HomeMy WebLinkAboutREFund4EvaluationGuidelinesFinal
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard ● Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2495
www.aidea.org ● 907/771-3000 ● FAX 907/771-3044 ● Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888/300-8534 ● www.akenergyauthority.org
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Methods for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation
January 24, 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 27 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withdrawn by the applicant and was therefore also not recommended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.
1. Cost of Energy (25%):
2. Matching Funds (20%)
3. Economic and Technical Feasibility (20%): score from stage 2
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 2 of 2 01/24/2011
4. Project Readiness (10%)
5. Economic and Other Alaska Benefit (15%)
6. Sustainability (5%)
7. 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.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard ● Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2495
www.aidea.org ● 907/771-3000 ● FAX 907/771-3044 ● Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888/300-8534 ● www.akenergyauthority.org
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 ................................................................................................................................. 14
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 4 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.
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 2 of 22 1/24/2011
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
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 3 of 22 1/24/2011
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.
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 4 of 22 1/24/2011
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:
20%
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 5 of 22 1/24/2011
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.
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.
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 6 of 22 1/24/2011
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 4
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.
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 7 of 22 1/24/2011
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:
o Recommend – Full funding per application
o Recommend – Partial funding with a recommended funding amount
o Do not recommend for grant funding – (basis for not recommending to be
explained)
Final AEA recommendations may also suggest specific terms or conditions be imposed
on the grantee to assure the project is successful and the public receives value for the
funds to be expended
Multi-phase funding guidelines
o Fund multiple phases: Multiple phases can be completed in 2011/12, and project
is well-defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk.
o 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
o If AEA is aware of the potential for substantial interaction among proposed and/or
other known projects, then recommend planning with appropriate level of
analysis and public input before committing substantial funding to one or more
alternatives.
Partial Funding Guidelines
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 8 of 22 1/24/2011
o Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are
recommended.
o 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.
o Exception 2: Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor, fuel) or
non-renewable energy components (e.g. a diesel generator) not recommended
for funding.
o 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)
o 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
o Resource assessment associated with one or more site-specific projects is
eligible for phase 2 funding. General regional or statewide assessment, not tied
to particular proposed projects, is not eligible, and more appropriately done
through the DNR/AEA Alaska Energy Inventory Data project.
Recommendation Guidelines will be documented and a part of the grant file.
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)
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 9 of 22 1/24/2011
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.
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 10 of 22 1/24/2011
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.
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 11 of 22 1/24/2011
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
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 12 of 22 1/24/2011
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
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
1 .01% - <5% of
Grant =
1 > $1 - < $15K 1
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
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 13 of 22 1/24/2011
project without compensation
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
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 14 of 22 1/24/2011
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.
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 15 of 22 1/24/2011
Communities with a residential cost of power above $0.80/kWh are assigned a score of 10.
Communities are with the highest cost of electrical energy getting the most points for this
criterion. All other applications will be scored as a percentage of the highest costs against an
established matrix.
Energy Region Community Utility Cost of
Power
($/kWh)
Score
Aleutians Adak City of Adak 0.713 8.91
Kodiak Afognak Kodiak Electric Association 0.153 1.91
Low Yuk-Kusk Akiachak Akiachak Native Community Electric Co 0.63 7.88
Low Yuk-Kusk Akiak City of Akiak 0.63 7.88
Aleutians Akutan Akutan Electric Utility 0.323 4.04
Low Yuk-Kusk Alakanuk AVEC 0.635 7.94
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Alatna Alaska Power Company 0.667 8.34
Bristol Bay Aleknagik Nushagak Electric Coop 0.463 5.79
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Allakaket Alaska Power Company 0.667 8.34
Northwest Arctic Ambler AVEC 0.796 9.96
North Slope Anaktuvuk Pass North Slope Borough 0.15 1.88
Railbelt Anchor Point (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
Railbelt Anchorage,
Municipality of
Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.126 1.57
Railbelt Anchorage,
Municipality of
Municipal Light & Power Department d/b/a
Municipality of Anchorage
0.176 2.2
Railbelt Anderson Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Andreafsky AVEC 0.594 7.43
Southeast Angoon Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.422 5.27
Low Yuk-Kusk Aniak Aniak Light & Power Company 0.761 9.51
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Anvik AVEC 0.656 8.2
Aleutians Atka Andreanof Electric Corporation 0.767 9.58
Low Yuk-Kusk Atmautluak Atmautluak Joint Utilities 0.774 9.68
North Slope Atqasuk North Slope Borough 0.15 1.88
North Slope Barrow Barrow Utilities & Electric Coop 0.132 1.65
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Beaver Beaver Joint Utilities 0.55 6.88
Low Yuk-Kusk Bethel Bethel Utilities Corporation, Inc. 0.537 6.71
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Bettles Alaska Power Company 0.584 7.31
Railbelt Big Lake Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Bering Straits Brevig Mission AVEC 0.603 7.53
Northwest Arctic Buckland City of Buckland 0.519 6.48
Railbelt Cantwell Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Central Central Electric, Inc. 0.509 6.36
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Chalkyitsik Chalkyitsik Village Energy System 0.95 10
Low Yuk-Kusk Chuathbaluk Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative,
Inc.
0.343 4.28
Low Yuk-Kusk Chefornak Naterkaq Light Plant 0.65 8.13
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 16 of 22 1/24/2011
CopRiv/Chug Chenega Bay Chenega Bay IRA Village Council 0.435 5.44
Low Yuk-Kusk Chevak AVEC 0.665 8.31
Railbelt Chickaloon Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Bristol Bay Chignik Chignik Electric 0.51 6.38
Bristol Bay Chignik Lagoon Chignik Lagoon Power Utility 0.5 6.25
Bristol Bay Chignik Lake Chignik Lake Electric Utility, Inc. 0.582 7.27
Southeast Chilkat Valley Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.422 5.27
Kodiak Chiniak Kodiak Electric Association 0.153 1.91
CopRiv/Chug Chistochina Alaska Power Company 0.459 5.74
CopRiv/Chug Chitina Chitina Electric Inc. 0.53 6.63
Railbelt Chugiak Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Circle Hot Springs
(Central)
Central Electric, Inc. 0.67 8.38
Railbelt Clam Gulch (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
Southeast Coffman Cove Alaska Power Company 0.343 4.28
Aleutians Cold Bay G & K, Inc. 0.644 8.05
Railbelt College Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
Railbelt Cooper Landing Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.176 2.2
CopRiv/Chug Copper Center Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
CopRiv/Chug Copperville Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
CopRiv/Chug Cordova Cordova Electric Cooperative Inc. 0.331 4.14
Southeast Craig Alaska Power Company 0.197 2.46
Low Yuk-Kusk Crooked Creek Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative,
Inc.
0.987 10
North Slope Deadhorse TDX North Slope Generating, Inc. 0.277 3.46
Northwest Arctic Deering Ipnatchiaq Electric Company 0.774 9.67
Railbelt Delta Junction Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
Bristol Bay Dillingham Nushagak Electric Coop 0.463 5.79
Bering Straits Diomede (Little
Diomede)
Diomede Joint Utilities 0.6 7.5
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Dot Lake Alaska Power Company 0.295 3.69
Southeast Douglas Alaska Electric Light & Power 0.111 1.39
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Eagle Alaska Power Company 0.643 8.04
Railbelt Eagle River Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Eagle Village Alaska Power Company 0.702 8.78
Low Yuk-Kusk Eek AVEC 0.702 8.78
Bristol Bay Egegik Egegik Light & Power Company 0.886 10
Railbelt Eklutna Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Bristol Bay Ekwok Ekwok Electric 0.5 6.25
Southeast Elfin Cove Elfin Cove Utility Commission 0.523 6.54
Bering Straits Elim AVEC 0.598 7.48
Low Yuk-Kusk Emmonak AVEC 0.648 8.1
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Evansville Alaska Power Company 0.584 7.31
CopRiv/Chug Eyak Cordova Electric Cooperative Inc. 0.331 4.14
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 17 of 22 1/24/2011
Railbelt Fairbanks Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
Aleutians False Pass False Pass Electric Assoc 0.52 6.5
Railbelt Fort Greely Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
Railbelt Fort Wainwright Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Fort Yukon Gwitchyaa Zhee Utility Company 0.536 6.7
Railbelt Fox Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
CopRiv/Chug Gakona Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Galena City of Galena 0.563 7.04
Bering Straits Gambell AVEC 0.62 7.74
CopRiv/Chug Glennallen Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
Bering Straits Golovin Golovin Power Utilities 0.7 8.75
Low Yuk-Kusk Goodnews Bay AVEC 0.663 8.29
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Grayling AVEC 0.732 9.15
CopRiv/Chug Gulkana Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
Southeast Gustavus Gustavus Electric Company, Inc. 0.428 5.36
Southeast Haines Alaska Power Company 0.212 2.65
Railbelt Halibut Cove (HEA 2) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.201 2.51
Railbelt Healy Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Healy Lake Alaska Power Company 0.609 7.61
Southeast Hollis Alaska Power Company 0.197 2.46
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Holy Cross AVEC 0.681 8.51
Railbelt Homer (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
Southeast Hoonah Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.422 5.27
Low Yuk-Kusk Hooper Bay AVEC 0.611 7.64
Railbelt Hope Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.176 2.2
Railbelt Houston Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Hughes Hughes Light & Power 0.71 8.88
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Huslia AVEC 0.647 8.09
Southeast Hydaburg Alaska Power Company 0.197 2.46
Southeast Hyder/Stewart B.C. BC Hydro 0.087 1.09
Bristol Bay Igiugig Igiugig Electric Company 0.803 10
Bristol Bay Iliamna I-N-N Electric Coop 0.513 6.42
Southeast Juneau, City &
Borough of
Alaska Electric Light & Power 0.111 1.39
Railbelt Kachemak (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
Southeast Kake Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.422 5.27
North Slope Kaktovik North Slope Borough 0.15 1.88
Railbelt Kalifornsky (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Kaltag AVEC 0.63 7.87
Kodiak Karluk Alutiiq Power Company 0.6 7.5
Southeast Kasaan Alaska Power Company 0.197 2.46
Low Yuk-Kusk Kasigluk AVEC 0.526 6.57
Railbelt Kasilof (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 18 of 22 1/24/2011
Railbelt Kenai (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
CopRiv/Chug Kenny Lake Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
Southeast Ketchikan Ketchikan Public Utilities 0.096 1.2
Northwest Arctic Kiana AVEC 0.687 8.59
Aleutians King Cove City of King Cove 0.24 3
Bristol Bay King Salmon Naknek Electric Assn 0.416 5.2
Low Yuk-Kusk Kipnuk Kipnuk Light Plant 0.653 8.16
Northwest Arctic Kivalina AVEC 0.725 9.06
Southeast Klawock Alaska Power Company 0.197 2.46
Southeastt Klukwan Inside Passage Electric Cooperative, Inc. 0.422 5.27
Railbelt Knik-Fairview Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Northwest Arctic Kobuk Kobuk Valley Elect Coop 0.87 10
Kodiak Kodiak Kodiak Electric Association 0.153 1.91
Kodaik Kodiak Station Kodiak Electric Association 0.153 1.91
Bristol Bay Kokhanok Kokhanok Village Council 0.9 10
Bristol Bay Koliganek New Koliganek Village Council 0.5 6.25
Low Yuk-Kusk Kongiganak Puvurnaq Power Company 0.55 6.88
Low Yuk-Kusk Kotlik AVEC 0.592 7.4
Northwest Arctic Kotzebue Kotzebue Electric Assn 0.464 5.81
Bering Straits Koyuk AVEC 0.631 7.89
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Koyukuk City of Koyukuk 0.45 5.63
Low Yuk-Kusk Kwethluk Kwethluk Inc 0.52 6.5
Low Yuk-Kusk Kwigillingok Kwig Power Company 0.5 6.25
Kodiak Larsen Bay Larsen Bay Utility Company 0.44 5.5
Bristol Bay Levelock Levelock Electric Coop 0.7 8.75
Low Yuk-Kusk Lime Village Lime Village Traditional Council 1.17 10
Low Yuk-Kusk Lower Kalskag AVEC 0.597 7.46
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Manley Hot Springs Manley Utility Company, Inc. 0.998 10
Bristol Bay Manokotak Manokotak Power Company 0.45 5.63
Low Yuk-Kusk Marshall AVEC 0.625 7.81
Yuk-Koy/UpTan McGrath McGrath Light & Power Company 0.608 7.6
Railbelt McKinley Park Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
Low Yuk-Kusk Mekoryuk AVEC 0.646 8.08
CopRiv/Chug Mendeltna Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
Low Yuk-Kusk Mentasta Alaska Power Company 0.478 5.98
Southeast Metlakatla Metlakatla Power & Light 0.092 1.15
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Minto AVEC 0.614 7.68
Railbelt Moose Pass Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.176 2.2
Low Yuk-Kusk Mountain Village AVEC 0.606 7.57
Bristol Bay Naknek Naknek Electric Assn 0.416 5.2
Railbelt Nanwalek (HEA 2) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.201 2.51
Low Yuk-Kusk Napakiak Napakiak Ircinraq Power Company 1.08 10
Low Yuk-Kusk Napaskiak Napaskiak Electric Utility 0.6 7.5
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 19 of 22 1/24/2011
Southeast Naukati Bay Alaska Power Company 0.37 4.63
Railbelt Nelchina Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
Aleutians Nelson Lagoon Nelson Lagoon Electric Coop 0.74 9.25
Railbelt Nenana Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
Bristol Bay New Stuyahok AVEC 0.63 7.87
Bristol Bay Newhalen I-N-N Electric Coop 0.513 6.42
Low Yuk-Kusk Newtok Ungusrag Power Company 0.8 10
Low Yuk-Kusk Nightmute AVEC 0.531 6.64
Railbelt Nikiski (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Nikolai Nikolai Light & Power Utility 0.804 10
Aleutians Nikolski Umnak Power Company 0.6 7.5
Railbelt Ninilchik (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
Northwest Arctic Noatak AVEC 0.726 9.08
Bering Straits Nome Nome Joint Utility Systems 0.368 4.6
Northwest Arctic Nondalton I-N-N Electric Coop 0.513 6.42
Northwest Arctic Noorvik AVEC 0.714 8.92
Railbelt North Pole Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. 0.168 2.1
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Northway Alaska Power Company 0.424 5.3
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Northway Village Alaska Power Company 0.424 5.3
North Slope Nuiqsut North Slope Borough 0.15 1.88
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Nulato AVEC 0.631 7.89
Low Yuk-Kusk Nunam Iqua (Sheldon
Point)
Nunam Iqua Electric Co. 0.53 6.63
Low Yuk-Kusk Nunapitchuk AVEC 0.526 6.57
Kodiak Old Harbor AVEC 0.624 7.8
Low Yuk-Kusk Oscarville Bethel Utilities Corporation, Inc. 0.537 6.71
Kodiak Ouzinkie City of Ouzinkie 0.365 4.56
Railbelt Palmer Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Southeast Pedro Bay Pedro Bay Village Council 0.91 10
Southeast Pelican Kake Tribal Corporation 0.434 5.43
Bristol Bay Perryville Native Village of Perryville 0.6 7.5
Southeast Petersburg Petersburg Municipal Power & Light 0.135 1.68
Bristol Bay Pilot Point Pilot Point Electrical Utility 0.5 6.25
Low Yuk-Kusk Pilot Station AVEC 0.632 7.9
Low Yuk-Kusk Pitkas Point AVEC 0.594 7.43
Low Yuk-Kusk Platinum City of Platinum 0.5 6.25
North Slope Point Hope North Slope Borough 0.15 1.88
North Slope Point Lay North Slope Borough 0.15 1.88
Bristol Bay Port Alsworth Tanalian Electric Coop 0.638 7.97
Railbelt Port Graham (HEA 2) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.201 2.51
Bristol Bay Port Heiden (Meshik) Port Heiden Utilities 0.57 7.13
Kodiak Port Lions Kodiak Electric Association 0.153 1.91
Low Yuk-Kusk Quinhagak AVEC 0.668 8.36
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 20 of 22 1/24/2011
Low Yuk-Kusk Red Devil Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative,
Inc.
0.987 10
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Ruby City of Ruby 0.98 10
Low Yuk-Kusk Russian Mission AVEC 0.637 7.97
Low Yuk-Kusk Saint Mary's AVEC 0.594 7.43
Bering Straits Saint Michael AVEC 0.632 7.9
Aleutians Saint Paul St. Paul Municipal Electric Utility 0.46 5.75
Railbelt Salamatof (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
Aleutians Sand Point TDX Sand Point Generating, Inc. 0.521 6.51
Bering Straits Savoonga AVEC 0.614 7.67
Southeast Saxman Ketchikan Public Utilities 0.096 1.2
Low Yuk-Kusk Scammon Bay AVEC 0.621 7.77
Northwest Arctic Selawik AVEC 0.655 8.18
Railbelt Seldovia (HEA 2) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.201 2.51
Railbelt Seward Seward Electric System 0.126 1.58
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Shageluk AVEC 0.769 9.61
Bering Straits Shaktoolik AVEC 0.602 7.53
Bering Straits Shishmaref AVEC 0.568 7.1
Northwest Arctic Shungnak AVEC 0.732 9.15
CopRiv/Chug Silver Springs Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
Southeast Sitka (Mt.
Edgecumbe)
Sitka Electric Department 0.092 1.15
Southeast Skagway Alaska Power Company 0.212 2.65
CopRiv/Chug Slana Alaska Power Company 0.522 6.52
Low Yuk-Kusk Sleetmute Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative,
Inc.
0.987 10
Railbelt Soldotna (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
Bristol Bay South Naknek Naknek Electric Assn 0.416 5.2
Bering Straits Stebbins AVEC 0.609 7.61
Railbelt Sterling (HEA 1) Homer Electric Association, Inc. 0.198 2.47
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Stevens Village Stevens Village Energy Systems 1.07 10
Low Yuk-Kusk Stony River Middle Kuskokwim Electric Cooperative,
Inc.
0.987 10
Railbelt Sutton-Alpine Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Takotna Takotna Community Assoc. Utilities 1.25 10
Railbelt Talkeetna Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Tanacross Alaska Power Company 0.531 6.64
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Tanana PCE Tanana Power Company, Inc. 0.664 8.3
CopRiv/Chug Tatitlek PCE Tatitlek Electric Utility 0.76 9.5
CopRiv/Chug Tazlina Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
Bering Straits Teller AVEC 0.715 8.94
Southeast Tenakee Springs City of Tenakee Springs 0.295 3.69
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Tetlin Alaska Power Company 0.197 2.46
Southeast Thorne Bay Alaska Power Company 0.594 7.42
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 21 of 22 1/24/2011
Bristol Bay Togiak (Twin Hills) AVEC 0.295 3.69
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Tok Alaska Power Company 0.531 6.64
Low Yuk-Kusk Toksook Bay AVEC 0.6 7.5
CopRiv/Chug Tolsona Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
CopRiv/Chug Tonsina Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
Low Yuk-Kusk Tuluksak Tuluksak Traditional Power Utility 0.65 8.13
Low Yuk-Kusk Tuntutuliak Tuntutuliak Community Service Assoc 0.531 6.64
Low Yuk-Kusk Tununak AVEC 0.55 6.88
Bristol Bay Twin Hills Twin Hills Village Council 0.492 6.15
Railbelt Tyonek Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.176 2.2
Bering Straits Unalakleet Unalakleet Valley Electric Cooperative/
Matanuska Electric Association, Inc.
0.264 3.3
Aleutians Unalaska (Dutch
Harbor)
Unalaska Electric Utility 0.597 7.46
Low Yuk-Kusk Upper Kalskag AVEC 0.597 7.46
CopRiv/Chug Valdez Copper Valley Electric Assn. 0.198 2.48
Yuk-Koy/UpTan Venetie Venetie Village Electric 0.75 9.38
North Slope Wainwright North Slope Borough 0.15 1.88
Bering Straits Wales AVEC 0.648 8.1
Railbelt Wasilla Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Southeast Whale Pass Alaska Power Company 0.435 5.44
Bering Straits White Mountain White Mountain Utilities 1.08 10
Railbelt Whittier Chugach Electric Association, Inc. 0.176 2.2
Railbelt Willow Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. 0.169 2.12
Kodiak Women‟s Bay Kodiak Electric Association 0.153 1.91
Southeast Wrangell Wrangell Municipal Light & Power 0.132 1.66
Southeast Yakutat Yakutat Power 0.347 4.34
For Round IV Projects addressing multiple communities or the nearest community, the
following cost of power ($/kWh) and scores were used:
614 NWAB_School Alternate Energy Solar Awareness Project
Average of 11 NWAB communities:
K-0.4644, A-0.7964, K-0.87, S-0.7317, K-0.6545, N-0.5185, S-0.7737, B-0.7248, D-
0.7737, K-0.7248, N-0.7263 (average is 0.696 /kWh) – score 8.7
615 CEA_Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources
Anchorage CEA - 0.126, ML&P - 0.176 (average 0.151 /kWh) – score 1.89
616 GVEA_Eva Creek Wind Turbine Purchase
Fairbanks and all GVEA communities all 0.168 /kWh – score 2.1
618 CVEA_Silver Lake Feasibility
CEA on-grid communities - 0.198, Cordova - 0.333, Tatitlek - 0.760 (average 0.430/kWh)
– score 5.38
RE-Fund Round-4
Evaluation Guidelines Page 22 of 22 1/24/2011
629 AkPowerCo_Reynolds Creek Hydro Project Transmission Line
Hydaburg - 0.197, Hollis- 0.197, Klawock- 0.197, Craig - , 0.197 Thorne Bay - 0.594,
South Thorne Bay 0.594??, Kasaan- 0.197, and soon both Coffman Cove - 0.343 and
Naukati - 0.370 (average 0.320667 /kWh) – score 4.01
632 IPEC_Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Reconn Study
Hoonah- 0.422, Tenakee Springs 0.295, Pelican - 0.434 (Average 0.384 /kWh) – score
4.8
637 IRHA_Feas Assessments for Wood Heating in Interior Alaska Communities
(Hughes, Ruby, Koyukuk, Nulato, Kaltag, Nikolai, Anvik, and Holy Cross)
H-0.71,R-0.98,K-0.45,N-0.631,K-0.63,N-0.804,A-0.656,H-0.681 (average is 0.693 /kWh)
– score 8.66
652 Ormat_Mt. Spurr Geothermal Project
Anchorage CEA - 0.126, ML&P - 0.176 (average 0.151 /kWh) – score 1.89
654 UAF_Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Resource Project
Nome - 0.368 /kWh– score 4.6
658 UAF_ACEP_Organic Rankine Cycle Field Testing
For the purposes of this proposal, Galena will be used - 0.563 /kWh– score 7.04
660 ORPC_Cook Inlet TidGen Project
Anchorage CEA - 0.126, ML&P - 0.176 (average 0.151 /kWh) – score 1.89
661 TATEC_Turnagain Arm Tidal Electrical Generation Project
Anchorage CEA - 0.126, ML&P - 0.176 (average 0.151 /kWh) – score 1.89
668 NW Inupiat Housing Authority_Upper Kobuk River Biomass Project
Kobuk - 0.870 Shungnak- 0.732, Ambler - 0.796 (average 0.799 /kWh) – score 9.99
681 Lake & Peninsula Wood Boilers
Igiugig - 0.803, Illiamna-0.513, Kokhanok-0.900, and Port Alsworth. -0.683 (average is
0.725) – score 9.06
683 BH_Cook Inlet Tidal Hydrokinetic Power Generation
Anchorage CEA - 0.126, ML&P - 0.176 (average 0.151 /kWh) – score 1.89
690 Eklutna_Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project
MEA 0.169 /kWh – score 2.11
691 Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project
MEA - 0.169, ML&P - 0.176, CEA - 0.126 (average 0.157 /kWh ) – score 1.96
696 MOA_Merrill Field Landfill Gas Heating Energy Project
Anchorage CEA - 0.126, ML&P - 0.176 (average 0.151 /kWh) – score 1.89