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 4057638035.31 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 13976308788.29 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 9467822082.39 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 3155940694.13 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 2254243352.95 50044202435.49 Grantee_PM 0 0 Brian Davis, CE2 Engineers Michael Favors Diana Moore 0 John Magee 0 Brent Petrie, AVEC 0 0 Brent Petrie, AVEC 0 Earle Ausman Daniel Hertrich Steve Gilbert Bruce Sexuaer, Alaska District USACE Joel Groves 0 Greg Mickelson, AP&T Richard Levitt Todd Tew, Haida Corp. and Robert Grimm, AP&T Ed Schofield, KPU Joe Nelson, PMPL Darrel Maple Paul Brendible, MIC Arthur Bloom Steve Henson Christopher Brewton, Utility Director 0 Eric Hannan, AP&T 0 0 0 Major_Equip_Prov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Match Offered 1344000 41600 1500000 15000 2900600 1582983 222752 89000 1031000 2925735 40000 96000 18000 0 12000000 5000000 20000 2800000 19974000 6100000 3480000 264600 572000 12000 0 10428600 2000000 25000 2025000 599666 1500000 1600000 1750000 431360 350641 14023 115306 0 58000 6418996 248980 55000 55000 55000 2800000 162500 50625 786000 4213105 3700000 2087000 17588400 14001233 2007900 6157850 2412961 204000 210000 26250 2094136 35100000 7000000 115000 7837500 83046 0 3600 4295580 100000 0 0 0 97200000 5460 7500000 7500000 1422600 0 218652516 2402838 2500000 0 6645000 500000 320000 28446.4 240000 45000 12000 750000 500000 20000 100000 123000 515000 5125000 946101 513000 21285385.4 167000 4659760 10555 560000 2900000 953000 1200000 1665000 12115315 0 60000 0 0 0 60000 300999252.4 Construction_Funding 822000 409430 179418 0 0 1410848 13495980 5738942 801000 4126000 24161922 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5500000 1460000 147720 0 442000 0 402000 7951720 7842500 0 7842500 2598320 1260000 1160000 0 3672243 3155765 109471 1006250 0 0 0 12962049 0 500000 500000 500000 9709305 10741042 0 0 0 21950347 3480000 899000 0 0 1000000 0 1572097 0 840000 0 5468250 0 0 0 0 0 2640850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15900197 3667181 0 750000 6355000 1385602 0 240778 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3020000 0 0 0 0 0 0 15418561 712415 382779 291450 2994138 0 192000 0 4572782 0 0 600000 0 0 600000 112770926 Preconstruction_Funding 174000 0 1320582 25000 0 1519582 455346 3035138 0 0 3490484 184000 225000 77000 207500 300000 150000 0 0 0 1143500 0 320000 0 2288000 58000 120000 98000 2884000 807500 225000 1032500 0 440000 440000 0 210000 0 0 31500 80000 0 0 1201500 249500 50000 50000 50000 2366230 17886 1025000 0 0 3808616 220000 101000 180600 2526200 1000000 2100000 117793 816000 0 105000 0 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 227150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8076368 85000 2990000 0 4145000 64398 1300000 47444 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 240000 0 2000000 0 0 0 0 12269942 0 0 155500 251211 0 130000 210000 746711 565439 0 200000 0 0 765439 36938642 Fund Allocation Approved by LB&A 2008 0 0 0 0 1000000 1000000 0 0 1000000 453071 801500 200000 2454571 1000000 513000 1513000 215000 215000 0 5182571 Recomm Additional Funding: No constraint 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 13951326 8774080 801000 4126000 27652406 184000 225000 77000 207500 300000 150000 0 1143500 5500000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 10835720 8650000 225000 8875000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 14054078 249500 550000 550000 550000 12075535 10758928 1025000 0 0 25758963 3700000 1000000 180600 2526200 1000000 2100000 1689890 816000 840000 105000 5468250 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2868000 190000 0 0 0 23166565 3752181 2990000 750000 10500000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 3260000 2000000 0 0 27688503.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 5319493 565439 0 800000 1365439 148790097.3 Total Recomm Funding: No Constraint 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 13951326 8774080 801000 4126000 27652406 184000 225000 77000 207500 300000 150000 0 0 0 1143500 5500000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 10835720 9650000 225000 9875000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 0 14054078 249500 550000 550000 550000 12075535 10758928 1025000 0 0 25758963 3700000 1000000 180600 2526200 2000000 2100000 2142961 816000 840000 105000 6269750 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2868000 190000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200000 25621136 3752181 2990000 750000 11500000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 3260000 0 2000000 0 0 0 0 513000 29201503.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 215000 5534493 565439 0 800000 0 0 1365439 153972668.3 Proposed Allocation 1: Max $5m non-Railbelt/SE, Max $2.5m Railbelt/SE 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 5000000 5000000 801000 4126000 14927000 184000 225000 77000 207500 300000 150000 0 0 0 1143500 5000000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 10335720 0 5000000 225000 5225000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 0 14054078 \ 249500 550000 550000 550000 5000000 5000000 1025000 0 0 12924500 \ 2500000 1000000 180600 2500000 2000000 2100000 2142961 816000 840000 105000 2500000 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2500000 190000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200000 20057186 2500000 2500000 750000 2500000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 2500000 0 2000000 0 0 0 0 513000 17699322.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 215000 5534493 565439 0 800000 0 0 1365439 106196668.3 Proposed Allocation 2: Decreased funding based on 1) scores within SE and Railbelt, 2) Dup demo projects 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 5000000 5000000 801000 4126000 14927000 184000 225000 77000 207500 300000 150000 0 0 0 1143500 5000000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 10335720 5000000 225000 5225000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 0 14054078 249500 550000 5000000 5000000 1025000 0 0 11824500 2500000 1000000 180600 2500000 2000000 2100000 2142961 816000 840000 105000 2500000 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 193332 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200000 17560518 2500000 2500000 750000 2500000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 2500000 0 0 0 0 0 513000 15699322.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 215000 5534493 565439 0 0 0 565439 99800000.3 Request for LB&A Approval Jan 09 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 4000000 4000000 801000 0 8801000 184000 375000 77000 207500 4006500 150000 0 0 0 5000000 4000000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 9335720 3000000 225000 3225000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 0 14054078 249500 550000 0 0 4000000 10758928 1025000 0 0 16583428 2000000 1000000 180600 2000000 1000000 0 1546929 816000 840000 105000 1198500 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2704683.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14074337.7 3752181 2990000 750000 1000000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 2000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14928503.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 0 5319493 565439 0 0 0 0 565439 94817429 Total Requested and Approved 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 4000000 4000000 801000 8801000 184000 375000 77000 207500 4006500 150000 0 0 0 5000000 4000000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 9335720 4000000 225000 4225000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 0 14054078 249500 550000 4000000 10758928 1025000 0 0 16583428 2000000 1000000 180600 2000000 2000000 2000000 816000 840000 105000 2000000 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2704683.7 200000 16528908.7 3752181 2990000 750000 2000000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 2000000 0 0 0 0 0 513000 16441503.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 215000 5534493 565439 0 0 0 565439 100000000 0 Fund Allocation by Development Stage Reconn / Feasibility 49544 25000 74544 0 184000 375000 207500 300000 150000 1216500 1000000 45000 1045000 225000 225000 80000 80000 249500 1025000 1274500 2000000 816000 105000 47625 85000 20000 200000 3273625 1300000 48000 120500 1468500 154500 20000 174500 565439 565439 9397608 Final Design 271038 271038 0 77000 77000 320000 1288000 64000 75000 1747000 0 189000 28350 217350 50000 50000 180600 50000 80000 79500 390100 2990000 1000000 64398 47444 249600 160000 820000 240000 5571442 10000 231211 322000 210000 215000 988211 0 9312141 Construction (based on unconstrained) 996000 409430 1179418 2584848 13951326 8774080 801000 4126000 27652406 3706500 3706500 5500000 1460000 147720 436000 500000 8043720 9650000 9650000 2598320 1700000 1600000 3693243 3155765 1009400 13756728 500000 12075535 10758928 23334463 3700000 1000000 2000000 2092961 840000 6296750 450000 2788500 19168211 3752181 750000 10500000 1385602 240778 3020000 513000 20161561 712415 382779 282450 2994138 4371782 0 132430219 edit check 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 13951326 8774080 801000 4126000 27652406 184000 375000 77000 207500 4006500 150000 0 0 0 5000000 5500000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 10835720 9650000 225000 9875000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 28350 80000 0 0 13044678 249500 550000 12075535 10758928 1025000 0 0 24658963 3700000 1000000 180600 2000000 2000000 0 2142961 816000 840000 105000 6296750 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2868000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200000 22831936 3752181 2990000 750000 11500000 1450000 1300000 288222 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 3260000 0 0 0 0 0 0 513000 27201503 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 215000 5534493 565439 0 0 0 0 565439 Construction 996000 409430 1179418 2584848 4000000 4000000 801000 8801000 3706500 3706500 4000000 1460000 147720 436000 500000 6543720 4000000 4000000 2598320 1700000 1600000 3693243 3155765 1009400 13756728 500000 4000000 10758928 15258928 2000000 1000000 2000000 1950000 840000 2000000 450000 2625183.7 12865183.7 3752181 750000 1000000 1385602 240778 1760000 513000 9401561 712415 382779 282450 2994138 4371782 0 81290250.7 Energy Region Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River/ Chugach Kodiak Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Statewide TOTAL Energy Region Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Bering Straits Bering Straits Bering Straits Bering Straits Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Copper River/ Chugach Kodiak Kodiak Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Copper River/ Chugach Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide Statewide Project ID 58 89 90 11 95 52 50 47 106 64 62 63 40 6 14 18 7 55 21 22 26 27 15 46 2 103 73 122 110 107 67 70 72 91 71 35 113 96 59 75 76 77 85 56 74 83 121 68 57 94 109 53 93 87 34 105 66 102 98 78 48 86 97 112 108 8 3 39 5 4 16 17 43 44 45 51 79 92 -- 23 29 10 104 111 37 33 60 38 42 28 20 41 65 9 19 1 101 12 13 25 -- 61 54 84 49 24 30 31 -- 88 36 82 32 81 Project Name Chuniisax Creek Hydroelectric Construction Nikolski Wind Integration Construction St. George Wind Farm Construction Aleutians East Borough Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Makushin Geothermal Feasibility Study TOTAL Nome/Newton Peak Wind Farm Construction Unalakleet Wind Farm Construction Nome Banner Peak Wind Farm Transmission Construction Nome/ Banner Peak Wind Farm Construction TOTAL Lake Pen Borough Wind Feasibility Study Chignik Lake Area Wind-Hydro Final Design Lake Pen Borough Wood Heating Final Design Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Lake Elva Hydropower Construction Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Final Design Pike's Ridge Geothermal Final Design Naknek/King Salmon Fish Waste Feasibility Study Snake Mountain Wind Farm Construction (Withdrawn) TOTAL Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Construction Cordova Heat Recovery Construction Cordova Wood Processing Plant Construction Allison Lake Hydro Feasibility Study Chistochina Central Wood Heating Construction Kenny Lake Wood Heating Construction Gulkana Central Wood Heating Construction TOTAL Pillar Mountain Wind Farm Construction Old Harbor Hydroelectric Final Design TOTAL Bethel Wind Power Project Times 4 Kongiganak Wind Farm Construction Kwigillingok Wind Farm Construction Bethel Wind Farm Construction (BNC land) Quinhagak Wind Farm Construction Mekoryuk Wind Farm Construction Napaimute Solar PV Construction Toksook Bay Wind Farm Expansion Construction Hooper Bay Wind Farm Construction Napaskiak Wind Farm Feasibility Study Crooked Creek Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Study TOTAL Kobuk River Valley Woody Biomass Feasibility Study Ambler Solar PV Construction Noatak Solar PV Construction Shungnak Solar PV Construction Kotzebue Wind Farm Expansion Construction Buckland/Deering/Noorvik Wind Farm Construction Upper Kobuk Region Hydroelectric Feasibility Kotzebue Wind Farm Red-Ox Flow Battery Storage Construction Ambler Solar and Wind Power Construction TOTAL Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity Construction South Fork Hydroelectric Construction Nikolaevsk Wind Farm Final Design Eva Creek Wind Farm Construction North Pole Biomass Electricity/Heat Construction Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity Final Design Fishhook Hydroelectric Construction Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydro Feasibility Study North Pole Heat Recovery Construction Coal Mine Road Wind Farm Final Design Delta Junction Wind Farm Construction Nikiski Wind Farm Construction Girdwood Gas CHP/Hydro/Wind Solar Construction Whittier Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Nenana Hydrokinetic Construction Delta Junction Wood Chip Heating Feasibility Study McKinley Village Solar Thermal Construction Anchorage Geothermal District Heating Feasibility Study Anchorage Waste Gasification Feasibility Study Delta Junction Barley/Wood Pellet Central Heating Construction Fairbanks Waste Gasification Feasibility Study Palmer Waste Gasification Feasibility Study Mt. Redoubt/Mt. Spur Geothermal Construction Jack River Hydroelectric Feasibility Study Palmer Gas CHP Construction Whittier Gas CHP Construction Anchorage Wood Processing and Heating Construction Mt. Alice Harbor Renewable Energy Construction Palmer Coal Bed Methane CHP Construction Delia Creek Hydro Construction Kenai Hydro Recon Assessment TOTAL Coffman Cove-Naukati Intertie Construction Kake-Petersburg Intertie Final Design Falls Creek Hydroelectric Construction Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Construction Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump Construction (Aquatic Center) Whitman Lake Hydro Construction Haines Central Wood Heating System Construction (Low Income Housing Project) Yakutat Biomass Gasification Construction Ruth Lake Hydro Reconnaissance Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Hoonah - Hawk Inlet Intertie Construction Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Construction Haines Central Wood Heating Feasibility Study (Community Buildings) Indian River Hydroelectric Construction Wrangell Hydro Based Electric Boilers Construction Gustavus/Angoon/Wrangell/Nikiski Tidal Feasibility Study Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Ketchikan Biomass Gasification Construction Juneau Waste Gasification Reconnaissance Study Ketchikan Waste Gasification Reconnaissance Study Haines Ground Source Heat Pump Construction Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump Construction (Airport) TOTAL McGrath Heat Recovery Construction Galena Wood Heating Construction Ruby Hydrokinetic Construction Tok Wood Heating Construction Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Construction McGrath Central Wood Heating Construction Fort Yukon Central Wood Heating Construction Manley Hot Springs Geothermal Construction TOTAL Statewide Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study Statewide Heat Recovery Demonstration Project Juneau Based Statewide Hydro/Ammonia Electricity Construction Statewide Biomass Reconnaissance Study Statewide Heat Recovery/Electric Demonstration Construction TOTAL Applicant City of Atka Umnak Power / Nikolski IRA Council City of St. George - St. George Municipal Electric Utility Aleutians East Borough Kiiguusi Suuluta Land Company, LLC City of Nome d/b/a Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (UVEC) City of Nome d/b/a Nome Joint Utilities System Banner Wind, LLC Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Peninsula Borough City Of Chignik Nushagak Electric & Telephone Cooperative, Inc Chignik Lagoon Power Utility (CLPU) Naknek Electric Association Naknek Electric Association Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation Cordova Electric Cooperative Cordova Electric Cooperative Native Village of Eyak Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc (CVEA) Cheesh'na Tribal Council Copper River School District Gulkana Village Council Kodiak Electric Associaiton, Inc. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative City of Bethel Puvurnaq Power Company Puvurnaq Power Company Village Wind Power, LLC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Native Village of Napaimute Alaska Village Electric Cooperative City of Hooper Bay Napaskiak Utility (electric) - City of Napaskiak Crooked Creek Traditional Council Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Kotzebue Electric Association Northwest Arctic Borough Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Kotzebue Electric Association City of Ambler Municipality of Anchorage, Solid Waste Services Dept South Fork Hydro, LLC Alaska Wind Energy, LLC, d/b/a Wind Energy Alaska (WEA) Golden Valley Electric Association Chena Power Utility, LLC Alaska Wind Energy, LLC, d/b/a Wind Energy Alaska (WEA) Fishhook Renewable Energy, LLC Kenai Hydro, LLC Golden Valley Electric Association Alaska Wind Power, LLC Alaska Environmental Power LLC Kenai Winds, LLC Alaska Green Energy, LLC City of Whittier Independence Power, LLC University of Alaska Fairbanks, Office of Sponsored Programs Delta/Greely School District Golden Valley Electric Association Iceland America Energy, Inc. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC State of AK, Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC Cook Inlet Power Native Village of Cantwell Alpine Energy, LLC Alpine Energy, LLC EarthRun Energy Mt. Alice Development, Inc. Alaska Green Energy, LLC HPML, LLC Homer Electric Associtation Alaska Power & Telephone Company Kwaan Electric Transmission Intertie Cooperative, Inc (KWETICO) Gustavus Electric Company Haida Power, Inc. City & Borough of Juneau Ketchikan Public Utilities- Electic Division Chilkoot Indian Association Yakutat Power City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal & Light Burro Creek Holdings, LLC Kwaan Electric Transmission Intertie Cooperative, Inc (KWETICO) Metlakatla Indian Community Haines Borough City of Tenakee Springs City and Borough of Wrangell Alaska Tidal Energy Company City & Borough of Sitka Diesel Brewing Company, LLC dba Diesel Brewing of Ketchikan Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC Haines Assisted Living, Inc City & Borough of Juneau McGrath Light & Power, Co. Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council Alaska Gateway School District Alaska Power & Telephone Company McGrath Power and Light Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company TDX Power Thomas Ravens, Ph.D. and Myree McDonald, Ph.D. Precision Power, LLC Alaska Electric Light & Power University of Alaska, Fairbanks Ormat Nevada Inc. Applicant_Address PO Box 110772 PO Box 105 PO Box 929 3380 C Street, Suite 205 116 Delmar Street PO Box 70 PO Box 186 PO Box 70 P.O. Box 1129 PO Box 495 PO Box 495 PO Box 495 PO Box 110 PO Box 350 P.O. Box 31 PO Box 118 PO Box 118 PO Box 130 PO Box 20 PO Box 20 PO Box 1388 PO Box 45 Mile 33 Tok Cutoff, P.O. Box 241 PO Box 108 PO Box 254 P.O. Box 787 4831 Eagle Street P.O. Box 1388 P.O. Box 5069 P.O. Box 5069 10600 Prospect Dr. 4831 Eagle Street 4831 Eagle Street PO Box 1301 4831 Eagle Street PO Box 29 PO Box 6078 PO Box 69 PO Box 331 4831 Eagle Street 4831 Eagle Street 4831 Eagle Street PO Box 44 PO Box 10 4831 Eagle Street PO Box 44 P.O. Box 9 PO Box 196650 1503 W. 33rd Ave., Suite 310 2525 C Street, Suite 500 PO Box 71249 PO Box 58740 2525 C Street 1503 West 33rd Ave., Suite 310 2525 C Street, Suite 500 PO Box 71249 10600 Prospect Dr. 3411 Airport Way C/O BQ Energy 20 Jon Barrett Rd., Suite 2 1150 S. Colony Way, Suite #333 PO Box 608 1503 West 33rd. Ave., Suite 310 PO Box 755910 PO Box 527 PO Box 71249 707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 4500 9360 Glacier Hwy Ste. 202 PO Box 1149 9360 Glacier Hwy Ste. 202 9360 Glacier Hwy Ste. 202 PO Box 876 PO Box 94 PO Box 436 PO Box 436 515 W. 20th Ave PO Box 25 1150 S. Colony Way P.O. Box 91187 PO Box 3222 PO Box 35466 P.O. Box 102 P.O. Box 89 155 South Seward Street 1065 Fair Street PO Box 490 PO Box 129 PO Box 329 PO Box 271 PO Box 35466 PO Box 8 PO Box 1209 PO Box 52 P.O. Box 531 1785 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 100 105 Jarvis Street P.O. Box 4483 P.O. Box 584 P.O. Box 584 PO Box 916 PO Box 52 PO Box 12 725 Christensen Drive, Suite 3 PO Box 226 PO Box 3222 PO Box 52 PO Box 9 3211 Providence Drive, School of Engineering 200 E. Commercial Drive 5601 Tonsgard Ct. PO Box 757140 6225 Neil Road Applicant_City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Applicant_Contact_Email goldcreekwater@yahoo.com eanderson@apicda.com eanderson@apicda.com rjuettner@aeboro.org jackwood@gv.net johnh@njus.org uvec@gci.net johnh@njus.org merickson@snc.org ljcotten@gci.net ljcotten@gci.net ljcotten@gci.net cityoffice@chignik.org fcorbin@nushagak.coop diana.clpu@ak.net dvukich@nea.coop Tom@TomCantrell.com mnewson@bbahc.org clay@cordovaelectric.com clay@cordovaelectric.com bruce@nveyak.org Matthews@cvea.org esinyon@cheeshna.com thand@crsd.k12.ak.us ryoung@gulkanacouncil.org dscott@kodiak.coop bpetrie@avec.org jsargent@cityofbethel.net puvurnaq@starband.com puvurnaq@starband.com lapres@gci.net bpetrie@avec.org bpetrie@avec.org Napaimute@starband.net bpetrie@avec.org cityhpb@yahoo.com carl_maxie@yahoo.com bbcc@starband.net gadams@NIHA.com bpetrie@avec.org bpetrie@avec.org bpetrie@avec.org k_keith@kea.coop k_keith@kea.coop bpetrie@avec.org k_keith@kea.coop SHJones@Starband.net maddenmg@muni.org earle@polarconsult.net steveg@enxco.com KKLamal@gvea.com recycle@polarnet.com steveg@enxco.com dan@polarconsult.net SteveG@enxco.com kkl@gvea.com lapres@gci.net macraft@acsalaska.net Josh.berkow@bqenergy.com rgross@akgreenenergy.com citymanager@whittieralaska.gov joel@polarconsult.net fygrcon@uaf.edu pjford@dgsd.k12.ak.us tmh@gvea.com hiddat@icelandamericaenergy.com donwest@aol.com al.edgren@alaska.gov donwest@aol.com donwest@aol.com ccpwow@gci.net hallvc@mtaonline.net hobbsalaska@msn.com hobbsalaska@msn.com erin.d.phillips@gmail.com pointmarineak@yahoo.com rgross@akgreenenergy.com jilreese@gmail.com glen.m@aptalaska.com jmitchell@alaska.com richardlevitt@cs.com toddtew@starband.net Rod_Swope@ci.juneau.ak.us eds@city.ketchikan.ak.us gstuckey@chikoot-nsn.gov yakpower@ptialaska.net pmpl@ci.petersburg.ak.us madam@aptalaska.net jmitchell@alaska.com paul.brendible@metlakatla.com tbolen@haines.ak.us artbloom@gmail.com linedept@gci.net ccooper@trsolutions.com Charlie@cityofsitka.com Jeff@northwestwind.com donwest@aol.com donwest@aol.com St.vincentdepaul.juneau@gci.net ernie@raventechservices.com bketzler@irha.org bhirsch@yritwc.org smacmanus@agsd.us glen.m@aptalaska.com Williamwall11@gmail.com williamwall11@gmail.com aftmr@uaa.alaska.edu dstrickland@prepower.net tim.mcleod@aelp.com ffcel@uaf.edu Cduncan@ormat.com Applicant_Contact_Name Kim Clarkson Everette Anderson Everette Anderson Robert Juettner Jack Wood John Handeland Isaiah Towarak John K. Handeland Melinda Erickson Lamar Cotten Lamar Cotten Lamar Cotten Richard Sharpe Frank Corbin Diana Moore Donna Vukich Thomas Cantrell Mark Newson Clay Koplin Clay Koplin Bruce Cain Jamie L. Matthews Elaine Sinyon Tim Hand Rick Young Darron Scott Brent Petrie John Sargent Harvey Paul Harvey Paul David W. Lappi Brent Petrie Brent Petrie Mark Leary Brent Petrie Joseph Bell Carl D. Maxie, Sr. Daniel Felker Guy Adams Brent Petrie Brent Petrie Brent Petrie Katherine Keith Katherine Keith Brent Petrie Katherine Keith Scott Jones Mark G. Madden, P.E. Earle Ausman, PE Steve Gilbert Kathryn K. Lamal Bernie Karl Steve Gilbert Daniel Hertrich, PE Steve Gilbert Kate Lamal David W. Lappi Mike Craft Josh Berkow Robert Gross Mark Earnest Joel Groves, PE Maggie Griscavage PJ Ford Slack, PhD Todd Hoener Hildigunnur Thorsteinsson Donald W. West Al Edgren Donald W. West Donald W. West Don Johnson Gordon Carlson Randy Hobbs Randy Hobbs Erin Phillips Timothy L. McDoonald Robert Gross, P.E. Jill Reese Glen Martin Jodi Mitchell Richard Levitt Todd Tew Rod Swope Ed Schofield Greg Stuckey Scott Newlun Joe Nelson Janice C. Wrentmore Jodi Mitchell Paul Brendible Tom Bolen Arthur Bloom Steve Henson Charles Cooper Charlie Walls Jeff Raines Donald W. West Donald W. West Dan Austin Ernie Baumgartner Bear Ketzler Brian Hirsch Scott MacManus Glen D. Martin William A Wall, PhD William A Wall PhD Thomas Ravens & Myree McDonald David Strickland Tim McLeod Carol E Lewis Colin Duncan Applicant_Contact_Phone (907) 522-0384 (206) 369-5952 (206) 782-1776 (907) 274-7555 (530) 320-7200 (907) 443-6587 (907) 624-3474 (907) 443-6587 (907) 443-4035 (907) 301-8737 (907) 301-8737 (907) 301-8737 (907) 749-2280 (907) 842-6315 (907) 840-2277 (907) 246-4261 (801) 355-2005 (907) 842-9221 (907) 424-5026 (907) 424-5026 (907) 424-7738 (907) 822-8311 (907) 822-3503 (907) 822-3234 (907) 822-3172 (907) 486-7739 (907) 565-5358 (907) 543-1386 (907) 557-5616 (907) 557-5616 (907) 248-7188 (907) 561-1818 (907) 565-5358 (907) 543-2887 (907) 565-5358 (907) 758-4310 (907) 737-7432 (907) 432-2247 (907) 442-3450 (907) 565-5358 (907) 565-5358 (907) 565-5358 (907) 442-3491 (907) 442-3491 (907) 565-5358 (907) 442-3491 (907) 445-2157 (907) 343-6279 (907) 258-2420 (907) 333-0810 (907) 451-5645 (907) 488-1505 (907) 333-0810 (907) 258-2420 (907) 333-0810 (907) 451-5645 (907) 248-7188 (907) 388-9917 (845) 228-3485 (907) 746-4796 (907) 472-2327 (907) 258-2420 (907) 474-7301 (907) 895-4657 (907) 451-5607 (213) 683-1700 (312) 804-4454 (907) 895-4225 (312) 804-4454 (312) 804-4454 (907) 262-7893 (907) 768-2591 (907) 232-4409 (907) 232-4409 (907) 317-0749 (907) 224-6014 (907) 746-7496 (907) 232-9648 (360) 385-1733 (907) 789-3196 (907) 697-2299 (907) 285-3721 (907) 586-5240 (907) 225-5505 (907) 766-2323 (907) 784-3242 (907) 772-4203 (907) 983-2413 (907) 789-3196 (907) 886-4441 (907) 766-2231 (907) 736-2222 (907) 874-3602 (978) 656-3567 (907) 747-1870 (503) 588-8028 (312) 804-4454 (312) 804-4454 (907) 321-5222 (907) 524-3390 (907) 452-8315 (907) 258-3337 (907) 883-5151 (360) 385-1733 (406) 210-9984 (406) 210-9984 (907) 786-1993 (907) 746-7797 (907) 780-2222 (907) 474-7083 (775) 336-0134 Applicant_File_Name 58_CityofAtkaSmallHydroelectricProject_CityofAtka.pdf 89_UmnakIslandWind-DieselandJacketHeatRecovery_UmnakPower/NikolskiIRACouncil.pdf 90_St.GeorgeWindTurbineIntoADieselPowerGenerationSystemProject_CityofSt.George-St.GeorgeMunicipalElectricUtility.pdf 11_Renewable Energy Resources for Cold Bay, False Pass and Nelson Lagoon_AleutiansEastBorough.pdf 95_MakushinGeothermalResourceProject_KiiguusiSuulutaLandCompany,LLC.pdf 52_NJUSRenewableEnergyFundWindProject_NomeJointItilitySystem.pdf 50_UnalakleetRenewableEnergyFundWindProject_UnalakleetValleyElectricCooperative,Inc.pdf 47_BeringStraits-SitnasuakWindFarm24.9kVOH/UGIntertie.pdf 106_BannerWindProjectNome,Alaska_BannerWind,LLC.pdf 64_WindPowerOpportunitiesAroundtheLake&PeninsulaBorough_LakeandPeninsulaBorough.pdf 62_Wind/HydroHybridIntertieFeasibilityStudyforChigniks_LakeandPeninsulaBorough.pdf 63_InstallationofHighEfficiencyLowEmissionsWoodBoilers_LakeandPeninsulaBorough.pdf 40_ChignikHydro_CityofChignik.pdf 6_NushagakElectric&TelephoneCooperativeInc_NushagakAreaHydropowerProject.pdf 14_ChignikLagoonHydroelectricProject_ChignikLagoonPowerUtility(CLPU).pdf 18_SouthwestAlaskaRegionalGeothermalEnergyProject_NaknekElectricAssociation.pdf 7_BristolBayFishOil_NaknekElectricAssociation.pdf 55_BristolBayAreaHealthCorporationWindProject_BristolBayAreaHealthCorporation.pdf 21_HumpbackCreekHydroelectricFacilityIntake&Diversion_CordovaElectric Cooperative.pdf 22_OrcaPlantEfficiencyUpgrade_CordovaElectricCooperative.pdf 26_CordovaWinterFirewoodSupplyProject_NativeVillageofEyak.pdf 27_AllisonLakeProject_CopperValleyElectricAssociation,Inc..pdf 15_ChistochinaCommunityCentralWoodHeatingProject_Cheesh'naTribalCouncil.pdf 46_KennyLakeSchoolProject_CopperRiverSchoolDistrict.pdf 2_CommunityFacilitiesCentralWoodHeating_GulkanaVillageCouncil.doc 103_PillarMountainWindProject_KodiakElectricAssociation,Inc.pdf 73_HydroelectricPermittingandDesign,OldHarbor,AK_AVEC.pdf 122_BethelWindPowerProjectTimes4_CityofBethel.pdf 110_Installationof5WindTurbinesinKongiganak,AK_PuvurnaqPowerCompany.pdf 107_Installationof5WindTurbines_PuvurnaqPowerCompany.pdf 67_BethelWindProject_VillageWindPower,LLC.pdf 70_WindTurbinesandControls,Quinhagak,AK_AVEC.pdf 72_WindTurbinesandControls,Mekoryuk,AK_AVEC.pdf 91_VillageofNapaimuteBatteryStoragesystemCoupledWithSolarPalansProject_NativeVillageofNapaimute.pdf 71_WindTurbine,TooksookBay,AK_AVEC.pdf 35_HooperBayTwo-towerWindEnergySystem_CityofHooperBay.pdf 113_WindEnergy/WindTurbineSystematVacinityCommunityLocation,Napaskiak,AK_NapaskiakUtility(Electric)-CityofNapaskiak.pdf 96_CrookedCreekAssessmentofEnergySources_CrookedCreekTraditionalCouncil.pdf 59_UpperKobukWoodBiomassProject_NorthwestInupiathousingAuthority.pdf 75_PhotovoltaicArray,Ambler,AK_AVEC.pdf 76_PhotovoltaicArray,Noatak,AK_AVEC.pdf 77_PhotovoltaicArray,Shungnak,AK_AVEC.pdf 85_HighPenetrationWind-Battery-DieselSystem_KotzebueElectricAssociation.pdf 56_Wind-dieselProjectforBuckland,DeeringandNoorvik_NorthwestArcticBorough.pdf 74_HydropowerFeasibilityStudies,KobukRiverValley,AK_AVEC.pdf 83_VanadiumRed-OxFlowBatteryStorageProject_KotzebueElectricAssociation.pdf 121_AmblerSolarandWindPower_CityofAmbler.pdf 68_AnchorageRegionalLandfill,LandfillGas-to-EnergyProject_MOASolidWasteServicesDepartment.pdf 57_SouthForkHydroelectricProject_SouthForkHydro,LLC.pdf 94_NikolaevskWindGenerationProject_AlaskaWindEnergy,LLC,dbaWindEnergyAlaska(WEA).pdf 109_EvaCreekWindProject_GVEA.pdf 53_400kWBiomassPowerPlantatK&KRecyclingFacility_ChenaPower,LLC.pdf 93_LandfillGastoEnergyProject_AlaskaWindEnergy,LLC,dbaWindEnergyAlaska(WEA).pdf 87_FishhookHydroelectricProject_FishhookRenewableEnergy,LLC.pdf 34_5to7MWGrantLake/FalsCreekHydroProject_KenaiHydro,LLC.pdf 105_NPEPWasteHeatRecoveryProject_GVEA.pdf 66_DeltaWindProject_AlaskaWindPower,LLC.pdf 102_DeltaJunctionWindFarm_AlaskaEnvironmentalPowerLLC.pdf 98_WindTurbineFacilityonTesoroAlaska'sNikiskiRefinery_KenaiWinds,LLC.pdf 78_GirdwoodRenewableApplicationofNewTechnology_AlaskaGreenEnergy.pdf 48_HydropoweronWhittierCreek_CityofWhittier.pdf 86_FourthofJulyCreekHydroelectricProject_IndependencePower,LLC.pdf 97_TestProgramfortheOceanRenewablePowerCorp(ORPC)UnitatNenana_UAF,OfficeofSponsoredPrograms.pdf 112_Delta/GreelySchoolDistrictWoodChipBoilerHeatingSystemProject_Delta/GreelySchoolDistrict.pdf 108_McKinleyVillageDenaliEducationCenterSolarWaterHeatingSystemProject_GVEA.pdf 8_AnchorageGeothermalDistrictHeatingProject_IcelandAmericaEnergy,Inc.pdf 3_AnchorageWasteGasificationPlantStudy_AlaskaRecyclingEnergyLLC.pdf 39_Barley/WoodPelletBoilerBiofuelPilotProject_SOADNRDivisionofForestryDeltaAreaOffice.pdf 5_FairbanksNorthStarBoroughWasteGasificationPlant_AlaskaRecycylingEnergy,LLC.pdf 4_MatanuskaSusitnaBoroughWasteGasificationPlant_AlaskaRecyclingEnergyLLC.pdf 16_10MWUtility-GradeGeothermalDevelopment_CookInletPower.pdf 17_HydroelectricProjectOnJackRiver_NativeVillageofCantwell.pdf 43_PioneerEnergyProject_AlpineEnergy,LLC.pdf 44_WhittierEnergyProject_AlpineEnergy,LLC.pdf 45_SustainableUrbanForestryandCombustionofHarvestedBiomass_EarthRunEnergy.pdf 51_Mt.AliceHarborDevelopmentProject_Mt.AliceDevelopment,Inc.pdf 79_RuralArcticReadyEnergySolutions_AlaskaGreenEnergy.pdf 92_DeliaCreekAlternativeEnergyProject_HPML,LLC.pdf 23_NorthPrinceofWalesIsland(POW)IntertieProject_AlaskaPower&TelephoneCompany.pdf 29_Kake-PetersburgIntertie_KwaanElectricTransmissionIntertieCooperativeInc.pdf 10_FinishConstructionoftheFallsCreekHydroelectricProject,Gustavus,Alaska_GustavusElectricCompany.pdf 104_ReynoldsCreekHydroelectricProject_HaidaPower,Inc.pdf 111_DimondParkAquaticCenter_City&BoroughofJuneau.pdf 37_WhitmanLakeHydroelectricProject_KetchikanPublicUtilitiesElectricDivision.pdf 33_Wood-firedDistrictHeatingSystem_ChilkootIndianAssociation.pdf 60_YakutatPower-WoodGasificationBiomassProject_YakutatPower.pdf 38_RuthLakeHydroelectricProject_CityofPetersburg,Alaskad/b/aPetersburgMunicipalPower&Light.pdf 42_BurroCreekHydro_BurroCreekHoldings,LLC.pdf 28_HoonahIntertie_KwaanElectricTransmissionIntertieCooperativeInc.pdf 20_Metlakatla-KetchikanIntertie_MetlakatlaIndianCommunity(MIC).pdf 41_Wood-firedHydronicHeatingSystem_HainesBorough.pdf 65_HydroelectricGenerationFacilityUtilizingIndianRiver_CityofTenakeeSprings.pdf 9_ConversionDieselFiredBoilerstoElectricFiredBoilers_CityandBoroughofWrangell.pdf 19_FeasibilityStudyandPrototypeTestingofTidalinStreamEnergyConversionDevices_AlaskaTidalEnergyCompany.pdf 1_TakatzLakeHydroelectricInvestigation_CityandBoroughof Sitka.pdf 101_DieselBrewingRenewableEnergyProject_DieselBrewingCompany,LLC.pdf 12_CityandBoroughofJuneauWasteGasificationPlantReconStudy_AlaskaRecyclingEnergy,Inc.pdf 13_CityandBoroughofKetchikanWasteGasificationPlantReconStudy_AlaskaRecyclingEnergy,LLC.pdf 25_HainesAssistedLiving,Inc_HainesAssistedLiving.pdf 61_McGrathLight&PowerforaHeat RecoverySystemProject_McGrathLight&Power,Co.pdf 54_InstallationofBiomassandSolarEnergySystemstotheGalenaAssistedLivingFacility.pdf 84_25kWRun-of-RiverHydrokineticTurbineontheYukonRiver_YukonRiverInter-TribalWatershedCouncil.pdf 49_TokSchoolBiomassHeatingProject_AlaskaGatewaySchoolDistrict.pdf 24_YerrickCreekHydroelectricProject_AlaskaPower&TelephoneCompany.pdf 30_McGrathWoodEnergyProgram_McGrathPowerandLight.pdf 31_FortYukonGwitchyaaZheeBiomassforEnergy_GwitchyaaZheeUtilityCompany.pdf 88_HydrokineticEnergy-RuralAlaska_UniversityofAlaskaAnchorage.pdf 36_HeatRecoveryORCApplicationsforBushAlaska_PrecisionPower,LLC.pdf 82_HydroelectricEnergytoAnhydrousAmoniaFuel_AlaskaElectricLight&Power.pdf 32_FeasibilityofSustainable,EconomicUseofAgriculturalandForestryBiomassinAK.pdf 81_RecoveredEnergyGeneration_OrmatNevadaInc.pdf Applicant_State AK AK AK AK CA AK AK AK AK AK AK AK Ak AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK NY AK AK AK Ak Ak AK CA AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK WA AK AK AK AK AK Ak AK AK AK AK AK AK AK AK DC AK OR IL IL AK Ak AK AK AK WA Ak AK AK AK AK AK NV Applicant Type Utility Government Government Government IPP Utility Utility Utility IPP Government Government Government Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Utility Government Utility Government Government Government Utility Utility Government Utility Utility IPP Utility Utility Government Utility Government Utility Government Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Utility Government Government IPP IPP Utility Utility IPP IPP IPP Utility IPP IPP IPP IPP Government IPP Government Government Utility IPP IPP Government IPP IPP IPP Government IPP IPP IPP Government IPP IPP Utility Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Government Utility Utility IPP Utility Government Government Utility Government IPP Government IPP IPP IPP IPP Government Utility Government IPP Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Government IPP Utility Government IPP Applicant_Zip 99511 99638 99503 94117 99762 99864 99762 99762 99613 99613 99613 99564 99576 99565 99633 99633 99576 99574 99574 99574 99588 99588 99586 99615 99503 99559 99507-6494 99503 99503 99559-1301 99503 99604 99559 99575 99752 99503 99503 99503 99752 99752 99503 99752 99786 99519 99503 99508 99707 99711 99508 99503 99503 99707 99507-6494 99709 12563 99645 99693 99503 99775-5910 99737 99707 90017 99801 99737 99801 99801 99669 99729 99645 99645 99503 99664 99645 99509 98368 99803 99826 99222 99801 99901 99801 99689 99833 99840 99803 99926 99827 99841 99929 20036 99835 97302 60566 60566 99827 99627 99701 99501 99780 98368 99627 99740 99645 99801 99775 89511 Auth_Doc Construct_Co AP&T Gustavus Electric Company AP&T Econ_Ben_Cost Applicant states that approximately $2 million was spent in 2005 to build an access road and a powerhouse structure, plus purchase of a turbine-generator. The City of Atka has a $1.3 million federal grant to apply towards the remaining cost plus an approved loan from the Power Project Fund. If approved, this renewable energy grant would substitute for the PPF loan. All of the electricity demand for the City utility is now supplied by the City’s diesel generators, and all of the electricity demand for the local seafood processor is now supplied by the processor’s diesel generators. Applicant states that all of that energy – utility and processor -- would be supplied by the hydro project instead. Based on the remaining cost to complete the project combined with the City’s assumption on serving 100% of existing demand, the B/C ratio is estimated at 5.89. The project was also evaluated under somewhat more conservative assumptions on the amount of diesel generation that would be displaced by hydro. Based on earlier indications, the alternative evaluation assumed that the hydro project would supply the City for 10.5 months per year due to water constraints in late winter and early spring, and that it would serve half – not all – of the processor’s requirements. This, in turn, was based on the idea that the project would supply the processor’s “house loads” such as lights but would not be relied upon to run the processing lines. The B/C ratio under these alternative assumptions still came out at 4.09. Umnak Power/Nikolski IRA Council provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $451,030, O&M: $6,000 1st year, $3,500 years 2 – 4, $6,500 year 5. Assume cycle for years 2 – 5 repeats thereafter, generation: 262,000 kWh with part to heating fuel offsets, and displaced fuel: 10,248 gallons electric generation, 5,252 heat as provided by Applicant. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 2.81 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $1,681,turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $4,158, displaced fuel for power (7,393 gal) based on revised displaced diesel generation and stated generating efficiency of 11.37 kWh/gal (PCE statistics not available). Heating fuel displacement based on revised total generation and ratio of Applicant data, generation (AEA provided): 189,000 kWh/year. The primary reason for the lower B/C ratio is the lower wind generation provided by AEA. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 2.04 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. City of Saint George provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $3.0 million, O&M: $30,000(green tags of $0.0045/kWh ignored), generation: 975,980 kWh of displaced diesel generation, and displaced fuel: 74,509 gallons as stated by the Applicant. Ignores potential heating fuel offsets. Based on the above data with no load growth, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.93 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh = $10,224, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh = $11,247, displaced fuel based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics, generation (AEA provided): 511,221 kWh/year. The primary reason for the lower B/C ratio is the much lower wind energy provided by AEA. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.01 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. The three areas combined use about 289,000 gallons per year in diesel fuel to generate electrical power at prices estimated to exceed $6.00 per gallon in the coming years by ISER. Two of the three area generators reported efficiencies barely over 12 kWh per gallon. Nelson Lagoon represents about 10% of that fuel consumption whereas False Pass is about 15%, and Cold bay is 75%. It is very likely alternative energy will be cost-effective for the generation of power in this region. There are scoping-level questions such as the implications of bird migration on the potential for wind power in Nelson Bay this study will address. For illustration a $10 million aggregate investment would need to produce about one-third of the kWh of generation across the three communities to have a B/C ratio of 1 for projects that had 20 year horizons. Currently B/C ratio is estimated at 0.0. Applicant requests funding for a feasibility study for a geothermal project to serve Unalaska/Dutch Harbor. This community is home to several large fish processing plants, which each use a large amount of power. Several of these processors have their own diesel generating plants. The completed project would supply enough geothermal power to replace all diesel generation in the community, with room for growth. B/C ratio is 7.45. The City of Nome and the NJUS, the utility in Nome are requesting for funding for final design, permitting, and construction of a 3 MW wind farm. The total project cost is $15,534,309; amount requested is $13,952,326. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $16.1 million using applicant’s data and $21.2 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $14.4 million (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The more favorable B/C ratio using AEA information is primarily due to a lower benchmark O&M cost of $.022 per kWh or about $150,000 per year compared to the applicant’s stated annual O&M costs of $523,786. The applicant also used the gross energy output of the wind turbines rather than the net energy output; AEA B/C calculation used an estimate of net energy output. The calculated B/C ratios are: 1.12 using the applicant’s data and 1.47 using AEA information. UVEC, the electric utility in Unalakleet is requesting for funds for final design, permitting, and construction of a 1.2 MW wind farm. Total project cost is $8,996,832; amount requested is $8,774,080. The favorable B/C ratio using AEA information is primarily due to a lower benchmark O&M cost of $.022 per kWh or $51,584 per year compared to the applicant’s stated annual O&M costs of $292,160. The applicant also used the gross energy output of the wind turbines rather than the net energy output; AEA B/C calculation used an estimate of net energy output. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits amount to $7.54 million using applicant’s data and $10.82 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $8.32 million (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The calculated B/C ratios are: 0.91 using the applicant’s data and 1.30 using AEA information. The City of Nome and the NJUS, the utility in Nome are requesting for funding for transmission and control infrastructure to link the 1 MW Banner Peak wind farm to the utility’s transmission and distribution infrastructure. The total project cost for the transmission and control infrastructure is estimated to be $890,000; amount requested is $801,000. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $1.82 million using applicant’s data and $1.54 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to about $838,910 (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The applicant estimated the amount of displaced fuel to be 200,000 gallons per year; however, using the utility’s diesel generation efficiency of 15.81 kWh/gal, the AEA calculation for displaced fuel amounted to only 185,705 gallons per year. The benefits in this analysis were adjusted to reflect only a portion of the economic benefits of the total project including the wind generation component. This was done by using the ratio of the transmission and control project cost to total project cost including the Banner Wind project cost. The applicant did not provide any data on the economics or the costs of the Banner Wind Project; the analysis therefore used AEA recommendations on benchmark installed costs of $5,000 per kW (capacity). The calculated B/C ratios are: 2.17 using the applicant’s data and 1.84 using AEA information. Applicant states that the project will produce 2,789,200 kWh on an assumed 29% capacity factor and 95% availability. The applicant indicates displacement of 176,420 gallons of diesel fuel on the assumption of the average generation efficiency of 15.8 kWh/gallon for the Nome Joint Utility System. Applicant did not supply unit-specific O&M; AEA assumption of $0.02/kWh was used. The wind project O&M is stated as $75K years 1-5, $90K years 6-10, and $111,568 years 11-20. Considering the project life of 20 years (AEA and Banner LLC assumption), the applicant’s data indicates a benefit /cost ratio of 1.88. AEA analysis uses $5,000/kW capital cost, the applicant estimate of 29% capacity factor, but with the AEA assumed 80% availability. Thus, fuel savings are reduced, as is displaced diesel O&M. Additionally, AEA assumes $0.022/kWh for wind O&M. AEA assumptions with a higher capital cost and lower availability gives a B/C ratio to the project of 1.44. Lake and Peninsula Borough is requesting for funds for a regional wind energy assessment for 6 communities. The total project cost is estimated to amount to $8 million; amount requested for the study is $184,000. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $9.4 million using applicant’s data and $15.2 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $7.3 million (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The more favorable B/C ratio using AEA information is primarily due to higher estimated fuel displacement calculated using each of the utility’s stated diesel efficiencies and estimated annual renewable energy generation. The calculated B/C ratios are: 1.28 using the applicant’s data and 2.08 using AEA information. Lake and Peninsula Borough is requesting funds for a wind/hydro hybrid intertie feasibility study for the communities of Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, and Chignik Lake. The total project cost is estimated to be $8,150,000 including development and construction costs. The amount requested is $375,000. There is no information in the application, however, that shows the breakdown of cost by project component—i.e. wind, hydro, intertie, and development costs. The benefits of the project should be proportioned between the various components so as not to use the total benefits for two or three grant applications. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $7.86 million using applicant’s data and $6.5 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $7.34 million using the applicant’s data and $13.8 million using AEA information. The main difference in the calculation is the addition of R&R costs in the AEA B/C calculation. Since there is a hydro component, the analysis was done over 50 years. The R&R costs for the wind component are based on AEA benchmark costs of $5,000 per kW capacity with replacement occurring every 20 years. The R&R costs for the hydro component are based on data from Attachment E showing $50,000 of R&R costs every 5 years. The calculated B/C ratios are: 1.07 using the applicant’s data and 0.47 using AEA information. Applicant presents that a small, aging hydro project currently exists at Indian Creek, and is owned by Trident Seafoods. It supplies water to the seafood plant, water to the City, and a small amount of power to the seafood plant. The proposal is to upgrade and expand the aging hydro project. Estimates of monthly electricity demand for Trident and for the City were provided by the applicant, as well as monthly estimates of hydroelectric generation. Trident demand is more than sufficient to absorb nearly all of the estimated hydroelectric production. Alternatively, it could be said that the hydro production could supply virtually all of the City demand and still contribute most of its expected output to the Trident operation. For this evaluation, no distinction is made between the two loads. The projected benefit of the proposed project is therefore estimated as the diesel fuel cost that would be incurred by either Trident or the City if all of the hydro production were supplied by diesel generators instead. On this basis, the B/C ratio is estimated at 4.40. Applicant states that a feasibility study of the project is currently underway and is due for completion in February 2009. Meanwhile, applicant states that all of the output from Lake Elva would displace existing diesel generation starting in its first year of operation. Based on applicant’s estimates of project capital cost, net impact on system O&M, and volume of fuel displacement, the B/C ratio is estimated at 1.83. Applicant states that the project would displace 85% of the 50,000 gallons per year now consumed for diesel power generation. Based on this estimate as well as the applicant’s estimates of project capital and O&M costs, the B/C ratio is estimated at 3.13. Applicant proposes one 25 MW generator, with the option to bring on another 25 MW generator as demand warrants. In the applicant’s B/C analysis, they assumed an average of 37.5 MW of generation capacity for the life of the project. For the AEA B/C analysis, no growth in demand was assumed, only 25 MW of generation capacity for the life of the project. Construction and interconnection are the most expensive and challenging parts of this project, and funding for those elements have yet been identified. That in mind, the B/C ratio is 8.99 based on the information provided. The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) is requesting for funding for the development of a 1 MW wind farm in Snake Mountain near Dillingham. The total project cost is $13.1 million; amount requested is $10.1 million. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $10.54 million using applicant’s data and $11.14 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $12.38 million (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The economic benefit of the project is primarily driven by the value of displaced fuel estimated to be on average about $920,000 per year over the 20-year period; not enough to offset capital costs of the project. The calculated B/C ratios are: 0.85 using the applicant’s data and 0.90 using AEA information. Humpback Creek functioned successfully in Cordova as a run-of-river project until rendered inoperative by flooding and unstable site geology. The capital improvement now underway involves not only repair but also upgrade and revision of the project to protect it from future damage from similar events and conditions. The B/C ratio benefits from the fact that $4 million of the total $11.6 million cost has already been spent. Most of the project’s potential output will displace an equivalent amount of diesel generation in Cordova as soon as the project comes back online. A small surplus from the project will still be available in the summer and may be absorbed by increased demand from fish processing operations. This evaluation, however, is based solely on the displacement of current diesel generation at the current level of electricity demand in Cordova. Based on these assumptions on remaining capital cost and the benefit of diesel generation displacement, the B/C ratio is estimated at 4.54. Applicant capital cost figures were reviewed and accepted, totaling $5,260,000 for installation of the complete waste heat recovery system. In this analysis, only the heat recovery efficiency gains were weighed against the $1.78 million in capital costs for this component of their project. Construction is expected to be completed in 2009 and heat recovery operational in fall of 2009. Operation and maintenance expenditures were forecasted to be the same as current O&M. The Benefit/Cost calculation relies on the capital cost vs. future fuel savings. In the B/C analysis no fuel savings were calculated for 2009, it is conservative. The efficiency gains replace about 880,000kWh of generation annually, and the estimated annual savings exceed $300,000. The technology is well known, the applicant clearly capable of performing the work and the benefits carefully measured. Benefit cost ratio 2.43. Applicant proposed to construct a wood processing plant. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. This short-term project (five years) will process existing biomass (wood) for Year one and Year two, while supplies for Years three to five are less defined. Estimated B/C ratio is 19.92 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 20.31. Copper Valley Electric Assoc. (CVEA) serves Valdez, Glennallen, and several smaller load centers in between. The Solomon Gulch hydroelectric project supplies all of CVEA’s requirements during the summer but, due to limited storage capability, contributes much less during the winter. In an average year, Solomon Gulch supplies approximately 60% of CVEA’s requirements while oil-based generation supplies the other 40%. The Allison Lake hydro project would address this seasonal issue –during the winter it would supply power to displace oil-fired generation; during the summer its reservoir would be refilled. The largest share of CVEA’s oil-based generation is supplied from a cogeneration plant located at the Petro Star refinery in Valdez. The plant produces electricity for the utility as well as process heat for the refinery. CVEA indicates that most of the oil-fired generation that Allison Lake would displace would come from this cogeneration plant. The evaluation therefore includes as its major benefit the oil fuel that is now consumed at the cogeneration plant but would be displaced by Allison Lake hydro. What the evaluation does not account for is the additional fuel that the refinery would need to consume for its process heat requirements once deprived of the heat produced from the cogeneration plant. This is due to lack of information at this early stage of project consideration. The price of fuel used in this evaluation is the price supplied by CVEA. For whatever reason(s), it is significantly below the price that would have been used had it been based on AEA’s fuel price methodology. So, while accounting for Petro Star’s need to use additional fuel would have reduced the B/C ratio, a fuel price consistent with AEA methodology would have increased it. These qualifications having been stated, the B/C ratio for this evaluation came out to 4.81. Applicant proposed to construct a central wood heating system for the Kenny Lake School. Chistochina fuel prices were used for analysis while quoted wood chip prices from a local provider were used for biomass costing. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. Estimated B/C ratio is 0.67 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is also 0.67. Applicant proposed to construct a central wood heating system. Chistochina prices were used for analysis and adjusted upward by $0.50 per gallon in the AEA analysis, per directions from AEA. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. The applicant used a compound annual growth rate of 5.0 percent on oil, 3.5 percent on wood, and 2.5 percent as a “real discount rate.” Estimated B/C ratio is 0.63 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 0.61. Applicant states that the project will produce 15,607,166 kWh on an assumed 40.4% capacity factor and 98% availability. That will displace 1,202,775 gallons of diesel fuel on the marginal unit – a combined cycle unit with a generation efficiency of 12.97 kWh/gal. Considering the project life of 20 years (AEA and KEA assumption), the applicant’s data indicates a benefit /cost ratio of 4.77. Applicant did not supply specific unit O&M, so assumed AEA value of $0.02/kWh. AEA analysis uses the assumption of $5,000/kW at applicant’s 40.4% capacity factor, but only 80% availability. Thus, fuel savings are reduced, as is displaced diesel O&M. Additionally, AEA assumes $0.022/kWh for wind O&M, while the applicant assumed $0.017/kWh. Applicant indicates possibility of green tag sales. If possible, the sale of green tags @$.03/kWh would increase the AEA B/C ratio to 4.26. AEA estimated B/C is 3.89. Applicant states that 95% of existing diesel generation at Old Harbor would be displaced by the proposed hydro project. The B/C ratio estimated for this project is based entirely on this estimated benefit, and comes to 1.59. Applicant also states that the project could generate substantial surplus energy during high flow months and that this surplus could be used to displace heating fuel in the community. However, this potential benefit is not accounted for in this evaluation as no specifics are available at this time in the application. City of Bethel provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $3,197,986, O&M: $164,719/year, generation: 1,040,000 kWh (all usable to displace diesel electric generation), and displaced fuel: 82,605 based on BUCI COPA projections. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.78 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $16,340, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $17,974, displaced fuel (59,810 gallons) based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics, and generation (AEA provided): 817,000 kWh/year. The primary reason for the higher B/C ratio is the much lower O&M costs assumed. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.83 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Puvurnaq Power Company provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $2,884,833 (net of $400,000 sunk costs), O&M: $30,000 (green tags of $10,000/turbine ignored – appears quite high), generation: Somewhat vague. Appears to be 1.1 million total, but part for boiler heat at school and part for home heat, and displaced fuel: Existing loads at 37,750 gal (electric), 2,480 gal (school), and 9,000 gal (home heat) for a total of approx 50,000 gal. With load growth, 70,000 gallon offset. Analysis based on existing load. Based on the above data with no load growth, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.98 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to assumed displaced diesel generation = $14,853, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $25,674, displaced fuel for power (60,772 gal) based on revised displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics (12.22 kWh/gal). Heating fuel displacement based on revised total generation and ratio of Applicant data, and generation (AEA provided): 1,167,000 kWh/year (total). Allocations to power and heat based on ratio of Applicant data. The primary reason for the higher B/C ratio is the higher displaced generating fuel for the AEA-based analysis. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.63 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. The applicant is an independent power producer (Village Wind Power, LLC) that intends to sell wind energy to the local utility (Bethel Utilities Corporation); with no power purchase agreement to date. The project is a 2 MW wind farm with an estimated cost of $8.71 million and a grant request of $6.96 million. AEA information has slightly lower renewable energy generation and therefore a lower amount of fuel displaced compared to the applicant’s data given the same diesel generation efficiency. The O&M costs stated by the applicant are slightly higher (at $.03/kWh) than the AEA benchmark O&M costs for rural energy projects (at $.022 per kWh). The value of fuel displaced is based on projected fuel prices provided by AEA (average price of fuel in Bethel over the 20-year analysis period is $6.36). The calculated B/C ratios are: 4.25 using the applicant’s data and 3.86 using AEA information. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $4,313,603, O&M: $5,250/year (Applicant estimate of $0.02/kWh in Green Tags not included in analysis.), generation: 730,880 kWh (70,000 kWh of this amount used to displace heating oil), and displaced fuel: 41,260 gallons plus 1,962 gallons for heat from HOMER analysis. (Note: higher estimates that appeared to be inconsistent with this amount also provided, and Applicant-based B/C ratio based on the smaller amount.) Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.71 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $12,984, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $15,840, displaced fuel for power (48,303 gal) based on revised displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics (13.44 kWh/gal). Heating fuel displacement based on revised total generation and ratio of Applicant data, and generation (AEA provided): 720,000 kWh/year (total). The B/C ratio for the AEA-based analysis of 0.83 is higher than the Applicant-based analysis due primarily to the lower fuel savings projected by the Applicant in its HOMER analysis. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is requesting funds for construction and installation of two (2) 100 kW wind turbines in the village of Mekoryuk. With this project the community will produce 480,000 gross kWh or electricity and offset 34,359 gallons of fuel at $4.657/gallon resulting in an average annual fuel cost savings of $160,000. Considering the project life of 20 years (applicant and AEA assumption), the applicant’s data indicates a benefit /cost ratio of 0.71. AVEC estimates an annual capacity factor of 27% for the wind turbines, including an 18% outage, the estimated cost of the system was $17,522/kW. AEA estimates $11,250/kW, including the integrating control system. The savings in diesel fuel for generation (28,307 gallons per year) plus the offset heating fuel (at the assumed volume of 3,000 gallons per year) amounts to $142,819/year at AEA estimated fuel costs. The cost of boilers to offset the heating fuel was not identified in the application, nor included in the analysis. The possible sale of green tags @$.03/kWh has not been credited to the wind project, but would increase the AEA B/C ratio to 1.12. The estimated B/C ratio without the boilers is 1.02. The community of Napaimute serves as a seasonal location for subsistence fishing and gathering, and is not occupied year around. The applicant estimates that the location is occupied to some extent for 10.5 months per year. The applicant runs a private generator, and is not part of the Power Cost Equalization program. Consequently, no diesel fuel costs are gathered for Napaimute. For this analysis, we used diesel fuel prices at Chuathbaluk, a nearby village similarly located on the Kuskokwim River. AEA estimates were used for O&M costs of the current diesel generator ($.02 per kWh), and the proposed solar photovoltaic system ($1% of capital costs annually). B/C ratio using these assumptions is 2.99. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $1,153,056, O&M: $3,500/year, generation: 228,000 kWh (conflicting data provided in application, but immaterial since economics based on stated displaced fuel.), and displaced fuel: 7,600 gallons for electric, 3,400 gallons for heating (from HOMER model run)Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.65 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $3,319, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $6,798, displaced fuel for power (11,904 gal) based on revised displaced diesel generation and stated generating efficiency (13.94 kWh/gal). Heating fuel displacement based on revised total generation and ratio of Applicant data, and generation (AEA provided): 309,000 kWh/year – ratio to power/heat based on Applicant data. The B/C ratio for the AEA-based analysis of 1.00 is higher than the Applicant-based analysis due to higher wind generation (provided by AEA) and calculation of fuel savings using generating efficiency in lieu of HOMER analysis. Applicant is requesting funds for final design and construction of a 200kW wind farm to supply wind energy to the waste treatment plant (WTP). The requested amount is the total project cost of $2,220,141. The economic benefit of the project is primarily driven by the value of displaced fuel estimated to be $1.57 million over the 20-year period compared to the project cost $2.22 million. In present value terms, using a 3 percent discount, total benefits are $928,702 and total costs are $2,092,696. There are no differences in renewable energy generation and capital costs between the applicant data and AEA information. The only difference between the applicant and AEA calculation which is insignificant is in the estimated O&M costs of less than $200 per year. The calculated B/C ratio is 0.44 (both using applicant data and AEA information). No information was provided by Napaskiak Utility. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the following: Construction cost: $5,000/kW x 2,000 kW = $1,000,000, displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $10,900, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to generation = $11,990, displaced fuel based on displaced diesel generation, PCE generating statistics, and generation (AEA provided): 545,000 kWh/year. The results should be considered quite high due to the speculative nature of the numbers and the relative results estimated for the other applications. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 3.82 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Applicant proposes a reconnaissance study to look at supplement or replacement for using heating oil. No B/C ratio could be determined with the information provided. Applicant assumes a 30-year project life. AEA estimates a 20-year project life for rural solar photovoltaic arrays. The applicant assumes annual O&M costs at the current plant of $146,480, and annual O&M costs at the new plant of $0. For this analysis, the annual O&M cost estimate used for the current plant was $27,486, based on AEA benchmark O&M cost estimates for rural areas. AEA estimates for the proposed solar PV system is $6,050, based on 1% of capital costs annually. These differences compounded for a 30-year life assumption by the applicant, and a 20-year life assumption by AEA results a wide difference in net present value of benefits estimate from O&M savings through installation of the new generators. Net present value of the project benefit based on the applicant’s assumptions is $3,166,644, while net present value of the project benefit based on AEA‘s assumptions is $599,703. The estimated B/C ratio, using AEA’s assumptions is 0.93. Applicant assumes a 30-year project life. AEA estimates a 20-year project life for rural solar photovoltaic arrays. The applicant assumes annual O&M costs at the current plant of $146,480, and annual O&M costs at the new plant of $0. For this analysis, the annual O&M cost estimate used for the current plant was $29,723, based on AEA benchmark O&M cost estimates for rural areas. AEA estimates for the proposed solar PV system is $6,050, based on 1% of capital costs annually. These differences compounded for a 30-year life assumption by the applicant, and a 20-year life assumption by AEA results a wide difference in net present value of benefits estimate from O&M savings through installation of the new generators. Net present value of the project benefit based on the applicant’s assumptions is $3,290,363, while net present value of the project benefit based on AEA‘s assumptions is $685,141. The estimated B/C ratio, using AEA’s assumptions is 1.13. Applicant assumes a 30-year project life. AEA estimates a 20-year project life for rural solar photovoltaic arrays. The applicant assumes annual O&M costs at the current plant of $146,480, and annual O&M costs at the new plant of $0. For this analysis, the annual O&M cost estimate used for the current plant was $29,853, based on AEA benchmark O&M cost estimates for rural areas. AEA estimates for the proposed solar PV system is $6,050, based on 1% of capital costs annually. These differences compounded for a 30-year life assumption by the applicant, and a 20-year life assumption by AEA results a wide difference in net present value of benefits estimate from O&M savings through installation of the new generators. Net present value of the project benefit based on the applicant’s assumptions is $3,216,537, while net present value of the project benefit based on AEA‘s assumptions is $622,902. The estimated B/C ratio, using AEA’s assumptions is 1.03. Kotzebue Electric Association provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $14,829,535, O&M: $50,000/year, generation: 5,980,145 kWh (not all usable without battery system); benefits without battery system stated to be approximately 60% of those with batteries, and displaced fuel: 412,424 gallons based on energy and stated efficiency of 14.5 kWh/gallon. Amount is less than the 575,288 gallons stated by Applicant. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.57 over a 20-year period. A separate case was run that limited fuel savings to 60% of that stated above based on estimated reductions if there was no battery. In this alternative case, the B/C ratio was 0.92. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation without battery = $160,320, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to generation without battery = $176,352, displaced fuel (323,226 gallons) based on 60% of AEA-provided energy (to account for no battery for energy storage) and PCE generating statistics, and generation (AEA provided): 8,016,000 kWh/year. The primary reason for the higher B/C ratio is the higher wind energy provided by AEA. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.25 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Northwest Arctic Borough (Buckland) provided the following estimates: Construction cost: 5,279,369, O&M: $22,000/year, replacement costs: $30,000 for drive-trains every 10 years and $80,000 for blades every 15 years, generation: 682,000 kWh (all usable to displace diesel electric generation), displaced fuel: 49,420 gallons based on energy and stated efficiency of 13.8 kWh/gallon. Amount is less than the 54,560 gallons stated by Applicant. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.62 over a 25-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $13,080, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $14,388, displaced fuel (54,545 gal) based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics (11.99 kWh/gal), and generation (AEA provided): 654,000 kWh/year. Even though the energy generation is lower for the AEA-based analysis, the inclusion of avoided non-fuel variable costs for diesel generation and lower O&M results in a slightly higher B/C ratio for the AEA basis. B/C ratio of 0.77 was calculated for this project. 56b. Northwest Arctic Borough (Deering) provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $2,690,191, O&M: $22,000/year, replacement costs: $30,000 for drive-trains every 10 years and $80,000 for blades every 15 years, generation: 510,000 kWh (all usable to displace diesel electric generation),and displaced fuel: 37,778 gallons based on energy and stated efficiency of 13.5 kWh/gallon. Amount is less than the 40,800 gallons stated by Applicant. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.94 over a 25-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $9,760, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $10,736, displaced fuel (43,262 gal) based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics (11.28 kWh/gal), and generation (AEA provided): 488,000 kWh/year. Even though the energy generation is lower for the AEA-based analysis, the inclusion of avoided non-fuel variable costs for diesel generation and lower O&M results in a slightly higher B/C ratio of 1.25 for the AEA basis. 56c. Northwest Arctic Borough (Noorvik) provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $2,951,869, O&M: $22,000/year, replacement costs: $30,000 for drive-trains every 10 years and $80,000 for blades every 15 years, generation: 473,000 kWh (all usable to displace diesel electric generation), and displaced fuel: 36,329 gallons based on energy and stated efficiency of 13.02 kWh/gallon. Amount is less than the 37,840 gallons stated by Applicant. Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.98 over a 25-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $7,260, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh applied to full generation = $7,986, displaced fuel (27,273 gal) based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics (13.31 kWh/gal), and generation (AEA provided): 363,000 kWh/year. The B/C ratio for the AEA-based analysis of 0.83 is lower than the Applicant-based analysis due to the significantly lower energy provided by AEA. Applicant requests funds to examine the feasibility of various hydroelectric prospects in the Upper Kobuk region, to serve the communities of Ambler, Shungnak, Kobuk, and/or Kiana. These include both reservoir projects and run-of-river projects. Of the possible reservoir projects, the least costly is a $62 million project on the Shungnak River that would produce an estimated 42.7 million kWh per year -- almost all during the May through October time frame. By comparison, the total annual electricity demand in the 4 named villages in 2007 was 4.4 million kWh, most of which was consumed during the winter months. It is clear from these basic numbers that the reservoir projects cannot proceed without a much larger demand to justify their size and expense -- presumably one or more mines. Further consideration of the reservoir projects would require more information about the proposed mine(s), and would seem to be premature until such a mine is approaching actual development. AEA finds that feasibility review of run-of-river hydro prospects near the Upper Kobuk villages of Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk, is a more practical concept in the near term. As representative of these prospects, this evaluation considers Cosmos Creek using data from a 1981 reconnaissance study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That study considered a 144 kW run-of-river project with average annual energy production of 331,000 kWh during a period of 5 months per year. AEA updated the capital cost estimate to $9,060,750 in 2008 dollars, and the annual O&M estimate to $135,000. Given these assumptions the B/C ratio for the project came to only 0.01. Applicant estimated operating and maintenance costs of the flow battery system were at about $91,000 per year. AEA changed that value to $30,000/yr after consultation with the applicant. An error in some of the diesel efficiency curves in the HOMER model caused an over estimation of fuel savings. After obtaining updated diesel efficiency curves from the applicant, the estimated diesel savings dropped from 137,821 gallons /yr to 58,400 gallons/yr. The adjusted fuel savings was used in AEA’s Benefit Cost calculation. B/C ratio is estimated at 0.70. City of Ambler provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $145,551, O&M: $800/year, generation: 25,000 kWh of displaced diesel generation (no back-up to estimates, represents 42 percent capacity factor), and displaced fuel: 1,834 gallons based on PCE stats for AVEC – Ambler. Based on the above data with no load growth, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 0.88 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the following: Construction cost: $5,000/kW x 1.5 kW (wind) + $100,000 (solar) = 107,500. Solar amount represents approximate amount included by Applicant, displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh = $48, turbine O&M: $0.022/kWh = $53. Assumes same amount ($/kWh) for wind and solar, displaced fuel based on displaced diesel generation and PCE generating statistics, and generation (AEA provided): 2,421 kWh/year. The low energy production assumed by AEA. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 0.13 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Applicant capital cost figures were supplied by SCS Energy. They were reviewed and accepted, totaling $7.4 million for the project. It is a conservative approach with a 15 year horizon -20 years is assumed in this analysis. The capital infrastructure placed will allow increases in generation capacity with moderate cost. Present transmission capacity would need to be enlarged in order to do so, but nevertheless the present approach is conservative. The avoided kWh cost is based on ISER figures. The technology is well known, so there is very little project risk. The $5 million municipal gas handling system required for environmental compliance has resulted somewhat higher construction costs. Avoided costs begin at $1.6 million per year and increase thereafter, making for a B/C ratio of 3.54. The evaluation assumes that South Fork hydro would displace natural gas-fired generation in the Railbelt and the primary benefit is therefore the estimated avoided cost of natural gas. The applicant intends to sell the output to a Railbelt utility at the utility’s avoided cost. This suggests that rates for Railbelt consumers could be unaffected by the project – to the extent natural gas costs escalate, so would the utility’s avoided cost along with the associated price of energy from the hydro project. The applicant does refer to a number of other benefits that could result from the project, and these are not included in this evaluation. Based on these assumptions combined with the applicant’s estimated project costs, the B/C ratio comes to 5.41. Alaska Wind Energy, LLC provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $21,673,000, O&M: Approximately $29,434/year in current dollars, or $0.002/kWh. This includes land lease payments to CIRI, production tax credit (PTC) of $0.019/kWh. Current tax law stipulates that these credits are for the initial 10 years of operation, and generation: 14,716,800 kWh (all usable to displace fossil-fueled generation). Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.13 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced variable O&M: $0.005/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $107,925, turbine O&M: $0.018/kWh applied to full generation = $388,530, displaced fuel based on AEA data, adjusted to not include the $0.005/kWh for variable O&M, generation (AEA provided): 21,585,000 kWh/year. The primary reason for the higher B/C ratio is the higher energy provided by AEA. PTC were not included in the AEA-based analysis, and inclusion would increase the B/C ratio to 1.50. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.34 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Applicant proposed to construct a combined heat and power system. The project estimated displaced diesel fuel at 7,500 gallons, based on the applicant’s submission and experience. Displaced fuel for power generation followed AEA guidance and spreadsheet figures. The full cost of biomass tipping fees, at $61 per ton, was used as a proxy for redirected values and community benefit. Estimated B/C ratio is 2.45 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 1.64. AEA determined that the $60,000 towards the heat exchanger system in the application is nominal and insignificant insofar as the B/C calculation is concerned. Mechanical, electrical, and other components of the inter-building heating system are not accounted for and it is unclear what the heating requirements are for the buildings targeted. The proposal is therefore evaluated strictly on the electrical output and capital costs net of $60,000. This facility will displace around $2 million per year in fossil fuel-based power and provide a B/C ratio of 3.38. The evaluation assumes that Fishhook Creek hydro would displace natural gas-fired generation in the Railbelt and the primary benefit is therefore the estimated avoided cost of natural gas. The applicant intends to sell the output to a Railbelt utility at the utility’s avoided cost. This suggests that rates for Railbelt consumers could be unaffected by the project – to the extent natural gas costs escalate, so would the utility’s avoided cost along with the associated price of energy from the hydro project. The applicant does refer to a number of other benefits that could result from the project, and these are not included in this evaluation. Based on these assumptions combined with the applicant’s estimated project costs, the B/C ratio comes to 4.13. The evaluation assumes that Grant Lake hydro would displace natural gas-fired generation in the Railbelt and the primary benefit is therefore the estimated avoided cost of natural gas. The applicant’s estimate of average annual energy from the project is 29 million kWh, based on a 1984 feasibility study. Based on that assumption combined with the applicant’s estimated project costs, the B/C ratio comes to 2.95. AEA notes that previous consultation with resource agencies raised significant issues with minimum stream flows and the volume of water to be diverted through the project powerhouse. Based on that earlier experience, an alternative B/C ratio was estimated based on annual average production of 25 million kWh – the resulting B/C ratio is 2.51. Applicant capital cost figures were reviewed and accepted, totaling $1,050,000 for installation of the new waste heat recovery system. Construction is expected to be completed in 2009 and heat recovery operational in fall of 2009. Operation and maintenance expenditures were forecasted to be the same as current O&M. The B/C calculation relies on the capital cost vs. future fuel savings. The avoided fuel cost is based on per kWh AEA assumptions. Annually 1,476,000 kWh are avoided based on net electrical savings for a total of $234,860 in avoided costs per year. This produces a B/C ratio of 3.44. Alaska Wind Power, LLC, an independent power producer is requesting for funds for avian studies amounting to $105,000. The total project cost, including the wind infrastructure is estimated to be $96 million. In present value terms, the estimated stream of benefits of the proposed project amount to $248 million using applicant’s data and $315 million using AEA information. The present value of project costs amount to $87.9 million (for both applicant and AEA calculations). The more favorable B/C ratio using AEA information is primarily due to higher annual wind generation output assumption; which is based on information used in the previous analysis for the Delta Wind Project. The value of displaced energy is based on the avoided cost of energy for GVEA expressed in $/kWh. The calculated B/C ratios are: 2.82 using the applicant’s data and 3.58 using AEA information. Alaska Environmental Power, LLC provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $8,363,886, O&M: $100,646/year in current dollars, reclamation reserve: $100,000/year for first ten years (non escalating), and generation: 4,468,020 kWh (all usable to displace fossil-fueled generation). Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.17 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced variable O&M: $0.00267/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $8,397, turbine O&M: $0.018/kWh applied to full generation = $56,556, displaced fuel based on AEA data, adjusted to not include the $0.00267/kWh for variable O&M, and generation (AEA provided): 3,142,000 kWh/year. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 0.92 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. The B/C ratio is lower due to the assumed energy provided by AEA is 70 percent of that estimated by the Applicant. Kenai Winds, LLC provided the following estimates: Construction cost: $46,735,000, O&M: $891,825/year in current dollars, and generation: 46,831,000 kWh (all usable to displace fossil-fueled generation) Based on the above data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.25 over a 20-year period. The AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the same assumptions as the Applicant-based analysis except: Displaced variable O&M: $0.005/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $238,915, turbine O&M: $0.018/kWh applied to full generation = $896,094, displaced fuel based on AEA data, adjusted to not include the $0.005/kWh for variable O&M, and generation (AEA provided): 49,783,000 kWh/year. The primary reason for the higher B/C ratio are the assumed displaced variable O&M and the higher wind energy production assumed by AEA. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.43 was calculated for a 20-year analysis period. Applicant provided an estimated capital cost for construction through commissioning of $890,000. This appears reasonable approximation given data from elsewhere although a contingency is added in the AEA calculations due to several uncertainties covered in the existing pre-feasibility study. Some uncertainties are construction issues (e.g. tying in to Chugach Electric Association transmission lines and certain logistics for the penstock) whereas others are operating or capacity issues (e.g. net generation 10% or more seasonally from minimum flow requirements or ice conditions). A construction contingency of 10% was added for AEA calculation. Generation at a capacity factor of 68% is reasonably conservative given experience with a similar sized facility near Palmer. Estimated operating and maintenance costs for the mini hydro were not provided in the application. A figure of $8,250 per year was used for the B/C calculation. When producing 750,000kWh/year evaluated at the avoided cost of power the annual fuel savings start at nearly $60,000. These assumptions yield a B/C of 1.47. This evaluation assumes that Whittier Creek hydro would displace natural gas-fired generation in the Railbelt and the primary benefit is therefore the estimated avoided cost of natural gas. Whittier is connected to the Railbelt grid and receives power from Chugach Electric Association. Estimated annual output from the project is very preliminary, as is the capital cost estimate. As for annual output, the applicant states only that “dependable capacity” is estimated at 175 kW for 9 months per year. For this evaluation, annual output was simply assumed to be 175 kW, 24 hours per day for 9 months, with no production during the remaining 3 months. Based on that assumption combined with the applicant’s estimated project costs, the B/C ratio comes to 1.00. Applicant states that Seward relies on local diesel generators when the transmission line to the Railbelt is out of service. However, this evaluation does not include any displacement of diesel fuel because transmission outages are most likely to occur during the winter, a time when the run-of-river hydro project is unlikely to generate much power. The evaluation assumes that Fourth of July Creek hydro would displace natural gas-fired generation in the Railbelt and the primary benefit is therefore the estimated avoided cost of natural gas. Based on that assumption combined with the applicant’s estimated project costs, the B/C ratio comes to 3.29. Applicant is proposed a project for Nenana due to its close proximity and easy access to the applicant’s home offices. While this project is worthwhile as a pilot or demonstration project, because it is located within the Railbelt electrical grid where energy costs are low, the energy cost savings over the life of the project do not outweigh the construction costs. B/C ratio is 0.06. Applicant supplied project costs on the basis of previous technical reports. They were reviewed and accepted by AEA at approximately $2,868,000. Ample factors included for remote construction, escalation, and contingency. The analysis is likely conservative in this respect. Delivered chip costs of $80 per ton were verified by the supplier, and it appears the additional O&M costs of $3200 per year in labor and 55,000 kWh of electricity were adequate. (It is not known what applicant means by $195,000 per year on the cost application and the reference on p 16 of the application. Spreadsheet back-up clearly shows otherwise). The analysis follows applicant’s proposal with 2009 being the final design and construction through 2010. The first two years have slightly higher operating costs, and by the third year net fuel savings are around $170,000. The B/C ratio for a 20 year project life is 0.77. While this project is worthwhile as a pilot or demonstration project, it’s location within the Railbelt electrical grid where energy costs are low; the energy cost savings over the life of the project do not outweigh the construction costs. If this project were constructed in a rural area with high cost diesel generation, it could create positive net benefits from foregone costs of fuel and high O&M costs. B/C ratio is 0.44. Applicant estimated capital cost of building the project, including the feasibility study, is $1,070,000,000. The applicant assumes sales price of power from this project to be between $8.00 and $16.00 per mmBtu over the life of the project, for an average of $12.00 per mmBtu. The applicant also assumes the price of displaced fuel to be $8.57 per mmBtu. The AEA project director for this application accepts these assumptions. Consequently, since the cost of energy from the project is higher than the cost of energy forgone, estimated B/C ratio is 0.71. AEA surveyed capital costs for eleven recently proposed, constructed, or under construction plasma facilities. Commercial scale facilities are much more expensive in terms of both capital and operating costs than the present system of Municipal Solid Waste disposal in Anchorage. Applicant indicates that since forming the company in 2006 a patented procedure will make their process less expensive than such proposed facilities. But no evidence or estimates were submitted. Field experience with new technology like this points to additional capital expense through retrofits, delays or additional construction as the learning curve is climbed. There is technology risk. The evidence suggests plasma technology will be both a more expensive way of processing waste in addition to being a more expensive means of producing electricity for Anchorage. In the B/C analysis that lesson is applied, showing higher capital and operating costs, despite significant electrical output as a byproduct. If the evaluator uses the average capital cost for facilities and adjust by 25% for Alaska the capital costs then similar technology applied in Alaska would cost over $400 million. The operating and maintenance costs would probably be well in excess of $70 per ton. B/C estimated at 0.06. Applicant presents that existing boilers are a combined 244,000 BTU system running at about 70% efficiency. The proposed biomass boiler is a 300,000 BTU system operating at 80% efficiency. Present diesel fuel use was estimated at about 2,500 gallons per year, of which 90% is forecasted to be replaced. In the calculation of BTU equivalents, a modification was made to their analysis. The correct biomass equivalent to 2,500 gallons appears to be 18 tons/yr at 8200 BTU/lb of wood chips as opposed to the 15 tons forecasted, and accounts for the difference in the AEA analysis vs. the submitted analysis. The capital cost of $831,223 produces a net fuel savings of just over $7,000 per year based on AEA conversion numbers. Inclusion of heat savings for the new building and the calculation of heating costs on the basis of some combination of barley and wood pellets would improve the benefit/cost ratio, but the capital costs are still quite high for the level of fuel savings. The B/C ratio is 0.08. AEA surveyed capital costs for eleven recently proposed, constructed, or under construction plasma facilities. Commercial scale facilities are much more expensive in terms of both capital and operating costs than the present system of Municipal Solid Waste disposal in Fairbanks. Applicant indicates that since forming the company in 2006 a patented procedure will make their process less expensive than such proposed facilities. But no evidence or estimates were submitted. Field experience with new technology like this points to additional capital expense through retrofits, delays or additional construction as the learning curve is climbed. There is technology risk. The evidence suggests plasma technology will be both a more expensive way of processing waste in addition to being a more expensive means of producing electricity for Fairbanks. In the B/C analysis that lesson is applied, showing higher capital and operating costs, despite significant electrical output as a byproduct. If the evaluator uses the average capital cost for facilities and adjust by 25% for Alaska the capital costs then similar technology applied in Fairbanks would cost over $100 million. The operating and maintenance costs would probably be on the order of $100 per ton. B/C estimated at -0.14. AEA surveyed capital costs for eleven recently proposed, constructed, or under construction plasma facilities. Commercial scale facilities are much more expensive in terms of both capital and operating costs than the present system of Municipal Solid Waste disposal in Palmer. Applicant indicates that since forming the company in 2006 a patented procedure will make their process less expensive than such proposed facilities. But no evidence or estimates were submitted. Field experience with new technology like this points to additional capital expense through retrofits, delays or additional construction as the learning curve is climbed. The evidence suggests plasma technology will be both a more expensive way of processing waste in addition to being a more expensive means of producing electricity for Palmer. In the B/C analysis that lesson is applied, showing higher capital and operating costs, despite significant electrical output as a byproduct. If the evaluator uses the average capital cost for facilities and adjust by 25% for Alaska the capital costs then similar technology applied in Palmer would cost over $75 million. The operating and maintenance costs would probably be on the order of $100 per ton. B/C estimated at -0.55. Applicant proposes a reconnaissance study to look at supplement or replacement of some of the lowest cost energy in the state. There is a very high capital cost. No B/C ratio could be determined with the information provided. For evaluation of the Reynolds Creek hydro project, an electricity demand forecast was used that shows significant growth for all communities on Prince of Wales (POW) Island. This forecast is the “reference case” developed for the 2007 AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study, adjusted upwards for expected demand from a new cold storage facility in Craig and for significant conversions from oil to electric heat starting in 2012 rather than 2020. For consistency, this forecast is used to evaluate the proposed North POW intertie that would connect Coffman Cove and Naukati Bay to the existing grid. However, by assuming such demand growth, the existing surplus of hydroelectric energy on POW Island would be quickly used up. Since the rationale of the North POW intertie is to displace diesel generation in Coffman Cove and Naukati Bay with surplus hydroelectric power, this demand growth assumption quickly negates the economic benefits of the proposed line unless additional hydroelectric resources become available. For this reason, the North POW intertie proposal is evaluated only in conjunction with the proposed Reynolds Creek hydroelectric project. Given the demand growth forecast, the intertie cannot be cost-effective unless combined with additional hydroelectric resources on the island. When Reynolds Creek and the North POW intertie are evaluated as if they were a single, combined project, the B/C ratio is estimated at 3.08. Applicant states that the intertie project will offset 196,027 gallons of diesel fuel equal to 2,531,000 kWh of generation at 12.9 kWh/gallon. The applicant’s B/C calculations, with intertie in operation in 2012, indicate a portion of generation will remain, presumably for line outages and other system requirements, estimated at 3% of full diesel requirements. Applicant estimated displaced variable O&M at $.08/kWh. Capital costs are provided by the applicant for the Base Case and Renewable Case. An entry of $4.1 million in capital costs are included in the base case with no explanation, and have been removed pending additional support. Applicant B/C analysis, before adjustment, is 0.92 and after 0.84 after adjustment. Applicant did not include replacement energy for displaced generation, the B/C ratio is only from the installed cost of the intertie and the displaced diesel fuel and O&M. AEA analysis uses $40,000,000 capital cost and includes replacement energy at the Applicant expected cost of $0.068/kWh beginning in 2013, the anticipated first year of intertie operation. Estimated B/C ratio is 0.56. The Falls Creek project has been under construction since April 2006 and is expected to begin producing power by the end of 2008. As in all of the economic evaluations, sunk costs are excluded from the analysis since, having already been incurred; they are common to all possible scenarios. The B/C ratio benefits from the fact that nearly all of the project cost has already been spent, leaving only $750,000 as the capital cost needed to complete the project. The project is expected to provide 90% of the electricity demand in Gustavus, all of which is presently supplied by diesel generators. Given the value of this diesel displacement and the fact that most of the project cost is “sunk,” the B/C ratio is estimated at 22.06. Applicant proposes installing a ground source heat pump hybrid heating system with electrical heating as a back up for a new pool facility in place of a purely electrical heating system. As neither system is currently built, we used the additional costs for building the hybrid system over the purely electrical system as estimated by the applicant for capital cost of the system. The applicant provided life cycle cost analysis for four alternative systems with the application, however, they used different assumptions than AEA uses. We used the applicant’s estimates of O&M costs and energy costs for the electrical and hybrid systems from their cost worksheet for our analysis. It is assumed that electrical generation offset would be from diesel generation. Based on these assumptions, B/C ratio is 5.12. Applicant notes Swan-Tyee intertie is scheduled for completion in 2010, at which time the communities of Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan will be tied together in a single electrical grid. Energy projects in any of these communities must therefore be evaluated in the context of this interconnected system. The existing Tyee Lake hydroelectric project currently supplies most of the electricity used in Petersburg and Wrangell, and still has a substantial surplus of energy each year that could be used if there were sufficient demand. Excess energy will still be available from Tyee Lake after Ketchikan is connected to the system in 2010. The load forecast that has been used for the evaluation of proposed projects in the interconnected system of Wrangell, Petersburg, and Ketchikan is the "reference" forecast used in the 2007 AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study, shown in the graph below. Also shown is the average annual energy capability of the existing hydro projects serving the interconnected system. According to these projections, the existing hydro surplus is used up by 2014. The applicant’s present schedule anticipates that Whitman Lake will be online in 2013. According to the load forecast, all of Whitman Lake’s average annual energy will be used by 2018 and in all subsequent years. The project cost is favorable not only because the project is located close to the City and its electrical system but also because there is an existing dam at Whitman Lake that already creates the project reservoir. As a result of these factors and other assumptions, the B/C ratio is estimated at 8.26. Applicant proposed a wood-fired district heating project. Evaluator used Skagway fuel prices and AEA biomass cost calculation, then linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. Heating oil displacement was set at 90 percent for AEA analysis, as biomass will be supplement (backed-up) by oil, as needed. Estimated B/C ratio is 4.23 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 3.50. AEA reviewed the capital costs submitted by Yakutat Power and an additional $300,000 was added to equipment/capital for chipping and drying/processing. It appears that applicant made an error in the calculation of wood biomass requirements after the system boosts from 75% to 95% availability. Nevertheless, fuel savings quickly rise from $300,000 to over $1.4 million per year with the biomass system. Assuming all stages of the project are successfully completed and a 20 year horizon is used the estimated B/C ratio is 1.94. The Swan-Tyee intertie is scheduled for completion in 2010, at which time the communities of Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan will be tied together in a single electrical grid. Energy projects in any of these communities must therefore be evaluated in the context of this interconnected system. The existing Tyee Lake hydroelectric project currently supplies most of the electricity used in Petersburg and Wrangell, and still has a substantial surplus of energy each year that could be used if there were sufficient demand. Excess energy will still be available from Tyee Lake after Ketchikan is connected to the system in 2010. If no demand growth were assumed to occur in the future, there would be no point in considering the Ruth Lake project. Petersburg currently generates about 1 million kWh per year from its diesel generators when Tyee Lake is down for maintenance or when transmission outages occur, but Ruth Lake would be designed to supply 70 million kWh per year. Nearly all of this energy would therefore be wasted. AEA directed that a demand growth scenario be used to evaluate this project and other projects in the region. A key factor in AEA’s decision is that numerous conversions from oil heat to electric heat have recently occurred due to the sharply rising fuel prices combined with the availability of surplus hydroelectricity from Tyee Lake. As a result, the “reference case” load forecast from the September 2007 AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study was used for this evaluation. That load forecast assumes growth in customers, growth in use per customer, and continued conversions from oil to electric heat. That forecast for Ketchikan, Wrangell, and Petersburg is shown in the graph below. Also shown is the current annual average energy capability from existing hydroelectric projects now connected to the grid, plus the expected output from the Whitman Lake hydro project starting in 2013. The applicant estimates that Ruth Lake would come online in approximately 2018 and the evaluation extends for 50 years through 2067. The benefit/cost analysis assumes that electricity demand shown in the graph above existing hydro capability would be served either by the Ruth Lake project or by diesel generators. Based on these assumptions, the B/C ratio came out to 3.97. Applicant presents a small, private hydro project exists at this site which the applicant proposes to upgrade for sale of power to the utility serving Skagway. Little is known about the costs of such upgrade or the potential project output. Estimates used in this evaluation, including the capital cost, are essentially concept numbers based on knowledge of the existing project and discussion with the local utility, and are intended to provide a rough order of magnitude. Based on discussion with the local utility, which currently operates both hydro and diesel plants in the Skagway area, applicant estimates that Burro Creek could displace 1-2 million kWh of diesel generation in the April to June time frame. Applicant also suggests that the project might be able to operate at a low level throughout the winter, displacing additional diesel generation. And finally, applicant suggests that some summer energy from Burro Creek might be usable to serve visiting cruise ships if they decide to connect to shore power. As the latter two possibilities seem more speculative than the first, this evaluation assumes the high estimate of diesel displacement for the April-June time frame (i.e. 2 million kWhs) but does not assume additional displacement for winter operation or supplying cruise ships. The B/C ratio estimated on the basis of these assumptions is 2.40. Applicant provided the following estimates: construction cost: $37.4 million, O&M: $47,180/year - this is offset in part by $2,866/year savings in air permit fees, displaced diesel generation: 4,878,261 kWh, displaced fuel: 376,451 gallons based on achieved efficiency of 12.96 kWh/gallon for year. Based on this data, AEA fuel cost estimates, and 3 percent (real) discount rate, the B/C ratio for the Applicant was calculated as 1.15 over a 40-year period. It is assumed that all replacement generation is from hydro and any marginal costs of generation are not included in the analysis. AEA-based B/C ratio was based on the following estimates: construction cost: use same as applicant, displaced diesel O&M: $0.02/kWh applied to displaced diesel generation = $97,565, intertie O&M: use same as applicant, and displaced fuel based on displaced diesel generation, PCE generating statistics The primary reason for the difference is the difference in generating efficiency assumed. Based on the revised data assumptions, a B/C ratio of 1.10 was calculated for a 50-year analysis period. Applicant estimates that the project will provide for an offset of around 600,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually with 8,500,000 kWh or average annual energy delivered over the intertie. The applicant’s reported B/C calculations, with intertie in operation in 2011, estimated the available diesel generation that could be displaced in Ketchikan at greater than 18,000,000 kWh/year and increasing, thus providing the opportunity for full utilization of MIC surplus capacity. Using Applicant’s estimated fuel costs for Ketchikan of $3.10/gallon (escalated at AEA rates) and a replacement energy cost to Ketchikan of $0.085/kWh, the B/C ratio is 6.19. An AEA analysis uses the same capital cost, but assumes 13 kWh /gal., the AEA fuel price estimate of $5.07, escalated, and replacement energy at the Applicant expected cost of $0.085/kWh beginning in 2011, the anticipated first year of intertie operation. However, the sales potential to Ketchikan is limited, as Tyee surplus will meet additional energy requirements for the foreseeable future. An assumption of 98% availability of Swan Lake and Tyee surplus to meet the needs provides a market opportunity of approx. 2,000,000 kWh. At that level of sales, the B/C is 2.26. Applicant proposed a reconnaissance biomass project. Four public buildings would be heated by a wood biomass. Skagway fuel prices were used and AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. Heating oil displacement was set at 90 percent for AEA analysis, as biomass will be supplement (backed-up) by oil, as needed. Estimated B/C ratio is 0.59 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is also estimated at 0.59. Applicant recently obtained funds to conduct a feasibility study of the project but that study has not yet been done. At this stage, however, the applicant estimates that the Indian River project would displace all diesel generation for the local utility and would also produce surplus energy to displace an additional 20,000 gallons of heating fuel in the community. Based on these projections and the City’s capital cost estimate, the B/C ratio for the project is estimated at 3.99. AEA notes that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed a $3.0 million cost estimate for the same project in 1984. This translates into approximately $6.1 million in 2008 dollars, compared with the $2.4 million estimate put forward by the applicant. AEA also considers the projected displacement of heating fuel to be speculative at this stage of project definition. As a result, an alternative B/C ratio was calculated to incorporate these two changes: (1) a capital cost estimate of approximately $6.1 million, and (2) exclusion of the projected displacement of heating fuel using surplus project energy. The B/C ratio under these revised assumptions came to 0.98. Applicant states Swan-Tyee intertie is scheduled for completion in 2010, at which time the communities of Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan will be tied together in a single electrical grid. Energy projects in any of these communities must therefore be evaluated in the context of this interconnected system. The basis for this economic evaluation is that, at the time of the proposed conversion of Wrangell municipal facilities from oil-fired boilers to electric boilers, there is sufficient surplus hydroelectricity available from the Tyee Lake project to serve all of the new heating demand. The cost of providing this surplus energy is zero. Therefore, at least initially, the economic benefit of the conversion is essentially equal to the entire cost of the displaced heating fuel. The question that arises is whether this economic benefit continues to be realized once the Tyee Lake surplus is used up as a result of load growth. The load forecast that has been used for the evaluation of proposed projects in the interconnected system of Wrangell, Petersburg, and Ketchikan is the "reference" forecast used in the 2007 AK-BC Intertie Feasibility Study. According to these projections, the existing hydro surplus is used up by 2014. New hydro projects can be built but the energy from these new projects cannot be considered "free." Increasing diesel generation would be costly. It is also much more fuel efficient to supply heat with oil-fired boilers than with electricity produced from diesel generators. This evaluation therefore assumes that the City of Wrangell municipal facilities would switch back to its oil-fired boilers within several years after the hydro surplus is used up. Specifically, it is assumed that the City would realize fuel displacements benefits from the proposed electric boilers for a period of 10 years but would then switch back to oil-fired boilers. At that point, according to the load forecast s, system electricity demand would exceed the existing hydro resource by over 20 GWh, approx. 4 GWh of which is due to the City's proposed electric heat conversions. Based on these and other assumptions, the B/C ratio is estimated at 1.91. Applicant provides information that merits a feasibility study. However, Petersburg (in Wrangell Narrows) has an excess of low-cost renewable hydroelectric energy, Gustavus is expected to bring a low-cost hydroelectric plant on line in early 2009, and Nikiski is connected to the Railbelt low-cost energy grid. The economics of these three projects are not likely to show a favorable benefit/cost ratio due to the existing infrastructure. No B/C ratio could be determined for this project with the information provided. Applicant states there is surplus hydroelectric energy available in Sitka from existing projects. Further, the City is engaged in an expansion of its Blue Lake hydro project that will add significant new hydroelectric supply to the system. At the same time, Sitka has recently experienced significant electricity demand growth and this year commissioned a new demand forecast for the next 20 years. The highest three years were used for this evaluation. Among its assumptions are that, over the next several years, use of electric heat by residential customers will increase from about 33% to 66%, and that most of Sitka’s passenger vehicles at the end of 20 years will be electric as well. A major additional load was then added in 2022 – the anticipated first year of Takatz Lake operation. This additional load represents the use of nearly half of Takatz Lake energy to supplant 1.8 million gallons per year of heating fuel for large, “interruptible” customers such as schools, hospitals, and public buildings. This last assumption accounts for roughly 2/3 of the economic benefits estimated for the project in this evaluation. Based on these assumptions, the B/C ratio is estimated at 1.09. Basic assumptions on moisture content of feedstock, type of processing used at each stage, and efficiency must be determined along with location-specific construction costs, shipping, etc. before a benefit-cost analysis can in good faith be prepared exercising due diligence. Applicant proposes doing a feasibility study after a construction grant has already been made. Capital cost data is unclear regarding “gasifier” cost vs. pre-treatment, gas cleaning, compressor, turbines, etc. It is impossible to establish what component parts are included or even the basic type of gasifier to be constructed. Applicant submitted a “project cost” figure of $25.6 million, where “project costs” include operating costs in years after construction is completed. AEA reviewed capital cost data supplied by the applicant and determined that the proposed capital costs of the facility were $19.2 million. This seems unrealistically low in view of other facilities under construction with reported capital costs. Facility construction was scheduled to be completed in the first year. Total operating plus capital costs in year one were approximately $21.1 million. The requested amount of $20.5 million is essentially full funding of a turnkey operation. If the grant fully pays for a turnkey operation then it is unclear what is meant by Diesel Brewing co’s “match”. B/C estimated at 0.0. Applicant submitted no data other than what is included in the project description. There is a pre-existing regional reconnaissance study by DMC Technologies applicant did not cite, and it also appears Klawock has done some investigation of Plasma technology for MSW disposal. DMC study was technical feasibility and not economic feasibility per se. AEA assesses the potential for cost savings in processing of MSW exists in the region based on technical feasibility report by DMC Technologies. But AEA cannot do reasonable benefit/cost calculation without its own report. AEA does assess that at least $30 million capital for a facility of this type in the Juneau area would be required to process the annual municipal waste stream. It is unclear whether it could process MSW at what amounts to a lower tipping fee than the Municipal landfill which at current rates has a 30 year capacity. B/C estimated at 0.0. Applicant submitted no data other than what is included in the project description. There is a pre-existing regional reconnaissance study by DMC Technologies applicant did not cite, in addition to feedstock supply report for Sealaska. It also appears Klawock has done some investigation of Plasma technology for MSW disposal. DMC study was technical feasibility and not economic feasibility per se. AEA assesses the potential for cost savings in processing of MSW exists in the region based on technical feasibility report by DMC Technologies. But AEA cannot do reasonable benefit/cost calculation without its own report. B/C estimated at 0.0. Applicant capital cost figures were reviewed and accepted, totaling $991,815 for installation of the new heat recovery system. The benefit-cost analysis excludes the cost of the new generator and calculates benefits strictly stemming from the heat recovery system. The estimated cost of construction for the system without including the new generator and its associated cost is $855,961, and the amount of fuel savings is 32,000 gal per year. Construction is expected to be completed in 2009 and heat recovery operational in fall of 2009. The aggregate benefits of this project accrue to the recipients of waste heat at rates less than half that of fuel heat, and to ML&P customers through lower operating costs and power sales. The value of displaced fuel was based on a weighted average of fuel oil savings in the buildings tying in to the waste heat recovery system and ML&P customers buying power. Estimated B/C ratio is 2.13 as evaluated. Applicant proposed a combination (construction) biomass and solar project. Fuel costs for Galena were adjusted upward by $0.50 per gallon for both applicant and AEA analysis. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. Solar power impacts were used as presented and appear to be based on experienced results from Tanana and its biomass and solar powered washeteria. Estimated B/C ratio is 2.90 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 2.62. Applicant used 9.8 kWh/gallon for the current plant efficiency ratio. Upgrades to the current diesel generator are being undertaken soon, resulting in increased efficiency. The applicant made a calculation error in project funding in their budget summary. To correct this error, $10,000 was added to the cost of deployment of the 25 kWh generator to $290,200. The applicant assumes annual O&M costs at the current plant of $41,182, and annual O&M costs at the new plant of $9,600. For this analysis, the annual O&M cost estimate used for the current plant was $9,917, based on AEA benchmark O&M cost estimates for rural areas. AEA’s O&M estimates for the proposed hydrokinetic generators are $13,859, based on 3% of capital costs annually. These differences compounded for a 20-year life assumption by the applicant, and a 15-year life assumption by AEA results a wide difference in net present value of benefits estimate from O&M savings through installation of the new generators. Net present value of the project benefit based on the applicant’s assumptions is $895,228, while net present value of the project benefit based on AEA‘s assumptions is $163,999. The estimated B/C ratio using AEA assumptions is 0.33. Applicant proposed a reconnaissance to construction biomass project. Several capital cost estimates were referenced in the submittal and the selected version was reduced by $500,000 for the AEA analysis. This amount reflects sunk costs in the form of existing wood biomass. Also, wood costs estimated at $60 per ton by local State employees were adjusted upward for AEA analysis (to $65 per ton) based on quoted prices in the Glennallen area. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. Estimated B/C ratio is 0.82 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 0.94. Applicant states that Yerrick Creek hydro would displace approximately 40% of existing diesel generation for Tok and connected, nearby communities. During high flows in the summer, the project might be able to serve 100% of the connected load. During low flows in the winter, however, the utility would continue to rely mostly on diesel generation. Based on the applicant’s estimate of hydro output and project costs, the B/C ratio is estimated at 2.76. Applicant proposed to construct a central wood heating system. This capital intensive project will substitute for 16 older boilers. Initial applicant fuel cost was $7 per gallon, however, for consistency, ISER prices were used. AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. New systems are proposed to come on line in 2011 and no fuel displacement is forecast until then. Estimated B/C ratio is -0.06 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 0.01. Applicant proposed to construct a central wood heating system. Fuel displacement is estimated to occur at 90 percent overall for eight oil-fired boilers at the School, Gym, AC Store and other locations. The system life was forecast at 15 years with fuel displacement from three boilers fueled with wood chips. ISER fuels costs for Fort Yukon were used for both applicant and AEA calculations; AEA biomass cost calculations were linked to real price increases (forecast by ISER) as they will move upward (or downward) as a substitute for heating oil. In addition, the AEA operational life was extended to 20 years to meet project standards. Estimated B/C ratio is 0.92 by the applicant and the Evaluator’s figure is 1.14. Applicant proposed a project that would determine the potential for in-stream sources of renewable energy. There is not enough information available to perform a full B/C analysis on this project. AEA did analyze potential benefits and costs of a possible in-stream hydrokinetic project at Eagle, and found a B/C ratio of approximately 1.66. However, the economics of individual projects will vary by location and circumstances. The project to assess the resource potential has merit on its own, and individual projects should be examined separately for economics. B/C ratio could not be determined based on the information included in the application. Applicant states in the application that benefit is to be determined by the reconnaissance study. Typically, in this situation a rough Benefit/Cost ratio could be calculated without concrete numbers. However, in this case, the project was not defined clearly enough to calculate a B/C ratio of any kind. Applicant proposes a demonstration in Juneau due to the availability of hydroelectric power. The resulting ammonia fuel is easily stored and transported to all areas of the state, and byproducts from the process of conversion to ammonia fuel and back to hydroelectric energy is pure water. About 40% efficiency of energy is lost converting to ammonia, and about 35% efficiency is lost converting ammonia fuel back to clean energy. To examine the costs and benefits of this project, AEA used Angoon as the rural location to receive and utilize the ammonia fuel. AEA assumptions for this B/C estimate include a 20 year life of the project, the building of a fuel converter at Angoon to convert the ammonia back to useable power (for an additional $50,000), the loss of efficiency in the conversion process mentioned above, and O&M costs of the new system of 2% of capital costs per year. While the costs outweighed the benefits in this analysis, the benefits would increase greatly with a larger scale conversion system. B/C ratio could not be determined with the information provided in the application. Election_District 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 39, Bering Straits 36, Kodiak 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 36, Kodiak 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 37, Bristol Bay-Aleutians 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 36, Kodiak 36, Kodiak 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 38, Bethel 6, Interior Villages 38, Bethel 39, Bering Straits 38, Bethel 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 40, Arctic 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 17, Eagle River 34, Rural Kenai 8, Denali-University 11, North Pole 17, Eagle River 13, Greater Palmer 35, Homer-Seward 11, North Pole 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 34, Rural Kenai 32, Chugach State Park 32, Chugach State Park 35, Homer-Seward 6, Interior Villages 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 8, Denali-University 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 12, Richardson-Glenn Highways 9, City of Fairbanks 13, Greater Palmer 6, Interior Villages 1, Ketchikan 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 3, Juneau-Downtown-Douglas 1, Ketchikan 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 5, Cordova-Southeast Islands 2, Sitka-Wrangell-Petersburg 1, Ketchikan 3, Juneau-Downtown-Douglas 1, Ketchikan 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 6, Interior Villages 23, Downtown-Rogers Park 13, Greater Palmer 3, Juneau-Downtown-Douglas Engineer_Firm Polarconsult Alaska Polarconsult Alaska Inc. EES Consulting Polarconsult Alaska, Inc. R&M Consultants/Hatch Acres Hatch Acres Corporation Polarconsult Alaska NANA Pacific/Polarconsult Alaska Polarconsult Alaska Polarconsult Alaska HDR Alaska U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Polarconsult Alaska Alaska Power & Telephone HDR Alaska Hatch Acres Corporation Hatch Acres Corporation Electric Power Systems. Inc. Electric Power Systems Inc. Hatch Acrea/Current Consulting/EES Consulting/EPS/etc. Alaska Power & Telephone Est_Benefit 251692 94000 484309 500000000 1755238 770299 700000 930000 400000 122151 63171000 3800000 10000000 0 1000000 1199471 5260000 1578797 4830000 806007 27452 1257766 4190542.09 4000000 496456 3000000 216643 160000 55000 74668 192000 943480 2210194 650166 907374 21600 1400000 0 4334600 11500000 595383 25300000 0 41000000 7000000 5000000 71194805 21500 0 2868000 193600 1200000 192673 1500000 1000000 503500000 0 30000000 30000000 9000 2500000 54000 0 3053154 52000000 3000000 2880000 1103100 584000 280000 60000 57786933 2000000 108717 67000 3200000 2500000 50000000 2505600 1482000 294000 71060 25673 39000000 184300000 864850 879755 0 7500000 Project_Description A small, 271-kW, cross-flow turbine, generation system with a darn and power house (approximately latitude 52° 11' 28" N and longitude 174° 11' 37" W) which utilizes hydro-electric stored kinetic energy in a reservoir dam on Chuniisax Creek approximately 3/4-mile southwest of the old Atka village site (approximately T92S, R176W, Seward Meridian) and replacement electrical distribution system. The project will displace use of high cost fossil fuels with a renewable energy resource using proven technology. Energy costs to all users in Atka will be significantly reduced while providing the current and future energy requirements. The village has secured additional funding from EDA to complete the most of the remaining 55%. (45% was previously completed using RUS, AEA, and city funding.) This grant plus our cash and in-kind contribution will complete the balance. This medium penetration wind-diesel and jacket heat recovery project is located on Umnak Island, approximately 100 miles west of Unalaska/Dutch Harbor. The community of Nikolski will be directly served by this project. In addition, the community of pilots and passengers who make international flights over this area will benefit greatly. A communications gap, long a problem for international flights, was recently remedied by the installation of communications equipment in Nikolski by the FAA. The Nikolski IRA Council, Chaluka Corporation, the management of Umnak Power, TDX Power and the Aleutian Pribilof Island Community Development Association/APICDA will be involved in ensuring this project succeeds. The City of St. George operates a traditional diesel power plant which currently uses multiple diesel fueled engine generators to supply all required electric power to the community of St. George Island. With fuel and fuel handling cost now at historically high levels, the community, through their partner APICDA, seeks technology alternatives to provide long term fuel-savings impact. As wind/diesel technology has been proven viable in a variety of remote applications in Alaska and internationally, APICDA has allocated resources to determine if a wind retrofit at St. George can provide a meaningful, cost effective benefit. The City of St. George, APICDA and TDX Power are all involved in delivering a high penetration wind diesel hybrid project for the community. The Aleutians East Borough (AEB) stretches from the tip of the Alaska Peninsula to the easternmost Aleutian Islands. This isolated region is bordered on one side by the North Pacific Ocean and the other by the Bering Sea. It has been home to generations of Aleut families since the Second Ice Age in Akutan, False Pass, King Cove, Nelson Lagoon, and Sand Point. Cold Bay was developed during World War II. In this region, called “the birthplace of the winds”, renewable energy resources abound -- not only wind power, but also hydro, geo-thermal, current and tidal. Some waste heat recovery opportunities also exist. The larger AEB communities of Akutan, King Cove and Sand Point, which have personnel resources and comparatively healthy city budgets, have alternative energy projects operating or on the drawing board. This project requests funding to conduct a renewable energy reconnaissance report for the smaller (populations less than 100) communities of Cold Bay, False Pass and Nelson Lagoon which require assistance to decrease their energy costs and reduce their dependence on diesel fuel. A reconnaissance report will summarize the assessment and findings. This project will be administered and managed by the AEB and will be conducted by a consultant chosen by the AEB. Geothermal energy remains an underdeveloped renewable and sustainable energy resource within the State of Alaska. Aside from Chena Hot Springs, which currently has an installed capacity of 400 kW of power from a low temperature (about 73°C) geothermal source, there are presently no other geothermal-electric energy producers in the State. The Makushin project’s primary goal is to produce a minimum of 40 MW of power from the geothermal resource and supply that power to the City of Unalaska, independent power producers and other energy users in the vicinity. The current generating capacity within Unalaska consists of UniSea (Fairbanks- Morris (12± MW)), Westward Seafood (9± MW Wartsila), Alyeska Seafood (5.5± MW), and the City of Unalaska (currently 7.5 MW; in addition the City has purchased, but not installed, 10 MW capacity Wartsila diesel gensets (and perhaps an additional 10 MW of diesel generation) for the potential of 44+ MW, in the future which is contemplated to be utilized as emergency back-up Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 29 10/8/2008 generation. The base load of all Unalaska to be supplied by the Geothermal-electric Project is estimated near 10 mW/hr. The combined base and peak loads are estimated to be near 32 mW/hr. The project could supply more than 50 percent of the electrical load for the City and other power producers in Unalaska. Any unutilized electric energy available above any total load requirements, and the Project’s installed electric capacity will be utilized in four ways: 1. For electric resistive heating within Unalaska to displace expensive fuel oil now used for domestic space heat and man-camp heat systems or to augment or replace thermal energy heat exchanged from some present diesel generation jacket heating loops. 2. To supply electric fuel/energy for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) to displace higher and unstable priced gasoline and diesel, as an imported fuel. The PHEV technology has the additional ability to feed electricity back in the grid for emergencies from the PHEV batteries. This project will retrofit two local F-150 pickup fleet trucks to PHEV to increase the fuel economy of these vehicles from 16 mpg to 41 mpg on roads within the City of Unalaska. This will be an important step to demonstrate how sustainable green transportation at reduced and stable costs for “fuel” will work in Unalaska. 3. Electric energy conversion into other “manufactured and transportable” fuels, like ammonia, methane, and hydrogen which could augment or displace costly diesel fuel now used by the local fishing fleet. This utilization or transporting “stranded renewable energy” could create new local business opportunities for diversification of local business infrastructure. 4. Lower temperature “waste heat” from the geothermal-electric facility could be used for heating greenhouses and other industries requiring stable energy values. KSLC is the fee simple, surface and subsurface land owner of 7,200± acres known as the Makushin geothermal resource area, and as such will be the lead grant recipient. KSLC anticipates working closely with the City of Unalaska, the Ounalashka Village Corporation, the Native Village Tribe and the group of noted civil and electrical engineers, geologists and other scientists identified in this proposal to complete 16 tasks that include further assessing the resource, developing facility siting plans, evaluating the electrical integration of the geothermal power with the local power, evaluating the transmission lines required (including new and reconducting), and developing 35 percent level cost estimates for each of three alternatives for facility locations. The team members include Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell (HDL), RSA Engineering (RSA), TDX Power, University of Manitoba, University of California Santa Cruz, Alaska Volcano Observatory, and specialty contractors to assist in select areas of the project. As part of the assessment of the resource we will develop a searchable database for the substantial existing literature and data gathered since 1978, and conduct geochemical studies and spectral imaging in order to refine the existing model of the geothermal resource system. Seismic data gathered from previous studies will be inputted into the refined model. In order to develop 35 percent project cost estimates, a number of factors will have to be evaluated including: conceptual design of facilities including a dock and other needed infrastructure, power plant size and type, power transmission and electrical integration with existing electrical system, and evaluation of permitting issues. The NJUS Renewable Energy Fund Wind Project involves the installation of five 600 kW wind turbines on Newton Peak located approximately one mile north of Nome. The completed project, with a total size of three MW, will be owned and operated by NJUS. The wind turbines will be connected into NJUS’s electrical distribution system through a constructed transmission line. The project will offer benefits to the community of Nome and its electric customers through a system-wide reduction and stabilization of energy prices. NJUS has assembled a project team, headed by STG Incorporated, that is prepared to immediately begin work on an accelerated schedule. The project team includes members from Intelligent Energy Systems LLC, DNV Global Energy Concepts Inc, Electrical Power Systems, Duane Miller Associates LLC, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell LLC, BBFM Engineers and Aurora Consulting. All aspects of the Final Design/Permitting and Construction project, detailed in the following pages of this application, can be completed by fall 2010. The Unalakleet Renewable Energy Fund Wind Project involves the installation of two 600 kW wind turbines on a project site located approximately one and a half miles northeast of Unalakleet. The completed project, with a total size of 1.2 MW, will be owned and operated by UVEC. The wind turbines will be connected into UVEC’s electrical distribution system through a constructed transmission line. The project will offer benefits to the village of Unalakleet and its electric customers through a system-wide reduction and stabilization of energy prices. UVEC has assembled a project team, headed by STG Incorporated, that is prepared to immediately begin work on an accelerated schedule. The project team includes members from Intelligent Energy Systems LLC, DNV Global Energy Concepts Inc., Electrical Power Systems, Duane Miller Associates LLC, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell LLC, BBFM Engineers and Aurora Consulting. All aspects of the Final Design/Permitting and Construction project, which are detailed in the following pages of this application, can be completed by fall 2010. Located in Nome, this project will install a 2-mile transmission line and a 8-mile fiber control cable to connect a 1MW wind farm to be operated by Banner Wind LLC, an independent power producer, to the City of Nome/Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) power distribution grid. The project will place an underground 25kv distribution line adjacent to a new road, and include a fiber control cable run from the wind generators to the utility power plant. Banner Wind LLC is an IPP formed in partnership between Bering Straits Native Corporation & Sitnasuak Native Corporation. NJUS will be primarily responsible for the project construction activities, as well as the reporting and financial control of the intertie project. The installation of this wind power project will provide a maximum output of 1,170 kW to the Nome Joint Utility electric grid in Nome, Alaska over a 20 year extendable project timeframe. The owners of the project are committed to sell the energy at a price below the avoided cost calculations, even without any grant funding. Grant funding will allow further reduction in the price of approximately $0.03 per kWH for every one million in grant funds. Selling the energy at a rate below avoided costs will provide savings to the utility to help to lower the energy costs in the Nome area and provide some energy produced locally that is not dependent on imported oil. Furthermore, this project helps enable future village installations in the region by helping with a base of operations, spare parts location, local training facility and regional hub. Providing for renewable energy projects in villages should help reduce the dependency on oil in those locations where oil must be flown or barged in and ultimately help reduce energy rates in those locations as well. Through implementing a power sales agreement, this project is unique in that it takes advantage of federal tax credit incentives for wind energy projects which help offset the actual cost of energy. Overall, this project provides a cash and tax credit based revenue stream, provides jobs and keeps money working in the community while increasing overall power generation reliability by producing it locally. Banner Wind LLC (jointly owned by Bering Straits Native Corporation and Sitnasuak Native Corporation) owns the wind farm while the construction and initial operations are managed by Western Community Energy LLC. The profits from the project which are ultimately distributed to the shareholders of BSNC and SNC will help provide income to an area where many have very limited incomes. This is an excellent demonstration of a commercial opportunity that needs to be eagerly developed. This project is a regional Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual design of Wind Power opportunities around the Lake & Peninsula Borough. It is designed to build upon existing wind resource assessment efforts, including wind met tower data in some communities, as well as data from existing micro-scale (10kW) wind turbines that are in operation. The communities included in this package are: Pedro Bay Port Alsworth Egegik Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton Port Heiden Pilot Point In addition to the Borough Management and staff working closely with the local utilities, the Borough intends to hire HDR as their lead engineering consulting firm for these assessments. The intended outcome of this work is a set of bid documents for a regional Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract. The proposed project is a wind/hydro hybrid intertie feasibility study for Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon and Chignik Lake (hereafter “Chigniks”.) The Chigniks have a combined population of 277 people - the largest community is Chignik Lake with 128 people. The cost of fuel to create electricity is becoming beyond reach in the area, the purpose of the proposed project is to provide affordable and stable-price energy to create sustainable communities. Wind: There is existing wind data confirming class 5 wind in the area, strong enough to be a good energy source. However, at the sites where data was collected the wind was “too turbulent” to be utilized for wind energy generation. Part of the feasibility study will involve determining the most advantageous site for wind turbines by collecting supplemental met data. Hydro: The Chignik Alaska Draft Small Hydropower Feasibility Report and EIS, by the Army Corps of Engineers, July 1984, evaluated hydro resources at Packers Creek, Mud Bay Lake and Indian Creek. The study found that Indian Creek had the best potential for economical development with a potential head of 409 ft and modest flows on the order of 22cfs. See Hydro Screening Attachment G for details The Lake and Peninsula Borough will provide management for the project, overseeing the work of HDR Alaska who will act as the owner representative in developing the feasibility study for a wind/hydro intertie project. The Lake and Peninsula Borough seeks funding for design and permitting to install High Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE) wood boilers in five communities in the Lake and Peninsula Borough providing heat to the local school and adjacent teacher housing. The communities to be considered are Pedro Bay, Newhalen/Iliamna, Nondalton, Kokhanok and Port Alsworth. The schools in these communities served 225 children in the 07-08 school year. All of these communities are in heavily wooded areas and with the exception of Port Alsworth they are have few or no land use issue that need to be resolved. The wood resource near Port Alsworth resides in Federal Park land and ANCSA land, the Borough will utilize area experts to resolve any impediments to sustainable wood harvest. An initial feasibility indicates that these communities could displace tens of thousands of gallons of diesel currently used to heat the facilities. Actual fuel consumption for school year 07/08 was used in the analysis. A simple payback analysis offered periods of 1.6 to 2.9 years. The Lake and Peninsula Borough will work with the school district and a HELE unit vendor to complete the project. Contract employee, Bob Loeffler will work with local authorities to ensure that any land issues related to a sustainable wood fuel harvest are resolved. The City of Chignik will partner with Trident Seafoods (holder of FERC License 620) to study the engineering, electronics, and economics of restoring the antiquated hydropower system on Indian Creek in Chignik, Alaska. (See attached Project Area maps.) The “Chignik Hydro” project would benefit the residents of Chignik by offsetting the cost of fuel currently used to generate electricity for homes and community buildings such as the Subsistence Building and the school. Electricity generated by the new hydropower system will also benefit the new small boat harbor, the Trident Seafoods fish processing plant, and the Harris Sub-Regional Clinic, which will serve residents of Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Lake, Perryville, and Port Heiden. In addition, by re-building the dam and conveyor pipeline, the project would also be reinforcing the infrastructure that supports the city’s water system, as well as the fish plant water supply. The Lake Elva facility will consist of a dam constructed 8,500 feet downstream from the existing outlet of the lake. A rock fill structure with a projected height of 120 feet above the estimated base; the dam crest will be 625 feet long and 20 feet wide with a 2.5:1 upstream and a 2.1:1 downstream slope. This dam will increase the existing lake from its’ initial surface area of 300 acres at 325 El. The reservoir formed by the dam will provide 26,800 acre feet of active storage above the minimum operational pool at 320 El. The lake surface area will be 820 acres at normal pool El 370. A 50 foot wide spillway with 10 feet of freeboard to the dam crest will discharge over natural terrain into the existing creek channel. Cresting at El 370 the spillway is designed to discharge the probable maximum flood of 3,790 cfs. A buried concrete pipe will provide the power conduit from the power intake to the power house. A 60 inch diameter vertical shaft power intake will be set at El 310, ten feet below minimum operation pool. The intake will be protected with a steel trash-rack. The 60 concrete encased steel water conduit will be used to divert flows during construction. Upon completion this conduit will transition to an electrically controlled 36 inch butterfly valve downstream for inspection and emergency closure operations. The control valve will transition to a 48 inch steel pipe and then into concrete sections following the terrain where it will be connected to a 24 inch steel bifurcation 100 feet above the power house. The powerhouse will contain two 750 kW turbines. Under a rated net head of 280 feet each unit will drive a 900 kVa, 0.9 pf, 2.4 kV generator. This steel framed structure will be located approximately 1,800 feet upstream from the Elva Creek confluence with Lake Nerka. It is planned to be on a 20 by 80 foot concrete foundation with a height of 20 feet above the generator floor. The average discharge head from the power house will be 60 cfs. This project will necessitate the construction of approximately 33 miles of new three phase transmission tie line from the project site to close proximity of the village of Aleknagik. The Nushagak Area Hydropower Project will initially serve the communities of Aleknagik, Dillingham, and Kanakanak in the Nushagak and Wood River areas (future interties to Manokotak and Ekwok - New Stuyahok - Koliganek are under consideration). This first phase with inter-tie is estimated to cost $22 million and replace 500,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually, for a yearly savings of $2,105,700 at today’s fuel prices. Currently all power in the area is generated with diesel by Nushagak Cooperative (NETC), with a current residential rate at $0.463 cents per kilowatt hour. Nushagak Cooperative would develop, maintain, and operate the Lake Elva facility and associated infrastructure. The Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Project is located on Packers Creek in Chignik Lagoon. The 190 kW project can provide for most of the communities current power needs, which peak at about 125 kW. The plant would eliminate about 85% of 50,000 gallons of diesel consumed by the generators annually. There will also be excess energy that could be used for heating the school and other local structures. The project would also enable the community to add a freezer/processing facility to further improve the local economy. The Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project is a long-term energy solution to rising and unpredictable costs of energy in rural and remote regions with geothermal energy potential. The next phase of the project and the subject of this application is geothermal energy resource confirmation and qualification. Phase III includes design, engineering and construction of a deep well preceded by funding and permit acquisition, road and well site improvements and drilling and drill management contracts. Subsequent to resource confirmation and qualification, NEA proposes constructing a 25 MW geothermal plant and interconnection infrastructure that will supply 25+ communities in the Bristol Bay and Lake Region with low-cost electricity that effectively decreases the cost of power 70% by displacing 5.4 million gallons of diesel fuel currently used to meet regional electrical and heating energy requirements. The project will be the first utility grade geothermal development in Alaska establishing long-term firm, reliable and cost effective alternative energy that will enhance rural sustainability and the development of renewable and strategic natural resources. Although the project focuses on the production of electricity the identification and development phases will bring geothermal technology transfer and demonstration that is applicable to other geothermal sites in the region. Power to the People – from fish! It Isn’t Easy To Be Green; But It Is Entirely possible. Feasibility Study This study examines the opportunity, analyzes the possibility, and determines the feasibility of providing a stand-alone fish waste-processing facility that produces and uses clean energy from renewable resources. It serves the commercial fishery and processing plants (7 land based processing facilities, 3 floating processing facilities and several smaller independent seller/operators) and the community of Naknek, King Salmon, and South Naknek, Alaska. It is a model plant that, when proven successful, will be recreated throughout the fisheries of the State and the nation, and the world. This facility serves the ecology and the economy as it provides supplemental clean energy from renewable sources to the locally owned cooperative energy association. This energy counteracts the drain on the power grid during the fish processing season – which is what creates the drain. In short, this model plant and its subsequent generations are usage neutral. A wonderful and significant side-benefit of this proposed facility is that it utilizes the approximately 30-40% waste of fish products currently being dumped into the environment as waste. While this waste is generally bio-degradable and may not always be environmentally unfriendly, it represents a huge waste of resources; resources that required energy to obtain; resources that could be (and, now, will be) transformed into fuel (and other useful and healthy value added products) instead of simply being dumped back into the environment as garbage. This type of facility need not be a “highly profitable” business in the traditional sense in order to be highly beneficial to the local economy and, eventually, the world economy,. While providing supplemental clean energy fuel, it reduces unnecessary waste with its inherent potential harm to the environment. Even though it may be argued that such potential harm is negligible, such waste and potential harm, no matter how slight offends the sensibilities, especially when it is unnecessary waste of environmental products (fish) which, in this case, also happen to be living creatures – and particularly when the alternative is transforming such waste into useful by products including clean, supplemental energy. Bristol Bay Borough and Naknek Electric Association have joined in this responsible and cooperative scientific effort in the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world to perform this study and assess the initial, as well as its ultimate, practicality and profitability of such a facility. The creation of this facility carries with it an opportunity for the local population, including the indigent native population, to operate a model business that produces clean energy and healthy, useful products as it achieves an ideal of Native American traditionalists and Green Planet idealists: Self sustaining, environmentally friendly production – with no waste. 1) Market Issues – This study will prove that there is a huge future need as well as adequate demand currently for the energy (and the value added products) produced and conserved by this facility. This facility will serve as a model of a clean renewable energy production and conservation and the reduction of waste of environmental products (fish) which, as stated are also living creatures. 2) Organizational Issues – This project combines the skills and talents – and idealistic objectives – of technical and scientific communities with the local workforce and values. This facility can and will be staffed and managed to a significant extent by qualified locals. The feasibility study will demonstrate how that will be done effectively and profitably. 3) Technical issues – The equipment and technology needed – where it can be obtained – cost of technology and equipment – when it can be operational – etc. will be determined by the feasibility study. There will be extensive study into best practices to deal with the amount of possible waste to be processed and disposed of according to regulatory, practical, and ideal (e.g. ecological) requirements. 4) Financial issues – Start up costs – operating costs – revenue and energy projections – sources of financing – profitability analysis – etc. are impossible to determine until the feasibility study is complete. The feasibility study is what will determine and propose the processes, resources and equipment necessary to create the final products and services to be produced. The ideal objective of our facility is to produce clean energy from fish waste to reduce to zero the waste produced in processing fish – and operate from its own clean energy produced from such waste (which will then no longer be considered “waste”). We collect undesired fish processing waste from cooperating commercial processors and render it into value added products and resources. In so doing, we use as much as possible only renewable sources of energy particularly those created or released in commercial fish processing. That ideal objective achieves the high standard of Native American traditionalists and Green Planet idealists: No waste – and no harm to the environment. In reaching that ideal objective, we produce and utilize only clean energy from renewable sources such as fish oil biofuel rendered from fish processing and energy obtained by harnessing wind and solar power in a cogeneration situation. 1-100% of the fish processing waste is cost-effectively or profitably converted to fish oil and fish pellets and other value added products and 2-100% of the fuel is cost effectively produced from renewable energy sources (specifically fish oil, biofuel, wind and solar) Our practical objective is to approach the ideal objective ever closer until the ideal is achieved – however long that takes. The practical objective in its first phase – that justifies the initial human effort and financial cost of creating and operating the facility is considered successfully accomplished as… 1-[?]% of the fish processing waste is cost-effectively or profitably converted to alternative or supplemental fuels and value-added products. and 2-[?]% of the fuel used is from renewable energy sources (specifically fish oil, bio-fuel, wind and solar). What are the percentages [?]. That will be determined by the feasibility study. The study will also determine where this facility should be located and how. This facility is created and developed with the end in mind of organizing techniques and technologies and proceeding with processes that smaller fish processing plants can share and larger plants can share or build. Further, the physical, financial and human resources management systems that are created and established can and will be duplicated and promoted through written and spoken mediums, convention and association presentations, study publishing, consulting, etc. This is a first-cut look at these issues. We have examined carefully the relevant facts and related experiments, both successful and unsuccessful, already available to us. We have discovered that nearly every significant technology and resource has been discovered and utilized to some extent. This is an effort to bring all such techniques and technologies together into an operating facility. The Bristol Bay fishery is reknown throughout the world and would be the best location for a leading trend to be set as a model. It is clear that this feasibility study is an excellent investment and is likely to achieve a profitable, earth friendly, payoff within the first year of operation – and will move ever closer to its ideal goal until it is at least 99% achieved – likely within the decade, perhaps sooner. This project focuses on the development of 1 megawatt of wind power located in an area AEA suspects to be have a Class 7 resource. The location is approximately 14 miles Northwest of the City of Dillingham, less than 5 miles Northeast of Manakotak, and approximately 8 miles South of Alegnagik near Snake Mountain. Due to the specific need of the development of this resource for the Healthcare organization, this project will benefit all the communities that rely on the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation to remain ‘the only’ critical access medical facility in the Bristol Bay Region. Although the project is being proposed by a Tribal Organization, it has the support of the local electrical cooperative [Nushagak] as well as many of the residents of Dillingham. Our project development team has tapped into the resources of TDX, Power Corp., MAP Consulting, STG Inc, and Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation. After a decade of declining performance and three years of no operation (2005 – 2008), due to unstable site geology and flooding, CEC has focused intense efforts on re‐designing its Humpback Creek hydro‐electric facility. Humpback Creek, named for the pink salmon that spawn in its mouth, is located five miles north of Cordova and is accessible only by boat. Sub‐marine cable from the plant to Cordova City limits, and buried transmission lines to the CEC plant, connect the facility to Cordova. Because of its steep grade, fish are not able to migrate upstream and thus no fish populations will be affected by this project. From the original in‐take structure to tidewater, Humpback Creek flows about 0.7 miles and drops from an elevation of 276 feet to where it enters saltwater Orca Inlet. Site visits by the project team to other small hydro‐electric projects with a variety of in‐take arrangements and a project workshop held in December, 2007 culminated in a new design with an intake/diversion that includes a tunnel, conventional side intake with provisions for sluicing sediment and a diversion dam with a sluice gate that will allow removal of stream bed material that may collect outside the intake. The new location facilitates much‐improved access, a location with shallower bedrock substrate, and a better hydrological analysis. This project has been CEC’s and the community of Cordova’s top priority for the past three years, ever since October, 2006’s 3,500‐year return period flood event destroyed the intake/diversion facility. Project partners include the City of Cordova, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Eyak Corporation (for access). CEC proposes to serve as a model for rural Alaska utilities by installing an ORC heat recovery unit that will capture waste heat and increase diesel generator electrical production by an additional four to six percent. The average electric production efficiency of CEC’s Orca Power Plant is 13.65 kWh/gallon of diesel. CEC has placed a deposit on a new, 3.6 MW rated, EMD 710 series, 20 cylinder diesel generator. The efficiency of the new generator is expected to peak at 15 kWh/gallon. Cordova Electric Cooperative desires fit the EMD with an organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) heat recovery system that will capture additional BTUs that would otherwise be wasted energy. Cordova Electric Cooperative is the sole provider of power to the City of Cordova, Alaska. We are a member-owned cooperative with 17 full time employees. CEC’s CEO Clay Koplin, Manager of Power Production Danny Ackmann, Manager of Finance Valerie Covel and the engineering firm of Marsh Creek make up the project team for implementing this renewable energy project. The project is located in Cordova, Alaska. Because of astronomical home heating costs, we need to provide an affordable form of energy this winter. Affordable fuel wood is available to the community, from donated lots at an old sort yard and from an airport clearing project. We need assistance with purchasing a processing mill, yarding the logs, and cutting the logs into split firewood. The Eyak Corporation owns several log sort yards which they have generously donated to the village for firewood use. The State of Alaska has offered down logs from the airport clearing project. To efficiently process this wood, we will purchase a firewood processing mill, set it up and train the operators. The mill will enable us to process firewood in a timely manner to be able to distribute an abundant amount of firewood to the community. We will mill approximately 3,421 cords of firewood. The supply for this will come from existing log decks and the airport clearing project. The firewood will be distributed to our elders at no cost and the rest of the community will be asked to contribute $50 per cord to sustain the program. The money generated will help pay for labor costs of processing the firewood in future years. This project will provide 37.2 billion BTU's of low cost energy for home heating and will offset 312.6 thousand gallons of fuel oil and save $1.58 million this winter in home heating costs for Cordova. The Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project is located adjacent to the Prince William Sound, immediately south of Valdez, Alaska. CVEA is a member-owned electric cooperative providing central station electrical service to a relatively large geographical area of Eastern Interior and Gulf Coast Alaska. CVEA is a stand-alone (not interconnected to another power system) electric utility. The service territory is divided into two districts, the Valdez district and the Copper River Basin district. The Valdez district is comprised of the organized area of the City of Valdez. The Copper Basin district incorporates many outstretched communities including: Glennallen, Gakona, Gulkana, Tazlina, Copper Center, Kluti-Kaah, Copperville, Kenny Lake, Tolsona, Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 15 9/3/2008 Mendeltna, Nelchina, Eureka, and Sheep Mountain. CVEA’s corporate office is located in Glennallen while the engineering and power production functions are managed from the Valdez district office. CVEA’s personnel are extensively involved with the Allison Lake Project. CVEA has hired Hatch Acres to assist in coordinating the work and field studies and license application. The project will be located at the mile 33 of the Tok Cutoff Highway in Chistochina, Alaska and will be managed and owned by the Cheesh’na Tribal Council (CTC). The project provides a (cordwood) biomass system to provide heat and hot water for all community facilities located in a “campus” area. Existing facilities that will be served by the project are owned and operated by CTC and include the CTC Tribal Office Building, Chistochina Community Hall and the Education/Library facility. Two new facilities that will be served by the project are scheduled to be constructed in the coming year; Mt Sanford Tribal Consortium multiuse facility with health clinic and CTC’s Washateria. The final design work will build upon the feasibility study and preliminary design work completed as of October, 2008. A bulk fuel wood boiler will be built at the Kenny Lake K-12 school to displace 18,035 gallons of fuel oil. The current boilers will be used for backup and low load periods. This project will involve school district personnel, local contractors, design engineers and Alaska Energy Authority. This project will employee local residents in project management, construction and chip material delivery. We will be integrating a wood fired hydronic heating system with existing boiler system in some of the buildings and retrofitting hot water heat to other buildings. The project will require a greater initial investment and higher annual OM&R costs than for an equivalent oil or gas system alone; however, the savings in fuel costs (wood vs. fossil fuel) will pay for the initial investment and cover the additional OM&R costs in a relatively short period of time. After the initial investment is paid off, the project will continues to save money (avoided fuel cost) for the life of the heating system. Since inflation rates for fossil fuels are typically higher than inflation rates for wood fuel, increasing inflation rates result in greater fuel savings and thus greater project viability. The potential financial viability of this project depends not only on the relative costs and cost savings, but also on the financial objectives and expectations of the Gulkana Village, which will be getting free firewood from another program. The existing oil-fired furnaces, which would remain in place for back up purposes, and the installation of two Garn WHS 32000 wood fired hydronic heaters will supply heat to four duplexes, teen center, community hall administration, fitness center, shop, new offices, clinic, and the new bus garage. It will also feed into the water system through the water distribution made. The initial investment would be $898,000 which would include the cost a combined heat building and wood storage, pex insulated pipe, adapting buildings to hot water heat that do not already have it. The Pillar Mountain Wind project is KEA's next step to achieve its Vision Statement "Endeavor to produce 95% of energy sales with cost effective renewable power solutions by the year 2020. This renewable energy project will consist of three 1.5 MW General Electric (GE) SLE wind turbines. it is estimated that ths project will produce 15.6 million kWh's annually and thereby eliminate over 1.2 million gallons of diesel each year. The wind project will utilize the 20MW Terror Lake Hydroelectric facility as an energy storage system to mitigate the fluctuations of wind power. Wind and water will work in concert together to produce an estimated 91% of our current power generation needs. This renewable energy project will benefit the Cityof Kodiak; United States Coast Guard Intergrated Support Command Kodiak, Bells Flats and Russian Creek areas, as well as the villages of Chiniak, Pasagshak and Port Lions. There are numerous people involved in making this project a reality. These groups of individuals are mainly Alaskans, primary from Kodiak. KEA is proud to be helping our community lower is dependence on diesel and very thankful for the overwhelming community support for this project. Pillar Mountain is located directly southwest fo the City of Kodiak. Attached is a survey map depiciting the land ownership of the area and the portion of land where the wind turbines will be located. The topographical map illustrating the six (6) turbine sites is also attached. This phase of the wind project KEA will be developing three of the six sites depicted on the map. These maps are found in the Appendix-Exhibit G. The many different contractors involved in this project have been listed in Section 3.4. The Project is a 300 kW run of the river hydroelectric plant with a diversion structure, pipeline, powerhouse, and electric line. The project involves collecting up to 7 cfs of water year round from a tributary (Mountain Creek) of Barling Bay Creek and transporting it across a basin boundary to Big Creek. The Project will be developed by Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) and it will provide for most of the electrical needs of Old Harbor. AVEC will employ consultants and contractors as needed to complete the Project. AVEC may utilize local or other personnel for project maintenance. Bethel Wind Power Project Times 4 calls for the purchase and installation of four 100kW wind turbines, tubular towers, foundations, and related appurtenances on land owned by the city of Bethel. The City of Bethel will own, operate, and maintain all four wind turbines and act as an independent power producer by selling 100% of the electricity generated to the privately owned utility in Bethel. The regulated electric utility is Bethel Utilities Corporation. The community of Bethel, with a population of 5,650, will be the community and boundary area served. The City of Bethel, the City's volunteer Alternative Energy Committee, the city's public Works Committee, the City's Planning Commission, and Bethel Utilities Corporation will be involved with the project. The work plan constitutes of the installation, control and integration of five major components: 1. Five Wind Matic 17-S Wind turbines on 80 foot lattice towers. 2. Diesel Station upgrade 3. Dnergy recovery boiler at the washeteria for frequency control 4. Smart metering system 5. 20 Thermal Stoves in residents of village elders The wind turbines will be installed 300 foot apart on pile foundations, and connected via individual three phase transformers to the existing power lines with buried armored cable. Connections between the turbines will be via above ground armored cable. A fiber optic cable will be buried along side the power cable to provide a communications link with the powerplant. The US FWS has expressed an interest in keeping overhead transmission to a minimum, to reduce any potential hazards to passing migrating birds. The energy from the turbines will be integrated into the diesel power systems. Three methods will be used: 1. power electronics connected with a heat recovery boiler for frequency control 2. adaptations to diesel generators to enable low load operation 3. an integrated control system that operates both the wind turbine and diesel generators in a coordinated manner with ceramic thermal storage located in the residents of village elders. Two existing gensets will be modified to operate at low loads and low fuel consumption for extended periods of time. The mail features of the conversion will consist of the addition of a boiler and boiler grid interface to provide reverse power protection to absorb wind gusts when operating at near zero kW, and to increase operating temperatures to eliminate cylinder glazing and wet stacking. The Smart Grid consists of a network of advanced meters, which receive information about the availability of green, or excess wind energy and make this energy available to the community at reduced rates ,and enable devices to capture this energy. The meters communicate wirelessly, provide a user interface for customers, and account for energy sold at different rates. The devices that are located in the homes of 20 village elders, and these stoves capture and store excess wind energy for later use. The Smart Metering and the stoves create a system that allows wind energy to be sold as heat for 1/2 the cost of diesel heating. The work plan consists of the installation, control and intergration of five major components: 1. Five Wind Matic 17-S Wind turbines on 80 foot lattice towers 2. Diesel Station upgrade 3. Energy recovery boiler at the washerteria for frequency control 4. Smart metering system 5. 20 Thermal Stoves in residents of village elders The wind turbines will be installed 300 foot apart on pile foundations, and connected via individual three phase transformers to the existing power lines with 15kV metal clad buried armored cable. Connections between the turbines will be via above ground armored cable. A fiber optic cable will be buried along side the power cable to provide a communications link with the powerplant. The US FWS has expressed an interest in keeping overhead transmission to a minimum, to reduce any petential hazards to passing migrating birds. The energy from the turbines will be intregrated into the diesel power systems. Three methods will be used: 1. power electronics connected with a heat recovery boiler for frequency control. 2. adaptations to diesel generators to enable low load operation 3. an integrated control system that operates both the wind turbine and diesel generators in a coordinated manner with ceramic thermal storage located in the residents of village elders. Two existing gensets will be modified to operate at low loads and low fuel consumption for extended periods of time. The main features of the conversion will consist of the addition of a boiler and boiler grid interface to provide reverse power protection to absorb wind gusts when operating aat neat zero kW, and to increase operating temperatures to eliminate cylinder glazing and wet stacking. The Smart Grid consists of a network of advanced meters, which receive information about the availability of green, or excess wind energy and make this energy available to the community at reduced rates, and enable devices to capture this energy. The meters communicate wirelessly, provide a user interface for customers and account for energy sold at different rates. The meters can be programmed for prepayment. The Smart Grid enables 20 thermal storage devices that are located in the homes of 20 village elders and these stoves capture and store excess wind energy for later use. The Smart Metering and the stoves create a system that allows wind energy to be sold as heat for 1/2 the cost of diesel heating. The Bethel Wind Project is designed to contribute clean, renewable wind power to the Bethel energy grid. The project area is about 1.5 miles northwest of the Bethel Airport on hilltop land owned by Bethel Native Corporation. Our power will be sold wholesale to BUC for distribution to its customers as normal. The size of our project is dependent on our ability to sell power, not on the wind resource, but we expect that a two MW project will be viable. The communities served could include Napakiak and Bethel. The grant participants will be Village Wind Power LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alaska Wind Power LLC). Alaska Wind Power LLC is owned by Alaska Power & Telephone Company, a certificated Alaska public utility, and LAPP Resources, Inc., a private Alaskan natural resource developer. We have invited both Bethel Native Corporation (BNC), whose land we are proposing to use for the wind farm site, and BUC who will distribute the electricity, to join us in this project as partners. Nether has made a decision on this yet. BNC entered into an exclusive use agreement with us for our evaluation of their site several months ago. We recently supplied a draft land lease to them and are currently negotiating its terns. We expect that the land lease will be in place by the end of the year, and equipment orders can be placed for delivery and construction in 2009. The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative is proposing to complete design, permitting and installation of three Northern 100B Wind Turbines, and new control modules, to provide wind power to the community of Quinhagak, which is located on the coast of the Bering Sea, west of Bethel in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta area. According to the "Quinhagak, ALaska Wind Resource Update Report" by V3 Energy LLC, Quinhagak has good wind power development potential. It classifies Quinhagak as a Class 4 wind resource with a projected 400 Watts per square meter wind power density at 50 meters. Project management is a collaborative approach. AVEC will provide overall project management, and electrical system engineering for the project. AVEC is in the process of hiring a construction management firm, who will be responsible for the design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbines, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. The supplier of the Northwind 100B wind turbines will also provide start-up training and commissioning services. Site control has been secured and permitting for installation of the wind turbines to the US Fish and Wildlife resulted in a no adverse impact determination. Our project involves the final design, permitting, construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of two wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Mekoryuk. Participants in the project include AVEC, STG, and Northern Power. AVEC will provide overall project management and electrical system engineering for the project. STG will be the general contractor, responsible for the design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbines, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. Northern Power will provide Northwind 100 wind turbines and startup & commissioning services. Site control has already been completed. The foundation design is completed. Permitting is underway, having already relocated the turbines in response to input from Fish & Wildlife. The Native Village of Napaimute, governed by its Traditional Council, is deliberately focused on the goal of its elders: to resettle the village. Using a combination of local resources, local labor, unwavering vision and hard work coupled with a think-outside-the-box approach the tribe has successfully leveraged in-kind, State or Federal funding to create its Community Plan; construct a village offices and a community building using local material; log and mill local wood to construct rental cabins and kits for sale; site, clear, survey and construct a pioneer airstrip; and to build a landfill. Since Napaimute received its land base through unusual means, it was through Administration for Native American funding that survey of its community lands was completed. This enabled the tribe to open a Home Site Program; people are resettling, the village growing. Napaimute Enterprises sells fuel; operates a small package store; rents cabins and the community center; operates a sawmill; has a coin-op washer and dryer; and offer showers. Commerce and our economic base are slowly growing, in accordance to our Community Plan. The cost of providing linked energy to rural Alaskan villages is staggering; individual energy systems must smartly utilize energy by reducing use of petroleum products. Our village, located on the Kuskokwim River, about 30 miles from Aniak works to be a model village where refuse is contained, development is planned and residents demonstrate their care and respect for the environment by minimizing their dependence on diesel; this is also a demonstration of the harsh economic environment. Our proposal will serve current and future members of the community (25 or so residential homes) along with a couple of families that live across the river and the countless river commuters who come to wash clothes and take a shower. NVN’s Director Development & Operations Mark Leary and Environmental Coordinator Mitchell Dammeyer will be directly involved in the management of this project. Both men are highly respected in the Kuskokwim and Mr. Leary has overseen most of Napaimute's development, literally from the brush up. Our project involves the final design, permitting, construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of one additional wind turbine to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Toksook Bay. Participants in the project include AVEC, STG, and Northern Power. AVEC will provide overall project management and electrical system engineering for the project. STG will be the general contractor, responsible for the design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbine, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. Northern Power will provide the Northwind 100 wind turbine and startup & commissioning services. The site is already under control and already contains three Northwind 100 wind turbines. Existing permits are in place and can be extended to cover the additional wind turbine. The project involves the installation of two wind turbines near the water treatment plant (WTP) in Hooper Bay, Alaska (see attached Project Area Maps, and Figure 1 for WTP Site Map). The two Northwind 100B 100kW wind turbines will provide a dedicated energy source for the WTP’s water heating system, providing approximately 539,000 kWh per year dedicated to an electric boiler inside the WTP. Wind-powered energy will offset the use of 15,995 gallons of fuel currently used in the three fuel oil-burning boilers. Northern will provide the wind towers and turbine technology, and STG will perform the installation of the towers and turbines. HDL will provide the geotechnical survey expertise and conduct environmental permitting. BBFM will do the structural design of the tower foundations. CE2 Engineers, the firm that designed and built the WTP, will supervise the engineering and wiring of the new boiler system. Wind Energy! Wind turbine system at vacinity community location Napaskiak, AK about 7 miles below Bethel, Alaska which service over 100 customers to commercial to residence. Wasteheat from generators to heat nearby facility-church, garage. The community of Crooked Creek, Ak along the Kuskokwim River, have long been interested in renewable power and have already researched a variety of possibilities, this year’s project initially will be to develop a finale list of potentially feasible methods, to explore feasibility studies and cost evaluation. We'll collect the necessary data by testing the feasibility of these considerations; by building prototypes that will supply us with the solid data to base our decisions on, to aid us in reduce our dependency on Fossil Fuels. This may require the combination of available technologies, some we're considering are Thermopile technology, Hydro power (four sources available here), Solar power, Wind, Residential producers, Wood gas and heat power production, We'll be verifying permitting requirements, Land right of ways and environmental, permitting obstacles identified. A Full study of Village Creek flow, explore methods to increase and extend its annual usage. As much as this is a fact finding mission, it is also a call to arms by the population of Crooked Creek. Our IGAP program will, with this grant, will ready us for all consideration. This project will be located in the upper Kobuk River Valley and will serve the villages of Kobuk, Shungnak, and Ambler. The applicant is Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority; other cooperating organizations include NANA Regional Corporation, Maniilaq Association, NANAPacific, WHPacific Inc., and Kobuk, Shungnak and Ambler Village Councils. An initial woody biomass site assessment was sponsored by NANAPacific in August, 2008 under a Department of Energy Tribal Energy Grant. Bill Wall, PhD conducted an initial reconnaissance study to determine the viability of a wood energy project. Dr. Wall also held presentations in each of the three villages to acquaint them with the scope and components of a wood energy program. The study determined that a wood energy program is viable and that all three of the villages are very interested in proceeding. In conjunction with the site visit a report completed in 1981 was reviewed which determined that woody biomass use was sustainable for region (citation attached). The proposed project will develop following analysis and fully complete each of the outline of tasks for a reconnaissance and feasibility study: 1. Resource Assessment will determine the sustainable level of biomass harvest in the Upper Kobuk; utilize Geographic Information Systems for future harvest planning; 2. Harvest System Assessment will assess a harvest cost delivery model based on two different scales: small individual village scale or a regional harvest scale to service all three villages; 3. Wood yard conceptual design that links production of wood products chips or cord wood with appropriate boiler configuration and a wood processing cost model; 4. Boiler feasibility and conceptual design to determine the most cost effective and best fit for chip or round wood boilers and the amount of annual wood usage, determination with a level one feasibility cost summary, the type of boiler locations and potential for district heating major buildings or houses. 5. Preliminary Business Models to determine the initial appropriate organization and ownership of harvest systems, wood yards, and wood energy utilities and basic costs and cash flows for each village. Many sources will be utilized including the Cold Climate Research Center in Fairbanks, Alaska. 6. Communication process to fully involve the communities in supporting, empowering, and making the decisions on appropriate structure for sustainable wood utilization in the region. 7. Final Presentation to inform project partners and especially villages of the wood energy feasibility, business model, and key pros and cons of moving forward with program construction and implementation. Ambler is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, batteryless 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm in Ambler . It consists of 225 ea 224-watt panels on adjustable 6300 ft2 racking mounted directly on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation system. Each adjustable array utilizes one 7000 watt inverter providing 277 VAC power. Noatak is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, batteryless 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm in Noatak . It consists of 225ea 224-watt panels on adjustable 6,300 ft2 racking mounted on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation. Each adjustable array utilizes one 7000 watt inverter providing 277 VAC power. Shungnak is a village that can benefit from solar energy. it is proposed that a grid tied,batteryless 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm. it consists of 225ea 224-watt solar panels on an adjustable 6300 ft2 rack that is supported on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation. Multiple 7000 watt inverters provide 277 VAC power. Rural residents in NW Alaska are facing some of the highest costs anywhere in the nation. In order to proactively address the region’s energy crisis, KEA is working to implement long term energy options. While there are a variety of alternative energy options available to the Kotzebue region, such as wind, solar, and geothermal; wind energy has a proven track record of success in this community. The goals of the proposed project are: • To increase the wind capacity of KEA from 1.14 MW to 4.39 MW using 5 Fuhrlander 650kWs. • To integrate the increased wind capacity with a 600 kW / 1800 kWh Vanadium Red- Ox Flow Battery. • To utilize the excess electricity in a distributed heating system. This is a two year project. Year one involves performing all pre-construction and foundation construction tasks. Year two involves the wind turbine erection and commissioning. Rural Alaskans in the Northwest Arctic Borough, NWAB, are facing some of the highest costs anywhere in the nation. In order to proactively address the region’s Energy Crisis, declared by the NWAB in September 2008, the NWAB is working to implement long term energy options. While there are a variety of alternative energy options available in NW Alaska, such as wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass; wind energy has a proven track record of success in our communities. Installing and integrating wind turbines in three villages is a big step toward securing the future of rural Alaska. The goals of the proposed project are: • To develop the wind energy potential in the communities of Buckland, Deering, and Noorvik, • To develop appropriate wind generation engineering plans and designs, and • To construct the necessary wind generation facilities (fully integrated with diesel power systems). This is a two year project. Year one involves performing both pre-construction and construction tasks in Deering and Noorvik as well as pre-construction tasks in Buckland. Year two involves construction tasks in Buckland. AVEC proposes a resource assessment/feasibility analysis/conceptual design project of hydropower sites in the Upper Kobuk region. We will evaluate at least twelve sites regarding their hydroelectric potential and will create conceptual designs for the most promising sites. The project will potentially serve the communities Kobuk, Ambler, Shungnak, and Kiana, as well as possible future industrial developments, which for the purposes of this application will be referred to collectively as the Upper Kobuk region. Key partners in the project will include NANA Pacific/NANA Regional Corporation, NovaGold/Mantra Mining and additional engineering consultants. NANA Pacific/NANA Regional Corporation will be responsible for coordination of all activities, developing and managing sub-contracts with appropriate sub-contractors and consultants, providing technical assistance, and completing the final report. Kotzebue Electric Association’s Cost of Energy Reduction Program will achieve a 25% reduction is diesel based power by installing, in part, a Vanadium Red-Ox Flow Battery Energy Storage System (VRFB) which will be able to provide 600 kW of power for three hours. This battery bank will increase voltage stability, increase the efficiencies of operating diesel generators, and capture excess wind energy during off-peak hours. While this installation will serve Kotzebue, the demonstrated technology could offer significant benefits to other villages as more wind energy is harnessed. The VRFB will benefit the KEA existing system in three specific ways. Diesel turbines run most efficiently when operating to the fullest capacity. Charging the battery, when the generator would otherwise operate below ideal conditions, will increase overall system efficiency. Secondly, KEA runs one EMD year round and supplements this with a second CAT generator when the load demands it. Instead of starting the second generator, the VRFB will supply the electricity. Normally, the CAT gen set is run approximately 3,200 hrs per year. This will be reduced less than 350 hrs per year with the VRFB online. This results to a direct reduction in diesel consumption. Thirdly, in order to realize the benefits of increasing the level of wind penetration in Kotzebue, energy storage MUST be utilized. The simple payback for the VRFB is under three years. Project consists of a combination of Solar and Wind power to offset the high cost of electricity to run City Hall, the washeteria and the Water Plant. The equipment providing this power would be adjacent and/or attached to the City Hall. The project manager and other needed project employees would be hired from the community. This project would serve the community of Ambler by way of a more efficiently run City Government. To lower the cost of running our City government and Water-sewer-plant is the most important work we have in front of us. Without this to offset the cost, the plant may have to be closed down. Current cost for water and sewer in Ambler is $ 120.00/houshold and actual cost to balance the budget would be about 400.00/houshold. The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Solid Waste Services Department (SWS) intends to develop an electric power generating plant to be located at the Anchorage Regional Landfill (ARL). The plant will use landfill gas (LFG), a byproduct of anaerobic waste decomposition, as its primary fuel. Electricity generated by the project will be sold and delivered to the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) distribution system to provide power to Eagle River and Southcentral Alaska. SWS will negotiate a power sales agreement with the end power user, likely MEA, and select of a development partner to design, build and operate the plant. The South Fork hydroelectric project is a low-impact run-of-river project located in Eagle River, Alaska. The project will be located on a private homestead off Hiland Road in Eagle River. Energy from the project would be provided into the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) grid. South Fork Hydro, LLC (SFH) is the project proponent, and would contribute funding, own, and operate the project. SFH has already completed reconnaissance, feasibility, and permitting efforts. Final design is currently in progress, and construction is planned for 2009. Final design would be completed by members of South Fork Hydro, LLC. Construction would be completed by South Fork Construction, Inc., with some construction tasks subcontracted as appropriate. Subcontractors for significant budget items would be selected through a competitive bidding process. Wind Energy Alaska (WEA), plans to construct a 6 megawatt (MW) wind generation facility on CIRI-owned land near the village of Nikolaevsk, located on the southern Kenai Peninsula (Figure 1 of Section 7). The electricity generated by the project will be interconnected to the Anchor Point Substation, which is owned and operated by the Homer Electric Association (HEA). The project includes the construction of the wind generation plant, with four 1.5 MW GE wind turbines, a new 1.9 mile access road, and a distribution line approximately 10 miles in length from the plant to the Anchor Point Substation in Nikolaevsk. See Appendix J photographs representative of the GE wind turbines and the distribution line proposed for the project. HEA is one of the six prime electric cooperatives, or utilities, that serves the Alaska Railbelt transmission grid. This grid includes Anchorage, Fairbanks, Matanuska–Susitna, and the Kenai Peninsula and serves about 75 percent of Alaska’s population. This portion of the population consumes more than 85 percent of the State’s electrical power. HEA is a memberowned electric cooperative that serves most of Alaska’s Kenai Peninsula. HEA serves approximately 20,153 members at 28,547 metered locations, 2,200 miles of energized line, within a service area of 3,166 square miles. WEA, CIRI, and enXco are project proponents. WEA is investigating other prospective wind sites on the Kenai Peninsula in the Caribou Hills area. HEA and Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (Chugach) are potential power customers. WEA has contracted URS/Tryck, Nyman and Hayes to provide design engineering, permitting, and construction management of the project. GVEA has been monitoring the wind resource at the Eva Creek Site since 2003 or for five years and has found a resource with approximately a 33% to 36% capacity factor. The Eva Creek Wind Project’s proximity to the Northern Intertie is key to its value, making the interconnection viable. The site is located on the east side of the Nenana River near Ferry, Alaska, in the GVEA service territory in the Interior. The area could support up to 150 MW of wind generation but GVEA would like to start by installing a 24 MW wind project. The proposed site is on a dirt road system that was developed to provide access to numerous mining claims in the area which would need some improvements,. The dirt road system is not connected to the highway system. Currently, access is gained by walking across a Railroad bridge. Some infrastructure improvements will need to be made including road improvements for access to the site, a substation, and a way to get equipment across the Nenana River. Eva Creek is located near Ferry, Alaska, near Healy off the Parks Highway. The entire GVEA service area will be served by this renewable energy project and the entire Railbelt potentially could be served by future expansion. GVEA has had an alternative energy team in place for the past decade. Wind has been a focal point of interest and investment. In 2002 GVEA contracted with Sterling Management Services to begin a series of studies evaluating the potential capacity of several sites within the service area after which it became clear Eva Creek had the best potential for success. Communities to be served: GVEA service 3,893 square miles extending 130 miles south including communities from Cantwell on the Parks Highway north through Healy, Anderson, Nenana, Ester, Fairbanks and 100 miles south on the Richardson through North Pole and Salcha to Delta Junction. More than 100,000 residents are in the area with 33,000 members and 43,000 meters. The members of the team who will be involved in the grant project will combine the talents and experience of existing GVEA staff and wind expert consultants and at the appropriate time the contractor for construction. GVEA personnel and contracted consultants will be working on this project. The GVEA team includes: • Kathryn K. Lamal, Vice President of Power Supply, GVEA • Mike Wright, PE, Vice President of Transmission and Distribution, GVEA • Tim DeVries, PE, Manager of Engineering Services, GVEA • Paul Morgan, Wind Specialist and Alternative Energy Team member, GVEA • Daniel R. Bishop, PE, Senior Engineer, GVEA • Henri Dale, PE, GVEA Power System Manager • Paul Parks, PE, Power Supply Engineer, GVEA Sterling Energy Management, LLC of California is the contractor wind consulting firm, naming senior consultants Ron Fawcett, Jake Drews and Jon Lantz to this project. This project is designed to demonstrate power generation using combusted biomass as a heat source to drive an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) power plant module designed and developed by United Technologies Corporation. The module is based on the award-winning geothermal power plant installed at Chena Hot Springs Resort; however the biomass version will operate at significantly higher efficiency. These efficiency improvements are necessary because unlike the geothermal fluid, biomass material is not a ‘free’ fuel. In addition to being designed for maximum thermal efficiency, the power plant includes load following capability, and independent, simple, remotely monitored operation at low pressures that do not require special training to operate. This is important because while the project will be located in North Pole, Alaska, the power plant is specifically designed for rural Alaskan applications. The project will be constructed and managed by Chena Power, LLC and will be located at the K&K Recycling Facility located at Mile 9 on the Richardson Highway. Design work and assembly of the power plant will be completed by United Technologies Corporation through their Research Center (UTRC). Wind Energy Alaska (WEA) wishes to construct a 3.2 megawatt (MW) Landfill Gas (LFG) to Energy Generation Facility at the Anchorage Regional Landfill, located east of the Glenn Highway near Eagle River, Alaska. The Anchorage Regional Landfill is owned and operated by the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA), Solid Waste Service (SWS). With an in-service date of April, 2010, this project is designed for incremental growth beginning with 3.2 MW and up to 6.4 MW within the next 15 years with additional capacity as needed. Landfill gas flow records and projected fill rates at the landfill over the next 20 years support the potential for this level of electric power production. MOA would receive royalty payments to compensate for use of land and LFG for the project. This revenue could be used to offset tipping fees at the landfill to benefit the public. In addition to power generation, the proposed project will include a heat recovery system that will recover waste heat from the LFG engines to be used in nearby office and storage building presently heated with a natural gas. The natural gas fuel cost savings will reduce landfill operating costs. The landfill is located near the existing power lines that feed into the electric system and the Railbelt grid. The U.S. Army Fort Richardson, Elmendorf Air Force Base, ML&P, Chugach Electric Association (CEA), Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), MOA’s Anchorage Regional Landfill and SWS are potential power customers. WEA has contracted HDR Alaska, Inc. to provide design engineering, permitting, and construction management of the project. HDR has LFG design experience and has assisted in the development of cost estimates for this project. The Fishhook Creek hydroelectric project is a low-impact run-of-river project located in Hatcher Pass, Alaska. The project will be located on a combination of mostly state land and some borough land off Hatcher Pass Road. Energy from the project would be provided into the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) grid. Fishhook Renewable Energy, LLC (FRE) is the project proponent, and would contribute funding, own, and operate the project. FRE has already completed reconnaissance, feasibility, and conceptual design efforts, and is currently in the permitting and contract negotiation processes for the project. With timely completion of permitting, contract negotiations, and financing, construction will occur in 2009. Final design would be completed by members of FRE. Construction would be completed by qualified contractors and subcontractors selected through a competitive bidding process. The proposed 5 to 7-MW Grant Lake/Falls Creek hydro project is located near Moose Pass, Alaska (see map in HDR’s attached site assessment). Kenai Hydro seeks to develop the project in compliance with current low impact hydro guidelines and practices. The scope of this project will also involve looking at the feasibility of a design that includes diverting flows from Falls Creek into Grant Lake. Kenai Hydro has secured a Preliminary Permit for this project, issued by FERC on October 7, 2008. A copy of the Preliminary Permit is attached in the Section 7 appendices. Power from the project would be available to customers of Homer Electric Association and other areas served by the existing Railbelt transmission grid. Kenai Hydro, LLC is a partnership among Homer Electric Association (HEA), enXco and Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) that was formed for the purpose of evaluating and developing this site as a low impact hydroelectric facility. Additional information on this project may be found in the attached initial site assessment reported by HDR Alaska, Inc. The NPEP Waste Heat Recovery Project consists of installing 520' of underground supply and return piping, a glycol distribution piping system inside NPPP, installing 12 glycol unit heaters with VFDs, and HVAC controls. GVEA will manage and administrate the project, perform the electrical/control installation, commissioning, and startup of the system. The mechanical portion of the work will be performed by a mechanical contractor. Electric power conservation/fuel savings will benefit all of GVEA's 33,000 members from Cantwell to Delta Junction. The Delta Wind Project is designed to contribute clean, renewable wind power to the railbelt energy grid. The project area is about 25 miles south of Delta Junction on Coal Mine Road. We are currently funding an Interconnection Study with Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) to identify costs associated with putting wind power on their transmission system near Delta Junction. The results of the interconnection study will be used to formulate a power tariff for sale of our power to GVEA. The size of our project is dependent on our ability to sell power, not on the wind resource, but we expect that a 40 to 50 MW project could be achievable. The communities served will include all communities within the GVEA’s service area that purchase power from GVEA, including Delta Junction, North Pole, Fairbanks, Fox, College, Nenana, and Healy, as well as two major gold mines, Fort Knox and Pogo. The grant participants will include Alaska Wind Power LLC (the project owner) and an environmental contactor, yet to be selected, to conduct the field work and report the results. The federal Bureau of Land Management has not identified any threatened or endangered species of wildlife in the project area. However, the area does include “potential” habitat for at least four species of birds currently listed on BLM-Alaska’s Sensitive Status Species List. Pre-development surveys should be conducted within the project area to locate any sensitive species of concern. The avian surveys that are the subject of this grant application are described below. Task 1—Raptor Survey To locate eagle nests in the vicinity of the wind farm, we would conduct a fixed-wing aerial survey to search for active Bald or Golden eagle nests within 10 miles of all proposed wind farm facilities. A raptor biologist will accompany a pilot (Piper Supercub) for 1 day of surveys. Task 2—Spring Migration Surveys (Diurnal) Spring migration occurs in the area from about early April to mid May, with peak periods for species varying during that time span, thus prolonged sampling would be cost-prohibitive. Instead, we suggest a targeted approach to sample periods when the most birds and species would be moving through the area. A biological technician will collect daily observations during two 10-day windows (20 days total) to help characterize the species, relative abundance, and distributional use (geographic and altitudinal) of birds using the proposed wind farm. Task 3—Summer Bird Use at the Wind farm Site Summer bird use of the wind farm area is primarily associated with the local breeding populations, and the objective of this task is to characterize use of the area by breeding birds. A biological technician will collect bird observations during six 1-day visits to the wind farm site in summer. Two visits will occur in each month during June, July, and August. Task 4—Fall Migration Surveys (Diurnal) Fall migration in the area is more prolonged than spring migration, but most larger migratory birds (waterfowl and cranes) move through the area in late August to early October. To characterize fall migration, a biological technician will collect daily observations during three 9-day periods and record species, relative abundance, and distribution (geographic and altitudinal) of birds using the proposed wind farm site. Task 5—Fall Migration Surveys (Nocturnal) Because many species groups (e.g., waterfowl, passerines) migrate during the night, nocturnal techniques (such as radar) are required to assess migration. We propose to measure nocturnal migration rates and characteristics (e.g., altitude and direction) with a mobile radar lab, concurrent with diurnal investigations for three 9-day periods. We are recommending radar monitoring only for fall migration because 1) the nocturnal period then is longer than during spring, 2) more birds, including young-of-the-year (i.e., less experienced flyers) travel through the Tanana Valley in fall, and 3) we believe some nocturnal studies will occur in spring 2009 close to Delta Junction . This project will consist of twenty (20) wind turbines to make a collective 2MW "wind farm" in Delta Junction and will be the first project of its kind to integrate into the Railbelt Grid using an "experimental" program by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), by using "proven" cold-weather technology (Northwind 100 turbines with direct-drive motors) which have already been successfully used in Alaska's cold weather, as well as a proven "test" turbine (the first of twenty 100kW turbines) at the same location just erected and successfully tested by GVEA. This will serve all the communities that are on the Railbelt Grid and can produce enough electricity to power 600 homes each year without any emissions or environmental harm of any kind. Mike Craft, Managing Partner for Alaska Environmental Power, LLC (AEP) will be spearheading this project as its P.M. (Project Manager), in conjunction with Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), and a team of well qualified individuals and businesses necessary for the construction and erection of the wind turbines for final connection to GVEA's power source connecting it to the Railbelt Grid and all those consumers who receive power from the Grid. We are ready to install at 2009 break-up. We have secured a contract with the manufacturer-Northern Power Systems (Exhibit C), the crane company-Precision Crane (Exhibit D), the bold manufacturer-Williams Form Engineering (Exhibit E), the PVC supplier-Crescent Electric (Exhibit F), embedment rings and concrete forms-Greer Tank and Welding (Exhibit T), concrete and pump truck-University Redi-Mix (Exhibit U) and a twenty-year experimental power purchase agreement (PPA) with Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) (Exhibit G), at a 5.59 meters per second wind regime as determined by our meteorological data. The Kenai Winds project is a 15-18MW wind energy generation facility located in the Nikiski Industrial Area, in Nikiski, on the Kenai peninsula. The project will consist of 10 wind turbines disbursed throughout the site, electrically interconnected to the Tesoro Alaska Refinery. A discussion of the refinery and its direct benefits to the community is included in Appendix O. At times when the Kenai Winds generation exceeds the needs of the refinery, power will be sold to others. Electric energy will be delivered and sold to the oil refinery, providing low-cost power, and helping ensure the economic viability of the refinery. This project is located in Girdwood (See Exhibit A). AGE proposes to install a natural gas powered CHP plant with its efficiency enhanced by the TEG unit that will provide heat and power to Girdwood Elementary and the Girdwood public by feeding power into the local electrical grid. Thermal energy will be provided to Girdwood Elementary for space heating, snow melt, and heated pedestrian walkways as well as the research center itself. Two micro-hydro projects located at California and Virgin Creeks will provide hydro power generation to supplement the CHP/TPG plant during periods of sufficient flow estimated at 8 months per year. Again, many rural communities have micro-hydro potential. Small scale solar and wind energy will be developed at the proposed CHP/TPG site adjacent to Girdwood Elementary near California Creek again to demonstrate how alternative sources can supplement an efficient power plant in rural settings. This Construction Project is based on the following reconnaissance level findings: · CHP and TEG power generation systems are proven technologies that, together, are more than twice as efficient as current power generation systems in Girdwood and will reduce the schools carbon footprint by more than half. · Several steep, rapid-flow streams are located in Girdwood. · Solar and wind levels are adequate for demonstration and research purposes. · Available Geo-thermal and tidal energy will provide future research and educational opportunities for UAA staff and students. Finally, other public and private grant funds will be sought to construct a Renewable Energy Research and Discovery Center for UAA. The center is proposed to be constructed on donated Municipality of Anchorage land adjacent to the Girdwood Elementary School. This center will house and showcase the CHP/TEG, and have a small wind generator and solar panels. The micro-hydro projects will be tied into the CHP/TEG. In the same building will be classroom and research space for UAA researchers and students. The public Renewable Energy Discovery Center will be in the front of this building and will be staffed by UAA students. This center will facilitate the study of other renewable sources of energy such as tidal and fuel cells. The City of Whittier proposes conducting a renewable energy project consisting of a reconnaissance level effort to examine the viability of hydropower on Whittier Creek in Whittier, Alaska. The work will include engineering analysis, an economic study, and two years of stream guage data gathering. The final product will include an estimated generation capacity, a preliminary cost estimate for a hydropower facility, and a preliminary analysis of the potential benefits (i.e. power cost savings over time). This effort will be performed by the Alaska District Corps of Engineers with assistance from the Corps of Engineers Hydroelectric Design Center based out of Portland, Oregon, with stream guaging to be performed by the USGS. The City of Whittier proposes conducting a renewable energy project consisting of a reconnaissance level effort to examine the viability of hydropower on Whittier Creek in Whittier, Alaska. Although Chugach Electric currently provides electricity to Whittier, frequent and prolonged outages, particularly during the winter months, necessitates the need to develop alternate energy sources for a local generation system that could also supply the Railbelt when not needed as a primary provider to the community. The project would assess the potential for the development of Whittier into a sustainable community that utilizes renewable energy systems. The Fourth of July Creek hydroelectric project is a low-impact run-of-river project located near Seward, Alaska. The project would be located east of the Spring Creek Correctional Facility, across Resurrection Bay from the city of Seward. Energy from the project would be provided into the Seward Electric System grid. Independence Power, LLC (IP) is the project developer, and would contribute funding and own and operate the project. IP would manage the pre-construction study process, completing some efforts internally, and contracting out other activities to qualified consultants as appropriate. Construction would be completed by qualified contractors selected through a competitive bidding process. The proposed project will take place on the Tanana River adjacent to the community of Nenana. Nenana was chosen due to a combination of strong local support for the project, available technical assistance and infrastructure, and location on the road system within close proximity to the University of Alaska Fairbanks. These factors increase the likelihood of project success while minimizing costs. This project will be administered by the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, with significant contributions from the University of Maine, Yukon River Intertribal Watershed Council, the Tribal and City Councils of Nenana, and Ocean Renewable Power Corporation (ORPC). The primary purpose of the project is to successfully address the numerous challenges associated with installing hydrokinetic devices in Alaska’s riverine environments. This will be accomplished through a comprehensive resource assessment (biological and physical), followed by the installation of a ‘dummy’ open architecture turbine to assess operations in challenging environments (including interactions with ice and debris) without damaging expensive real turbine equipment. Finally, this project will involve the design, construction, deployment and initial testing of a first commercial hydrokinetic device at the site. It is hoped that beyond the scope of this project, the University of Alaska will continue to operate the Nenana site as a test center to assess other devices and work with manufacturers to improve designs. It is also hoped that ORPC, as the holder of the FERC permit for the site, will continue to manage their operation in conjunction with the testing center and supply electric power to the local grid. The Delta/Greely School District proposes a Wood Chip Boiler Heating System to heat 77,000 sq. ft. of educational space in the sub-arctic. The legal description of the Delta High School complex is 64 degrees 02' 35.66" N 145 degrees 42' 57.10"W. The building would be located 50 feet away from the Delta High School new mechanical room. This Wood Chip Boiler Heating System constructs and installs the following: Cement building to house wood chip boiler, chip storage room, 4 chip storage trailers, and a chip feeding and chip drying process. The direct impact of this Wood Chip Boiler Heating System will be the Delta High School complex staff and students as well as the community groups that use this facility on a weekly basis. The following communities are served by this facility: Delta Junction, Fort Greely Garrison and its contractors, Gerstle River, and the greater Deltana area. The businesses, non-profit agencies, Farm Forum, Relay for Life, Fish and Game, Department of Motor Vehicles, Delta Chamber of Commerce, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts to name a few groups. All use the Delta High School complex during the year. Finally, the following groups will be involved in this project: Delta/Greely School District (DGSD), the Delta/Greely School Board, DGSD Facilities Committee, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Forestry, CTA, CE2 Engineers, T.R. Miles Technical Consultants, Delta Logging and Milling Associates, and USKH (an architecture, engineering, land surveying and planning company). Golden Valley Electric Association proposes the construction of a solar water heating system to be used by the Denali Education Center (DEC). This proposed solar water heating system would be used to displace fossil fuel energy (specifically, electricity) that is currently used to heat water and space for these end-users. DEC is located just south of the 64th northern latitude, about eight miles south of the Denali NAtional Park entrance at mile post 231.1 on the east side of the Parks Highway bridge that crosses over the Nenana River. It is a non-profit research, education and communication organization with cooperative interaction to Denali National Park and all its summer-time visitors. The DEC's campus serves people who visit and stay there during the summer tourist season. There are 13 cabins on the campus, a campus center and other outbuildings. Currently, the peak number who lodge and work at the Center during the summer in about 75 people, with an anticipated near-future growth up to 100 people. GVEA also plans to work ABS Alaskan and Jim Norman, principal and owner. The reconnaissance study, followed by a more detailed feasibility study will analyze the feasibility of supplying the town of Anchorage, Alaska with heat from geothermal energy sources. IAE has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Municipality of Anchorage to facilitate such a study. The Municipality of Anchorage has agreed to support the feasibility study efforts by providing information about the potential for geothermal energy use in Anchorage as well as right of way information. If the results of the feasibility study prove to be positive for development, IAE will work towards developing the project. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Anchorage and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the Anchorage Municipal Landfill adjacent to Route 1 on the Glenn Highway just east of town. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the Anchorage Solid Waste Services. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Services Sector for the Municipality of Anchorage. The proposed plant project will convert the Anchorage waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with Anchorage Solid Waste Services and City staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. The Division of Forestry at Milepost 267.5 Richardson Highway, Delta Junction, Alaska is proposing a pilot project using barley/wood pellets for heating a governmental building. The boiler system will combine two heating systems, a 3840 square foot (sf) main office building, proposed 3000 sf addition, and a 1792 sf warehouse. The boiler will be located in a separate building which will house a heating system and barley/wood pellet storage. The grant will involve local contractors for construction and maintenance. The agricultural industry will provide barley as a biomass fuel. Excess barley not currently used for animal or human consumption is available from the local farming community. Two pellet facilities are being constructed in Delta Junction. End of the Alcan is in the final stages of completing a commercial pellet manufacturing facility. Logging and Milling Associates (LMA) has purchased wood pellet manufacturing equipment and is in the process of installation of the equipment. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for FNSB and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the FNSB Municipal Landfill in Fairbanks. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the FNSB Solid Waste Division. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Division for FNSB. The proposed plant project will convert the FNSB waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with FNSB Solid Waste Services and Borough staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Mat-Su and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the Mat-Su Municipal Landfill in Palmer. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the Mat-Su Solid Waste Division. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Division for Mat-Su. The proposed plant project will convert the Mat-Su waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with Mat-Su Solid Waste Services and Borough staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. We are proposing the first 10 MW Utility-Grade Geothermal Development in Alaska. This 10 MW project would be able to extract geothermal power from the base of either Redoubt or Spur by 2105. The reference Project would begin with the Remote Construction... The Native Village of Cantwell wishes to improve the reliability and lower the cost of the community of Cantwells power system. Currently they obtain power from the line between MEA and GVEA. To accomplish this they propose to build a hydroelectric project on the Jack River a short distance from Cantwell. The installed capacity of this plant will be in exccess of 1 MW. It will be comprised of a dam and a short tunnel. A feasibility design and scoping are required to provide the parameters of the project. 5 MW natural gas fired Combined Heat & Power Project (“CHP” or “Cogeneration”), sited at the Alaska State Fair in Palmer (the “Fair) as the centerpiece of an Alaska Energy Center, to showcase renewable and alternative energy technologies, provide the energy needs of the Fair and operations sited at the Fair, provide the thermal energy needs of commercial, institutional and agricultural customers within economic reach of the Project, and provide firm power to help MEA meet new generation needs. 5 MW natural gas fired Combined Heat & Power Project (“CHP” or “Cogeneration”), sited near the Begich Tower, to provide the energy needs of the Begich Tower and thermal energy needs of City of Whittier, Public School and commercial customers within economic reach of the Project, and provide firm power to help Chugach meet new generation needs and improve service reliability to Whittier. EarthRun Energy will provide a sustainable source of high grade wood chips for biomass heating in the city of Anchorage, Alaska while strengthening and beautifying the urban forests. In Anchorage, urban forests are currently overgrown presenting fire and disease problems. It is the right time to make a sick forest a productive and healthy forest. EarthRun has worked hard to come up with the cleanest, quietest and least interruptive way of harvesting the dead and unhealthy trees from our urban forests, chipping them, and heating one municipal building, the Russian Jack greenhouse. EarthRun Energy will work closely with the municipality to return the forests to a healthy state. Mt. Alice Harbor Development project is in and around Seward at mile 2 Nash Rd. the service road to the NE side of Ressurection bay 1.5 miles across from the municipal boat harbor on the NW side, serving the needs of the local population as a community and destination resort, boating access and public access to the Fishing resources of the area. Also serving the needs of the international community supporting Seward,s role as a burgeoning Summertime international tourism hub and promoting the sustainability of year round tourism. Local Engineers, Surveyors, Municipal department heads etc. have expressed positive input and eagerness to work on the project. The Architects, Project managers are ready to proceed. AGE’s management and engineering team in collaboration with the UAA School of Engineering is proposing this PROJECT that when proven will provide rural communities with CBM resources an inexpensive energy source that will provide sustainable heat and power 24/7 365 days a year. This PROJECT will develop an Arctic Ready Combined Heat and Power Unit powered by CBM gas that will have direct application to rural communities with viable CBM resources. The PROJECT has three parallel components with appropriate milestones. · Component 1 will construct and complete Fowler Oil and Gas’s (FOG) Kircher CBM Well located at the corner of Trunk and Bogard Roads, Palmer, Alaska (see Exhibit A). . This well is located near the Colony Middle/High School Complex (Colony Schools). FOG’s Kircher Well is permitted, bonded and construction can be initiated as soon as grant funding is available. · Component 2 will pipe CBM gas from the Kircher well to a prototype skid mounted Arctic Ready Combined Heat and Power Unit at the Colony Schools. AGE will be the IPP that will own and operate this CHP system. · Component 3 will assess the CBM resources at 7 communities located through out rural Alaska. The seven communities will be selected from the 38 villages identified by the State of Alaska as having potential CBM resources (see Exhibit B). AGE has completed the initial reconnaissance assessment of these communities with the results summarized in Exhibit C These 38 communities are within the boundaries of 7 of the 13 Regional Native Corporations. AGE recommends selecting one community from within each Native Corporation boundary to ensure that the test projects will cover a broad geographic area. The final selection of the seven communities will be a public process with input from a proposed Project Assessment Team made up of AGE and our sub-consultants, USGS, BLM, DNR-DGGS, local power producers such as AVEC and Regional Corporations. All PROJECT Components are related but can stand alone if required. For example, if the Kircher Well does not produce CBM, then the Colony Schools Prototype CHP can be operated using available natural gas. Confirming FOG’s CBM technology will address the critical environmental and social concerns associated with CBM well spacing and produced water management that have plagued Lower 48 CBM developments. FOG’s process uses directional/horizontal drilling that allows well spacing on one well per Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 18 2008-Oct-08 Z:\AEA Grant 2008\Artic Ready CHP CBM\AR AEA Grant Application-final.doc 640 acres compared to one vertical well per 10 acres used in standard CBM development. FOG’s technology uses in-ground dewatering compared to above ground management and disposal of produced water. FOG’s technology will revolutionize CBM development within the state and nationally. Most importantly, FOG’s process will result in a sustainable technology that can be easily managed and operated in rural Alaska communities with minimum social and environmental impacts. The Applicant owns and operates Motherload Lodge located near the Little Susitna River. The 4.9 acre plot of land is privately owned but segments of the proposed project will be locataed on land owned by the State of Alaska Park Service. The Motherload Lodge currently utilizes 3 diesel fuel generators to power the facility and accounts for a significant percentage of annual operating expenses. The company plans to construct a 50kW run of river project on Delia Creek. The proposed project, The Delia Creek Alternative Energy Project (DCAEP), will utilize water flow from the Delia Creek to power electricity to the Motherload Lodge. The project will include an intake site, underground penstock and powerhouse. The hydroelectric system will be intergrated with the current fuel generator system. Out of the 3 gensets, 2 gensets will be removed immediately and the third genset, replaced with a smaller genset. DCAEP will be headed by Project Manager, Jill Reese, Owner and sole member of HPML LLC. This project is called the North Prince of Wales Island Intertie Project (Project). AP&T proposes to construct a line extension to the communities of Coffman Cove and Naukati Bay, placing these communities on the Prince of Wales Island (POW) electric grid which is supplied with renewable energy from two hydroelectric projects. Both of these communities currently rely on 100% diesel generation for electricity. The total line is to be 48 miles (Coffman Cove = 37 miles; Naukati Bay = 11 miles) of overhead 4/0 ACSR three-phase 34.5 kV line with a 1/0 ACSR neutral conductor on single pole wood structures. This line extension will come off the existing 34.5 kV line from between Klawock and Thorne Bay, near Control Lake. The route is shown on enclosed diagrams in Section 7 – Appendices. Naukati Bay is 11 miles off the main road to Coffman Cove. Phase I: Reconnaissance This phase is already completed with previous reconnaissance along the highway to determine how many poles, etc. will be needed to complete project. Phase II: Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual Design A feasibility assessment based on the condition of the new highway and right-of-way (ROW) to access the proposed pole locations, including anchoring and corner structure and transformers, to develop the conceptual design of project components will need to occur. AP&T is presently in discussion with SHPO as to whether an archaeological survey is necessary for this project. No other environmental surveys are anticipated due to the project being in or adjacent to the highway ROW which passes through some clear-cut's as well. Phase III: Final Design & Permitting In this phase permits will be acquired, acquiring legal access to lands, and final design for the construction phase including a final survey of the route. Permits needed: COE permit, Forest Service Special-Use Permit, Alaska Dept. of Transportation easement, and SHPO review. Phase IV: Construction Construction phase would include mobilization (acquiring materials, i.e. wood poles, conductor, cross-arms, transformers, etc., contracting with local companies to provide materials and equipment, and preparing ROW, i.e. brushing, etc. and installing the transmission line; and interconnecting with AP&T's existing infrastructure in both Coffman Cove and Naukati Bay. A monthly report can be made during construction to AEA of progress and expenditures (or AEA Renewable Energy Fund NORTH POW INTERTIE PROJECT Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 18 10/7/2008 quarterly on expenditures to reduce paperwork). The applicant, along with the State Department of Transportation (ADOT), proposes to build a road and 69-kV transmission line to connect the community of Kake with Petersburg. The road/intertie will allow the delivery of surplus hydropower available from the Tyee project to Kake and eliminate its total reliance upon diesel generation. The community of Kake will continue to be served by the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC). The transmission line infrastructure will be owned and operated by the Kwaan Electric Intertie Cooperative, Inc. (KWETICO, the applicant), who will charge IPEC for wheeling power to Kake. The road project will allow Kake citizens access to Petersburg's infrastructure including major air transportation, medical facilities, more frequent ferry service, engine repair facilities, and various services and industries not available in Kake. The Intertie will also provide broadband telecommunications to the community of Kake, and savings to the State's Power Cost Equalization Program. The project is part of the overall Southeast Intertie plan commissioned and supported by Southeast Conference and regional leaders. The road/Intertie dual construction will save money for both ADOT and KWETICO, and will facilitate access to the transmission line for repairs and maintenance. The Falls Creek Hydro Electric Project is an 800 kW run-of-river hydroelectric facility, located in Gustavus Alaska, which will provide electric power to the community of Gustavus. The project is being built by Gustavus Electric Company to displace existing diesel generation. Construction of the project is approximately 90% complete and will provide 90% of the communities electric needs.. The Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Project (“Reynolds Creek” or the “Project”) is a 5.0 MW hydroelectric resource to be constructed on Prince of Wales Island approximately ten miles east of Hydaburg. The Project will interconnect with the existing transmission grid on the island and will be used by the residents and businesses of Craig, Klawock, Hollis, Hydaburg, Thorne Bay, and Kasaan. In addition, once the interconnected grid is expanded to Coffman Cove and Naukati, those two communities will also directly benefit from Reynolds Creek. The Project will be constructed and owned by the Haida Power, Inc., a joint venture between the Haida Corporation and Alaska Power & Telephone. The proposed hybrid ground source heat pump system at the new Dimond Park Aquatic Center is to be located in Juneau’s Mendenhall Valley, adjacent the new Thunder Mountain High School and Riverbend Elementary on the Dimond Park site. The facility will primarily serve Juneau residents, but will also serve visitors from nearby southeast Alaska communities and other visitors to Juneau. The City & Borough of Juneau Engineering and Parks and Recreation Departments are directly involved with the design and construction of the facility, as is the Juneau School District. A professional design team led by local architectural firm Jensen Yorba Lott, Inc. is responsible for the project design and construction administration. The City & Borough of Juneau Engineering Department is responsible for design and construction Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 18 9/3/2008 management and progress reports to grant agencies as required. The City & Borough of Juneau Finance Department is responsible for project funding and financial reporting to grant agencies as required. A “Pool Advisory Task Force” consisting of twelve community representatives is also participating in the oversight of the project design. The project’s construction contractor will be selected by competitive bid per the City & Borough of Juneau ordinances and is not known at this time. The use of a hybrid ground source heat pump system in lieu of conventional oil or electric heat systems at the Dimond Park Aquatic Center is supported by the Pool Advisory Task Force, the City & Borough of Juneau Engineering and Parks Departments, the Juneau School District, and the City & Borough of Juneau Assembly and Administration. The proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11841 (Project) is located near the southeast end of Revillagigedo Island, approximately four miles east of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska. KPU proposes to install 4.6 MW of hydropower generating capacity at KPU’s existing Whitman Lake Dam to provide an additional source of clean renewable energy to KPU’s customers, in the city of Ketchikan and the Borough area including Saxman Village, while also enhancing the conversion of oil heat to electric heat and displacing expensive and nonrenewable diesel generation. The Project will be interconnected to KPU’s existing distribution system and the grant project will involve KPU. Haines, within Southeast Alaska, will benefit from reasonably-priced housing. The Chilkoot Indian Association is proposing to construct and operate four-plex housing (four buildings with sixteen units) incorporating a cordwood-fired boiler system. The project is initiated by our Housing Department, who will manage the subsidized, low-income housing project. A separate boiler/fuel storage building will be built on one lot and recirculate hot water to be used in each four-plex for building heat and domestic hot water. Architectural, civil, mechanical, and electrical design is complete except for an engineering refit to accommodate the wood boiler system. Our proposal will be for heating system redesign and construction. Yakutat Power is located in Yakutat, Alaska. The City and Borough of Yakutat has a population of 631, and is located at the mouth of Yakutat Bay along the Gulf of Alaska, 225 miles northwest of Juneau and 220 miles southeast of Cordova. Yakutat receives monthly barge service during the winter and more frequent service during summer. Yakutat is equipped with two jet-certified runways and receives jet service daily. The U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service have offices in Yakutat. This project will convert readily available biomass to a producer gas (wood gasification) that will be used to reduce diesel fuel consumption at the Yakutat Power plant. The Biomax 75 is based on proven technology with recent additional improvements for use in cold weather climates. Direct beneficiaries of this project include all Yakutat Power electric service customers. Participants in the project include Yakutat Power, the City and Borough of Yakutat, the U.S. Forestry Service, National Park Service, and Community Power Corp - the Biomax 75 developer, Yakutat Power ill be the Grantee under the Renewable Energy Fund grant. Yakutat Power has teamed up with the engineering firm of Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (AE&E) to provide design, permitting, and system integration and construction management. AE&E has a long history of successful energy-related projects throughout Alaska, and has worked with Yakutat Power on several energy-related projects dating back to 1991. The proposed project would be located in an unincorporated area, northeast of the City of Petersburg, Alaska. Development of hydroelectric power at the site will include construction of a lake tap, arch dam, unlined tunnel, power penstock, power plant, tailrace, and transmission line segments. Project features would include: • Reservoir. Ruth Lake is fed primarily by rainfall and snowmelt, with some smaller firn or hanging glaciers that contribute melt water during the summer months. . The Project would include a dam to provide a potential usable stored capacity of 17,000 acre-feet. • Lake Tap / Power Conduit. The inlet works would consist of an arch dam and lake tap. As presently planned water would initially flow through a 10-foot diameter tunnel for approximately 3,500 feet. The remaining 7,800 feet of the conduit system would consist of a 6-foot diameter buried or surface steel penstock. • Powerhouse. The powerhouse would be located within 2,000 ft. of the confluence of Delta Creek and would house three impulse turbines, each with a total rated head of 1,300 ft. The rated installed capacity of the powerhouse would be 20 MW and the energy output would be roughly 70 GWh. • Access Roads. The Project is separated from the nearest town of Petersburg by Frederick Sound. The only access for either construction or long-term operation and maintenance of the Project will be via boat or aircraft. A dock would be located on Thomas Bay for loading and unloading people and supplies from a boat. A road would be constructed between the powerhouse and dock. Construction access would also be provided by helicopter in association with a limited local temporary access road system to transfer equipment within the construction area. During operation, the Project would be fully automated and access would be provided via boat or aircraft. • Transmission Lines. Power generated by the Project would be transmitted by a new overhead / submarine, 138 kilovolt (KV) transmission segment roughly 20-miles long running generally southwest from the powerhouse to Petersburg. The transmission segment would integrate the project to the Southeast Intertie which currently connects Petersburg to Wrangell to the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project on Bradfield Canal. Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 4 of 21 9/3/2008 • Other Structures. An intake structure housing controls would be constructed at Ruth Lake. Housing would be provided for power plant operators, staging areas for construction and substation facilities Power generated by the Project would provide the interconnected Southern Southeast Alaska regional utilities with increased system reliability; replace current dependency on diesel generation; and enable regional utilities to meet the increasing demand for electricity as customers convert from oil to electric heat and new construction is designed for electric heat. interconnected southern southeast Alaska regional utilities. Burro Creek, formerly the Burro Creek Farms Hatchery, is an existing, operational hydro system located on 121 acres of private land approximately one and a half miles south of Skagway on the west side of upper Lynn Canal. A grant is requested to obtain expert analysis of the feasibility of upgrading the existing hydro system in order to wholesale power to Alaska Power and Telephone or the City of Skagway. Existing AP&T hydro projects supply electricity to Haines and Skagway but the communities must still rely on diesel during certain times of the year. Also, existing hydro projects do not generate enough power to supply the cruise lines who have expressed an interest in connecting to shore power as a means of reducing air quality emissions. The project will begin at the Hawk Inlet submarine cable termination yard on Admiralty Island as a continuation of the 69-kV line from Juneau. The cable termination yard will be located on the eastern shore approximately 2.75 miles up Hawk Inlet just inland from the shoreline and the submarine cable will be buried as it leaves the yard and proceeds offshore. The total length of the submarine cable is approximately 25 miles. Kwaan Electric Intertie Cooperative, Inc. (KWETICO) will own and operate the transmission line however Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) will continue as the utility providing electrical service to the Hoonah area. IPEC will purchase power from Alaska Electric Light & Power (AEL&P) and KWETICO will charge IPEC a wheeling rate for providing power to Hoonah who will be the primary community served along with the old Whitestone Logging Camp. The project is part of the overall Southeast Intertie plan commissioned and supported by Southeast Conference and regional leaders. The Southeast Alaska Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) 2008 Update lists the intertie as the number one priority for the City of Hoonah. Jodi Mitchell the CEO/General Manager of IPEC will be the contact person on the project. Additional personnel from AEL&P that will be involved are Tim McLeod President and General Manager and, Eric Eriksen Vice President Transmission and Distribution Engineer. The proposed Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie is a 34.5-kV transmission line that will interconnect the electric systems of Metlakatla Power & Light (MP&L) and Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). The Intertie will include 16 miles of overhead wood pole transmission line to be constructed on Annette Island between Metlakatla and Race Point and an approximate one mile submarine cable crossing of Revillagigedo Channel between Race Point and KPU’s Mountain Point Substation. The project will also include control system upgrades to allow for the integrated operation of the interconnected systems’ generating plants. The Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie will provide benefits to both Ketchikan and Metlakatla, allowing for significantly improved utilization of Metlakatla’s existing hydroelectric generating resources while reducing diesel generation in Ketchikan. The Haines Borough proposes to explore the potential for use of low-emission nontoxic wood biomass as the source for wood-fired boilers to provide heat (through an insulated pipe distribution system) initially to four buildings located within the Borough: the K-12 School, the Voc-Ed Building, the Municipal Administration Building, and the Public Library. The Borough would begin to reduce our dependence on costly fossil fuels, while employing cleaner, renewable, and locally available resources, through the use of locally available wood biomass. The Haines Borough will contract qualified consultants to perform reconnaissance and feasibility studies, and guide us through the 35% concept design. Contracting will be in accordance with the Borough’s standard procurement policies. Replace diesel generation of electricity for the community of Tenakee Springs with renewable hydroelectric power. The City of Tenakee Springs proposes to construct a hydroelectric project on Indian River. This will be a low head, run-of-river plant displacing the use of at least 33,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Design, engineering, and construction will involve the City of Tenakee Springs, multiple state and federal agencies, private contractors, and the Alaska Energy Authority. The City and Borough of Wrangell (City), through Wrangell Municipal Light and Power (WMLP), has established a fuel displacement rate of $.08/KWH for all heat and hot water. There is a possibility of an interruptible rate of $.05/KWH from the Four Dam Pool Power Agency. This special rate is due to Tyee Lake Hydroelectric facilities spilling of excess water (water not used in power production). A feasibility study has been conducted by Electric Power Systems, Inc. to determine what the savings would be per year if the city buildings were converted from diesel fired boilers to electric boilers, develop a rough order magnitude cost estimate (ROM), and provide estimated engineering design fees for replacing the boilers. The study was conducted on 11 public buildings in Wrangell and the study found significant savings to progress this project to the design, permitting and construction phase. WMLP would like funding to convert these 11 public facilities from diesel fired boilers to electric boilers. The community served by this project is Wrangell, Alaska. Directly involved in this project is the City and Borough of Wrangell and Wrangell Municipal Light and Power. The proposed project is a combination of selective reconnaissance, prototype testing, conflict assessment and comprehensive feasibility assessment to establish the feasibility of prospective pilot tidal energy development projects at four sites where Preliminary Permits have been issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The four sites and respective communities served are: • Icy Passage Icy Straits, serving the community of Gustavus; • Angoon, serving the local Kootznoowoo community; Renewable Energy Fund Grant Application AEA 09-004 Grant Application Page 8 of 59 9/3/2008 • Wrangell Narrows, potentially serving the community of Petersburg; and • Central Cook Inlet near Nikiski, potentially supplying the communities in the service area of the Homer Electric Association. The map locations of the sites are provided in figures included in the Section 2 Overview above. The proposed grant recipients are two prospective IPPs, AKTidal Energy Company (developer of the Icy Passage, Wrangell Narrows and Central Cook sites) and Natural Currents Alaska, LLC. (developer of the Angoon site), in partnership with the City of Gustavus and the Tlingit – Haida Tribal Council as the umbrella organization representing the local Kootznoowoo at Angoon. Takatz Lake Project – Alaska, a hydroelectric project of about 27.7 MW in size capable of producing an average of about 106,900 MWH per year to serve the City of Sitka and other communities in Southeast Alaska as the communities become electrically interconnected. See the attached application to FERC dated June, 2008 for a more detailed description. The proposed project is to convert bio-mass (forest products residuals) to liquid fuels, specifically heating fuels and diesel, and electricity through gasification of the bio-mass and converting the resulting synthesis gas (SynGas) to #1 heating fuel and diesel for transportation applications. Electricity is a by-product of the proposed process and will be produced to meet facility electrical needs with any excess electricity made available to the local utilities. The technologies used in the process are, for the most part, well known and proven technologies in use since the mid-1930’s. The gasses produced will be converted to liquids fuel using a catalytic conversion process called Fischer-Tropsch, and the electricity will be produced and generated by capturing the waste heat and making steam through heat exchangers and standard turbines and generators. The preferred site for this facility is Ketchikan, AK, specifically at the industrial park located adjacent to the airport and co-located with one of the mills in the area. Ketchikan has a large volume of woody bio-mass available from both the National Forest and the local wood products industries. Long term supply appears to be available and transportation of the raw material and the finished product is limited to very short distances. It is envisioned that the majority of the finished product will be consumed in the local area, off-setting high transportation costs for heating oil and diesel and providing a nominal amount of electricity to the industrial park, local area and community as needed. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a reconnaissance study prior to pursuing a Resource Assessment, Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Juneau and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project location is at the Juneau Landfill currently owned and operated by Waste Management. The project will principally serve Juneau and those communities that the proposed study shows can be reasonably served. This study will provide the information about present patterns for disposal of municipal solid waste and other types of waste in the general area, logistics considerations, feedstock sources that can be identified and evaluated that would be available to support the proposed plant and such other information that can lead to a feasibility analysis, how such a proposed plant would supplement, integrate into or supplant existing energy resources, potential markets for such a plant and its products, possible site and cost analysis for future studies addressing the preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to meet future grant applications for such a study and project. The proposed plant project will convert the Juneau waste, landfill and sanitary sludge into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Robert Loescher, and Alaska Recycling Energy in conjunction with Juneau City and Borough staff and the Southeast Conference. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a reconnaissance study prior to pursuing a Resource Assessment, Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Ketchikan and the communities of the Southeast Conference. The proposed plant project location must be determined but initial consideration is being given to a site at Ward Cove, site of the old Ketchikan Pulp Mill. The project will serve Ketchikan and those communities that the proposed study shows can be reasonably served. This study will provide the information about present patterns for disposal of municipal solid waste and other types of waste in the general area, logistics considerations, feedstock sources that can be identified and evaluated that would be available to support the proposed plant and such other information that can lead to a feasibility analysis, how such a proposed plant would supplement, integrate into or supplant existing energy resources, potential markets for such a plant and its products, possible site and cost analysis for future studies addressing the preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to meet future grant applications for such a study and project. The proposed plant project will convert the waste, landfill and the Ketchikan Pulp Mill superfund site into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Robert Loescher, Richard Smith and Alaska Recycling Energy in conjunction with Ketchikan City and Borough staff and the Southeast Conference. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. In July 2008, Haines Assisted Living, Inc.(HAL) began construction on a senior assisted living/ residential complex comprising a total of 26,000 SF. The building site is on lots fronting Third St. from Dalton to Union. Residents of Haines and Southeast Alaska will utilize the senior assisted living and senior affordable housing being built in 2008—2010. The project is a collaboration seven years in development and funded by the Denali Commission, the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Rasmuson Foundation and the community of Haines. The first phase of the project will be completed in the fall of 2009 at a cost of over $4 million. Key to the long term sustainability of the facility is the installation of a Ground Source Heat Pump to extract geothermal energy from the earth and circulate it through a radiant in-floor heating system. The initial feasibility and design has been completed as the follow-up to an extensive energy life-cycle cost analysis performed in 2007and updated in October 2008.The designed system estimate of 210% efficiency will eliminate fossil fuel consumption in favor of renewable geo-thermal heat source and local hydro-electric power and result in significant operational savings for the life of the facility. Haines Assisted Living, Inc., Dan Austin, Project Manager and Jim Rehfeldt, Alaska Energy Engineering LLC are the principals involved in this grant project. Resumes attached. McGrath Light and Po er is located in McGrath, Alaska. McGrath has a population of 315, and is located 221 miles northwest of Anchorage and 269 miles southwest of Fairbanks in Interior Alaska. It borders the Kuskokwim River directly south of its confluence with the Takotna River. The remote location of McGrath and frequently difficult river conditions lead to some of the highest barge-delivered fuel costs in the state. Direct beneficiaries of this project include the Iditarod Area School District (IASD) McGrath complex, and three commercial facilities adjacent to the ML&P power plant. Indirect beneficiaries include all ML&P electric customers, as the project will provide increased revenues from the sale of recovered heat, as well as improved electric generating efficiency and reduced operations and maintenance costs. ML&P will be the Grantee under the Renewable Energy Fund. ML&P has teamed up with the engineering firm of Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (AE&E). AE&E has a long history of successful energy related projects throughout Alaska, and has worked with both ML&P and IASD on numerous projects dating back to 1995. IRHA proposes to install a biomass heat source for the Yukon-Koyukuk Assisted Living Center, a NAHSDA, Denali Commission, ICDBG, FHLB, and AHFC funded project that will provide a 9 unit housing complex for the elderly of the Yukon Koyukuk Region. The design includes a multi-purpose area, office space, and dormitory-type housing for transient village health care workers. Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) is designated by the owner, Louden Tribal Council, to be the Construction/Contractor of the Galena Assisted Living Facility. In addition Interior Regional Housing Authority functions as the Construction Manager for the project, and is directed to act with full authority of the Owner, in all matters of coordination of design work performance of the A&E Consultant, Construction Scheduling and Implementation, Management of funding dollars, in accordance with the Payment Schedule, and Management of any and all Subcontractor entities required to produce satisfactory work completion. On behalf of the Louden Tribal Council and the Y-K Senior Living Center Consortium, Interior Regional Housing Authority is proposing to install an energy efficient biomass and solar system to the project. The project site is bordered by the Yukon River and Campion Road within seciton 4, T9S, T10E, Kateel River Meridian, Nulato Recording District, and contains 3.42 acres. The Biomass Center would be located within 100 feet of the Center building site, a 8,000 SF building under construction. Selecting the System The biomass Center wood system costs include the initial capital costs of purchasing and installing the equipment, non capital costs (engineering, permitting, etc.) the costs of the fuel storage building and boiler building, the fuel costs, and the other costs associated for operating with operating and maintaining the heating system, including labor. Comparative Costs of Fuels The selection of fuel system for the Galena Assisted Living Facility has been based in part on the success of the Energy Center recently built in Tanana, Alaska. Comparative Costs of Fuels for the Tanana Energy Center were derived from the Preliminary Feasibility Assessment for High Efficiency, Low Emission Wood HEating in Tanana, Alaska, May 8, 2007 by Daniel Parrent, Juneau Economic Development Council. According to the study, at high efficiency, heat from white spruce cordwood (MC30) at $353.30 per cord is equal t the cost of oil at $3.50 per gallon, before considering the costs of equipment and operation, and maintenance and repair. It is interesting to note since this study was completed, the cost of oil per gallon has increased and is currently $7.00 per gallon and expected to rise. Current estimates from suppliers in Galena place a cord of wood at $250.00 per cord. Initial Investment Cost Estimates The Biomass System would provide a sustainable resource energy source for heat to the facility. The oil system designed for the building will remain in place as a back-up system to the Biomass System. If the Biomass System can be installed during the construction phase, installation costs for the Biomass System will be reduced because the plumbing and piping system, the most significant costs besides the boiler, can be installed during the installation of the oil system. The payback period for the Biomass Heating Units and the fuel storage building are expected to be recovered within a year three year span. The Solar Panel System is an additional source of renewable heat, hot water, and electricity for the Center. We are proposing to enhance and expand the first in-stream hydrokinetic energy conversion device successfully deployed in the United States in Ruby, Alaska. In the summer of 2008, the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council (YRITWC), along with the Tribe and City of Ruby, the local electric utility (owned and operated by the City of Ruby), and ABS Alaskan, deployed, tested, and removed a 5 kW Encurrent vertical axis hydrokinetic turbine in the Yukon River at Ruby, Alaska, before winter ice formation. This proposal is for a two-year project that will begin in 2009 with a revised resource assessment, re-design certain aspects of the turbine deployment such as anchoring and debris diversion, finalize permit acquisition, and re-deploy the 5 kW device. Based on the performance of the 5 kW turbine, and modeling feasibility for a larger system with a turbine re-designed to optimally perform at a lower current speed, in 2010 we will install a 25 kW version of the hydrokinetic turbine. All project partners will remain in place, along with Terrasond and re vision LLC, who will assist with resource assessment and feasibility analysis. The proposed biomass heating system will take place at Tok School, in Tok, Alaska, and will serve to initiate the beginnings of a systemic regional conversion from fossil heating fuel to clean, renewable biomass heating systems. An outbuilding to house the boilers will be constructed behind the school, in a central location where access to the outbuildings can also be had. The building will have 3 bays for fiber wagons that will to feed into the a feeder bin inside the boiler room. The boiler will be able to be fed from the inside or the outside of the building, to accommodate for downtime on the biomass feed systems. The biomass boiler will fed into the current boiler infrastructure, which will serve as a back up system, and will heat the outbuildings. The project has the advantage of being designed by firms having extensive experience with biomass systems, and is heavily supported by the community. It was written in partnership with the Tok Area Forestry, CTA Engineering, and by Alaska Gateway School District staff. AP&T proposes to construct the 2.0 MW Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project) located on Yerrick Creek, approximately 20 miles west of Tok. The Project would off-set diesel generation which presently supplies power to the communities of Tetlin, Tanacross, Dot Lake, and Tok. The Project will consist of a small diversion structure, approximately 15,000 feet of penstock, powerhouse with a single generating unit, tailrace, small substation, and transmission line. The Project operation will be run-of-river; annual generation is expected to be approximately 4,900 MWh/yr (approximately 40% of the interconnected load). The Project will provide clean, renewable electricity, as well as rate stabilization. The cost to maintain a hydro project is also significantly lower than diesel generation. This application supports a wood heating project in McGrath, Alaska. Local partners include the City of McGrath, Village Safe Water, MTNT Corporation, and McGrath Light & Power (ML&P) (applicant). A wood energy supply analysis, and a Level 2 Feasibility (in writing phase) and conceptual design analysis has been completed for a district heating loop for downtown McGrath to include in addition to residences, larger consumers; , School District Office Building (offices, Museum, Library), Captain Snow Center, (including Water Treatment Plant, Southcentral Foundation offices and current Health Center, Alaska State Troopers, Washeteria & Showers, District Court, city offices and meeting hall), Post Office, new Health Center, (to be built), DNR Forestry & Wildfire Center, new Tribal Center (Village Council offices and Community Hall), and KSKO Public Radio Station. This Level 2 study has not yet been coordinated with an analysis for a heat recovery project being proposed by ML:&P and AE&E. The biomass project will link and integrate with the heat recovery project in future iterations of design and cost analysis in order to capture the synergies from both to create an optimum design. A side by side analysis of both chip boilers (Köb) and stick fired boilers (Garn) with estimated cost analysis and net simple payback for individual buildings was conducted in the feasibility assessment (calculations attached). In most cases the chip boilers made more economic sense in an integrated model with forest management and harvest operations. The chip fired boilers will require approximately 2000 tons of chips annually modeled at 40% moisture content to displace up to 125,000 gallons of fuel or 98% of oil used in these commercial buildings at a cost of between $28.88 – $36.10/MMBTUs or between $4-$5 on a per gallon equivalent compared to $50.54/MMBTU for fuel oil ($7.00/gal). This project is planned to be conducted in concert with the Village Safe Water project to replace the entire water main system in McGrath in 2009-2011. The integration of these two projects has the potential to produce significant cost savings for installation of piping, the most expensive portion of the project. Both projects have been developed through technical support from Alaska Village Initiatives, and McGrath Light & Power and e-Four Engineering. Principle personnel to date include Bill Wall, PhD, Peter Olsen, Ernie Baumgartner, and Greg Koontz, ME, George Wilson, ME of Village Safe Water. Linkages are planned with Steven J. Stassel, P.E., president AE&E. Gwitchyaa Zhee Corporation Board is the authorizing Board for Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility the Applicant. This application supports a wood heating project in Fort Yukon, Alaska. Local partners include the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (DOE recipient of biomass grant support $1.2 million), Gwitchyaa Zhee Native Corporation & Utility Company and Gwitchyaa Gwichin Tribal Government, Yukon Flats School District and City of Fort Yukon. A wood energy supply analysis, and a feasibility and conceptual design analysis has been completed for a district heating loop for downtown Fort Yukon to include the School, Gym, AC Store, School District Office, Water Plant, Post Office and two stand alone boilers; one at the new CATG Clinic and the other heating the Voc Ed Complex. A side by side analysis of both chip boilers (Köb) and stick fired boilers (Garn) with estimated cost analysis and net simple payback for individual buildings was conducted in the feasibility assessment. In each case the chip boilers made more economic sense in an integrated model with forest management and harvest operations. The three chip fired boilers will require approximately 2000-2500 tons of chips depending on moisture content to displace up to 135,347 gallons of fuel or 90% of oil used in these commercial buildings at a cost of approximately $20/MMBTU ($200/ton) for chips compared to $46.93/MMBTU for fuel oil ($6.50/gal). This project is being conducted in concert but as a separate project with a project funded by Denali Commission, US DOE through an Alaska Village Initiatives earmark, and GZ Corporation to develop a wood harvesting system, wood yard and a wood energy utility to supply and maintain the boilers. Both projects have been developed through technical support from Alaska Village Initiatives, and CATG Resource Department and e-Four Engineering. Principle personnel to date include Bill Wall, PhD, Peter Olsen, Bruce Thomas, and Greg Koontz, ME. We propose a 2 year project to estimate in-line (hydrokinetic) renewable energy potential for rural Alaska. We will begin creating a list of about 24 sites/communities which appear to have the greatest potential. We plan to study 8 sites in year 1 and 16 sites in year 2. At this point, Alaska’s larger rivers (i.e., the Yukon, Koyukuk, Kuskokwim and Susitna Rivers) are obvious places to look for in-stream energy. We will examine available data, and work with project partners (including Re vision, AEA and ANSEP) to come up with a list of river stretches and community partners. The UAA-SOE Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program (ANSEP) has well established relationships with many communities throughout Alaska and has agreed to assist the faculty in establishing working relationships with the communities. Following site selection, we will select student research assistants (3 in year 1 and 5 in year 2) who will be trained in hydrographic surveying and velocity measurement. Then, working in cooperation with the communities, we will survey the selected river stretches during the summer of 2009 and 2010 to obtain bathymetric and current distribution data. Next, using data from United States Geological Survey (USGS) gauging stations, we will estimate the long term hydrologic (i.e, velocity/depth) conditions at the selected rural sites. The USGS provides discharge rates at nearly 400 sites around the state, covering most river systems. The long-term velocity/depth distribution data obtained will be used to determine the hydrokinetic energy available for power generation. This proposal seeks to design and make commercially available a system that utilizes renewable energy as an option to the basic rural Alaska electrical power generating system. This is multi part concept that utilizes advanced technology to improve the over-all efficiency of prime power diesel generating systems. The elements of the new system are divided into three separate parts each bringing their own value contribution. They include waste heat recovery, conversion of waste heat using the Organic Rankine Cycle in combination with Controlled Environment Agriculture, and biomass incineration. At this time Precision Power LLC is the singular participant in the project. High-efficiency solid state ammonia synthesis (SSAS) will be advanced from laboratory to proof of-concept and pre-commercialization pilot-plant stage. An SSAS module will be built, capable of synthesizing anhydrous ammonia (NH3) at ~10 kWe input from renewable-source electric energy, fresh water, and atmospheric nitrogen. The NH3 will be stored in a pressurized steel tank, and will fuel an internal-combustion-engine (ICE) generating set delivering to the utility electricity grid or isolated load. A complete system will be located in Juneau at the Alaska Electric Light & Power (AEL&P) site. Hydroelectric energy will be converted, at ~ 10 kW scale, to NH3, stored as a liquid at 250 psi in steel tanks, and regenerated to electric energy in an ammonia-fueled internal combustion energy (ICE) generating set and returned to the electricity grid or isolated load. This system will model a village-scale system that could store enough surplus renewable-source energy, as liquid NH3 in surface tanks, to supply the village’s total year-round energy needs as firm energy, assuming enough local renewable energy production capacity is in place to generate this total energy. The goal is village and other “energy island” energy independence via renewable-source energy and annual-scale firming storage, replacing all diesel electricity generation and oil heating. Deploying the project initially at AEL&P allows hydro energy input and lower project technical risk via Juneau’s benign climate and favorable transportation access; the project may later be relocated to a smaller community for further evaluation and test. The project addresses the availability, quality andfeasibility ofsustainable, economic use of agricultural and forestry biomass in Alaska. This must be considered before the myriad of biofuel projects proposed & envisioned can move forward, and before existing, commercially available technologies that use biomass to produce energy for heat, fuel, & power can be most effectively, and most successfully, deployed. The goal ofthe project is to 1) assimilate all existing information on the total forest and crop biomass available in Alaska into one data base, 2) determine the gaps in the data base and the information needed to fill the gaps, and 3) determine the biological, physical, and economic feasibility ofusing Alaskan biomass as biofuels. The impetus for the Study is the biomasslcoal-to-liquids plant proposed for the Fairbanks area ofinterior Alaska, and its needfor commercial/industrial-scale volumes of biomass fuel stocks. However, the Study will have major statewide application as it will serve as the basisfor all agricultural andforestry biomass-based energy projects; the greatest number of which are being proposedfor rural and village communities. Work will take place in Fairbanks and Palmer, Alaska. Project cooperators are the School ofNatural Resources and Agricultural Sciences(SNRAS) and the Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station(AFES) at the University ofAlaska Fairbanks(UAF) (project primary/agricultural energy crops andforest biomass), Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation(FEDC) (logistics, data support, and information dissemination), and the Alaska Division ofForestry (forest biomass, and harvest, transport, and storage technologies), The project will be located at a site yet to be determined within the Alaska state boundaries. Once the exact site location is determined, then an evaluation of the communities to be served can be provided. Also involved in this project will be contractors and subcontractors to be hired for various engineering, design, construction and supply aspects related to the project activities. Specifically, Ormat will be working with Precision Power LLC who will be the construction contractor for this project to perform the construction of the project on site. Project_Description_Short The project proposed is a small, 271-kW, cross-flow turbine, generation system with a darn and power which utilizes hydro-electric stored kinetic energy in a reservoir dam on Chuniisax Creek approximately 3/4-mile southwest of the old Atka village site and replacement electrical distribution system. The project will displace use of high cost fossil fuels with a renewable energy resource using proven technology. Energy costs to all users in Atka will be significantly reduced while providing the current and future energy requirements. The village has secured additional funding from EDA to complete the most of the remaining 55%. (45% was previously completed using RUS, AEA, and city funding.) This grant plus our cash and in-kind contribution will complete the balance. This project requests funding to conduct a renewable energy reconnaissance report for the smaller (populations less than 100) communities of Cold Bay, False Pass and Nelson Lagoon which require assistance to decrease their energy costs and reduce their dependence on diesel fuel. This region, called “the birthplace of the winds”, renewable energy resources abound -- not only wind power, but also hydro, geo-thermal, current and tidal. Some waste heat recovery opportunities also exist. A reconnaissance report will summarize the assessment and findings. This project will be administered and managed by the Aleutians East Borough (AEB) and will be conducted by a consultant chosen by the AEB. The Nome Joint Utilities System (NJUS) Renewable Energy Fund Wind Project involves the installation of five 600 kW wind turbines on Newton Peak located approximately one mile north of Nome. The completed project, with a total size of three MW, will be owned and operated by NJUS. The wind turbines will be connected into NJUS’s electrical distribution system through a constructed transmission line. The project will offer benefits to the community of Nome and its electric customers through a system-wide reduction and stabilization of energy prices. NJUS has assembled a project team, headed by STG Incorporated which is prepared to immediately begin work on an accelerated schedule. The project team includes members from Intelligent Energy Systems LLC, DNV Global Energy Concepts Inc, Electrical Power Systems, Duane Miller Associates LLC, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell LLC, BBFM Engineers and Aurora Consulting. All aspects of the Final Design/Permitting and Construction project, detailed in the following pages of this application, can be completed by fall 2010. The Unalakleet Renewable Energy Fund Wind Project involves the installation of two 600 kW wind turbines on a project site located approximately one and a half miles northeast of Unalakleet. The completed project, with a total size of 1.2 MW, will be owned and operated by Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative (UVEC). The wind turbines will be connected into UVEC’s electrical distribution system through a constructed transmission line. The project will offer benefits to the village of Unalakleet and its electric customers through a system-wide reduction and stabilization of energy prices. UVEC has assembled a project team, headed by STG Incorporated which is prepared to immediately begin work on an accelerated schedule. The project team includes members from Intelligent Energy Systems LLC, DNV Global Energy Concepts Inc., Electrical Power Systems, Duane Miller Associates LLC, Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell LLC, BBFM Engineers and Aurora Consulting. All aspects of the Final Design/Permitting and Construction project, can be completed by fall 2010. Located in Nome, this project will install a 2-mile transmission line and a 8-mile fiber control cable to connect a 1MW wind farm to be operated by Banner Wind LLC, an independent power producer, to the City of Nome/Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) power distribution grid. The project will place an underground 25kv distribution line adjacent to a new road, and include a fiber control cable run from the wind generators to the utility power plant. Banner Wind LLC is an IPP formed in partnership between Bering Straits Native Corporation & Sitnasuak Native Corporation. NJUS will be primarily responsible for the project construction activities, as well as the reporting and financial control of the intertie project. This project is a regional Resource Assessment/Feasibility Analysis/Conceptual design of Wind Power opportunities around the Lake & Peninsula Borough. It is designed to build upon existing wind resource assessment efforts, including wind met tower data in some communities, as well as data from existing micro-scale (10kW) wind turbines that are in operation. The proposed project is a wind/hydro hybrid intertie feasibility study for Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon and Chignik Lake (hereafter “Chigniks”.) There is existing wind data confirming class 5 wind in the area, strong enough to be a good energy source. Part of the feasibility study will involve determining the most advantageous site for wind turbines by collecting supplemental met data. The Chignik Alaska Draft Small Hydropower Feasibility Report and EIS, by the Army Corps of Engineers, July 1984, evaluated hydro resources at Packers Creek, Mud Bay Lake and Indian Creek. The study found that Indian Creek had the best potential for economical development. The Lake and Peninsula Borough will provide management for the project, overseeing the work of HDR Alaska who will act as the owner representative in developing the feasibility study for a wind/hydro intertie project. The Lake and Peninsula Borough seeks funding for design and permitting to install High Efficiency Low Emissions (HELE) wood boilers in five communities in the Lake and Peninsula Borough providing heat to the local school and adjacent teacher housing. The communities to be considered are Pedro Bay, Newhalen/Iliamna, Nondalton, Kokhanok and Port Alsworth. The schools in these communities served 225 children in the 07-08 school year. The City of Chignik will partner with Trident Seafoods (holder of FERC License 620) to study the engineering, electronics, and economics of restoring the antiquated hydropower system on Indian Creek in Chignik, Alaska. (See attached Project Area maps.) The “Chignik Hydro” project would benefit the residents of Chignik by offsetting the cost of fuel currently used to generate electricity for homes and community buildings such as the Subsistence Building and the school. Electricity generated by the new hydropower system will also benefit the new small boat harbor, the Trident Seafoods fish processing plant, and the Harris Sub-Regional Clinic, which will serve residents of Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Lake, Perryville, and Port Heiden. In addition, by re-building the dam and conveyor pipeline, the project would also be reinforcing the infrastructure that supports the city’s water system, as well as the fish plant water supply. This project proposes a facility at Lake Elva that will consist of a dam constructed 8,500 feet downstream from the existing outlet of the lake. The powerhouse will contain two 750 kW turbines. The steel framed structure will be located approximately 1,800 feet upstream from the Elva Creek confluence with Lake Nerka. It is planned to be on a 20 by 80 foot concrete foundation with a height of 20 feet above the generator floor. This proposed project will necessitate the construction of approximately 33 miles of new three phase transmission tie line from the project site to close proximity of the village of Aleknagik. The Nushagak Area Hydropower Project will initially serve the communities of Aleknagik, Dillingham, and Kanakanak in the Nushagak and Wood River areas (future interties to Manokotak and Ekwok - New Stuyahok - Koliganek are under consideration). This first phase with inter-tie is estimated to cost $22 million and replace 500,000 gallons of diesel fuel annually, for a yearly savings of $2,105,700 at today’s fuel prices. Currently all power in the area is generated with diesel by Nushagak Cooperative (NETC), with a current residential rate at $0.463 cents per kilowatt hour. Nushagak Cooperative would develop, maintain, and operate the Lake Elva facility and associated infrastructure. The Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Project is located on Packers Creek in Chignik Lagoon. The 190 kW project can provide for most of the communities current power needs, which peak at about 125 kW. The plant would eliminate about 85% of 50,000 gallons of diesel consumed by the generators annually. There will also be excess energy that could be used for heating the school and other local structures. The project would also enable the community to add a freezer/processing facility to further improve the local economy. The Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project is a long-term energy solution to rising and unpredictable costs of energy in rural and remote regions with geothermal energy potential. The next phase of the project and the subject of this application is geothermal energy resource confirmation and qualification. Phase III includes design, engineering and construction of a deep well preceded by funding and permit acquisition, road and well site improvements and drilling and drill management contracts. Subsequent to resource confirmation and qualification, NEA proposes constructing a 25 MW geothermal plant and interconnection infrastructure that will supply 25+ communities in the Bristol Bay and Lake Region with low-cost electricity that effectively decreases the cost of power 70% by displacing 5.4 million gallons of diesel fuel currently used to meet regional electrical and heating energy requirements. The project will be the first utility grade geothermal development in Alaska establishing long-term firm, reliable and cost effective alternative energy that will enhance rural sustainability and the development of renewable and strategic natural resources. This proposal will examine the opportunity, analyzes the possibility, and determines the feasibility of providing a stand-alone fish waste-processing facility that produces and uses clean energy from renewable resources. It will serve the commercial fishery and processing plants (7 land based processing facilities, 3 floating processing facilities and several smaller independent seller/operators) and the community of Naknek, King Salmon, and South Naknek, Alaska. The study produced will look at a model plant that, when proven successful, will be recreated throughout the fisheries of the State and the nation, and the world. Bristol Bay Borough and Naknek Electric Association have joined in this responsible and cooperative scientific effort in the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world to perform this study and assess the initial, as well as its ultimate, practicality and profitability of such a facility. This project focuses on the development of 1 megawatt of wind power located in an area AEA suspects to be have a Class 7 resource. The location is approximately 14 miles Northwest of the City of Dillingham, less than 5 miles Northeast of Manakotak, and approximately 8 miles South of Alegnagik near Snake Mountain. Due to the specific need of the development of this resource for the Healthcare organization, this project will benefit all the communities that rely on the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation to remain ‘the only’ critical access medical facility in the Bristol Bay Region. Although the project is being proposed by a Tribal Organization, it has the support of the local electrical cooperative [Nushagak] as well as many of the residents of Dillingham. Our project development team has tapped into the resources of TDX, Power Corp., MAP Consulting, STG Inc, and Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation. After a decade of declining performance and three years of no operation (2005 – 2008), due to unstable site geology and flooding, Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) has focused intense efforts on re‐designing its Humpback Creek hydro‐electric facility. Humpback Creek, named for the pink salmon that spawn in its mouth, is located five miles north of Cordova and is accessible only by boat. Sub‐marine cable from the plant to Cordova City limits, and buried transmission lines to the CEC plant, connect the facility to Cordova. Because of its steep grade, fish are not able to migrate upstream and thus no fish populations will be affected by this project. From the original in‐take structure to tidewater, Humpback Creek flows about 0.7 miles and drops from an elevation of 276 feet to where it enters saltwater Orca Inlet. Site visits by the project team to other small hydro‐electric projects with a variety of in‐take arrangements and a project workshop held in December, 2007 culminated in a new design with an intake/diversion that includes a tunnel, conventional side intake with provisions for sluicing sediment and a diversion dam with a sluice gate that will allow removal of stream bed material that may collect outside the intake. The new location facilitates much‐improved access, a location with shallower bedrock substrate, and a better hydrological analysis. This project has been CEC’s and the community of Cordova’s top priority for the past three years, ever since October, 2006’s 3,500‐year return period flood event destroyed the intake/diversion facility. Project partners include the City of Cordova, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Eyak Corporation (for access). Cordova Electric Cooperative (CEC) proposes to serve as a model for rural Alaska utilities by installing an ORC heat recovery unit that will capture waste heat and increase diesel generator electrical production by an additional four to six percent. The average electric production efficiency of CEC’s Orca Power Plant is 13.65 kWh/gallon of diesel. CEC has placed a deposit on a new, 3.6 MW rated, EMD 710 series, 20 cylinder diesel generator. The efficiency of the new generator is expected to peak at 15 kWh/gallon. Cordova Electric Cooperative desires fit the EMD with an organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) heat recovery system that will capture additional BTUs that would otherwise be wasted energy. CEC is the sole provider of power to the City of Cordova, Alaska. The project is located in Cordova, Alaska. Affordable fuel wood is available to the community, from donated lots at an old sort yard and from an airport clearing project. We are asking for assistance with purchasing a processing mill, yarding the logs, and cutting the logs into split firewood. The Eyak Corporation owns several log sort yards which they have generously donated to the village for firewood use. The State of Alaska has offered down logs from the airport clearing project. To efficiently process this wood, we will purchase a firewood processing mill, set it up and train the operators. The mill will enable us to process firewood in a timely manner to be able to distribute an abundant amount of firewood to the community. We will mill approximately 3,421 cords of firewood. The supply for this will come from existing log decks and the airport clearing project. The firewood will be distributed to our elders at no cost and the rest of the community will be asked to contribute $50 per cord to sustain the program. The money generated will help pay for labor costs of processing the firewood in future years. This project will provide 37.2 billion BTU's of low cost energy for home heating and will offset 312.6 thousand gallons of fuel oil and save $1.58 million this winter in home heating costs for Cordova. The Allison Lake Hydroelectric Project is located adjacent to the Prince William Sound, immediately south of Valdez, Alaska. Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) is a member-owned electric cooperative providing central station electrical service to a relatively large geographical area of Eastern Interior and Gulf Coast Alaska. CVEA is a stand-alone (not interconnected to another power system) electric utility. The service territory is divided into two districts, the Valdez district and the Copper River Basin district. The Valdez district is comprised of the organized area of the City of Valdez. The Copper Basin district incorporates many outstretched communities including: Glennallen, Gakona, Gulkana, Tazlina, Copper Center, Kluti-Kaah, Copperville, Kenny Lake, Tolsona, Mendeltna, Nelchina, Eureka, and Sheep Mountain. CVEA’s personnel are extensively involved with the Allison Lake Project. CVEA has hired Hatch Acres to assist in coordinating the work and field studies and license application. The project will be located at the mile 33 of the Tok Cutoff Highway in Chistochina, Alaska and will be managed and owned by the Cheesh’na Tribal Council (CTC). The project provides a (cordwood) biomass system to provide heat and hot water for all community facilities located in a “campus” area. Existing facilities that will be served by the project are owned and operated by CTC and include the CTC Tribal Office Building, Chistochina Community Hall and the Education/Library facility. Two new facilities that will be served by the project are scheduled to be constructed in the coming year; Mt Sanford Tribal Consortium multiuse facility with health clinic and CTC’s Washateria. The final design work will build upon the feasibility study and preliminary design work completed as of October, 2008. A bulk fuel wood boiler will be built at the Kenny Lake K-12 school to displace 18,035 gallons of fuel oil. The current boilers will be used for backup and low load periods. This project will involve school district personnel, local contractors, design engineers and Alaska Energy Authority. This project will employee local residents in project management, construction and chip material delivery. This project looks at the integration of a wood fired hydronic heating system with existing boiler system in some of the buildings and retrofit hot water heat to other buildings. The project will require a greater initial investment and higher annual OM&R costs than for an equivalent oil or gas system alone; however, the savings in fuel costs (wood vs. fossil fuel) will pay for the initial investment and cover the additional OM&R costs in a relatively short period of time. After the initial investment is paid off, the project will continue to save money (avoided fuel cost) for the life of the heating system. Inflation rates for fossil fuels are typically higher than inflation rates for wood fuel, increasing inflation rates result in greater fuel savings and thus greater project viability. The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) proposes a 300 kW run of the river hydroelectric plant with a diversion structure, pipeline, powerhouse, and electric line in Old Harbor. The project involves collecting up to 7 cfs of water year round from a tributary (Mountain Creek) of Barling Bay Creek and transporting it across a basin boundary to Big Creek. This project will provide for most of the electrical needs of Old Harbor. AVEC will employ consultants and contractors as needed to complete the Project. AVEC may utilize local or other personnel for project maintenance. The Bethel Wind Project is designed to contribute clean, renewable wind power to the Bethel energy grid. The project area is about 1.5 miles northwest of the Bethel Airport on hilltop land owned by Bethel Native Corporation. Our power will be sold wholesale to BUC for distribution to its customers as normal. The size of our project is dependent on our ability to sell power, not on the wind resource, but we expect that a two MW project will be viable. The communities served could include Napakiak and Bethel. The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative is proposing to complete design, permitting and installation of three Northern 100B Wind Turbines, and new control modules, to provide wind power to the community of Quinhagak, which is located on the coast of the Bering Sea, west of Bethel in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta area. This project involves the final design, permitting, construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of two wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Mekoryuk. Participants in the project include AVEC, STG, and Northern Power. AVEC will provide overall project management and electrical system engineering for the project. STG will be the general contractor, responsible for the design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbines, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. Northern Power will provide Northwind 100 wind turbines and startup and commissioning services. Site control has already been completed. The foundation design is completed. Permitting is underway, having already relocated the turbines in response to input from Fish & Wildlife. This project involves the final design, permitting, construction, erection, startup, and commissioning of one additional wind turbine to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Toksook Bay. Participants in the project include AVEC, STG, and Northern Power. AVEC will provide overall project management and electrical system engineering for the project. STG will be the general contractor, responsible for the design and installation of all civil works, erection of the wind turbine, and installation of all ancillary electrical systems. Northern Power will provide the Northwind 100 wind turbine and startup & commissioning services. The site is already under control and already contains three Northwind 100 wind turbines. Existing permits are in place and can be extended to cover the additional turbines. The project involves the installation of two wind turbines near the water treatment plant (WTP) in Hooper Bay, Alaska. The two Northwind 100B; 100kW wind turbines will provide a dedicated energy source for the WTP’s water heating system, providing approximately 539,000 kWh per year dedicated to an electric boiler inside the WTP. Wind-powered energy will offset the use of 15,995 gallons of fuel currently used in the three fuel oil-burning boilers. Northern will provide the wind towers and turbine technology, and STG will perform the installation of the towers and turbines. CE2 Engineers, the firm that designed and built the WTP, will supervise the engineering and wiring of the new boiler system. This project will be located in the upper Kobuk River Valley and will serve the villages of Kobuk, Shungnak, and Ambler. The applicant is Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority; other cooperating organizations include NANA Regional Corporation, Maniilaq Association, NANAPacific, WHPacific Inc., and Kobuk, Shungnak and Ambler Village Councils. An initial woody biomass site assessment was sponsored by NANAPacific in August, 2008 under a Department of Energy Tribal Energy Grant. Bill Wall, PhD conducted an initial reconnaissance study to determine the viability of a wood energy project. The study determined that a wood energy program is viable and that all three of the villages are very interested in proceeding. The proposed project will develop following analysis and fully complete a reconnaissance and feasibility study. Ambler is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, battery-less 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm in Ambler. It consists of 225 ea 224-watt panels on adjustable 6300 ft2 racking mounted directly on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation system. Each adjustable array utilizes one 7000 watt inverter providing 277 VAC power. Noatak is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, battery-less 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm in Noatak . It consists of 225ea 224-watt panels on adjustable 6,300 ft2 racking mounted on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation. Each adjustable array utilizes one 7000 watt inverter providing 277 VAC power. Noatak is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, battery-less 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm in Noatak . It consists of 225ea 224-watt panels on adjustable 6,300 ft2 racking mounted on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation. Each adjustable array utilizes one 7000 watt inverter providing 277 VAC power. 77. Shungnak is a village that can benefit from solar energy. It is proposed that a grid tied, battery-less 50.4 kW photovoltaic system be installed on property adjacent to the AVEC power plant and tank farm. It consists of 225ea 224-watt solar panels on an adjustable 6300 ft2 rack that is supported on a Triodetic Multipoint foundation. Multiple 7000 watt inverters provide 277 VAC power. Rural Alaskans in the Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) are facing some of the highest costs anywhere in the nation. This project proposes to: develop the wind energy potential in the communities of Buckland, Deering, and Noorvik; develop appropriate wind generation engineering plans and designs, and; construct the necessary wind generation facilities (fully integrated with diesel power systems). This is a two year project. Year one involves performing both pre-construction and construction tasks in Deering and Noorvik as well as pre-construction tasks in Buckland. Year two involves construction tasks in Buckland. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) proposes a resource assessment/feasibility analysis/conceptual design project of hydropower sites in the Upper Kobuk region. We will evaluate at least twelve sites regarding their hydroelectric potential and will create conceptual designs for the most promising sites. The project will potentially serve the communities Kobuk, Ambler, Shungnak, and Kiana, as well as possible future industrial developments, which for the purposes of this application, will be referred to collectively as the Upper Kobuk region. Key partners in the project will include NANA Pacific/NANA Regional Corporation, NovaGold/Mantra Mining and additional engineering consultants. The Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) Solid Waste Services Department (SWS) intends to develop an electric power generating plant to be located at the Anchorage Regional Landfill (ARL). The plant will use landfill gas (LFG), a byproduct of anaerobic waste decomposition, as its primary fuel. Electricity generated by the project will be sold and delivered to the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) distribution system to provide power to Eagle River and Southcentral Alaska. SWS will negotiate a power sales agreement with the end power user, likely MEA, and select of a development partner to design, build and operate the plant. The South Fork hydroelectric project is a low-impact run-of-river project located in Eagle River, Alaska. The project will be located on a private homestead off Hiland Road in Eagle River. Energy from the project would be provided into the Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) grid. South Fork Hydro, LLC (SFH) is the project proponent, and would contribute funding, own, and operate the project. SFH has already completed reconnaissance, feasibility, and permitting efforts. Final design is currently in progress, and construction is planned for 2009. Final design would be completed by members of South Fork Hydro, LLC. Construction would be completed by South Fork Construction, Inc., with some construction tasks subcontracted as appropriate. This project is designed to demonstrate power generation using combusted biomass as a heat source to drive an Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) power plant module designed and developed by United Technologies Corporation. The module is based on the award-winning geothermal power plant installed at Chena Hot Springs Resort; however the biomass version will operate at significantly higher efficiency. These efficiency improvements are necessary because unlike the geothermal fluid, biomass material is not a ‘free’ fuel. In addition to being designed for maximum thermal efficiency, the power plant includes load following capability, and independent, simple, remotely monitored operation at low pressures that do not require special training to operate. This is important because while the project will be located in North Pole, Alaska, the power plant is specifically designed for rural Alaskan applications. The project will be constructed and managed by Chena Power, LLC and will be located at the K&K Recycling Facility located at Mile 9 on the Richardson Highway. Design work and assembly of the power plant will be completed by United Technologies Corporation through their Research Center (UTRC). The proposed 5 to 7-MW Grant Lake/Falls Creek hydro project is located near Moose Pass, Alaska. Kenai Hydro seeks to develop the project in compliance with current low impact hydro guidelines and practices. The scope of this project will also involve looking at the feasibility of a design that includes diverting flows from Falls Creek into Grant Lake. Kenai Hydro has secured a Preliminary Permit for this project, issued by FERC on October 7, 2008. Power from the project would be available to customers of Homer Electric Association and other areas served by the existing Railbelt transmission grid. Kenai Hydro, LLC is a partnership among Homer Electric Association (HEA), enXco, and Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) that was formed for the purpose of evaluating and developing this site as a low impact hydroelectric facility. The Delta Wind Project is designed to contribute clean, renewable wind power to the railbelt energy grid. The project area is about 25 miles south of Delta Junction on Coal Mine Road. We are currently funding an Interconnection Study with Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) to identify costs associated with putting wind power on their transmission system near Delta Junction. The results of the interconnection study will be used to formulate a power tariff for sale of our power to GVEA. The size of our project is dependent on our ability to sell power, not on the wind resource, but we expect that a 40 to 50 MW project could be achievable. The communities served will include all communities within the GVEA’s service area that purchase power from GVEA, including Delta Junction, North Pole, Fairbanks, Fox, College, Nenana, and Healy, as well as two major gold mines, Fort Knox and Pogo. This project is located in Girdwood. AGE proposes to install a natural gas powered CHP plant with its efficiency enhanced by the TEG unit that will provide heat and power to Girdwood Elementary and the Girdwood public by feeding power into the local electrical grid. Thermal energy will be provided to Girdwood Elementary for space heating, snow melt, and heated pedestrian walkways as well as the research center itself. Two micro-hydro projects located at California and Virgin Creeks will provide hydro power generation to supplement the CHP/TPG plant during periods of sufficient flow estimated at 8 months per year. This Construction Project is based on reconnaissance level findings. The City of Whittier proposes conducting a renewable energy project consisting of a reconnaissance level effort to examine the viability of hydropower on Whittier Creek in Whittier, Alaska. The work will include engineering analysis, an economic study, and two years of stream gauge data gathering. The final product will include an estimated generation capacity, a preliminary cost estimate for a hydropower facility, and a preliminary analysis of the potential benefits (i.e. power cost savings over time). This effort will be performed by the Alaska District Corps of Engineers with assistance from the Corps of Engineers Hydroelectric Design Center based out of Portland, Oregon, with stream gauging to be performed by the USGS. This is a request for reconnaissance study, followed by a more detailed feasibility study that will analyze the feasibility of supplying Anchorage with heat from geothermal energy sources. IAE has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Municipality of Anchorage to facilitate such a study. The Municipality of Anchorage has agreed to support the feasibility study efforts by providing information about the potential for geothermal energy use in Anchorage as well as right of way information. If the results of the feasibility study prove to be positive for development, IAE will work towards developing the project. Specific focus on the market available, what type of organization will be needed for the project, technical, and financial issues. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Anchorage and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the Anchorage Municipal Landfill adjacent to Route 1 on the Glenn Highway just east of town. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the Anchorage Solid Waste Services. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Services Sector for the Municipality of Anchorage. The proposed plant project will convert the Anchorage waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with Anchorage Solid Waste Services and City staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. The Division of Forestry at Milepost 267.5 Richardson Highway, Delta Junction is proposing a pilot project using barley/wood pellets for heating a governmental building. The boiler system will combine two heating systems, a 3840 square foot (sf) main office building, proposed 3000 sf addition, and a 1792 sf warehouse. The boiler will be located in a separate building which will house a heating system and barley/wood pellet storage. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the FNSB Municipal Landfill in Fairbanks. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the FNSB Solid Waste Division. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Division for FNSB. The proposed plant project will convert the FNSB waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with FNSB Solid Waste Services and Borough staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Mat-Su and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the Mat-Su Municipal Landfill in Palmer. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the Mat-Su Solid Waste Division. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Division for Mat-Su. The proposed plant project will convert the Mat-Su waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Plasma Waste Recycling, CH2MHill, Economic Research Associates, and Alaska Recycling Energy staff in conjunction with Mat-Su Solid Waste Services and Borough staff. If needed, additional consultants will be retained.aska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a resource assessment, feasibility analysis and conceptual design study for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Mat-Su and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project will be located at the Mat-Su Municipal Landfill in Palmer. The project will principally serve those communities presently served by the Mat-Su Solid Waste Division. This study will provide the information required to develop the feedstock sources and analysis, preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to formalize a legal relationship with the Solid Waste Division for Mat-Su. The proposed plant project will convert the Mat-Su waste and landfill into electricity or fuel. This project proposes the first 10 MW Utility-Grade Geothermal Development in Alaska. This 10 MW project would be able to extract geothermal power from the base of either Mt. Redoubt or Spurr by 2105. The Native Village of Cantwell proposes to improve the reliability and lower the cost of the community of Cantwell’s power system. Currently Cantwell obtains power from the line between MEA and GVEA. To accomplish improved reliability, we propose to build a hydroelectric project on the Jack River a short distance from Cantwell. The installed capacity of this plant will be in excess of 1 MW. This project will be comprised of a dam and a short tunnel. A feasibility design and scoping are required to provide the parameters of the project. The proposal is for a 5 MW natural gas fired Combined Heat & Power Project (“CHP” or “Cogeneration”), sited at the Alaska State Fair in Palmer (the “Fair) as the centerpiece of an Alaska Energy Center, to showcase renewable and alternative energy technologies, provide the energy needs of the Fair and operations sited at the Fair, provide the thermal energy needs of commercial, institutional and agricultural customers within economic reach of the Project, and provide firm power to help Matanuska Electric Association meet new generation needs. The proposal is for a 5 MW natural gas fired Combined Heat & Power Project (“CHP” or “Cogeneration”), sited near the Begich Tower, to provide the energy needs of the Begich Tower and thermal energy needs of City of Whittier, Public School and commercial customers within economic reach of the Project, and provide firm power to help Chugach meet new generation needs and improve service reliability to Whittier. EarthRun Energy will provide a sustainable source of high grade wood chips for biomass heating in the city of Anchorage while strengthening and beautifying the urban forests. In Anchorage, urban forests are currently overgrown presenting fire and disease problems. It is the right time to make a sick forest a productive and healthy forest. EarthRun has worked hard to come up with the cleanest, quietest and least interruptive way of harvesting the dead and unhealthy trees from our urban forests, chipping them, and heating one municipal building, the Russian Jack greenhouse. EarthRun Energy will work closely with the municipality to return the forests to a healthy state. Mt. Alice Harbor Development project is in and around Seward at mile 2 Nash Rd. the service road to the NE side of Ressurection bay 1.5 miles across from the municipal boat harbor on the NW side, serving the needs of the local population as a community and destination resort, boating access and public access to the Fishing resources of the area. Local Engineers, Surveyors, Municipal department heads etc. have expressed positive input and eagerness to work on the project. The Architects, Project managers are ready to proceed. This proposal is for the North Prince of Wales Island Intertie Project (Project). Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) proposes to construct a line extension to the communities of Coffman Cove and Naukati Bay, placing these communities on the Prince of Wales Island (POW) electric grid which is supplied with renewable energy from two hydroelectric projects. Both of these communities currently rely on 100% diesel generation for electricity. The total line is to be 48 miles (Coffman Cove = 37 miles; Naukati Bay = 11 miles) of overhead 4/0 ACSR three-phase 34.5 kV line with a 1/0 ACSR neutral conductor on single pole wood structures. This line extension will come off the existing 34.5 kV line from between Klawock and Thorne Bay, near Control Lake. Naukati Bay is 11 miles off the main road to Coffman Cove. The applicant, along with the State Department of Transportation (ADOT), proposes to build a road and 69-kV transmission line to connect the community of Kake with Petersburg. The road/intertie will allow the delivery of surplus hydropower available from the Tyee project to Kake and eliminate its total reliance upon diesel generation. The community of Kake will continue to be served by the Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC). The transmission line infrastructure will be owned and operated by the Kwaan Electric Intertie Cooperative, Inc. (KWETICO, the applicant), who will charge IPEC for wheeling power to Kake. The road project will allow Kake citizens access to Petersburg's infrastructure including major air transportation, medical facilities, more frequent ferry service, engine repair facilities, and various services and industries not available in Kake. The Intertie will also provide broadband telecommunications to the community of Kake, and savings to the State's Power Cost Equalization Program. The project is part of the overall Southeast Intertie plan commissioned and supported by Southeast Conference and regional leaders. The road/Intertie dual construction will save money for both ADOT and KWETICO, and will facilitate access to the transmission line for repairs and maintenance. The Falls Creek Hydro Electric Project is an 800 kW run-of-river hydroelectric facility, located in Gustavus Alaska, which will provide electric power to the community of Gustavus. The project is being built by Gustavus Electric Company to displace existing diesel generation. Construction of the project is approximately 90% complete and will provide 90% of the community electric needs. The proposed Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11841 (Project) is located near the southeast end of Revillagigedo Island, approximately four miles east of the City of Ketchikan, Alaska. KPU proposes to install 4.6 MW of hydropower generating capacity at KPU’s existing Whitman Lake Dam to provide an additional source of clean renewable energy to KPU’s customers, in the city of Ketchikan and the Borough area including Saxman Village, while also enhancing the conversion of oil heat to electric heat and displacing expensive and nonrenewable diesel generation. The Project will be interconnected to KPU’s existing distribution system and the grant project will involve KPU. The Chilkoot Indian Association is proposing to construct and operate four-plex housing (four buildings with sixteen units) incorporating a cordwood-fired boiler system. The project is initiated by our Housing Department, who will manage the subsidized, low-income housing project. A separate boiler/fuel storage building will be built on one lot and recirculate hot water to be used in each four-plex for building heat and domestic hot water. Architectural, civil, mechanical, and electrical design is complete except for an engineering refit to accommodate the wood boiler system. Our proposal will be for heating system redesign and construction. This project will convert readily available biomass to a producer gas (wood gasification) that will be used to reduce diesel fuel consumption at the Yakutat Power plant. The Biomax 75 is based on proven technology with recent additional improvements for use in cold weather climates. Direct beneficiaries of this project include all Yakutat Power electric service customers. Participants in the project include Yakutat Power, the City and Borough of Yakutat, the U.S. Forestry Service, National Park Service, and Community Power Corp - the Biomax 75 developer. The proposed project would be located in an unincorporated area, northeast of the City of Petersburg, Alaska. Development of hydroelectric power at the site will include construction of a lake tap, arch dam, unlined tunnel, power penstock, power plant, tailrace, and transmission line segments. The powerhouse would be located within 2,000 ft. of the confluence of Delta Creek and would house three impulse turbines. The rated installed capacity of the powerhouse would be 20 MW and the energy output would be roughly 70 GWh. Power generated by the Project would be transmitted by a new overhead / submarine, 138 kilovolt (KV) transmission segment roughly 20-miles long running generally southwest from the powerhouse to Petersburg. The transmission segment would integrate the project to the Southeast Intertie which currently connects Petersburg to Wrangell to the Tyee Lake Hydroelectric Project on Bradfield Canal. Project would provide the interconnected Southern Southeast Alaska regional utilities with increased system reliability; replace current dependency on diesel generation; and enable regional utilities to meet the increasing demand for electricity as customers convert from oil to electric heat and new construction is designed for electric heat. Burro Creek, formerly the Burro Creek Farms Hatchery, is an existing, operational hydro system located on 121 acres of private land approximately one and a half miles south of Skagway on the west side of upper Lynn Canal. A grant is requested to obtain expert analysis of the feasibility of upgrading the existing hydro system in order to wholesale power to Alaska Power and Telephone or the City of Skagway. Existing AP&T hydro projects supply electricity to Haines and Skagway but the communities must still rely on diesel during certain times of the year. Also, existing hydro projects do not generate enough power to supply the cruise lines who have expressed an interest in connecting to shore power as a means of reducing air quality emissions. Hoonah-Hawk Intertie will begin at the Hawk Inlet submarine cable termination yard on Admiralty Island as a continuation of the 69-kV line from Juneau. The cable termination yard will be located on the eastern shore approximately 2.75 miles up Hawk Inlet just inland from the shoreline and the submarine cable will be buried as it leaves the yard and proceeds offshore. The total length of the submarine cable is approximately 25 miles. Kwaan Electric Intertie Cooperative, Inc. (KWETICO) will own and operate the transmission line however Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) will continue as the utility providing electrical service to the Hoonah area. IPEC will purchase power from Alaska Electric Light & Power (AEL&P), KWETICO will charge IPEC a wheeling rate for providing power to Hoonah who will be the primary community served along with the old Whitestone Logging Camp. This project is part of the overall Southeast Intertie plan commissioned and supported by Southeast Conference and regional leaders. This application proposes a Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie with 34.5-kV transmission line that will interconnect the electric systems of Metlakatla Power & Light (MP&L) and Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU). The Intertie will include 16 miles of overhead wood pole transmission line to be constructed on Annette Island between Metlakatla and Race Point and an approximate one mile submarine cable crossing of Revillagigedo Channel between Race Point and KPU’s Mountain Point Substation. The project will also include control system upgrades to allow for the integrated operation of the interconnected systems’ generating plants. The Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie will provide benefits to both Ketchikan and Metlakatla, allowing for significantly improved utilization of Metlakatla’s existing hydroelectric generating resources while reducing diesel generation in Ketchikan. The Haines Borough proposes to explore the potential for use of low-emission nontoxic wood biomass as the source for wood-fired boilers to provide heat (through an insulated pipe distribution system) initially to four buildings located within the Borough: the K-12 School, the Voc-Ed Building, the Municipal Administration Building, and the Public Library. The Borough would begin to reduce our dependence on costly fossil fuels, while employing cleaner, renewable, and locally available resources, through the use of locally available wood biomass. The Haines Borough will contract qualified consultants to perform reconnaissance and feasibility studies, and guide us through the 35% concept design. Replace diesel generation of electricity for the community of Tenakee Springs with renewable hydroelectric power. The City of Tenakee Springs proposes to construct a hydroelectric project on Indian River. This will be a low head, run-of-river plant displacing the use of at least 33,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Design, engineering, and construction will involve the City of Tenakee Springs, multiple state and federal agencies, private contractors, and the Alaska Energy Authority. The City and Borough of Wrangell (City), through Wrangell Municipal Light and Power (WMLP), has established a fuel displacement rate of $.08/KWH for all heat and hot water. There is a possibility of an interruptible rate of $.05/KWH from the Four Dam Pool Power Agency. This special rate is due to Tyee Lake Hydroelectric facilities spilling of excess water (water not used in power production). A feasibility study has been conducted by Electric Power Systems, Inc. to determine what the savings would be per year if the city buildings were converted from diesel fired boilers to electric boilers, develop a rough order magnitude cost estimate (ROM), and provide estimated engineering design fees for replacing the boilers. The study was conducted on 11 public buildings in Wrangell and the study found significant savings to progress this project to the design, permitting and construction phase. WMLP would like funding to convert these 11 public facilities from diesel fired boilers to electric boilers. Directly involved in this project is the City and Borough of Wrangell and Wrangell Municipal Light and Power. This project is a combination of selective reconnaissance, prototype testing, conflict assessment and comprehensive feasibility assessment to establish the feasibility of prospective pilot tidal energy development projects at four sites where Preliminary Permits have been issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The four sites and respective communities served are: Icy Passage Icy Straits, serving the community of Gustavus; Angoon, serving the local Kootznoowoo community; Wrangell Narrows, potentially serving the community of Petersburg; and Central Cook Inlet near Nikiski, potentially supplying the communities in the service area of the Homer Electric Association. Takatz Lake Project – Alaska, a hydroelectric project approximetily 27.7 MW in size capable of producing an average of about 106,900 MWH per year to serve the City of Sitka and other communities in Southeast Alaska as the communities become electrically interconnected. See the attached application to FERC dated June, 2008 for a more detailed description. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a reconnaissance study prior to pursuing a Resource Assessment, Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Juneau and its surrounding communities. The proposed plant project location is at the Juneau Landfill currently owned and operated by Waste Management. The project will principally serve Juneau and those communities that the proposed study shows can be reasonably served. This study will provide the information about present patterns for disposal of municipal solid waste and other types of waste in the general area, logistics considerations, feedstock sources that can be identified and evaluated that would be available to support the proposed plant and such other information that can lead to a feasibility analysis, how such a proposed plant would supplement, integrate into or supplant existing energy resources, potential markets for such a plant and its products, possible site and cost analysis for future studies addressing the preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to meet future grant applications for such a study and project. The proposed plant project will convert the Juneau waste, landfill and sanitary sludge into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Robert Loescher, and Alaska Recycling Energy in conjunction with Juneau City and Borough staff and the Southeast Conference. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. Alaska Recycling Energy, LLC ("ARE") seeks funding to prepare a reconnaissance study prior to pursuing a Resource Assessment, Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design for the development of a state of the art clean waste gasification plant that will generate energy for Ketchikan and the communities of the Southeast Conference. The proposed plant project location must be determined but initial consideration is being given to a site at Ward Cove, site of the old Ketchikan Pulp Mill. The project will serve Ketchikan and those communities that the proposed study shows can be reasonably served. This study will provide the information about present patterns for disposal of municipal solid waste and other types of waste in the general area, logistics considerations, feedstock sources that can be identified and evaluated that would be available to support the proposed plant and such other information that can lead to a feasibility analysis, how such a proposed plant would supplement, integrate into or supplant existing energy resources, potential markets for such a plant and its products, possible site and cost analysis for future studies addressing the preliminary site layout and design, plant sizing and configuration, development plan, construction, start-up and operating costs, by product markets and operating information necessary to prepare and analyze the financial information required to finance the proposed plant and to meet future grant applications for such a study and project. The proposed plant project will convert the waste, landfill and the Ketchikan Pulp Mill superfund site into electricity or fuel. Preparation of the study will involve WFT Management Company, Robert Loescher, Richard Smith and Alaska Recycling Energy in conjunction with Ketchikan City and Borough staff and the Southeast Conference. If needed, additional consultants will be retained. In July 2008, Haines Assisted Living, Inc. (HAL) began construction on a senior assisted living/ residential complex comprising a total of 26,000 SF. Residents of Haines and Southeast Alaska will utilize the senior assisted living and senior affordable housing being built in 2008—2010. The first phase of the project will be completed in the fall of 2009 at a cost of over $4 million. Key to the long term sustainability of the facility is the installation of a Ground Source Heat Pump to extract geothermal energy from the earth and circulate it through a radiant in-floor heating system. The initial feasibility and design has been completed as the follow-up to an extensive energy life-cycle cost analysis performed in 2007and updated in October 2008.The designed system estimate of 210% efficiency will eliminate fossil fuel consumption in favor of renewable geo-thermal heat source and local hydro-electric power and result in significant operational savings for the life of the facility. Haines Assisted Living, Inc., Dan Austin, Project Manager and Jim Rehfeldt, Alaska Energy Engineering LLC are the principals involved in this grant project. McGrath Light and Power (ML &P) is proposing a heat recovery project. Direct beneficiaries of this project include the Iditarod Area School District (IASD) McGrath complex, and three commercial facilities adjacent to the ML&P power plant. Indirect beneficiaries include all ML&P electric customers, as the project will provide increased revenues from the sale of recovered heat, as well as improved electric generating efficiency and reduced operations and maintenance costs. ML&P will be the Grantee under the Renewable Energy Fund. ML&P has teamed up with the engineering firm of Alaska Energy and Engineering, Inc. (AE&E). AE&E has a long history of successful energy related projects throughout Alaska, and has worked with both ML&P and IASD on numerous projects dating back to 1995. Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) proposes to install a biomass heat source for the Yukon-Koyukuk Assisted Living Center, a NAHSDA, Denali Commission, ICDBG, FHLB, and AHFC funded project that will provide a 9 unit housing complex for the elderly of the Yukon Koyukuk Region. The design includes a multi-purpose area, office space, and dormitory-type housing for transient village health care workers. The proposed biomass heating system will take place at Tok School, in Tok, Alaska, and will serve to initiate the beginnings of a systemic regional conversion from fossil heating fuel to clean, renewable biomass heating systems. An outbuilding to house the boilers will be constructed behind the school, in a central location where access to the outbuildings can also be had. The building will have 3 bays for fiber wagons that will to feed into the feeder bin inside the boiler room. The boiler will be able to be fed from the inside or the outside of the building, to accommodate for downtime on the biomass feed systems. The biomass boiler will fed into the current boiler infrastructure, which will serve as a back-up system, and will heat the outbuildings. The project has the advantage of being designed by firms having extensive experience with biomass systems, and is heavily supported by the community. It was written in partnership with the Tok Area Forestry, CTA Engineering, and by Alaska Gateway School District staff. Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) proposes to construct the 2.0 MW Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project (Project) located on Yerrick Creek, approximately 20 miles west of Tok. The Project would off-set diesel generation which presently supplies power to the communities of Tetlin, Tanacross, Dot Lake, and Tok. The Project will consist of a small diversion structure, approximately 15,000 feet of penstock, powerhouse with a single generating unit, tailrace, small substation, and transmission line. The Project operation will be run-of-river; annual generation is expected to be approximately 4,900 MWh/yr (approximately 40% of the interconnected load). The Project will provide clean, renewable electricity, as well as rate stabilization. The cost to maintain a hydro project is also significantly lower than diesel generation. This application supports a wood heating project in McGrath, Alaska. A wood energy supply analysis, and a Level 2 Feasibility (in writing phase) and conceptual design analysis has been completed for a district heating loop for downtown McGrath to include in addition to residences, larger consumers; School District Office Building (offices, Museum, Library), Captain Snow Center, (including Water Treatment Plant, Southcentral Foundation offices and current Health Center, Alaska State Troopers, Washeteria & Showers, District Court, city offices and meeting hall), Post Office, new Health Center, (to be built), DNR Forestry & Wildfire Center, new Tribal Center (Village Council offices and Community Hall), and KSKO Public Radio Station. This Level 2 study has not yet been coordinated with an analysis for a heat recovery project being proposed by ML&P and Alaska Energy and Engineering (AE&E). The biomass project will link and integrate with the heat recovery project in future iterations of design and cost analysis in order to capture the synergies from both to create an optimum design. A side by side analysis of both chip boilers (Köb) and stick fired boilers (Garn) with estimated cost analysis and net simple payback for individual buildings was conducted in the feasibility assessment (calculations attached). The chip fired boilers will require approximately 2000 tons of chips annually modeled at 40% moisture content to displace up to 125,000 gallons of fuel or 98% of oil used in these commercial buildings at a cost of between $28.88 – $36.10/MMBTUs or between $4-$5 on a per gallon equivalent compared to $50.54/MMBTU for fuel oil ($7.00/gal). This project is planned to be conducted in concert with the Village Safe Water project to replace the entire water main system in McGrath in 2009-2011. The integration of these two projects has the potential to produce significant cost savings for installation of piping, the most expensive portion of the project. Both projects have been developed through technical support from Alaska Village Initiatives, and McGrath Light & Power and e-Four Engineering. Principle personnel to date include Bill Wall, PhD, Peter Olsen, Ernie Baumgartner, and Greg Koontz, ME, George Wilson, ME of Village Safe Water. Linkages are planned with Steven J. Stassel, P.E., President AE&E. This application supports a wood heating project in Fort Yukon, Alaska. A wood energy supply analysis, and a feasibility and conceptual design analysis has been completed for a district heating loop for downtown Fort Yukon to include the School, Gym, AC Store, School District Office, Water Plant, Post Office and two stand alone boilers; one at the new CATG Clinic and the other heating the Voc Ed Complex. The three chip fired boilers will require approximately 2000-2500 tons of chips depending on moisture content to displace up to 135,347 gallons of fuel or 90% of oil used in these commercial buildings at a cost of approximately $20/MMBTU ($200/ton) for chips compared to $46.93/MMBTU for fuel oil ($6.50/gal). This project is being conducted in concert but as a separate project with a project funded by Denali Commission, US DOE through an Alaska Village Initiatives earmark, and GZ Corporation to develop a wood harvesting system, wood yard and a wood energy utility to supply and maintain the boilers This proposal seeks to design and make commercially available a system that utilizes renewable energy as an option to the basic rural Alaska electrical power generating system. This is multi part concept that utilizes advanced technology to improve the over-all efficiency of prime power diesel generating systems. The elements of the new system are divided into three separate parts each bringing their own value contribution. They include waste heat recovery, conversion of waste heat using the Organic Rankine Cycle in combination with Controlled Environment Agriculture, and biomass incineration. The project addresses the availability, quality and feasibility of sustainable, economic use of agricultural and forestry biomass in Alaska. The goal of the project is to 1) assimilate all existing information on the total forest and crop biomass available in Alaska into one data base, 2) determine the gaps in the data base and the information needed to fill the gaps, and 3) determine the biological, physical, and economic feasibility of using Alaskan biomass as biofuels. The impetus for the Study is the biomass/coal-to-liquids plant proposed for the Fairbanks area and its need for commercial/industrial-scale volumes of biomass fuel stocks. Work will take place in Fairbanks and Palmer, Alaska. Project_Lat 52.191111 52.93 56.6 55.2 53.886389 64.5 63.87 64.5 64.5 59.78 56.23 59.78 56.3 59.611389 56.33 58.72 58.72 58.97 60.6125 60.55 60.55 61.12 62.57 61.72 62.27 57.788611 57.2 60.78 59.87 59.85 60.78 59.75 60.38 61.53 60.52 61.52 60.7 61.87 66.92 67.08 67.57 66.87 66.9 65.98 66.92 66.9 67.08 61.22 61.32 59.83 63.85 64.75 61.32 61.6 60.488889 64.75 64.03 64.03 60.73 60.93 60.77 60.12 64.57 64.03 63.655489 61.22 61.22 64.03 64.83 61.6 61.3 63.38 61.6 60.77 61.22 60.12 61.6 56.02 56.97 58.4 55.2 58.3 55.333333 59.23 59.55 56.991389 59.45 58.1 55.12 59.23 57.77 56.47 58.4 57.136833 55.33 58.3 55.33 59.23 62.95 64.73 64.75 63.33 63.395278 62.95 66.57 61.22 61.6 58.3 64.83 Project_Location Atka Umnak Island St George Cold Bay, False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, AK Unalaska Nome. AK Unalakleet, AK Nome Nome, AK Pedro Bay, Newhalen/Ilimna, Nondalton, Port Alsworth, Egegik, port Heiden and Pilot Point Chignik bay, Chignik Lagoon and Chignik lake Pedro Bay, Newhalen/Ilimna, Nondalton, Kokhanok and Port Alsworth Chignik Lake Elva Packers Creek in Chignik Lagoon, AK Pike's Ridge site in King Salmon Bristol Bay Snake Mountain Humpback Creek Orca Plant/ Cordova Cordova Near Valdez, AK Chistochina, AK Kenny Lake Gulkana Village Kodiak, AK Old Harbor, AK Bethel, AK Kongiganak, AK Kongiganak Bethel, Ak Quinhagak, AK Mekoryuk, AK Village of Napaimute Toksook Bay, AK Hooper Bay, AK Napaskiak, AK Crooked Creek, AK Upper Kobuk River Valley Ambler, AK Noatak, AK Shungnak, AK Kotzebue Buckland, Deering and Noorvik Upper Kobuk Valley, Alaska - Ambler, Shungnak, Kobuk, Kiana Kotzebue Ambler, AK Anchorage Regional Landfill Eagle River, AK Village of Nikolaevsk, Southern Kenai Peninsula Eva Creek near Ferry, AK North Pole Alaska Regional Landfill / Eagle River Fishhook Creek in Hatcher Pass Moose Pass, AK North Pole Expansion Plant Coal Mine Rd , south of Delta Junction Delta Junction, AK Nikiski on the Kenai Penisula Girdwood, AK Whittier Seward Tanana River by Nenana Delta Junction Denali Education Center Anchorage, AK Anchorage Delta Junction Fairbanks Matanuska-Susitna Borough Redoubt or Spur Jack River Palmer Whittier Anchorage Mt. Alice Harbor Palmer, AK Little Susitna River North Prince of Wales Island Kake - Petersburg Gustavus, AK Prince of Whales Island, AK Juneau's Mendenhall Valley Revillagigedo Island near Ketchikan Haines Yakutat, AK City of Petersburg Skagway City of Hoonah Between Metlakatla and Ketchikan Haines Borough Tenakee Wrangell, AK Icy Passage/Icy Straits near Gustavus,Angoon,Wrangell Narrows, central Cook Inlet Takatz Lake Ketchikan, AK Juneau, AK Ketchikan, AK Haines Mcgrath, Ak Galena Yukon River Tok Yerrick Creek McGrath, AK Fort Yukon, AK Statewide Statewide Juneau, AK Statewide To Be Determined Project_Lon 174.193611 -168.85 -169.53 -162.7 -166.931111 -165.42 -160.78 -165.42 -165.42 -154.1 -158.78 -154.1 -158.4 -159.135556 -158.48 -157 -157 -159.05 -145.682222 -145.75 -145.75 -146.27 -144.67 -144.93 -145.38 -152.435556 -153.3 -161.75 -163.03 -163.13 -161.75 -161.9 -166.18 -158.68 -165.1 -166.08 -161.9 -158.1 -156.87 -157.87 -162.97 -157.15 -162.58 -161.13 -156.87 -162.58 -157.87 -149.88 -149.57 -151.58 -148.97 -147.35 -149.57 -149.1 -149.306389 -147.35 -145.73 -145.73 -151.32 -149.17 -148.68 -149.43 -149.08 -145.73 -148.834642 -149.88 -149.88 -145.73 -147.72 -149.1 -152.25 -148.93 -149.1 -148.68 -149.88 -149.43 -149.1 -132.83 -133.93 -135.73 -132.82 -134.4 -131.53 -135.43 -139.73 -132.731389 -135.3 -135.43 -131.57 -135.43 -135.22 -132.37 -135.73 -134.867833 -131.63 -134.4 -131.63 -135.43 -155.58 -156.93 -155.5 -142.98 -143.55 -155.58 -145.27 -149.88 -149.1 -134.4 -147.72 Project Type Hydro Wind Wind Other Geothermal Wind Wind Transmission Wind Wind Wind Biomass Hydro Hydro Hydro Geothermal Biofuels Wind Hydro Heat Recovery Biomass Hydro Biomass Biomass Biomass Wind Hydro Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Solar Wind Wind Wind Other Biomass Solar Solar Solar Wind Wind Hydro Wind Other Biofuels Hydro Wind Wind Biofuels Biofuels Hydro Hydro Heat Recovery Wind Wind Wind Other Hydro Hydro Ocean/River Biomass Solar Geothermal Biofuels Biomass Biofuels Biofuels Geothermal Hydro Gas Gas Biomass Other Other Hydro Hydro Transmission Transmission Hydro Hydro Geothermal Hydro Biomass Biofuels Hydro Hydro Transmission Transmission Biomass Hydro Other Ocean/River Hydro Biofuels Biofuels Biofuels Geothermal Geothermal Heat Recovery Biomass Hydro Biomass Hydro Biomass Biomass Geothermal Ocean/River Heat Recovery Other Biofuels Heat Recovery Project Phase C C C D R F C D C C D C F D F D F F C D F D F D F F C C D C D C D F C D F C D F C D C D F C D C C C C D C D C D F C C D F R F R C D C C C C D F C C D F C C D C D F R C D C D C D F C D C C F R C D F R C D F C D F C F R F C D F F C D F R F C C C C D F R C C D R C D C C C D D C D F C D R F C D C D F R C D F C D F R F C D F R R R C C C D C C D F C D F C D C D C D C D F C D C D R C Project_Rank_Region Public_Benefit 2.56 94000 484309 96000000 94830 32280 7200000 930000 11423098 122151 0 2000000 15000000 200000 20000000 516000 1578797 0 3000000 1257766 4859211 2000000 367969 5260000 1200000 14152205 1152593 1190571 1075656 2210194 4106500 6837061 7000000 27560000 29000000 12677660 135000 9400 2000000 0 0 0 503500000 0 30000000 30000000 3053154 1634625 52000000 25000000 1850000 20000000 0 32997044 0 4049524 25000 3200000 1000000 19000000 5137439 50000 107326 105500000 12972750 13196325 960000 Rank_Overall Rank_Region Record_Edit 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 4:00:29 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 12:57:44 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 2:37:07 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 1:27:55 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 3:20:12 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 2:09:05 PM 1/9/2009 10:32:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 2:54:37 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 3:49:28 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 1:30:28 PM 1/9/2009 12:56:03 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 1:54:55 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 4:01:57 PM 1/8/2009 11:39:54 AM 1/9/2009 3:39:59 PM 1/9/2009 4:04:55 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 2:39:24 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 4:04:12 PM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/9/2009 11:44:42 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM 1/8/2009 11:22:58 AM S1_Auth_Doc y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y n n y y y y y y n y y y y y n y y y y n y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y n y y y y y n n n n y n y y n n y n y y y y y y y n y y y y y n y y y y n n y y y y y y y y y n y n n S1_Comments Application signed / resolution ok Match offered Application signed / resolution ok Isn't there some history with this community (Nikolski)? Application signed / no resolution found - will need one if grant awarded. Grantee already has a $1,000,000 Alt Eng grant Application signed / resolution ok (draft submitted - need enacted one) Proposal does not specify energy systems to be developed, but does outline reasonable process for identifying systems to be installed. Application signed / resolution ok Unable to determine if this entity has access to the site Match offered is reduction in lease payments and royalty payments? Application signed / resolution ok Application signed / resolution ok Match offered Application signed / resolution ok Application not signed / only one resolution here (should be one from each entity involved in project / Also did not see anything from Nome Joint Utilities about interacting with this project. Application not signed / resolution ok Match offered Could not find where the borough had coordinated with local utilities. Application not signed / resolution ok Match offered Could not find where the borough had coordinated with local utilities. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Pass all three to stage 2 review but if funded recommend consider requiring the 3 applicants to coordinate on study and milestones. This study appears to be expensive. Consider offering less funding. Application not signed / resolution ok Match offered Could not find where the borough had coordinated with local utilities. Application signed. It appears Trident Seafoods owns the site to be improved - is this really eligible? No resolution from the City Council Peter and Jim recommend pass. Letters from city council good enough? Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Pass all three to stage 2 review but if funded recommend consider requiring the 3 applicants to coordinate on study and milestones. Applicant did not provide feasibility and final design documentation to justify proceeding to construction. Application signed, resolution not detailed as specified in the RFA. y Project interacts with No. 55 - Bristol Bay Health Corp Wind project. Application does not provide sufficient documentation and project definition to proceed to construction. Recommend we consider providing feasibility fund for this project in conjunction with Project No. 55. Given scale of these projects, cooperative planning approach is needed between applicants, utilty and community. Application signed / resolution ok Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Pass all three to stage 2 review but if funded recommend consider requiring the 3 applicants to coordinate on study and milestones. No resolution and application not signed If this moves on, will need to get a resolution No resolution found, application not signed Budget and cost work sheets are blank. No reconnaissance level work is demonstrated. Team has inadequate technical background. There appears to no arrangement to handle technical analysis. Application not signed / resolution ok Project interacts with No. 6 - Nushagak regional hydro project. Application does not provide sufficient documentation and project definition to proceed to construction. Recommend we consider providing feasibility fund for this project in conjunction with Project No. 6. Given scale of these projects, cooperative planning approach is needed between applicants, utilty and community. Resolution ok / application not signed Eligible project IF the heat is currenlty being wasted / unable to tell at this time. Application not signed; resolution not specific Possibly eligible project based on 10/8/08 meeting. Resolution ok Discuss during further review. Application signed and resolution not as detailed as specified in the RFA Application not signed / resolution ok Preliminary work funded by a grant from Alt Energy solicitiation. Application not signed and no resolution Would need a resolution if this is recommended for funding Project construction will be delayed if funding limited to feasibility--project size and complexity relatively small, so stage 2 and 3 review should consider recommending full funding upon achieving milestones. CE2 report appears to provide recon/feasibility data. Applicaiton not signed? Resolution ok Application signed / resolution ok Received funding from the Alt Eng for this project ($1 Million) Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Need to review hard copy Note that proposal was not available for stage 1 review. However, we are passing the proposal to stage 2 provisionally, since it is likely a follow-up of the earlier DC/AEA AE RFP proposal. PM should make initial assessment that stage 1 criteria 4-6 are fulfilled, and if in question pass back to Peter and Jim for full stage 1 review. Application signed / no resolution - will need to get resolution if grant awarded; or use resolution with App #107 Application signed / resolution names Kongiganak (?) Application signed / resolution submitted names another project (Delta) If grant awarded, will need a resolution The Utility has not yet agreed to support integration of large wind power development into their network. Arrangements for interconnection, land access for the project, tariff, and permitting are not in place. Therefore recommend PM consider funding to feasibility. Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Electronic version of grant app is for Toksook Bay. Refer to paper. Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Application signed / resolution ok Battery Storage System - eligible project? Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Application signed / no resolution Application signed / no resolution - if grant awarded, will need to get a resolution Applicant requests AEA assistance. Recommend PM consider funding for resource assessment and feasibility assistance; Consider AEA assuming role of project manager. PM to set budget for recon/feasibility. Applicaiton not signed / resolution signed - uncompatiable format (reviewed hard copy) Proposal did not provide enough description of tasks, milestones, and deliverables. Proposers appear to have excellent skills and interests in community system operation, but appear not to have sufficient energy resource/systems assessment skills. Application signed / resolution ok Match offered Appears that adequate reconnaissance work has been accomplished to justify funding to completion of feasibility/concept design. Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA This project's feasibility interacts with feasibility of the app#74, Kobuk River hydro feasibility. Recommend consider do not construct until results of Kobuk feas study are available. At that time hydro and PV should be considered together in an IRP. Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA No information availalbe on line No electronic version of this app. Assume same proposal as for Ambler. This project's feasibility interacts with feasibility of the app#74, Kobuk River hydro feasibility. Recommend consider do not construct until results of Kobuk feas study are available. At that time hydro and PV should be considered together in an IRP. Application signed / resolution ok Application presented as a report Report provided in the form of the 'application' Resolutions provided from the Norhtwest Arctic Borough, Deering and Buckland. Did not see one from Noorvik. Project appears to be eligible However, Deering (Ipnatachiaq Elec Co) has a grant from Alt Energy for wind assessment. Suggest project manager confirm wind resource and turbine placement have been established during review. Application signed / resolution not as specfic as detailed in RFA Appliation signed / resolution ok I can't tell if this is an elgible project (battery techonolgy?) Application presented as a report This project appears to be eligible; It involves the direct use of wind energy. Application not signed / resoluiton ok Note app #75 AVEC proposes a 50 kW PV system without batteries. Recommend PM assess feasibility, merits of combined and separate systems. Not clear what wind resource is. Recommend that PM work with wind PM on joint review. Application signed / draft resolution only (Assembly will meet and approve the resolution - I was aware of this) Match offered Application signed / resolution not as specific as defined in RFA Applciation signed / resolution ok Application not signed / resolution ok Did not see power generation going to the public Applicaiton signed / resolution not as detailed as specifed in RFA. Jim: The project team does not include an Alaska based engineer. The proposal requests funds for feasibility, design and construction. Suggest moving forward to Stage 2 for Project Manager Review. Project involves creation of a biomass waste process not yet in existance. Suggest full funding, with first funding to confirm feasibility and complete design, and construction funds on PM approval. Some feasibility information included in proposal. Application signed / resolution ok This applicant does not have approval yet to even use the landfill. MoA - SWS also submitted a similar application. Project looks fine, but is the same as gas owner Munic Anchorage Solid Waste Services proposal #68. Recommend PM coordinate review of the two proposals, but score each separately. Application not signed / resolution ok These folks have grants from the Alternative Energy fund already. Application not signed / resolution not as detailed as specified in RFA Match offered Application signed / resolution ok Project eligible if no waste heat recovery system in place already Application signed / resolution ok Application signed / resolution ok Initially selected for funding by Alt Eng - later rejected by LB&A committee Application signed / didn't find a resolution Is this an eligible project? I don't see how - power for a private facility? Page 16 states that the wind farm would export power less than 5% of the time. This is less than that which is required to meet the definition of IPP. Application not signed / Resolution ok Match offered Multiple energy sources suggested I can't really tell if this is an eligible project? Applicant claims IPP status. Therefore, recommend evaluation of the power producing parts of the proposal and consider the funding of these discrete projects. Do not consider other portions of the project, since they are not within the intent of the program. Recommend PM consider funding up to feasibility stage for the power projects. This is actually a recon study. Application not signed - draft resolution only. City Council needs to act on it 10/10/08. (I was aware of this when Whittier submitted their application - CR and I decided this was ok.) Looked at description at the ftp site. Application not signed / resolution ok Suggest PM review adequacy of existing reconn and feasibility work. Consider partial funding for reconn/feasibility for this grant cycle. Application signed / no resolution No support from Nenana City goverment - local traditional council did offer support. Nothing found from the local utility either. Application signed / resolution ok Application signed (by an Energy Specialist ???) and not a corporate official / resolution ok Application signed / resoluiton ok If the MoA and this company already have a MoU to do this project; why is a grant needed? Recommend DGGS verify potential resource Recommend PM consider partial funding to recon level. Is this an IPP? Project eligible? Resolution is from Don West, sole managing member and the resolution is not signed. Note to PM: No recon study appears available to justify feasibility phase. Possibility of funding only reconnaissance, however, note two competing applications that are based on existing reconn/feasibility reports proposing to construct projects using landfill gas. A grant to another State agency? A project to heat their office? Application not signed (typed in) and no resolution - where would it come from? Jim and Peter: project is eligible. IPP? Project? Resolution is from Don West, sole managing member and the resolution is not signed - nor is the appliation signed. Note to PM: No recon study appears available to justify feasibility phase. Consider possibility of funding only reconnaissance. IPP? Project? Resolution is from Don West, sole managing member and the resolution is not signed / nor is the application signed Note to PM: No recon study appears available to justify feasibility phase. Consider possibility of funding only reconnaissance. IPP? No CD, so no information on line / Will need to review hard copy. Still need to see a resolution Request is for 2 year Phase I study. ($500,000, $200,000, $250,000) In preliminary review, we could not ascertain whether the applicant has legal access to the resource. This should be verified in State 2 evaluation. No resolution and application not signed No budget or cost worksheet was included. Application did not respond to subsections 3.2-4, 3.6 and section 4. Application not signed / Resolution not very specific. Unsure if this is an eligible applicant and whether it is an elgible project. Local support not demonstrated. The project is of a size where the power will flow into the Railbelt Grid and serve other communities; therefore the assertion that it serves a community less than 10,000 appears incorrect. On that basis, Peter/Jim feel the project is ineligible, and should not be further considered. Application not signed / Resolution not very specific. Unsure if this is an eligible applicant and whether it is an elgible project. No indication of local support. The City of Whittier also has submitted a project on their own. The project is of a size where the power will flow into the Railbelt Grid and serve other communities; therefore the assertion that it serves a community less than 10,000 appears incorrect. On that basis, Peter/Jim feel the project is ineligible, and should not be further considered. Does not appear to be an eligible applicant, project eligibility ? and no resolution - application also is not signed. $300,000 to save $9,000???? This project capitalizes logging operation. Initial indications that applicant has minimum capabilities. Further assessment required. No apparent arrangement for MOA to buy heat or log forest. Applicant doesn't appear eligible / project doesn't appear eligible Application is not signed / no resolution Application signed / resolution ok Can't really tell if this is an eligible project? Peter and Jim: Project is natural gas -fired in a grid serving more than 10,000 people that has viable renewable energy resources. Not eligible. CBM assessment best done in context of Alaska Energy Inventory project. Application signed / no resolution Project benefits a private lodge near Hatcher Pass Peter, Jim reviewed paper submittal - Applicant did not identify how much power would be donated to state facility (i.e. >50%?), so eligibility as IPP in question. Not clear to us whether or not state facility satisfies "public". Applicant does not supply feasibility documentation, although they say both recon and feas studies are complete. Resolution is not specific as detailed in the RFA / Application signed Is this a real utility? application signed / resolution not as specific as detailed in the RFA Application not signed / Resolution of comunity support demonstrated (City of Gustavus resolution 2008-12) Application signed / resolution ok Application not signed / resolution ok Application signed / resolution ok Note supply of hydro to Ktn is in addition to Mahoney, Metlakatla, Tyee, Ruth L, ... Planning required. We discussed this one in our meetings and made the decision to accept the application. Application not signed / Resolution also not signed or evidence that it was acted on. Will need to get resolution if recommended for funding Match offered Application signed / no resolution found (letter of committment only). Will need resolution if grant awarded Although applicant references recon level work, no feasibility analysis appears to have been done. Issues that should be addressed include technical risk since biopower unit is precommercial, and availability/delivered cost of wood fuel. These items should be assessed in stage 2 review. Suggest this project be funded only for feasibility. Application signed / resolution ok Same consultant as for the Ketchikan project. Good description; ask for clarification on the date under section 2.1 of the grant application that Petersburg would seek a FERC application for preliminary permit. App says 2/1/2008; date has passed; what is correct date. Application signed / Resolution ok. Appears this will be a legitimate IPP if the project were completed as proposed. Is this a real utility? appliation signed, resolution ok; but not as detailed as specified in the RFA Resolution and application signed Application signed / Resolution not as detailed as specified in RFA / It appears this project is eligible. Application not signed / no resolution found This is a simple effective project that may have sufficient definition to allow for funding though construction. Suggest requirement of project manager approval before beginning construction, to assure regulatory compliance and adequate design. Application signed / no resloution found - will need one if a grant is awarded; but is this an eligible project - converting boilers from diesel to electric? Recommend PM explore the potential use of heat pumps with applicant. Resolutions from Angoon and Gustavus (draft) and the companies involved. Eligible project? Project is selective recon, prototype testing, conflict analysis and detailed feasibility for 4 sites, Icy Straits, Angoon, Wrangell Narrows, and Central Cook Inlet. Application signed / Resolution ok Application not signed / resolution ok No local support found, access to the site??? Note to PM: Project is very expensive and project is not well enough defined for feasibility or construction. Consider partial funding to accomplish reconnaissance. Is this an IPP? Project eligible? Resolution is from Don West, sole managing member and the resolution is not signed. This passes Stage 1. Recommend PM review as high level review raises concerns that travel and perdiem are hgh and labor budget is low. Overall cost for recon appears high. Is this an IPP? Project eligible? Resolution is from Don West, sole managing member and the resolution is not signed. This passes stage 1; recommend PM review project budget, as high level review raises concerns that travel and per diem budget are high and labor budgets are low, and overall cost for reconnaissance appears high. Haines Assisted Living, Inc. is not eligible; not an IPP or any of the other 3 choices. Further, applicaion modified to appear as an eligible applicant. (See page 2 of the application; changes made to IPP definition.) Application signed / resolution ok Project eligibile as heat is currently being wasted per application. Application signed / resolution incomplete Application not signed / resolution ok Application signed / resolution ok Match offered Resolution is not specific as detailed in the RFA / Application signed Application signed / Resolution ok, not detailed as specified. Match offered Application signed / Resolution ok. Before any funding decisions made for this project, need to determine exact amount of all funidng being put towards this project. This project received $808,500 from the Alt Energy solicitation and at least one federal grant. Same consultant prepared this application and the McGrath one. Unsure if this is an eligible project? Also unsure if applicants are eligible (private individuals) Application not signed / no resolution This is in a grey area between statewide assessment and site specific resource assessment that is eary work for a discrete energy project. We pass this through stage one for further consideration by the pm. Applicant appears to be a vendor, wanting to do a project Application not signed / no resolution Project description is not well expressed; concern that the concept is valid. Recommend further review by project manager of level of technical definition and feasibility. There is a duplicate of this application @ #80 Application signed / resolution ok Someone else needs to determine if this an eliglible project (I don't know) This project demonstrates a technology to construct a 10 KW fuel maker, that employs electrical energy from a hydro facility that would otherwise be spilled over a dam, to produce an ammonia fuel, which could then be conveyed to small towns and villages. It is of moderate size and is "a project that generates energy from or involves the direct use of.....hydropower. This fuel is to be used to fire an intercombustion generator that will be interconnected to the Juneau AEL&P network. Application signed / no resolution; but letters of support. Also, budget has indirect costs detailed - not eligible. Project goal is to assess biomass resources, but assessment is not directed to one or more specific projects. Proposal is more closely associated with the Alaska Energy Inventory project. Vendor / no specific project / no resolution No specific application is given. The description of the proposed system is very generic. No particular source or description of recovered heat is provided. The project appears to have a total budget of $28M. Applicants are requesting funding to identify a site, and configure the project to the community. However, the project description on page 7 of the grant application indicates Ormat intends to use the exhaust stream of an existing GE LM2500 gas turbine that is presently in operation "at the project site". Proposers need to better describe the proposed project, as the application appears to be internally inconsistent. S1_Complete y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y n n y n y y y n y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n n S1_Eligible_Applicant y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y n y n n S1_Eligible_Project y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y n n n n n n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y n S1_Evaluator Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter and Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Jim, Peter Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Peter, Jim, Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Crimp Butch, Peter and Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter and Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Peter, Jim, Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, peter, Jim Butch, Peter and Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter and Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch Butch Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch, Peter, Jim Butch Butch, Peter, Jim S1_Follow_Up S1_Min_Tech_Fin_Mgmt y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y S1_OK_Description y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y n n y y y y y n y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n S1_Pass_Fail y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n n n n n n n y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y y y y y y y y n n S2_Comments This project is approximately 45% complete and has received funding support from Deanli Commission through AEA's rural power system upgrade program. Currently the project is halted due to insufficient construction funding. There are no other major barriers to development. While the project did not indicate a particular team, the application describes a process underway with EDA for selection of a design and construction team. AEA recommends full funding with the following conditions before funding is made available: 1) City of Atka provide a revised and detailed project schedule, including outstanding permits, and budget, 2) submit management team resumes for approval by AEA, 3) submit revised final design and cost estimate for AEA approval. This project would result in a medium penetration wind project in a community with very high diesel prices. AEA completed a new power plant in 2006. TDX Power installed a 65 kW wind turbine on behalf of the utility in 2007 using USDA RUS grant and APICDA funding, Currently the turbine is wired to the power plant but not connected. This proposal would provide funding to integrate the turbine into the power system and develop a heat recovery system in the existing power plant and provide for electric boilers in the lodge and school to use excess wind energy. Nikolski is very remote and difficult to access at times due to weather, has a harsh environment, and the proposed wind-diesel system is technically complex. Recommend with condition that prior to AEA providing grant funds, the grantee establish a five-year operation and maintenance contract with an contractor acceptable to AEA that has expertise in this area. This application proposes a 225 kW high penetration wind system that would serve the St. George power system, including a new lodge and fish processing facility to be developed by APICDA. The project would be located on St. George Tanaq Native Corporation land. The City and Corporation have not yet come to formal agreement on using the land, but the application states that there are no problems with site ownership, and the Corporation submitted a support letter for the project. The introduction of a high penetration system into a moderate-sized community that includes remotely controlled dumploads brings along a significant level of complexity. Successful performance will require commitment to providing skilled and timely operation and maintenance. Recommend full funding with the following conditions that must be met before funds are disbursed: 1) AEA approval of final design, 2) the grantee establish a five-year operation and maintenance contract with an contractor acceptable to AEA that has expertise in this area. Proposal requests assistance for recon assessment of alternatives in Cold Bay, False Pass, and Nelson Lagoon. The proposal plans to look at current and tidal potential; these options should only be covered briefly in the study since there is little chance of immediate help from these emerging technologies. Recommend full funding with condition of AEA review and approval of RFP and consultant before AEA disbursement of grant funds. The project file contains correspondence indicating lack of agreement and poor communication between the two critical stakeholders: the City of Unalaska as the certificated utility, and KSLC LLC, the resource owner. See DGGS comment above under DMLW. The fish processors are not partners to this proposal, nor have they endorsed the concept which depends almost completely on their participation. The project budget is too high. Project appears to be championed by outside interests and has not adequately included the local community, government, or power utility. Project not recommended for funding because of lack of communication, support, and coordination among stakeholders. Recommend prior to any state funding that critical stakeholders determine project development approach and leadership in order to ensure state funds benefit residents of the State of Alaska. The 3 MW Newton Peak wind project proposed by local utility Nome Joint Utilities Systems (NJUS) represents substantial additional wind generation capacity for the Nome system. It is consistent with the Nome Regional Energy Assessment findings. It is part of a joint effort to coordinate a bulk purchase of large turbines within the region. The separate 1,170 kW Banner Peak Wind project (proposal #106) has recently been constructed in a different area. NJUS has requested funding for the intertie that connects the Banner Peak project to the Nome system (proposal #47). The three proposals do not indicate coordination between wind projects, and AEA is concerned that this may result in unnecessarily high development, integration, and operation costs. The application states NJUS is preparing a feasibility assessment for the Newton Peak project that will address the quality of the wind energy resource, wind system design and integration into the existing power system, operation and maintenance, land ownership and other development issues. This study should provide valuable information for integrating the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms into the NJUS system. Recommend full funding with the condition that before any funds are disbursed NJUS provide to AEA, and AEA approves, a feasibility assessment and conceptual design that addresses integration of the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms and other developent issues. This project represents substantial additional wind generation capacity that directly integrates into the utility. It is part of a joint effort to coordinate a bulk purchase of large turbines within the region Recommend monitor current power system upgrade and coordinate final integration design. Recommend up to full funding $8,770,080. This project, scheduled for completion in December 08, provides transmission from Banner Wind (proposal #106) to the Nome electrical system. We note there is a separate proposal for larger turbines on Newton Peak #52, consistent with the USDOE/AEA-supported Nome Region Energy Assessment. The three proposals do not indicate coordination between wind projects, and AEA is concerned that this may result in unnecessarily high development, integration, and operation costs. NJUS is preparing a feasibility assessment for the Newton Peak project that will address the quality of the wind energy resource, wind system design and integration into the existing power system, operation and maintenance, land ownership and other development issues. This study should provide valuable information for integrating the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms into the NJUS system. Recommend full funding of up to ____ for expenses incurred after August 20 with the following conditions: 1) before any funds are disbursed NJUS provide to AEA, and AEA approves, a feasibility assessment and conceptual design that addresses integration of the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms and other developent issues, 2) Banner Wind LLC has petitioned RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 3) a power purchase agreement for the Banner Peak project is in place with NJUS prior to release of construction grant funds. Independent power producer Banner Wind LLC has erected 18 Entegrity EW15 turbines providing installed capacity of 1,170 kW. Banner Wind LLC is owned by Bering Straits Native Corporation and Sitnasuak Native Corporation. Nome Joint Utilities System has requested funding for the 2-mile intertie between Banner Wind farm and the Nome power system, completed in December 2008, through a separate proposal (Nome Banner Peak transmission #47). We also note there is a separate proposal for larger turbines on Newton Peak #52, consistent with the USDOE/AEA-supported Nome Region Energy Assessment. The three proposals do not indicate coordination between wind projects, and AEA is concerned that this may result in unnecessarily high development, integration, and operation costs. NJUS is preparing a feasibility assessment for the Newton Peak project that will address the quality of the wind energy resource, wind system design and integration into the existing power system, operation and maintenance, land ownership and other development issues. This study should provide valuable information for integrating the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms into the NJUS system. Recommend full funding of up to ____ for expenses incurred after August 20, 2008 with the following conditions: 1) before any funds are disbursed NJUS provide to AEA, and AEA approves, a feasibility assessment and conceptual design for the Newton Peak project that addresses integration of the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms and other developent issues, 2) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with NJUS prior to release of construction grant funds. Recommend specialized experts to consult in wind-diesel integration work. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Because all three proposals request feasiblity assistance, the proposed wind/hydro integration/transmission budget is too large. Milestones 7 to 13 are final design and permitting activities that should only be undertaken if a decision is made to interconnect the three communities. Recommend that feasbility milestones 1, 3-6 be funded at this time and that the three applicants be required to coordinate on data collection, study and milestones. Recommend. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Recommend this proposed feasibility study be funded up to $207,500 and that the three applicants be required to coordinate on data collection, study and milestones. We note that Trident Seafoods holds the FERC license for the current project and the applicant proposes to negotiate the use of Trident's license to expand the hydro project and generate electricity for the community at large. Recommend that an agreement that ensures access to the resource be signed by City and Trident before expenditure of any grant funds. Applicant did not provide feasibility and final design documentation to justify proceeding to construction. Project would have interacted with No. 55 - Bristol Bay Health Corp Wind project, now withdrawn. Recommend providing feasibility funding for Lk Elva project. Given scale of project and potential interaction with other projects, however, cooperative planning approach is needed between applicants, utilty and community. Recommend partial funding of $300,000 for "comprehensive feasibility assessment and ongoing consultative support" referenced in section 6 of the grant application. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Recommend this proposed feasbility study be funded up to $150,000 and that the three applicants be required to coordinate on data collection, study and milestones. The major weakness of this application is the lack of evidence of a geothermal resource, per the DGGS opinion. For this reason we cannot assess economic feasibility or other benefits. Other aspects, including the proposed team, are impressive and would bode well for a successful project. AEA does not recommend this project for further consideration. Applicant requested proposal be withdrawn. Cordova Electric proposes to relocate and refurbish the existing Humpback Creek hydro project, currently inoperational after a fire and a flood in 2005 and 2006 thus doubling the life of the project and increasing energy output by 60%. 90% design is complete, and there is substantial support from the local Native corporation and fish procesors, cost share by FEMA. FERC has issued or soon will issue a license for the rebuild. Construction schedule indicates completion by end of 2009. Recommend full funding of $5,500,000. Project appears viable but proposer does not provide adequate level of detail on design, cost estimate, ORC equipment and integration, and schedule. Recommend full funding and careful review of final design by AEA project manager prior to release of construction funds. Project appears to be well-conceived and a practical way to use a local energy resource. We are concerned about efficiency of the current residential woodstoves and possible health impacts from increased smoke. We do not recommend funding for processing and distributing the firewood. Recommend funding for only firewood processor equipment and freight as quoted ($147,720). Recommend at lower project cost. Recommend up to full funding for feasibility and design/permitting. Project is low risk and potentially very beneficial. Long term wood supply is reliable and sustainable. However at $839,000 the project is expensive compared to wood heating installations in Tanana and Ionia, so B/C is poor. AEA would manage project per request in proposal. AEA Project manager thinks this project can be built for $500,000. Wood storage may not be required and bulding cost at $150/sf, not $350/sf, is appropriate. Project can be coordinated with Gulkana for economy. Recommended. At lower cost. AEA will manage project. Given relatively small fuel displacement chip-fired system is too expensive. Recommend partial funding for feasibility assessment and final design (tasks 2 and 3) to consider options with higher B/C ratio. Project is low risk and potentially very beneficial. Long term wood supply is reliable and sustainable. However at $898,000 the project is expensive compared to wood heating installations in Tanana and Ionia, so B/C is poor. AEA would manage project per request in proposal. AEA Project manager thinks this project can be built for $500,000. Wood storage may not be required and bulding cost at $150/sf, not $350/sf, is appropriate. Project can be coordinated with Gulkana for economy. Recommended. At lower cost. This application proposes to expand the planned Pillar Mt. windfarm from 1.5 MW to 4.5 MW, thus boosting renewable energy production from the current 80% to 91%, and displacing 1.2 million gallons of diesel per year. The project development team is experienced, and project economics are favorable. Recommend full funding. AEA has already allocated funding of $1 million of RE Fund dollars. Therefore, recommended additional funding is the proposed $9.65 million minus $1 million = $8.65 million. Recommend. There are two entities planning wind energy projects in Bethel: 1) the City of Bethel (# 122) is proposing a 400 kW construction project in addition to a 100 kW project that was approved by the AEA and the Denali Commission in the alternative energy RFP, and 2) Village Wind Power is proposing construction of up to 2 MW (# 67). Additionally AVCP Regional Housing Authority is proposing study of hydro at the Kiseralik and Chikuminuk Rivers in Round 2 of the RE Fund. Therefore, there is a need for a regional integrated resource energy plan in the Bethel area to coordinate when and where energy projects should be developed. This proposal should be considered in the context of an integrated plan to assure proper sizing, timing, and integration of multiple energy projects. Recommend full funding but require interconnection study and power purchase agreement to be finalized prior to releasing funds. This application is for installation of 475 kW of wind turbines in Kwigillingok, upgrades to the existing diesel system, recovered heat at the washeteria, and smart meters and thermal stoves in 20 residences to displace fuel oil with excess wind energy. The project would be located on village corporation land, and the applicant states that, based on discussions with USFWS, FAA, and Corps of Engineers, no further authorizations are needed. The introduction of a high penetration system into a moderate-sized community that includes remotely controlled dumploads at the washeteria and 20 residences as well as a low load diesel component brings along a significant level of complexity. Recommend full funding with the follwing conditions that must be met before funds are disbursed: 1) AEA approval of final design, 2) the grantee establish a five-year operation and maintenance contract with an contractor acceptable to AEA that has expertise in this area. Given the substantial demonstration value of this project AEA will require close monitoring of system performance. This application is for installation of 475 kW of wind turbines in Kwigillingok, upgrades to the existing diesel system, recovered heat at the washeteria, and smart meters and thermal stoves in 20 residences to displace fuel oil with excess wind energy. The project would be located on village corporation land, and the applicant states that, based on discussions with USFWS, FAA, and Corps of Engineers, no further authorizations are needed. The introduction of a high penetration system into a moderate-sized community that includes remotely controlled dumploads at the washeteria and 20 residences as well as a low load diesel component brings along a significant level of complexity. Recommend full funding with the following conditions that must be met before funds are disbursed: 1) AEA approval of final design, 2) the grantee establish a five-year operation and maintenance contract with an contractor acceptable to AEA that has expertise in this area. Given the substantial demonstration value of this project AEA will require close monitoring of system performance. There are two entities planning wind energy projects in Bethel: 1) the City of Bethel (# 122) is proposing a 400 kW construction project in addition to a 100 kW project that was approved by the AEA and the Denali Commission in the alternative energy RFP, and 2) Village Wind Power is proposing construction of up to 2 MW (# 67). Additionally AVCP Regional Housing Authority is proposing study of hydro at the Kiseralik and Chikuminuk Rivers in Round 2 of the RE Fund. Therefore, there is a need for a regional integrated resource energy plan in the Bethel area to coordinate when and where energy projects should be developed. This proposal should be considered in the context of an integrated plan to assure proper sizing, timing, and integration of multiple energy projects. A 2 MW wind project will likely impact system reliability and stability of the existing diesel power system. However there is no allowance in the proposed work plan and budget to integrate the project into the existing network to ensure continued reliability. Without the integration work the viability of the project cannot be assured. On the basis of our integration concerns, AEA recommends not awarding funding for construction. Installed capacity cost is $14,379/kW. Proposal is well thought out and permitting risks appear low because of previous USFWS consultation. Construction budget is detailed and realistic. The project appears to result in high wind penetration, but the proposal does not provide detailed information regarding integration of wind into the existing system. Given a fuel displacement of 29,000 gallons and a project cost of $ 3.5 million, net monetary benefits over the life of the project appear to be less than project cost. Prior to release of construction funding AEA requires the applicant to produce detailed integration documentation and dispatch strategy for the wind-diesel system. Analysis does not account for inverter losses or roundtrip battery storage efficiency. P.10: the project would increase fuel consumption significantly due to 24/7 generation vs the existing 16 hour/day system. A diesel generator and heat recovery system would provide more economic benefit. If funding provided AEA recopmmends that and efficient diesel system with heat recovery be included as part of the project. Proposal is well thought out, and given existing turbines in Toksook, permtting risks are low. Construction budget is detailed and realistic. The project appears to result in high wind penetration, but the proposal does not provide detailed information regarding integration of wind into the existing system. Given a fuel displacement of 11,000 gallons and a project cost of over $1 million, net monetary benefits over the life of the project appear to be less than project cost. As a part of final design AEA requires the applicant to produce detailed integration documentation and dispatch strategy for the wind-diesel system. Applicant proposes to install 200 kW of wind turbine to provide heat. Recommend that applicants consult with the community and power utility to integrate the project into the community energy system. Recommend funding be limited to feasibility analysis that matches heating load profile with resource availability, and develop alternate scenarios. Develop two scenarios--1) interconnected with utility grid, 2) stand alone for water treatment plant only. The City of Napaskiak requested that AEA develop and manage a wind energy project. The application did not include cost estimate and budget, a schedule, or a project description sufficent for evaluation. AEA has proposed to the Denali Commission a conceptual design to be prepared as part of the Rural Power System Upgrade program. A meteorological tower should be installed as soon as possible to provide data on which to base assessment of wind energy feasibility as part of the power system design. Recommend no funding for this project through the RE fund because the project application does not provide suffient information to allow AEA to evaluate the application. However, we recognize that the applicant contacted AEA staff repeatedly requesting technical assistance in assessing wind feasibility and support for filling out the RE Fund RFA application. AEA did not have available staff time to assist the City. AEA will assess staffing priorities in March 2009 for providing met tower and wind energy planning assistance for Napaskaiak and other communities in similar situations. Community wood heating appears to be conomically viable, and the project could result in the development of valuable biomass resource and utilization information. Applicant proposes to install 50 kW of photovoltaic in the existing Ambler power system. Resulting project would be the largest hybrid PV-diesel system in the state. PV system would generate an average of 5 kW and displace ___ gallons per year of diesel. AEA has the following concerns about the system: 1) O&M costs may include panel cleaning, rreplacement of broken panels, electrical component replacement (inverters, controls, relays), snow removal from panels and twice annual panel angle adjustment. They are not zero. During rare periods of peak PV output (50kW) and miminum electrical loads (80kW?) will there be system stability issues? Will the diesel genset efficiency and reliability of the smallest genset (314kW) be adversely affected? O&M costs may include panel cleaning, rreplacement of broken panels, electrical component replacement (inverters, controls, relays), snow removal from panels and twice annual panel angle adjustment. They are not zero. During rare periods of peak PV output (50kW) and miminum electrical loads (80kW?) will there be system stability issues? Will the diesel genset efficiency and reliability of the smallest genset (314kW) be adversely affected? O&M costs may include panel cleaning, rreplacement of broken panels, electrical component replacement (inverters, controls, relays), snow removal from panels and twice annual panel angle adjustment. They are not zero. During rare periods of peak PV output (50kW) and miminum electrical loads (85kW?) will there be system stability issues? Will the diesel genset efficiency and reliability of the smallest genset (202kW) be adversely affected? NOTE: On Jan 9, 2009 scoring was adjusted in light of information from a November 18, 2008 press release on VRB Power Systems' website. The press release revealed that the company was unsuccessful in seeking offers for the merger, sale, refinance or other strategic alternatives for the company. As a result VRB Power Systems has laid-off or given notice terminating most of its employees, and has ceased accepting new orders. AEA was unsuccessful in contacting VRB Power Systems by phone. Based on this information a VRB flow battery will likely not be part of the Kotzebue Wind Farm Expansion Project. Alternate storage and/or integration options will need to be considered. This project is attractive because it will result in a high penetration wind farm in Alaska's first large-scale wind farm. There are two other proposals for wind development in the Nome (52) and Unalakleet (50) utilities that are proposed be developed jointly--e.g. potentially sharing turbine purchase and cranes. Due to the issues with the proposed energy storage system (VRB Flow Battery) and its role in mantaining power quality under increased wind penetration, more assessment and modeling will be required to define system architecture and potential performance. Because of the importance of the project and its relationship to the projects in Unalakleet and Nome, we recommend full funding with the condition that prior to the release of construction funds the applicant must provide for AEA's review and approval detailed final design, detailed construction budget, and detailed integration plans based on emperical load and wind resource data. It is likely that viable projects with proposed energy savings can be completed. Recommend full funding with requirement that prior to disbursement of construction funding applicant submit feasibility and final design documents acceptable to AEA that indicate viable project. NANA has prepared a regional plan for this area, that recommends further work in hydro development for this subregion. The applicants propose detailed hydro assessment work in the area near Ambler, Kobuk, Shungnak, and Kiana. There are no far north utility hydroelectric projects currently in operation in Alaska. Because of this there are risks with hydro development in this region. The economic analysis shows little savings compared to project cost assuming the hydro development serves only local communities. If the project were to serve a large load, such as a mine, project economics would likely improve. Recommend. NOTE: On Jan 9, 2009 scoring was adjusted in light of information from a November 18, 2008 press release on VRB Power Systems' website. The press release revealed that the company was unsuccessful in seeking offers for the merger, sale, refinance or other strategic alternatives for the company. As a result VRB Power Systems has laid-off or given notice terminating most of its employees, and has ceased accepting new orders. AEA was unsuccessful in contacting VRB Power Systems by phone. After reconsidering the project AEA is no longer recommending funding for this project for funding. The following text shows AEA's original comments: [The applicant states that there will be a 15% reduction in diesel peak power which will directly lower the cost of electrical generation while allowing for a higher level of wind penetration. AEA's review suggests limited economic benefits without installing more wind capacity, but there will be significant field demonstration benefits that could facilitate field deployment of the flow battery technology. The applicant's modeling effort, which was based on HOMER, focused on economic dispatch and did not address critical power quality and stability considerations. Both economics and power quality/stability should be addressed under this project. This project is attractive because it demonstrates a promising mass energy storage technology. The application is related to a separate proposal (85) for an identical energy storage system that includes 3MW of wind capacity. NREL prepared a technical review of proposal 85 for AEA. They conclude that the system is technically viable, although "...still in its deployment infancy." We recommend full funding for either this proposal 83 (flow battery only) or proposal 85 (battery and additional wind generation), but not both.] This application proposes a residential-sized system (4.9 kW photovoltaic and 1.8 kW wind) to serve the Ambler City Hall, washeteria, and the water plant. AEA requested, but did not receive, information to support the claimed generation estimate of 25,000 kWh/yr (average 2.9 kW output). Therefore AEA modeled system performance based on AEA's high resolution wind map (wind class 1--"Poor") and a federal solar database via National Renewable Energy Lab's HOMER model. Results indicate a yearly output of 900 kWh for photovoltaic and 1700 kWh from wind based on HOMER modeling--a small fraction of Ambler's 1.3 million kWh/yr electrical load. Given minimum impact on the community energy system and an installed cost that is high relative to the savings and displaced diesel, AEA does not recommend this project for funding. Given overall Muni of Anchorage support and extent of matching funds we expect successful power sales agreement negotiations. Note proposal 93 - Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity requests funding for Alaska Wind Energy LLC to do similar work. While both have technical and economic merit, the application by the owner of the landfill may simplify the project. Under this project the Muni can work with an Alaska Wind or another IPP to develop and operate the project. Additionally the Muni proposes 50% match. We recommend that either proposal 68 or proposal 93 be funded, but not both. . This appears to be a viable hydro resource that will benefit the Railbelt network. At 1 MW, the project's relatively small capacity and energy output will likely not impact regional planning. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with MEA prior to release of construction grant funds. Recommend with conditions. This wind energy project would supply most of its output during the winter months, when load is greatest. Applicant Alaska Wind Energy is a partnership of Cook Inlet Region Inc. and renewable energy developer EnXco Development Corp. The project would be located on CIRI land. The project would tie into the HEA system at the Anchor Point substation. A 10-mile 24.9 kV line would connect the wind turbines to the substation. The final location of the line is not yet established. The line may cross CIRI, Native Village of Ninilchik, Kenai Borough, and State land. The applicant references a number of existing project feasibility analyses, but does not provide the analyses or their content in detail. The application includes a letter of support from local utility Homer Electric. Project risks indicated in the application are the ability to obtain a power purchase agreement with HEA and powerline right-of-way with land owners. By December 2009 the applicant proposes to obtain all permits and rights-of-way, complete all necessary field studies, complete a design-build package, finalize design, and substantially complete construction. Given the uncertainty of obtaining necessary permits and rights-of-way, allocation of construction funding for the project appears premature. Recommend partial funding for Final Design and Permitting with requirements that before the disbursement of grant funds that AEA review and approve feasibility studies. In the application there is no indication that the plan has the approval of RCA. As noted in the application this project will affect not only HEA but other Railbelt utilities. Recommend partial funding for final and design and permitting (phase 3 tasks 1-10 excluding task 11 the downpayment on wind turbines) with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the release of funds applicant is required to submit, and AEA must approve, a detailed plan to obtain RCA regulatory approval of power purchase agreements and certification 2) Because this project involves public funds AEA will require that all power produced by this project be sold to a public utility. Applicant requests feasibility assessment, final design and permitting, and construction funding for a 24 MW wind energy project near Healy. Feasibility work would begin in 2009 and be completed by March 2010. Final design and permitting would be complete by October 2011. Construction would complete by the end of 2012. GVEA has performed substantial onsite wind assessment since 2003 and confidently estimates a capacity factor of 33-36%, indicating a good to excellent resource. Since the project is not fully defined at this point, the proposal does not indicate who owns the land that the project would occupy, but lists a number of public and private landowners in the project vicinity. Permit requirements include USACE wetland and river crossing, FAA, Alaska Railroad, and State DNR easements and historical/archaeological approvals. GVEA has studied avian impacts in the area as part of the Northern Intertie. The project area has been identified as a major sandhill crane migration route and will require further study for potential mitigation activities. The proposal is for a major Railbelt energy project that would require substantial study for proper integration and operation. Development should be coordinated with the Railbelt Integrated Resource Plan. Recommend funding for Task 2--Detailed Feasibility, minus the initial wind turbine payment. Recommended amount is $6,770,260 - $3,770,260 (initial wind turbine payment) - $28,000 (grant from Denali Commission/AEA alternative energy RFP for wind interconnection study) = $2,972,000. Since GVEA has committed to a 15% match in Task 2, we recommend 85% of $2,972,000, or $2,526,200. Applicant proposes construction of a 400 kW (net) biomass (wood and paper)-fired combined heat and power plant in the North Pole area. The project would include two 250 UTC Pure Cycle ORC units; a biomass boiler; fuel processing, storage, and handling equipment; cooling pond; controls and grid tie-in. As a small biomass-fired CHP system the project holds considerable value as a demonstration project for rural heat and power production. Note that $1 million of the requsted $2 million has been approved for RE Fund funding already. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with GVEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($2,000,000) minus amount already offered ($1,000,000). The proposer offers a significant match and claims monetary benefits to the Muni of Anchorage; however there is no discussion of power purchase agreement in section 4.4.3 (Power Purchase/Sale) although a 6 cents/kWh is indicated in Section 2.5.5. Primary hurdles for the applicant are the lack of gas purchase agreement, land for project site, and power purchase agreement. Proposal 68-Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity Construction submitted by the Muni requests funding to do similar work. While both proposals have technical and economic merit, the application by the Muni may simplify the project. Under project 68 the Muni could work with Alaska Wind Energy LLC or another IPP to develop and operate the project. We recommend that either proposal 68 or proposal 93 be funded, but not both. AEA considered this project in the Denali Commission / AEA alternative energy RFP, and has offered $553,071 in state grant funds to the projects. This appears to be a viable hydro resource that will benefit the Railbelt network. At 2 MW, the project's relatively small capacity and energy output will likely not impact regional planning. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with MEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($2,242,961) minus amount already offered ($553,071). AEA is providing $100,000 for reconnaisance assessment under the DC/AEA Alternative Energy RFP. Recommend full funding for feasibility and FERC permit preparation with requirement that AEA approve recon study indicating project viability before any AEA funds are expended. This project is ready to go. Mechanical work to be awarded via bid process. Recommend. Applicant will be required to cooperate and share data, including interconnection study analysis and outputs, on a non-confidential basis with the ongoing AEA-sponsored Railbelt Regional Integrated Resource Plan project. Applicant seeks funding for a 2 MW wind energy project in the Delta area. The project, as submitted, would install 20 Northwind 100 kW turbines. In a letter dated November 13, after the submittal deadline, the applicant requested an amendment to the project that would result in substituting 2 Americas Wind Energy 900 kW turbines for eighteen of the Northwind 100 turbines, yielding a reduced cost. Since AEA received the requested amendment after the deadline, the evaluation here is based on the original submittal. AEA will evaluate the amended proposal in Round 2 of the RFA. The applicant has already received $801,500 in RE Fund funding from AEA for installation of NorthWind 100 wind turbines on the proposed site. The applicant's current proposal would bring the total number of NorthWind 100 turbines up to twenty. Based on AEA's high resolution wind map, the wind resource at the proposed location is Class 1 (poor). However the applicant provided 10 months of wind data that indicates a better wind resource. For the purpose of this evaluation, AEA has assumed a Class 3 resource (fair). Recommend partial funding with the following grant conditions: 1) AEA will require confirmation of an acceptable wind resource prior to dispersing funds to the project. 2) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with GVEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($6,269,750) minus amount already offered ($801,500). The applicants request funding for final design and permitting and construction funds for a 15-18 MW wind farm to be located at or near the Tesoro refinery in Nikiski. Because Tesoro is a customer of HEA and, under this proposal, would purchase power from BQ Energy, the only member of applicant Kenai Winds, there appears to be regulatory implications. In the application there is no indication that the plan has the approval of RCA. As noted in the application this project will affect not only HEA but other Railbelt utilities. Recommend partial funding for final and design and permitting (phase 3 tasks 1-10 excluding task 11 the downpayment on wind turbines) with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the release of funds applicant is required to submit, and AEA must approve, a detailed plan to obtain RCA regulatory approval of power purchase agreements and certification 2) Because this project involves public funds AEA will require that all power produced by this project be sold to a public utility. This proposal includes four components: 1) Final design and construction of a natural gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) plant, 2) final design and construction of a thermoelectric generator (TEG) using heat from the CHP plant, 3) final design and construction of a 125 kW microhydro plant at California Cr. and feasibility through construction of microhydro at Virgin Cr., and 4) reconnaissance through construction of wind and solar power generation. We exclude from consideration the combined CHP /TEG facility, since it is fueled by natural gas in an area that has viable renewable energy resources. We exclude the wind and solar plants because the application did provide enough information to evaluate the component of the project. We limit consideration to California Creek microhydro, since this is the only component of the application that is defined in suffient detail for meaningful evaluation. California Cr. hydro appears to be a valid stand-alone project. However, the feasibility analysis does not adequately address interconnection with Chugach Electric, permitting, land use agreements, and resource availability. Recommend partial funding for reconaissance. For economic viability this project will likely need to be interconnected to the Railbelt grid. Recommend project team evaluate technical and regulatory issues associated with interconnection. Recommend. This proposal seeks complete development funding for a hydro resource that, while promising, is currently undefined. The proposal does not include reconaissance-level analysis that would justify further stages of development. However the rough assessment provided is sufficient to justify funding reconnaissance level assessment. Recommend partial funding for reconnaissance study (task 1). The project team is excellent. The cost of the ORPC turbine ($1m) seems excessive. Reduce the recommended funding amount? The primary benefit of this project to the State of Alaska is the demonstration and testing of a technology with significant potential in rural Alaska. Project costs appear excessive. At $975,000, (p13) cost of generating unit is of concern especially in regard to eventual technology commercialization. Funding should exclude this cost however provide an allowance of $80,000 for the power generation unit. This project is linked to a previously funded renovation and energy upgrade of the Delta HS that includes the heating system and the external thermal envelop. Together the projects will result in the development of a fully fuctional, energy efficient facility that uses local sources of renewable energy. There is substantial accessible biomass wood supply in the upper Tanana from sawmills, two pellet mills in development, and state-owned forest land. Tok Umbrella Corp received a grant for a whole tree chipper which can potentially be used to supply fuel for this project. Recommend. The economics are not compelling. In order to minimize risk of scalding and provide adequate energy storage this project will have to include significant O&M and controls costs. Currently GVEA is working on a feasibility analysis, not yet complete. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA approve feasibility analysis and conceptual design in progress. The projected costs of this project are greater than the present cost of heating energy in Anchorage (page 16). The applicant's CEO, Magnus Johanneson, resigned as of 11/7/008. See DGGS opinion above--resource is not likely to be available. Concept of piping hot water from the Susitna Valley is questionable. Recommend no funding. This proposal requests substantial funding for proprietary pre-commercial technology. It is one of five very similar proposals that request funding for solid waste-to-energy conversion in Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. The project team has technically competent staff. We have the following concerns about supporting demonstration of the proposed technology: 1) installed and O&M cost estimates are inadequate, 2) little information on what form of energy would be produced and who would buy it, 3) the project manager Mr. West is the managing member of Alaska Recycling Energy, president of WFT Management Company, and advisor to Plasma Waste Recycling (PWR). We are concerned that with these executive duties that he will have adequate time to manage the project. 4) since no evidence is provided that PWR's technology has been demonstrated at either a pilot or commercial scale, technical and environmental risk is substantial. 5) at a $200 million project cost the applicant's project savings of $2 million/yr do not appear to predict an economically viable project., 6) while the applicant indicates informal discussions with the Anchorage Solid Waste Service (SWS), there is no formal support and, in fact, SWS is proposing a different method for recovering energy from the city waste stream. The project has merit in that it demonstrates the use of a local fuel, for which a local producer is willing to sell at $100/ton. However, at $831,203, project is too expensive for relatively small benefit. This proposal requests substantial funding for proprietary pre-commercial technology. It is one of five very similar proposals that request funding for solid waste-to-energy conversion in Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. The project team has technically competent staff. We have the following concerns about supporting demonstration of the proposed technology: 1) installed and O&M cost estimates are inadequate, 2) little information on what form of energy would be produced and who would buy it, 3) the project manager Mr. West is the managing member of Alaska Recycling Energy, president of WFT Management Company, and advisor to Plasman Waste Recycling (PWR). We are concerned that with these executive duties that he will have adequate time to manage the project. 4) since no evidence is provided that PWR's technology has been demonstrated at either a pilot or commercial scale, technical and environmental risk is substantial. 5) at a $100 million project cost the applicant's project savings of $1.5 million/yr do not appear to predict an economically viable project. This proposal requests substantial funding for proprietary pre-commercial technology. It is one of five very similar proposals that request funding for solid waste-to-energy conversion in Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. The project team has technically competent staff. We have the following concerns about supporting demonstration of the proposed technology: 1) installed and O&M cost estimates are inadequate, 2) little information on what form of energy would be produced and who would buy it, 3) the project manager Mr. West is the managing member of Alaska Recycling Energy, president of WFT Management Company, and advisor to Plasman Waste Recycling (PWR). We are concerned that with these executive duties that he will have adequate time to manage the project. 4) since no evidence is provided that PWR's technology has been demonstrated at either a pilot or commercial scale, technical and environmental risk is substantial. 5) at a $60 million project cost the applicant's project savings of $1million/yr do not appear to predict an economically viable project. Agree with DGGS comments regarding access and the pre-existing rights of Ormat at Mt. Spurr. Applicant has limited background in geology and development of geothermal powerplants. No economic analysis was prepared for this project. Not enough information is available to justify funding. Recommend up to full funding of $3,752,181. This project is structured as an integrated road-intertie project in a 300' right-of-way through USFS land that was previously granted to DOT/PF through federal congressional action. The project will address both the road and intertie in a cost-effective manner. Savings for intertie construction are calculated to be $8 million if projects occur together. The intertie would result in lowering Kake power costs significantly. AEA expects DOT/PF to fully participate in the project. Design documents would be useful in the preparation of a regional integrated resource plan for the southern Southeast network. An integrated resource plan should be prepared before significant construction funding is provided to projects to be interconnected to this network. If the project receives state funds, AEA will require as a grant condition that ratepayers of Kake and its distribution utility IPEC receive generation and transmission rate treatment equal to other distribution utilities on the network. Recommend. Project under construction. Recommend full funding. AEA considered this project in the Denali Commission / AEA alternative energy RFP, and has offered $1.1 million in state and Denali Commission grant funds to the project. In addition the Southeast Conference has received $2 million from the state legislature for this project. This appears to be a viable hydro resource that will benefit the Prince of Wales network especially given recent funding allocated to an extension of the network to the northern portion of the island and load growth in the existing. This hydropower project will apparently be dispatched in conjunction with AP&T's Black Bear Lk and South Fork hydros. The applicants state that the proposed project will only be used after the existing projects are fully dispatched. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant joint venture will be required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with AP&T prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount appropriated, offered, and requested from the state and Denali Commission ($13,600,000) minus amount already offered and appropriated ($3,100,000). Excellent technical analysis and detailed cost info. Recommend full funding for design and permitting. This project would interconnect with an existing power network that serves Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg. There are proposals to expand this network to include Metlakatla and Kake. There are other projects being proposed for this network and potential load increases on the network. There is a need to integrate these projects. On this basis we recommend approval of the proposal to assist the integration process. Design documents would be useful in the preparation of a regional integrated resource plan for the southern Southeast network. An integrated resource plan should be prepared before significant construction funding is provided to projects to be interconnected to this network. If the project receives state funds, AEA will require as a grant condition that ratepayers of all connected utilities receive equal generation and transmission rate treatment. Good demonstration project for southeast Alaska. Recommend. Technology demonstration appears valuable, however the demonstration project is not defined well enough to assure that the construciton project will be successful. Reconnaisance and feasibility work is not finalized and incomplete. There is no evidence of a technology review and selection process. There is no detailed assessment of delivered biomass fuel cost and long-term availability. There is no detailed budget for equipment and contractual. Because the concept appears promising, recommend partial funding for design, NEPA permitting, and resource selection. Prior to granting any funds, the applicants will be required to submit a detailed budget for these activities. This project would serve the Southeast Alaska Power Authority (SEAPA) area. Note that SEAPA is projected to come into existence in early 2009 in restructuring the Four Dam Pool PA. A private company, Cascade Creek LLC, currently holds a preliminary permit on this project from FERC that expires on 1/31/09. [ref FERC webpage status of preliminary permits]. The applicant proposes to file a preliminary permit on 2/1/09. This project would interconnect with an existing power network that serves Ketchikan, Wrangell and Petersburg. There are proposals to expand this network to include Metlakatla and Kake. There are other projects being proposed for this network and potential load increases on the network. There is a need to integrate these projects. On this basis we recommend approval of the proposal to assist the integration process. Design documents would be useful in the preparation of a regional integrated resource plan for the southern Southeast network. An integrated resource plan should be prepared before significant construction funding is provided to projects to be interconnected to this network. If the project receives state funds, AEA will require as a grant condition that ratepayers of all connected utilities receive equal generation and transmission rate treatment. Recommend. Recommend for full funding. This project would result in significant savings to the Hoonah ratepayer but the project has a very high capital cost. According to the brief economic analysis completed as part of AEA review, the project has a benefit to cost ratio over 1 if it is assumed that hydropower is available from the Alaska Electric Light and Power system. The estimated capital cost has risen from $37 million to over $40 million. Other factors that might influence economics are decreased availability of potentially recoverable heat in Hoonah if diesel generation is curtailed, and the existence of other potentially viable hydro and geothermal projects in the Hoonah area. If the project receives state funds, AEA will require as a grant condition that Hoonah residents receive rate treatment equal to Juneau residents. If the intertie connects to Hoonah, the Two-County Rule introduces considerable uncertainty in the tax-exempt status of the Snettisham Hydro project, the main generation source for the Juneau area. AEA understands that, although there have been attempts to resolve the issue, at present there is no resolution. Therefore, the continuing uncertainty of the intertie on the Snettisham project’s tax exempt financing is considered in AEA’s review of this proposal. AEA does not recommend that this project be funded because: 1) the high capital cost of the project, 2) continuing uncertainty of the impact of the project on Snettisham financing, and 3) the existence of other potentially viable hydro and geothermal projects in the Hoonah area. This project would follow an existing road and require a short submarine cable to interconnect the hydro resources of Metlakatla with the Ketchikan electric system. With the completion of the Swan-Tyee intertie this would extend the southern Southeast electical network to Metlakatla. This project is one of a number of transmission and generation projects that would interconnect with the existing network. Because the Swan-Tyee intertie is expected to go into operation in late 2009, substantial excess Tyee hydro power will be available to Ketchikan. Therefore the Metlakatla-Ketchikan intertie may not be needed in the near term. Permitting and design documents would be useful in the preparation of a regional integrated resource plan for the southern Southeast network. However, an integrated resource plan should be prepared before significant construction funding is provided to projects to be interconnected to this network. If the project receives state funds, AEA will require as a grant condition that ratepayers of all connected utilities receive equal generation and transmission rate treatment. Recommend partial funding for design and permitting (tasks 1-3). Project as presented in the application appears uneconomic. Expect alternate configurations that have a better benefit to cost ratio, will be considered in the feasibility work covered under this funding. The City of Tenakee has received funding for assessing feasibility of this project under the DC/AEA alternative energy grant program. Recently AEA has learned there is potential for a regional power solution that would interconnect Tenakee, Hoonah, and Pelican. It would allow hydro (and possibly geothermal) resources to be shared. This proposal, while well-conceived from the standpoint of serving only Tenakee, may not be optimal for a regional solution. AEA does not recommend funding for this proposal. AEA will work with Southeast Conference and other stakeholders to move toward a regional power solution. Concern that widespread use of resistance heating will exhaust available hydro capacity and energy. However we recognize value of this project for demonstration. Therefore, recommend full funding with the following provisions: 1) Prior to final design analyze relative merits of heat pump vs resistance heating design concepts, 2) Make results available in near future for regional integrated resource plan. The proposal is detailed and there is significant interest in tidal energy development for Alaska. However, Gustavus will have hydro by 2009, Wrangell already has hydro, Angoon has an undeveloped hydro resource with the potential to provide excess and baseload power, and Nikiski has relatively cheap railbelt grid power as well as other alternatives (wind and hydro) that are commercial technologies. Although this is a demonstration project, the sites selected are less than optimal. The recon portion of the project could be useful for gathering energy planning data. Not recommended for funding. CB of Sitka requests funding for assessing feasibility of potential 28 MW Takatz Lake hydro project. Project is consistent with findings of the 2008 Sitka Power Supply Plan and would follow less expensive alternatives, including increasing capacity of the existing Blue Lk Hydro project, in order to avoid more costly diesel generation. There is potential for developing road and marine facilities associated with the project that would provide access to eastern Baranof Island. FERC has issued a preliminary permit to Sitka to assess feasibility of Takatz. Given the widespread interest in linking major electric generation and loads in Southeast, development of Takatz should be coordinated with the SE Alaska Regional Energy Plan. Recommend. This proposal requests $20.5 million for construction of a plant that would convert 33,000 dry tons/yr of sawmill waste into 1.63 million gallons/yr of liquid fuel and 33,600 MWh/yr of power. Although the proposal references recon, feasibility, and final design as development stages, it lumps the development stages together and does not provide individual timelines or budgets for development stages. Thus it is not possible to recommend funding for any intermediate stages. We have the following concerns regarding the application: 1) No evidence of experience in projects similar to the one proposed, 2) No demonstration of local support or interest in the developing the project or purchasing fuel and power from the project, 3) Little documentation of feedstock availability and delivered cost, 4) Overly optimistic timeline for preconstruction activities, 5) No examples of facilities that the team has developed that use the proprietary fuel and power production processes. Recommend no funding. This proposal requests substantial funding for reconnaisance work in assessing application of proprietary pre-commercial technology. It is one of five very similar proposals that request funding for solid waste-to-energy conversion in Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. The project team has technically competent staff. We have the following concerns about supporting demonstration of the proposed technology: 1) installed and O&M cost estimates are inadequate, 2) little information on what form of energy would be produced and who would buy it, 3) since no evidence is provided that PWR's technology has been demonstrated at either a pilot or commercial scale, technical and environmental risk is substantial. 4) the proposal does not tie-in with the ongoing Juneau Solid Waste Management Strategy and would likely duplicate existing efforts., 5) the budget of $25,500 for travel, meals, and Per Diem appears excessive, 6) the remaining budget of $64,500 for contractual services is unspecified and no technical consultant is identified. This proposal requests substantial funding for reconnaisance work in assessing application of proprietary pre-commercial technology. It is one of five very similar proposals that request funding for solid waste-to-energy conversion in Anchorage, Palmer, Fairbanks, Juneau, and Ketchikan. The project team has technically competent staff. We have the following concerns about supporting demonstration of the proposed technology: 1) installed and O&M cost estimates are inadequate, 2) little information on what form of energy would be produced and who would buy it, 3) since no evidence is provided that PWR's technology has been demonstrated at either a pilot or commercial scale, technical and environmental risk is substantial. 4) the budget of $35,220 for travel, meals, and Per Diem appears excessive, 5) the remaining budget of $65,400 for contractual services is unspecified and no technical consultant is identified. Proposal includes a new 456 kW genset in addition to the exhaust and jacket water heat recovery system. Recommend partial funding for the complete heat recovery system development, but excluding the genset and associated freight. The genset is not considered an element of the "waste heat recovery" system eligible for funding under the RE Fund legislation. Proposal number 30 requests funding for development of a community wood heating system that would likely interact with this proposal. Proposal 30 refers to integration with a water project with Village Safe Water and refers to future coordination with this project. We note there are different engineering teams supporting the two projects. On this basis we require coordination of design of both projects. Recommend. The short-term economics of this project are moderately beneficial, however its primary value is as a pilot project to prove the technical feasibility of this technology. The technology is just recently migrating into the commercial realm and has significant potential in rural Alaska. The applicant team has proven its competence in the 2008 season. Recommend full funding. There is substantial accessible biomass wood supply in the upper Tanana from sawmills, two pellet mills in development, and state-owned forest land. Tok Umbrella Corp received a grant for a whole tree chipper which can potentially be used to supply fuel for this project. Recommend. The powerhouse, access road, and a portion of the penstock would be located on Tanacross Inc. land. AEA contact with village corp president Bob Brean indicates potential controversy. Feasibility analysis funded through DC/AEA Alt Energy RFP is pending. AP&T has $1.675 million from USDA Rural Utilities Service for the project. Recommend no funding at this time. Following completion of design and permitting, including resolution of land use authorizations with Tanacross Inc., AP&T can apply to the RE Fund for construction funding. Application refers to a feasibility study that has not been finalized. This is a community wood heating system that combines wood harvest and transport, combustion, district heating and energy sales. The project will likely interact with proposal number 61-McGrath (diesel) heat recovery, but is expensive and appears uneconomic as proposed. Since this is a large project with considerable risk and uncertainty, it should be developed in a stepwise manner with stakeholder input. AEA and MP&L jointly defined a diesel heat recovery and wood heated district heating system project in 2001 that appeared economically viable. We recommend granting $225,000 to MP&L for feasibility and final design (milestones 1-8) in conjunction with proposal 61. If the project is favorable, then ML&P can request construction funding from the RE Fund during round 3. Recommend at lower funding level. The proposal is somewhat unclear as to who will manage the project. Sec 3.1 applicant states "A construction manager will be hired through AEA..." We assume that the applicant will manage the project. This project was configured using stick-fired combustors under the application received by AEA and the Denali Commission. Chip-fired systems proposed are more complex and costly. We question whether they are appropriate for a remote community. Application refers to a feasibility study that has not been finalized. This is a community wood heating system that combines wood harvest and transport, combustion, district heating and energy sales. Since this is a large project with considerable risk and uncertainty, it should be developed in a stepwise manner. Economics appear favorable, and there has been considerable federal investment in the project (DC and USDOE). Recommend funding to final design and permitting (stages 1-8) only because applicant has not yet established final design concept. Recommend at lower funding level. How will seasonal fluctuations in flowrates be estimated? Excellent use of university resources. Good training for Alaskan students in alternative energy technologies that may be deployed in Alaska. High velocity currents can be very site-specific. How will the team determine where onsite to measure currents? How will the sites be chosen? Following detailed review by project manager, we conclude that the project is not adequately defined. The proposer would investigate ways to utilize heat recovered from diesel generation or biomass combustion. The stated goal of this project is to prove concepts that have been already been demonstrated. Introducing the uncertainty and risk of a pre-commercial ammonia production process (SSAS) does not benefit the primary goal of this proposal, which is to demonstrate ammonia production from a renewable energy resource in Alaska. Should this effort be prefaced by a paper study on the economics and feasibility of the concept? S2_Criteria_Total_Score 46 38.6666666666667 40.6666666666667 27.3333333333333 29 41 38.9166666666667 37.0833333333333 32 39.3333333333333 33.3333333333333 32 45.6666666666667 27.3333333333333 44.3333333333333 16 47.6666666666667 44 39 48.3333333333333 38.3333333333333 35.3333333333333 36 46.6666666666667 38 39.6666666666667 38.3333333333333 37.3333333333333 33 33.6666666666667 35 19.6666666666667 35 27 20 32.3333333333333 30 30 30 36 34.3333333333333 24.6666666666667 21.6666666666667 19 48 47.6666666666667 40 43 38 43 44 41.6666666666667 35.6666666666667 41 31.6666666666667 33 28.3333333333333 28.3333333333333 34 34.3333333333333 39.3333333333333 24 15 20.3333333333333 24.6666666666667 21 20.3333333333333 5.33333333333333 47.6666666666667 33.6666666666667 50 45 46 49.3333333333333 47.3333333333333 31.6666666666667 47.3333333333333 37.3333333333333 29.3333333333333 46.6666666666667 36 30 44.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 37.6666666666667 17 13.6666666666667 14.3333333333333 46.3333333333333 49 34.6666666666667 39.6666666666667 42 27 31.3333333333333 34.6666666666667 11.6666666666667 34 S2_Criteria_Total_Weight 92 77.3333333333333 81.3333333333333 54.6666666666667 58 82 77.8333333333333 74.1666666666667 64 78.6666666666667 66.6666666666667 64 91.3333333333333 54.6666666666667 88.6666666666667 32 95.3333333333333 88 78 96.6666666666667 76.6666666666667 70.6666666666667 72 93.3333333333333 76 79.3333333333333 76.6666666666667 74.6666666666667 66 67.3333333333333 70 39.3333333333333 70 54 40 64.6666666666667 60 60 60 72 68.6666666666667 49.3333333333333 43.3333333333333 38 96 95.3333333333333 80 86 76 86 88 83.3333333333333 71.3333333333333 82 63.3333333333333 66 56.6666666666667 56.6666666666667 68 68.6666666666667 78.6666666666667 48 30 40.6666666666667 49.3333333333333 42 40.6666666666667 10.6666666666667 95.3333333333333 67.3333333333333 100 90 92 98.6666666666667 94.6666666666667 63.3333333333333 94.6666666666667 74.6666666666667 58.6666666666667 93.3333333333333 72 60 88.6666666666667 30.6666666666667 75.3333333333333 34 27.3333333333333 28.6666666666667 92.6666666666667 98 69.3333333333333 79.3333333333333 84 54 62.6666666666667 69.3333333333333 23.3333333333333 68 S2_Criteria1_Score 9 9 7.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 2.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 7.33333333333333 9 6 9 9 3 8.66666666666667 8 10 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 8.66666666666667 8 8 8 6 9 9.33333333333333 6 9.33333333333333 6.83333333333333 1.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 8 8 8 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6 7.33333333333333 6.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 8 9.66666666666667 6.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 9 8 9 8 8 7 5.66666666666667 7 8 8 9 4.66666666666667 4 5.33333333333333 6.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 1.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 10 10 10 10 10 10 4.66666666666667 10 6.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 9 10 7 8 5.66666666666667 8 2.66666666666667 2.66666666666667 2.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 7 7.33333333333333 8 2.33333333333333 9 S2_Criteria1_Score_Eval1 9 9 7 7 3 9 9 8 9 9 6 9 9 3 10 8 10 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 6 9 9 6 9 6.5 2 10 8 8 8 9 9 3 7 7 9 10 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 8 7 6 6 8 8 10 4 4 6 7 6 6 1 8 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 6 8 9 10 7 6 7 8 3 3 3 9 10 8 9 10 7 8 8 3 9 S2_Criteria1_Score_Eval2 9 9 8 8 2 8 8 8 5 9 6 10 9 3 7 8 10 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 6 9 9 6 9 6 2 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 10 9 8 10 6 9 9 8 9 8 8 7 5 7 8 8 9 5 4 5 7 5 5 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 5 10 6 9 9 10 7 9 6 8 2 3 2 10 9 9 8 9 6 7 8 3 9 S2_Criteria1_Score_Eval3 9 9 7 8 2 9 9 7 8 9 6 8 9 3 9 8 10 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 8 8 8 8 6 9 10 6 10 8 1 9 8 8 8 8 9 8 8 6 10 10 8 10 6 9 9 8 9 8 8 7 6 8 8 8 8 5 4 5 5 5 5 2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 10 7 9 9 10 7 9 4 8 3 2 2 10 9 9 9 9 8 7 8 1 9 S2_Criteria1_Weight 18 18 14.6666666666667 15.3333333333333 4.66666666666667 17.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 14.6666666666667 18 12 18 18 6 17.3333333333333 16 20 18 16 20 20 20 20 20 17.3333333333333 16 16 16 12 18 18.6666666666667 12 18.6666666666667 13.6666666666667 3.33333333333333 18.6666666666667 16 16 16 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 12 14.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 19.3333333333333 19.3333333333333 16 19.3333333333333 12.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 18 16 18 16 16 14 11.3333333333333 14 16 16 18 9.33333333333333 8 10.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 10.6666666666667 10.6666666666667 3.33333333333333 18.6666666666667 20 20 20 20 20 20 9.33333333333333 20 12.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 18 20 14 16 11.3333333333333 16 5.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 4.66666666666667 19.3333333333333 18.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 18.6666666666667 14 14.6666666666667 16 4.66666666666667 18 S2_Criteria2_Score 8.66666666666667 8 9.66666666666667 8 5 8.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 6.41666666666667 6.66666666666667 7 6 7 8 6.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 6.66666666666667 10 7.33333333333333 8 9.33333333333333 10 10 8.66666666666667 10 8 8 7 7 6 9 10 6 10 6.66666666666667 1 9.33333333333333 9 9 9 8.66666666666667 8.33333333333333 7 8.33333333333333 6.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 9 6 8.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 7 7.66666666666667 6.66666666666667 5 9.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 10 8 6 6 6.33333333333333 6 6 1 10 8 10 10 9 10 9 5.33333333333333 10 7 9 9 10 7 9.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 3 2.66666666666667 4 10 10 8.33333333333333 9 9.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 7 7.66666666666667 5 8.66666666666667 S2_Criteria2_Score_Eval1 8 8 9 8 7 9 9 9.25 9 7 6 7 8 7 9 6 10 7 9 9 10 10 9 10 9 8 7 7 6 9 10 6 10 6 1 10 10 10 10 9 9 5 8 6 8 10 10 9 6 8 10 10 8 7 8 7 4 8 10 9 10 8 6 6 8 6 6 1 10 8 10 10 9 10 9 6 10 5 9 9 10 7 10 6 10 3 4 5 10 10 8 9 10 8 7 8 4 8 S2_Criteria2_Score_Eval2 9 8 10 8 4 8 8 5 4 7 6 8 8 6 8 7 10 7 8 9 10 10 8 10 7 8 7 7 6 9 10 6 10 6 1 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 9 7 9 9 10 9 6 9 8 9 9 7 8 6 7 10 8 8 10 8 6 7 6 7 7 2 10 8 10 10 9 10 9 5 10 8 9 9 10 7 9 4 9 3 2 4 10 10 9 9 9 7 7 8 5 9 S2_Criteria2_Score_Eval3 9 8 10 8 4 9 9 5 7 7 6 6 8 6 9 7 10 8 7 10 10 10 9 10 8 8 7 7 6 9 10 6 10 8 1 9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 9 10 8 9 6 9 10 10 9 7 7 7 4 10 8 9 10 8 6 5 5 5 5 0 10 8 10 10 9 10 9 5 10 8 9 9 10 7 10 4 10 3 2 3 10 10 8 9 9 7 7 7 6 9 S2_Criteria2_Weight 17.3333333333333 16 19.3333333333333 16 10 17.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 12.8333333333333 13.3333333333333 14 12 14 16 12.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 13.3333333333333 20 14.6666666666667 16 18.6666666666667 20 20 17.3333333333333 20 16 16 14 14 12 18 20 12 20 13.3333333333333 2 18.6666666666667 18 18 18 17.3333333333333 16.6666666666667 14 16.6666666666667 13.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 19.3333333333333 18.6666666666667 18 12 17.3333333333333 18.6666666666667 19.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 14 15.3333333333333 13.3333333333333 10 18.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 20 16 12 12 12.6666666666667 12 12 2 20 16 20 20 18 20 18 10.6666666666667 20 14 18 18 20 14 19.3333333333333 9.33333333333333 19.3333333333333 6 5.33333333333333 8 20 20 16.6666666666667 18 18.6666666666667 14.6666666666667 14 15.3333333333333 10 17.3333333333333 S2_Criteria3_Score 9 6.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 6.66666666666667 9 6.91666666666667 6.33333333333333 4.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6 8 9.33333333333333 2.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 1.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 8 4.66666666666667 10 10 6.33333333333333 9 8.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 8 8 8 4.33333333333333 8 8 5.66666666666667 8 5.83333333333333 6.33333333333333 6.66666666666667 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 5 6.66666666666667 4 1 2.66666666666667 10 10 8.33333333333333 8 8 5.66666666666667 10 6.66666666666667 6 8 6 8.33333333333333 6.66666666666667 3 2.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 6 3 2.66666666666667 8 3.33333333333333 2.66666666666667 1 9 7.66666666666667 10 8.66666666666667 9 10 10 6.33333333333333 9 7.33333333333333 2 10 7 7 10 2 7 3.33333333333333 2 2.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 10 8 10 5 5.33333333333333 5 9 1.66666666666667 7.33333333333333 S2_Criteria3_Score_Eval1 9 7 7 7 8 9 8.75 8 5 8 5 8 9 2 8 1 10 7 6 10 10 7 9 9 9 8 8 8 5 8 8 5 8 5.5 7 7 8 8 8 5 8 3 1 3 10 10 9 8 8 7 10 7 7 8 6 8 7 3 3 8 9 4 4 4 8 4 4 0 7 7 10 8 9 10 10 6 8 6 2 10 7 7 10 2 7 5 2 4 8 10 8 10 7 6 5 9 3 8 S2_Criteria3_Score_Eval2 9 5 8 8 6 9 6 6 5 8 6 8 9 3 8 1 9 8 4 10 10 5 9 8 8 8 8 8 4 8 8 6 8 7 7 5 9 9 9 5 5 3 1 2 10 10 8 8 7 5 10 5 7 8 6 9 7 3 2 7 9 7 3 2 8 4 2 2 10 7 10 9 9 10 10 7 9 8 2 10 7 7 10 2 5 2 2 2 9 10 8 10 4 5 5 9 1 7 S2_Criteria3_Score_Eval3 9 7 8 8 6 9 6 5 3 9 7 8 10 3 10 2 10 9 4 10 10 7 9 8 9 8 8 8 4 8 8 6 8 5 5 8 8 8 8 5 7 6 1 3 10 10 8 8 9 5 10 8 4 8 6 8 6 3 2 8 10 7 2 2 8 2 2 1 10 9 10 9 9 10 10 6 10 8 2 10 7 7 10 2 9 3 2 2 9 10 8 10 4 5 5 9 1 7 S2_Criteria3_Weight 18 12.6666666666667 15.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 13.3333333333333 18 13.8333333333333 12.6666666666667 8.66666666666667 16.6666666666667 12 16 18.6666666666667 5.33333333333333 17.3333333333333 2.66666666666667 19.3333333333333 16 9.33333333333333 20 20 12.6666666666667 18 16.6666666666667 17.3333333333333 16 16 16 8.66666666666667 16 16 11.3333333333333 16 11.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 13.3333333333333 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 10 13.3333333333333 8 2 5.33333333333333 20 20 16.6666666666667 16 16 11.3333333333333 20 13.3333333333333 12 16 12 16.6666666666667 13.3333333333333 6 4.66666666666667 15.3333333333333 18.6666666666667 12 6 5.33333333333333 16 6.66666666666667 5.33333333333333 2 18 15.3333333333333 20 17.3333333333333 18 20 20 12.6666666666667 18 14.6666666666667 4 20 14 14 20 4 14 6.66666666666667 4 5.33333333333333 17.3333333333333 20 16 20 10 10.6666666666667 10 18 3.33333333333333 14.6666666666667 S2_Criteria4_Score 10 10 9 0 10 6 6 9 6 6 7 0 10 9 10 0 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 10 7 8 7 6 9 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 7 3 0 3 0 10 10 6 9 8 10 10 10 10 10 4 6 6 4 10 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 10 5 10 0 4 9 0 5 3 0 0 10 10 0 2 10 0 2 0 0 0 S2_Criteria4_Weight 20 20 18 0 20 12 12 18 12 12 14 0 20 18 20 0 20 20 20 20 0 0 0 20 14 16 14 12 18 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 14 6 0 6 0 20 20 12 18 16 20 20 20 20 20 8 12 12 8 20 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 20 20 20 20 18 20 20 10 20 0 8 18 0 10 6 0 0 20 20 0 4 20 0 4 0 0 0 S2_Criteria5_Score 9.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 7 4 5 8.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 9 8.33333333333333 8 9.33333333333333 6.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 0 8 9.66666666666667 8.33333333333333 9 8.33333333333333 9 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 5.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 2 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 5 7 4.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 7 8 7.66666666666667 2 3.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 8.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 10 5.66666666666667 7.33333333333333 2 8 6 5 5 5 5 10 10 5.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 6.33333333333333 4 6.33333333333333 6.33333333333333 1.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 8 10 6.33333333333333 8 9.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 8.66666666666667 9 5 7.66666666666667 3 8 5 6.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 8 9.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 10 8.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 10 10 2.66666666666667 9 S2_Criteria5_Score_Eval1 10 6 8 2 6 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 8 6 10 0 9 10 8 10 8 9 8 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 9 9 5 7 4 4 4 7 9 5 3 3 9 10 8 7 10 10 7 7 2 9 5 5 3 4 5 10 10 6 2 7 5 7 7 1 10 8 10 6 8 10 9 8 8 5 4 9 9 5 9 3 8 5 7 7 8 10 10 10 10 6 10 10 4 9 S2_Criteria5_Score_Eval2 8 5 6 5 5 8 8 5 5 8 7 7 10 5 5 0 5 9 9 7 7 9 9 7 5 5 8 8 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 7 5 5 5 7 6 8 1 3 10 5 9 8 9 10 5 5 2 5 6 5 7 4 5 10 10 5 2 7 5 7 7 2 8 8 10 5 8 8 7 6 7 5 5 8 9 5 7 3 7 4 7 7 7 9 9 10 5 8 10 10 2 9 S2_Criteria5_Score_Eval3 10 5 7 5 4 9 9 9 9 10 9 8 10 8 10 0 10 10 8 10 10 9 8 9 5 9 8 8 9 9 9 2 9 9 5 7 5 5 5 7 9 10 2 4 10 10 8 7 10 10 5 10 2 10 7 5 5 7 5 10 10 5 2 5 2 5 5 2 10 8 10 8 8 10 9 5 10 10 5 9 9 5 7 3 9 6 5 2 9 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 2 9 S2_Criteria5_Weight 18.6666666666667 10.6666666666667 14 8 10 17.3333333333333 17.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 18 16.6666666666667 16 18.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 0 16 19.3333333333333 16.6666666666667 18 16.6666666666667 18 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 11.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 15.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 4 15.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 10 14 9.33333333333333 9.33333333333333 9.33333333333333 14 16 15.3333333333333 4 6.66666666666667 19.3333333333333 16.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 14.6666666666667 19.3333333333333 20 11.3333333333333 14.6666666666667 4 16 12 10 10 10 10 20 20 10.6666666666667 4 12.6666666666667 8 12.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 3.33333333333333 18.6666666666667 16 20 12.6666666666667 16 18.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 12.6666666666667 16.6666666666667 13.3333333333333 9.33333333333333 17.3333333333333 18 10 15.3333333333333 6 16 10 12.6666666666667 10.6666666666667 16 19.3333333333333 19.3333333333333 20 16.6666666666667 14.6666666666667 20 20 5.33333333333333 18 S2_DGGS_Comments_Feasibility The Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (ADGGS) has reviewed this proposal and recommends against providing funding. The available geological data and regional scientific information, as well as the information provided in this proposal, does not provide sufficient evidence for the existence of a sufficient geothermal resource, nor does it provide sufficient evidence for the potential of such a resource in the project area. If other data exists that provides reasonable evidence of a geothermal resource, ADGGS would be willing to include such new data in the interpretation and re-evaluate the potential for the project’s success. The Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical surveys has reviewed this proposal and recommends against providing funding. The available geological data and regional scientific information, as well as any information provided in this proposal, does not indicate the existence of a geothermal resource, nor a reasonable chance of the existence of a sufficient geothermal resource for the planned project. If non-public information is available that indicates the existence of a geothermal resource, we encourage the proposal writers to include that in a revised proposal. Reject because of no identified method of accessing geothermal resouces It was our understanding that HB 152 does not provide funding for CBM projects unless other alternate forms of energy are not available. Nevertheless, CBM potential at the proposed test site in Palmer is unknown at this time. There is a reasonable chance that methane will be produced, but ultimate permeability and saturation are unknown, and close monitoring with long-term tests will be required to substantiate the existence of a sustainable resource. Component 2 should not be funded until that resource has been identified and proven sustainable. Component 3 of the project description sites that 38 communities were identified by State and Federal agencies has having CBM potential. This list was generated by DGGS, USGS, and BLM in the early 1990s and very general. The authors of this proposal were told in a meeting in Fairbanks with DGGS personnel (October 2008) that the potential in many of these 38 communities has been discounted or significantly reduced. Only very few communities are now thought to maintain reasonable CBM potential and the State is in the process of better quantifying that potential across the state. Based on work already being performed by the state, and the fact the data justifying component 3 of the proposal is outdated and in the process of being replaced, DGGS recommends that component 3 of this proposal not be funded. S2_DGGS_Comments_Geohazards *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment All projects proposing the development of perminent structures should conduct a geotechnical site survey to determine the potential detrimental effects from natural hazards such as flooding, earthquakes, active faults, tsunamis, landslides, volcanoes, liquefaction, subsidence, storm surges, ice movement, snow avalanches, and erosion, and incorporate appropriate measures to mitigate the risks. Projects may be required to perform a geohazards site survey as a condition of recieving construction permits, depending on location of proposed site. *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment *** See General DGGS comment S2_DMLW_Comments_Feasibility Underway The Geothermal resource identified in this proposal is well understood from prior scientific, drilling and geophysical evaluations. It is clearly a viable resource that should be developed if proper commercial terms can be reached between all interested parties. It would not be prudent for the State to spend Public funds on further scientific evaluation of this resource, and such funds would be better utilized in drilling and development. DGGS reccomends this project is not funded in it current form. Project appears viable. The area has a wood supply, including a lot of beetle-killed spruce. Permitted to Trident Seafoods. May be challenge with second applicant. Wood Tikchik State Park- know of strong public opposition. Parks may have a challenge in permitting, but it is recognized as a compatible use. state land The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project; it is a viable medium heat-demand project. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project; it is a small project and easy to accomplish. Being permitted. Possible competetive interest which may make for more challenging permitting. Although this is moving forward and possible, there is a risk that an associated lawsuit about land ownership being given to the University could effect this project. No state permits yet. DNR Division of Forestry is involved with this project. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project and recommended it for construction. Large heat demand makes this a viable project. DNR Division of Forestry is involved with this project, and it is a demonstration project for a state office building. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force recommended this as a demonstration project. They didn't get geothermal bids - Ormat did. Where do they get access to the geothermal resources? Probably major show stopper. Red flag: Should not proceed. Harvesting would be on Municipality of Anchorage land, but proposers have not yet contacted the Muni. Major pitfalls in project. Proposers are high school students, which is impressive -- they deserve encouragement, but not $300,000. Palmer project will require a number of drilling permits and produced fluids permits from AOGCC, DEC and possibly the Div. of Oil & Gas. Underway Underway This is one of 3 projects in same area. Is AEA considering other energy projects that are proposed for same area to evaluate whether it is necessary to do all projects? The Gustavus portion of the project may have certain issues that may effect National Park land and waters, depending on where they place it. Permitting challenges will be high for any project that is in park waters or are seen as directly affecting marine life going into the park. Gustavus just got a hydro project funded (part of another grant proposal) and in construction that may supply all power needs. Beluga whales were just placed on the endangered species list and therefore permitting just became more difficult for the Nikiski portion. This project has good merit but may have some permitting challenges. FERC permitted area to another company. This project was completed without permits and is now in process to get permits. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project. Large heat demand makes this a viable project. The DNR Division of Forestry is involved with this project, which has particularly strong community support. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project. Large heat demand makes this a viable project. Lands for biomass harvesting have not yet been identified. Alder is the proposed biomass source. Proposed boilers are both manual feed which will require commitments of personnel. The Alaska Wood Energy Task Force completed the feasibility study for this project; large heat demand makes it a viable project. The DNR Division of Forestry participated in development of a forest stewardship plan for Native lands around Fort Yukon in support of this project. S2_Economist Emerman Tom Lovas Tom Lovas Robert Logan Linda Snow Northern Economics Northern Economics Northern Economics Tom Lovas Northern Economics Northern Economics Northern Economics Emerman Emerman Emerman Linda Snow Northern Economics Emerman Robert Logan Northern Economics Emerman Robert Logan Northern Economics Northern Economics Tom Lovas Emerman Tom Lovas Northern Economics Tom Lovas Northern Economics Tom Lovas Tom Lovas Linda Snow Tom Lovas Northern Economics Tom Lovas Robert Logan Linda Snow Linda Snow Linda Snow Tom Lovas Tom Lovas Emerman Robert Logan Tom Lovas Robert Logan Emerman Tom Lovas Northern Economics Northern Economics Robert Logan Emerman Emerman Robert Logan Northern Economics Tom Lovas Tom Lovas Robert Logan Emerman Emerman Linda Snow Robert Logan Linda Snow Linda Snow Robert Logan Robert Logan Robert Logan Linda Snow Emerman Tom Lovas Emerman Emerman Linda Snow Emerman Northern Economics Robert Logan Emerman Emerman Tom Lovas Tom Lovas Northern Economics Emerman Emerman Linda Snow Emerman Robert Logan Robert Logan Robert Logan Robert Logan Northern Economics Linda Snow Northern Economics Emerman Northern Economics Northern Economics Linda Snow Robert Logan Linda Snow S2_Evaluator1 Ott Dabo Jensen James Jensen David Lockard Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo Brown Ott Ott Ott David Lockard WITHDRAWN Ott James Jensen Brown Ott Brown Brown Brown Dabo Ott Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo Dabo David Lockard Dabo Dabo Dabo Brown David Lockard David Lockard David Lockard Jensen Dabo Ott Jensen Jensen James Jensen Ott Jensen Jensen Crimp James Jensen Ott Ott Jensen Dabo Jensen Jensen Jensen Ott Ott David Lockard Brown David Lockard David Lockard James Jensen Crimp James Jensen James Jensen David Lockard Ott Ott Ott Ott David Lockard Ott Brown James Jensen Ott Ott Ott Ott Brown Ott Ott David Lockard Ott Jensen James Jensen James Jensen James Jensen Brown David Lockard Brown Ott Brown Crimp David Lockard James Jensen David Lockard S2_Evaluator2 Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Brown Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Brown Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Brown Crimp Crimp Crimp S2_Evaluator3 Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Standberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg S2_Feas_Ben_Ave 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 8 2 7.5 7.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6.83333333333333 7.5 7.66666666666667 4 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 0 9 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 9.5 4.16666666666667 4.5 4.16666666666667 9.16666666666667 6.33333333333333 7.83333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 1 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 5.5 3.5 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 7 5.5 3.83333333333333 2.5 1.66666666666667 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.16666666666667 8.83333333333333 10 7.83333333333333 8.66666666666667 6 9 5 5.5 5.5 4.5 7.5 5 5.5 2.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 3.16666666666667 2 3.16666666666667 3.16666666666667 0.833333333333333 9.66666666666667 4 10 8.16666666666667 9 9.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 4.83333333333333 9.33333333333333 4.5 4.5 8.33333333333333 1.5 6.5 4 3.16666666666667 2.66666666666667 9 9.83333333333333 4.83333333333333 6 9.16666666666667 3.66666666666667 6 5 1.33333333333333 4.5 S2_Feas_Ben_Factor S2_Project_Manager Doug Ott Martina Dabo James Jensen James Jensen David Lockard Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Ron Brown Doug Ott Doug Ott Doug Ott David Lockard Martina Dabo Doug Ott James Jensen Ron Brown Doug Ott Ron Brown Ron Brown Ron Brown Martina Dabo Doug Ott Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo David Lockard Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Martina Dabo Ron Brown David Lockard David Lockard David Lockard Jensen Martina Dabo Doug Ott James Jensen Jensen James Jensen Doug Ott Jensen James Jensen Brown James Jensen Doug Ott Doug Ott James Jensen Martina Dabo Jensen James Jensen James Jensen Doug Ott Doug Ott David Lockard Ron Brown David Lockard David Lockard James Jensen Ron Brown James Jensen James Jensen David Lockard Doug Ott Doug Ott Doug Ott Doug Ott David Lockard Doug Ott Ron Brown James Jensen Doug Ott Doug Ott Jim Strandberg Doug Ott Ron Brown Doug Ott Doug Ott David Lockard Doug Ott Jensen James Jensen James Jensen James Jensen Ron Brown David Lockard Ron Brown Doug Ott Ron Brown Ron Brown David Lockard James Jensen David Lockard S2_Rec_Fund_Tot 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 149709568.3 S3_Comments_Benefits The B/C computation was based upon a 1981 study by the US ACE for a seasonal run-of-river hydro on Cosmos Creek to serve Shungnak/Kobuk. The project capital costs and O&M costs were escalated in 2008 dollars. The applicant B/C was computed without the cost of the replacement energy purchased from AEL&P and included an unsupported additional cost of $4.1M in the base case. AEA added in the cost of the replacement hydro energy and did not include the $4.1M capital cost in computing its B/C. The AEA assumptions are considered to be valid adjustments and therefore the AEA B/C ratio has been used to compute the benefits score in Stage 2. The plan describing the future financing for the construction cost ($40M intertie + $40 M road) has not been identified. The main differences between the AEA and the applicant computed the B/C ratios were the generated kWh versus the sold kWh and the annual O&M costs. AEA used the more conservative assumptions for these items; the Stage 2 score was based upon these assumptions. The B/C ratio was calculated at 6.19 using MIC assumptions that all excess energy from Annette Island would be purchased by Ketchikan. AEA believes this is overly optimistic and chose a more conservative set of assumptions. Based upon Swan-Tyee Intertie in place, providing cheap abundant power to meet KTN needs, AEA computed a B/C ratio of 2.26 based upon a 98% availability of Swan-Tyee power. The 2% outage rate assumption would allow MIC to sell approx. 2 MkWh in annual sales. The AEA B/C was estimated based upon capital costsof $3M from a 1984 US Army Corps study for a 270 kW run-of-river hydro plant escalated to today's dollars at $6.14M. The applicant's capital estimate is $2.4M. Given AEA's experience with the high historical costs of hydro construction, it appears the applicant's estimate of capital costs is low. It is also highly likely the project will require a FERC license which has not been costed out by the applicant. Consequently, the AEA B/C has been used in computing the score. S3_Comments_Benefits Copy S3_Comments_Funding 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 4 for type (other federal grants included) 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered no match offered directly - reduced royalties offered as match 8 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 4 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered (in-kind) 11 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type (in-kind) 11 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type (in-kind) match No match offered 15 points for %, 5 points for amount, & 5 for type of match no match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match 11 for %, 2 for amount, & 5 for type of match 11 for %, 4 for amount and 5 for type of match 15 for, % 5 for amount, and 5 for type of match 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match 15 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match (in-kind) 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 4 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered no match offered; however value of land offered, but no amount was provided. Therefore, minimum given for Amount (1) and % (4) and 5 points given for land as in-kind. No matfch offered 11 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 3 for type of match offered (State grant per call to Harvey Paul, manager Kong Power) 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 3 for type of match offered (State grant per call to William Igkurak, manager Kwig Power) 11 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 points for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type 8 for %, 3 for amount and 5 for type of match offered no match offered no match offered Applicant basically asked for AEA help and to complete a feasibilty study 15 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type (multiple types, but cash is part of the match) 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered This match is not confirmed and partially composed of a $2,000,000 bond which has not yet been issued. Budget worksheet amounts do not match the grant application amounts; application amounts used. 4 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 6 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered Amount of match should be = $586,000 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered no match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered Application and budget worksheet have different amounts. Application amounts used. 15 for %, 4 for amount and 5 for type of match Match of $17,588,400 shown in the application / need to determine if this is for this phase 15 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type 11 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type Match of $6,157,850 documented in the application / need to determine if this applies to this phase 15 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 2 for amount, 5 for type of match offered 13 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered Applicant requested to lower request to $3,450,00 and a match of $2,825,000 to be provided. (Match score changes to 24 with this change - 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered.) 15 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type (land) This amount of match ($7,000,000) is an estimate and not firm at all; at least $6 Million is in future 'donations'. 15 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered (in-kind for part of the match) 15 for %, 5 for amount, and 5 for type 4 for %, 2 for amount, and 1 for type of match offered Match offered is a 'reduced' rate for overhead - this application also budgeted for indirect costs which are not eligilble. no match offered 4 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type 6 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for Type no match offered; however in narrative it dicuss grant administration at no cost, therefore eligible for 1 point as some match was offered no match offered no match offered no match clearly identified for 1st phase 4 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 4 for type of match (other grants) no match offered However, previous investments were counted Grant request is really only $10,500,000 13 for %, 4 for amount, and 4 for type of match offered 13 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match (in-kind) 6 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match 11 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 4 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 6 for %, 3 for amount, and 4 for type of match (federal grant) 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 4 for %, 3 for amount, and 4 for type of match offered (other federal grant) 4 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, 5 for type of match Concern: Application's budget has indirect costs in certain areas / these costs are not eligible Previous investment taken into account 11 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered no match offered no match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type 15 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered (land) Match source(s) were not clearly identified - will need to make sure of this if this becomes a grant 4 for %, 1 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match offered 11 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match 13 for %, 3 for amount, and 5 for type of match 13 for %, 4 for amount, and 5 for type of match no match offered However, the application does discuss a lower rate for certain studies and staff time as a match too 8 for %, 2 for amount, and 5 for type of match no match offered S3_Comments_Support resolution from council 2 letters of support submitted 1 letter of support submittted / a letter from AIPCDA also was submitted; however they also participating in the project, therefore this letter was not counted in the tally for support resolution from AEB known differences between City and grant applicant exist / therefore no points awarded for local support; per matrix 3 letters of support provided 4 letters of support provided resolution from council Numerous letters of support provided Resolution from Borough Assembly resolution from Borough Assembly resolution from Borough Assembly 3 letters of support provided resolution from utility board resolution submitted no local support demonstrated and no resolution noted no local support demonstrated and no resolution included resolution from board 2 letters of support 3 letters of support 3 letters of support submitted resolution from utility board no local support noted Support offered from wood supplier for proposed project Resolution from council Resolution from utility board no local support needed resolution from city no local support demonstrated - however, resolution at #107 says 'Kongiganak' ??? resolution names Kongiganak??? no local support demonstrated resolution from another entity no local support noted resolution from council submitted no local support noted resolution of support referenced in letter from mayor no local support demonstrated resolutions from impacted communities and other entities in the area no local support noted no local support noted no local support noted resolution from utility board resolutions from 3 communities impacted and from the NWAB and NANA no local support noted reolution from NWAB submitted One letter of support and resolution provided resolution from assembly no local support demonstrated letter from KPB Assembly There also was a letter from HEA, but they are particpating in the project, therefore not counted in the tally for local support Resolution from utility no local support demonstrated no local support documented no local support demonstrated board resolution Resolution from board no local support demonstrated no local support demonstrated no local support demonstrated A letter of support was provided from BQ Energy; but this entity is participating in the project one letter of support provided from University, a co-applicant? This is a questionable score. resolution from council no local support demonstrated one letter of support submitted Numerous resolutions and letters of support provided Numerous letters of support provided MOU with Anchorage provided IPP, with no local support demonstrated no local support demonstrated IPP, no local support demonstrated IPP, no local support demonstrated no local support demonstrated 4 letters of support submitted no sprecific board resolution or letters of support found several letters of support submitted City resolution included Numerous letters and resolutions of support provided resolution from assembly resolution from council resolution from council 3 letters of support submitted resolution from council Two letters of support provided Several letters of support submitted from Hoonah businesses letter of support from Ketchikan Public Utilities Two letters of local support provided and a resolution from the borough assembly none found resolution from City resolutioin from one of the impacted communities included Resolution from City & Borough of Sitka no local support provided no local support submitted no local support submitted letter of support submitted no local support demonstrated 3 letters of support provided two letters of support submitted Known differences with another local entity; therefore per the scoring matrix score is zero resolution and two letters of support (local) One letter of local support found 2 letters of support from within the University system (?) no support demonstrated resolution from utility's board S3_Comments_Sustain 1. No obvious obstacles Project organization structure is complex. May be difficult to achieve all project goals. S3_Criteria_Total_Score 60.9 49.8333333333333 53.59375 49.4883333333333 17.29125 51.96125 47.21 48.6279166666667 43.1279166666667 52.3570833333333 51.1708333333333 48.885 39.1708333333333 53.5141666666667 35.94875 29.7858333333333 22.4525 24.8475 61.3120833333333 60.8120833333333 53.1454166666667 52.5725 42.4033333333333 39.5725 28.2391666666667 51.5466666666667 45.0908333333333 49.6316666666667 52.5416666666667 53.4166666666667 45.465 45.0695833333333 45.8595833333333 37.68625 44.6945833333333 24.1179166666667 17.6666666666667 9.68625 55.8720833333333 45 44.465 44.205 47.50625 44.3270833333333 38.5545833333333 46.3395833333333 26.6666666666667 57.19375 52.8604166666667 54.5670833333333 51.16 53.16 52.6145833333333 50.5270833333333 50.73375 48.9933333333333 44.66 47.66 47.9004166666667 43.7154166666667 45.04875 38.9645833333333 35.66 33.16 36.66 xxx 30.61625 21.66 17.66125 17.08875 3.79 17.66 1.69375 1.54875 1.415 1.13125 5 0 60.1916666666667 54.9908333333333 42.58625 52.0595833333333 53.35375 51.9241666666667 49.0441666666667 40.3141666666667 50.7054166666667 50.2108333333333 39.4908333333333 46.5908333333333 46.3775 34.5833333333333 40.38125 35.4558333333333 31.5416666666667 31.2575 16.87875 16.2575 2.8775 57.5975 58.8083333333333 49.8333333333333 55.15625 48.65625 48.2641666666667 48.66125 35 25.3333333333333 25.1870833333333 5 5 Benefit / Cost AEA 4.09 1.19 1.73 0 8.02 2.38 2.06 1.86 1.63 1.71 1.58 0.65 4.4 1.83 3.13 0 4.54 2.33 20.31 4.81 0.45 0.67 0.61 3.89 1.59 1.83 1.13 1.63 3.86 0.83 0.66 1 0.45 1.36 0.57 0.22 0.37 0.26 1.25 0.95 0.01 0.69 0.13 3.54 5.41 1.34 2.68 1.64 3.38 4.13 2.51 3.44 3.58 0.92 1.43 1.47 1 3.29 0.06 0.77 0.44 0 0.084 0 0 0 3.08 0.56 22.06 3.29 5.12 8.26 3.5 1.94 3.97 2.4 1.1 2.26 0.59 0.98 1.91 1.09 0.79 0 0 1.76 2.13 2.62 0.33 0.94 2.76 0.01 1.14 1.12 0 Applicant 5.89 2.81 1.93 0 8.07 1.28 1.13 2.17 1.88 1.45 1.07 0.65 4.4 1.83 3.13 15.8 4.54 2.33 19.92 4.81 0.44 0.67 0.63 4.59 1.59 1.78 1.46 1.35 4.25 0.71 0.71 0.65 0.5 0 1.39 0.49 0.69 0.57 1.57 0.85 0.01 1.78 0.88 3.54 5.41 1.13 1.87 2.45 3.35 4.13 2.95 4.19 2.82 1.17 1.25 1.52 1 3.29 0.26 0.77 0.7 0 0.097 0 0 0 3.08 0.84 22.06 3.29 4.93 8.26 4.23 2.81 3.97 2.4 1.15 6.19 0.59 3.99 1.91 1.09 2.5 0 0 1.84 2.9 1.84 0.82 2.76 0.06 0.92 0 S3_Criteria1_COE 0.552 0.6 0.3675 0.5724 0.5433 0.3169 0.3368 0.3169 0.3169 0.6819 0.627 0.6308 0.627 0.2278 0.5159 0.3562 0.3562 0.2278 0.3183 0.3183 0.3183 0.1658 0.6856 0.1658 0.1658 0.1904 0.4606 0.5972 0.55 0.5 0.5972 0.4989 0.4821 0.7749 0.3889 0.4761 0.6 0.7749 0.6431 0.8259 0.7572 0.7364 0.3605 0.5195 0.6177 0.3605 0.8259 0.1355 0.1355 0.1387 0.2128 0.2128 0.1025 0.1355 0.1387 0.2128 0.2128 0.2128 0.1387 0.1239 0.1239 0.0905 0.2128 0.2128 0.2128 0.1032 0.0893 0.2128 0.1729 0.1271 0.1032 0.2128 0.1355 0.1239 0.1132 0.0905 0.4 0.602 0.6126 0.7669 0.2581 0.1083 0.1006 0.2302 0.5318 0.1231 0.2302 0.6126 0.1006 0.2302 0.54 0.1105 0.4098 0.11 0.1006 0.1103 0.1006 0.2302 0.6078 0.398 0.98 0.4925 0.4925 0.6078 0.4529 0.4 0.4 0.1083 0.4 0.4 S3_Criteria1_Score 6.9 7.5 4.59375 7.155 6.79125 3.96125 4.21 3.96125 3.96125 8.52375 7.8375 7.885 7.8375 2.8475 6.44875 4.4525 4.4525 2.8475 3.97875 3.97875 3.97875 2.0725 8.57 2.0725 2.0725 2.38 5.7575 7.465 6.875 6.25 7.465 6.23625 6.02625 9.68625 4.86125 5.95125 7.5 9.68625 8.03875 10 9.465 9.205 4.50625 6.49375 7.72125 4.50625 10 1.69375 1.69375 1.73375 2.66 2.66 1.28125 1.69375 1.73375 2.66 2.66 2.66 1.73375 1.54875 1.54875 1.13125 2.66 2.66 2.66 1.29 1.11625 2.66 2.16125 1.58875 1.29 2.66 1.69375 1.54875 1.415 1.13125 5 0 7.525 7.6575 9.58625 3.22625 1.35375 1.2575 2.8775 6.6475 1.53875 2.8775 7.6575 1.2575 2.8775 6.75 1.38125 5.1225 1.375 1.2575 1.37875 1.2575 2.8775 7.5975 4.975 10 6.15625 6.15625 7.5975 5.66125 5 5 1.35375 5 5 Stage 3 Review Scores (max) 1. Cost of Energy (30) 20.7 22.5 13.78125 21.465 20.37375 11.88375 12.63 11.88375 11.88375 25.57125 23.5125 23.655 23.5125 8.5425 19.34625 13.3575 11.93625 11.93625 11.93625 6.2175 25.71 6.2175 6.2175 7.14 17.2725 22.395 20.625 18.75 22.395 18.70875 18.07875 29.05875 14.58375 17.85375 22.5 24.11625 30 28.395 27.615 13.51875 19.48125 23.16375 13.51875 30 5.08125 5.08125 5.20125 7.98 7.98 3.84375 5.08125 5.20125 7.98 7.98 7.98 5.20125 4.64625 4.64625 3.39375 7.98 7.98 7.98 3.87 3.34875 7.98 6.48375 4.76625 3.87 22.575 22.9725 28.75875 9.67875 4.06125 3.7725 8.6325 19.9425 4.61625 8.6325 22.9725 3.7725 8.6325 20.25 4.14375 15.3675 4.125 3.7725 4.13625 3.7725 22.7925 14.925 30 18.46875 18.46875 22.7925 16.98375 15 15 4.06125 S3_Criteria2_Score 23 15 24 21 1 17 12 15 20 18 18 18 0 25 0 24 25 24 23 19 10 10 0 20 15 19 22 22 20 16 16 14 16 0 0 23 15 15 15 19 12 13 19 0 24 24 25 21 24 25 24 19 19 18 24 25 25 23 25 7 0 10 24 14 1 0 0 0 24 23 1 21 21 19 15 14 18 17 12 13 15 11 12 19 2 20 0 0 19 24 10 19 20 23 22 1 15 0 2. Match (25) 23 15 24 21 1 17 12 15 20 18 18 18 0 25 0 24 25 24 23 19 10 10 0 20 15 19 22 22 20 16 16 14 16 0 0 23 15 15 15 19 12 13 19 0 24 24 25 21 24 25 24 19 19 18 24 25 25 23 25 7 0 10 24 14 1 0 0 0 24 23 1 21 21 19 15 14 18 17 12 13 15 11 12 19 2 20 0 0 19 24 10 19 20 23 22 1 15 0 S3_Criteria3_Score 3. Tech & Econ Feas (20) 18.4 15.4666666666667 16.2666666666667 10.9333333333333 11.6 16.4 15.5666666666667 14.8333333333333 12.8 15.7333333333333 13.3333333333333 12.8 18.2666666666667 10.9333333333333 17.7333333333333 6.4 19.0666666666667 17.6 15.6 19.3333333333333 15.3333333333333 14.1333333333333 14.4 18.6666666666667 15.2 15.8666666666667 15.3333333333333 14.9333333333333 13.2 13.4666666666667 14 7.86666666666667 14 10.8 8 12.9333333333333 12 12 12 14.4 13.7333333333333 9.86666666666667 8.66666666666667 7.6 19.2 19.0666666666667 16 17.2 15.2 17.2 17.6 16.6666666666667 14.2666666666667 16.4 12.6666666666667 13.2 11.3333333333333 11.3333333333333 13.6 13.7333333333333 15.7333333333333 9.6 6 8.13333333333333 9.86666666666667 8.4 8.13333333333333 2.13333333333333 19.0666666666667 13.4666666666667 20 18 18.4 19.7333333333333 18.9333333333333 12.6666666666667 18.9333333333333 14.9333333333333 11.7333333333333 18.6666666666667 14.4 12 17.7333333333333 6.13333333333333 15.0666666666667 6.8 5.46666666666667 5.73333333333333 18.5333333333333 19.6 13.8666666666667 15.8666666666667 16.8 10.8 12.5333333333333 13.8666666666667 4.66666666666667 13.6 S3_Criteria4_Score 9.66666666666667 10 8.33333333333333 10 1 9.33333333333333 9.33333333333333 10 3.33333333333333 9 7.66666666666667 10 7 8.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 0.666666666666667 9.66666666666667 8 8 10 9.66666666666667 10 10 9 10 5 9 9 4.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 10 6.66666666666667 10 3.66666666666667 1 10 10 10 10 6 7.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 9 6.66666666666667 9.66666666666667 8 8 8.33333333333333 9 6.33333333333333 7 10 9.66666666666667 8 8 6.66666666666667 5 9 2 10 10 9 5 7 8 7 7 1 9 7 10 7 10 10 10 3.66666666666667 10 9.33333333333333 2 10 10 4.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 6.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 3.33333333333333 7 7 10 10 10 10 3.66666666666667 5 5 10 2.33333333333333 8 S3_Criteria4_Score_Eval1 9 10 8 10 1 9 9 10 5 9 7 10 8 9 9 0 10 7 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 5 9 9 5 8 10 8 10 4 1 10 10 10 10 6 8 8 9 6 9 8 8 9 9 7 7 10 9 8 8 6 5 9 2 10 10 9 5 7 8 7 7 1 8 7 10 7 10 10 10 4 10 9 2 10 10 3 9 7 9 4 7 7 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 10 3 8 S3_Criteria4_Score_Eval2 10 10 9 10 1 9 9 10 2 9 7 10 7 9 10 1 9 8 9 10 10 10 10 9 10 5 9 9 4 8 10 6 10 3 1 10 10 10 10 6 7 9 9 7 10 8 8 8 9 6 7 10 10 8 8 7 5 9 2 10 10 9 5 7 8 7 7 1 9 7 10 7 10 10 10 3 10 9 2 10 10 6 8 5 10 3 7 7 10 10 10 10 3 5 5 10 2 8 S3_Criteria4_Score_Eval3 10 10 8 10 1 10 10 10 3 9 9 10 6 8 10 1 10 9 6 10 9 10 10 9 10 5 9 9 4 9 10 6 10 4 1 10 10 10 10 6 7 9 9 7 10 8 8 8 9 6 7 10 10 8 8 7 5 9 2 10 10 9 5 7 8 7 7 1 10 7 10 7 10 10 10 4 10 10 2 10 10 4 9 7 10 3 7 7 10 10 10 10 3 5 5 10 2 8 4. Readiness (5) 4.83333333333333 5 4.16666666666667 5 0.5 4.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 5 1.66666666666667 4.5 3.83333333333333 5 3.5 4.33333333333333 4.83333333333333 0.333333333333333 4.83333333333333 4 4 5 4.83333333333333 5 5 4.5 5 2.5 4.5 4.5 2.16666666666667 4.16666666666667 5 3.33333333333333 5 1.83333333333333 0.5 5 5 5 5 3 3.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 4.5 3.33333333333333 4.83333333333333 4 4 4.16666666666667 4.5 3.16666666666667 3.5 5 4.83333333333333 4 4 3.33333333333333 2.5 4.5 1 5 5 4.5 2.5 3.5 4 3.5 3.5 0.5 4.5 3.5 5 3.5 5 5 5 1.83333333333333 5 4.66666666666667 1 5 5 2.16666666666667 4.33333333333333 3.16666666666667 4.83333333333333 1.66666666666667 3.5 3.5 5 5 5 5 1.83333333333333 2.5 2.5 5 1.16666666666667 4 S3_Criteria5_Score 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 8 2 7.5 7.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6.83333333333333 7.5 7.66666666666667 4 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 0 9 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 9.5 4.16666666666667 4.5 4.16666666666667 9.16666666666667 6.33333333333333 7.83333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 1 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 5.5 3.5 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 7 5.5 3.83333333333333 2.5 1.66666666666667 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.16666666666667 8.83333333333333 10 7.83333333333333 8.66666666666667 6 9 5 5.5 5.5 4.5 7.5 5 5.5 2.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 3.16666666666667 2 3.16666666666667 3.16666666666667 0.833333333333333 9.66666666666667 4 10 8.16666666666667 9 9.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 4.83333333333333 9.33333333333333 4.5 4.5 8.33333333333333 1.5 6.5 4 3.16666666666667 2.66666666666667 9 9.83333333333333 4.83333333333333 6 9.16666666666667 3.66666666666667 6 5 1.33333333333333 4.5 S3_Criteria5_Score_Eval1 2 10 10 10 S3_Criteria5_Score_Eval2 1 7 7 5 S3_Criteria5_Score_Eval3 2 8 9 10 5. Benefits (10) 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 8 2 7.5 7.33333333333333 7.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 6.83333333333333 7.5 7.66666666666667 4 9.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 0 9 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 9.5 4.16666666666667 4.5 4.16666666666667 9.16666666666667 6.33333333333333 7.83333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 1 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 5.5 3.5 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 2.33333333333333 7 5.5 3.83333333333333 2.5 1.66666666666667 9.83333333333333 9.16666666666667 7.16666666666667 8.16666666666667 8.83333333333333 10 7.83333333333333 8.66666666666667 6 9 5 5.5 5.5 4.5 7.5 5 5.5 2.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 3.16666666666667 2 3.16666666666667 3.16666666666667 0.833333333333333 9.66666666666667 4 10 8.16666666666667 9 9.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 7.66666666666667 9.16666666666667 8.33333333333333 4.83333333333333 9.33333333333333 4.5 4.5 8.33333333333333 1.5 6.5 4 3.16666666666667 2.66666666666667 9 9.83333333333333 4.83333333333333 6 9.16666666666667 3.66666666666667 6 5 1.33333333333333 4.5 S3_Criteria6_Score 2 4 3 2 0 5 5 2 5 2 2 2 5 2 2 0 4 5 5 2 0 3 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 5 0 3 3 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 5 2 2 2 5 2 4 5 3 4 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 5 4 0 4 3 4 0 2 6. Local Support (5) 2 4 3 2 0 5 5 2 5 2 2 2 5 2 2 0 4 5 5 2 0 3 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 5 0 3 3 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 5 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 5 2 2 2 5 2 4 5 3 4 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 5 4 0 4 3 4 0 2 S3_Criteria7_Score 9.66666666666667 5.66666666666667 5.66666666666667 7.33333333333333 1 9.33333333333333 9.33333333333333 9.33333333333333 4 7.33333333333333 8 7 9.66666666666667 7.33333333333333 8.66666666666667 0.666666666666667 9.66666666666667 10 4 10 10 10 10 9 8 8.33333333333333 7 7 5.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 10 4.33333333333333 10 8.66666666666667 3.66666666666667 6.33333333333333 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 7.66666666666667 9 8 5.33333333333333 8.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 10 10 9.66666666666667 9 8.66666666666667 10 10 9.33333333333333 9.66666666666667 7 8 9 3.66666666666667 5 3.33333333333333 8 10 7.33333333333333 3 5.33333333333333 8 5.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 0.666666666666667 10 8.33333333333333 10 7.66666666666667 10 10 10 3.33333333333333 10 8.66666666666667 8 10 10 8 8 1.5 10 2.66666666666667 5.33333333333333 5.33333333333333 9 10 10 10 9.66666666666667 5 7 10 1.66666666666667 9.33333333333333 S3_Criteria7_Score_Eval1 10 6 5 8 1 9 9 9 5 8 7 7 9 8 8 0 9 10 4 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 8 8 5 9 10 5 10 8 3 7 7 7 7 9 8 3 9 6 10 10 10 9 9 10 10 9 9 7 8 9 3 5 3 8 10 6 2 6 8 6 6 0 10 7 10 7 10 10 10 3 10 8 7 10 10 8 8 1 10 3 6 6 8 10 10 10 10 5 7 10 1 8 S3_Criteria7_Score_Eval2 9 5 6 7 1 9 9 10 4 6 8 7 10 6 8 1 10 10 4 10 10 10 10 9 7 8 7 7 6 5 10 5 10 9 5 5 8 8 8 9 7 5 8 5 10 10 10 9 10 10 10 9 10 7 8 10 5 5 5 8 10 8 5 5 8 5 5 1 10 8 10 8 10 10 10 5 10 8 8 10 10 8 7 2 10 3 5 5 9 10 10 10 9 5 7 10 2 10 S3_Criteria7_Score_Eval3 10 6 6 7 1 10 10 9 3 8 9 7 10 8 10 1 10 10 4 10 10 10 10 9 9 9 6 6 5 9 10 3 10 9 3 7 8 8 8 9 9 8 8 5 10 10 9 9 7 10 10 10 10 7 8 8 3 5 2 8 10 8 2 5 8 5 5 1 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 2 10 10 9 10 10 8 9 10 2 5 5 10 10 10 10 10 5 7 10 2 10 7. Sustain-ability (5) 4.83333333333333 2.83333333333333 2.83333333333333 3.66666666666667 0.5 4.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 4.66666666666667 2 3.66666666666667 4 3.5 4.83333333333333 3.66666666666667 4.33333333333333 0.333333333333333 4.83333333333333 5 2 5 5 5 5 4.5 4 4.16666666666667 3.5 3.5 2.66666666666667 3.83333333333333 5 2.16666666666667 5 4.33333333333333 1.83333333333333 3.16666666666667 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 3.83333333333333 4.5 4 2.66666666666667 4.16666666666667 2.66666666666667 5 5 4.83333333333333 4.5 4.33333333333333 5 5 4.66666666666667 4.83333333333333 3.5 4 4.5 1.83333333333333 2.5 1.66666666666667 4 5 3.66666666666667 1.5 2.66666666666667 4 2.66666666666667 2.66666666666667 0.333333333333333 5 4.16666666666667 5 3.83333333333333 5 5 5 1.66666666666667 5 4.33333333333333 4 5 5 4 4 0.75 5 1.33333333333333 2.66666666666667 2.66666666666667 4.5 5 5 5 4.83333333333333 2.5 3.5 5 0.833333333333333 4.66666666666667 S3_Evaluator1 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & # 6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Butch #2 & #6, Jensen Dabo Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott//Butch #2 & #6 Lockard, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch / #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 &# 6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 lockard Butch #2 & 6 Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & # 6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen & Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Dabo, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 &#6 Lockard, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen,Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch#2 & #6 Ott Butch / Match & Local Support Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Ott, Butch #2 & #6 Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Lockard Butch #2 & #6 Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Lockard Butch #2 & #6 S3_Evaluator2 Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Jensen, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Crimp Brown, Butch #2 & #6 Crimp Crimp Crimp S3_Evaluator3 Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Harper Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Harper Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg Strandberg T_Grant 2340000 451030 3000000 40000 3225500 15534309 8996832 890000 5157000 224000 471000 95000 207500 22000000 150000 10000000 11600000 5260000 628825 2860000 839000 1200000 898000 11650000 250000 3197986 3200000 3200000 8710000 4313603 3506406 123494.29 1153056 2220141 498480 605000 605000 605000 14875535 10921428 1075625 3930399 150000 7400000 3087000 4334600 93341555 4007900 2100000 4555922 1020000 1050000 131250 8363886 46800000 12231750 200000 15675000 1937072 2868000 193600 8342810 1200000 831203 775000 650000 98150000 6155019 5490000 750000 10500000 1950000 1620000 316668.7 3633600 205000 60000 37459970 7652000 140500 2500000 3383000 2455000 2000000 25625000 95000 105620 991815 5042539 457505 3805349 14500000 4005000 4145991 565439 360000 800000 Total (100) 83.4333333333333 72.4666666666667 72.0479166666667 66.065 41.47375 66.9504166666667 61.8633333333333 61.7170833333333 60.18375 76.97125 72.3458333333333 68.955 64.7791666666667 62.1425 57.4129166666667 44.4241666666667 78.6695833333333 77.3695833333333 70.7029166666667 66.0508333333333 65.0433333333333 47.8508333333333 36.7841666666667 65.9733333333333 62.8058333333333 73.7616666666667 73.625 72.85 68.7616666666667 63.00875 61.9120833333333 59.4254166666667 58.4170833333333 40.65375 38.3333333333333 76.71625 68.1666666666667 66.5616666666667 65.7816666666667 63.41875 63.38125 56.86375 55.3520833333333 48.2666666666667 69.9479166666667 66.3145833333333 65.20125 65.0133333333333 64.8466666666667 64.2104166666667 63.0145833333333 61.20125 58.9133333333333 58.88 57.6466666666667 56.7345833333333 53.8129166666667 52.4795833333333 52.1604166666667 45.7133333333333 44.2133333333333 43.4133333333333 41.87 34.8154166666667 28.8466666666667 24.2170833333333 22.2329166666667 7.67 84.8083333333333 76.1058333333333 71.75875 69.17875 64.46125 64.1725 63.7325 62.7758333333333 62.71625 61.8991666666667 61.5391666666667 57.7725 56.5325 53.9166666666667 52.54375 47.9175 39.525 37.5725 18.93625 18.3391666666667 81.8258333333333 78.3583333333333 73.7 73.3354166666667 71.1020833333333 69.2591666666667 66.5170833333333 48.8666666666667 38 32.8279166666667 Statewide Rank (99) 2 15 17 31 84 27 54 55 58 7 16 24 39 51 65 80 4 6 20 32 36 78 90 33 48 10 12 14 25 47 52 59 62 85 87 8 26 28 34 44 45 66 69 76 21 30 35 37 38 41 46 57 60 61 64 67 71 73 74 79 81 82 83 91 93 94 95 98 1 9 18 23 40 42 43 49 50 53 56 63 68 70 72 77 86 89 96 97 3 5 11 13 19 22 29 75 88 92 Cost and Request Project Cost 2440000 451030 3000000 40000 250000000 255931030 15534309 8996832 890000 5157000 30578141 8000000 8150000 1265000 207500 22000000 1900000 10020000 100000 13100000 64742500 11600000 5260000 628825 45058000 839000 1200000 898000 65483825 23319539 4100000 27419539 3197986 3200000 3200000 8710000 4313603 3506406 123494.29 1153056 2220141 178000 29802686.29 7500000 605000 605000 605000 14807535 10921428 1500000 3930399 150000 40624362 7400000 3087000 21923000 93341555 4007900 8257850 4555922 26924120 1050000 96000000 8363886 46800000 12231750 3000000 15675000 1937072 2868000 190000 1070000000 200000000 831203 100000000 60000000 98150000 200000 15000000 15000000 300000 140229650 20824011 600000 2078747919 6155019 40000000 10153000 17145000 1950000 17750000 441229 3633600 109975000 60000 37459970 7652000 2090500 2500000 3260000 225000000 25625000 2379007 1076000 514305325 991815 382779 461950 3805349 14500000 4005000 4285161 1880000 30312054 565439 7000000 800000 286149 28000000 36651588 3174598969.29 Grant Request 996000 409430 1500000 25000 3225500 6155930 13951326 8774080 801000 4126000 27652406 184000 375000 77000 207500 10000000 150000 5000000 80000 10100000 26173500 5500000 1780000 364225 2288000 827000 1200000 898000 12857225 9650000 225000 9875000 2598320 1700000 1600000 6960000 3882243 3155765 109471.29 1037750 2220141 137543 23401233.29 249500 550000 550000 550000 12075535 10758928 1025000 3144399 150000 29053362 3700000 1000000 4334600 79340322 2000000 2100000 2142961 816000 840000 105000 6269750 11700000 5231750 85000 7837500 1854026 2868000 190000 4047230 1100000 831203 775000 650000 950000 194540 7500000 7500000 300000 14673250 19401411 50000 190387543 3752181 2990000 750000 10500000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 3393600 160000 48000 36709970 7152000 120500 2400000 3260000 1940000 2000000 20500000 95000 105620 1432906 1026000 101373999.3 824815 382779 446950 3245349 11600000 3052000 2945991 1880000 24377884 565439 300000 800000 286149 495000 2446588 453754670.59 Grant_Fund_Request_Tot 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 2254243352.95 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 1803394682.36 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 4057638035.31 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 3155940694.13 450848670.59 450848670.59 901697341.18 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 4959335376.49 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 4057638035.31 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 13976308788.29 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 9467822082.39 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 3155940694.13 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 450848670.59 2254243352.95 50044202435.49 Grantee_PM 0 0 Brian Davis, CE2 Engineers Michael Favors Diana Moore 0 John Magee 0 Brent Petrie, AVEC 0 0 Brent Petrie, AVEC 0 Earle Ausman Daniel Hertrich Steve Gilbert Bruce Sexuaer, Alaska District USACE Joel Groves 0 Greg Mickelson, AP&T Richard Levitt Todd Tew, Haida Corp. and Robert Grimm, AP&T Ed Schofield, KPU Joe Nelson, PMPL Darrel Maple Paul Brendible, MIC Arthur Bloom Steve Henson Christopher Brewton, Utility Director 0 Eric Hannan, AP&T 0 0 0 Major_Equip_Prov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Match Offered 1344000 41600 1500000 15000 2900600 1582983 222752 89000 1031000 2925735 40000 96000 18000 0 12000000 5000000 20000 2800000 19974000 6100000 3480000 264600 572000 12000 0 10428600 2000000 25000 2025000 599666 1500000 1600000 1750000 431360 350641 14023 115306 0 58000 6418996 248980 55000 55000 55000 2800000 162500 50625 786000 4213105 3700000 2087000 17588400 14001233 2007900 6157850 2412961 204000 210000 26250 2094136 35100000 7000000 115000 7837500 83046 0 3600 4295580 100000 0 0 0 97200000 5460 7500000 7500000 1422600 0 218652516 2402838 2500000 0 6645000 500000 320000 28446.4 240000 45000 12000 750000 500000 20000 100000 123000 515000 5125000 946101 513000 21285385.4 167000 4659760 10555 560000 2900000 953000 1200000 1665000 12115315 0 60000 0 0 0 60000 300999252.4 Construction_Funding 822000 409430 179418 0 0 1410848 13495980 5738942 801000 4126000 24161922 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5500000 1460000 147720 0 442000 0 402000 7951720 7842500 0 7842500 2598320 1260000 1160000 0 3672243 3155765 109471 1006250 0 0 0 12962049 0 500000 500000 500000 9709305 10741042 0 0 0 21950347 3480000 899000 0 0 1000000 0 1572097 0 840000 0 5468250 0 0 0 0 0 2640850 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15900197 3667181 0 750000 6355000 1385602 0 240778 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3020000 0 0 0 0 0 0 15418561 712415 382779 291450 2994138 0 192000 0 4572782 0 0 600000 0 0 600000 112770926 Preconstruction_Funding 174000 0 1320582 25000 0 1519582 455346 3035138 0 0 3490484 184000 225000 77000 207500 300000 150000 0 0 0 1143500 0 320000 0 2288000 58000 120000 98000 2884000 807500 225000 1032500 0 440000 440000 0 210000 0 0 31500 80000 0 0 1201500 249500 50000 50000 50000 2366230 17886 1025000 0 0 3808616 220000 101000 180600 2526200 1000000 2100000 117793 816000 0 105000 0 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 227150 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8076368 85000 2990000 0 4145000 64398 1300000 47444 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 240000 0 2000000 0 0 0 0 12269942 0 0 155500 251211 0 130000 210000 746711 565439 0 200000 0 0 765439 36938642 Fund Allocation Approved by LB&A 2008 0 0 0 0 1000000 1000000 0 0 1000000 453071 801500 200000 2454571 1000000 513000 1513000 215000 215000 0 5182571 Recomm Additional Funding: No constraint 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 13951326 8774080 801000 4126000 27652406 184000 225000 77000 207500 300000 150000 0 1143500 5500000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 10835720 8650000 225000 8875000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 14054078 249500 550000 550000 550000 12075535 10758928 1025000 0 0 25758963 3700000 1000000 180600 2526200 1000000 2100000 1689890 816000 840000 105000 5468250 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2868000 190000 0 0 0 23166565 3752181 2990000 750000 10500000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 3260000 2000000 0 0 27688503.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 5319493 565439 0 800000 1365439 148790097.3 Total Recomm Funding: No Constraint 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 13951326 8774080 801000 4126000 27652406 184000 225000 77000 207500 300000 150000 0 0 0 1143500 5500000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 10835720 9650000 225000 9875000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 0 14054078 249500 550000 550000 550000 12075535 10758928 1025000 0 0 25758963 3700000 1000000 180600 2526200 2000000 2100000 2142961 816000 840000 105000 6269750 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2868000 190000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200000 25621136 3752181 2990000 750000 11500000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 3260000 0 2000000 0 0 0 0 513000 29201503.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 215000 5534493 565439 0 800000 0 0 1365439 153972668.3 Proposed Allocation 1: Max $5m non-Railbelt/SE, Max $2.5m Railbelt/SE 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 5000000 5000000 801000 4126000 14927000 184000 225000 77000 207500 300000 150000 0 0 0 1143500 5000000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 10335720 0 5000000 225000 5225000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 0 14054078 \ 249500 550000 550000 550000 5000000 5000000 1025000 0 0 12924500 \ 2500000 1000000 180600 2500000 2000000 2100000 2142961 816000 840000 105000 2500000 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2500000 190000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200000 20057186 2500000 2500000 750000 2500000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 2500000 0 2000000 0 0 0 0 513000 17699322.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 215000 5534493 565439 0 800000 0 0 1365439 106196668.3 Proposed Allocation 2: Decreased funding based on 1) scores within SE and Railbelt, 2) Dup demo projects 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 5000000 5000000 801000 4126000 14927000 184000 225000 77000 207500 300000 150000 0 0 0 1143500 5000000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 10335720 5000000 225000 5225000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 0 14054078 249500 550000 5000000 5000000 1025000 0 0 11824500 2500000 1000000 180600 2500000 2000000 2100000 2142961 816000 840000 105000 2500000 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 193332 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200000 17560518 2500000 2500000 750000 2500000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 2500000 0 0 0 0 0 513000 15699322.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 215000 5534493 565439 0 0 0 565439 99800000.3 Request for LB&A Approval Jan 09 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 4000000 4000000 801000 0 8801000 184000 375000 77000 207500 4006500 150000 0 0 0 5000000 4000000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 9335720 3000000 225000 3225000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 0 14054078 249500 550000 0 0 4000000 10758928 1025000 0 0 16583428 2000000 1000000 180600 2000000 1000000 0 1546929 816000 840000 105000 1198500 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2704683.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14074337.7 3752181 2990000 750000 1000000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 2000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14928503.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 0 5319493 565439 0 0 0 0 565439 94817429 Total Requested and Approved 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 4000000 4000000 801000 8801000 184000 375000 77000 207500 4006500 150000 0 0 0 5000000 4000000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 9335720 4000000 225000 4225000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 1037750 80000 0 0 14054078 249500 550000 4000000 10758928 1025000 0 0 16583428 2000000 1000000 180600 2000000 2000000 2000000 816000 840000 105000 2000000 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2704683.7 200000 16528908.7 3752181 2990000 750000 2000000 1450000 1300000 288222.3 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 2000000 0 0 0 0 0 513000 16441503.3 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 215000 5534493 565439 0 0 0 565439 100000000 0 Fund Allocation by Development Stage Reconn / Feasibility 49544 25000 74544 0 184000 375000 207500 300000 150000 1216500 1000000 45000 1045000 225000 225000 80000 80000 249500 1025000 1274500 2000000 816000 105000 47625 85000 20000 200000 3273625 1300000 48000 120500 1468500 154500 20000 174500 565439 565439 9397608 Final Design 271038 271038 0 77000 77000 320000 1288000 64000 75000 1747000 0 189000 28350 217350 50000 50000 180600 50000 80000 79500 390100 2990000 1000000 64398 47444 249600 160000 820000 240000 5571442 10000 231211 322000 210000 215000 988211 0 9312141 Construction (based on unconstrained) 996000 409430 1179418 2584848 13951326 8774080 801000 4126000 27652406 3706500 3706500 5500000 1460000 147720 436000 500000 8043720 9650000 9650000 2598320 1700000 1600000 3693243 3155765 1009400 13756728 500000 12075535 10758928 23334463 3700000 1000000 2000000 2092961 840000 6296750 450000 2788500 19168211 3752181 750000 10500000 1385602 240778 3020000 513000 20161561 712415 382779 282450 2994138 4371782 0 132430219 edit check 996000 409430 1500000 25000 0 2930430 13951326 8774080 801000 4126000 27652406 184000 375000 77000 207500 4006500 150000 0 0 0 5000000 5500000 1780000 147720 2288000 500000 120000 500000 10835720 9650000 225000 9875000 2598320 1700000 1600000 0 3882243 3155765 0 28350 80000 0 0 13044678 249500 550000 12075535 10758928 1025000 0 0 24658963 3700000 1000000 180600 2000000 2000000 0 2142961 816000 840000 105000 6296750 80000 47625 85000 20000 450000 2868000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200000 22831936 3752181 2990000 750000 11500000 1450000 1300000 288222 249600 160000 48000 0 820000 120500 0 3260000 0 0 0 0 0 0 513000 27201503 712415 382779 446950 3245349 0 322000 210000 215000 5534493 565439 0 0 0 0 565439 Construction 996000 409430 1179418 2584848 4000000 4000000 801000 8801000 3706500 3706500 4000000 1460000 147720 436000 500000 6543720 4000000 4000000 2598320 1700000 1600000 3693243 3155765 1009400 13756728 500000 4000000 10758928 15258928 2000000 1000000 2000000 1950000 840000 2000000 450000 2625183.7 12865183.7 3752181 750000 1000000 1385602 240778 1760000 513000 9401561 712415 382779 282450 2994138 4371782 0 81290250.7 Energy Region Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River/Chugach Kodiak Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim North Slope Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Statewide TOTAL Recommendation Grant Funding 2930430 8801000 5000000 9335720 4225000 14054078 0 16583428 16528908.7 16441503.3 5534493 565439 100000000 % of Total RE Fund 0.0293043 0.08801 0.05 0.0933572 0.04225 0.14054078 0 0.16583428 0.165289087 0.164415033 0.05534493 0.00565439 1 Population Population 8131 9075 18146 10082 9922 23132 7367 6516 446786 71354 9090 619601 # Communities 17 21 33 25 16 56 9 12 90 45 55 People/community 478.294117647059 432.142857142857 549.878787878788 403.28 620.125 413.071428571429 818.555555555556 543 4964.28888888889 1585.64444444444 165.272727272727 % Total 1.31229613896685E-02 0.014646522520138 2.92865892727739E-02 1.62717619887637E-02 1.60135312886842E-02 3.73337034640035E-02 1.18899097967886E-02 1.05164452607404E-02 0.721086634785935 0.115161208584234 1.46707316482704E-02 1 Allocation per capita basis 1312296.13896685 1464652.2520138 2928658.92727739 1627176.19887637 1601353.12886842 3733370.34640034 1188990.97967886 1051644.52607404 72108663.4785935 11516120.8584234 1467073.16482704 100000000 Cost of Power Weighted Average ($/kWh) 0.507767494058622 0.416402872928177 0.348446150333885 0.241474379595588 0.204068124207858 0.537138755567086 0.15 0.485653763109192 0.120951940262648 0.151971074081045 0.491787434430138 0.168590817101009 Allocation cost of power basis 13889891.7800838 11390628.4068287 9531684.04034488 6605489.79501704 5582248.16314179 14693337.5472325 4103223.99797423 13284974.5033075 3308619.35924827 4157142.38778174 13452760.0190395 100000000 Prorated % 0.138898917800838 0.113906284068287 9.53168404034488E-02 6.60548979501704E-02 5.58224816314179E-02 0.146933375472325 4.10322399797423E-02 0.132849745033075 3.30861935924828E-02 4.15714238778174E-02 0.134527600190395 1 Allocation region basis 9090909.09090909 9090909.09090909 9090909.09090909 9090909.09090909 9090909.09090909 9090909.09090909 9090909.09090909 9090909.09090909 9090909.09090909 9090909.09090909 9090909.09090909 100000000 Even Split % Total 9.09090909090909E-02 9.09090909090909E-02 9.09090909090909E-02 9.09090909090909E-02 9.09090909090909E-02 9.09090909090909E-02 9.09090909090909E-02 9.09090909090909E-02 9.09090909090909E-02 9.09090909090909E-02 9.09090909090909E-02 1 Requested Funding 6155930 27652406 26173500 12857225 9875000 23401233.29 0 29053362 190387543 101373999.3 24377884 2446588 453754670.59 Grant / Request 0.476033678095755 0.318272485945708 0.19103291497125 0.726106916539144 0.427848101265823 0.600569971070956 0.570792048094124 8.68171753232826E-02 0.162186590383438 0.22702926144041 0.231113289201124 0.220383406456123 Energy Region Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River/ Chugach Kodiak Lower Yukon/ Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana Statewide ID 58 89 90 11 52 50 47 64 62 63 40 6 14 21 22 26 27 15 46 2 103 73 122 110 107 70 72 71 35 59 75 85 56 74 68 57 94 109 53 87 34 105 66 102 98 78 48 86 97 112 -- 23 29 10 104 111 37 33 60 38 42 20 41 9 -- 61 54 84 49 30 31 -- 88 Project Name Chuniisax Creek Hydroelectric Construction Nikolski Wind Integration Construction St. George Wind Farm Construction Aleutians East Borough Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Nome/Newton Peak Wind Farm Construction Unalakleet Wind Farm Construction Nome Banner Peak Wind Farm Transmission Construction Lake Pen Borough Wind Feasibility Study Chignik Lake Area Wind-Hydro Final Design Lake Pen Borough Wood Heating Final Design Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Lake Elva Hydropower Construction Chignik Lagoon Hydroelectric Final Design Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Construction Cordova Heat Recovery Construction Cordova Wood Processing Plant Construction Allison Lake Hydro Feasibility Study Chistochina Central Wood Heating Construction Kenny Lake Wood Heating Construction Gulkana Central Wood Heating Construction Pillar Mountain Wind Farm Construction Old Harbor Hydroelectric Final Design Bethel Wind Power Project Times 4 Kongiganak Wind Farm Construction Kwigillingok Wind Farm Construction Quinhagak Wind Farm Construction Mekoryuk Wind Farm Construction Toksook Bay Wind Farm Expansion Construction Hooper Bay Wind Farm Construction Kobuk River Valley Woody Biomass Feasibility Study Ambler / Noatak / Shungnak Solar PV Construction Kotzebue Wind Farm Expansion Construction Buckland / Deering / Noorvik Wind Farm Construction Upper Kobuk Region Hydroelectric Feasibility Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity Construction South Fork Hydroelectric Construction Nikolaevsk Wind Farm Final Design Eva Creek Wind Farm Construction North Pole Biomass Electricity/Heat Construction Fishhook Hydroelectric Construction Grant Lake/Falls Creek Hydro Feasibility Study North Pole Heat Recovery Construction Coal Mine Road Wind Farm Final Design Delta Junction Wind Farm Construction Nikiski Wind Farm Construction Girdwood Gas CHP/Hydro/Wind Solar Construction Whittier Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Nenana Hydrokinetic Construction Delta Junction Wood Chip Heating Kenai Hydro Recon Assessment Coffman Cove-Naukati Intertie Construction Kake-Petersburg Intertie Final Design Falls Creek Hydroelectric Construction Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Construction Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump Construction (Aquatic Center) Whitman Lake Hydro Construction Haines Central Wood Heating System Construction (Low Income Housing Project) Yakutat Biomass Gasification Construction Ruth Lake Hydro Reconnaissance Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Construction Haines Central Wood Heating Feasibility Study (Community Buildings) Wrangell Hydro Based Electric Boilers Construction Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump Construction (Airport) McGrath Heat Recovery Construction Galena Wood Heating Construction Ruby Hydrokinetic Construction Tok Wood Heating Construction McGrath Central Wood Heating Construction Fort Yukon Central Wood Heating Construction Manley Hot Springs Geothermal Construction Statewide Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study Applicant City of Atka Umnak Power / Nikolski IRA Council City of St. George - St. George Municipal Electric Utility Aleutians East Borough City of Nome d/b/a Nome Joint Utility System (NJUS) Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. (UVEC) City of Nome d/b/a Nome Joint Utilities System Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Peninsula Borough City Of Chignik Nushagak Electric & Telephone Cooperative, Inc Chignik Lagoon Power Utility (CLPU) Cordova Electric Cooperative Cordova Electric Cooperative Native Village of Eyak Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc (CVEA) Cheesh'na Tribal Council Copper River School District Gulkana Village Council Kodiak Electric Associaiton, Inc. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative City of Bethel Puvurnaq Power Company Puvurnaq Power Company Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative City of Hooper Bay Northwest Inupiat Housing Authority Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Kotzebue Electric Association Northwest Arctic Borough Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Municipality of Anchorage, Solid Waste Services Dept South Fork Hydro, LLC Alaska Wind Energy, LLC, d/b/a Wind Energy Alaska (WEA) Golden Valley Electric Association Chena Power Utility, LLC Fishhook Renewable Energy, LLC Kenai Hydro, LLC Golden Valley Electric Association Alaska Wind Power, LLC Alaska Environmental Power LLC Kenai Winds, LLC Alaska Green Energy, LLC City of Whittier Independence Power, LLC University of Alaska Fairbanks, Office of Sponsored Programs Delta/Greely School District Homer Electric Associtation Alaska Power & Telephone Company Kwaan Electric Transmission Intertie Cooperative, Inc (KWETICO) Gustavus Electric Company Haida Power, Inc. City & Borough of Juneau Ketchikan Public Utilities- Electic Division Chilkoot Indian Association Yakutat Power City of Petersburg d/b/a Petersburg Municipal & Light Burro Creek Holdings, LLC Metlakatla Indian Community Haines Borough City and Borough of Wrangell City & Borough of Juneau McGrath Light & Power, Co. Interior Regional Housing Authority (IRHA) Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council Alaska Gateway School District McGrath Power and Light Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company TDX Power Thomas Ravens, Ph.D. and Myree McDonald, Ph.D. Applicant Type Utility Government Government Government Utility Utility Utility Government Government Government Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Government Government Government Utility Utility Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Government Utility Utility Government Utility Government IPP IPP Utility Utility IPP IPP Utility IPP IPP IPP IPP Government IPP Government Government Utility Utility Utility Utility Utility Government Utility Government Utility Utility IPP Government Government Government Government Utility Government IPP Government Utility Utility Utility Government Project Type Hydro Wind Wind Other Wind Wind Transmission Wind Wind Biomass Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Heat Recovery Biomass Hydro Biomass Biomass Biomass Wind Hydro Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Biomass Solar Wind Wind Hydro Biofuels Hydro Wind Wind Biofuels Hydro Hydro Heat Recovery Wind Wind Wind Other Hydro Hydro Ocean/River Biomass Hydro Transmission Transmission Hydro Hydro Geothermal Hydro Biomass Biofuels Hydro Hydro Transmission Biomass Other Geothermal Heat Recovery Biomass Hydro Biomass Biomass Biomass Geothermal Ocean/River