Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApproved Minutes May 9 2012 MeetingRenewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting May 9, 2012 — Loussac Library Public Conference Room Anchorage, Alaska 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm Approved Minutes 1. Call to Order The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 1:12 p.m., with Chairman Vince Beltrami presiding. 2. Roll Call Committee Members Chairman Vince Beltrami Jodi Mitchell Chris Rose Rep. Bill Thomas Brad Reeve (excused) Jim Posey (phone) 3. Public Comments AEA Staff Sara Fisher -Goad Peter Crimp Jim Strandberg Rebecca Garrett Rich Stromberg Sean Skaling Doug Ott Devany Plentovich Deborah Vo Shawn Calfa Helen Traylor Joshua Craft Shauna Howell May Clark Other Participants Chris Badger, VEIL Ray Baker, Accu-Type Depositions Brian Bjorkquist, DOL Julie Estey, ACEP Rep. Paul Seaton (phone) David Hill, VEIC Sandy Burd, Senator Hoffman's Office (phone) Rep. Thomas said the Governor signed HB250, allowing 10 more years of the REF program. 4. Agenda Comments Mr. Rose suggested amending the agenda to allow more than the 30-minute comment time after the VEIC presentation. However, in the interest of time, Chair Beltrami stated the agenda shall remain as is. 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes MOTION: Ms. Mitchell moved to approve the meeting minutes from January 13, 2012, REFAC meeting. Seconded by Mr. Rose. The minutes were unanimously approved. REFAC Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2012 Page 1 of 8 6. RE Grant Process Evaluation Results Mr. Badger introduced himself, and then Mr. Crimp spoke about the evaluation process. He said AEA solicited program evaluation proposals in November that was designed around help received from the Clean Energy Alliance Program. The work is divided into two parts; 1) process evaluation and 2) an assessment of impacts. Three proposals were received and Vermont Energy Investment Corporation was selected. He said following the Governor's Office, AEA staff and public review, the draft was completed then forwarded to REFAC. The process review will be completed in June. Mr. Badger said Phase 1— Process Evaluation, began in December of 2011 and was completed in March of 2012 and contains three major parts: 1) documentation review, 2) looking at program staff and processes, soliciting feedback from stakeholders, and 3) synthesis of those comments and pulling together recommendations. Phase 2 — Impact Evaluation, contains: 1) analysis of program costs, 2) assess success and program challenges. VEIC is a nonprofit corporation, implementing both energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in multiple states. He said they partnered with the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) which has brought technological expertise and on -the -ground knowledge in how the renewable energy industry works in the State of Alaska. He said Ms. Estey is present from ACEP; however, Gwen Holdman could not attend in person. David Hill is the Sr. Project Advisor with VEIC who coordinates with ACEP. Ms. Estey and Ms. Holdmann led the team on the ACEP side, supported by Mr. Dennis Witmer, who is doing the analysis work. Mr. Badger is the project manager supported by two other VEIC personnel, performing stakeholder interviews, as well as the online survey feedback process. Mr. Badger introduced Mr. Hill, who spoke telephonically, to discuss the higher level recommendations of the evaluation. Mr. Hill said he had an opportunity to meet many of the meeting attendees in Alaska in January and at the Business of Clean Energy in Alaska Conference. He said they used the term "finding" in the report and throughout as a reflection of direct feedback from the various stakeholders interviewed. Overview of Recommendations General Recommendation 1: Establish & maintain a higher level of program differentiation Mr. Hill said the broadest lesson learned during the process evaluation was that the grant program as currently structured serves a very broad and wide span of project types through a single solicitation and serving that breadth of customers participating in the program is admirable. He said there is room in the program for AEA to provide support for those, but at the same time, it's too big a span under the current single solicitation model. More differentiation will help the program and will give a clearer sense of objectives by market type. Currently, the program serves a wide span and size of project types, phases, and technologies that are all compared under one solicitation — an inherent challenge that can come into direct conflict. Perhaps a higher level of program differentiation would be useful. There were no questions regarding Recommendation 1. REFAC Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2012 Page 2 of 8 General Recommendation 2: Coordinate and/or tie program design & funding decisions to more closely to rural infrastructure, regional energy planning and state level renewable energy goals. Mr. Hill said an example of a regional plan for rural infrastructure upgrade and the current format for the solicitation may not garner solicitations that are consistent with that regional energy plan or incoming upgrade opportunities. It's more of a bottom -up approach relying on the market to tell what the best opportunities are. There could be some benefit from having more structured, targeted strategic objectives and tying it to activities, such as clustering and funding around specific technologies and regional energy plans and other initiatives. There were no questions regarding Recommendation 2. General Recommendation 3: Provide more proactive and targeted services to markets. Mr. Hill said there are times when certain levels of technical assistance training and outreach could be very effective in helping to approve application quality, project development and execution. There are project types that may not be best served in terms of both the overall best interest of the state and taking the money as far as it can go to attain the state's renewable energy goals. Developing an account management approach may be more proactive, where AEA could use a single point of contact to help regions or villages understand the different opportunities available in their communities, allowing them to participate. Ms. Fisher -Goad commented (to Rep. Thomas) that AEA wishes to provide more technical assistance, however, we must avoid putting undue influences on applicants when helping them. She requested REFAC advice on how AEA can provide more technical assistance. Rep. Thomas said the money is there, people just have to go after it and fund programs in their communities; for example, Southeast legislators funded the Southeast Conference. Mr. Beltrami said the Denali Commission FY2012 work plan was approved with a line item providing $300,000 for technical assistance. Mr. Badger said he was aware of the funding but believed an independent evaluator should provide the technical and economic expertise on behalf of the communities. Rep. Thomas noted $5 M was carved out for emerging technology and believes the money could be appropriated to the Denali Commission or other group for project recommendations. Mr. Rose commented that the first three recommendations are interrelated and further discussion should be conducted accordingly. Rep. Seaton asked if there is a mechanism to ensure that local entities request support. Mr. Crimp responded that the basic tenet of the Renewable Energy Fund Program has been proper preconstruction and development. He also stated that biomass projects in particular need technical and economic feasibility, as well as community support. REFAC Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2012 Page 3 of 8 General Recommendation 4: Increase sharing of lessons learned and emphasize economic as well as energy impacts. Mr. Hill said this recommendation is to provide coordinated and technical assistance and approaches should not undercut the opportunity for local initiatives or unique conditions to help differentiate projects. He said as projects come online, they will provide more information on lessons learned in terms of energy and economic impacts. General Recommendation 5: Streamline and modify funding timelines. Mr. Hill said projects in Alaska can be difficult in terms of construction timing, logistics and transport. He suggested that AEA could authorize resources assessments without waiting for direct legislative authorization. Mr. Badger said Recommendation 5 considers opportunities to streamline and modify the funding timeline (giving AEA more independence in identifying and finding appropriate ways to lead by example). Ms. Fisher -Goad said we are looking at recommendations and leaving the details to the Department of Law and the Administration on the existing program versus using a legislative approach. Applications should be solicited by March to be included in the Governor's budget. Mr. Badger suggested separating construction money and resource assessment under AEA's budget to allow more flexibility to move ahead on projects without legislative approval. There will be constraints on construction money based on what the legislature appropriates from year to year. Rep. Thomas stated that they did not appropriate it this year because they did not know the bill was being drafted but it could come available in January. He state that the fast track supplement was out early but in the past it has gone out with the capital budget. Ms. Fisher -Goad said we should evaluate those projects that can be done without adjusting the statutory program. Mr. Badger said for Process Evaluation research, there are six priority items identified in the development of evaluation criteria: 1) program outreach, 2) RFA process, 3) RFA project feasibility and evaluation, 4) feedback to REFAC, 5) grant awards process and 6) grant administration. Primary research with stakeholders was performed through direct in -person and phone interviews and using an online survey. Rep. Thomas pointed out that Legislative Budget & Audit (LB&A) has the authority to reappropriate funds. Ms. Fisher -Goad said that LB&A is a one-time deal but a good way to address that is to work with Legislative Finance. Mr. Bjorkquist agreed and said LB&A can reallocate funding in a "waterfall' effect. Mr. Badger said there were three groups of key program stakeholders: 1) individuals, 2) legislators, and 3) energy advocates. He discussed the RFA process recommendations which include: 1) development of a framework to articulate specific renewable energy goals, 2) determine differences in projects types and phases, 3) identification of methods to provide support and training for communities seeking to participate in the REGRP, 4) review options for direct grants to support feasibility studies and smaller renewable energy applications, and 5) identify opportunities to create longer term visibility of the program goals and objectives - allowing for long-term investments to hire staff for future planning. Visibility — meaning a clear and positive signal. He said there was a concern about guidance issues between developers, manufacturers and AEA, stating there is a blurry line between providing guidance REFAC Meeting Minutes —May 9, 2012 Page 4 of 8 versus telling project developers exactly what they need to do. Finding the right balance between all impacted parties is very important. He encouraged defining what the differences are between a local match and matching funds that might be coming in through the federal government or other entity where there isn't a vested interest and where there is local matching and engagement, there should be an appropriate award as part of the evaluation process. ISER could be used as an economic resource in evaluating proposals so that applicants could draw on expertise when requested. As the evaluation process moves forward, there is a go/no-go part of the process that would be healthy for all participants to ensure they are getting an appropriate level of evaluation and recognizing the balance against the level of work required as part of the evaluation process. He suggested providing the technical and economic scoring and feedback so that unsuccessful participants are provided enough information to improve their applications in the next round. Many participants received feedback, but it was inconsistent. He pointed out that support for the project is weighted as part of the evaluation process and there is no counter -weight from an oppositional perspective. Community support or opposition should be accounted for. Other states allow for public input, but it comes down to a regulatory body to balance that. Mr. Crimp said a good example is the Grant Lake Hydro project in which a number of letters were received opposing funding for a feasibility analysis, which the REFAC discussed that the permitting risk was the basis for providing feasibility funding. He said the Department of Natural Resources permitting process determines the best interest finding for the state or for the federal government on a project. Mr. Badger pointed out there is a lack of understanding of REFAC's role in the program, as well as the membership. A lot reflects on the interaction with the REFAC and AEA in providing guidance, but the stakeholders were not reflecting that. Therefore, he recommended defining the REFAC role and how AEA interacts by setting annual achievement goals and performing public outreach to identify barriers. Timing and duration of the award process has significant project impacts and finding the appropriate balance to make sure the program is providing assurances to the state that the funding is being applied appropriately. A secondary goal is to help get more cost-effective projects in the state and that any opportunity for reducing those costs thorough efficiencies would also benefit the state. Providing technical support and guidance is another way to ensure cost reductions in the industry. Stakeholders were pleased with the knowledgeable AEA team, but it seems stretched from a staffing level. Lessons learned and the opportunity to inform the industry of what technologies and applications are working or not working is coming back through the reporting process. He recommended developing a detailed staffing plan to look at issues at a comprehensive level and approach individual communities; or operate on a state level to try to figure out the most effective way to develop renewable energy in the state. Recess: 3:02 p.m. Reconvene: 3:20 p.m. REFAC Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2012 Page 5 of 8 Ms. Fisher -Goad announced that Mr. Crimp is retiring from AEA as Deputy Director of Alternative Energy & Energy Efficiency and Sean Skaling will replace him. She also announced that Shauna Howell will be leaving AEA after 22 years of service and will be replaced by May Clark. Mr. Hill said the impact evaluation will look at cost -benefit analysis at both the project and program levels and we should develop a framework going forward for potential applicants and program managers to communicate the benefits out there as an ongoing effort. He said he appreciated everyone's time and participation in listening to the report. He said comments or additional feedback should be directed to Shawn Calfa, AEA's Grants Administrator by June 1. Chair Beltrami thanked Mr. Badger and Mr. Hill for the presentation and opened up the meeting for questions or comments. Mr. Rose also thanked Mr. Badger and Mr. Hill. He said one of the recommendations they have been talking about is to be more strategic in requesting projects. He favored figuring out how to deal with the first three recommendations. He asked staff what could be done internally and administratively without asking the legislature and how would the next programs fits in the REF, the larger policy goals and other state programs. Ms. Fisher -Goad stated preconstruction and construction are a large program differential, which may be one way to achieve a decent balance of funding and a statewide distribution. Regarding caps or not on projects, she requested REFAC guidance; she said she is hesitant to suggest differentiating by region — rural versus Railbelt, which defeats the purpose of a statewide process. We will keep these recommendations in mind as to what can be done in Round VI versus what will be dealt with in the deliberative process with the Administration. Mr. Rose suggested AEA could do reconnaissance and feasibility funding through program funds, then the money from the Legislature could go mostly to construction and design. Ms. Fisher -Goad said that is currently under consideration. There are three ways of funding: the RE Fund, EETF and another programmatic approach. Mr. Rose said the EETFAC is serving its purpose, but inquired as to how we will move forward with a pilot project for tidal and wave energy if there's no money for the reconnaissance study. Mr. Badger asked about AEA's proposed loan programs. Ms. Fisher -Goad said it's an AIDEA fund for larger projects and the fund amount is $125 M. Perhaps reps from REFAC could attend a future board meeting to address this issue. Mr. Rose asked Rep. Thomas and Rep. Seaton if they thought there would be any pushback from Railbelt legislators if AEA decided to fund feasibility projects only and not construction projects. Rep. Thomas said the discussion reverts to the $6 B hydro being built versus funding smaller projects. Mr. Rose said it is still important to diversify and Rep. Thomas agreed. Rep. Seaton pointed out that the Railbelt isn't interconnected and they aren't all big projects and we should balance the project sizes throughout the state. Mr. Rose asked if there was any support for having part of the next solicitation be more strategic and focused by asking applicants to meet a certain standard to compete to design better projects. Ms. Fisher -Goad said that may not be possible due to regulations and how projects are evaluated. Mr. Rose asked about creating minimal technical feasibility standards for applications. Mr. Crimp said there have been concerns already that AEA has been too prescriptive, but that could possibly be achieved through working groups. Ms. Fisher -Goad said statute program standards should be met first and then additional information could be incorporated into a funding request. Mr. Rose suggested using the fund to REFAC Meeting Minutes —May 9, 2012 Page 6 of 8 incentivize innovation and continued development of technologies, but also focus on technologies that have worked best, especially in rural areas. Mr. Badger pointed out that project applications could have a capacity limit, recognizing there is a new mechanism for funding and larger projects tend to be more cost-effective. He said projects get reset on an application basis and must go through the process again to get compared against the new set of projects. Once the qualified project is in the queue, they can move forward. Mr. Hill agreed there is a benefit to not recompeting, but believes the queue can become an impediment. Mr. Badger stated in order to make it more cost effective for the state, the industry needs to be moved forward on an annual basis by placing capacity size or performance level limitations on the applications. Rep. Thomas asked how the regional balance will be kept and who will monitor it. Mr. Badger said it would be over multiple years and there is an appropriate spread in awarding. Chair Beltrami said many areas that are incapable of putting together a best practices proposal will be falling by the wayside if they can't compete and don't have the proper amount of technical assistance to be able to achieve that. Mr. Badger said that the communities who need a lot of additional support, renewable energy may not be their quickest deployable resource, but can come to bear on a longer -term basis. Mr. Crimp said what is needed is good, detailed planning in a systematic way which involves a lot of public involvement. Mr. Skaling said for the communities that didn't have a lot of human resources, but had a great need, a technical assistance program was put together so that it was an easy application and then they were paired up with someone to help out, so that the state dollars were put toward the best projects in the places of need as mentioned by the statute. Mr. Crimp said heating buildings in rural areas could be a basic focus of the Renewable Energy Fund. Mr. Rose said we need to be able to go back to the Legislature with hard data to show that the money was spent as efficiently as possible. He stated these ideas seem to be pointing toward writing a charter for the Committee, including duties and priorities of fundamentals. Mr. Hill suggested asking AEA for help with a program design to help achieve REFAC goals. Chair Beltrami asked if any specific actions needed to be taken regarding the recommendations in terms of incorporating them into the next solicitation. Ms. Fisher -Goad suggested showing the recommendations based upon the findings from Vermont Energy at the next solicitation and how they plan on addressing those recommendations. Rep. Thomas suggested a public relations person might write up what the REFAC is going to do and send it to all the coops in the state and the legislators could send it out in their newsletters. Mr. Rose agreed with the recommendations and asked Ms. Fisher -Goad if she could report at the next meeting on how the recommendations can be implemented in the short and long-term. In the meantime, Mr. Rose suggested starting work on a charter and he would be happy to set up a subcommittee for the next meeting, and requested feedback from members, and suggested prioritizing duties and values of the Committee. Mr. Badger said he could forward the Energy Trust of Oregon's Advisory Committee charter as an example. Mr. Hill stated it would help to state that we will provide strategic guidance and advice as the program moves forward to develop the most renewable energy and that we will be engaged in setting long-term goals and direction that the market can reference to help gauge the success of the program and then sell the success of the program to the stakeholders. Mr. Beltrami requested Mr. Rose email the REFAC with an outline of charter ideas and seek feedback that way. Mr. Rose stated he will try to have something prepared for the next meeting. REFAC Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2012 Page 7 of 8 7. REGIONAL ENERGY PLANNING PROGRAM UPDATE Deborah Vo, AEA Project Manager overseeing the regional energy planning, said currently AEA is under contract with the Calista and Ahtna Region. The Tanana Chiefs Conference has a direct grant from the Denali Commission and is working on their regional energy plan. We are also working closely with Bristol Bay, Northwest Arctic Borough, Kawerak and Aleut in developing their regional planning. The regional planners will meet June 11 and 12. The outcomes of the plans should identify the priorities of the projects. Mr. Crimp said there may be recurring themes and policies seen throughout the state. Mr. Rose said communities should be informed that building efficiency is the easiest and most cost way to save energy. He asked if there was going to be some outreach and education effort in the community before the deliberations begin. Ms. Vo provided examples of the Calista Region's outreach program. Mr. Rose asked what role the state will have in approving the plans and after the regional plan is complete, how will the state implement it. Ms. Fisher -Goad said the goal is to provide good information about good projects and allow the ability to make decisions and recommendations on funding. They are not going to be adopted as regulated plans. Each project needs to be evaluated on its own merits. Mr. Skaling asked if more weight could be added to regional plans in the scoring system. Both Mr. Rose and Mr. Hill affirmed that. Rep. Thomas said his concern about regional plans is the smaller population areas are under -represented. Ms. Fisher -Goad said the regional plan isn't going to just look at renewable projects or energy efficiency; but will also look at transmission and potential natural gas projects. Mr. Badger said VEIC will present partial results of the impact analysis either telephonically or in person at the next meeting. S. NEXT MEETING DATE The next meeting will be held Thursday, June 14, 2012, from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m. REFAC Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2012 Page 8 of 8