HomeMy WebLinkAbout8 REFundR6EvaluationGuidelinesFinal
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
Methods for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation
January 24, 2013
Overview of Review Process
The purpose of this document is to provide a thorough description of how the Renewable
Energy Fund (REF) Round 6 applications were evaluated. This document, including the attached
Appendix A, is posted on the Alaska Energy Authority’s Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 6
webpage http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund-6.html.
The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) received a total of 85 applications for Round 6 of the REF.
These applications were evaluated in four stages. Conducted by AEA staff, the first stage of
review evaluated each application for completeness, eligibility, and responsiveness to the
request for applications (RFA). AEA rejected two proposals that did not meet these threshold
criteria.
The second stage evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of the 83 remaining
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 grantable 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. 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 FY 2014
or afterwards. That is, funds would be tied up unreasonably.
There were competing projects for which planning is desirable
AEA believed that proposed costs were excessive for the work proposed for completion.
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.
Following AEA staff recommendations of no funding for 26 projects, the AEA Executive Director
received requests for reconsideration from eight applicants. In response to the reconsideration
requests, the Executive Director directed staff to score two of the eight proposals. As a result
AEA recommended 61 projects for partial or full funding. The third stage was a final scoring
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Page 2 of 2 01/24/2013
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 (35%)
2. Matching Funds (15%)
3. Economic and Technical Feasibility (20%): score from stage 2
4. Project Readiness (5%)
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 May 9, 2012 and on June 14, 2012 to discuss issues
including the schedule and details of the Round 6 RFA, progress on funded projects, possible
changes to the program in the future, ways to expedite funding for priority heat projects and/or
other projects requiring a faster turnaround to expedite project development, and the draft RE
Fund Program Impact Evaluation Results as presented by Vermont Energy Investment
Corporation (VEIC).
Midway through review of the applications AEA staff and the Committee met on November 15,
2012 to discuss progress on the review, and the final RE Fund Program Impact Evaluation
Results as presented by Vermont Energy Investment Corporation (VEIC).
Following AEA evaluation of all applications, AEA staff and the Committee met on January 8,
2013 to review the proposed recommendations, and to address requirements for achieving a
statewide balance of funds. Based on this discussion AEA finalized its recommendations.
On January 25, 2013, AEA recommendations for funding Renewable Energy Fund Round 6
projects will be submitted to the legislature for review and approval.
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 ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
Criteria .................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Process .................................................................................................................................................................. 5
Stage 3 Review Process: ...................................................................................................................... 6
Reviewers ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
Criteria .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Process .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Funding Limitations on Recommendations Sec 1.14 ........................................................................... 7
Recommendation Guidelines ....................................................................................................................... 8
Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations ........................................ 9
Reviewers ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
Process .................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Scoring Criteria .................................................................................................................................... 11
General Scoring Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 11
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio ......................................................................... 12
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan ................................................................................................... 12
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines ............................................................... 13
Stage 3 Criterion Match ............................................................................................................................... 14
Stage 3 Criterion Local Support ................................................................................................................ 14
Stage 3 Criterion Project Readiness ........................................................................................................ 15
Stage 3 Criterion Public Benefit................................................................................................................ 15
Stage 3 Criterion Sustainability ................................................................................................................ 15
Stage 3 Criterion Statewide Regional Balance .................................................................................... 15
Stage 3 Criterion Compliance with Other Awards ............................................................................. 16
Stage 3 Criterion Cost of Energy ............................................................................................................... 16
These are the Evaluation Guidelines and instructions for evaluation of the Round 6 RFA for
Renewable Energy Fund Grant Projects
Applications that do not comply with AS 42.45.45 and all of the material and
substantial terms, conditions, and requirements of the RFA may be rejected.
If an application is rejected the applicant will be notified in writing that its application
has been rejected and the basis for rejection.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 2 01/24/2013
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, Deputy Directors are those
Management Personal in AEA who have program oversight for AEA programs, Program
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 Manager. If Reviewers have technical questions they should contact the
Program Managers.
Communications relating to the economic evaluations should go through or copy the
AEA staff economist.
If an application is rejected or not recommended the applicants will be sent a letter from
the Grant Manager explaining why their application has been rejected or not
recommended. Reviewers will be required to provide to the Grant Manager the reasons
for why the application is being rejected.
All written notes should be kept with the application file or in the active server files
established for this purpose.
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 Manager. The Grant Manager will review the appeal with the Executive
Director, Deputy Director, 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 and Economic Evaluation.
Reviewers
Grant Manager and at least one Deputy Director
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 3 01/24/2013
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 Manager will evaluate criteria 1-3 & 6 above.
The Deputy Director will evaluate criteria 4-5 above.
If it appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional
data the Deputy Director or Program Managers (PM) may make a recommendation to
the Grant Manager for additional information. The Grant Manager 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 Manager and Deputy Director 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 as needed 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 Manager. The Grant Manager will review the request with the Executive
Director, Deputy Director, 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 technical and economic feasibility in
accordance with the criteria below.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 4 01/24/2013
Reviewers
Program Managers – the AEA technical subject matter experts.
Staff from Department of Natural Resources – technical experts providing specific review
and comment on projects that may have issues related to permitting and natural
resource development.
Economists - Contracted economist who will review cost benefit and other cost and
pricing information provided for each application submitted for the purpose of providing
the authority and independent assessment of the economics of the proposed project
using a standardized economic evaluation across all projects.
ISER – University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research – is providing
Quality Assurance review of economic analysis work for selected projects.
Deputy Directors – 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.
20%
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 5 01/24/2013
d. The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver
energy as planned.
e. If a demonstration project is being proposed:
Application in other areas of the state, or another
specific benefit of the proposed project, is likely:
need for this project is shown (vs. the ability to use
existing technology); and
the risks of the proposed system are reasonable and
warrant demonstration.
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 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
Program Managers will carefully review the proposals for their assigned technology
group and provide an initial feasibility score on all criteria, a funding recommendation,
and draft statement regarding AEA’s 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 Manager. The purpose of follow-up is
for clarification and to help the Program Manager gain a sufficient understanding of the
project proposed.
Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Manager to the
applicant by e-mail, Bcc to project manager, requesting 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 Deputy Directors or their designee will meet with the Program 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 Deputy Directors, Program
Managers, Economists, and Executive Director.
Applications may be not recommended prior to generating scores for Stage 2.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 6 01/24/2013
A final weighted Stage 2 technical and economic feasibility score will be given for each
application reviewed and will be used to calculate the Stage 3 feasibility score.
Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the technical review may not
be recommended for funding or further review.
A minimum score of 35 is required for Stage 2 in order to pass to Stage 3.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application
failed Stage 2.
The Authority will develop a preliminary list of feasible applications based on the Stage 2
review with AEA recommendations on technical and economic feasibility and a
recommended funding level to be considered in the Stage 3 review.
Stage 3 Review Process:
All applications that pass the technical review will be evaluated for the purpose of ranking
applications and making recommendations to the Legislature based on the following criteria
which include criteria required by 3 AAC 107.655 and AS 42.45.045.
The technical and economic feasibility score from Stage 2 will be automatically weighted and
scored in Stage 3.
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 Deputy
Directors.
The Grant Manager, 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 Deputy Directors or their designee and the Program Managers will provide scores 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 Manager (Local Support and Match Criteria)
Two Deputy Directors
Program Managers
Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations)
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 7 01/24/2013
Criteria
Criteria noted below will be scored and weighted as noted.
Criteria Round 6
Weight
Cost of energy per resident in the affected project
area relative to other areas (From Worksheet)
35
The type and amount of matching funds and other
resources an applicant will commit to the project. (See
formula)
15
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.
5
Public benefits including economic benefit to the
Alaska Public.
15
Sustainability – the ability of the application to finance,
operate and maintain the project for the life of the
project
5
Local Support (See formula) 5
Statewide Balance of Funds (Evaluated as a pass fail
if there are similar projects in the same community.
Statewide Balance is done in Stage 4.)
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 3.
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 Manager 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.
$4 Million per project
Construction in all other areas of the
State not mentioned above.
$8 Million per project
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 8 01/24/2013
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 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 2013/14, and project
is well-defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk.
o Fund limited phases: Project construction would be 2014+, 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
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 Resource 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.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 9 01/24/2013
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 Manager
Deputy Director
Executive Director of AEA.
Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding Recommendations)
Process
Upon completion of scoring and specific project recommendations by AEA all
applications will be grouped within geographical regions.
Each group of applications will be ranked within their geographical region based on the
final Stage 3 score.
Each application will have Stage 3 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 1-5, 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.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 10 01/24/2013
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 projects AEA forwards 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 FY 2014 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-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 11 01/24/2013
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 sections below.
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-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 12 01/24/2013
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.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 13 01/24/2013
For example, an applicant may request construction funding above the RFA cap but does not
indicate how the additional funding will be obtained. They may receive a lower score than an
applicant who can demonstrate they have all the financial resources in place to complete the
grant work proposed in the application.
If future stages of work will be needed beyond the scope of the application, consideration should
be given as to the likelihood of future funding for the future stages.
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines
(Maximum Stage 2 points: 10)
The score for this criterion will be provided by AEA reviewers during the Stage 2 evaluation. For
the purpose of evaluating this criterion, public benefits are those benefits that would be
considered unique to a given project and not generic to any renewable resource. i.e. decreased
greenhouse gas emission, stable pricing of fuel source, won’t be considered under this
category.
Project review economists will provide a qualitative assessment of potential public benefits in
their project review summary for each project they review. Economists will not provide scores
for the criteria.
Each category may be scored 0-2 with the maximum total public benefit weight being no more
than 10 points.
0 No documented benefit
1 Some benefit / not well documented
2 Good benefit / well documented
Score
Will the project result in developing infrastructure such as
roads that can be used for other purposes?
0 - 2
Will the project result in a direct long-term increase in jobs
such as for operating or supplying fuel to the facility?
0 - 2
Will the project solve other problems for the community,
such as waste disposal?
0 -2
Will the project generate useful information that could be
used by the public in other parts of the State?
0 - 2
Will this project either promote or sustain long-term
commercial economic development for the community?
0 - 2
Are there other public benefits identified by the applicant? 0 - 2
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 14 01/24/2013
Stage 3 Criterion Match
Total of 20 points will be calculated as follows: The scoring matrix for the total amount of match
may be adjusted by the Grant Administrator after the initial review of applications based on a
reasonable threshold for each level based on the applicants match in all applications.
Type of Match 5
Pts
+ Percentage of
Match to total
Grant
Request
10
Pts
+ Total Amount
of Match (1)
5
Pts
Support of any kind referenced
but not given a specific value IE
housing offered to outside
workers, administration of
project without compensation
1 .01% - <5% of
Grant =
1 > $1 - < $15K 1
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.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 15 01/24/2013
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 when awarding
points for this criteria.
Criteria
Points may be awarded in only one of the first two criteria, plus any
additional points from the other criteria.
Up to 10
points
available
Proposed work is reconnaissance level and is consistent with specific
recommendations under the Alaska Energy Pathway or Regional Energy
Plan
4 points
Project is currently underway with feasibility or reconnaissance work,
design work related to the project, or actual construction of the project and
the applicant is using their own funds or funds from another eligible source
to finance the activity.
4 points
Applicant has completed previous phase(s) of proposed project and desires
additional funding to complete the next phase of project.
2 points
Applicant has completed required feasibility and/or design work for project
and is prepared to place an order for necessary equipment for the project;
such as an item with a ‘long lead time’ to procure.
2 points
Applicant has obtained all necessary permits, met all permit requirements,
and addressed all regulatory agency stipulations.
2 points
Stage 3 Criterion Public Benefit
This criteria will be scored using a weighted calculation from the Phase 2 Economic (4.a) and
Public Benefit score (4.b).
Stage 3 Criterion Sustainability
This criteria will be scored from 0 to 10 with a total weighting of 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 Criterion 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.
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 16 01/24/2013
Stage 3 Criterion Compliance with Other Awards
Rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable (NA)
Criteria Legislative
Grant
Alternative Energy
Solicitation (Round
O)
Round I-IV
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 of power for each community using available data,
primarily the annual averages of residential rates reported in the Alaska Energy Statistics, 1960-
2011 and the workbook tables prepared by ISER for the Alaska Energy Authority November,
2012.
Scores are assigned for each community using the following formula:
Score = (cost of power) / 0.80 x 10, Score cannot be greater than 10.
Communities with a residential cost of power above $0.80/kWh are assigned a score of 10.
Communities with the highest cost of electrical energy are getting the most points for this
criterion. All other applications will be scored as a percentage of the highest costs against an
established matrix.
The specific Cost of Energy score for Renewable Energy Fund Round 6 applications follows:
Energy_Region App Project_Name Utility COE REF6
Score
Kodiak 901 Karluk Tribal Council – Wind Energy
System
Alutiiq Power Company 0.60 7.50
Railbelt 902 Jack River Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility Study
GVEA 0.22 2.80
Northwest Arctic 903 Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Kotzebue Electric Association 0.42 5.21
Southeast 904 Dimond Park Library Geothermal HVAC
System
Alaska Electric Light and Power
Company
0.12 1.51
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 17 01/24/2013
Southeast 905 HydroPower Surplus to Stored Hydrogen
Feasibility Study
Ketchikan Public Utilities, City and
Borough of Wrangell, City of
Peterburg
0.10 1.28
Southeast 906 Coffman Cove Hydropower Line
Extension
Alaska Power Company 0.45 5.68
Southeast 907 Petersburg Community Heating System
Retrofit Feasibility Study
City of Peterburg 0.10 1.28
Bristol Bay 908 Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Capacity
Increase
I-N-N Electric Cooperative 0.59 7.43
Southeast 909 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Project:
Phase Ill
Ketchikan Public Utilities, City and
Borough of Wrangell, City of
Peterburg
0.10 1.28
Bristol Bay 910 Igiugig Wind Turbine Design Igiugig Electric Company 0.80 10.00
Bristol Bay 911 Levelock Wind Reconnaissance Study Levelock Electric Coop 0.70 8.75
Bristol Bay 912 Egegik Wind Feasibility Study City of Egegik 0.86 10.00
Railbelt 913 Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake
Dam Facilities Project
CEA 0.14 1.78
Southeast 914 Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company , Individual
Generators
0.22 2.72
Yukon-
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana
915 Eagle Solar Array Project Alaska Power Company 0.59 7.39
Southeast 916 Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler
Project
Alaska Power Company 0.24 2.96
Southeast 917 Blue Lake Hydroelectric Expansion
Project
City and Borough of Sitka 0.09 1.18
Southeast 918 West Creek Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company 0.22 2.72
Southeast 919 Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Power and Light, City of
Ketchikan
0.10 1.28
Southeast 920 Walker Lake Hydro Feasibility Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative 0.62 7.75
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
921 AVCP RHA Wood Biomass Heating
System
Bethel Utilities Corporation 0.51 6.35
Southeast 922 Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Inside Passage Electric Cooperative 0.62 7.74
Kodiak 923 Afognak Biomass Feasibility Study KEA 0.19 2.38
Railbelt 924 Seward Schools Biomass Heating System City of Seward 0.19 2.40
Yukon-
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana
925 Upper Tanana Biomass CHP Project Alaska Power Company 0.49 6.07
Yukon-
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana
926 AGSD District Heat Loop Project Alaska Power Company 0.49 6.07
Yukon-
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana
927 Galena Community Wood Heat Project City of Galena** 0.56 7.00
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 18 01/24/2013
Kodiak 928 Bathymetric survey and marine geological
study to refine submarine cable route
City of Ouzinkie 0.41 5.18
Aleutians 929 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project City of King Cove 0.27 3.31
Copper
River/Chugach
930 Allison Creek Project CVEA 0.28 3.56
Railbelt 931 Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating
System Project
GVEA 0.22 2.80
Yukon-
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana
932 Design and Construction of Biomass
Systems in Interior Villages
City of Hughes and others 0.645 8.06
Yukon-
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana
933 Biomass Feasibility Studies in Public
Facilities, Interior Region
Alaska Power Company and others 0.662 8.28
Bering Straits 934 Savoonga Heat Recovery System - Power
Plant to Water Plant
AVEC 0.49 6.14
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
935 Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery
Project
Atmautluak Tibal Utilities 0.70 8.75
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
936 Heat Recovery for the Water System Middle Kuskokwim Electric
Cooperative, Incorporated
0.85 10.00
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
937 Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment
Plant and Washeteria
AVEC 0.54 6.76
Southeast 938 Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design
of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative 0.62 7.74
Bering Straits 939 Stebbins Heat Recovery Project AVEC 0.56 6.96
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
940 Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment
Plant and Community Store
AVEC 0.51 6.36
Northwest Arctic 941 Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment
Plant
AVEC 0.62 7.71
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
942 Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment
Plant/Washeteria Building
Tuntutuliak Community Service
Association
0.65 8.13
Railbelt 943 OIT Inc Waste Heat Turbine Project GVEA 0.22 2.80
Bristol Bay 944 New Stuyahok Heat Recovery AVEC 0.62 7.78
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
945 St. Mary’s / Pitka’s Point Wind Energy
Project
AVEC 0.50 6.25
Northwest Arctic 946 Shungnak Solar Energy Construction
Project
AVEC 0.80 10.00
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
947 Marshall Wind Energy Design and
Permitting Project
AVEC 0.51 6.36
Bering Straits 948 Wales Wind Energy Feasibility and
Conceptual Design Project
AVEC 0.64 8.03
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
949 Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and
Conceptual Design Project
AVEC 0.59 7.36
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
950 Russian Mission Wind Feasibility and
Conceptual Design Project
AVEC 0.55 6.82
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 19 01/24/2013
Bering Straits 951 St. Michael/Stebbins Wind Energy Final
Design and Permitting Project
AVEC 0.56 6.96
Northwest Arctic 952 Cosmos Hills Wind Resource and Intertie
Assessment
AVEC 0.74 9.25
Northwest Arctic 953 Hotham Peak Wind Resource and lntertie
Assessment
AVEC 0.62 7.75
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
954 St. Mary’s / Mountain Village Wind
Energy Intertie Final Design
AVEC 0.57 7.13
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
955 St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy
Intertie Construction Project
AVEC 0.52 6.50
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
956 Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility
and Conceptual Design Project
AVEC 0.58 7.27
Bering Straits 957 Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility and
Conceptual Design Project
AVEC 0.59 7.37
Railbelt 959 Ticasuk Brown School Pellet Boiler
Project-Phase 2
GVEA 0.22 2.80
Railbelt 960 TidGen™ Array Project HEA 0.20 2.47
Aleutians 961 Atka Wind Power Project City of Atka 0.70 8.80
Bristol Bay 962 Manokotak Wind & Heat Feasibility Study Manokotak Power Company 0.55 6.88
Aleutians 963 Mount Makushin Geothermal Project City of Unalaska 0.45 5.61
Southeast 964 Excursion Inlet Hydro Project- Phase II Individual Generators 0.00
Southeast 965 Haines Borough Pellet Heating Project 0.22 2.72
Bristol Bay 966 High-penetration Wind Energy Project-
Kokhanok
Kokhanok Electric 0.90 10.00
Aleutians 967 Cold Bay Waste Heat Recovery Project G&K Inc 0.72 8.95
Aleutians 968 False Pass Wind Energy Project City of False Pass 0.51 6.40
Aleutians 969 Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project Nelson Lagoon Electric Coop 0.77 9.57
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
970 Kipnuk Wind Diesel Power Generation
and Heating
Kipnuk Light Power 0.58 7.20
Copper
River/Chugach
971 Eastern Copper Basin Geothermal
Assessment
CVEA 0.28 3.56
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
972 Akiak Wind Resource Assessment City of Akiak 0.63 7.88
Bering Straits 973 Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment I
FeasibUity
AVEC 0.59 7.33
Southeast 974 Neck Lake Hydro Project Alaska Power Company 0.60 7.48
Railbelt 975 Juniper creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility Study
CEA 0.14 1.78
RE-Fund Round-6
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 20 01/24/2013
** City of Galena based on Alaska Energy Statistics 1960 – 2009.
For Round 6 Projects addressing multiple communities, the following average cost of
power ($/kWh) and scores were used:
Application #932 Design and Construction of Biomass Systems in Interior Villages for the benefit of Hughes, Ruby, Nulato,
Kaltag, Holy Cross, Alatna, Allakaket, Shageluk, Grayling, Northway, Beaver and/or Stevens Village (average cost $/kWh:
0.645, score 8.06).
Application #933 Biomass Feasibility Studies in Public Facilities, Interior Region for the benefit of Alatna, Allakaket, Northway,
Grayling, Shageluk, Beaver and Stevens Village (average cost $/kWh: 0.662, score 8.28).
Application #946 Shungnak Solar Energy Construction Project for the benefit of Shungnak and Kobuk (average cost $/kWh:
0.80, score 10.00).
Application #952 Cosmos Hills Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment for the benefit of Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk Village
(average cost $/kWh: 0.74, score 9.25).
Application #953 Hotham Peak Wind Resource and lntertie Assessment for the benefit of Noorvik, Kiana and Selawik (average
cost $/kWh: 0.62, score 7.75).
Application #954 St. Mary’s / Mountain Village Wind Energy Intertie Final Design for the benefit of Mountain Village, Pitka's
Point and St. Mary's (average cost of $/kWh: 0.57, score 7.13)
Application #955 St. Mary’s / Pilot Station Wind Energy Intertie Construction Project for the benefit of Pilot Station and St.
Mary's (average cost of $/kWh: 0.52, score 6.50)
Bristol Bay 976 Knutson Creek Hydroelectric Project
Design and Permitting
Pedro Bay Village 0.91 10.00
Railbelt 977 Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Study
GVEA 0.22 2.80
Southeast 978 Indian River Hydroelectric Project
Construction
City of Tenakee Springs 0.69 8.62
Railbelt 979 Waste-to-Energy Feasibility Study CEA 0.14 1.78
Bristol Bay 980 Bristol Bay Borough School District
Energy Project
Naknek Electric 0.51 6.32
Yukon-
Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana
981 Tanana Solar Domestic Hot Water Heating
Project
Tanana Power Company Inc 0.71 8.92
Copper
River/Chugach
982 Community Facilities Woody Biomass
Space Heating Project
Alaska Power Company 0.67 8.39
Southeast 983 Wood Heat Feasibility Study and
Conceptual Design for the Organized
Village of Kake
Inside Passage Electric Cooperative 0.62 7.72
Northwest Arctic 984 Noatak Wind Resource Assessment AVEC 0.74 9.30
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Regional Summary Round 6 Ranking
$25 million Allocation
Post Stage 4 Regional Spread
1/15/2013
Round 6
Energy Region Grant Funding % Total
Aleutians $2,630,000 11%
Bering Straits $1,744,789 7%
Bristol Bay $1,191,000 5%
Copper River/Chugach $2,545,509 10%
Kodiak $0 0%
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $1,201,550 5%
North Slope $0 0%
Northwest Arctic $985,805 4%
Railbelt $0 0%
Southeast $13,682,000 55%
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $1,019,347 4%
Statewide $0 0%
TOTAL $25,000,000 100%
Cumulative Rounds 1-6
Energy Region
Total Rounds
1-6 Funding
% of
Total
Funding
Average
cost
power
($/kWh)
Allocation cost
of power basis
Additional
funding
needed to
reach 50%
Aleutians $17,386,009 8%0.46 23,557,526 (5,607,246)
Bering Straits $20,355,815 9%0.47 24,382,170 (8,164,730)
Bristol Bay $11,514,491 5%0.53 27,579,498 2,275,258
Copper River/Chugach $17,754,775 8%0.34 17,460,506 (9,024,522)
Kodiak $16,762,500 7%0.21 10,687,086 (11,418,957)
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $27,542,252 12%0.56 28,879,143 (13,102,680)
North Slope $2,502,912 1%0.16 8,502,090 1,748,133
Northwest Arctic $23,221,256 10%0.54 27,861,366 (9,290,573)
Railbelt $24,384,054 11%0.16 8,364,017 (20,202,046)
Southeast $52,523,386 23%0.15 7,594,119 (48,726,327)
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $11,504,389 5%0.60 30,900,875 3,946,049
Statewide $565,439 0%0.20 10,248,882
TOTAL $226,017,278 100%226,017,278
Recommendation
Recommendation Cost of Power
Highlighted in blue indicates that the region does not meet the goal of 50% allocation based on relative cost of power.
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund
Regional Summary Round 6 Ranking
$50 million Allocation
Post Stage 4 Regional Spread
1/15/2013
Round 6
Energy Region Grant Funding % Total
Aleutians $2,630,000 5%
Bering Straits $1,819,789 4%
Bristol Bay $1,191,000 2%
Copper River/Chugach $6,574,000 13%
Kodiak $356,400 1%
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $15,376,885 31%
North Slope $0 0%
Northwest Arctic $1,232,905 2%
Railbelt $5,513,274 11%
Southeast $14,204,700 28%
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $1,101,047 2%
Statewide $0 0%
TOTAL $50,000,000 100%
Cumulative Rounds 1-6
Energy Region
Total Rounds
1-6 Funding
% of
Total
Funding
Average
cost
power
($/kWh)
Allocation cost
of power basis
Additional
funding
needed to
reach 50%
Aleutians $17,386,009 7%0.46 26,163,248 (4,304,385)
Bering Straits $20,430,815 8%0.47 27,079,106 (6,891,262)
Bristol Bay $11,514,491 5%0.53 30,630,094 3,800,556
Copper River/Chugach $21,783,266 9%0.34 19,391,830 (12,087,351)
Kodiak $17,118,900 7%0.21 11,869,196 (11,184,302)
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $41,717,587 17%0.56 32,073,494 (25,680,840)
North Slope $2,502,912 1%0.16 9,442,515 2,218,345
Northwest Arctic $23,468,356 9%0.54 30,943,140 (7,996,786)
Railbelt $29,897,328 12%0.16 9,289,169 (25,252,743)
Southeast $53,046,086 21%0.15 8,434,112 (48,829,030)
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $11,586,089 5%0.60 34,318,852 5,573,337
Statewide $565,439 0%0.20 11,382,521
TOTAL $251,017,278 100%251,017,278
Recommendation
Recommendation Cost of Power
Highlighted in blue indicates that the region does not meet the goal of 50% allocation based on relative cost of power.