Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPresentaion by VEIC Impact Evaluation PresentationAlaska Energy AuthorityRenewable Energy Grant Recommendation ProgramImpact EvaluationRenewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting November 15th, 2012 •2011 RFP for a Program Process and Impact EvaluationEnergy Authority retained VEIC & ACEP team•Phase I – Process Evaluation (December - March 2012)Documentation review , customer and stakeholder feedbackAssess success and challenges of the program•Phase II – Impact Evaluation (April - September 2012)Analysis of program costs and benefitsAssess success and challenges of the programContext and Background 1. RE Fund Program Participation (Rounds I-IV)Analysis of all funded projects based on applicant type, region and community cost of energy Review of project status and progression of individual projects in subsequent rounds2. Economic ImpactsCost-benefit analysis of projects in construction or operational in 2011Sub-analysis of operational projects in 2011Secondary benefits of job development, emission reductions, externally leveraged funding and analysis of savings with respect to PCE communitiesImpact Evaluation 3. Renewable Energy Resource Subsector AnalysisReview of the resource potential and growth for individual renewable energy resources in the State of AlaskaProject level Benefit/Cost analysis Secondary benefits4. Renewable Energy Market DevelopmentA high level overview of the REGRP performance within the overall context of energy in AlaskaRenewable energy job development and associated training in Alaska from 2008-2012 Development of conferences, organizations, reports and resources developed around the RE FundImpact Evaluation Operating Portfolio19 operating projects with reported performance in 2011Evaluation Framework Construction Portfolio62 RE Fund projects in construction phase or operational in 2011RE Fund ProgramRounds I-V 558 ApplicationsRounds I-IV 208 Funded Projects 1. RE Fund Program Participation and Funding By Round* AEA Renewable Energy Fund Update, October 2012 RE Fund Program Participation$177 Million in funded projects in Rounds I-IV2/3 of Funding for Higher Cost of Energy Communities (> $0.20/kWh) Project Status for Funded Projects208 projects funded through Rounds I-IVDesign / Construction represents 35% of projects and 60% of funding15 projects moved from pre-construction to construction phasesCompletion of feasibility phase creates pipeline for future viable projects 2. Economic Benefits: RE Fund Program and Leveraged Funds in Construction Portfolio $112 million in REGRP appropriations and $23 million in other state funds has leveraged a further $223 million of investmentsState investment represented nearly 52% of the total project costs in rural areas and 7% of project costs in Railbelt projects RE Fund Benefits to PCE Communities Savings to PCE Program In-Eligible CustomersReduced Businesses, schools and state and federal customersRE Fund Program SavingsSavings to PCE Program Eligible CustomersResidential customers and community facilitiesPCE Program FundOffset PCE payments to communities with RE Fund projects Construction Portfolio Savings for PCE Communities 28% of PCE benefits return to the state as PCE program savings70% of benefits realized by PCE in-eligble ratepayers, namely businesses, schools and state and federal customersSmall percentage of benefits to customers currently eligible for PCE payments – residential customers and community facilities Standard economic benefit/cost test commonly used to assess the net benefits and costs of efficiency and renewable energy investments and portfolios.Benefits Costs• Present value of energy savings. • Electricity valued based on local diesel costs for remote communities, and avoided cost values for railbelt communities. • For non-electric the full off-set of local fuel costs are used.• Total project capital costs + present value of the lifetime operations and maintenance costs.• For the construction portfolio costs also include the program administration costs. TotalResource Cost Test (TRC)Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) = NPV BenefitsNPV Costs Operating Project PortfolioRange of 30-78% of actual to projected project performance at individual resource sector level (includes first & partial startup year) $114 million in net benefits to Alaska’s economyReturn of almost $1.70 of value for every dollar invested Construction Portfolio with Operational Data - Benefits and Costs$501 million in net benefits to Alaska’s economyReturn of almost $2 of value for every dollar invested Overall Program Impacts for the 2011 Construction PortfolioRE Fund Program TRCBenefits CostsProgram AdministrationRE Fund GrantsProject Costs (NPV)$7.4 M (est.)$202 M$500 MEnergy Savings (NPV)Annual PCE SavingsMonetized Emissions (NPV)Non-energy Benefits$1,009 M $18 M$16.4 M (est.)37 Jobs (est.)Total $1,009 M $508 MNet Benefit (Societal)Benefit-cost Ratio$501 M1.99 3. Renewable Energy Resource Subsector Analysis (Wind)GVEA’s Eva Creek projected to generate 35% more energy than combined total of other projectsRange of project cost-effectiveness from 4.66 to 0.36 (Operational) Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP) reported a growth from 48 members in 2007 to 83 in 2012 – led by business membersEstimated direct creation of 37 jobs associated with the construction, operation and maintenance for the life of the construction portfolio projectsRural Energy Conference identified in the Process Evaluation as instrumental in rural RE project development – projected 600 attendees in 2013Development of 6 working groups focused on renewable energy development in Alaska – largely led and supported by AEA program managers 4. Renewable Energy Market Development Thank You!Vermont Energy Investment Corporation128 Lakeside Avenue, Suite 401Burlington, VT 05401USAChris Badger David Hillcbadger@veic.orgDhill@veic.org(802) 540-7765 (802) 540-7734 Discussion & Questions