HomeMy WebLinkAboutDraft_REF 4 Evaluation Guidelines REFACAlaska Renewable Energy Fund
DRAFT Methods for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation
January 4, 2011
Overview of Review Process
Renewable Energy Fund applications were evaluated in four stages. For more detail please refer to Evaluation Guidelines in the appendices and to documents posted on the Renewable Energy
Fund webpage http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund.html.
Conducted by Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) staff, the first stage of review evaluated each application for completeness, eligibility, and responsiveness to the request for applications
(RFA). AEA rejected four proposals that did not meet these threshold criteria.
The second stage evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of the proposed projects. In addition to numerical scores, the second stage resulted in project-specific recommendations
for full, partial, or no funding, as well as recommendations for special provisions for grant awards should the Legislature approve funding. The second stage was conducted by AEA staff
with the assistance of Alaska Department of Natural Resources staff, Institute of Social Economic Research (ISER) staff, and private economists under contract to AEA under the coordination
of ISER. Projects may have been recommended for partial or no funding if they were viable but:
Documentation submitted with the application was not sufficient to justify full funding for more than one phase of a project.
Funding for proposed project development phases would not be used until late fy2012 or afterwards. That is, funds would be tied up unreasonably.
There were competing projects for which planning is desirable
The applicant requested AEA to manage the project and the AEA program manager could confidently estimate a lower cost.
The proposal included operating costs, ineligible costs, unreasonably high costs, or other costs not recommended for funding.
AEA recommended no funding for 28 projects following stage 2 review while one project was withdrawn by the applicant and was therefore also not recommended
The third stage was a final scoring based on the specific guidelines in the RFA that was conducted by AEA staff. The scoring was done based on a number of matrices and pre-established
weighting for each of the criteria.
Cost of Energy (25%):
Matching Funds (20%)
Economic and Technical Feasibility (20%): score from stage 2
Project Readiness (10%)
Economic and Other Alaska Benefit (15%)
Sustainability (5%)
Local Support (5%)
In the fourth stage all applications were ranked by region with the final funding recommendation being made based on the number and rank of applications with each region, the cost of
energy, and a balance of statewide funding.
Where AEA recommended less than the requested amount and the Legislature funds the project, AEA will work with grantees to assure that the revised scope of the final grant award is consistent
with the grantee’s proposal and meets the public purposes of the program.
Roles of AEA Staff and the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee
AEA staff requested and received input from the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee regarding the process and final funding recommendations. Following is a summary of Committee
involvement.
AEA staff and the Committee met on June 8, 2010 and again on August 13, 2010 to discuss issues including the schedule of the upcoming RFA, progress on funded projects, ways to stimulate
proposals for beneficial projects, and requiring minimum benefit/cost ratios.
Midway through review of the applications AEA staff and the Committee met on November 9, 2010 to discuss the economic firms and AEA, DNR and ISER staff involved with the proposal evaluation,
progress on review, a slight change on the Readiness criterion to address consistency with the state Energy Pathway, , a public request for additional review of proposals by ADF&G,
how to address letters from legislators in the Local Support criterion score, update on construction project progress and round 3 grants, and grant report frequency.
Following AEA evaluation of all applications, AEA staff and the Committee met on January 7, 2011 to address requirements for achieving a statewide balance of funds. Based on this discussion
and the outcome of appeals due January 10 AEA finalized its recommendations.
Appendix A
Guidelines for Renewable Energy Fund Application Evaluation
Table of Contents
General: 2
Stage 1 Review Process: 2
Reviewers – 2
Criteria 3
Process 3
Stage 2 Review Process: 3
Reviewers – 3
Criteria 4
Process 5
Stage 3 Review Process: 6
Reviewers – 6
Criteria 6
Process 7
$$ Limitations on Recommendations Sec 1.14 7
Recommendation Guidelines 7
Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations 8
Reviewers – 8
Process 9
Scoring Criteria 10
General Scoring Criteria 10
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Benefit Ratio 11
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan 11
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines 12
Stage 3 Criteria – Match 12
Stage 3 Criteria Local Support 13
Stage 3 Criteria Project Readiness 13
Stage 3 Criteria Public Benefit 13
Stage 3 Criteria Statewide Regional Balance 14
Stage 3 Criteria Compliance with Other Awards 14
Stage 3 Criteria Cost of Energy 14
These are the Evaluation Guidelines and instructions for Evaluation of The Round 3 RFA for Renewable Energy Fund Grant Projects
Applications that do not comply with AS 42.45.45 and all of the material and substantial terms, conditions, and requirements of the RFA may be rejected.
If an application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing that its application has been rejected and the basis for rejection.
The Authority may waive minor requirements of the RFA that do not result in a material change in the requirements of the RFA and do not give an applicant an unfair advantage in the review
process.
Upon submission of the final recommendations to the Legislature the Authority will make all applications available for review on the Authority’s web site.
General:
All communications with applicants during the evaluation process will go through the Grant Administrator.
The Executive Director is the Executive Director of AEA, Program Managers are those Management Personal in AEA who have program oversight for AEA programs, Project Managers are the subject
matter technical experts, and the Grant Manager is the person responsible for overseeing the grant process for the Authority.
All applications will be reviewed using the same process and criteria established in the RFA.
Decisions made in each stage of the review process will be documented in writing and made a part of the grant file.
If reviewers think they may have a potential conflict of interest, (financial or personal interest, such as friend or family members) they should inform their supervisor immediately
of the potential nature of the conflict.
Reviewers should make notes of any questions they may have about an application. Reviewers should not contact applicants directly.
If reviewers have questions about an application or process contact they should contact the Grant Administrator. If reviewers have technical questions they should contact the Program
Managers.
If an application is rejected or not recommended the applicants will be sent a letter from the Grant Administrator explaining why their application has been rejected or not recommended.
Reviewers will be required to provide to the Grant Administrator the reasons for why the application is being rejected
Notes should be made directly into the database on line. All written notes should be kept with the application file.
All notes are considered public records and subject to Alaska public records act disclosure requirements.
Any appeals from rejected applicants in Stage 1 or Stage 2 reviews will be directed to the Grant Administrator. The Grant Administrator will review the appeal with the Executive Director,
Program Manager, and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action.
Stage 1 Review Process:
All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by the Authority staff to assess if the application is complete, meets the minimum submission requirements, and has
adequate information to proceed to Stage 2 – Technical Evaluation.
Reviewers –
Grant Administrator and at least one Program Manager
Criteria
All criteria are scored pass/fail. Failure to meet any of these criteria results in rejection of the Application.
1. The application is submitted by an Eligible Applicant (sec 1.2).
2. The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.3).
3. A resolution or other formal authorization of the Applicant’s governing body is included with the application to demonstrate the Applicant’s commitment to the project and any proposed
use of matching resources (sec 1.2).
4. The application provides a detailed description of the phase(s) of project proposed, i.e. reconnaissance study, conceptual design/feasibility study, final design/permitting, and/or
construction (sec 2.1).
5. The application is complete in that the information provided is sufficiently responsive to the RFA to allow AEA to consider the application in the next stage of evaluation.
6. The Applicant demonstrates that they will take ownership of the project; own, lease, or otherwise control the site upon which the project is located; and upon completion of the project
operate and maintain it for its economic life for the benefit of the public. (sec 1.2)
Process
The Grant Administrator will evaluate criteria 1-3 & 6 above.
The Program Managers will evaluate criteria 4-5 above.
If it appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional data the Program Managers (PM) may make a recommendation to the Grant Manager for additional
information. The Grant Administrator will request clarifying information from the applicant. The applicant will have a specified amount of time to provide the requested information.
Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide information that completes their application will result in the application being rejected.
Applications that are determined by the Grant Administrator and Program Managers and determined to be incomplete or fail to meet the minimum requirements will be reviewed by the Executive
Director with the assistance of Legal or procurement staff prior to being rejected at Stage 1.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed stage 1.
Any requests for reconsideration from rejected applicants in Stage 1 will be directed to the Grant Administrator. The Grant Administrator will review the request with the Executive
Director, Program Manager, and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action.
Stage 2 Review Process:
All applications that pass Stage 1 will be reviewed for feasibility in accordance with the criteria below.
Reviewers –
Project Managers – the AEA technical subject matter experts.
Staff from Department of Natural Resources – technical experts providing specific review and comment on projects that may have issues related to permitting and natural resource development.
Economists - Contracted economist who will review cost benefit and other cost and pricing information provided for each application submitted for the purpose of providing the authority
and independent assessment of the economics of the proposed project.
ISER – University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research – is providing coordination and Quality Assurance review of economic analysis work for selected projects.
Program Managers – Overseers of the work of the Project Managers
Criteria
Each of the numbered criteria below will be scored with a numerical score 1-10 and weighted per the percentages below.
Criteria
Weight
1. Project Management, Development, and Operation
a. The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in adequate detail.
b. The cost savings estimates for project development, operation, maintenance, fuel, and other project items are realistic,
c. The project team’s method of communicating, monitoring, and reporting development progress is described in adequate detail.
d. Logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable and described in adequate detail.
20%
2. Qualifications and Experience
a. The Applicant, partners, and contractors have sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully complete and operate the project.
b. The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete and operate the project.
c. The project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and environmental barriers to successful project completion and operation.
d. The project uses local labor and trains a local labor workforce.
20%
3. Technical Feasibility
a. The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis, and project permits and other authorizations can reasonably be obtained.
b. A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system.
c. Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable.
d. The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as planned.
e. If a demonstration project is being proposed:
Application in other areas of the state, or another specific benefit of the proposed project, is likely:
need for this project is shown (vs. the ability to use existing technology); and
the risks of the proposed system are reasonable and warrant demonstration.
20%
3. Technical Feasibility
a. The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis, and project permits and other authorizations can reasonably be obtained.
b. A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system.
c. Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable.
d. The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as planned.
e. If a demonstration project is being proposed:
Application in other areas of the state, or another specific benefit of the proposed project, is likely:
need for this project is shown (vs. the ability to use existing technology); and
the risks of the proposed system are reasonable and warrant demonstration.
20%
4. Economic Feasibility
a. The project is shown to be economically feasible (net savings in fuel, operation and maintenance, and capital costs over the life of the proposed project). In determining economic
feasibility and benefits applications a will be evaluated anticipating the grantee will use cost-based rates.
25%
b. The project has an adequate financing plan for completion of the grant-funded phase and has considered options for financing subsequent phases of the project.
5%
c. Other benefits to the Alaska public are demonstrated. Avoided cost rates alone will not be presumed to be in the best interest of the public.
10%
Process
Project Managers will carefully review the proposals for their assigned technology group and provide an initial feasibility score on all criteria and a funding recommendation.
An economist hired by AEA will review the economic information and provide an independent analysis of cost and benefits of each project. The reviewers will consider the independent
analysis when scoring the economic feasibility and benefits criteria.
Reviewers will use the formula and criteria in the attached Scoring Matrix Guide - for designated criteria in Stage 2.
If the Project Manager believes they need additional information they will coordinate their request for follow-up information with the Grant Administrator. The purpose of follow-up
is for clarification and to help the Project Manager gain a sufficient understanding of the project proposed.
Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Administrator to the applicant by e-mail, Bcc to project manager, with a response time of 7 days or less.
Applicants that fail to respond to requests for information or to adequately address the criteria in the technical review will be rejected in Stage 2.
The Program Managers will meet with the project managers to review the applications and discuss final Stage 2 scoring. Scoring per the stage 2 criteria may be adjusted based on final
discussions between the Project Manager, Program Managers, Economists, and Executive Director.
A final weighted “feasibility” score will be given for each application reviewed and will be used to calculate the Phase 3 feasibility score.
Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may not be recommended for funding or further review.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed Stage 2.
The Authority will develop a preliminary list of feasible applications based on the Stage 2 review with AEA recommendations on technical and economic feasibility and a recommended funding
level to be considered in the Stage 3 review.
Stage 3 Review Process:
All applications that pass the technical review will be evaluated for the purpose of ranking applications and making recommendations to the Legislature based on the following criteria
which include criteria required by 3 AAC 107.655 and AS 42.45.045.
The Feasibility score from Stage 2 will be automatically weighted and scored in Stage three.
The average of the Economic and Public Benefit score of stage 2 will be used for initial scoring of Economic and Other Public Benefit Score. This score will be reviewed by the Program
Managers.
The Grant Administrator, with staff assistance, will score the cost of energy, type and amount of matching funds, and local support, using the formulas and methods outlined in Appendix
A.
Two Program Managers will review the scoring of the Project Managers and Grant Manager and provide a score for readiness and previous success, and sustainability.
AEA will develop a regional ranking of applications and a draft ranking of all projects for the Advisory committee to review.
The Advisory Committee will review the final Stage 3 scores regional ranking recommendations of the Authority. The Committee may make recommendations to assist in achieving a statewide
balance but will not be rescoring based on the criteria.
Reviewers –
Grant Administrator (Local Support and Match Criteria)
Two Program Managers
Executive Director of AEA.
Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations)
Criteria
Criteria noted below will be scored and weighted as noted.
Criteria
Round 3 Weight
Cost of energy per resident in the affected project area relative to other areas (From Worksheet)
25
The type and amount of matching funds and other resources an applicant will commit to the project. (See formula)
20
Project feasibility (Score from Stage 2 weighted)
20
Project readiness. How quickly the proposed work can begin and be accomplished and/or success in previous phases of project development.
10
Public benefits including economic benefit to the Alaska Public.
15
Sustainability – the ability of the application to finance, operate and maintain the project for the life of the project
5
Local Support (See formula)
5
Statewide Balance of Funds (Evaluated as a pass fail if there are similar projects in the same community. Statewide Balance is done in Stage 4.)
Statewide Balance of Funds (Evaluated as a pass fail if there are similar projects in the same community. Statewide Balance is done in Stage 4.)
Compliance with Previous Grant Awards and progress in previous phases of project development. (Evaluated as a pass fail)
Process
Reviewers will use the Scoring Matrix Guides for designated criteria in Stage 2.
Each application will be given a single weighted score.
Where more than one evaluator is scoring a given criteria the scores of all evaluators for that criteria will be averaged.
Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Administrator by e-mail, Bcc to project manager, with a response time of 7 days or less.
The evaluation team may conduct interviews of applicants to determine a more complete understanding of the technical or financial aspects of their application.
Funding Limitations on Recommendations Sec 1.14
Evaluators should take these limits into account when making recommendations as the applicants were instructed that they would be responsible for any project costs beyond the grant funds
available to complete the project.
Project Type/Phase
Grant Limits
Construction projects on the Railbelt and SE Alaskan communities that have a low cost of power.
$2. Million per project
Construction in all other areas of the State not mentioned above.
$4. Million per project
Recommendation Guidelines
The final recommendations will be one of the following:
Recommend – Full funding per application
Recommend – Partial funding with a recommended funding amount
Do not recommend for grant funding – (basis for not recommending to be explained)
Final AEA recommendations may also suggest specific terms or conditions be imposed on the grantee to assure the project is successful and the public receives value for the funds to be
expended
Multi-phase funding guidelines
Fund multiple phases: Multiple phases can be completed in 2011/12, and project is well-defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk.
Fund limited phases: Project construction would be 2012+, not well-defined, expensive, higher risk, or there are competing projects for which planning is desirable.
Competing or interactive projects guidelines
If AEA is aware of the potential for substantial interaction among proposed and/or other known projects, then recommend planning with appropriate level of analysis and public input before
committing substantial funding to one or more alternatives.
Partial Funding Guidelines
Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are recommended.
Exception 1: If AEA believes project can be built for less, then lower figure can be recommended. AEA will provide justification for lower figure in its recommendations.
Exception 2: Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor, fuel) or non-renewable energy components (e.g. a diesel generator) not recommended for funding.
Exception 3 – If limiting funding to a maximum dollar limit for specific areas groups, or types of projects would provide the best statewide balance of funds AEA may do that.
Guidelines for recommendations for bio-fuels Projects (RFA 1.14)
Bio-fuel projects where the Applicant does not intend to generate electricity or heat for sale to the public will be limited to reconnaissance and feasibility phases only
Consideration of Resources Assessment Projects
Resource assessment associated with one or more site-specific projects is eligible for phase 2 funding. General regional or statewide assessment, not tied to particular proposed projects,
is not eligible, and more appropriately done through the DNR/AEA Alaska Energy Inventory Data project.
Recommendation Guidelines will be documented and a part of the grant file.
Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations
All applications recommended for grants as a result the Stage 3 evaluation will be ranked in accordance with 3 AAC 107.660.
To establish a statewide balance of recommended projects, the Authority will provide to the advisory committee a statewide and regional ranking of all applications recommended for grants
in Stage 3.
In consultation with the advisory committee the Authority will make a final prioritized list of all recommended projects giving significant weight to providing a statewide balance for
grant money, and taking into consideration the amount of money that may be available, the number and types of project within each region, regional rank, and statewide rank of each application.
In its final decision on an application the Authority may recommend a grant in an amount for the project phases different from what the Applicant requested. In recommending a grant
for phases different from what the Applicant requested, the authority may limit its recommendation to a grant for one or more preliminary project phases before recommending a grant
for project construction.
Reviewers –
Grant Administrator
Program Manager
Executive Director of AEA.
Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations)
Process
Upon completion of scoring and specific project recommendations by AEA all applications will be grouped within geographical regions,
Each group of applications will be ranked within their geographical region based on the final stage three score.
Each application will have stage three score and regional rank.
A draft recommendation of projects for funding, (based on available funds) will be presented to the Advisory Committee for Review along with the complete list of all projects.
Consistent with the process established in rounds 1,2, and 3, AEA will prepare a summary of the draft recommendations by energy region that will compare potential allocations of funding
by 1) population, 2) an even split for each region, and 3) the average cost of power in each region that takes into account populations of each community in each region.
Stage 4 revised allocations in each region should be at least 50% of the allocation based on 3) cost of power. In order to attain this goal AEA will refer to the stage 3 statewide ranking
list, identify the next highest-ranked project in regions that do not meet the 50% goal, and add that recommendation to the stage 4 list. In order to meet total funding limits AEA
will refer to the stage 3 statewide ranking list and remove the lowest-ranked recommendation.
The Advisory committee may provide additional recommendations as to the funding level of individual projects, the final ranking of projects, and the total amount of funding and number
of project AEA forward to the legislature.
The final list of recommended projects for funding will provide a reasonable statewide balance of funds taking into consideration the overall score, the cost of energy, the rank of projects
within a region.
Recommendations to the Legislature
The final recommendation to the legislature will include:
A list of recommended Applications for fy2012 funding.
A list of applications recommended if additional funds may be available.
A list of applications not recommended for funding.
A list of applications rejected as ineligible.
The Final recommendation to the legislature will also contain specific information for each project as requested by the legislature and a summary of each project.
Applicants may be required to provide additional information to the Legislature upon request.
Scoring Criteria
General Scoring Criteria
Pass/Fail scoring means either the criteria are met or they are not.
A weighted score for each of the criteria will calculated and each complete application will be given a total score at the end of the Stage 2 and Stage 3 review process unless the application
is determined not to meet the requirements of the RFA.
Reviewers should use the following weighted scoring of criteria as a guide in addition to the specific formula scoring matrices for some criteria defined in Appendix A of these procedures.
Score
Guidelines (Intent is to provide a range)
10
A+
The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the criteria requirements and completely addresses them thoughtful manner. The application addresses the criteria in a manner
clearly superior to other applications received. There is no need for additional follow-up with the applicant to understand how they meet the requirements of the criteria
7
B
The application provides information that is generally complete and well-supported. Evaluators may still have a few questions regarding how the applicant meets the criterion but it
is clear the applicant understands what is required.
5
C
The application addresses the criteria in an adequate way. Meets minimum requirements under each of the criteria. Some issues may still need to be clarified prior to awarding a grant.
3
D
The application information is incomplete or fails to fully address what is needed for the project or information has errors. The Authority may need more info to be able to complete
the evaluation or need to resolve issues before recommending or awarding a grant.
0
F
The application fails to demonstrate understanding of the criteria requirements or project proposed. Required information is poor or absent in the proposal.
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio
(Maximum Stage Two points 25)
AEA staff will consider the economist evaluation when scoring this criterion. They will compare the economists and any Applicant proposed B/C and determine which of the B/C ranges may
be most appropriate. If there is wide discrepancy between the two B/C ratios they will use their best judgment based on their understanding of the technical aspects of the proposal
to assign a score.
A project will be scored at 0 if the Benefit Cost ratio value is < 0.90 or if no or insufficient information is provided by the applicant to do an economic analysis.
Benefit / Cost (B/C) Ratio Value
Score
Less than 0.90
(This indicates that there is relatively low economic benefit or economic analysis cannot be conducted.)
0
>0.90 – =<1.00
1
>1.00 – =<1.10
3
>1.10 – =<1.20
4
>1.20 – =<1.30
5
>1.30 – =<1.40
6
>1.40 - < 1.50
7
>1.50 - < 1.60
8
>1.60 - < 1.70
9
=>1.7
10
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan
(Maximum Stage Two points 5)
The Financing plan score will be subjectively scored based on the applicant’s intent and level of detail described in the application on how the applicant proposes to fund the project.
Questions to be considered under these criteria:
If recommended, are funds needed to complete the work identified in the application available and adequate to complete all the work in the Grant?
If additional funds are needed does the applicant specifically identify where they will come from?
Are these additional funds secured, or are they pending future approvals?
Is there a reasonable plan for covering potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding?
What impact, if any, would the timing of availability of additional funds have on the ability to proceed with the grant?
If the above questions are addressed in the application and there is an adequate plan this will be given a point score of 5. If the plan is not adequate it will be scored lower based
on the likelihood of funding being available to complete the project or additional commitments that may need to be made by the applicant prior to award of a grant.
For example, an applicant may request construction funding above the RFA cap but does not indicate how the additional funding will be obtained. They may receive a lower score than an
applicant who can demonstrate they have all the financial resources in place to complete the grant work proposed in the application.
Stage 2, Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines
(Maximum Stage two points 10)
The score for this criterion will be provided by AEA reviewers during the Stage 2 evaluation. For the purpose of evaluating this criterion, public benefits are those benefits that would
be considered unique to a given project and not generic to any renewable resource. i.e. decreased greenhouse gas emission, stable pricing of fuel source, won’t be considered under
this category.
Project review economists will provide a qualitative assessment of potential public benefits in their project review summary for each project they review. Economists will not provide
scores for the criteria.
Each category may be scored 0-2 with the maximum total public benefit weight being no more than 10 points.
0. no documented benefit
1 some benefit / not well documented
2 good benefit / well documented
Score
Will the project result in developing infrastructure such as roads that can be used for other purposes?
0 - 2
Will the project result in a direct long-term increase in jobs such as for operating or supplying fuel to the facility?
0 - 2
Will the project solve other problems for the community, such as waste disposal?
0 -2
Will the project generate useful information that could be used by the public in other parts of the State?
0 - 2
Will this project either promote or sustain long-term commercial economic development for the community?
0 - 2
Are there other public benefits identified by the applicant?
0 - 2
Stage 3 Criterion – Match
Total of 20 points will be calculated as follows: The scoring matrix for the total amount of match may be adjusted by the Grant Administrator after the initial review of applications
based on a reasonable threshold for each level based on the applicants match in all applications.
Type of Match
5 Pts
+
Percentage of Match to total Grant Request
10 Pts
+
Total Amount of Match (1)
5 Pts
Support of any kind referenced but not given a specific value IE housing offered to outside workers, administration of project without compensation
1
.01% - <5% of Grant =
1
> $1 - < $15K
1
Support of any kind referenced but not given a specific value IE housing offered to outside workers, administration of project without compensation
1
.01% - <5% of Grant =
1
> $1 - < $15K
1
Previous investment towards project completion
2
=>5% - =<10% of Grant =
2
$15K - <$100K
2
Another grant [State] as Match
3
>10% - =<15% of Grant =
4
$100K <$1 mil
3
Other (Grant Fed) Or private
4
>15% - =<30% of Grant
6
$1 mil - <$6 mil
4
Loan or Local Cash or any documented In-kind Match
5
>30% - =<49% of Grant =
8
> $6 mil
5
> 49% of Grant
10
(1) If there are multiple types of Match that with highest value is scored.
Stage 3 Criterion Local Support
Total of 5 Points Available
Documented unresolved issues concerning the application no points will be given if these exist regardless of demonstrated support
0 points
Resolution from city or village council
2 points
Support demonstrated by local entity other than applicant
3 points
Support demonstrated by two local entities other than the applicant
4 points
Support demonstrated by three or more local entities other than the applicant
5 points
Letters of support from legislators do not count toward this criterion.
Stage 3 Criterion Project Readiness
Up to ten points are available and may be assigned as follows. If evaluators believe there are other readiness criteria that should be considered they may adjust the score that when
awarding points for this criteria
Criteria
Up to 10 points available
Proposed work is reconnaissance level and is consistent with specific recommendations under the Alaska Energy Pathway
4 points
Project is currently underway with feasibility or reconnaissance work, design work related to the project, or actual construction of the project and the applicant is using their own
funds or funds from another eligible source to finance the activity.
4 points
Applicant has completed previous phase(s) of proposed project and desires additional funding to complete the next phase of project.
2 points
Applicant has completed required feasibility and/or design work for project and is prepared to place an order for necessary equipment for the project; such as an item with a ‘long
lead time’ to procure.
2 points
Applicant has obtained all necessary permits, met all permit requirements, and addressed all regulatory agency stipulations.
2 points
Stage 3 Criterion Public Benefit
This criteria will be scored using a weighted calculation from the Phase 2 Economic (4.a) and Public Benefit score (4.b).
Stage 3 Sustainability
This criteria will be scored from 0 to 5 based on the evaluators’ assessment of the 1) capability of the grantee to demonstrate the capacity, both administratively and financially, to
provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project, 2) likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project, 3) likelihood of market for
energy produced over the life of the project.
Stage 3 Criteria Statewide Regional Balance
Rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable (NA)
Criteria
If there is more than one project from the same community or area, which project has received an overall higher score during the review and/or has demonstrated that local residents
are in favor of the project.
Project funding will provide balance to the number and/or amount to a specific area of the State.
Stage 3 Criteria Compliance with Other Awards
Rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable (NA)
Criteria
Legislative Grant
Alternative Energy
Solicitation (Round O)
Round I,II, or III
Has grantee provided all necessary information for grant preparation for grants awarded from previous solicitations?
Is grantee making verifiable and adequate progress using previous grant funds; for this or another project?
Has grantee provided all required financial and progress reports, per the terms of any previous grants?
Stage 3 Criterion Cost of Energy
This score is based on the residential cost power for each community using available data from 2009. Scores are assigned for each community using the following formula:
Score = (cost of power) / 0.80 x 10, Score cannot be greater than 10.
Communities with a residential cost of power above $0.80/kWh are assigned a score of 10. Communities are with the highest cost of electrical energy getting the most points for this
criterion. All other applications will be scored as a percentage of the highest costs against an established matrix.
Community
Utility
Cost of Power ($/kWh)
Score
(1-10)
Adak
City of Adak
0.713
8.91
Afognak
Kodiak Electric Association
0.153
1.91
Akiachak
Akiachak Native Community Electric Co
0.630
7.88
Akiak
City of Akiak
0.630
7.88
Akutan
Akutan Electric Utility
0.323
4.04
Alakanuk
AVEC
0.635
7.94
Alatna
Alaska Power Company
0.667
8.34
Aleknagik
Nushagak Electric Coop
0.463
5.79
Allakaket
Alaska Power Company
0.667
8.34
Ambler
AVEC
0.796
9.96
Anaktuvuk Pass
North Slope Borough
0.150
1.88
Anchor Point (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
Anchorage, Municipality of
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
0.126
1.57
Anchorage, Municipality of
Municipal Light & Power Department d/b/a Municipality of Anchorage
0.176
2.20
Anderson
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
Andreafsky
AVEC
0.594
7.43
Angoon
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc.
0.422
5.27
Aniak
Aniak Light & Power Company
0.761
9.51
Anvik
AVEC
0.656
8.20
Atka
Andreanof Electric Corporation
0.767
9.58
Atmautluak
Atmautluak Joint Utilities
0.774
9.68
Atqasuk
North Slope Borough
0.150
1.88
Barrow
Barrow Utilities & Electric Coop
0.132
1.65
Beaver
Beaver Joint Utilities
0.550
6.88
Bethel
Bethel Utilities Corporation, Inc.
0.537
6.71
Bettles
Alaska Power Company
0.584
7.31
Big Lake
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Brevig Mission
AVEC
0.603
7.53
Buckland
City of Buckland
0.519
6.48
Cantwell
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
Central
Central Electric, Inc.
0.509
6.36
Chalkyitsik
Chalkyitsik Village Energy System
0.950
10.00
Chuathbaluk
Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc.
0.343
4.28
Chefornak
Naterkaq Light Plant
0.650
8.13
Chenega Bay
Chenega Bay IRA Village Council
0.435
5.44
Chevak
AVEC
0.665
8.31
Chickaloon
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Chignik
Chignik Electric
0.510
6.38
Chignik Lagoon
Chignik Lagoon Power Utility
0.500
6.25
Chignik Lake
Chignik Lake Electric Utility, Inc.
0.582
7.27
Chilkat Valley
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc.
0.422
5.27
Chiniak
Kodiak Electric Association
0.153
1.91
Chistochina
Alaska Power Company
0.459
5.74
Chitina
Chitina Electric Inc.
0.530
6.63
Chugiak
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Circle Hot Springs (Central)
Central Electric, Inc.
0.670
8.38
Clam Gulch (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
Coffman Cove
Alaska Power Company
0.343
4.28
Cold Bay
G & K, Inc.
0.644
8.05
College
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
Cooper Landing
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
0.176
2.20
Copper Center
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Copperville
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Cordova
Cordova Electric Cooperative Inc.
0.331
4.14
Craig
Alaska Power Company
0.197
2.46
Crooked Creek
Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc.
0.987
10.00
Deadhorse
TDX North Slope Generating, Inc.
0.277
3.46
Deering
Ipnatchiaq Electric Company
0.774
9.67
Delta Junction
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
Dillingham
Nushagak Electric Coop
0.463
5.79
Diomede (Little Diomede)
Diomede Joint Utilities
0.600
7.50
Dot Lake
Alaska Power Company
0.295
3.69
Douglas
Alaska Electric Light & Power
0.111
1.39
Eagle
Alaska Power Company
0.643
8.04
Eagle River
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Eagle Village
Alaska Power Company
0.702
8.78
Eek
AVEC
0.702
8.78
Egegik
Egegik Light & Power Company
0.886
10.00
Eklutna
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Eklutna
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Ekwok
Ekwok Electric
0.500
6.25
Elfin Cove
Elfin Cove Utility Commission
0.523
6.54
Elim
AVEC
0.598
7.48
Emmonak
AVEC
0.648
8.10
Evansville
Alaska Power Company
0.584
7.31
Eyak
Cordova Electric Cooperative Inc.
0.331
4.14
Fairbanks
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
False Pass
False Pass Electric Assoc
0.520
6.50
Fort Greely
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
Fort Wainwright
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
Fort Yukon
Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company
0.536
6.70
Fox
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
Gakona
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Galena
City of Galena
0.563
7.04
Gambell
AVEC
0.620
7.74
Glennallen
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Golovin
Golovin Power Utilities
0.700
8.75
Goodnews Bay
AVEC
0.663
8.29
Grayling
AVEC
0.732
9.15
Gulkana
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Gustavus
Gustavus Electric Company, Inc.
0.428
5.36
Haines
Alaska Power Company
0.212
2.65
Halibut Cove (HEA 2)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.201
2.51
Healy
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
Healy Lake
Alaska Power Company
0.609
7.61
Hollis
Alaska Power Company
0.197
2.46
Holy Cross
AVEC
0.681
8.51
Homer (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
Hoonah
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc.
0.422
5.27
Hooper Bay
AVEC
0.611
7.64
Hope
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
0.176
2.20
Houston
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Hughes
Hughes Light & Power
0.710
8.88
Huslia
AVEC
0.647
8.09
Hydaburg
Alaska Power Company
0.197
2.46
Hyder/Stewart B.C.
BC Hydro
0.087
1.09
Igiugig
Igiugig Electric Company
0.803
10.00
Iliamna
I-N-N Electric Coop
0.513
6.42
Juneau, City & Borough of
Alaska Electric Light & Power
0.111
1.39
Kachemak (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
Kake
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc.
0.422
5.27
Kaktovik
North Slope Borough
0.150
1.88
Kalifornsky (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
Kaltag
AVEC
0.630
7.87
Karluk
Alutiiq Power Company
0.600
7.50
Kasaan
Alaska Power Company
0.197
2.46
Kasigluk
AVEC
0.526
6.57
Kasilof (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
Kenai (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
Kenny Lake
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Ketchikan
Ketchikan Public Utilities
0.096
1.20
Kiana
AVEC
0.687
8.59
King Cove
City of King Cove
0.240
3.00
King Salmon
Naknek Electric Assn
0.416
5.20
Kipnuk
Kipnuk Light Plant
0.653
8.16
Kivalina
AVEC
0.725
9.06
Klawock
Alaska Power Company
0.197
2.46
Klukwan
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc.
0.422
5.27
Knik-Fairview
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Kobuk
Kobuk Valley Elect Coop
0.870
10.00
Kodiak
Kodiak Electric Association
0.153
1.91
Kodiak Station
Kodiak Electric Association
0.153
1.91
Kokhanok
Kokhanok Village Council
0.900
10.00
Koliganek
New Koliganek Village Council
0.500
6.25
Kongiganak
Puvurnaq Power Company
0.550
6.88
Kotlik
AVEC
0.592
7.40
Kotzebue
Kotzebue Electric Assn
0.464
5.81
Koyuk
AVEC
0.631
7.89
Koyukuk
City of Koyukuk
0.450
5.63
Kwethluk
Kwethluk Inc
0.520
6.50
Kwigillingok
Kwig Power Company
0.500
6.25
Larsen Bay
Larsen Bay Utility Company
0.440
5.50
Levelock
Levelock Electric Coop
0.700
8.75
Lime Village
Lime Village Traditional Council
1.170
10.00
Lower Kalskag
AVEC
0.597
7.46
Manley Hot Springs
Manley Utility Company, Inc.
0.998
10.00
Manokotak
Manokotak Power Company
0.450
5.63
Marshall
AVEC
0.625
7.81
McGrath
McGrath Light & Power Company
0.608
7.60
McKinley Park
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
McKinley Park
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
Mekoryuk
AVEC
0.646
8.08
Mendeltna
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Mentasta
Alaska Power Company
0.478
5.98
Metlakatla
Metlakatla Power & Light
0.092
1.15
Minto
AVEC
0.614
7.68
Moose Pass
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
0.176
2.20
Mountain Village
AVEC
0.606
7.57
Naknek
Naknek Electric Assn
0.416
5.20
Nanwalek (HEA 2)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.201
2.51
Napakiak
Napakiak Ircinraq Power Company
1.080
10.00
Napaskiak
Napaskiak Electric Utility
0.600
7.50
Naukati Bay
Alaska Power Company
0.370
4.63
Nelchina
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Nelson Lagoon
Nelson Lagoon Electric Coop
0.740
9.25
Nenana
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
New Stuyahok
AVEC
0.630
7.87
Newhalen
I-N-N Electric Coop
0.513
6.42
Newtok
Ungusrag Power Company
0.800
10.00
Nightmute
AVEC
0.531
6.64
Nikiski (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
Nikolai
Nikolai Light & Power Utility
0.804
10.00
Nikolski
Umnak Power Company
0.600
7.50
Ninilchik (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
Noatak
AVEC
0.726
9.08
Nome
Nome Joint Utility Systems
0.368
4.60
Nondalton
I-N-N Electric Coop
0.513
6.42
Noorvik
AVEC
0.714
8.92
North Pole
Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc.
0.168
2.10
Northway
Alaska Power Company
0.424
5.30
Northway Village
Alaska Power Company
0.424
5.30
Nuiqsut
North Slope Borough
0.150
1.88
Nulato
AVEC
0.631
7.89
Nunam Iqua (Sheldon Point)
Nunam Iqua Electric Co.
0.530
6.63
Nunapitchuk
AVEC
0.526
6.57
Old Harbor
AVEC
0.624
7.80
Oscarville
Bethel Utilities Corporation, Inc.
0.537
6.71
Ouzinkie
City of Ouzinkie
0.365
4.56
Palmer
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Pedro Bay
Pedro Bay Village Council
0.910
10.00
Pelican
Kake Tribal Corporation
0.434
5.43
Perryville
Native Village of Perryville
0.600
7.50
Petersburg
Petersburg Municipal Power & Light
0.135
1.68
Pilot Point
Pilot Point Electrical Utility
0.500
6.25
Pilot Station
AVEC
0.632
7.90
Pitkas Point
AVEC
0.594
7.43
Platinum
City of Platinum
0.500
6.25
Point Hope
North Slope Borough
0.150
1.88
Point Lay
North Slope Borough
0.150
1.88
Port Alsworth
Tanalian Electric Coop
0.638
7.97
Port Graham (HEA 2)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.201
2.51
Port Heiden (Meshik)
Port Heiden Utilities
0.570
7.13
Port Lions
Kodiak Electric Association
0.153
1.91
Quinhagak
AVEC
0.668
8.36
Red Devil
Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc.
0.987
10.00
Ruby
City of Ruby
0.980
10.00
Russian Mission
AVEC
0.637
7.97
Saint Mary's
AVEC
0.594
7.43
Saint Michael
AVEC
0.632
7.90
Saint Paul
St. Paul Municipal Electric Utility
0.460
5.75
Salamatof (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
Sand Point
TDX Sand Point Generating, Inc.
0.521
6.51
Savoonga
AVEC
0.614
7.67
Saxman
Ketchikan Public Utilities
0.096
1.20
Scammon Bay
AVEC
0.621
7.77
Selawik
AVEC
0.655
8.18
Seldovia (HEA 2)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.201
2.51
Seward
Seward Electric System
0.126
1.58
Shageluk
AVEC
0.769
9.61
Shaktoolik
AVEC
0.602
7.53
Shishmaref
AVEC
0.568
7.10
Shungnak
AVEC
0.732
9.15
Silver Springs
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Sitka (Mt. Edgecumbe)
Sitka Electric Department
0.092
1.15
Skagway
Alaska Power Company
0.212
2.65
Slana
Alaska Power Company
0.522
6.52
Sleetmute
Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc.
0.987
10.00
Soldotna (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
South Naknek
Naknek Electric Assn
0.416
5.20
Stebbins
AVEC
0.609
7.61
Sterling (HEA 1)
Homer Electric Association, Inc.
0.198
2.47
Stevens Village
Stevens Village Energy Systems
1.070
10.00
Stony River
Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc.
0.987
10.00
Stony River
Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative, Inc.
0.987
10.00
Sutton-Alpine
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Takotna
Takotna Community Assoc. Utilities
1.250
10.00
Talkeetna
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Tanacross
Alaska Power Company
0.531
6.64
Tanana PCE
Tanana Power Company, Inc.
0.664
8.30
Tatitlek PCE
Tatitlek Electric Utility
0.760
9.50
Tazlina
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Teller
AVEC
0.715
8.94
Tenakee Springs
City of Tenakee Springs
0.295
3.69
Tetlin
Alaska Power Company
0.197
2.46
Thorne Bay
Alaska Power Company
0.594
7.42
Togiak (Twin Hills)
AVEC
0.295
3.69
Tok
Alaska Power Company
0.531
6.64
Toksook Bay
AVEC
0.600
7.50
Tolsona
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Tonsina
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Tuluksak
Tuluksak Traditional Power Utility
0.650
8.13
Tuntutuliak
Tuntutuliak Community Service Assoc
0.531
6.64
Tununak
AVEC
0.550
6.88
Twin Hills
Twin Hills Village Council
0.492
6.15
Tyonek
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
0.176
2.20
Unalakleet
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.264
3.30
Unalaska (Dutch Harbor)
Unalaska Electric Utility
0.597
7.46
Upper Kalskag
AVEC
0.597
7.46
Valdez
Copper Valley Electric Assn.
0.198
2.48
Venetie
Venetie Village Electric
0.750
9.38
Wainwright
North Slope Borough
0.150
1.88
Wales
AVEC
0.648
8.10
Wasilla
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Whale Pass
Alaska Power Company
0.435
5.44
White Mountain
White Mountain Utilities
1.080
10.00
Whittier
Chugach Electric Association, Inc.
0.176
2.20
Willow
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.169
2.12
Women’s Bay
Kodiak Electric Association
0.153
1.91
Wrangell
Wrangell Municipal Light & Power
0.132
1.66
Yakutat
Yakutat Power
0.347
4.34