HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 REFundR7_EvaluationGuidelines
Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round VII
DRAFT Methods for Proposal Evaluation and Grant Recommendation
May 8, 2014
Overview of Review Process
The purpose of this document is to provide a thorough description of how the Renewable
Energy Fund (REF) Round VII applications were evaluated. This document, including the
Appendix A, will be posted on the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) REF Round VII Applications and
Analysis webpage http://www.akenergyauthority.org/RE_Fund_Applications-7.html following
review by the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee on May 13th, 2014.
AEA received a total of 87 applications for REF Round VII. One application was a partial version
of a more complete application submitted on the due date, and so was considered a duplicate
and removed from further evaluation. As such, AEA generally states in Round VII 86
applications requesting $93 million in grant funding were reviewed.
New to Round VII, was the solicitation in the RFA for standard renewable energy applications
and a separate application for those related to offsetting heating costs. AEA reviewed 38
applications requesting $24 million for heat related projects (biomass, heat recovery, heat
pumps, and renewables to heat). AEA reviewed 48 applications requesting $69 million for
standard renewable energy projects (hydro, transmission, wind, geothermal, storage,
hydrokinetic, solar PV, and biofuel). All applications were evaluated based on the same four
stages as in previous Rounds I-VI.
The first stage of review, conducted by AEA staff, evaluated each application for completeness,
eligibility, and responsiveness to the Request for Applications (RFA). Four applications did not
pass Stage 1 review based on these threshold criteria. Following the 10-day appeal period, one
application was reconsidered and advanced to the next stage of review.
The Stage 2 review evaluated the technical and economic feasibility of the remaining 83
proposals. In addition, Alaska Department of Natural Resources staff and private economists,
under contract to AEA, reviewed each application. Stage 2 review included scoring the project
in a number of categories in the effort to rank projects for recommendation to the Legislature.
In Round VII, a minimum score of 40 was required for an application to advance to Stage 3
evaluation. Project specific recommendations for full, partial, or no funding, as well as
recommendations for special provisions for grantable awards were made based on the Stage 2
review. Projects may have been recommended for partial 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.
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 2 5/8/2014
Funding for proposed project development phases would not be used until late FY 2015
or afterwards. That is, funds would be tied up unreasonably.
AEA believed that proposed costs were excessive for the proposed scope of work.
The applicant requested AEA to manage the project and the AEA Project Manager could
confidently estimate a lower cost.
The proposal included operating costs, ineligible costs, unreasonably high costs, or other
costs not recommended for funding.
The Stage 3 review was conducted in accordance with specific guidelines in the RFA by AEA
staff. The scoring was done based on a number of matrices and pre-established weighting for
each of the criteria as defined by the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC)
since Round V.
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%)
At the completion of Stage 2 and 3 reviews, AEA staff recommended no funding for 20
applications. Following the appeal period, 64 (74%) of the 86 applications evaluated were
recommended for funding. Of these, 20 (31%) ranked in the top tier as being within the
governor’s budget for FY15. On January 7th, presented to the REFAC for Stage 4 review,
Stage four review or “Regional Spreading” determines if a region is being under represented
within the REF. This is determined by a calculation that accounts for the number and rank of
applications within each region, population, the cost of energy ($/kWh), and a balance of
statewide funding. In the case where an energy region is under represented, AEA will propose
to the REFAC to move a project up in the recommended projects rankings to evenly distribute
funds across the State.
Following Stage 4, the REFAC recommended 26 of the 86 evaluated applications to the
legislature all of which were among the top ranked applications by AEA staff. Of these, two met
the Stage 4 criteria for regional spread, four were additional heat projects to meet the needs of
high-cost of energy communities, and two hydro projects were recommended for partial
funding to meet the governor’s budget of $20million. If additional funding were available, the
REFAC recommended full funding for all 26 applications.
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 3 5/8/2014
Roles of AEA Staff and the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC)
AEA staff requested and received input from the REFAC regarding the application and
evaluation processes and final funding recommendations. Following is a summary of
Committee involvement.
AEA staff and the Committee met on April 2, 2013 and on June 17, 2013 to discuss issues
including the schedule and details of the Round VII RFA, progress on funded projects, possible
changes to the program, and ways to expedite funding for priority heat projects and/or other
projects to expedite project development.
Midway through review of the applications AEA staff and the Committee met on November 12,
2013 to discuss progress on the review.
AEA staff and the Committee met on January 7, 2014 following AEA evaluation of all
applications, to review the AEA recommendations for Stage 4. Based on this discussion AEA
finalized its recommendations.
On January 29, 2014, AEA submitted to the Legislature a ranked list of applications with 26
recommended for funding in Round VII.
In summary, 30% of the applications evaluated in Round VII were recommended for full or
partial funding in FY15. Of these, $10.3 million are for 17 applications to displace heating costs,
and $9.7 million are for 9 standard renewable energy projects with an additional $2.8 million
recommended if additional funding, above the Governor’s budget of $20million is available.
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 4 5/8/2014
Appendix A
Guidelines for Renewable Energy Fund Application Evaluation
Table of Contents
General: .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Stage 1 Review Process: ...................................................................................................................... 6
Reviewers ............................................................................................................................................................ 6
Criteria .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Process .................................................................................................................................................................. 6
Stage 2 Review Process: ...................................................................................................................... 7
Reviewers ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
Criteria .................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Process .................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Stage 3 Review Process: ...................................................................................................................... 9
Reviewers ............................................................................................................................................................ 9
Criteria ............................................................................................................................................................... 10
Process ............................................................................................................................................................... 10
Funding Limitations on Recommendations (Sec 1.15 of RFA) ...................................................... 10
Recommendation Guidelines .................................................................................................................... 11
Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations ...................................... 12
Reviewers ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Process ............................................................................................................................................................... 12
Scoring Criteria .................................................................................................................................... 14
General Scoring Criteria .............................................................................................................................. 14
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio ......................................................................... 15
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan ................................................................................................... 15
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (c) Public Benefit Review Guidelines ............................................................... 16
Stage 3 Criterion Match ............................................................................................................................... 17
Stage 3 Criterion Local Support ................................................................................................................ 17
Stage 3 Criterion Project Readiness ........................................................................................................ 18
Stage 3 Criterion Public Benefit................................................................................................................ 18
Stage 3 Criterion Sustainability ................................................................................................................ 18
Stage 3 Criterion Statewide Regional Balance .................................................................................... 19
Stage 3 Criterion Compliance with Other Awards ............................................................................. 19
Stage 4 Regional Spread .............................................................................................................................. 23
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 5 5/8/2014
These are the Instructions and Guidelines for Evaluation of applications received in response to
the Round VII (Request for Applications) of the REF.
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.
AEA 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, AEA will make all
applications available for review on the Authority’s web site.
General:
Communications with applicants during the evaluation process will go through the Grant
Administrator. Once initiated, the Grant Administrator may direct applicants to
communicate directly with the appropriate AEA staff member.
The ED (Executive Director) is the ED of AEA; DDs (Deputy Directors) are those
management personnel in AEA who have program oversight for AEA programs; PMs
(Project Managers) are the subject matter technical experts; and the Grant Administrator
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, instead communicate through the
Grant Administrator, unless the Grant Administrator recommends direct communication
with the applicant.
If Reviewers have questions about an application or process contact they should contact
the Grant Administrator. If Reviewers have technical questions they should contact the
Project 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 Administrator explaining why their application has been rejected or not
recommended. Reviewers will be required to provide to the Grant Administrator the
reasons for why the application is being rejected.
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 Administrator. The Grant Administrator will review the appeal with the ED,
DD, and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action.
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 6 5/8/2014
Stage 1 Review Process:
All applications received by the deadline will initially be reviewed by AEA 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 Administrator and at least one Deputy Director
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 1.4 of RFA).
2. The project meets the definition of an Eligible Project (sec 1.5).
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 1.4).
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 2.2 - 2.6).
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 1.4)
Process
The Grant Administrator will evaluate criteria 1-3 & 6 above.
The DD will evaluate criteria 4-5 above.
If it appears that the application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional
data the DD or PM may make a recommendation to the Grant Administrator for
additional information. The Grant Administrator will request clarifying information from
the applicant. The applicant will have a specified amount of time to provide the
requested information. Failure of the applicant to respond timely or provide information
that completes their application will result in the application being rejected.
Applications that are determined by the Grant Administrator and DD to be incomplete or
fail to meet the minimum requirements will be reviewed by the ED 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 Administrator. The Grant Administrator will review the request with the ED,
DD, and Legal staff as required to determine an appropriate course of action.
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 7 5/8/2014
Stage 2 Review Process:
All applications that pass Stage 1 will be reviewed for technical and economic feasibility in
accordance with the criteria below.
Reviewers
PMs – 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.
AEA staff economist – Manages, oversees and ensures equal evaluations between
economists and ultimately performs a quality assurance review of economic analysis
work for selected projects.
DDs – Oversees 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 (Subjectively
Scored)
a. The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in
adequate detail.
b. The cost estimates for project development, operation,
maintenance, fuel, and other project items meet industry
standards or are otherwise justified.
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 maintaining the project throughout its lifetime and selling
energy from the completed project are reasonable and
described in adequate detail.
20%
2. Qualifications and Experience (Subjectively Scored)
a. The Applicant, partners, and/or 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
20%
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 8 5/8/2014
workforce.
3. Technical Feasibility (Subjectively Scored)
a. The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable
basis, and project permits and other authorizations can
reasonably be obtained.
b. A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy
system.
c. Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable.
d. The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver
energy as planned.
e. If a demonstration project is being proposed:
Application in other areas of the state, or another
specific benefit of the proposed project, is likely:
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.
20%
4. Economic Feasibility (Scored by benefit-cost ratio based schedule)
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. (Subjectively
Scored)
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. (Scored according matrix)
10%
Process
PMs 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.
PMs will provide AEP (Annual Energy Production) estimates to the staff economists for
applications that significantly underestimate or overestimate possible production.
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 PM believes they need additional information they will coordinate their request for
follow-up information with the Grant Administrator. The purpose of follow-up is for
clarification and to help the PM gain a sufficient understanding of the project proposed.
Any requests for additional information will be made by the Grant Administrator to the
applicant by e-mail, Bcc to project manager, requesting a response in 7 days or fewer.
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 9 5/8/2014
Applicants that fail to respond to requests for information or to adequately address the
criteria in the technical review may be rejected in Stage 2.
The DDs or their designee will meet with the PMs 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 DDs, PMs, Economists, and ED.
Applications may be not recommended prior to generating scores for Stage 2.
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 40 is required for Stage 2 in order to pass to Stage 3. This minimum
score was raised by 5 points from previous rounds.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application
failed Stage 2.
AEA 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 DDs.
The Grant Administrator, with staff assistance, will score the cost of energy, type and amount of
matching funds, and local support, using the formulas and methods outlined in Appendix A.
Two DDs or their designee and the PMs will provide scores for readiness, previous success,
and sustainability.
AEA will develop a regional ranking of applications and a draft ranking of all projects for the
REFAC to review.
The REFAC will review AEAs final Stage 3 scores and regional ranking recommendations. The
REFAC may make recommendations to assist in achieving a statewide balance but will not be
rescoring based on the criteria.
Reviewers
Grant Administrator (Local Support and Match Criteria)
Two Deputy Directors
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 10 5/8/2014
Project Managers
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (Review of Regional Ranking and Funding
Recommendations)
Criteria
Criteria noted below will be scored and weighted as noted.
Criteria Round VII
Weight
Cost of energy 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 Administrator by e-
mail, Bcc to project manager, with a response time of 7 days or less.
The evaluation team may conduct interviews of applicants to determine a more complete
understanding of the technical or financial aspects of their application.
Funding Limitations on Recommendations (Sec 1.15 of RFA)
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.
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 11 5/8/2014
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
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 2014/15, and project
is well-defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk.
o Fund limited phases: Project construction would be 2015+, 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
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 12 5/8/2014
to particular proposed projects, is not eligible, and more appropriately done
through the DNR/AEA Alaska Energy Inventory Data project.
Recommendation Guidelines will be documented and a part of the grant file.
Stage 4 Ranking of Applications for Funding Recommendations
All applications recommended for grants as a result the Stage 3 evaluation will be ranked in
accordance with 3 AAC 107.660.
To establish a statewide balance of recommended projects, AEA will provide to the REFAC a
statewide and regional ranking of all applications recommended for funding in Stage 3.
In consultation with the REFAC, AEA 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 AEA may only recommend funding for project phases
requested by the Applicant. AEA may recommend funding for only the initial phase(s) of a
proposed multi-phased project. The recommended funding may be less than what the Applicant
requested.
Reviewers
Grant Administrator
Deputy Director
Executive Director of AEA.
Renewable Energy Fund 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, will be presented to the REFAC for
review along with the complete list of projects.
Consistent with the process established in rounds 1-6, AEA will prepare a summary of
the draft recommendations by energy region that will compare potential allocations of
funding by 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 a target of at least 50% of the
cumulative REF allocation based on 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
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 13 5/8/2014
regions that do not meet the target goal, and add that recommendation to the Stage 4
list. A top tier of applications will be defined that fit within the Governor’s budget and the
remaining recommended applications will fall into a second tier.
The REFAC 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, and 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 2015 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 VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 14 5/8/2014
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 in a 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 and 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. AEA 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 VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 15 5/8/2014
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio
(Maximum Stage 2 Points: 25)
AEA staff will consider the economist evaluation when scoring this criterion. They will compare
the economists and any Applicant supplied 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 2 Points: 10)
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 10. 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 VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 16 5/8/2014
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.
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 VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 17 5/8/2014
Stage 3 Criterion Match
Total of 15 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
+
Support of any kind referenced
but not given a specific value i.e.
housing offered to outside
workers, administration of
project without compensation
1 .01% - <5% of
Grant =
1
Previous investment towards
project completion including
investments in building
efficiency completed in the last 5
years if applying for a heat
energy project
2 =>5% - =<10%
of Grant =
2
Another grant [State] as Match 3 >10% - =<15%
of Grant =
4
Another grant (Fed) Or private 4 >15% - =<30%
of Grant
6
Loan or Local Cash or any
documented In-kind Match
(including energy efficiency
improvements directly related to
the project)
5 >30% - =<49%
of Grant =
8
> 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,Village Council, or other local government entity or
listed in Regional Energy Plan
2 points each
Support demonstrated by local entity other than applicant 1 point each
up to 6 points
Opposition demonstrated by local entity. -1 point each
Letters of support from legislators do not count toward this criterion.
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 18 5/8/2014
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
Applicants for heat projects have provided evidence of investment in and
commitment to thermal energy efficiency in the building(s) to be served by
the heat project.
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.c).
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.
For heat projects the criteria will be scored from 0 to 10 based on the variables 1 through 3
listed above plus 4) the condition of the building(s) to be served by the heat project, in particular
how well the applicant has demonstrated an investment in and commitment to thermal energy
efficiency.
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 19 5/8/2014
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.
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-VII
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
New to Round VII, is a separation of heat applications from the rest of the renewable energy
grant fund applications and a different methodology for scoring the cost of energy.
For standard applications, the same methodology used in previous rounds is applied. 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 Alaska Energy Statistics, 1960-2011 workbook
tables prepared by ISER for the Alaska Energy Authority December, 2013.
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.
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 20 5/8/2014
For heat applications, the score is based on the cost of heating fuel for each community using
available data, primarily the heating fuel #1 retail price per gallon as reported in the Alaska Fuel
Price Report: Current Community Conditions, July 2013 prepared by DCRA. For communities
not included in the report, a recent invoice, provided by the applicant is used.
Scores are assigned for each community using the following formula:
Score = (cost of heat) / $8.00 x 10, Score cannot be greater than 10.
Communities with a residential cost of power above $8.00/gallon are assigned a score of 10.
In some instances, a standard application is displacing heating fuel and/or a heat application is
displaying electricity. Under such circumstances, the cost of the displaced energy is used.
For all applications, the maximum cost of energy score is 35. 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.
In some instances, an application may address multiple communities. In such cases, the
average residential rate or price of heating fuel is used.
The specific cost of energy score for Renewable Energy Fund Round VII applications follows:
Energy Region App# Heat Application Name
REF7 Heat
Price $/gal
S3
Criteria
1 Heat
Score
S3
Criteria
1 Heat
Price
Weight
Bristol Bay 1006 NEA Stack Heat to Power Project $3.50
Southeast 1007 Mendenhall Valley Library Geothermal
HVAC System
$4.12 5.15 18.03
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1008 Chuathbaluk Water System Heat Recovery $6.82
Railbelt 1009 Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating
System Project
$4.06 5.08 17.76
Southeast 1010 Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion $3.80 4.75 16.63
Southeast 1011 Sitka Centennial Hall Air Source Heat Pump $3.59 4.49 15.71
Southeast 1012 Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent
Heat Pump
$3.59 4.49 15.71
Southeast 1013 Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat
Pump
$3.59 4.49 15.71
Copper
River/Chugach
1014 Wood Chip Boiler for The Native Village of
Tazlina
$4.17 5.21 18.24
Southeast 1016 Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler
Project
$4.20 5.25 18.38
Southeast 1017 Southeast Island School District Wood
Boilers
$3.80 4.75 16.63
Southeast 1021 Haines Borough Municipal Buildings
Biomass Project
$4.09 5.11 17.89
Aleutians 1026 Atka Dispatchable Heat $7.65 9.56 33.47
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 21 5/8/2014
Railbelt 1031 Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump
Project
$5.19 6.49 22.71
Yukon-Koyukok/
Upper Tanana
1032 Biomass Heat for Minto Community
Buildings
$5.00 6.25 21.88
Southeast 1033 Sitka Sea Water Source Heat Pump Project $3.59 4.49 15.71
Southeast 1037 Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass
Heating Project
$3.59 4.49 15.71
Northwest Arctic 1038 Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy
Project
$6.07 7.59 26.56
Bering Straits 1040 Brevig Mission Water System Heat
Recovery
$5.29 6.61 23.14
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1041 Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat
Recovery
$4.30 5.38 18.81
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1042 Eek Water System Heat Recovery $3.89 4.86 17.02
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1043 St Marys Heat Recovery System $4.60 5.75 20.13
Yukon-Koyukok/
Upper Tanana
1044 Venetie Clinic Heat Recovery $8.50 10.00 35.00
Yukon-Koyukok/
Upper Tanana
1045 Grayling Heat Recovery System $5.00 6.25 21.88
Yukon-Koyukok/
Upper Tanana
1047 Galena Community Wood Heat Project $6.02 7.53 26.34
Yukon-Koyukok/
Upper Tanana
1051 AGSD Extension of Heating Loop $3.79 4.74 16.58
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1052 Nunam Iqua Heat Recovery Project $4.38 5.48 19.16
Southeast 1053 Yakutat Biomass District Heating Loop $5.05 6.31 22.09
Railbelt 1055 Alaska SeaLife Center Heat Recovery
Project
$0.11/kWh 1.31 4.59
Yukon-Koyukok/
Upper Tanana
1060 Holy Cross Water System Heat Recovery $7.15 8.94 31.28
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1061 Emmonak Heat Recovery System $5.77 7.21 25.24
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1071 Kwigillingok Wind Heat Electrical Thermal
Storage
$5.95 7.44 26.03
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1073 Kongiganak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal
Storage
$6.21 7.76 27.17
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1074 Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal
Storage
$6.80 8.50 29.75
Northwest Arctic 1076 NWAB School District Solar Thermal
Systems
$0.63/kWh
Railbelt 1078 Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass
Project
$3.71 4.64 16.23
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1085 Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery $6.80 8.50 29.75
Southeast 1087 Kake Community Energy $5.85 7.31 25.59
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 22 5/8/2014
Energy Region App# Standard Application Name
REF7
Residential
Rate
($/kWh)
S3
Criteria
1 COE
S3
Criteria
1 COE
Weight
Northwest Arctic 1001 Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project $0.42 5.22 18.27
Railbelt 1002 Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype
Demonstration
$0.22
Southeast 1003 Mahoney Lake Hydroelectric Phase III and
IV
$0.10
Kodiak 1004 Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System $0.60
Copper River/
Chugach
1015 Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project
Construction
$0.28 3.56 12.44
Bristol Bay 1018 Chignik Hydroelectric Project Design and
Permitting
$0.48 5.94 20.81
Southeast 1019 Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project N/A
Southeast 1020 Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility
and Conceptual Design
N/A
Southeast 1022 SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Phase I
and II
$0.10 1.28 4.47
Southeast 1023 Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project $0.10 1.28 4.47
Southeast 1024 Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibility $0.62
Southeast 1025 Gunnuk Creek Hydroelectric Feasibility
Study
$0.62 7.76 27.14
Yukon-Koyukok/
Upper Tanana
1027 Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project $0.49 6.13 21.46
Railbelt 1028 Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project
Reconnaissance Study
$0.22 2.80 9.81
Railbelt 1029 Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility
Study
$0.22
Kodiak 1030 Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric
Crane
$0.19 2.38 8.32
Southeast 1034 Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie $0.10
Southeast 1035 Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet
Geothermal Resource
$0.65
Bristol Bay 1036 Packers Creek Hydroelectric Project Phase
II
$0.69 8.65 30.26
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1039 Four Villages lntertie Design
Bristol Bay 1046 Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction
Phase
$0.68
North Slope 1048 Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design & Permitting $0.15 1.88 6.56
North Slope 1049 Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and
Permitting Project
$0.15 1.88 6.56
Bristol Bay 1050 Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar
PV Project
$0.50
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1054 Multiple Alternative Energy Sources for
Napakiak
Aleutians 1056 Adak Wind Data Collection Analysis and
Preliminary Design
$0.81
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 23 5/8/2014
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1057 Mertarvik Renewable Energy Feasibility
and Conceptual Design
$0.80 10.00 35.00
Northwest Arctic 1058 Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array
Construction Project
$0.74
Northwest Arctic 1059 Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design and
Permitting
$0.74
Aleutians 1062 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study $0.51 6.41 22.45
Bristol Bay 1063 Iliamna Solar Ground Mounted Energy
System
$0.59
Copper River/
Chugach
1064 Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction $0.44
Kodiak 1065 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project Final
Design and Permitting
$0.58 7.20 25.21
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1066 Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and
Permitting Project
$0.50 6.30 22.05
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1067 Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and
Conceptual Design
$0.54 6.80 23.80
Bering Straits 1068 Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy Final
Design and Permitting
$0.56 6.98 24.42
Lower Yukon-
Kuskokwim
1069 St Marys Pitkas Point Wind Energy
Construction Project
$0.49 6.17 21.60
Aleutians 1070 Sand Point Energy Storage Project $0.58 7.30 25.55
Bristol Bay 1072 Igiugig Wind Resource Feasibility and
Conceptual Design
$0.80 10.00 35.00
Copper River/
Chugach
1075 Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project
Feasibility Study
$0.28 3.56 12.44
Yukon-Koyukok/
Upper Tanana
1077 Yerrick Creek Hydroelectric Project $0.49 6.13 21.46
Bristol Bay 1079 Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery $0.50 6.31 22.09
Aleutians 1080 False Pass Wind Energy Project $0.51 6.41 22.45
Railbelt 1081 Waste to Energy Reconnaissance Study $0.15 1.94 6.78
Railbelt 1082 Stetson Creek Diversion Cooper Lake Dam
Facilities Project
$0.15 1.94 6.78
Aleutians 1083 Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Project $0.28 3.50 12.26
Railbelt 1084 Juniper Creek Hydroelectric
Reconnaissance Study
$0.15 1.89 6.61
Stage 4 Regional Spread
This score is based on local population census and 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 December, 2013 and the Alaska Department of Labor & Workforce
Development, Research and Analysis Section,
http://www.labor.state.ak.us/research/pop/estimates/data/TotalPopulationPlace.xls
RE-Fund Round VII
Evaluation Guidelines Appendix A - Page 24 5/8/2014