HomeMy WebLinkAbout5 REF R7 Changes Matrix Status Update 6.14.131
Alaska Energy Authority Recommended Changes to Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 Request for Applications
Status Update: June 17, 2013 REFAC Meeting
This is a status update to the changes approved by the REFAC committee at the April 4, 2013 meeting. The first four columns are the document approved at
the April meeting. The last column to the right is the status update as of the June 17, 2013 REFAC meeting.
# Recommended Change Reason/Problem Solved Notes Status Update 6/17/13
1 Heat RFA: Issue a separate
RFA for heat projects. Set a
target allocation of 30-40%
(or $10M-$15M) of funding
for heat projects. The
application and scoring will
be specific to heat projects.
AEA will provide two
recommendations lists to the
legislature.
Heating projects are
different from electrical
projects and should
compete separately for
funding. Heating represents
70-80% of non-
transportation energy use in
Alaska, yet represent only 8
percent of funding in Round
5, 10% in Round 6 if funded
at $25M level.
The RFA and scoring will be substantially the
same, but adjustments can be made to better
match the application type. Heat would
include any project that produces heat as the
primary energy output (biomass, heat
recovery, geothermal for direct heat use,
etc.). Two separate recommendation lists
would be provided to the legislature, one for
heat projects, one for all other projects.
AEA decided on a single RFA rather than
two, but will have 2 application forms.
Set target at 30% with flexibility to be
higher or lower depending upon
applications received. AEA will present
two recommendations lists to the
legislature, as planned.
2 Funding Limits: Better define
project funding limits by
phase.
To provide more clarity to
grant applicants.
See note 1 below for proposed wording. Done
3 Funding Limits: Modify the
list of locations with a $4M
versus $8M construction
funding limit.
As cost of energy changes in
parts of the state, the
higher funding limits for
higher cost areas should
change as well. Heat
projects should be based on
heat costs.
See note 1. For heat RFA, $8M limit for
communities without natural gas for heat,
$4M for those with natural gas.
For electrical RFA, $8M limit for communities
with higher than average electrical costs,
$4M limit for communities with lower than
average electrical costs. AEA will produce a
community list with the RFA.
Done
4 Geothermal Funding: Adjust
funding limits on feasibility
studies for geothermal
projects.
Unlike most resources
where feasibility studies are
relatively inexpensive as
compared to final
construction, the feasibility
phase of geothermal
projects typically involves
See note 1. Staff recommends allowing an
additional $2M for the combined maximum
expenditure for the reconnaissance and
feasibility studies. The limit would still be
20% of anticipated construction cost, with a
maximum of $4M. Any funding used over the
typical $2M maximum would be deducted
Done
2
drilling exploration wells to
better understand the
geology and hydrology.
from the maximum funding available from
the ensuing final design and construction
phases so the maximum grant allowance
remains the same for geothermal as other
projects.
5 Heat Cost of Energy: When
scoring heat projects for cost
of energy, use the cost of
heating fuels.
Previously used cost of
electricity only. Rate heat
projects based on heat
costs.
The cost of energy is the single largest
weighted factor in the Stage 3 review. Heat
projects should be scored based on the cost
of heating fuels instead of the cost of
electricity, as is already performed in the
economic analysis.
Done
6 Biomass Matching Funds:
Allow points for biomass
projects that harvest the first
year’s supply of biomass
during the design phases.
Encourage communities to
harvest and season the first
year’s wood fuel supply
ahead of time by giving
additional points in the
match scoring.
To be added.
7 Heat District: In RFA, address
whether heat districts are
qualified to apply.
Interested applicants have
requested clarification
regarding whether heating
districts would be allowed
to apply.
Additional work needed to check that this
change is within statutory and regulatory
parameters. The applicant would have to
demonstrate that they meet certain criteria,
such as land access, energy sales agreements,
technical and economic feasibility, etc.
Statutory and regulatory changes would
be needed. No action taken.
8 Efficiency Requirement:
Require that heat projects
are applied to energy
efficient buildings only.
RE projects should not
waste the energy
generated.
Applicant would prove efficiency either
through evidence of low energy use intensity
(kBTU/square foot/year) or evidence of a
recent energy audit and implemented
measures.
In lieu of requirement, projects will
score higher if efficiency is conducted
first.
9 Data Collection: Better
define operational data
required post-construction.
Some projects are not
reporting or able to report
the data needed for precise
measurement of impact,
including house energy and
accurate O&M costs.
Grant agreement will now include project-
specific data required to be reported for five
years after startup. Possibly offer “black box”
data logging and uploading.
Done, as stated. Additionally REFAC
recommended collecting data for 10
years. Staff is analyzing pros and cons of
this approach.
10 Non-Public Benefits: Better
define how AEA will score the
Clarify and formalize the
approach to be clearer with
The application will request additional
information from applicants with significant
Drafted, possible language
improvements to be added.
3
economic and public value of
electrical sales to non-public
markets, such as saw mills,
cruise ships, mines, etc.
applicants and to gather the
appropriate information for
the economic evaluation.
planned industrial energy sales so the
economic value of the project can be better
understood and calculated. The fund’s
purpose is to provide a public benefit,
therefore only direct and indirect (to the
extent known) public benefits will count
toward the economic score. Other benefits
are captured in separate scoring criteria.
11 Transmission and
Distribution: Better define
eligible transmission and
distribution projects.
Provide greater clarity to
applicants.
Drafted, possible language
improvements to be added.
12 Design Review: Add
language to the RFP
requesting wind design and
final design documents 30
days prior to application
deadline.
Receiving design reviews
early allows time for
adjustments and discussion
with AEA program
managers and time for a
thorough review prior to
scoring.
The applications are now due a month later
than in previous years, but the designs would
maintain approximately the same due date as
in previous years.
Done
13 Matching Funds: Simplify
the scoring of matching
funds.
Current system is overly
complex.
Simplify to score on percentage basis mostly,
with some weight for type of match (previous
non-state investment in project, state grant,
federal grant, private investment, in
ascending order of preference).
Done
14 Scoring Local Support:
Improve the method of
measuring local support.
The current system of
counting letters of support
may not correlate closely to
the actual level of local
support.
New measurement method in discussion. Done