Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMBINED pdf REFAC mtg docs 1-13-16 with pg numbers RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING BP Energy Center, Birch Room Anchorage, Alaska Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:30 pm – 5:30 pm Teleconference: 1-888-585-9008, code 683-021-989# AGENDA Approx. time 1. Call to Order 5 min 2. Roll Call (committee members, staff, public) 5 min 3. Agenda Approval 5 min 4. Public Comments 15 min 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes – May 8, 2015 5 min 6. REF Program Update 30 min 7. Community Assistance Report 5 min 8. Round IX Recommendations 1hr 30 min a. Recommendations List and Project Summary Review b. Regional Distribution (Stage 4) c. Committee Recommendation to AEA 9. Next Meeting Date (May 2-13) 5 min 10. Committee Member Comments 10 min 11. Adjournment Page 1 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 5 October 27, 2015 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting October 27, 2015 Alaska Energy Authority Board Room Anchorage, Alaska 2:01 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES 1. Call to Order The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) convened at 2:01 p.m., with Chair Chris Rose presiding. 2. Roll Call (committee members, staff, public) Committee Members Present Chair Chris Rose Brad Reeve Kathie Wasserman (phone) Senator Anna MacKinnon (phone) Representative Jim Colver Bradley Evans Jodi Mitchell Meetings Attended of Total Meetings 7 of 7 6 of 7 5 of 7 4 of 7 2 of 2 4 of 7 6 of 7 Committee Members Not Present Meetings Attended of Total Meetings Senator Lyman Hoffman 5 of 7 Representative Bryce Edgmon 5 of 7 AEA Staff Present: Shawn Calfa, Josh Craft, Jed Drolet, Daniel Hertrich, Sara Fisher-Goad, Yolanda Inga, Cady Lister, David Lockard, Sean Skaling, and Sam Tappen. Other Participants Present: Sydney Hamilton, Accu-Type Depositions; Eric Hanssen, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC); Ron Vecera (Chugach Electric); Laura Keiser, JAK & Associates; Joe Evans, Pilot Point (phone); Pat Walker, Staff for Senator Hoffman (phone); Erin Shine, Staff for Senator MacKinnon (phone); Emma Kelley, Stantec; and Kord Christianson, TDX Power. 3. Agenda Approval The agenda was approved without objection. 4. Approval of Minutes: May 8, 2015 MOTION: A motion was made by Ms. Mitchell to approve the Minutes of May 8, 2015. Seconded by Ms. Wasserman. The Minutes of May 8, 2015 were approved. Page 2 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 5 October 27, 2015 5. Public Comments Joe Evans expressed his appreciation to attend on behalf of Pilot Point. 6. Overview of Program A. REF R8 Funded Project Update Mr. Skaling provided an updated status report for the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 8 (R8). The Legislature funded $11.5 million of the projects recommended for funding. B. REF R9 Applications Received Mr. Skaling informed the Request for Applications (RFA) for Round 9 (R9) was announced in early July. The applications were due in late September. Stage 1 of the application process is complete and Stage 2 is fully underway. The updated number of applications is 52, for a total grant funding request amount of approximately $50 million. The total cost for project phases is approximately $87.5 million, and includes the match amount. Mr. Skaling described the analysis of the applications received and highlighted the diversity of projects. He noted the applications reflect a nice statewide representation. The funding request breakdown is 80% "standard" projects and 20% heat projects. There are 23 hydro projects. There are 32 projects in the final design phase. The goal for REF R9 is for approximately 50% of the funds be recommended for reconnaissance and feasibility projects, and 50% of the funds be recommended for design and construction projects. Representative Colver asked if the reorganization of allocation considers the previous request by Senator MacKinnon to prioritize heat projects. Mr. Skaling noted the RFA stated a goal with an emphasis on heat projects. Momentum has been building over the last several years in recognizing the importance of heat projects. Comparatively, heat projects are generally a lower dollar amount. Representative Colver requested additional information on the utilization of hydro power from the project affecting Wrangell and Petersburg. Ms. Mitchell offered anecdotal information there was plenty of capacity initially. The conversion to electric heat occurred when oil prices were very high. Capacity was filled, leaving little additional power to sell. Mr. Lockard informed some of the hydro projects take advantage of electric heating as a dispatchable load to help control frequency, which provides a combined benefit of utilizing the excess electricity available and improving the power quality on the grid. Representative Colver requested data from the communities that utilize hydro projects, delineating how much energy is going toward heat and to what types of heating methods. He believes this information will assist in making good fiscal decisions regarding more investment. Representative Colver inquired as to the number of funded ocean loop heat exchanger projects. Mr. Skaling informed one project has been funded for the Sea Life Center in Seward. The Page 3 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 5 October 27, 2015 Emerging Energy Technology Fund (EETF) has another project in the same location using a different kind of technology as a heat pump. Ms. Mitchell recommended Mr. Skaling contact Tim McLeod and Trey Atkinson for additional data. Chair Rose expressed his appreciation to Mr. Skaling for detailing the information presented. He suggested the breakdown of application by phase include the requested funding amount, and the funding by region include the numbers of projects. C. Review of Evaluation Process Chair Rose informed the evaluation process manual is included in the members' packets. Mr. Skaling advised the manual is being fortified and is used as an internal process guide. The important information has been included in the RFA. Mr. Skaling provided an overview of the current system. He believes the system is very effective for vetting projects. It is time-tested and continuously improved. Mr. Tappen reviewed the cost of energy criteria. It is 35% of the ranking score of all projects. The criteria has been changed because of feedback from the last meeting. The cost of energy criteria is updated each round and is now based on both the cost of electricity and the price of heating fuel in the community. The cost of energy scoring weight is applied in Stage III. Mr. Skaling noted Wyn Menefee, who is not present at the meeting, wanted to inform the members that comments from Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will meet the deadline for the evaluation process. Mr. Evans asked for a description of the process used to inform stakeholders of any changes in criteria. He believes it is important to have a robust process for communicating changes to avoid applicants being disqualified because of preventable administrative issues. Mr. Evans gave the example that his entity was denied application because the resolution in support of the project was dated the previous year. He had not been aware of the change requiring a resolution dated the current year. Mr. Skaling explained the most recent changes were decided at the May meeting and those were communicated through the application process. The application process consists of the request for application, which gives the instructions and scoring criteria, and the application forms. Mr. Skaling stated a cover letter was provided with the request for application and on the website, which highlighted the major changes and also contained information about financing options. Ms. Mitchell requested the members be provided a copy of the cover letter to review the changes outlined. She noted applicants who did not receive funding the previous year have the option of resubmitting their application. It is essential those applicants understand any changes made to the process. Mr. Skaling stated applicants must complete a new application each year and may not use the application from the previous year. Chair Rose suggested every change be included in a cover letter or highlighted specifically on the website. Mr. Reeve asked if the evaluation criteria changes for projects based on the new rounds going forward. He referenced a project that was funded in Round I and then had to alter construction documents as the project continued to satisfy new evaluation guidelines. Mr. Skaling explained Page 4 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 5 October 27, 2015 the projects have iterative steps and go/no-go points may be established to provide the best project possible for the community. Mr. Skaling is not aware of the particular project referenced. Mr. Reeve believes it is necessary to discuss these types of impediments to project completion. Mr. Evans commented changing criteria on an existing project generates additional costs. It is critical to implement an effective communication process regarding the reasons for the changes. Chair Rose asked if there have been any projects funded in one round that then had to comply with new rules from a subsequent round. Mr. Skaling advised the grant document outlines the process, and grantees from one round do not have to meet criteria from subsequent rounds. Representative Colver inquired if AEA has determined standard specifications for wind equipment, maintenance, and technical recommendations. Mr. Skaling explained each community is different and the issues are complex. Factors reviewed include load, demand size, wind resource, storage capacity, and available equipment. Manufactures are not specified, but have to be third-party tested in Alaska climate conditions. Mr. Skaling noted the EETF is exploring storage options, including batteries and ultra-capacitors. Mr. Reeve requested project status updates for the grants awarded in prior rounds. Mr. Skaling noted the appendix of every projects' scope, schedule, budget and status is published at the same time the year's recommendations are published and placed on the website. Last year's information is currently on the website, and Mr. Skaling can provide the most current update for each project. Mr. Reeve noted the updated information would be helpful. Chair Rose agreed. 7. Regional Energy Planning Update Mr. Drolet provided the update on the ongoing regional energy planning process. He advised the series of projects funded by the state is nearing closure. The drafts for the plans are in review and will be available within the next few weeks. The plans consider all energy issues across the regions and identify short-term priorities that can be implemented in the near future. Development of ongoing regional level planning processes will be established as implementation of the plans occur. Representative Colver requested copies of the draft plans be provided to the House Energy Committee members. Mr. Drolet agreed. Chair Rose requested additional information about the relationship between the regional energy planning discussed and the Affordable Energy Strategy (AES) from Senate Bill 138, and how those plans would help AEA work with community members who may have competing projects that might apply to this fund. Mr. Drolet indicated the AES is a separate planning effort that has some overlap. AES is a long-term plan with a potential future funding source set aside from a gas pipeline. The information from the regional plans is incorporated into the analysis of the AES. Mr. Drolet informed the plans will be utilized in the Community Assistance Programs as a guideline for focusing efforts to identify and prioritize community energy opportunities. Chair Rose asked if it would be beneficial to use the information collected through regional planning as a backstop to the analysis regarding available financing options, rather than solely rely Page 5 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 5 October 27, 2015 on the applicants' responses and descriptions of their potential financing options. Mr. Drolet believes by next year the understanding of available financing options will be strong enough to use the information during the evaluation process. 8. Meeting dates for January and May, 2016 Chair Rose informed the members will be polled again to finalize the January meeting date. The two tentative dates are either January 13th or January 15th. Representative Colver would be participating telephonically on January 13th, and Chair Rose indicated the meeting on January 15th would need to begin after 1:00 p.m. A poll will be sent to members to determine the May meeting date, and options will range from May 5th to 15th. 9. Committee Member Comments Ms. Wasserman regretted not attending in person and noted the difficulty in attending telephonically. She was unable to view the webinar. Mr. Reeve expressed his appreciation for the information presented. Ms. Mitchell requested discussion regarding funding expectations for Round 9 and going forward. Representative Colver noted this will be another difficult year, and will probably include substantial budget cuts. He appreciates the level of commitment from Senate Finance Committee Co-Chair Senator MacKinnon and others. Representative Colver believes it is important to continue to think long-term for Alaskans, and recommended AEA schedule individual meetings while down in Juneau to get a better sense of available funding. Ms. Mitchell informed she is willing to help with the push for federal funds into the program. She expressed her appreciation for all the good work. Representative Colver agreed with Ms. Wasserman being present at a meeting versus attending telephonically makes a great difference. He believes there is value participating in person. Chair Rose requested to have specific notated information at the January meeting about available financing options, including available federal funding options, while making the recommendation decisions. Chair Rose expressed his appreciation for the hard work completed. 10. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Page 6 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX - Heat and Standard Combined Recommended Applications and Funding After Stage 4 Regional Spreading CountEnergy Region ID Project Name Applicant Energy Source B/C Ratio Household Energy Cost Tech/ Econ Score State- wide Rank Project Cost Through Construction Applicant Grant Requested Applicant Match Offered Recommended Phase(s) AEA Recomnd Recommend Funding Cumulative Funding 1 Copper River/Chugach 1226 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI)Hydro 1.71 $12,269 75.67 1 $6,589,090 $3,400,000 $2,600,000 Constr Full $3,400,000 $3,400,000 2 Aleutians 1237 Sand Point High Penetration Wind System Sand Point Generating, TDX Wind 2.19 $10,793 83.33 2 $1,067,309 $649,030 $423,275 Design, Constr Full $649,030 $4,049,030 3 Bering Straits 1234 Wales Water System Heat Recovery City of Wales HeatRecovery 1.44 $17,269 72.50 3 $653,277 $650,047 $6,566 Design, ConstrFull $650,047 $4,699,077 4 Aleutians 1245 Adak Hydro Power Generator TDX Adak Generating, TDX Hydro 1.75 $14,961 59.50 4 $1,750,000 $294,102 $126,044 Feas Partial $19,600 $4,718,677 5 Bering Straits 1238 Koyuk Water System Heat Recovery City of Koyuk Heat Recovery 1.06 $18,742 61.50 8 $695,269 $688,386 $6,884 Design Partial $90,922 $4,809,599 6 Bering Straits 1223 Shishmaref Wind Feasibility & Conceptual Design Alaska Village Electric Coop Wind 0.93 $15,812 52.50 18 $2,529,400 $152,000 $8,000 Feas Full SP $152,000 $4,961,599 7 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1233 Grayling Water System Heat Recovery City of Grayling Heat Recovery 0.98 $12,652 54.50 21 $431,982 $427,705 $4,277 Design Partial $38,401 $5,000,000 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1233 Grayling Water System Heat Recovery City of Grayling Heat Recovery 0.98 $12,652 54.50 21 $431,982 $427,705 $4,277 Design Partial $11,599 $5,011,599 8 Railbelt 1242 Heat Pump System for City of Seward City of Seward HeatPump 1.97 $9,005 83.17 5 $955,458 $725,000 $125,000 Design, Constr Full $725,000 $5,736,599 9 Southeast 1244 IPEC Gunnuk Creek Hydro Rehab in Kake Inside Passage Electric Coop Hydro 2.23 $10,561 73.00 6 $5,715,000 $3,920,000 $1,545,000 Constr Full SP $3,920,000 $9,656,599 10 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1224 Mountain Village-St. Mary's Wind Intertie Alaska Village Electric Coop Wind, Trans 1.00 $12,362 66.00 7 $6,196,000 $3,196,000 $3,000,000 Design, Constr Full SP $3,196,000 $12,852,599 11 Southeast 1250 Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting Elfin Cove Utility Commission Hydro 1.22 $12,008 67.33 9 $3,705,000 $88,000 $22,000 Design Full $88,000 $12,940,599 12 Northwest Arctic 1216 Shungnak Wind-Diesel Conceptual Design Native Village of Shungnak Wind 1.04 $17,752 50.00 10 $5,598,500 $135,000 $39,000 Feas Full SP $135,000 $13,075,599 13 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1222 Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery Module Alaska Village Electric Coop Heat Recovery 2.16 $10,766 71.67 11 $8,233,369 $2,555,489 $283,943 Constr Full SP $2,555,489 $15,631,088 14 Bristol Bay 1247 Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project City of Chignik Hydro 1.86 $8,746 73.67 12 $7,783,428 $1,025,175 $60,251 Design Full $1,025,175 $16,656,263 15 Kodiak 1221 Old Harbor Hydro Geotech & Final Design Alaska Village Electric Coop Hydro 1.38 $12,095 68.50 13 $9,317,500 $1,092,500 $57,500 Design Partial $792,500 $17,448,763 16 Kodiak 1202 Upper Hidden Basin Geotech Investigation Kodiak Electric Association Hydro, Storage 4.24 $7,047 79.00 14 $79,247,000 $750,000 $750,000 Feas Full $750,000 $18,198,763 17 Southeast 1249 Indian River Hydroelectric Project - Construction Tenakee Springs Electric Hydro 0.94 $11,498 56.33 15 $5,473,280 $809,000 $1,115,280 Constr Full $809,000 $19,007,763 18 Northwest Arctic 1212 Cosmos Hills Hydro Design & Permitting NANA Regional Corporation Hydro 1.08 $15,410 40.50 16 $50,797,871 $341,335 $37,200 Design Full $341,335 $19,349,098 19 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1214 Eek Water System Heat Recovery City of Eek Heat Recovery 1.01 $12,572 59.50 17 $311,394 $308,311 $3,083 Design Partial $50,000 $19,299,098 20 Southeast 1211 Sitka Wastewater Plant Effluent Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Heat Pump 1.13 $6,991 72.50 19 $826,067 $667,000 $113,000 Design, Constr Full $667,000 $19,966,098 21 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1207 Yerrick Creek Hydro Construction Upper Tanana Energy Hydro 1.23 $7,963 57.17 20 $20,744,264 $4,000,000 $15,000,000 Constr Full SP $3,925,000 $23,891,098 22 Southeast 1205 Neck Lake Hydropower Project: Phases II-III Alaska Power Company Hydro 1.21 $9,630 63.17 22 $3,016,475 $395,200 $98,800 Feas, Design Full $395,200 $24,286,298 23 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1235 Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project City of Scammon Bay Hydro 1.25 $12,698 49.67 23 $4,283,056 $305,000 $3,050 Feas Partial $90,000 $24,376,298 24 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1215 Huslia Water & Clinic Biomass Boiler City of Huslia Biomass 0.72 $13,795 44.67 24 $496,526 $491,610 $4,916 Design Partial $53,116 $24,429,414 25 Aleutians 1219 False Pass Hydro Feasibility & Conceptual Design City of False Pass Hydro 1.87 $8,145 73.67 25 $4,380,000 $187,000 $33,000 Feas Full $187,000 $24,616,414 26 Aleutians 1246 St. Paul Island 80% Renewable Energy Feasibility TDX Power, Inc.Other, Wind 1.66 $8,560 48.83 26 $5,731,500 $265,200 $66,300 Recon, Feas Full $265,200 $24,881,614 27 Northwest Arctic 1213 Ambler Washeteria and City Office Biomass Heating City of Ambler Biomass 1.06 $11,345 49.17 27 $484,691 $429,892 $54,799 Design, Constr Full SP $429,892 $25,311,506 28 North Slope 1232 Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting North Slope Borough Trans, Other 2.02 $3,417 78.00 28 $32,840,509 $2,017,818 $201,782 Design Full $2,017,818 $27,329,324 29 Southeast 1218 Saxman Low-Rent Multifamily Air Source Heat Pump Tlingit-Haida RHA Heat Pump 0.93 $6,194 60.83 29 $438,341 $296,038 $213,193 Design, Constr Full $296,038 $27,625,362 30 Aleutians 1201 Unalaska Water Treatment Inline Micro Turbines City of Unalaska Hydro 1.24 $7,677 58.00 30 $1,340,000 $1,100,000 $240,000 Feas, Design Partial $144,000 $27,769,362 31 Southeast 1208 Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass 1.33 $6,194 82.67 31 $1,365,890 $1,251,000 $0 Constr Full $1,251,000 $29,020,362 32 Southeast 1217 Klawock School Biomass Fuel Boiler Project Klawock City School District Biomass 1.38 $7,488 59.67 32 $858,556 $833,556 $25,000 Design Partial $111,986 $29,132,348 33 Copper River/Chugach 1248 Crater Lake Power and Water Project Cordova Electric Cooperative Hydro, Storage 0.91 $11,122 45.17 33 $17,306,696 $1,227,000 $420,680 Design Full SP $1,227,000 $30,359,348 34 Railbelt 1210 Chugach Electric Solar Project Chugach Electric Association Solar 0.36 $3,751 59.67 34 $1,814,049 $100,000 $100,000 Feas Partial $50,000 $30,409,348 35 Railbelt 1225 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC Hydro 1.10 $6,643 56.67 35 $58,936,366 $4,000,000 $875,528 Design Full $4,000,000 $34,409,348 36 Kodiak 1239 Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project City of Ouzinkie Hydro 0.73 $7,460 40.67 36 $4,603,385 $397,427 $4,014 Design, Constr Full SP $397,427 $34,806,775 37 Aleutians 1220 Waterfall Creek Hydro Construction City of King Cove Hydro 0.72 $6,054 41.83 37 $6,874,498 $675,000 $5,525,000 Constr Full $675,000 $35,481,775 38 North Slope 1231 Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design North Slope Borough Wind 0.79 $6,293 58.17 38 $7,606,795 $440,000 $44,000 Design Full $440,000 $35,921,775 39 Southeast 1209 Ketchikan Schools Recreation Heating Plant Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass 0.00 $6,194 62.00 39 $2,600,000 $220,000 $0 Feas Partial $40,000 $35,961,775 Sub Totals, All Recommended Projects $374,029,773 $40,933,526 $33,240,642 $36,061,775 Recommended Projects Project Cost Recommendation Draft 1/13/16 - for REFAC meeting - Not final recommendationsPage 7 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX - Heat and Standard Combined Not Recommended Applications After Stage 4 Regional Spreading Recommendation CountEnergy Region ID Project Name Applicant Energy Source B/C Ratio Household Energy Cost Tech/ Econ Score State- wide Rank Project Cost Through Construction Applicant Grant Requested Applicant Match Offered AEA Recmnd 40 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1204 Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project: Phase II Alaska Power Company Hydro 0.74 $7,963 37.00 40 $15,400,000 $386,000 $100,000 DNP Stage 2 41 Railbelt 1229 Knik Arm Power Plant Biomass to Power Central Environmental Inc.Biofuel 0.42 $5,594 31.17 41 $3,000,000 $400,000 $2,600,000 DNP Stage 2 42 Southeast 1203 Craig Water Treatment Plant Micro-Hydro City of Craig Hydro 1.07 $7,351 N/A 42 $386,000 $80,000 $10,000 Not Recmnd 43 Aleutians 1206 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study City of False Pass Hydrokinetic 0.13 $8,145 N/A 43 $6,300,000 $440,319 $62,500 Not Recmnd 44 Southeast 1227 Hoonah Waste-to-Energy Project City of Hoonah Heat Biofuel 0.54 $9,956 N/A 44 $5,289,000 $5,282,000 $277,000 Not Recmnd 45 Railbelt 1228 Point McKenzie Correction Farm Solar SOA Dept. of Corrections Solar 0.29 $6,260 N/A 45 $448,663 $140,000 $210,000 Not Recmnd 46 Northwest Arctic 1230 Kotzebue 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Kotzebue Electric Association, Inc.Solar 0.43 $11,759 N/A 46 $800,000 $384,730 $64,448 Not Recmnd 47 Southeast 1236 West Creek Hydroelectric Project Municipality of Skagway Borough Hydro 0.47 $7,750 N/A 47 $168,000,000 $320,000 $25,000 Not Recmnd 48 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1241 Minto PV Solar Project Minto Development Corporation Solar 0.37 $9,471 N/A 48 $86,400 $140,000 $210,000 Not Recmnd 49 Copper River/Chugach 1243 Maximizing Cordova Hydro with Controlled Systems Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.Heat Hydro 1.15 $11,122 N/A 49 $392,959 $95,733 $61,996 Not Recmnd 50 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1251 Circle 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Circle Utilities, Inc.Solar 0.44 $9,399 N/A 50 N/A $75,000 $10,000 Not Recmnd 51 Bristol Bay 1252 Igiugig RivGen© Power System Igiugig Electric Company Hydrokinetic 0.20 $16,003 N/A 51 $2,131,740 $1,490,077 $641,663 Not Recmnd 52 Southeast 1240 Solar Panels for Kake Community Buildings City of Kake Solar N/A $11,412 N/A 52 N/A $255,000 $0 DNP Stage 1 Totals, Not Recommended Projects $202,234,762 $9,488,859 $4,272,607 Notes This document represents AEA's draft recommendations for consideration by the REFAC committee. This is a draft document only and is subject to change prior to AEA's final recommendations. If REF 9 funding is limited to $5M exactly, #1233 Grayling Water System Heat Recovery (italicized in recommended list) would be partially funded. To fully fund the project, a total of $5,011,599 must be appropriated. The Household Energy Cost is a measure of the annual heating and electricity costs for a typical household in a given community The technical and economic score is the total stage 2 evaluation score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2. Match offered is applicant's offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable. If the awarded funding amount is reduced from the requested amount, the required match will also be reduced. Some not recommended projects' B/C ratios may not be listed due to incomplete information The Energy Region Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana was shortened to Y-K/Upper Tanana for printing purposes The rows that appear in bold font are those projects in underserved regions. Applications #1238, 1233 and 1223 were moved up the list during stage four regional spreading. B/C = AEA Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project. SP = Special Provisions Orange cells are heat projects, blue cells are standard projects *#1207, Yerrick Creek Hydro, is in an underserved region but was not elevated because the funding request was $4 million and only $140,401 was available. Instead #1233, a smaller project from the same region was elevated for nearly full funding. Not Recommended Projects Project Cost Page 8 of 138 Application Summaries Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Round IX January 7, 2016      Page 9 of 138   Page 10 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1201 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: City of Unalaska Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility, Design Unalaska Water Treatment Plant Inline Micro Turbines Project Description Feasibility, design, and construction of a 64 kW power recovery hydro serving the community of Unalaska utilizing 6.4 cfs and 184 ft of head to approximately generate 280 MWh of energy and displacing 280 MWh of diesel energy (18 k gallons of fuel, <1% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of 1.3 million with a projected online date of 2019. Proposed project features include a power recovery turbine in the existing 4000 foot long 24 inch diameter City water supply transmission main. This project will install inline micro­turbines in the new Pyramid Water Treatment Plant to generate power for its use as well as provide power to the Electric Utility's grid. The new Water Treatment Plant was designed and constructed with a configuration that would allow for micro­turbines to be installed at a future date. This project is estimated to provide at least 64 KW of in­house power using the water that passes through the Water Treatment Plant for treatment or system flushing; 30 KW may be needed for the Water Treatment Plant's electrical usage. An annual average of 280,000 kWh of power production is anticipated. A 1997 DOE report indicated that up to 260 KW could be available from the source (Icy Creek Reservoir) with additional water diversions, so there may be potential for future low­cost power development. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The Rural Energy grant should have no impacts to state land.  The micro water turbines will be place within the current city owned water treatment facility. If the grant is carried out as described in the application, the City of Unalaska would not need any DNR authorizations.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations If the City is awarded the grant, the source of matching funds for all phases of the project would be the proprietary enterprise funds. These funds could be secured for this project in the FY2017 budget period or secured for FY2016 with Council approval through a budget amendment. The need for a loan to other financing options is not anticipated at this time. The City received an ADEC Municipal Matching Grant and an Alaska Drinking Water Fund Loan for the Water Treatment Plant project. ADEC's funding division indicated that if there are any funds remaining after the final completion of the new Water Treatment Facility, some limited use of the funds could be used for the proposed micro turbine project. The new Water Treatment Facility is still in construction phase and final payments have not been made, so it's uncertain how much of these funds will be available.    Page 1/118    01/07/2016 Page 11 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1201 Standard Application Unalaska Water Treatment Plant Inline Micro Turbines Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)17.61   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)58.00 2. Matching Resources (15)11.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.24 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)6.00   4. Project Readiness (5)3.33  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)6.50   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)20 6. Local Support (5)2.00   Regional (of all applications)5 7. Sustainability (5)4.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)50.44 Total Stage 3 Score (100)50.44   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $1,340,000 $1,340,000   Cost of Electricity $0.39/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $1,100,000 $144,000   Price of Fuel $4.16/Gal   Matching Funds $240,000 $36,000   Household Energy Cost $7,677   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding Unalaska proposes to modify its water supply system to incorporate a power recovery turbine in lieu of a pressure reducing  valve. AEA received similar proposals from 2 other REF applicants this year. Unalaska's application was the most advanced  with a study dedicated to such a proposal.  The preliminary economics for these types of projects looks positive but there are technical challenges that must be  addressed. A turbines hydraulic behavior is significantly different than a pressure reducing valve. Understanding how the  turbine will interact with the combined water supply and power generation system (particularly under load rejection) is a  difficult task and will require specialized analysis.  AEA recommends partially funding the feasibility and final design phases of this project to better understand operation of  power recovery turbine and PRV under varying flow conditions and events such as load rejection. The study should include  evaluation of traditional hydroelectric alternatives utilizing the same resource. AEA also recommends Unalaska evaluate  other potential hydroelectric resources in the region.  Election District: S­37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 2/118     01/07/2016 Page 12 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1202 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro, Storage Energy Region: Kodiak Applicant: Kodiak Electric Association, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Upper Hidden Basin Diversion ­ Geotechnical Investigation Project Description Feasibility (geotech investigation) for a 0 kW addition to the existing Terror Lake storage hydro consisting of two diversions on Hidden Basin drainage serving the community of Kodiak utilizing 950 cfs and rated 1436 ft of head and 118 k acre feet of storage to approximately generate 33,000 MWh of energy and displacing 0 MWh of diesel energy (based on 2015 demand, fully utilized in 2025) annually at an estimated total project cost of $80 million with a projected online date of 2021. Proposed project features include a two low height diversion structures, 0.6 miles of open channel or 60 inch diameter piped conveyance, 1.2 miles of 12 ft diameter horseshoe tunnel, and 4 miles of access road. The Upper Hidden Basin Diversion (UHBD) will supplement the available hydro resource supply of KEAs existing Terror Lake Hydroelectric Facility (FERC Project No. 2743) by an additional 30,000 acre­feet of water. The UHBD will increase hydropower generation by an additional 33 million kilowatt­hours (kWh) annually. Diversion components would be a basic, non­mechanical design intended for un­manned water conveyance. Structural components of the UHBD consist of two concrete­face rockfill dams, a buried conveyance pipe, tunnel and access road. Surface water from the diversion dam on the eastern tributary of the West Fork of Hidden Basin Creek (D­East) will flow to the diversion dam on the western tributary of the West Fork of Hidden Basin Creek (D­West). The combined flow of water from both diversions will then flow by gravity through a tunnel through a mountain ridge to the Terror Lake reservoir. Assuming no spill at the Terror Lake reservoir, the inflow of water from the diversions generate additional hydropower from the existing Terror Lake powerhouse and will feed directly into KEAs existing electrical grid without any operational or capacity­related changes. The UHBD is the most technically­viable, cost­effective, and minimally invasive option for adding renewable energy to Kodiaks electrical grid for the benefit of the Kodiak community. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Existing SAPA Terror Lake Hydro project previously approved under SCRO lease ADL 204024, is seeking to add diversion works from Hidden Basin creek into Terror Lake. SCRO has an active permit to KEA under LAS 29042 for stream gauges. A portion of the proposed tunnel, and the entirety of the diversion dam and access road are proposed for construction on State­ owned lands and would require SCRO authorization if built. Additional authorization from the DMLW Water Section may also be later required.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 3/118    01/07/2016 Page 13 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1202 Standard Application Upper Hidden Basin Diversion ­ Geotechnical Investigation Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)16.17   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)79.00 2. Matching Resources (15)15.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 4.24 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)13.00   4. Project Readiness (5)1.83  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)11.37   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications) 10 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)2 7. Sustainability (5)2.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)64.38 Total Stage 3 Score (100)64.38   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $79,992,000 $79,247,000   Cost of Electricity $0.14/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $750,000 $750,000   Price of Fuel $3.45/Gal   Matching Funds $750,000 $750,000   Household Energy Cost $7,047   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding This project is expected to significantly increase the average annual hydroelectric energy generation at the existing Terror  Lake Hydroelectric Project at a relatively low cost because the project addition is for construction of access and diversion  works only (the existing generation infrastructure remains unchanged). The geotechnical investigation is required to advance  the project through the FERC permitting and the final design phase of project development. Kodiak Electric currently meets  all of their electrical demand with existing renewable energy resources. Demand growth is expected to reach the point where  the additional energy from this proposed project addition would be fully utilized in about 10 years. The basis for  recommending award is primarily the significant benefits if demand growth occurs. It is noted that if load growth does not  materialize the project increases the cost of power. Other options for meeting minor demand would be to invest in energy  efficiency measures.  A condition of award is to provide AEA for review an updated feasibility study addressing need for power, alternatives  (including energy efficiency), demand projections by type/industry (including electric heat and transportation conversion), fuel  costs, hydrology, diversion operation reliability, and other factors necessary to evaluate the project economics. As a condition  of award the scope of work shall include a project management plan, evidence of permit acquisition, health and safety plans,  work plan covering execution on site (with contingencies) and data collection and reporting, hazard analysis and spill  prevention plans, environmental compliance and onsite safety/health monitoring, quality control and assurance plan, and  weekly reporting during onsite activity. The above requirements shall flow down to consultants and contractors as well. Election District: P­32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia Page 4/118     01/07/2016 Page 14 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1203 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: City of Craig Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility, Design Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility, Design Craig Water Treatment Plant Micro­Hydro Project Description Feasibility and design of a 45 kW power recovery hydro serving the City of Craigs water treatment plant utilizing an estimated 1.8 cfs and 500 ft of head to approximately generate 287 MWh of energy and displacing 5 k gallons of diesel heating fuel annually at an estimated total project cost of 0.4 million with a projected online date of 2019. Proposed project features include a power recovery turbine in the existing 6.4 mile long 12 inch diameter City water supply transmission main. Provide design, engineering and permitting to install and operate a micro­hydro power generator in line of the raw water supply line from the Craig municipal water source (North Fork Lake) to the Craig water treatment plant and Prince of Wales Hatchery Association Chinook Salmon hatchery to provide electrical power for the water treatment plant and hatchery. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The City of Craig will need to apply for a Permit to Appropriate Water for this project and may need to apply for a Temporary Water Use Authorization if the project moves forward to the permitting stage and prior to the construction phase, respectively.  The DMLW Water Resources Section recommends the applicant consult with our Southeast Office to determine specific water use authorization requirements. May also require a shorelands public lease.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations This proposed project does not include the construction phase. While bonds and loans are feasible for this project these funding sources would likely result in significant rate increases for consumers.    Page 5/118    01/07/2016 Page 15 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1203 Standard Application Craig Water Treatment Plant Micro­Hydro Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.07 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $297,510 $386,000   Cost of Electricity $0.25/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $80,000 $0   Price of Fuel $3.40/Gal   Matching Funds $10,000 $0   Household Energy Cost $7,351   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The Prince of Wales Island is an isolated grid with existing and planned hydroelectric resources. The construction of the  Hiilangaay (Reynolds) Hydro is expected to be complete in the next few years. The total hydroelectric generation capacity on  Prince of Wales Island will exceed the demand for many years in the future negating the need for the energy from this project.  While this project's energy could be used for building heating, the energy production is low, AEA estimates it would cost  approximately the same as heating fuels (benefit/cost ratio 1.07), and the projects complexities increase risk to the water  system operations.  Due to these reasons, this project is not recommended for funding. Additional concerns with this project include the long pipeline, potentially damaging transient pressures, and maintaining  water system operation. If the applicant pursues the project with other funds, AEA recommends conducting a feasibility study  first with particular focus on the operational modeling including transient pressure analysis from the combined water/power  generation system operation.  This project is not recommended for funding and will not advance past Stage 2 of the evaluation process per REF regulation  3 AAC 107.645(b), and per Section 4 of the Request for Applications #16012. Election District: R­35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 6/118     01/07/2016 Page 16 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1204 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Yukon­Koyukuk Upper Tanana Applicant: Alaska Power Company Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project: Phase II Project Description Feasibility for a 1000 kW new run of river hydro on Clearwater Creek serving the community of Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, utilizing 35 cfs and 500 ft of head to approximately generate 3400 MWh of energy and displacing 1700 MWh of diesel energy (118 k gallons of fuel, 18% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of 15.4 million with a projected online date of 2021. Proposed project features include a low height diversion structure, 20,000 feet of penstock, a single turgo turbine, 2 miles of access road, and 9 miles of transmission line. Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), requests $386,000 in AEA Renewable Energy Fund Round IX grant funding support for Phase II Feasibility / Conceptual Design activities for the Clearwater Creek hydropower project. APC proposes a match of $100,000 in private funds supplied by AP&T / APC. The proposed project is located approximately 15 miles southwest of the community of Tok on the Tok­Cutoff Highway (Glenn Highway). DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments project involves state land. phase II involves placement of stream gauges, which may require DMLW permits. If futue phases of the project are undertaken, infrastructure will require DMLW authorizations. Access is described as going through a state campground ­ consultation with Division of Parks early in process will be necessary.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 7/118    01/07/2016 Page 17 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1204 Standard Application Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project: Phase II Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)37.00 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.74 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $15,891,000 $15,400,000   Cost of Electricity $0.37/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $386,000 $0   Price of Fuel $3.70/Gal   Matching Funds $100,000 $0   Household Energy Cost $7,963   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2 The primary concerns for this project relate to the need for power and the timing and quantity of hydroelectric resources  including the Yerrick Creek project. At this stage quantifying the resource potential and understanding the Yerrick Creek  resource better through stream flow measurements is recommended before undertaking environmental resource studies on  Clearwater Creek. AEA performed an analysis of the combined Yerrick Creek and Clearwater Creek projects with dispatch priority given to  Yerrick and load growth considered. The results indicated that about 1.7 GWh (in 2021) could be utilized to offset diesel  generation because of the limits of demand. Overall, the project may be viable but improved reconnaissance analysis should be included in future applications with  technical and conceptual development followed by focused environmental studies. AEA scored this project assuming a recommendation for partial funding for stream gauging (tasks 2 and 3, $69k total cost),  however the project did not pass minimum stage 2 score of 40 points.  The primary reason for not passing stage 2 is the low  benefit cost ratio of 0.74.  This project is not recommended for funding and will not advance past Stage 2 of the evaluation process per REF statutes  and regulations (AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600­695), and per Section 4 of the Request for Applications #16012. Election District: C­6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border Page 8/118     01/07/2016 Page 18 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1205 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Alaska Power Company Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility, Design Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility, Design Neck Lake Hydropower Project: Phases II­III Project Description Feasibility and design of a 124 kW new run of river hydro on Neck Lake serving the community of Whale Pass utilizing 34 cfs and 60 ft of head to approximately generate 1086 MWh of energy and displacing 300 MWh of diesel energy (24k gallons of fuel, 98% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of 3.0 million with a projected online date of 2022. Proposed project features include a low height foot high diversion structure, 400 feet of 30 inch diameter penstock, multiple pumps or other type of low head turbines, 400 ft of access road, and 4 miles of transmission line upgrades. Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T), requests $395,200 in funding for feasibility, design, and permitting activities for the Neck Lake hydropower project. APC will provide $98,800 cash match to AEA funding. The 124 kW Neck Lake Hydroelectric Project will be located below the outlet of Neck Lake, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the community of Whale Pass on Prince of Wales Island, Alaska. The Project will supply as much as 450,000 kilowatt hours of energy per year to the community of Whale Pass, offsetting diesel generation, which is currently the sole source of electricity for residents. The relatively high and modulated flows from the lake combined with the steep drop at the lower end of the outlet stream provide an attractive opportunity for a small run­of river hydroelectric project. The hydroelectric facilities will be designed to avoid interference with the existing salmon rearing and collection facilities operated at Neck Lake by the Southern Southeast Regional Aquaculture Association (SSRAA). A letter of support from the SSRAA is enclosed. APC conducted a reconnaissance study of the site in 2009 and determined that there is sufficient potential to almost always provide enough generation meeting 100% of current and future Whale Pass loads. This Project will provide clean, renewable electricity, as well as rate stabilization and lower rates for APCs Whale Pass customers. In 2014 and 2015, AP&T conducted financial and economic analysis which confirmed the economic and financial viability of this project. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Alaska Power Company (Alaska Power & Telephone Company) will need to apply for a Permit to Appropriate Water for this project and may need to apply for a Temporary Water Use Authorization if the project moves forward to the permitting stage and prior to the construction phase, respectively.  The DMLW Water Resources Section recommends the applicant consult with our Southeast Office to determine specific water use authorization requirements. May also require a shorelands public lease.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations This application does include Phase III, which has final design within it. APC is capable of funding the project with a combination of private debt and equity; however, a combination of grant funds and a low interest rate are also required to make the project financially feasible.    Page 9/118    01/07/2016 Page 19 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1205 Standard Application Neck Lake Hydropower Project: Phases II­III Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)22.09   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)63.17 2. Matching Resources (15)11.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.21 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)7.72   4. Project Readiness (5)2.50  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)6.38   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)15 6. Local Support (5)3.00   Regional (of all applications)5 7. Sustainability (5)3.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)55.69 Total Stage 3 Score (100)55.69   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $3,019,975 $3,016,475   Cost of Electricity $0.61/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $395,200 $395,200   Price of Fuel $3.50/Gal   Matching Funds $98,800 $98,800   Household Energy Cost $9,630   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding AP&T's reconnaissance study indicates this project may be economical despite the very low population and energy demand  in Whale Pass. The application indicates that demand is expected to increase because several residents in Whale Pass lack  connection to the local utility.  AEA recommends feasibility analysis to include assessment of project size and economics for offsetting heat demand and the  growth potential for the community followed by design and permitting if warranted. Election District: R­35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 10/118     01/07/2016 Page 20 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1206 Standard Application Project Type: Hydrokinetic Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: City of False Pass Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study Project Description The City of False Pass requests Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) funding in the amount of $440,319 through the Renewable Energy Fund Round IX program (RFA 16012) to complete Phase II Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual Design for the False Pass Tidal Energy Project proposed for the Isanotski Strait. The City of False Pass, like most communities of the Aleutian Islands, has very high energy costs and depends completely on diesel fuel to meet their electricity and heating needs. While diesel fuel is currently the most practical option for such communities, it also creates economic, energy security and environmental problems it has a disproportionately high carbon dioxide (CO2) output compared to other power generation systems at both local and global levels. The City of False Pass, fortunately, is situated near a significant hydrokinetic (tidal) resource at the Isanotski Strait that offers a potential to significantly reduce, or eliminate the use of diesel fuel. Circulation modeling conducted by University of Alaska Anchorage shows False Pass as a premier tidal energy resource, having the strongest tidal energy resource measured in Alaska. The City seeks to lower its very high cost of energy by utilizing this resource and proposes the False Pass Tidal Energy Project. The completed Project will be the first commercial installation of a tidal hydrokinetic power system in the state of Alaska and is a key part of our quest for sustainability. In addition, the Project will benefit local industry by selling excess energy to the expanded Bering Pacific Seafood plant. This Phase II proposal follows the successful completion of the AEA­funded Phase I Reconnaissance research, which proved a significant tidal energy resource in the Isanotski Strait. This Project proposes to build on this work, thereby accelerating development of the False Pass Tidal Energy Project. The Project Team has previously worked together and is comprised of the City of False Pass; Aleutian Pribilof Islands Community Development Association (APICDA); University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA); Benthic GeoScience, Inc.; and ORPC Alaska, LLC (ORPC). DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Feasibility study and conceptual design of potential hydrokinetic energy involves State submerged lands. This project involves mooring placement of ORPC TidGen devices and associated cables, which may require DMLW authorizations.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 11/118    01/07/2016 Page 21 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1206 Standard Application False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.13 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $502,819 $6,300,000   Cost of Electricity $0.42/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $440,319 $0   Price of Fuel $4.39/Gal   Matching Funds $62,500 $0   Household Energy Cost $8,145   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended AEA is currently considering a change to an existing Renewable Energy Fund grant to ORPC allowing a requested location  move of the round 4 REF award for Cook Inlet TidGen Project to False Pass for feasibility, conceptual design, final design,  permitting and construction of a TidGen tidal hydrokinetic device.  The scope of work for the existing grant overlaps with this  REF round 9 requested funding for the feasibility phase, and is therefore not recommended.  A round 9 application was also received and recommended by AEA to conduct a hydroelectric feasibility study and  conceptual design for a run­of­river hydroelectric for Unga Man Creek, which has the potential to meet most of the electric  needs of False Pass.  The REF process allows for simultaneous funding of feasibility studies for competing projects, but will  ultimately not fund two construction­phase projects that serve the same need (RFA 16012, Section 4, Stage 3, Criteria 8). AEA recommends allowing for controlled development of both the hydro and hydrokinetic projects through the feasibility  stage to determine which project or combination of projects is most cost effective and provides the greatest public benefit for  the community. This project is not recommended for funding and will not advance past Stage 2 of the evaluation process per  REF statutes and regulations (AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600­695), and per Section 4 of the Request for Applications #16012. Election District: S­37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 12/118     01/07/2016 Page 22 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1207 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Yukon­Koyukuk Upper Tanana Applicant: Upper Tanana Energy, LLC. UTE Proposed Phase(s): Construction Applicant Type: IPP Recommended Phase(s): Construction Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project: Construction Project Description The proposed project includes construction of a 1500 kW new run of river hydro on Yerrick Creek serving the communities of Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Creek utilizing 60 cfs and 460 ft of head to generate approximately 3,450 MWh of energy and displace 3450 MWh of diesel energy (240 k gallons of fuel, 37% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of $21 million with a projected start date of 2019. Proposed project features include a 10 foot high diversion structure, 15,000 feet of 36­42 inch diameter penstock, turbines, 3 miles of access road, and 5 miles of transmission line. The applicant estimates that the project will provide 4.9 GWH of energy. Tok and surrounding communities in the upper Tanana region (Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, Dot Creek) are currently dependent upon 100% diesel­fired generation of electricity. Construction of project features (transmission) has already begun through the support of USDA funds. Applicants are requesting $4 million through the AEA REF IX program. It is estimated that this level of funding support by the State of Alaska, in conjunction with $500,000 in new USDA Renewable Energy for America Program (REAP) funds awarded to the project in September of 2015, will result in a project which produces clean energy at less than the cost of diesel fuel, which will allow for project approvals by the regulatory commission of Alaska (RCA). Tanacross Inc., the Native Village of Tanacross, and Alaska Power & Telephone (AP&T) signed a Memorandum of Understanding expressing willingness to work cooperatively on the Yerrick Creek project in August of 2014. The three entities established a new venture named Upper Tanana Energy (UTE) to develop, own, and operate the project as an independent power producer (IPP). As a project partner, AP&T has drafted and will finalize and execute PPA terms and other commercial agreements after project financing is secured. Yerrick Creek is located on private and State lands and has received a non­jurisdictional determination from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), making it possible to develop this low­impact hydropower project in a timely fashion without undergoing lengthy federal permitting processes through FERC. In 2015, UTE installed several stilling wells on Yerrick Creek at the request of ADF&G to record subsurface flow and for stream gaging. In addition, 5.3 miles of new transmission line was installed from Tok toward the project. An additional 5 miles of upgraded transmission line will still need to be funded. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Some of the infrastructure will be on state land and require DMLW easements or leases and material site designation. In spring 2015, APT was issued a permit for hydro data collection. On October 8th 2015, APT submitted updated development plans to compliment previously submitted easement and material sale applications. These applications had been closed out in 2013 due to lack of response by the applicant. updated plans will need review and full Best Interest Finding adjudication prior to to be applicant's proposed construction start date in start date inreviewed and applications fully adjudicated, as applicant proposes construction to begin in summer 2016.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations UTE and its partners are capable of funding the project with a combination of private debt and equity; however, a combination of grant funds and a low interest rate are also required to make the project financially feasible.    Page 13/118    01/07/2016 Page 23 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1207 Standard Application Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project: Construction Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)18.27   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)57.17 2. Matching Resources (15)15.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.23 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)5.72   4. Project Readiness (5)1.67  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)7.13   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications) 14 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)1 7. Sustainability (5)3.33   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)56.12 Total Stage 3 Score (100)56.12   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $20,675,000 $20,744,264   Cost of Electricity $0.37/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $4,000,000 $3,925,000   Price of Fuel $3.70/Gal   Matching Funds $15,000,000 $14,718,750   Household Energy Cost $7,963   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision UTE applied for grant funding in round 8 and was recommended for funding after reconsideration. AEAs concern in round 8  primarily related to an incomplete design and limited hydrology data. AEA still has the same concerns with the round 9  application but is recommending the project for award due in large part to the expectation that outstanding deficiencies will  be addressed in the near future (AEA performed a detailed evaluation using more conservative hydrology information and  found that the project is still economically viable).  In the last year UTE was awarded a USDA grant that will provide the matching funds allowing them to use the outstanding  round 7 award and APT has advanced the project further by extending transmission lines from Tok to Tanacross and  conducting additional hydrology work with the installation of stage recorders at 3 locations on Yerrick Creek. As a condition of award, UTE is still required to address the deficiencies noted in round 8 and it is expected the round 7  award will be utilized for this purpose. The outstanding deficiencies include providing complete design drawings (the current  drawings are not complete) including addressing the intake geotechnical conditions, hydraulic design, and winter operation  and also performing additional stream and hydrology analysis to verify the economic feasibility of the project and optimize  hydraulic capacity and turbine selection. UTEs application is recommended for full funding conditioned on UTE completing the work above and providing a complete  design and permit package generally conforming with AEAs best practices and including a one line electrical drawing of  existing and proposed electric system, property boundary drawing for existing and proposed with a proposed boundary  description and generally conforming with FERC Exhibit G requirements, project engineering drawings generally conforming  with industry standards and FERC Exhibit F requirements, and a design report with calculations and other information  pertinent to the project design generally in conformance with industry standards and FERC requirements. Election District: C­6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border Page 14/118     01/07/2016 Page 24 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1208 Heat Application Project Type: Biomass Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Ketchikan Gateway Borough Proposed Phase(s): Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Construction Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Construction Project Description Ketchikan Gateway Borough seeks to modify install a containerized, 2,460­MBH biomass­fired boiler at the Ketchikan High School. The woody biomass fired boiler will be installed to replace heating oil boilers, which will become more costly to maintain. The project will include construction of the biomass system, including storage bin, collection bin, motors, fans, controls, circulation pumps, accumulator tanks and valves. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No impacts to state land.  DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project was reviewed for the Round 8 application period. This project is for construction of pellet/biomass fired boilers for the Ketchikan High School. Although the square footage serviced remains the same, the wood requirement has been revised downward from 1,049 tons of pellets annually to 708 tons per year. Currently the Federal Government, Forest Service and City of Ketchikan have pellet boilers in service so a reliable supply chain should be well established in this area.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The Ketchikan Gateway Borough has the ability to seek bond funding for this project, subject to the acceptance of the Assembly and School Board and a successful vote by the public during the general election or a special election. Historically, a project of this nature likely would have qualified for bond funding reimbursed at a rate of up to 70% by the State of Alaska Department of Education and Early Development: the State of Alaska’s fiscal condition limits the ability for the Ketchikan Gateway Borough d/b/a KGBSD to secure this funding. Nonetheless, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough is committed to aggressively seeking other financing options where available.    Page 15/118    01/07/2016 Page 25 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1208 Heat Application Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Construction Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)14.21   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)82.67 2. Matching Resources (15)0.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.33 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)14.22   4. Project Readiness (5)4.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)8.50   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)11 6. Local Support (5)3.00   Regional (of all applications)7 7. Sustainability (5)4.33   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)48.27 Total Stage 3 Score (100)48.27   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $1,409,458 $1,365,890   Cost of Electricity $0.10/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $1,251,000 $1,251,000   Price of Fuel $3.28/Gal   Matching Funds $00 $00   Household Energy Cost $6,194   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The Ketchikan Gateway Borough requests funding for the construction of a pellet fueled biomass heating system for the  Ketchikan High School. The project is estimated to displace 89,146 gallons of fuel/year. The Ketchikan Gateway Borough  received funding through the US Forest Service to complete the design of this system. They have demonstrated their  capability with the installation, operation, and maintenance of pellet systems through their library installation. = The Borough  is completing the construction of a pellet boiler for the airport complex, with funding through the Renewable Energy Fund –  Round 7. = Ketchikan is an example of the effective use of pellet heating to stem the conversions to resistance heating that  are occurring due to the low cost of hydroelectric generation.   Recommend full funding for construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design  and the final business/operational plan. Election District: R­36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg Page 16/118     01/07/2016 Page 26 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1209 Heat Application Project Type: Biomass Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Ketchikan Gateway Borough Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility, Design Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Ketchikan Schools Recreation Central Heating Plant Project Description The proposed project is a feasibility study and design of a central biomass boiler plant to serve the Schools/Recreation complex consisting of Schoenbar Middle School, Valley Park School, the Gateway Recreation Center/Aquatic Center, and the Ketchikan Gateway Borough School District Maintenance Facility. The total project area is roughly 207,000 square feet of building space. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No impacts to state land.  DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project was reviewed for the Round 8 application period. This project is similar to the above project 1208 because it is a conversion to pellet boilers from fuel oil. This project is for feasibility and design of a larger scale system that will supply heat to a variety of Gateway Borough owned buildings from a central installation. It is estimated that 2,203 tons of pellets would be required annually at a price of about $300.00 per ton. Currently the Federal Government, Forest Service and City of Ketchikan have pellet boilers in service so delivered prices as well as a reliable supply chain should be well established in this area.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 17/118    01/07/2016 Page 27 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1209 Heat Application Ketchikan Schools Recreation Central Heating Plant Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)14.21   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)62.00 2. Matching Resources (15)0.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.00 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)7.33   4. Project Readiness (5)5.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)1.75   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)13 6. Local Support (5)3.00   Regional (of all applications)9 7. Sustainability (5)4.33   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)35.63 Total Stage 3 Score (100)35.63   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $220,000 $2,600,000   Cost of Electricity $0.10/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $220,000 $40,000   Price of Fuel $3.28/Gal   Matching Funds $00 $00   Household Energy Cost $6,194   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The Ketchikan Gateway Borough requests funding for the feasibility and design of a pellet fueled biomass heating system for  five buildings: Schoenbar Middle School, Valley Park School, the Gateway Recreation/Aquatic Centers (two buildings) and  the School District Maintenance Facility. The project is estimated to displace up to 95% of their current annual heating fuels ­  75,000 gallons of fuel oil and 4,542,000 kWh.   The Ketchikan Gateway Borough received funding through the US Forest Service to complete the design of the Ketchikan  High School and have requested construction funding. They have demonstrated their capability with the installation,  operation, and maintenance of pellet systems through their library installation. The Borough is completing the construction of  a pellet boiler for the airport complex with funding through the Renewable Energy Fund – Round 7. Ketchikan is an example  of the effective use of pellet heating to stem the conversions to resistance heating that are occurring due to the low cost of  hydroelectric generation. Although the economics of this project are challenging, there are opportunities in the feasibility phase to identify an  economically viable option. The project scores low in the REF economics evaluation because there is no value assigned to  displacing hydro power so 95 percent of displacement at the aquatic center is not counted in the calculation of economics  score.  Recommend partial funding of $40,000 for a feasibility study. Election District: R­36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg Page 18/118     01/07/2016 Page 28 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1210 Standard Application Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Railbelt Applicant: Chugach Electric Association, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Chugach Electric Association Evaluation of a Community Solar Project Project Description The proposed project is to for a feasibility study, conceptual design and cost estimate to evaluate the potential for a small scale solar energy project in Anchorage. If feasible, Chugach has land available for an array of solar panels; the location proximate to Chugach's system will allow for easy interconnection. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The Rural Energy grant should have no impacts to state land.  It is for solar photovoltaic panels to be placed on the Chugach Electric Campus at 5601 Electron Drive which they own.    If the grant is carried out as described in the application, the Chugach Electric would not need any DNR authorizations.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 19/118    01/07/2016 Page 29 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1210 Standard Application Chugach Electric Association Evaluation of a Community Solar Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)8.61   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)59.67 2. Matching Resources (15)15.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.36 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)6.56   4. Project Readiness (5)4.33  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)0.38   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)22 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)2 7. Sustainability (5)5.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)44.87 Total Stage 3 Score (100)44.87   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $200,000 $1,814,049   Cost of Electricity $0.16/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $100,000 $50,000   Price of Fuel $1.19/Gal   Matching Funds $100,000 $50,000   Household Energy Cost $3,751   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding Chugach Electric's application for a 500kW solar garden project is recommended for funding at 50% of the requested level.  The applicant requested a $100,000 grant to match $100,000 in a cash contribution from Chugach Electric. However, AEA  has determined that the applicant should be able to complete the proposed feasibility study, conceptual design and cost  estimate for $100,000. If the grant is awarded, the scope will reference the phase 2 Feasibility Analysis and Conceptual  Design Requirements described in Section 2.2.4 of the Round 9 Request For Applications. Election District: M­25 Abbot Page 20/118     01/07/2016 Page 30 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1211 Heat Application Project Type: HeatRecovery, HeatPump Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: City and Borough of Sitka Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump Project Description The proposed project would design and construct a heat pump system to replace the existing fuel oil boilers at the Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The system would utilize treated effluent as the heat source, and the heat pump would be powered by renewable energy from Sitka’s hydroelectric power generation. One fuel­oil boiler would be retained to generate heat on the coldest winter days and to provide redundancy. The system would displace approximately 95 percent of the heating oil usage at the WWTP. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No impacts to state land.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations If CBS wanted to conduct non­AEA­eligible HVAC improvements at the WWTP, or if AEA funding proved to be insufficient, we have access to an ADEC loan for $2,832,500. See Attachment 6.    Page 21/118    01/07/2016 Page 31 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1211 Heat Application Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)16.04   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)72.50 2. Matching Resources (15)11.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.13 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)10.83   4. Project Readiness (5)4.50  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)5.50   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)6 6. Local Support (5)4.00   Regional (of all applications)4 7. Sustainability (5)4.50   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)56.37 Total Stage 3 Score (100)56.37   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $795,421 $826,067   Cost of Electricity $0.16/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $667,000 $667,000   Price of Fuel $3.51/Gal   Matching Funds $113,000 $113,000   Household Energy Cost $6,991   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The proposal to use wastewater effluent as a source for a heat pump system is a compelling use of an otherwise unused heat  source, and could serve as a model for similar systems in other parts of the state. The high temperature and availability of  effluent would result in a higher heat pump coefficient of performance (COP) than seen in other heat pump installations in the  state. This project has been recommended for funding in the past two years. Full funding recommended. Election District: R­35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 22/118     01/07/2016 Page 32 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1212 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Northwest Arctic Applicant: NANA Regional Corporation Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: IPP Recommended Phase(s): Design Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design & Permitting Project Description Design and permitting of a 700 kW run of river hydro on the Kogoluktuk River serving the communities of Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk utilizing 170 cfs and 64 ft of head to generate approximately 5,410 MWh of energy and displace 2,900 MWh of diesel energy (212,000 gallons of fuel, 95% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of $51 million with a projected start date of 2021. Proposed project features include a 10 foot high diversion structure, 4300 feet of 72 inch diameter insulated above grade penstock, a single kaplan turbine, 7 miles of access road, and 6 miles of transmission line to Kobuk and 25 mile of transmission intertie connecting Shungnak to Ambler. After evaluation of the potential hydropower sources in the Cosmos Hills, as documented in the Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Report, project stakeholders have chosen to move forward with design and permitting for a hydroelectric project on the Kogoluktuk River to provide renewable electric generation year round. The Kogoluktuk River has an upstream basin catchment area of approximately 424 square miles. In addition to the displaced diesel electric energy the project has significant excess energy that could be used to offset heating fuels. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Should this project move forward, beyond feasibility, a formal navigability determination should be requested to determine the status of the Kogoluktuk River. In a letter dated 8/20/2010 to AVEC, it was noted the navigability status of the river is currently unknown. If the river is navigable, state authorizations will be required.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations It is not feasible to pursue loan, bond, or other financing vehicles at this time in order to support this current phase. The NRC team is only requesting partial engineering funding from AEA. With that said, there remains the possibility of private sector financing, rural utility services loans, and other project financing vehicles that will be actively explored.    Page 23/118    01/07/2016 Page 33 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1212 Standard Application Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design & Permitting Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)35   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)40.50 2. Matching Resources (15)9.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.08 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)0.17   4. Project Readiness (5)2.17  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)5.13   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications) 12 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)2 7. Sustainability (5)3.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)59.46 Total Stage 3 Score (100)59.46   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $37,041,535 $50,797,871   Cost of Electricity $0.75/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $341,335 $341,335   Price of Fuel $7.77/Gal   Matching Funds $37,200 $37,200   Household Energy Cost $15,410   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding This proposed hydro project may provide significant benefits but at a very high cost. Additional review of the feasibility study  and conceptual design, with additional focus on the Kogoluktuk development, should be performed as part of the next step in  development.   The project is recommended for full funding with the condition NANA and its subsidiaries hire an industry recognized  consultant with relevant hydroelectric project experience to perform the development work. Election District: T­40 Arctic Page 24/118     01/07/2016 Page 34 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1213 Heat Application Project Type: Biomass Energy Region: Northwest Arctic Applicant: City of Ambler Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Ambler Washeteria and City Office Biomass Heating System Project Description In 2013­2014, the Northwest Arctic Borough, through funding provided by the AEA Renewable Energy Fund, contracted with Tetra Tech, Inc. and Dowl HKM to complete a biomass feasibility study and initial engineering design for the Upper Kobuk villages of Ambler, Shungnak and Kobuk. The study focused on identifying woody biomass feedstock availability, availability of local woodcutters, site surveys of viable project locations, heating demand, conceptual design for each proposed project, and a review of permitting requirements. This study concluded that Ambler’s City Office/Washeteria building offered the best opportunity in the region to integrate biomass heating into an existing community facility. The proposed project will build from this initial work to complete the design and construction of a biomass heating system to serve the City Office/Washeteria in Ambler. Specifically, this project will install a prefabricated, containerized cordwood boiler and wood storage area adjacent to the City Office/Washeteria. Biomass heating will be integrated into the end user building using circulating glycol heat transfer loops from the containerized biomass boiler. The estimated heating oil reduction resulting from this biomass project is 3,516 gallons per year. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments no DMLW authorizations required for facilities, based on application statement that facilities targeted in this application will be sited entirely on City property. Application notes that biomass resource study of surrounding lands was conducted to address availability of resource, but application does not specify if any of the biomass resource area is cited on state land, Native Corp land, etc. If biomass is located on state lands, state resource sales would be needed.  DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for design and construction of a biomass heating system to heat the City Hall and washeteria it was previously reviewed for the Round 8 application period. A manually fed cordwood boiler would be installed in a prefabricated building. It is estimated that 30 cords annually would be needed at a price of $210.00/cord. This amount and price is unchanged from the Round 8 submittal. Resource availability has been previously examined by the Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program. A detailed inventory report was written that provides a preliminary assessment of the biomass energy resources within a 25­mile radius of Ambler. A significant volume was available indicating that the 30 cords can be harvested relatively close to the village. A detailed harvest plan will be written as part of this proposal. This harvest plan should answer resource sustainability and harvest location concerns.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The community has not expressed interest in applying for financing for this project at this time.    Page 25/118    01/07/2016 Page 35 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1213 Heat Application Ambler Washeteria and City Office Biomass Heating System Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)26.03   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)49.17 2. Matching Resources (15)9.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.06 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)3.06   4. Project Readiness (5)2.50  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)5.00   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)9 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)3 7. Sustainability (5)1.17   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)51.75 Total Stage 3 Score (100)51.75   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $484,691 $484,691   Cost of Electricity $0.72/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $429,892 $429,892   Price of Fuel $5.00/Gal   Matching Funds $54,799 $54,799   Household Energy Cost $11,345   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision ANTHC and the City of Ambler propose the final design and construction of a cordwood fueled biomass heating system to  serve the Washeteria and City Office building in Ambler. The proposed biomass heating system would be manually fed and  housed in a prefabricated building. The system is anticipated to displace 3,516 gallons of heating fuel per year. The request  is a continuation of a Round 2 grant, "Upper Kobuk River Biomass". The economics of this project are marginal but there is opportunity to reduce the overall cost of the project. The design phase  should focus on a lowering the cost of installation. The community must also develop an acceptable operations and  maintenance plan for this project, including contingencies for staffing and wood supply. Recommend full funding with the special provision that no construction funding be released until the final design and  business/operating plan is approved. Election District: T­40 Arctic Page 26/118     01/07/2016 Page 36 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1214 Heat Application Project Type: HeatRecovery Energy Region: Lower Yukon Kuskokwim Applicant: City of Eek Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Eek Water System Heat Recovery Project Description The proposed project is for final design of a recovered heat system from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant to heat the City of Eek’s water system via a circulating distribution water loop. The estimated heating fuel savings from this heat recovery system is 4,000 gallons per year. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The Rural Energy grant should have no impacts to state land  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The community is not interested in applying for financing for this project at this time.    Page 27/118    01/07/2016 Page 37 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1214 Heat Application Eek Water System Heat Recovery Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)28.85   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)59.50 2. Matching Resources (15)6.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.01 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)6.50   4. Project Readiness (5)3.50  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)4.13   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)5 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)3 7. Sustainability (5)5.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)58.97 Total Stage 3 Score (100)58.97   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $319,394 $311,394   Cost of Electricity $0.65/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $308,311 $50,000   Price of Fuel $6.53/Gal   Matching Funds $3,083 $500   Household Energy Cost $12,572   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The proposed heat recovery system has the potential to offset a significant amount of heating oil. As proposed, however, the  project demonstrates marginal economic value. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the final  design phase that can significantly improve the project economics. AEA recommends funding only the design phase to allow for improved construction cost estimates prior to funding the  construction phase. Requested design cost of $68,262 (21% of total project cost) is higher than expected based on the  complexity of the project. Partial funding of $50,000 is recommended for final design phase only.   Election District: S­38 Lower Kuskokwim Page 28/118     01/07/2016 Page 38 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1215 Heat Application Project Type: Biomass Energy Region: Yukon­Koyukuk Upper Tanana Applicant: City of Huslia Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Huslia Water System and Clinic Biomass Boiler Project Project Description In 2013, AEA provided REF for initial planning and conceptual design of a biomass heating system to serve community buildings in Huslia. Huslia partnered with ANTHC to engineer a conceptual design and to develop a draft biomass operations plan. In addition, ANTHC contracted with Tanana Chiefs Conference to complete an Assessment of Woody Biomass Resources for Huslia, which provides local wood resource harvesting guidance. The proposed project will build on this initial work to complete the design and construction of a biomass heating system to serve the Health Clinic and Washeteria/Water Treatment Plant in Huslia. The proposed project will install a prefabricated, containerized cordwood boiler and cordwood storage area adjacent to the Clinic and Washeteria. Biomass heating will be integrated using circulating glycol heat transfer loops from the containerized biomass boiler. The estimated heating oil reduction resulting from this biomass project is 8,474 gallons per year. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Infrastructure is not on state land, and most biomass resource proposed for use is not state­owned; however, reports cited in application note potential for some state­owned biomass resource. If state timber resources are planned for harvest, state timber sales will be required.  DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project was reviewed for the Round 8 application period. No changes for wood requirement have been made in the current application (approximately 77 cords per year) or delivered price ($300/cord). This project is for design and construction of a biomass heating system to heat the Health Clinic and Washeteria/Water Treatment Plan. A manually fed cordwood boiler would be installed in a prefabricated building. Resource availability has been previously examined by the Tanana Chiefs Conference Forestry Program. A detailed inventory report was written that provides a preliminary assessment of the biomass energy resources within a 25­mile radius of Huslia. A significant volume was available indicating that the 77 cords can be harvested relatively close to the village. A detailed harvest plan will be written as part of this proposal. This harvest plan should answer resource sustainability and harvest location concerns.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The community has not expressed interest in applying for financing for this project at this time.    Page 29/118    01/07/2016 Page 39 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1215 Heat Application Huslia Water System and Clinic Biomass Boiler Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)31.65   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)44.67 2. Matching Resources (15)6.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.72 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)1.56   4. Project Readiness (5)3.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)1.75   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)8 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)3 7. Sustainability (5)3.83   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)52.79 Total Stage 3 Score (100)52.79   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $526,108 $496,526   Cost of Electricity $0.61/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $491,610 $53,116   Price of Fuel $6.50/Gal   Matching Funds $4,916 $531   Household Energy Cost $13,795   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding ANTHC and the City of Huslia proposed the Final Design and Construction of a manually fed cordwood heating system to  serve the Health Clinic and Washeteria/Water Treatment Plant in Huslia, Alaska. The project is estimated to save the Clinic  and Water Treatment Plant 8,474 gallons of heating oil per year.  The economics of this project are challenging, but there has been significant community involvement in the initial planning of  the fuel supply. The community champion has attended biomass workshops and is knowledgeable of the proposed system. Recommend partial funding of $53,116 to complete the design phase only and work to improve the economics of the project. Election District: T­39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 30/118     01/07/2016 Page 40 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1216 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Northwest Arctic Applicant: Native Village of Shungnak Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Shungnak Wind­Diesel Conceptual Design Project Description Using the conclusions from a completed Wind Resource Data Collection Report, the Native Village of Shungnak will, with assistance from Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), initiate and complete the conceptual design process and establish an environmental baseline to successfully install a winddiesel system in the community. This includes automated controls and the equipment necessary to regulate, control and deliver reliable wind energy to the residents of the community. The project will also establish an environmental baseline and a list of permits for the projected wind turbine, in addition to associated equipment installations needed to upgrade the existing power generation and distribution system to a wind turbine­diesel engine configuration. The Native Village of Shungnak will hire and contract with WHPacific to complete the design project as well as provide management oversight of subcontracted engineering/design firms. Assuming the project progresses to construction, the consultant will also complete the Final Design and needed construction solicitation packages by collaborating with the NANA Regional Corporation, Shungnak Power Plant operator, and the Native Village of Shungnak. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW authorizations required based on application statement that that proposed wind tower locations are on NANA Corporation land. Application does note that the project contractor will be tasked with in­ depth land ownership and authorization requirement research ­if future project revisions result in state land being involved, DMLW authorizations may be required.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 31/118    01/07/2016 Page 41 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1216 Standard Application Shungnak Wind­Diesel Conceptual Design Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)35   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)50.00 2. Matching Resources (15)11.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.04 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)3.33   4. Project Readiness (5)4.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)3.75   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)7 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)1 7. Sustainability (5)3.67   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)65.75 Total Stage 3 Score (100)65.75   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $5,485,000 $5,598,500   Cost of Electricity $0.76/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $135,000 $135,000   Price of Fuel $9.36/Gal   Matching Funds $39,000 $39,000   Household Energy Cost $17,752   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision AEA believes that it is too early in the conceptual design process to lock in the EWT­52m/500kW wind turbine option, as  presented by the applicant. Without an intertie to Ambler, the combined load for Shungnak and Kobuk are not large enough  to support more than 400kW of wind power without designing very complex controls. The Shungnak power plant is not  currently scheduled for upgrades that would facilitate variable wind energy. The most significant factor influencing the  developability of this project is the recent low river levels and resultant unpredictable barge deliveries that have not  happened in the past few years. The project would need to incorporate turbines, materials and construction equipment that  could be mobilized through alternate methods ­ likely by air cargo. This might eliminate larger turbines that offer better  economies of scale and would add costs that are well above existing benchmarks. In addition to the standard deliverables in  AEA's wind Guidelines for Conceptual Design Reports (CDR), the applicant should address the logistical challenges that are  unique to this location in the CDR. The CDR should also focus heavily on the existing diesel generation and intertie system  constraints.  While AEA will want to take a cautious approach to this project, the funding is to examine the feasibility of a  potential wind project in a community with very high energy costs.  Per the May 2015 REFAC meeting and the Round 9  request for applications, the REF program is seeking to fund a greater percentage of early project development to help  communities determine if projects are feasible and economically beneficial. AEA recommends full funding for phase 2 conceptual design phase with special provisions that the conceptual design  adequately address all the factors listed above to determine the feasibility of the project prior to advancing to future phases  (final design and construction).  If a grant is issued, AEA will set milestones for the grantee to achieve­­in order­­prior to  advancing to next milestones to ensure productive use of state funding should any of the challenges prove unfeasible. In the  event that a go/no­go point stops the project, remaining funds will be returned to the Renewable Energy Fund, per program  regulations. Election District: T­40 Arctic Page 32/118     01/07/2016 Page 42 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1217 Heat Application Project Type: Biomass Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Klawock City School District Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Klawock School Biomass Fuel Boiler Project Project Description This project will install a wood fired (proposed dried chips) boiler to heat the two school buildings. The wood boiler will connect to the existing heating system and dramatically reduce diesel fuel consumption. The gymnasium boiler will be decommissioned and the existing main building boilers will be used only during peak heating needs and as a backup system. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No impacts to state land.  DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project, for design and construction, will install a wood fired chip boiler to heat two main school buildings. The source of the chips would come from Viking Lumber located about ½ miles from the Klawock School location. It is expected that 188 tons/year of dry fuel would be required to heat the main building and gymnasium at a cost of $22,560 ($120.00/ton). The required amount of biomass is well within the realm of sustainability as the Tongass National Forest is stated to have an annual resource availability of 60­70 million board feet. The State of Alaska also provides timber sales which are purchased by Viking Lumber.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations Klawock is a community that struggles with financial issues. Seventy five percent of the students qualify for free and reduced lunches and illustrates the hardships in our community. Klawock School is faced with reduced budgets and to take on more financial burden (loans), it would negatively impact the programs we provide to our students.    Page 33/118    01/07/2016 Page 43 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1217 Heat Application Klawock School Biomass Fuel Boiler Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)17.18   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)59.67 2. Matching Resources (15)6.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.38 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)6.56   4. Project Readiness (5)1.83  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)8.63   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)12 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)8 7. Sustainability (5)2.67   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)47.86 Total Stage 3 Score (100)47.86   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $858,556 $858,556   Cost of Electricity $0.25/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $833,556 $111,986   Price of Fuel $3.48/Gal   Matching Funds $25,000 $13,438   Household Energy Cost $7,488   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The Klawock City School District proposes the design and construction of a chip fueled boiler to heat two school buildings in  the City of Klawock.  Wood chips would be provided by the local lumber mill in Klawock that currently provides chips to the  City of Craig biomass heating system. This project could replace approximately 16,200 gallons of heating fuel a year with a  local fuel source. While the economics of this project are good, the engineering will be challenging due to the site constraints. The project  could benefit from a more in­depth analysis of the project and fuel storage siting, equipment layout, and equipment  specifications. Recommend partial funding of $111,986 for the development of final design and a business/operating plan. Election District: R­35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 34/118     01/07/2016 Page 44 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1218 Heat Application Project Type: HeatPump Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Tlingit­Haida Regional Housing Authority (THRHA) Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Government Entity Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Saxman Low­Rent Multifamily Air Source Heat Pump Project Description The Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority (THRHA) plans to renovate, modernize, and expand the existing Saxman Multifamily Low Rent building. THRHA requested funding for the inclusion of an air­to­water heat pump system in the renovation. This system would include a new low temperature hydronic heating system and domestic hot water tank to allow the heat pump to provide the building space heating and domestic hot water demands. If funded, this would replace the existing oil boilers and high temperature hydronic heating system. The THRHA recently completed a weatherization and interior insulation project for this building, and will be incorporating additional efficiency measures into the upcoming renovation. If the heat pump project is funded, the THRHA will install a new mechanical room in the existing walk­in crawlspace and the existing mechanical room would be converted to an ADA accessible bathroom. The heat pump project would offset the use of 100% of the oil use at the facility. The heat pump is estimated to cover 95% of the overall heating and domestic hot water demand with a seasonal efficiency of 233%. The remaining 5% (peak and during pump maintenance) of demand would be provided with electric resistance heaters. It is anticipated that the overall energy use index for the facility will drop by over 46%, from 94,000 Btu/sqft/yr to 51,000 Btu/sqft/yr through the implementation of the heat pump and low temperature hydronic system. The project will provide an estimated $5,200 in annual energy savings for the facility at current low oil prices. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No impacts to state land.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations THRHA is an organization dedicated to providing low income housing opportunities for Southeastern Alaskans, and as such has the goal of breaking even on its annual operations, and giving as much back as possible to the residents who benefit from its services. Because of this operational mode, THRHA does not generally take on debt service for capital projects. Because of the nature of the organization, THRHA does not see where it has the ability to borrow to take on additional upfront costs for energy projects.    Page 35/118    01/07/2016 Page 45 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1218 Heat Application Saxman Low­Rent Multifamily Air Source Heat Pump Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)14.21   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)60.83 2. Matching Resources (15)15.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.93 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)6.94   4. Project Readiness (5)4.50  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)1.13   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)10 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)6 7. Sustainability (5)4.17   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)50.95 Total Stage 3 Score (100)50.95   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $509,231 $438,341   Cost of Electricity $0.74/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $296,038 $296,038   Price of Fuel $7.45/Gal   Matching Funds $213,193 $213,193   Household Energy Cost $6,194   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding Tlingit Haida Regional Housing Authority (THRHA),  applying as a Housing Authority, requests funding in the amount of  $296,038 for the design and construction of an air­source heat pump system to offset the use of heating oil at the Saxman  Low­Rent Multifamily complex for the communities of Saxman and Ketchican. The proposed project cost is $509,231 with  THRHA supplying $164,053 in cash match and $62,410 in efficiency upgrade match. The applicant invested $28,890 into the  efficiency upgrade match over the past five years and completed a feasibility study that will provide the foundation for the  proposed project. Full funding is recommended.  A 65% design must be accepted by AEA prior to release of funds for items requiring long lead times. A 95% design must be  accepted by AEA prior to release of funds for construction. All deliverables must be accepted by AEA prior to the release of  the final 10% of funds. Election District: R­36 Ketchikan/Wrangell/Metlakatla/Hydaburg Page 36/118     01/07/2016 Page 46 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1219 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: City of False Pass Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility False Pass Hydroelectric Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Project Description Feasibility study for a 125 kW new run of river hydro on Unga Man Creek serving the community of False Pass utilizing 12 cfs and 200 ft of head to approximately generate 936 MWh of energy and displacing 540 MWh of diesel energy (43 k gallons of fuel, 85% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of 4.4 million with a projected online date of 2021. Proposed project features include a low height diversion structure, 4300 feet of 20 inch diameter penstock, a single turbine, 4300 feet of access road, and associated transmission line. The City of False Pass requests funding from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) in the amount of $187,000 through the Renewable Energy Grant Program for a Hydroelectric Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design of Unga Man Creek. Reconnaissance work funded by the City and performed in August 2015 suggests that Unga Man Creek may hold adequate hydro potential. This proposal will build upon recent efforts in order to confirm the viability of hydro power to reduce the communitys dependence on diesel and provide a stable and renewable source of electricity. This project is consistent the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands Regional Energy Plan. The City of False pass believes that this project will provide significant benefits to the public and represents a relatively low risk and high value hydroelectric project. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Feasibility study and conceptual design of Unga Man Creek for potential hydro involves State submerged lands within OSL 977 (DOT&PF False Pass Airport) and ADL 224133 management agreement for airport. This project involves placement of stream gauges, which may require DMLW or DOT&PF permits.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 37/118    01/07/2016 Page 47 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1219 Standard Application False Pass Hydroelectric Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)18.69   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)73.67 2. Matching Resources (15)0.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.87 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)11.22   4. Project Readiness (5)2.50  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)12.12   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)17 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)3 7. Sustainability (5)3.17   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)52.70 Total Stage 3 Score (100)52.70   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $4,621,500 $4,380,000   Cost of Electricity $0.42/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $187,000 $187,000   Price of Fuel $4.39/Gal   Matching Funds $33,000 $33,000   Household Energy Cost $8,145   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The City's recent reconnaissance report on Unga Man Creek, prepared by Polarconsult, shows potential for a small run of  river hydroelectric project that could potentially provide economically positive benefits.  The City has completed prior phase work and is actively pursuing further development. Additionally, the proposed consultant  has extensive experience in this type of work. The proposed schedule is reasonable and the recommendations to begin  focused study on the hydrology and aquatic biology is appropriate.  The City has started off well with this development although it is noted that the southwest sub­basin to Unga Man Creek was  overlooked. AEA previously found that development to have comparable economics to Unga Creek (as opposed to Waterfall  Creek) with the possible advantage of not having fisheries issues. Recommended for full funding for feasibility work that should include alternative analysis of projects such as the combined  sub­basin and Unga Man project. Election District: S­37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 38/118     01/07/2016 Page 48 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1220 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: City of King Cove Proposed Phase(s): Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Construction Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project Project Description Construction of a 350 kW new run of river hydro on Waterfall Creek serving the community of King Cove utilizing 12 cfs and 470 ft of head to approximately generate 1167 MWh of energy and displacing 720 MWh of diesel energy (49 k gallons of fuel, 31% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of 6.9 million with a projected online date of 2017. Proposed project features include a 20 foot high diversion structure, 4630 feet of 20 inch diameter penstock, a single pelton turbine, and 5000 feet of access road.This facility will be a working partner to the Citys existing and highly successful Delta Creek hydroelectric project, which has been operating for the last eighteen years. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on State Land. No SCRO involvement but may require water rights certificate from DMLW Water Section.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The City of King Cove has in place a loan from the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank that will provide$525,000 and will borrow another $1,000,000 (already approved) from the Bond Bank inSeptember 2015. The City completed a loan application to AEA’s Power Project Fund(PPF) an amount between $1,300,000 and $1,975,000, depending on the success of this REFapplication.    Page 39/118    01/07/2016 Page 49 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1220 Standard Application Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)13.89   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)41.83 2. Matching Resources (15)15.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.72 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)0.61   4. Project Readiness (5)3.83  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)0.75   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)25 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)6 7. Sustainability (5)3.50   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)42.58 Total Stage 3 Score (100)42.58   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $6,950,000 $6,874,498   Cost of Electricity $0.30/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $675,000 $675,000   Price of Fuel $3.32/Gal   Matching Funds $5,525,000 $5,525,000   Household Energy Cost $6,054   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The Waterfall Creek project will allow the community to generate power with diesels off for a portion of the year and will lower  the amount of new debt for the community to complete the project. Using grant funds, the project remains economical to the  community with the increased expenditure despite AEA assumed bypass flow requirements.A Renewable Energy Fund  (REF) Round 6 grant (#7060929) in the amount of $2,600,000 was provided by AEA to fund the construction phase of the  proposed project through completion. The grant application was evaluated using the grantee's expected total project cost  provided at the time. The project is currently expecting higher construction costs and is seeking additional funding to  complete the construction phase. AEA recommends full funding with special provisions.  The applicant shall satisfy the  following special provisions prior to the issuance of a subsequent grant.  1. Demonstrate site control2. Become current on  financial and progress reports3. Amend existing grants to reflect proposed milestone and deliverables4. Provide a work  scope and budget for staff, consultants, and/or vendors to commission the integration of the new hydro with existing hydro  and diesel plant. Scope shall include head to spill to energy relationship development and integration based on operational  constraints and maximizing hydro generation. Election District: S­37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 40/118     01/07/2016 Page 50 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1221 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Kodiak Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project −Geotechnical Study and Final Design Project Description Design of a 525 kW new diversion hydro on Mountain Creek (discharging to Lagoon Creek) serving the community of Old Harbor utilizing 12 cfs and 790 ft of head to approximately generate 3520 MWh of energy and displacing 850 MWh of diesel energy (96 k gallons of fuel, 100% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of 9.3 million with a projected online date of 2019. Proposed project features include a 6 foot high diversion structure, 10,000 feet of 16­20 inch diameter penstock, one of two pelton turbines, 3 miles of access road, and 1 mile of transmission line. The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), the electrical utility provider in Old Harbor, is proposing to complete geotechnical field work and final design for a hydroelectric project in Old Harbor, Alaska. The 262 kilowatt (kW) (initial, 525 kW future) basin diversion project will be located on East Fork Mountain Creek and Lagoon Creek Tributary. The project will be capable initially of generating an average of about 2,300,000 kilowatt­hours (kWh) annually and will run year­round and meet all the existing electricity demands of the community. Power from the facility would also be used to heat the school, saving up about 8,370 gallons of diesel heating fuel annually. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Property is subject to EVOS/Conservation Easements. A FERC license is required for DNR to amend the conservation easement.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations It is important to note that all loan and bonding financing options, even those with small interest rates, will necessarily increase the customers’ cost of electricity and/or heat. Since its members already pay some of the highest electric rates in the nation, AVEC therefore endeavors to complete project funding packages with grant funds. AVEC managers will explore State funding programs (such as, the Renewable Energy Fund and Community Development Block Grants) and, increasingly more important, federal grants such as the USDA’s Rural Utility Service, the Tribal Clean Energy Program (with a tribal partner), and the Indian Community Development Block Grant. However, AVEC is not adverse to pursuing loans or bonds. AVEC now has an approximate total debt of $65 Million but is not close to its mandated debt ceiling. The Board of Directors may be inclined to approve loan applications particularly if the loan would complete an otherwise nearly complete construction project budget.    Page 41/118    01/07/2016 Page 51 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1221 Standard Application Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project −Geotechnical Study and Final Design Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)27.75   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)68.50 2. Matching Resources (15)7.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.38 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)9.50   4. Project Readiness (5)3.33  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)8.50   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)9 6. Local Support (5)4.00   Regional (of all applications)1 7. Sustainability (5)4.50   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)64.59 Total Stage 3 Score (100)64.59   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $10,317,500 $9,317,500   Cost of Electricity $0.61/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $1,092,500 $792,500   Price of Fuel $4.69/Gal   Matching Funds $57,500 $41,711   Household Energy Cost $12,095   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding Comments from the previous round reviews centered on licensing, site control, and budget (for design and geotech). Review  of the project in its current state finds that licensing risk is now low with FERC issuing a FEA in partnership with USFWS. Also,  the site control issues appear on track to resolution with a complete Exhibit G and apparent willingness by all parties,  including the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, to issue authorization for land use. It is noted that AVEC should pay  particular attention to the lease requirements of FERC in drafting leases for this project.  Previous reviews also found that the budget for the design appears excessive particularly with regard to the geotech work.  This project is economically challenged and AVEC should endeavor to develop this project with potential for cost savings a  priority. AEA believes remote sensing geotech investigations would be a much lower cost investigation and are likely to  provide the necessary data to proceed with full design.  Recommend funding full design and partial geotech funding with the recommendation that GPR and/or seismic surveys be  done prior to investing in costly helicopter supported drilling. Also, as a condition of award, AVEC will be required to provide  proposed staff for AEA approval of the design and geotech work or provide an RFP and award process approved by AEA for  the selection of proposed staff. Election District: P­32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia Page 42/118     01/07/2016 Page 52 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1222 Heat Application Project Type: HeatRecovery Energy Region: Lower Yukon Kuskokwim Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Construction Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Construction Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery Module Construction Project Description Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is requesting $2,555,489 to construct a new heat recovery module at the Bethel Power Plant. The new module will isolate the generator cooling loop from the existing recovered heat distribution loop to enable expansion of the recovered heat system. The new approximately 800­square foot module and associated piping located immediately adjacent to the Bethel Power Plant will enable expansion of the existing system including future connection of exhaust heat recovery at the power plant, creating a significant increase in recovered heat available for the community. The heat recovery module will also allow expansion of the existing loop and an additional future second loop that could supply heat to the Aquatic Center and the new alcohol treatment facility currently under construction. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on State Land. No SCRO involvement.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations It is important to note that all loan and bonding financing options, even those with small interest rates, will necessarily increase the customers’ cost of electricity and or heat. Since its members already pay some of the highest electric rates in the nation, AVEC endeavors to complete project funding packages with grant funds. AVEC now has an approximate total debt of $65 M but is not close to its mandated debt ceiling.    Page 43/118    01/07/2016 Page 53 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1222 Heat Application Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery Module Construction Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)24.7   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)71.67 2. Matching Resources (15)9.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.16 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)10.56   4. Project Readiness (5)2.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)12.00   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)4 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)2 7. Sustainability (5)2.33   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)65.59 Total Stage 3 Score (100)65.59   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $9,000,000 $8,233,369   Cost of Electricity $0.45/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $2,555,489 $2,555,489   Price of Fuel $6.11/Gal   Matching Funds $283,943 $283,943   Household Energy Cost $10,766   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision Bethel has ample waste heat available for recovery and numerous significant loads within a one mile radius to the  powerhouse.  The existing system is near the end of its useful life and an analysis of alternatives including a complete rebuild  is in progress with funding through Round 8 of the Renewable Energy Fund.  This project application is the second phase of the rehabilitation of the Bethel Heat Recovery System. In this phase, the  equipment to capture the heat from the cooling system of the generators will be replaced with a properly designed modular  system. No additional recovered heat will be utilized as a result of this phase, but this phase is critical to the future expansion  of the heat recovery system. The economic analysis is based on the capital estimate provided by the applicant and an estimate of fuel displacement for  the expansion of the heat recovery system to 10 buildings. Because this project is still in the evaluation stage, these capital  and fuel displacement estimates must be refined. Recommend full funding with the provision that the economic evaluation be rerun at the completion of the design phase. This  evaluation must include total capital costs including building integration and displaced fuel for each additional building  serviced by the heat recovery system. Construction funding will be released only if the benefit/cost ratio remains strong. Election District: S­38 Lower Kuskokwim Page 44/118     01/07/2016 Page 54 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1223 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Bering Straits Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project Project Description This proposal requests $152,000 and provides a match of $8,000 to conduct a wind power feasibility and conceptual design project for the community of Shishmaref. The Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with the cooperation of the community, proposes to assess the feasibility of wind resources to provide power to Shishmaref and to prepare a conceptual design of a wind generation system. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments project is proposed on DOT ­owned lands (1983 quitclaim deed from Shishmaref Native Corporation to DOT/PF). Application acknowledges that applicant must obtain site use authorization from DOT.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 45/118    01/07/2016 Page 55 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1223 Standard Application Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)35   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)52.50 2. Matching Resources (15)7.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.93 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)4.17   4. Project Readiness (5)3.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)1.13   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)13 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)3 7. Sustainability (5)2.67   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)57.96 Total Stage 3 Score (100)57.96   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $2,689,400 $2,529,400   Cost of Electricity $0.66/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $152,000 $152,000   Price of Fuel $5.91/Gal   Matching Funds $8,000 $8,000   Household Energy Cost $15,812   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision The project is proposed in a Class 4 to 5 wind regime. The applicant, AVEC, has a long track record of operating wind  projects in remote Alaska. The project scope is consistent with other wind projects and the economics look positive. AEA  recommends full funding with the provision that a US Fish & Wildlife consultation be completed before proceeding with the  project. Election District: T­39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 46/118     01/07/2016 Page 56 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1224 Standard Application Project Type: Wind, Transmission Energy Region: Lower Yukon Kuskokwim Applicant: Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Mountain Village­St. Mary’s Wind Intertie Project – Final Design and Construction Project Description Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. (AVEC) is seeking $3,196,000 from this Grant Program for the construction of an electrical intertie to connect Mtn. Village to the St. Mary’s/Pitka’s Point Wind Energy Project. The intertie will include 16.1 miles of new 3­phase overhead power line along the existing gravel road between the St. Mary’s Airport and the Mtn. Village Airport. The project will also include upgrading 4.0 miles of existing electrical distribution system near both communities from single­phase to threephase. The existing power plant in Mtn. Village will be put into standby mode, with installation of an electric boiler to keep the existing generators warm. This intertie project will enable the community of Mtn. Village to benefit from the new wind energy system in St. Mary’s /Pitka’s Point. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on State Land. No SCRO involvement.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations It is important to note that all loan and bonding financing options, even those with small interest rates, will necessarily increase the customers’ cost of electricity and/or heat. Since its members already pay some of the highest electric rates in the nation, AVEC endeavors to complete project funding packages with grant funds. AVEC managers will explore State funding programs including the Community Development Block Grant program by teaming with the City of Mtn. Village and federal grants such as the USDA’s RUS and the Tribal Clean Energy Program and the Indian Community Development Block Grant with the Mtn. Village Tribe. AVEC is not adverse to pursuing loans or bonds. AVEC now has an approximate total debt of $65 M but is not close to its mandated debt ceiling. The Board of Directors may be inclined to approve loan applications particularly if the loan would complete an otherwise nearly complete construction project budget.    Page 47/118    01/07/2016 Page 57 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1224 Standard Application Mountain Village­St. Mary’s Wind Intertie Project – Final Design and Construction Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)28.36   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)66.00 2. Matching Resources (15)15.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.00 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)8.67   4. Project Readiness (5)3.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)3.75   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)5 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)1 7. Sustainability (5)4.50   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)68.28 Total Stage 3 Score (100)68.28   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $6,400,000 $6,196,000   Cost of Electricity $0.60/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $3,196,000 $3,196,000   Price of Fuel $6.51/Gal   Matching Funds $3,000,000 $3,000,000   Household Energy Cost $12,362   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision The proposed project makes better use of the funding already approved for the REF 8 wind energy project. 65% design is  complete on the intertie. The wind turbine proposed has a solid track record in Alaska as does the applicant as an owner and  operator. AEA reduced the expected energy production due to observed icing events during the wind resource study.  Recommend full funding with the special provision that the final wind turbine selection not lower the economic score. Election District: T­39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 48/118     01/07/2016 Page 58 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1225 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Railbelt Applicant: Kenai Hydro LLC Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: IPP Recommended Phase(s): Design Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Project Description Design of a 5000 kW new storage hydro on Grant Lake, located near the community of Moose Pass, serving the railbelt utilizing 385 cfs and 185 ft of head and 18,790 acre ft of storage to generate approximately 19,500 MWh of energy and displacing 19,500 MWh of natural gas energy annually at an estimated total project cost of $59 million with a projected start date of 2020. Proposed project features include an intake structure, 3300 feet of 10 foot diameter tunnel and surge tank, two Francis turbines, 2 miles of access road and a bridge across Trail Lakes, and 3.5 miles of transmission line.The layout has been recently revised to minimize the project footprint. The current design omits the construction of a diversion structure (dam) at the outlet of Grant Lake. All 13­feet of storage that will be utilized for power generation will be drawn from below the natural lake outlet. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments This project is on State land within the legislatively designated Kenai River Special Management Area (AS 41.21.500­ 41.21.514). The project appears to be incompatible with the purpose and management of KRSMA and would require legislative action to make this activity allowable. Local opposition (Kenai Peninsula Borough, City of Seward and the community of Moose pass) has been stated during the FERC review process. Site access via a crossing of the Alaska Railroad has not been obtained. DMLW has serious questions about the feasibility of this project if issues related to KRSMA and the AKRR crossing are not resolved.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The total anticipated project cost is $59,067,808. The phase III anticipated costs are $4,875,528 and the phase III grant request is for $4,000,000. Kenai Hydro will match the grant funds with $725,528 of cash and $150,000 of in­kind administrativeand project management labor. Kenai Hydro has received $2,100,000 in previous renewable energy grant funds for Phase I & II work. Homer Electric has spent or committed to spend $3,744,000. It is anticipated that the balanceof funds will come from a combination of financing, federal grants, state grants, private grants and possible legislative appropriation.    Page 49/118    01/07/2016 Page 59 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1225 Standard Application Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)15.24   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)56.67 2. Matching Resources (15)10.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.10 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)5.56   4. Project Readiness (5)3.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)4.13   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications) 23 6. Local Support (5)2.00   Regional (of all applications)3 7. Sustainability (5)4.17   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)44.09 Total Stage 3 Score (100)44.09   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $59,067,808 $58,936,366   Cost of Electricity $0.23/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $4,000,000 $4,000,000   Price of Fuel $2.13/Gal   Matching Funds $875,528 $875,528   Household Energy Cost $6,643         Page 50/118   01/07/2016 Page 60 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1225 Standard Application Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding Last year the project was initially not recommended for design and permitting due a lack of a complete feasibility study. Major  deficiencies included not having project concept designs and economic analysis completed sufficiently. The applicant  requested and received reconsideration of AEA's initial decision. AEA accepted the appeal and the project was  recommended contingent on completion of the feasibility and concept design work. However, the project was not funded due  to its ranking on the recommendations list. The application this year shows significant progress on the project with concept  designs (Exhibit F) and economic analysis (Exhibit D) submitted as part of the Draft License Application.The Exhibit D  analysis includes avoided cost rates that are calculated by the applicant (seller), a wholly owned subsidiary of the utility  (buyer), which has the sole authority to provide electric service and set tariffs for power and energy paid by the public and  approved by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). The RCA would be expected to review the proposed rate analysis  and is the entity that issues approval of rates.AEA finds that the ability to contract for the sale of power at the proposed rates  significant enough that funding was not recommended until Kenai Hydro obtain RCA approval of a power sales agreement  and interconnection agreement or, if not necessary, demonstrate concurrence from the RCA that such agreements are  unnecessary. Kenai Hydro requested reconsideration explaining that a contract was not necessary, that the project was not  subject to RCA review because it was a wholly owned subsidiary of HEA, and that rates charged to HEA would fall under the  existing AEECI contract with HEA or the project would merged with AEECI assets creating a blended rate. The appeal was  accepted by the AEA Executive Director and staff were directed to complete project evaluation and scoring. ADNR comments  regarding the Kenai River Special Management Area appear to primarily pertain to the location of the Iditarod National  Historic Trail and are being addressed through the FERC licensing and NEPA process. The INHT trail and trail corridor is to  have a conveyance of a 1,000­foot­wide easement to include a visual and sound buffer between the recreation corridor and  adjacent uses. No permanent structures or equipment are to be placed within the trail corridor. In keeping with the  management plan, the Project has provided an alternate route for the INHT easement, keeping the 1,000­foot­wide corridor  away from any permanent structures and adjacent uses.Recommended for full funding contingent on providing a means for  transmission of power from outside HEA service terriority demonstrated by a wheeling arrangement or RCA approval to build  redundant transmission infrastructure and contingent on concurrence from easement holders and management plan  authorities that the proposed project is consistent with the KRSMA. Election District: P­31 Homer/South Kenai Page 51/118     01/07/2016 Page 61 of 138       Page 52/118   01/07/2016 Page 62 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1226 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Copper River Chugach Applicant: Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI)Proposed Phase(s): Construction Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Construction Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Project Description Construction of a 300 kW new run of river hydro on Fivemile Creek serving the community of Chitina utilizing 5 cfs and 900 ft of head to generate approximately 2,000 MWh of energy and displacing 500 MWh of diesel energy (40 k gallons of fuel, 100% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of 6.6 million with a projected online date of 2019. Proposed project features include a 10 foot high diversion structure, 10,000 feet of 12­16 inch diameter penstock, a single pelton turbine, and 2,900 feet of access road. This project will serve the native community of Chitina which currently is an isolated micro grid and entirely diesel dependent. The diesel plant will function primarily as a backup system after the hydro is constructed. An electric boiler will be installed in the existing diesel module and connected to the existing hydronic heat recovery system currently utilized to heat the clinic building and the aboveground storage tank used to store diesel fuel for the diesel plant. The boiler will provide a dual purpose; provide frequency control during operation of the hydro turbine, and allow for continued utilization of the existing heat recovery system infrastructure. During most times of the year, excess water will be available beyond the communitys demand. During these times, the excess energy will be available for space heating during winter months via electric boilers installed in various community buildings, residential living facilities, and commercial facilities. In the summer, when flow in Fivemile Creek is higher, there will be considerable excess energy available for commercial and industrial uses such as ice making, sawmill operation, etc. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Not on State Land. No SCRO involvement but may require water rights certificate from DMLW Water Section.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations There are a number of low­interest loan opportunities from federal and state agencies. However, CEI is a relatively small utility and the addition of substantial debt burden could endanger the financial sustainability of the utility. CEI is actively researching the possibility of utilizing federal loan programs available through USDA, DOE, and the state of Alaska. A final decision on the ability to take on debt will depend upon the terms and financial options available.    Page 53/118    01/07/2016 Page 63 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1226 Standard Application Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)28.15   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)75.67 2. Matching Resources (15)15.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.71 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)11.89   4. Project Readiness (5)3.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)12.50   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)1 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)1 7. Sustainability (5)4.17   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)79.70 Total Stage 3 Score (100)79.70   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $6,580,000 $6,589,090   Cost of Electricity $0.71/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $3,400,000 $3,400,000   Price of Fuel $3.24/Gal   Matching Funds $2,600,000 $2,600,000   Household Energy Cost $12,269   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding Past evaluation found low economic benefit and incomplete phases as factors for not recommending additional funding.  Project revisions include preparing a design build contract to overcome insufficient development funding and performing  value engineering such as eliminating the intake gate and changes in the pipeline concept. In conjunction with AEA's  inclusion of O&M savings from diesel off projects the economics have improved significantly and the design build approach is  expected to result in a net savings and faster implementation. Recommended for full funding. Election District: C­6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border Page 54/118     01/07/2016 Page 64 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1227 Standard Application Project Type: Transmission, HeatBiofuel Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: City of Hoonah Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility, Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Construction Hoonah Waste­to­Energy Project Project Description The proposed project involves the development of a waste­to­energy facility that will use the process of anaerobic digestion (AD) to generate methane from waste water biosolids and other biomass feedstocks and then burn the methane to generate electricity. The project includes the design and construction of the AD facility, a transmission line to convey electricity to the City of Hoonah and ancillary facilities to dispose of digestate by­products. The project is being developed by the City of Hoonah, in close collaboration with the Hoonah Indian Association. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments May require a public easement from the state.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations Our biggest challenge has been finding funding for pre­development costs. We have identified private funding for final design and construction, but this source does not cover pre­development costs. Further, the interest rates are likely to be higher and the pay back periods likely to be shorter than public fuding sources. We would welcome access to low interest loan with a longer payback period.    Page 55/118    01/07/2016 Page 65 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1227 Standard Application Hoonah Waste­to­Energy Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.54 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $5,559,000 $5,289,000   Cost of Electricity $0.59/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $5,282,000 $0   Price of Fuel $3.74/Gal   Matching Funds $277,000 $0   Household Energy Cost $9,956         Page 56/118   01/07/2016 Page 66 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1227 Standard Application Hoonah Waste­to­Energy Project AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The City of Hoonah is proposing the feasibility, final design, and construction of a waste­to­energy facility that will use  anaerobic digestion to generate methane from waste water biosolids and other biomass feedstocks.  The methane would be  burned to generate electricity for City of Hoonah buildings.  The project includes the design and construction of the anaerobic  digestion facility, a transmission line to convey electricity to the City of Hoonah, and ancillary facilities to dispose of digestate  by­products.  The bio­solids would be sourced from the City and Borough of Juneau, where CBJ is currently spending up to  $2MM annually to transport waste water treatment biosolids to the Lower 48. The project schedule states that feasibility work  funded by the applicant will be complete by December 2015.  There is not enough information in the application without the  feasibility study to make an informed technical analysis or economic evaluation of the proposal.  Per Section 2 and further  detailed in sub­sections 2.2 through 2.4, AEA requires the applicant to “include sufficient information to allow for the  evaluation and ranking of the application.”  There are many significant questions that need to be addressed in a completed  feasibility study before AEA would recommend REF funding for design and construction.  The proposed content of the  feasibility study is comprehensive, and we look forward to evaluating this project in a future application of the Renewable  Energy Fund.  The following information is critical for the proper evaluation of the project: 1. Information from the RCA stating  that electricity can be directly provided to the target buildings and the local utility does not need to be involved in the project.  2. Detailed analysis of the cost of generation and its impact to the community energy rates. 3. A letter of support/interest from  the City and Borough of Juneau stating that they will consider this proposal for the disposal of their sewage waste. 4.  Proposed disposal method and costs for the digestate. 5. Estimated capital and O&M costs for the anaerobic digestion  technology, including the gas cleaning process. 6. The assumptions that resulted in the projected energy generations of  750,000 kWh/year. 7. Assessment of the impact to the local electric grid and the current generation sources of hydro and  diesel, including impacts to the heat recovery system. 8. A permitting evaluation. This project is not recommended for funding  and will not advance past Stage 2 of the evaluation process per REF statutes and regulations (AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600­ 695), and per Section 4 of the Request for Applications #16012. Election District: R­35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 57/118     01/07/2016 Page 67 of 138       Page 58/118   01/07/2016 Page 68 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1228 Standard Application Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Railbelt Applicant: State of Alaska Department of Corrections Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility, Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility, Design, Construction Point McKenzie Correction Farm (PMCF) PV Solar Project Project Description This grant application requests $140,000 to assist in the purchase and installation of a 100.4 kW Photovoltaic Solar Energy System to supply a portion of the energy needs at the Point Mackenzie Correctional Farm (PMCF). It is estimated that this size PV system may produce 92,973 kWh annually. The stated goal of the project is to install a 100.4 kW Solar Energy System that will produce an estimated $64,153 in electricity annually to contribute a portion of PMCF's electrical supply needs. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The PMCF is located on State owned, DMLW managed lands that have been assigned to the Department of Corrections for the PMCF facility (DNR's file reference is ADL 227302). Please note that Item 7 of Attachment B of the ILMA document states that "The DOC shall comply with the requirements of AS 38.95.160 during the term of this ILMA. AS 38.95.160 requires that publically financed improvements costing more than $100,000 be documented by a recorded plat." As this request is for $140,000, and is proposed to be located on state lands, SCRO requests that DOC coordinate the completion of this survey with DMLW. Additional questions about this requirement may be directed to Candice Snow, SCRO ILMA coordinator, at 269­ 5032, or candice.snow@alaska.gov.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations Will provide at a later date, additional research is needed.    Page 59/118    01/07/2016 Page 69 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1228 Standard Application Point McKenzie Correction Farm (PMCF) PV Solar Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.29 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $350,000 $448,663   Cost of Electricity $0.17/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $140,000 $0   Price of Fuel $1.99/Gal   Matching Funds $210,000 $0   Household Energy Cost $6,260         Page 60/118   01/07/2016Page 70 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1228 Standard Application Point McKenzie Correction Farm (PMCF) PV Solar Project AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The State of Alaska Department of Corrections applied for a $140,000 grant to fund all phases (reconnaissance, feasibility,  design and construction) of a 100kW solar photovoltaic project at the Point McKenzie Correctional Farm.  The Alaska Energy  Authority has reviewed the application and determined that it does not meet the minimum requirements for funding.  The  initial application lacked sufficient information to pass stage 1 review.  In a 9/23/15 e­mail, AEA gave the applicant until  9/28/15 to complete the application.  A revised application was submitted, but still does not meet minimum standards. The  applicant did not respond to AEA's 10/8/15 e­mail requesting additional information by 10/13/15, did not provide information  regarding electric utility interconnection standards and rates, and did not provide information on projected operations and  maintenance costs.  The lack of utility standards and rates information is described as a common pitfall in the AEA Solar  Program Best Practices Checklist.  The requirement to respond in a timely manner to information requests is described in  Section 4.0 of the Request for Applications. AEA also heard from the applicant's electric utility, Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), that the applicant has not contacted the utility about the proposed project.  According to MEA, the project is above the  25kW threshold of a net metering project, so would require a separate contract with MEA if it is under 100kW.  If it is over  100kW, it would require approval from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.  The applicant has not provided any indication  that these requirements have been addressed. This project is not recommended for funding and will not advance past Stage  2 of the evaluation process per REF statutes and regulations (AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600­695), and per Section 4 of the  Request for Applications #16012. Election District: D­7 Greater Wasilla Page 61/118     01/07/2016 Page 71 of 138       Page 62/118   01/07/2016 Page 72 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1229 Standard Application Project Type: Other, HeatBiofuel Energy Region: Railbelt Applicant: Central Environmental Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Design Applicant Type: IPP Recommended Phase(s): Recon Knik Arm Power Plant Recycled Biomass to Power Project Description Knik Arm Power Plant (KAPP) provided heat and power from 1952 until it was decommissioned in 1985. Over the last decade, there have been numerous attempts to reopen energy operations at KAPP. The proposed project intends to demonstrate 400 kWe from recycled construction and demolition cellulose biomass waste at a levelized cost of $0.05 per kWh. Power would be sold to the Alaska Railroad Corporation, Anchorage Municipal Light & Power or Chugach Electric Association. Additional benefits are an increase in recycling of construction and demolition cellulose from 75% to 90%. Other benefits stated in the application include distributed generation benefits to utilities and diversion of 1,000 tons from Alaska landfills. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Review finds no SCRO involvement.  DNR/DOF Feasibility Comments This project is for reconnaissance, feasibility and conceptual design of an electrical power plant that will utilize recycled construction and demolition cellulose biomass waste. No additional biomass from timber harvest operations will be required. It is anticipated that up to 2,000 tons of material will be diverted from Alaskan landfills. Biomass supply appears sustainable for this project and Central Environmental Incorporated maintains a recycling service which is able to separate out the cellulose biomass required for this project.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 63/118    01/07/2016 Page 73 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1229 Standard Application Knik Arm Power Plant Recycled Biomass to Power Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)31.17 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.42 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $3,000,000 $3,000,000   Cost of Electricity $0.18/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $400,000 $0   Price of Fuel $1.93/Gal   Matching Funds $2,600,000 $0   Household Energy Cost $5,594         Page 64/118   01/07/2016 Page 74 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1229 Standard Application Knik Arm Power Plant Recycled Biomass to Power AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 2 Central Environmental Incorporated (CEI), Inc. requested funding for reconnaissance, feasibility and conceptual design to  determine the viability of a waste to energy project in Anchorage.   Construction and demolition debris currently being  landfilled would be used as fuel for the plant.  The plant would utilize Organic Rankine Cycle (ORC) technology to generate  electricity to sell to a local utility or the Alaska Railroad Corporation. The application states that the ORC system will deliver  an electrical efficiency of 18% ­ 20%.The review team had a number of concerns with the technical feasibility of the project: 1.  The application states that there are up 2,000 tons per year of combustible materials that could be diverted from the  Anchorage landfill.  However, the economics were based on 4,525 tons per year of fuel.  There is concern about the actual  availability of the waste resource in a radius that is economically feasible. 2. Because this is an incineration project  (construction & demolition debris, tires), permitting could be contentious in the Anchorage area. 3. The proposed site is an  EPA brownfield site and the permitting implications are unknown. 4. The State of Alaska has supported the installation of four  Organic Rankine Cycle systems, and all of the systems have performed at an efficiency significantly less than the  manufacturer’s claims. No actual operating data on a system achieving 18% ­ 20% electrical efficiency was found. 5. The  review team had concerns that the technical partner, Supercritical Technologies, did not have experience in a sub­arctic  environment. The company is a small start­up, with limited operational experience. The project scored low for economic  viability demonstrating a benefit/cost ratio of 0.42.This project is not recommended for funding and will not advance past  Stage 2 of the evaluation process per REF statutes and regulations (AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600­695), and per Section 4 of  the Request for Applications #16012. Election District: L­23 Taku Page 65/118     01/07/2016 Page 75 of 138       Page 66/118   01/07/2016 Page 76 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1230 Standard Application Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Northwest Arctic Applicant: Kotzebue Electric Association, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Kotzebue 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Project Description Kotzebue Electric Association (KEA) has applied for a $384,730 grant to fund a $449,178 100kW solar photovoltaic project at the electric utility's wind energy site. Solar PV panels provide little energy in the arctic during the winter but there is a solar resource during the shoulder seasons and Kotzebue experiences 35 days of constant daylight during the summer. The applicant states that recent declines in prices for PV panels mean that there is sufficient power produced during the spring, summer and early fall months to justify the cost of installing a solar array in Kotzebue. Using NREL’s September 2014 release of PV Watts’s photovoltaic modeling software, an optimized estimate of the useful power that would be produced by a solar array was prepared. KEA has successfully worked with piling systems on its wind site since 1996 using both standard and freeze­back pilings to install wind turbines. KEA’s significant experience with foundations on the site will allow the use of a piling system to be used for a solar installation which will reduce design costs. The site has had three extensive geophysical surveys that will be relied upon to assist in the foundation design and help minimize costs. Inverters can be installed in the existing wind farm structures. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project is not on state land.  As per application, it is located on land already leased from Kikikitagrug Inupiat Corporation.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations KEA Financial loan covenant ratios such as Current Ratio, Equity Ratio, TIER, OTIER, and margin/revenue cannot support investment in this project without subsidization.    Page 67/118    01/07/2016 Page 77 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1230 Standard Application Kotzebue 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.43 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $449,178 $800,000   Cost of Electricity $0.43/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $384,730 $0   Price of Fuel $6.53/Gal   Matching Funds $64,448 $0   Household Energy Cost $11,759   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended Kotzebue Electric Association (KEA) has applied for a $384,730 grant to fund a $449,178 100kW solar photovoltaic project at  the electric utility's wind energy site.  AEA does not recommend funding this project for the following reasons: The application  included a confusing combination of solar racking configurations: section 5.1.1 describes a dual­axis tracking array, section  5.3.1 states the panels will be south­facing, yet the array plan submitted with the application shows fixed panels oriented E,  SE, S, SW, and W. The application is for final design, permitting and construction, yet did not provide the feasibility study and  conceptual design information required per section 4, criteria 7 of the Request for Applications. The integration concept on  p.15 of the application does not address curtailment of the solar output even though KEA currently curtails its wind output. If  sufficient thermal loads are planned to allow for use of all solar output this should be described so that the economics can be  properly analyzed. This project is not recommended for funding and will not advance past Stage 2 of the evaluation process  per REF statutes and regulations (AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600­695), and per Section 4 of the Request for Applications  #16012. Election District: T­40 Arctic Page 68/118     01/07/2016 Page 78 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1231 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: North Slope Applicant: North Slope Borough Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design Project Description The North Slope Borough (NSB) envisions an area­wide energy production and management system consisting of integrated wind­diesel generation, end­use energy efficiency, automated building controls, and conservation. The proposed project is the design and permitting phase of a three­phase project which will include construction and commissioning of three wind turbines to supplement the existing power generation and distribution system for the community of Kaktovik. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The wind facility is not on state land (application notes that it is on Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation­own land); permitting list includes ADNR Coastal Zone Consistency Determination, and plans to coordinate permitting through the ADNR Office of Coastal and Ocean Management Permitting ­ this is outdated, as ACMP program is no longer implemented.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations This application is for the design and permitting phase. When this project proceeds, bond funds will be requested from the North Slope Borough Assembly to assist in the final construction of the project. As with all projects, funding through general obligation bonds will be weighed against the other capital improvement project requiring funding in the communities across the North Slope.    Page 69/118    01/07/2016 Page 79 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1231 Standard Application Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)14.44   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)58.17 2. Matching Resources (15)9.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.79 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)6.06   4. Project Readiness (5)4.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)0.75   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)26 6. Local Support (5)2.00   Regional (of all applications)2 7. Sustainability (5)4.33   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)40.58 Total Stage 3 Score (100)40.58   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $7,751,695 $7,606,795   Cost of Electricity $0.15/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $440,000 $440,000   Price of Fuel $3.00/Gal   Matching Funds $44,000 $44,000   Household Energy Cost $6,293   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding Kaktovik has received REF Round 4 funding to complete a wind resource analysis, feasibility study and conceptual design.  That project is complete. The existing power plant is easily adaptable to integration of wind energy. Good summary of  permitting and environmental concerns. NSB has a long history of maintaining village power systems at a high level of  reliability and functionality. Budget is higher than standard wind project designs due to increased avian/environmental  assessment and permitting needed on Barter Island. The project will need to address cold weather design considerations for  the proposed wind turbine. Good wind resource. Recommend full funding. Election District: T­40 Arctic Page 70/118     01/07/2016 Page 80 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1232 Standard Application Project Type: Transmission, Other Energy Region: North Slope Applicant: North Slope Borough Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Project Description This phase of the Barrow to Atqasuk Transmission Line Project is for final design and permitting required for the construction of the transmission line and conversion of homes and buildings in Atqasuk to electric space heating. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The application states that a portion of the intertie project will cross State of Alaska land, and acknowledges that DNR utility easements and water permit will be required. The anticipated timeline for permitting, however, is described as "July 2016 to August 2016". If this is intended to reflect an anticipated application to issuance turnaround of 1 month, this timeline is not possible for an easement. It could take a year or possibly longer to process easements from the point of application to final issuance, as easements require review and resolution of any conflicts, a period of public notice, written decision with appeal timelines, and potentially survey requirements. Applicant is encouraged to contact DMLW Northern Region as soon as possible to verify land ownership and if applicable, begin application process.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations This application is for the design and permitting phase. When this project proceeds, bond funds will be requested from the North Slope Borough Assembly to assist in the final construction of the project. As with all projects, funding through general obligation bonds will be weighed against the other capital improvement project requiring funding in the communities across the North Slope.    Page 71/118    01/07/2016 Page 81 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1232 Standard Application Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)7.84   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)78.00 2. Matching Resources (15)9.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.02 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)12.67   4. Project Readiness (5)2.50  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)12.87   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications) 19 6. Local Support (5)2.00   Regional (of all applications)1 7. Sustainability (5)4.83   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)51.71 Total Stage 3 Score (100)51.71   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $19,772,275 $32,840,509   Cost of Electricity $0.15/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $2,017,818 $2,017,818   Price of Fuel $1.40/Gal   Matching Funds $201,782 $201,782   Household Energy Cost $3,417   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding This current application is for final design and permitting for the “Barrow to Atqasuk Transmission Line and Home  Conversions to Electric Space Heating”. This project was funded in rounds 2 and 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund for feasibility study and conceptual/preliminary  design. The North Slope Borough also applied for but did not receive funding in round 7 as the preliminary design from round  4 was not yet complete.  Prior to application during round 9 the Preliminary design report was completed in a satisfactory manner and thus,  AEA  recommends full funding for the final design and permitting of this project. Election District: T­40 Arctic Page 72/118     01/07/2016 Page 82 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1233 Heat Application Project Type: HeatRecovery Energy Region: Yukon­Koyukuk Upper Tanana Applicant: City of Grayling Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Grayling Water System Heat Recovery Project Description The proposed project will take recovered heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant and use it to heat the City of Grayling’s water system, via a connection into the water treatment plant glycol loop prior to the boilers. The estimated fuel savings from this heat recovery system is projected to save the water treatment plant 6,518 gallons of heating oil per year. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The previous comment from 2014 is unchanged: No SCRO involvement.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The community is not interested in applying for financing for this project at this time.    Page 73/118    01/07/2016 Page 83 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1233 Heat Application Grayling Water System Heat Recovery Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)29.03   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)54.50 2. Matching Resources (15)6.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.98 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)4.83   4. Project Readiness (5)4.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)1.88   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)7 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)2 7. Sustainability (5)5.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)55.74 Total Stage 3 Score (100)55.74   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $439,982 $431,982   Cost of Electricity $0.62/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $427,705 $50,000   Price of Fuel $5.75/Gal   Matching Funds $4,277 $5,000   Household Energy Cost $12,652   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The proposed heat recovery system has the potential to offset a significant amount of heating oil. As proposed, however, the  project demonstrates marginal economic value. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the final  design phase that can significantly improve the project economics.   AEA recommends funding only the design phase to allow for improved construction cost estimates prior to funding the  construction phase. Requested design costs of $75,760 (17.5% of total project cost) is higher than expected based on the  complexity of the project. Partial funding of $50,000 recommended for final design phase only.   Election District: S­37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 74/118     01/07/2016 Page 84 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1234 Heat Application Project Type: HeatRecovery Energy Region: Bering Straits Applicant: City of Wales Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Wales Water System Heat Recovery Project Description The proposed project will take recovered heat from the existing Wales power plant and use it to heat the City of Wales’ water system via a buried heating connection to the washeteria and water treatment plant. The estimated fuel savings to save the washeteria and water treatment plant is 9,726 gallons of heating oil per year. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project not on state­owned land, however RS 2477 Right of Way is in the vicinity. If RS T 1623 will be used as a route for pipe system, DMLW should be contacted to determine if use will require public notice or permitting.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The community is not interested in applying for financing for this project at this time.    Page 75/118    01/07/2016 Page 85 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1234 Heat Application Wales Water System Heat Recovery Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)35   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)72.50 2. Matching Resources (15)6.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.44 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)10.83   4. Project Readiness (5)3.33  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)9.00   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)1 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)1 7. Sustainability (5)5.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)74.17 Total Stage 3 Score (100)74.17   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $656,613 $653,277   Cost of Electricity $0.71/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $650,047 $650,047   Price of Fuel $6.49/Gal   Matching Funds $6,566 $6,566   Household Energy Cost $17,269   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The project demonstrates the best economic value of any heat recovery applications received this year with a B/C ratio of  1.44. AEA recommends full funding of the final design and construction phases. Election District: T­39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 76/118     01/07/2016 Page 86 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1235 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Lower Yukon Kuskokwim Applicant: City of Scammon Bay Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project Project Description Feasibility and design of a 190 kW new run of river hydro on Hillside Creek serving the community of Scammon Bay utilizing 6 cfs and 480 ft of head to generate approximately 756 MWh of energy and displacing 646 MWh of diesel energy (48,000 gallons of fuel, 38% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of $4.3 million with a projected start date of 2021. Proposed project features include a 6 foot high diversion structure, 4300 feet of 16 inch diameter penstock, a single pelton turbine, and 4300 feet of access road. In 2013, AEA provided funding to the City of Scammon Bay through the Renewable Energy Fund for initial planning and feasibility analysis of hydroelectric potential. This initial study was completed in 2014 and identified the best locations for hydroelectricity development in Scammon Bay, which had a variety of creeks available for development. The most promising site, located 12 miles to the west of town, located on Ekashluak creek was found to have a significant salmon population, and the community of Scammon Bay was not interested in developing the location. The small creek running through town, Hillside Creek, was found to be an economic and low impact run­of­river hydro alternative opportunity. The project will also would improve and stabilize access to clean water for the water treatment plant. In order to secure permitting and allow for a design that maximizes the potential of the resource, three years of stream gauging is recommended. This phase will fund survey and 35% design. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The previous comment from 2014 is unchanged: A Water Rights Certificate may be required from the DMLW Water Section. No SCRO involvement.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 77/118    01/07/2016 Page 87 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1235 Standard Application Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)29.13   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)49.67 2. Matching Resources (15)6.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.25 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)3.22   4. Project Readiness (5)1.83  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)6.50   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)16 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)4 7. Sustainability (5)2.50   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)54.19 Total Stage 3 Score (100)54.19   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $4,114,132 $4,283,056   Cost of Electricity $0.63/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $305,000 $90,000   Price of Fuel $6.72/Gal   Matching Funds $3,050 $900   Household Energy Cost $12,698   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The City of Scammon Bay requested funding for stream gauging and preliminary design for the continued development of the  hydro project based on the recommendations of the feasibility study completed in 2014. Those recommendations included  verifying the hydrology followed by design and permitting. AEA is limiting the funding to stream gauging only for the first year  in order to verify the resource potential. The City did not provide a detailed budget and scope for the stream gauging. AEA  believes the proposed scope is higher than need be and is recommending a reduced amount of funding. AEA recommends the project for partial funding to complete stream gauging to better understand the hydroelectric resource  potential of Hillside Creek in Scammon Bay. AEA notes that AVEC is currently performing a feasibility study of the wind  energy potential in Scammon Bay. Following the completion of this phase, a feasibility update should be conducted to  compare diesel electric generation, heat recovery, wind, and hydro to identify the best mix of energy solutions for the  community. AEA recommends partial funding of $90,000 for stream gauging only. The work shall generally conform to USGS procedures. Election District: T­39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 78/118     01/07/2016 Page 88 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1236 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Municipality of Skagway Borough Proposed Phase(s): Recon Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design West Creek Hydroelectric Project Project Description The Municipality of Skagway (MOS) proposes to construct the West Creek Hydroelectric Project located approximately 7 miles west of Skagway and adjacent to the small community of Dyea. The primary purpose of the Project would be offsetting diesel generation by cruise ships that dock in Skagway during the months of May through September each year. A secondary purpose of the Project is to provide winter energy to the local utility when they have a shortfall of hydro energy from their hydroelectric projects (Dewey Lakes Hydro, Lutak Hydro, Goat Lake Hydro, Kasidaya Creek Hydro) as well as to sell winter energy to other utilities in the area. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The City and Borough of Skagway and/or Alaska Power & Telephone Company (per MOU dated August 7, 2014) will need to apply for a Permit to Appropriate Water for this project and may need to apply for a Temporary Water Use Authorization if the project moves forward to the permitting stage and prior to the construction phase, respectively.  The DMLW Water Resources Section recommends the applicant consult with our Southeast Office to determine specific water use authorization requirements.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 79/118    01/07/2016 Page 89 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1236 Standard Application West Creek Hydroelectric Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.47 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $ $168,000,000   Cost of Electricity $0.26/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $320,000 $0   Price of Fuel $3.55/Gal   Matching Funds $25,000 $0   Household Energy Cost $7,750   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The scope of work is to conduct an environmental review to meet the requirements of FERC licensing. The basis for  undertaking the licensing and development of the project has not been demonstrated through a feasibility study. Per the  Request for Applications #16012, Sections 2, 2.4, 2.5, applicants must complete prior phases of work prior to receiving  funding for future phases. The feasibility study should be prepared by a licensed Alaska professional engineer. Lacking a feasibility study AEA performed a basic analysis of the project benefits and technical feasibility. Significant issues  remain unaddressed, particularly whether the City would be able to acquire a long term (20+ years) power sales agreement  with the multiple cruise ships sufficient to finance the project. Alternatively, there is no identifiable revenue stream associated  with the emissions from the ships and the detrimental air quality results. The City itself does not appear to require the power  and energy available from the project, yet under­developing the resource is probably not feasible or desirable either. A long­ term development plan identifying regional opportunities for demand growth coupled with a regional hydroelectric resource  evaluation is the recommended first step for Skagway. This project is not recommended for funding and will not advance past Stage 2 of the evaluation process per REF statutes  and regulations (AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600­695), and per Section 4 of the Request for Applications #16012. Election District: Q­33 Downtown Juneau/Douglas/Haines/Skagway Page 80/118     01/07/2016 Page 90 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1237 Standard Application Project Type: Wind Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: Sand Point Generating, LLC ­ TDX Power, Inc. Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Sand Point High Penetration Wind System Project Description Sand Point Generating LLC (SPG) proposes a high penetration wind diesel operation for the City of Sand Point. The proposed system will utilize a high speed low load generator. This unit can run at 10% of its 600KW rating continuously. The power converter, which is integral to the Innovus IP MVS 600 variable speed generator proposed, can operate even when its diesel engine is turned off. Ultra­capacitors on the DC Bus provide short term electrical storage to facilitate load pick up and diesel starting sequence. The IP MVS 600 power converter and ultracapacitor energy storage can and will be used to maintain the frequency and voltage of the wind turbines, allowing (during steady wind) the Utility to power City loads with only wind power (diesels off). DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The previous comment from 2014 is unchanged: No SCRO involvement.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations Innovus has made offers to provide project financing based upon performance. Innovus’s offer would reduce the front end payments significantly and require regular payments as fuel saving as documented by the utility. Firm negotiations on this point have not begun.    Page 81/118    01/07/2016 Page 91 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1237 Standard Application Sand Point High Penetration Wind System Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)24.76   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)83.33 2. Matching Resources (15)15.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.19 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)14.44   4. Project Readiness (5)3.50  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)12.25   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)2 6. Local Support (5)4.00   Regional (of all applications)1 7. Sustainability (5)4.67   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)78.62 Total Stage 3 Score (100)78.62   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $1,072,305 $1,067,309   Cost of Electricity $0.62/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $649,030 $649,030   Price of Fuel $5.52/Gal   Matching Funds $423,275 $423,275   Household Energy Cost $10,793   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The proposed system offers a new option in balancing diesel generation with variable wind energy generation. Reduced  diesel loading is possible without damaging under loading that is seen with standard fixed­RPM gensets. The ultra­capacitor  bridging allows the system to provide spinning reserve while keeping voltage and frequency within spec. The system will  allow for significant periods of diesel­off operation and the generator's power converter doubles as a grid­forming inverter  during periods when the wind turbines are the sole power generator on the system. The applicant has a good track record  with wind energy projects in Sand Point and Saint Paul and is very cooperative in providing high­resolution operational data  for those systems.  Recommend full funding. Election District: S­37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 82/118     01/07/2016 Page 92 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1238 Heat Application Project Type: HeatRecovery Energy Region: Bering Straits Applicant: City of Koyuk Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Koyuk Water System Heat Recovery Project Description The proposed project will take recovered heat from the existing Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant and use it to offset the heating oil consumption in City of Koyuk’s Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria. The estimated fuel savings from this heat recovery system is projected to be 11,971 gallons of heating oil per year. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments As per the application, project facilities are not on state­owned land.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The community is not interested in applying for financing for this project at this time.    Page 83/118    01/07/2016 Page 93 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1238 Heat Application Koyuk Water System Heat Recovery Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)35   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)61.50 2. Matching Resources (15)6.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.06 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)7.17   4. Project Readiness (5)4.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)4.13   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)3 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)2 7. Sustainability (5)5.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)66.29 Total Stage 3 Score (100)66.29   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $703,269 $695,269   Cost of Electricity $0.95/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $688,386 $90,922   Price of Fuel $6.50/Gal   Matching Funds $6,884 $909   Household Energy Cost $18,742   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding The proposed heat recovery system has the potential to offset a significant amount of heating oil. As proposed, however, the  project demonstrates marginal economic value. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the design  phase that can significantly improve the project economics.   Partial funding of $90,922 recommended for the final design phase only.   Election District: T­39 Bering Straits/Yukon Delta Page 84/118     01/07/2016 Page 94 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1239 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Kodiak Applicant: City of Ouzinkie Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project Project Description Design and construction of 150 kW replacement storage hydro on Spruce Island serving the community of Ouzinkie utilizing 9 cfs and 230 ft of head and 183 acre ft of storage to approximately generate 475 MWh of energy and displacing 475 MWh of diesel energy (36,000 gallons of fuel, 55% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of $4.6 million with a projected start date of 2018 for the reconstructed project. Reconstructed project features include a 17 foot high dam (recently completed), 5,100 feet of 24 inch diameter penstock, and a single turgo or crossflow turbine. Ouzinkie currently operates a makeshift hydroelectric operation that has served the village for many years. However, the dam failed in the fall of 2013 even while a new project was being planned to replace the dam. The proposed project in Ouzinkie will work to install new hydroelectric capacity in conjunction with the recent new dam construction. A new Ossberger 150 KW hydroelectric turbine will be installed to maximize electrical generation in the community. The turbine is to operate efficiently at flow rates from 2 cfs to 10 cfs. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments A Water Rights Certificate may be required from the DMLW Water Section. No SCRO involvement. The project may require review by the DNR Dam Safety Program.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The community is not interested in applying for financing for this project at this time.    Page 85/118    01/07/2016 Page 95 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1239 Standard Application Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)17.12   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)40.67 2. Matching Resources (15)15.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.73 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)0.22   4. Project Readiness (5)2.33  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)0.63   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)24 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)3 7. Sustainability (5)3.33   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)43.63 Total Stage 3 Score (100)43.63   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $401,441 $4,603,385   Cost of Electricity $0.36/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $397,427 $397,427   Price of Fuel $2.94/Gal   Matching Funds $4,014 $4,014   Household Energy Cost $7,460   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision The City of Ouzinkies application seeks funding for the design and replacement of a turbine and generator which is a  component of a larger project to reconstruct the existing hydro in Ouzinkie which has reached the end of its useful life. The  replacement effort began when the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) constructed a new dam to replace the  wooden dam that failed recently. The City proposes to have ANTHC complete the remainder of the project reconstruction. In Round 8 AEA concluded the replacement penstock and turbine is an addition to the existing hydro project and that only the  projected incremental increase in hydro power production is allowable in the economic analysis.  However, it is noted that the dam failed and the turbine and generator apparently require replacement. The pipeline is also reported to have issues as  well. Despite continued operation it appears that the project is at the end of its useful life.  The City's application only requested grant funding for the turbine and generator replacement. In evaluating the project  economics consistently AEA has included the entire project cost and benefits. The prior investment of the dam has also been  included as match. AEA has concerns that the proposed budget for design work is too low. Recommended for full funding. Election District: P­32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia Page 86/118     01/07/2016 Page 96 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1240 Standard Application Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: City of Kake Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility, Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility, Design, Construction Solar Panels for Kake Community Buildings Project Description Feasibility, design, and construction of solar panels on Kake community building and liquor store to reduce electricity costs. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No impacts to state land.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations Any cost overruns or other financing opportunities would have to be approved by city council.    Page 87/118    01/07/2016 Page 97 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1240 Standard Application Solar Panels for Kake Community Buildings Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $255,000 $   Cost of Electricity $0.59/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $255,000 $0   Price of Fuel $4.59/Gal   Matching Funds $00 $0   Household Energy Cost $11,412   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1 Election District: R­35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 88/118     01/07/2016 Page 98 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1241 Standard Application Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Yukon­Koyukuk Upper Tanana Applicant: Minto Development Corporation Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility, Design, Construction Applicant Type: Government Entity Recommended Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility, Construction Minto PV Solar Project Project Description Minto Development Corporation submitted an application for $22,748.80 to partially fund the feasibility study, conceptual and final design, and construction of a $56,872, 10.8kW solar photovoltaic system in Minto. The original application requested $140,000 to assist in the purchase and installation of a 100.4 kW photovoltaic solar energy system. After the grant application deadline, the applicant approached AVEC (the local utility) regarding interconnection standards. AVEC agreed to allow a 10kW solar PV system to be intertied, so the applicant reduced the scope to a 10kW system. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Project does not appear to be on state­owned land, but application does not yet contain info regarding permit which may be required.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations Additional financing is being explored. The Seth­De­Ya­Ah Corporation has the capacity to cover the outstanding balance. However, legislative assistance is being pursued, as is bank loan options.    Page 89/118    01/07/2016 Page 99 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1241 Standard Application Minto PV Solar Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.37 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $350,000 $86,400   Cost of Electricity $0.59/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $140,000 $0   Price of Fuel $3.80/Gal   Matching Funds $210,000 $0   Household Energy Cost $9,471         Page 90/118   01/07/2016Page 100 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1241 Standard Application Minto PV Solar Project AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended Minto Development Corporation submitted an application for $22,748.80 to partially fund the feasibility study, conceptual and  final design, and construction of a $56,872, 10.8kW solar photovoltaic system in Minto. This application is not recommended  for funding for the following reasons: 1. Per Section 2 of the Round 9 Request for Applications #16012, there is not enough  information provided in the application to assess the feasibility and cost of this project, or properly review the design for  construction funding eligibility. The application is for all four phases of construction. 2. The applicant did not document that it  had reached a written agreement with the electric utility regarding interconnection standards or rates.  The Request for  Applications #16012 on page 1 directed applicants to the Best Practices Checklists to ensure complete applications.  This  was a checklist item under "Common Pitfalls" on the Solar Program Best Practices Checklist. The original application was  ineligible because the applicant was the Minto Development Corporation. AEA gave the project developers an opportunity to  amend the application, which resulted in the Native Village of Minto becoming the applicant. When AEA pointed out that the  application violated AVEC's interconnection standards for maximum distributed generation capacity and did not include a  written agreement with AVEC, the applicant got verbal agreement from AVEC to allow interconnection of a 10kW solar PV  system. The application still does not address interconnection standards or costs, net metering, or electric rates. This project  is not recommended for funding and will not advance past Stage 2 of the evaluation process per REF statutes and  regulations (AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600­695), and per Section 4 of the Request for Applications #16012. Election District: C­6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border Page 91/118     01/07/2016 Page 101 of 138       Page 92/118   01/07/2016 Page 102 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1242 Heat Application Project Type: HeatPump Energy Region: Railbelt Applicant: City of Seward Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Heat Pump System for City of Seward Owned Buildings Project Description Design and construction of a ground source heat pump system to displace approximately 96% of the heating oil usage of four existing City buildings and one future building. A field of sixteen vertical boreholes, 6” diameter x 300 ft depth, will be drilled on City land adjacent to the existing waterfront bike path. Vertical double u­bend 1” HDPE loops will be installed in each of these boreholes. A single u­bend loop will be installed in the existing 300 ft deep test hole. The vertical loops will be charged with a 20% methanol and 80% water heat transfer fluid. The loops will serve as 50 year design life underground heat exchanger, warmed by the ocean tides of Resurrection Bay. The vertical loops will connect via a reverse return manifold to buried insulated supply and return trunk mains that will deliver ground heat to the four City buildings via loop pumps. A pair of blank tees will be provided on the trunk mains to allow connection of the new year round Adams Street Shower House to be built in the fall of 2016. Four high efficiency water to water heat pumps, one buffer tank, and loop pumps will be installed in the existing mechanical rooms of the Library and City Hall. One buffer tank will be installed in the Annex and the Fire Hall. One existing heating oil boiler will remain in each building to serve as a standby and lag boiler. On the load (hot) side of the heat pumps, buffer tanks will be heated from 125F to 145F, these will in turn supply heat to existing hydronic space heating and domestic hot water systems in the buildings. The total quantity of #1 heating oil anticipated to be displaced annually is 20,020 gallons, which equates to 2,146 MMBTU. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW Managed lands per ADL 215129 Muni. Entitlement and ADL 18018 Tideland Conveyance. No water withdrawal associated with closed­loop system design.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations No limitations to fund the City’s portion of match funding currently exists as the funds have already been allocated by Council Resolution and City Manager authorization.    Page 93/118    01/07/2016 Page 103 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1242 Heat Application Heat Pump System for City of Seward Owned Buildings Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)20.66   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)83.17 2. Matching Resources (15)11.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.97 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)14.39   4. Project Readiness (5)5.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)12.25   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)2 6. Local Support (5)4.00   Regional (of all applications)1 7. Sustainability (5)4.33   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)71.64 Total Stage 3 Score (100)71.64   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $922,999 $955,458   Cost of Electricity $0.18/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $725,000 $725,000   Price of Fuel $3.37/Gal   Matching Funds $125,000 $125,000   Household Energy Cost $9,005   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The City of Seward, applying as a local government, requests funding in the amount of $725,000 for the design and  construction of an ocean/ground source heat pump system to offset the use of #1 diesel for heat in buildings owned by the  City. The proposed project’s total cost is estimated at $995,458 including the cost of a major component replacement in year  25 and the capital cost associated with connecting to the new shower house. $125,000 will be provided as match and the  applicant has expended $72,999 in completing a feasibility study and conceptual design that provides the foundation for the  proposed project. Additionally, the buildings proposed for inclusion in the heat pump system have undergone $32,497 in  energy efficiency upgrades. The City of Seward has experience installing and operating heat pumps and the proposed  district heat loop architecture may provide a model for other communities wishing to use heat pumps.Full funding is  recommended. A 65% design must be accepted by AEA prior to release of funds for items requiring long lead times. A 95%  design must be accepted by AEA prior to release of funds for construction. All deliverables must be accepted by AEA prior to  the release of the final 10% of funds. Election District: O­29 North Kenai Page 94/118     01/07/2016 Page 104 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1243 Heat Application Project Type: HeatHydro, HeatRecovery Energy Region: Copper River Chugach Applicant: Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Maximizing Cordova Hydropower Utilization with Controlled Electro­Thermal Systems Project Description Cordova Electric Cooperative’s hydroelectric power plants are both run of the river and have no capacity to store energy. When 100% of the load is met with hydro, excess water is spilled and used for spinning reserve. This situation occurs for substantial amounts of time for over half the year. Backup diesel power plant must also be kept warm to keep the generators on standby; diesel­fired heaters are used for this purpose. The proposed REF project will: 1) Assess in detail the frequency, amplitude and duration of availability of excess hydropower, 2) Develop economic assessments, and RFP­quality specifications for controlled electrothermal system, implementation at the diesel power plant and the local pool to supplement and displace diesel fuel­based heating systems, 3) Develop economic assessments, and RFP­quality specifications for efficiency upgrades of the cooling systems at the Orca Power Plant, and 4) Provide an assessment of total potential for demand managed electro­thermal systems to maximize hydropower utilization economically.A preliminary study concluded in 2015 that 4,500­10,500 gallons of diesel could potentially be saved annually by managing the loads via electrical heating of the CEC diesel power plant, electrical heating of the pool, and adding heat storage to the system. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments No DMLW permits required at this time; proposal is for continued and expanded data collection, review and interpretation requiring installation of interial facility monitoring devices.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 95/118    01/07/2016 Page 105 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1243 Heat Application Maximizing Cordova Hydropower Utilization with Controlled Electro­Thermal Systems Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.15 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 14 Heat applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $ $392,959   Cost of Electricity $0.34/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $95,733 $0   Price of Fuel $3.68/Gal   Matching Funds $61,996 $0   Household Energy Cost $11,122         Page 96/118   01/07/2016Page 106 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1243 Heat Application Maximizing Cordova Hydropower Utilization with Controlled Electro­Thermal Systems AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended This project is not recommended due primarily to poor economics: high cost of study for marginal benefits, required long life  for the investment to achieve economic payback and the associated uncertainty about whether the resource will be available  for its economic life. The proposed project economics require a 17 year project life to achieve parity with the diesel  alternative. It is noted that about half the potential savings (preheating the diesel plant) requires the demand to remain  relatively the same and the percentage of hydro generation and the operation methods to remain relatively the same.  Additional changes such as alternative utilization of excess power (i.e. transportation), installation of a flywheel and/or  battery, or major demand changes could curtail the electric boiler completely (a similar change in conditions appears to have  resulted in the ORCs current inoperable state). A static situation is unlikely and the feasibility study currently underway for the  Crater Lake hydro should include an excess energy analysis that will shed more light on the potential benefits for heat  utilization. Frequency controlling electric load governors, which also perform as electric boilers, are prevalent and commonly  used to regulate small hydroelectric plant operation. Overall, AEA does not expect the actual installation and use of electric  boilers powered by excess energy only to be an overly challenging or costly effort, probably not much more costly than the  proposed feasibility work itself (AEA estimated construction costs to be less than $100k per boiler). The proposed feasibility  study appears to cost nearly the same as performing the proposed work. Past efforts have already concluded the potential for  savings and found the project to be technically feasible. There appears to be little value to the additional study other than  making operational improvements at existing generation facilities (work that is potentially excluded from Renewable Energy  Fund eligibility). Further, the additional study, by being such a large component of cost, significantly reduces economic  benefit without an apparent commensurate gain. This project is not recommended for funding and will not advance past  Stage 2 of the evaluation process per REF statutes and regulations (AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600­695), and per Section 4 of  the Request for Applications #16012. Election District: P­32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia Page 97/118     01/07/2016 Page 107 of 138       Page 98/118   01/07/2016 Page 108 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1244 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Proposed Phase(s): Construction Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Construction IPEC Gunnuk Creek Hydro Rehabilitation in Kake Project Description Construction of a 500 kW hydro addition to a water supply dam on Gunnuk Creek serving the community of Kake utilizing 130 cfs and 69 ft of head to displace 1,620 MWh of diesel energy (115,000 gallons of fuel, 55% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of $5.7 million with a projected start date of 2018. Proposed project features include 2,100 feet of 54 inch diameter penstock and a single crossflow or francis turbine. IPEC proposes to expand and rehabilitate the existing 7kW hydro project that makes use of the existing water supply dam and hatchery facilities at Gunnuk Creek in Kake, Alaska. Costs and construction risks are minimized because the dam and intake facility have already been constructed, and no new transmission lines or access roads are required. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Inside Passage Electric Cooperative will need to apply for a Permit to Appropriate Water for this project and may need to apply for a Temporary Water Use Authorization if the project moves forward to the permitting stage and prior to the construction phase, respectively.  The DMLW Water Resources Section recommends the applicant consult with our Southeast Office to determine specific water use authorization requirements.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations IPEC will pursue DOE Indian Energy grants over the next several months, and will apply for funds from the next round of RUS' High Energy Cost Grant Program. We believe our chances are fair to good in finding additional grant funding. The economics show that grant funding will provide a much greater economic benefit to IPEC's members. If IPEC's efforts at securing 100% grant funding from the REF and other sources fails over the coming year we will delay the project until we are satisfied we can produce a project with substantial economic benefits to ratepayers. IPEC believes it has the ability to finance projects through NRUCFC loans, if necessary. In fact, IPEC financed a portion of the Gartina Falls project with CFC loans. IPEC didn't borrow any long term funds for about 16 years from 1999­2015. During this period, IPEC worked to pay down debt incurred from the Chilkat Valley Electrification project. IPEC had a high equity ratio of over 56% at 12/31/2014, and is in good financial condition to take on this project.    Page 99/118    01/07/2016 Page 109 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1244 Standard Application IPEC Gunnuk Creek Hydro Rehabilitation in Kake Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)24.23   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)73.00 2. Matching Resources (15)13.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 2.23 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)11.00   4. Project Readiness (5)1.50  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)12.12   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)4 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)1 7. Sustainability (5)4.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)70.85 Total Stage 3 Score (100)70.85   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $5,795,000 $5,715,000   Cost of Electricity $0.59/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $3,920,000 $3,920,000   Price of Fuel $4.05/Gal   Matching Funds $1,545,000 $1,545,000   Household Energy Cost $10,561   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision The City of Kake's application for construction funding is based on a reconnaissance report and IPECs self­funded  continuance of the feasibility and design phases. The reconnaissance report is of good quality and demonstrates the  excellent economic benefits that follow from the utilization of existing infrastructure. The existing infrastructure includes a dam  with an outlet sized for the future penstock and an existing building proposed to serve as the powerhouse. Overall the project  technical and development risk appears very low. AEA notes some concerns including an unrealistic timeframe for completion of design and permitting. Additionally the  conclusions in the reconnaissance study stated further feasibility work is required to determine whether two other alternatives  warrant further consideration. AEA also suggests additional feasibility work address, in detail, additional head potential  through powerhouse, dam modifications, and turbine selection (francis versus crossflow) and the subsequent costs and  benefits. Finally, there are no concept designs provided from which to base the construction costs. Based on the low technical and permitting risk, this project is recommended for funding contingent upon completing  remaining feasibility, design, and permitting work prior to issuing an award. Election District: R­35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 100/118     01/07/2016 Page 110 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1245 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: TDX Adak Generating, Inc. (TAG) ­ TDX Power, Inc. Proposed Phase(s): Feasibility, Design, Construction Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Adak Hydro Power Generator Project Description Feasibility, design, and construction of a 75­90 kW power recovery turbine on a water supply line serving the community of Adak utilizing 3­3.5 cfs and 440 ft of head to generate approximately 330­760 MWh of energy and displace 330­760 MWh of diesel energy (25­54k gallons of fuel, 17­38 % of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of $1.75 million with a projected start date of 2020. Proposed project features include an unspecified turbine type in place of a pressure reducing valve. Adak has high mountains with good snow cover that provide a water resource for hydropower. Currently the pipe line infrastructure is owned by the City of Adak. TDX Adak Generating (TAG) will work with the City on the design, final configuration approvals, construction and operation. A Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study by HATCH (dated 2/16/2013, AEA REF grant 2195450) provided the basis for assessing the hydro power potential. An existing 10" ductile iron pipe from Lake Bonnie Rose to a pressure reducing station, originally used to provide potable water to the now closed military base, will be used as a penstock to keep the construction cost low. The turbine house location will be at the existing PRV station. The estimated power production is 89 kW. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments On­going feasibility study. DNR MLW is recognized as the water rights manager for Alaska & applicant notes that additional consultation with DNR and DFG is required with respect to management of environmental flow restrictions (described as a significantly limiting factor affecting power generation and resevoir development.) Land ownership presumed to be Aleut Corp. or City.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 101/118    01/07/2016Page 111 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1245 Standard Application Adak Hydro Power Generator Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)34.33   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)59.50 2. Matching Resources (15)13.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.75 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)6.50   4. Project Readiness (5)2.67  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)11.75   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)3 6. Local Support (5)3.00   Regional (of all applications)2 7. Sustainability (5)2.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)73.24 Total Stage 3 Score (100)73.24   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $420,146 $1,750,000   Cost of Electricity $1.03/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $294,102 $19,600   Price of Fuel $6.85/Gal   Matching Funds $126,044 $8,400   Household Energy Cost $14,961   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Partial Funding Adak appears to have good hydroelectric potential if water use issues can be mitigated to allow for increased project benefits  which are needed to reach economic parity with the cost of development. Both the Mitt Lake project and the PRV power  recovery, if technically feasible, are impacted by existing water reservations for non­anadromous aquatic habitat.  TDX proposes to proceed with the PRV project under the assumption that the development time will be short and that the  economics are about equal. It is noted that there is a considerable range in the estimated development cost for the power  recovery project and that the overall project size is significantly below present energy needs. It is clear from the previous reconnaissance study by Hatch that continued hydroelectric development should be pursued. The next step would be a feasibility study. TDXs proposal to perform the feasibility study for the power recovery turbine represents  a component of the required overall feasibility work that would include the Mitt Lake project.  Recommended for partial funding to complete only the feasibility study proposed by TDX, not design or construction phases. Election District: S­37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 102/118     01/07/2016 Page 112 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1246 Standard Application Project Type: Wind, Transmission, Solar, Storage Energy Region: Aleutians Applicant: TDX Power, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Recon, Feasibility St. Paul Island 80% Renewable Energy Feasibility Study Project Description St. Paul has a goal of 80% local renewable energy generation for electric, heat and transportation. TDX owns and operates three 225 kW wind turbines that provide wholesale power the City of St. Paul Utility as well as the TDX owned and operated St. Paul Airport. However, most of the electric power on the island is still generated with diesel. TDX is committed to establishing a sustainable source of energy that makes the island essentially independent of imported energy. In order to achieve this, TDX proposes to install additional renewable energy sources such as wind and solar to increase renewable generation. On the demand side TDX proposes to promote, facilitate and install energy savings efficiency measures and technology that takes advantage of excess renewable energy to heat space and water. To initiate the project, TDX proposes a detailed feasibility study to assess the current situation and identify the most cost effective path to achieve the declared goal. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments Feasibility study to determine economically viable options/potential improvements to combined wind and deisel power generation system. No improvements planned at this time.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 103/118    01/07/2016 Page 113 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1246 Standard Application St. Paul Island 80% Renewable Energy Feasibility Study Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)19.64   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)48.83 2. Matching Resources (15)11.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.66 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)2.94   4. Project Readiness (5)2.33  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)10.25   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)18 6. Local Support (5)4.00   Regional (of all applications)4 7. Sustainability (5)2.17   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)52.33 Total Stage 3 Score (100)52.33   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $ $5,731,500   Cost of Electricity $0.47/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $265,200 $265,200   Price of Fuel $4.48/Gal   Matching Funds $66,300 $66,300   Household Energy Cost $8,560   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The project would produce valuable information on choosing between renewable energy, fossil­fuels and energy efficiency  for high­contribution wind systems. The proposal is thin on details. The cost is high for a normal reconnaissance and  feasibility scope with no met tower or other renewable resource assessment. Recommend full funding but with a series of  gating deliverables to be determined by AEA and written into the grant agreement, if issued, that must be reviewed before  funding for the next deliverable is released. Election District: S­37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 104/118     01/07/2016 Page 114 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1247 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Bristol Bay Applicant: City of Chignik Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Design Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project Project Description The Lake and Peninsula Borough applied on behalf of the City of Chignik for the design and permitting of a reconfigured and new 385 kW storage hydro on Indian Creek serving the community of Chignik Bay utilizing 18 cfs and 380 ft of head and 200 acre ft of storage to generate approximately 2,140 MWh of energy and displacing 900 MWh of diesel energy (64,000 gallons of fuel, 95% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of $8 million with a projected start date of 2020. Proposed project features include a 25 foot high dam, 7280 feet of 24 inch diameter penstock, a single pelton or turgo turbine, 9170 ft of access road, and 1,600 ft of transmission line. The City, Tribal Council, Borough, CE2 Engineers, and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium are in a collaborative venture to manage the project successfully with ANTHC taking the lead on project management. Through this project the City will see enhancements in the areas of water supply delivery, elimination of the diversion of 2 cfs from the anadramous habitat due to the existing project which would be decommissioned, reduced dependence on fossil fuels, and reduced maintenance of electric generation infrastructure. The City of Chignik is already a FERC license holder for the hydroelectric project which can significantly reduce the permitting timeline. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments A DMLW Water Resources authorization is recognized to be required. City of Chignik holds title to most affected uplands, remaining potentially impacted parcel owned by Chignik Lagoon Native Corporation.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations ANTHC has accounted for cost overruns related to potential changes in site conditions, unknown or unforeseen issues, logistics, etc. and have included that projection into the costs requested for the project.    Page 105/118    01/07/2016 Page 115 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1247 Standard Application Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)20.07   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)73.67 2. Matching Resources (15)7.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.86 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)11.22   4. Project Readiness (5)3.50  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)13.25   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)8 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)1 7. Sustainability (5)4.83   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)64.87 Total Stage 3 Score (100)64.87   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $7,200,000 $7,783,428   Cost of Electricity $0.49/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $1,025,175 $1,025,175   Price of Fuel $3.81/Gal   Matching Funds $60,251 $60,251   Household Energy Cost $8,746   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The City of Chignik has made significant progress on rehabilitation and development of the proposed project since acquiring  the aging hydro and water conveyance system from private ownership. The ownership transfer allowed the City to utilize REF  funds for the feasibility study which found that a modified project with a powerhouse located near the upstream limit of salmon habitat had the best economic and environmental benefits. Significant benefits include improvement in resource utilization,  public water system improvement, potential for hatchery development, access and recreation improvement. Potential  concerns include aquatic and permitting issues. This grant request is for funding the design and permitting work required to advance the development which is expected to  result in nearly complete displacement of diesel electric generation for the long established fishing community. Proposed  work consists of aquatic, cultural, FERC permitting investigations, LIDAR topographic surveying, geotechnical investigations,  and hydroelectric engineering design with the end goal of having a construction ready project. AEA recommends the applicant focus on retaining qualified engineering, regulatory, biological, and cultural consultants  through an experienced hydroelectric developer/project manager as a condition of award. Election District: S­37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 106/118     01/07/2016Page 116 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1248 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro, Storage, Other Energy Region: Copper River Chugach Applicant: Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design Crater Lake Power and Water Project Project Description Design of a new 500 kW storage hydro at Crater Lake serving the community of Cordova utilizing 5 cfs and 1440 ft of head and 790 acre ft of storage to generate approximately 2,260 MWhs of energy and displace 2,000 MWhs of diesel energy (145,000 gallons of fuel, 25% of existing diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of $17.3 million with a projected start date of 2020. Proposed project features include a low height high dam, 3,500 feet of 16 inch diameter penstock, and a single pelton turbine. Crater Lake is a perched lake located directly above existing City of Cordova chlorinator building and water supply line, and a CEC transmission line from the Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project to Cordova. In addition to providing improved generation, in part from storage capability (Cordova’s first water storage project), the project is expected to improve water supply to the City of Cordova. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments DNR OPMP coordinated permitting process underway or completed including RSAs with MLW Land and Water Sections.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations CEC is near 50% equity, and recent meetings with CEC’s lenders indicate that CEC cancomfortable finance the estimated construction portion of this project. CEC anticipates strongconstruction­phase partner contributions from the City of Cordova for the water resource element,and the possibility of federal funding assistance from one of the many municipal water system orenergy system grant or loan programs.    Page 107/118    01/07/2016 Page 117 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1248 Standard Application Crater Lake Power and Water Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)25.52   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)45.17 2. Matching Resources (15)13.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.91 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)0.89   4. Project Readiness (5)1.50  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)  Statewide (of 38 Standard applications) 21 6. Local Support (5)2.00   Regional (of all applications)2 7. Sustainability (5)4.00   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)46.91 Total Stage 3 Score (100)46.91   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $17,306,696 $17,306,696   Cost of Electricity $0.34/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $1,227,000 $1,227,000   Price of Fuel $3.68/Gal   Matching Funds $420,680 $420,680   Household Energy Cost $11,122   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding with Special Provision This application was initially not recommended due to incomplete prior phase (per the Request for Applications #16012,  Sections 2, 2.4, 2.5, applicants must complete prior phases of work prior to receiving funding for future phases).    AEA found uncertainty both in the technical and economic aspects and recommended CEC apply for design funding when  the feasibility study is complete, as long as it indicates a technically and economically feasible project. The applicant requested reconsideration and provided recently completed draft memoranda from the feasibility study  contractor. The draft memoranda describe a 500 kW power project with an estimated total cost of approximately $17 million  that will offset approximately 2million kWh of diesel electric generation annually.  Through the appeal process, AEA agreed with the applicant in that feasibility data was available and requested that staff  score the project. Consequently staff scored the project and is recommending it for full funding with the special condition that  the feasibility study is completed, reviewed and approved by AEA, and demonstrates a technically and economically feasible  project.    Election District: P­32 Kodiak/Cordova/Seldovia Page 108/118     01/07/2016Page 118 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1249 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: City of Tenakee Springs Dba Tenakee Springs Electric Department Proposed Phase(s): Construction Applicant Type: Local Government Recommended Phase(s): Construction Indian River Hydroelectric Project ­ Construction Project Description The proposed project is construction of a 180 kW new run of river hydro on Indian River serving the community of Tenakee Springs utilizing 50 cfs and 65 ft of head to generate approximately 680 MWhs of energy and displace 350 MWhs of diesel energy (34,000 gallons of fuel, 95% of current diesel generation) annually at an estimated total project cost of $5.5 million with a projected start date of 2017. Proposed project features include a diversion structure with integrated fish ladder, 1,700 feet of 36 inch diameter penstock, a single crossflow turbine, and 4,300 ft transmission line. At least an additional 6,500 gallons of fuel oil can be displaced by heating public buildings (community building and school) with excess energy from the hydro project. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The City of Tenakee Springs holds a current Permit to Appropriate Water (LAS 27836).  The City of Tenakee Springs may need to apply for a Temporary Water Use Authorization prior to the construction phase of the project.  The DMLW Water Resources Section recommends the applicant consult with our Southeast Office to determine specific water use authorization requirements. A shoreland public easement may be needed and an upland easement ADL 106204 to USFS exists.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The City is eligible to secure additional funding for the project through the AEA Power Project Fund (PPF), State Municipal Bond Fund (MBF), or the AIDEA SETS Fund. The City has held initial discussions with the PPF and MBF and intends to make a decision on funding program and apply for funds before the end of 2015. Project pro forma financials indicate utility rates will initially be comparable with existing diesel­based rates without the requested RE program grant funds, slowly decreasing over time as diesel fuel costs escalate. The Requested grant funds would lower utility rates by approximately $0.13 per kWh. See project pro forma financials in application Attachment G.    Page 109/118    01/07/2016 Page 119 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1249 Standard Application Indian River Hydroelectric Project ­ Construction Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)26.38   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)56.33 2. Matching Resources (15)15.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.94 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)5.44   4. Project Readiness (5)5.00  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)2.00   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)11 6. Local Support (5)5.00   Regional (of all applications)3 7. Sustainability (5)4.17   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)62.99 Total Stage 3 Score (100)62.99   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $2,298,280 $5,473,280   Cost of Electricity $0.70/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $809,000 $809,000   Price of Fuel $4.26/Gal   Matching Funds $1,115,280 $1,115,280   Household Energy Cost $11,498   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The grant request is to augment existing funding to reduce the new debt applicant requires to complete the project. The  project recently completed the first phase of construction and is expected to resume construction after bids are advertised the  first half of 2016. If awarded, the additional funding is expected to reduce the cost of energy by $0.13/kWh through a decrease of $45k in the  predicted annual debt service payment. The applicant has performed well recently in executing the development and construction phases of this project resulting in  high scores for project management and qualifications. The first phase of construction completed the highest risk  geotechnical portion of the project consisting of the access road and site grading at the intake and powerhouse sites.  Remaining construction carries less risk and designs for infrastructure are complete and fully detailed. All permits have been  obtained. Consequently the project scores well technically. The additional funding request would cover project costs that are above the original estimates. As the overall project cost has  increased and the benefit has remained constant the economic score has declined to slightly less than 1.  Recommended for full funding. Election District: R­35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 110/118     01/07/2016 Page 120 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1250 Standard Application Project Type: Hydro Energy Region: Southeast Applicant: Community of Elfin Cove Non­Profit Corporation, Elfin Cove Utility Commission Proposed Phase(s): Design Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Design Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting Project Description The proposed project is a 35 kW run­of­river upper project with a 105 kW storage lower project for a total installed capacity of 140 kW, based on updated hydrology and utility loan data reported in a January 2014 sizing analysis. The project will include a run­of­river hydroelectric plant between Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake (upper project) and a storage hydroelectric project between Jim's Lake and tidewater (lower project). The recommended project is estimated to displace 89% of the annual diesel fuel consumed by the electric utility generators. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments The Elfin Cove Utility Commission (Community of Elfin Cove) has submitted two Applications for Water Rights (LAS 29817 and LAS 29818).  The Elfin Cove Utility Commission may need to apply for a Temporary Water Use Authorization prior to the construction phase of the project.  The DMLW Water Resources Section recommends the applicant consult with our Southeast Office to determine specific water use authorization requirements. May need a shoreland public easement.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations The community is open to financing construction with a combination of grants and loans to see the project completed and start realizing its benefits. While grants will of course provide the greatest immediate rate relief and public benefits, The community has previously debt­financed local infrastructure projects, and would consider debt finance for the hydro project. Our bulk fuel facility was financed with a loan from AEA/AIDEA. We are still paying off this loan and the loan is current.    Page 111/118    01/07/2016Page 121 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1250 Standard Application Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)27.55   Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100)67.33 2. Matching Resources (15)11.00   Benefit/Cost Ratio 1.22 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)9.11   4. Project Readiness (5)4.33  Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)6.63   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)6 6. Local Support (5)4.00   Regional (of all applications)2 7. Sustainability (5)3.67   Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)66.29 Total Stage 3 Score (100)66.29   Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $3,835,000 $3,705,000   Cost of Electricity $0.75/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $88,000 $88,000   Price of Fuel $4.37/Gal   Matching Funds $22,000 $22,000   Household Energy Cost $12,008   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Full Funding The Community of Elfin Cove Non­profit Corporation applied for an $88,000 grant to partially fund a $110,000, 140kW hydro  project's permitting process. AEA has the following concerns about this project, which should be monitored if it is funded by the legislature: The population is low and has decreased in recent years. The electric demand is very seasonal. If population continues to  decrease in the off­season, it may be difficult to operate the hydro facility continuously. Many hydro projects experience cost  overruns. If this one is financed by the community, cost overruns could be problematic for the project and the community. This project is recommended for full funding. Election District: R­35 Sitka/Petersburg Page 112/118     01/07/2016 Page 122 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1251 Standard Application Project Type: Solar Energy Region: Yukon­Koyukuk Upper Tanana Applicant: Circle Utilities, Inc.Proposed Phase(s): Construction Applicant Type: Utility Recommended Phase(s): Feasibility Circle 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Project Description Solar power feasibility for the community of Circle including resource assessment, integration and interconnection studies, and cost and preliminary design for a 100 kW solar array. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments As per application, project is not on state­owned land.  Financing Opportunities/Limitations N/A    Page 113/118    01/07/2016Page 123 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1251 Standard Application Circle 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.44 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $$00   Cost of Electricity $0.71/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $75,000 $0   Price of Fuel $3.30/Gal   Matching Funds $10,000 $0   Household Energy Cost $9,399   AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended Circle Utilities Inc. applied for a $75,000 grant to fund a $85,000 feasibility study of a 100kW to 200kW solar photovoltaic  project. The project would be located adjacent to the powerplant on utility property. This project is not recommended for the  following reasons:   1. 100kW to 200kW is too large a solar PV project to integrate onto a grid that had annual average loads of 44kW in FY15  unless a significant percentage of the solar output is curtailed.    2. The smallest genset is 100kW. According to John Deere, it should not be run below 30% load for extended periods of  time. Since the loads are already below this threshold, adding solar PV would only reduce the minimum loads on the diesel  genset.   3. The project economics are poor. Even when evaluated with a more reasonably sized 10kW solar system, at an installed  cost of $8 per Watt (less than Eagle’s recent experience at approximately $10 per Watt), the benefit cost ratio is 0.44.  The  total construction cost in this scenario is only $80,000, which is less than was requested in this application for a feasibility  study.   4. Not enough detail was included in the application. It does not appear that the applicant used the best practices checklist  for solar, as was recommended on the first page of the Request for Applications #16012.  This project is not recommended for funding and will not advance past Stage 2 of the evaluation process per REF statutes  and regulations (AS 42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600­695), and per Section 4 of the Request for Applications #16012. Election District: C­6 Eielson/Denali/Upper Yukon/Border Page 114/118     01/07/2016 Page 124 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1252 Standard Application Project Type: Hydrokinetic Energy Region: Bristol Bay Applicant: Igiugig Village Council d/b/a Igiugig Electric Company Proposed Phase(s): Design, Construction Applicant Type: Government Entity Recommended Phase(s): Design, Construction Igiugig RivGen® Power System Commercial Project Project Description Igiugig Village Council (IVC) requests Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) funding through the Renewable Energy Fund Round IX program (RFA 16012) in the amount of $1,490,077 for the Igiugig RivGen Power System Commercial Project (Project), which includes Phase III Final Design and Permitting and Phase IV Construction of a 20­kilowatt RivGen Power System by ORPC Alaska, LLC, a wholly­owned subsidiary of Ocean Renewable Power Company (collectively ORPC). As a remote village that has extremely high energy costs and relies on diesel fuel to meet electricity and heating needs, IVC seeks to lower energy costs by utilizing the Kvichak River as a local, clean, renewable energy source. This Project will be the first commercial installation of a hydrokinetic power system of any type in the state of Alaska. The Project follows IVCs successful completion of previous project phases funded by AEA, i.e., Phase I Reconnaissance and Phase II Feasibility and Conceptual Design. The Project also follows ORPCs successful demonstration of the RivGen Power System, which generated electricity from the Kvichak River in August 2014, and of the optimized system, which provided over 2 MWh of clean power to Igiugigs local grid during the 2015 demonstration, also funded in part by AEA. On April 1, 2015, IVC submitted a draft Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pilot license application. The proposed REF project works synergistically with a proposal submitted to the US Department of Energy in July 2015 (EE1310­1517), which will provide matching construction funds. DNR/DMLW Feasibility Comments An easement (or other appropriate authorization as determined by SCRO) will be required for any submerged electrical cable in the Kvichak River, and a lease (or other appropriate authorization as determined by SCRO) from SCRO will likely be required for the RivGen unit itself. (Depending on how ORPC connects a submerged electric cable from the unit in the Kvichak River, it could impact ADL 226067, an avigation and hazards easement to DOT&PF, Central Region, ADL 221403, a Management Right issued to DOT&PF, ADL 230875, a private, non­exclusive easement issued to United Utilities, Inc., and ADL 231288, a public utility easement issued to the Village of Igiugig. If any portion of electrical cable would cross uplands it may impact three seperate management agreements (ADLs 221403, 224031, and 228387) for the Airport at Igiugig.)  Financing Opportunities/Limitations As a federally recognized tribe, IVC will be eligible for federal funding opportunities or able to leverage private grants. Our tribe is the majority owner of an 8(a) contracting company that has invested in a large rock quarry, to quarry rock for the next 30+ years. In order to purchase the property, we took out a large loan from the Small Business Administration, which imposes certain restrictions that prevents IVC from borrowing without prior permission. IVC works closely with Igiugig Native Corporation for smaller loans and financing for village projects when needed. In the past we borrowed from the native corporation to purchase houses. The regional corporation, Bristol Bay Development Fund, is supportive of this project and willing to invest if needed.    Page 115/118    01/07/2016Page 125 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1252 Standard Application Igiugig RivGen® Power System Commercial Project Stage 3 Scoring Summary Criterion (Max Score)Score  Feasibility Analysis 1. Cost of Energy (35)  Stage 2 Tech & Econ Score (100) 2. Matching Resources (15)  Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.20 3. Stage 2 Feasibility (20)  4. Project Readiness (5) Project Rank 5. Benefits (15)   Statewide (of 38 Standard applications)   6. Local Support (5)  Regional (of all applications) 7. Sustainability (5)    Stage 3 Ranking Score (100)  Total Stage 3 Score (100)    Funding & Cost Requested Recommended Total Cost Through Construction $2,131,740 $2,131,740   Cost of Electricity $0.81/kWh   REF9 Grant Funds $1,490,077 $0   Price of Fuel $7.33/Gal   Matching Funds $641,663 $0   Household Energy Cost $16,003         Page 116/118   01/07/2016Page 126 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund: Round 9 Application Summaries App #1252 Standard Application Igiugig RivGen® Power System Commercial Project AEA Review Comments & Recommendation Not Recommended The proposal from the Igiugig Village Council to complete final design and construction of a river hydrokinetic power project  follows years of work starting in 2008 with resource assessment and continuing with site characterization through device  demonstration. It also builds on experience and information gained from an Emerging Energy Technology Fund (EETF)  award and other significant state and federal investments in hydrokinetics. The community has actively pursued a  hydrokinetic installation and the project team has been on the forefront of hydrokinetic development, including design and  permitting.The proposed location in the Kvichak River is widely considered the most promising for a hydrokinetic device in  the state with clear water, consistent current velocities, and lack of river ice formation. Significant salmon runs will play a  central role in project permitting and require extensive biological monitoring. While the site and river characteristics are  unique in Alaska, many aspects of the project could result in information transferrable to other sites and other device types  and could contribute to lowering costs for similar projects in the future.  The project proposes to use a second generation  device that has not yet been constructed and would still need to overcome numerous hurdles to be successful. As a first­of­a­ kind project, costs are expected to be high. Costly device retrieval and redeployment would need to occur annually, at a  minimum. As proposed, the calculated benefit to cost ratio under current assumptions is around 0.2. Given the state of  development of the technology, the proposed project does not compete favorably in the Renewable Energy Fund (REF)  process on economic or technical terms with more mature technologies. AEA examined what it would take to obtain a benefit  to cost ratio of 1. In order to be economical it is projected permitting and engineering costs must be drastically reduced, the  device cost would need to drop, and operations costs would have to be very low. It is within the realm of possibility that  continued development and testing could result in a significant reduction in the upfront engineering work and a streamlined  permit process. Continued development and testing could also result in lower capital and maintenance costs. Advancing this  technology may solve the economic issues. The Renewable Energy Fund regulations require that for demonstration projects,  recommendation can be made if there is potential for application in other areas of the state; the need for the project is shown;  and the risks of the proposed system are reasonable and warrant demonstration. There is certainly a large need, and  potential, for a viable hydrokinetic project. Extrapolating application of this device to other hydrokinetic sites throughout the  state remains a significant hurdle. The Kvichak River site in Igiugig is somewhat unique in that the water in that portion of the  river is very clean and generally lacks debris and sediment load because it is at the outlet of a large lake. Most sites across  Alaska however have significant amounts of debris and sediment loads. Progress is being made on a debris diverter but such a device adds to the cost of the system further challenging the project economics. On the basis that the ORPC technology  appears to have limited potential economical application at other river sites throughout the state this project is not  recommended. AEA recognizes that the quality of the resource, the outstanding commitment of the community and project  team, and the investment in site characterization and preparation combine to make this a compelling river hydrokinetic  project. However, the technical and economic challenges of this developing technology do not yet allow it to compete well as  a standard REF project, and the project's ability as a demonstration project to apply to other parts of the state are limited due  to unique river characteristics. Therefore AEA does not recommend funding this project at this time.This project is not  recommended for funding and will not advance past Stage 2 of the evaluation process per REF statutes and regulations (AS  42.45.045, 3 AAC 107.600­695), and per Section 4 of the Request for Applications #16012. Election District: S­37 Bristol Bay/Aleutians/Upper Kuskokwim Page 117/118     01/07/2016 Page 127 of 138       Page 118/118   01/07/2016 Page 128 of 138 $29.09 $6.97 Round IX Recommendations by Application Type Millions of $'s Standard Heat 26 13 Round IX Recommendations by Application Type # of projects Standard Heat Page 129 of 138 $21.44 $4.57 $3.40 $2.02 $1.89 $1.69 $0.75 $0.27 $0.05 Round IX Recommendation by Project Technology Millions of $'s Hydro Wind Heat Recovery Transmission Biomass Heat Pumps Storage of Renewable Other Solar PV 17 5 5 1 5 3 1 1 1 Round IX Recommendation by Project Technology # of projects Hydro Wind Heat Recovery Transmission Biomass Heat Pumps Storage of Renewable Other Solar PV Page 130 of 138 $7.58 $5.89 $4.78$4.63 $4.03 $2.46 $1.94 $1.94 $1.03 $0.91 $0.89 Round IX Recommendations by Region Millions of $'s Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Copper River/ Chugach Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana North Slope Kodiak Aleutians Bristol Bay Northwest Arctic Bering Straits 9 4 3 2 3 2 3 6 1 3 3 Round IX Recommendations by Region # of projects Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Copper River/ Chugach Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana North Slope Kodiak Aleutians Bristol Bay Northwest Arctic Bering Straits Page 131 of 138 Recon, Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility, Design Design Design, Construction Construction Funding $265,200 $1,423,600 $539,200 $10,287,852 $7,010,434 $16,535,489 Count 1 8 2 13 8 7 $0 $2 $4 $6 $8 $10 $12 $14 $16 $18 MillionsRound IX Recommendations by Phases Page 132 of 138 !. !. !. !. !. !.o o !. o "/ oo Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River Chugach Kodiak Lower Yukon Kuskokwim North Slope Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana 1242 1238 1234 1233 1222 1218 1217 1215 1214 1213 1211 12091208 0 50 100 150 200 Mi Renewable Energy Fund Round IXRecommended Heat Projects Energy Region o Biomass !.Heat Pump !.Heat Recovery "/Heat Recovery/Heat Pump Page 133 of 138 Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River Chugach Kodiak Lower Yukon Kuskokwim North Slope Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana 1250 1249 1248 1247 1246 1244 1239 1237 1235 1232 1231 1226 1225 1224 1223 1221 1220 1219 1216 1212 1207 1205 1202 1201 1210 0 50 100 150 200 Mi Renewable Energy FundRound IXRecommended Standard Projects Energy Region !.Transmission po Hydro Solar Wind $+Other 1245 Aleutians Page 134 of 138 Rationale for partial funding recommendations Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Project # Project name Reason for partial funding recommendation 1245 Adak Hydro Application requested funding for feasibility, design and construction. Recommended for partial funding to complete the feasibility study. 1238 Koyuk Water Heat Recovery Application was for funding final design and construction. Project economics are marginal so AEA recommends limiting funding to final design to improve project economics and better assess value. 1233 Grayling Water Heat Recovery Application was for funding final design and construction. AEA recommends funding only the design phase to allow for improved construction cost estimates prior to funding the construction phase. Requested design costs of $75,760 (17.5% of total project cost) is higher than expected based on the complexity of the project. Partial funding of $50,000 recommended for final design phase only. 1221 Old Harbor Hydro Total design budget appears excessive. Recommend funding full design and partial geotech funding with the recommendation that GPR and/or seismic surveys be done prior to investing in costly helicopter supported drilling. 1214 Eek Water Heat Recovery Application was for final design and construction. AEA recommends funding only the design phase to allow for improved construction cost estimates prior to funding the construction phase. Requested design costs of $68,262 (21% of total project cost) is higher than expected based on the complexity of the project. Partial funding of $50,000 recommended for final design phase only. 1215 Huslia Water and Clinic Biomass Application was for funding final design and construction. The economics of this project are challenging. Recommend partial funding of $53,116 to complete the design phase only and work to improve the economics of the project. 1235 Scammon Bay Hydro Application requested funding for stream gauging and preliminary design. AEA recommends the project for partial funding to complete stream gauging to better understand the hydroelectric resource potential of Hillside Creek. 1201 Unalaska Inline Micro Turbines Application was for funding feasibility, final design and construction. AEA recommends partially funding the feasibility and final design phases of this project to better understand operation of power recovery turbine and PRV under varying flow conditions and events such as load rejection. 1217 Klawock School Biomass Application was for funding final design and construction. While the economics of this project are good, the engineering will be challenging due to the site constraints. Recommend partial funding of $111,986 for the development of final design and a business/operating plan. 1210 Chugach Community Solar Chugach Electric's application for a 500kW solar garden project is recommended for funding at 50% of the requested level. The applicant requested a $100,000 grant to match $100,000 in a cash contribution from Chugach Electric. However, AEA has estimated that the applicant should be able to complete the proposed feasibility study, conceptual design and cost estimate for $100,000. 1209 Ketchikan Schools Central Heating Application requested feasibility and design funding. The economics of this project are challenging but there are opportunities in the feasibility phase to identify an economically viable option. Recommend partial funding of $40,000 for a feasibility study. Page 135 of 138 Renewable Energy Fund Regional Distribution within the Governor’s Budget REF Round 9 Below is the approach to regional distribution. Regional distribution only applies to the projects that fall within the Governor’s proposed budget, this year $5 million. Calculating a regional funding target: Use a regional population weighted “burden of energy cost” metric to establish regional funding bands. The burden of energy cost for a household is calculated based on:  Residential electric costs assuming 500 kWh/month use  Heating fuel cost for a community assuming regional consumption from the Cold Climate Housing Research Center’s housing assessment. Consumption levels vary based on a number of factors, most importantly temperature and house size.  Household income (Census: American Community Survey 3 year average) Burden of energy cost = (HH cost of electric + heat energy) / HH income A regional population weighted burden of energy cost is calculated for each energy region in the state. The burden number is then used to calculate a target funding level for each region, such that regions with high energy cost burden are eligible to receive more funding cumulatively across all years of the REF. Underserved: In order for a region to be classified as underserved they must have received less than 50 percent of the calculated target. Projects in underserved regions will be bumped up on the list (if the project they are replacing is in an adequately or overserved region).  Based on Round 1-8 funding both Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana and Bering Straits are considered underserved. Y-K/Upper Tanana needs $5.6 million to reach 50% of their targeted funding allocation and Bering Straits needs $361,075.  In Round 9 three projects were moved up on the list; two from Bering Straits and one from Y-K/Upper Tanana. Overserved: For a region to be considered overserved they must have received more than two times their calculated target.  Based on Round 1-8 funding both Southeast and the Railbelt are considered overserved. The Southeast region has received just over 5 times their target funding allocation and the Railbelt 3.5 times their target.  To achieve a better balance of funding across the state, regions that are determined to be overserved will be capped so their share of the overall fund cannot grow. This rule did not affect any region this round. Page 136 of 138 The following table identifies by energy region: REF funding to date, the burden of energy cost, and Round 9 funding before and after the regional distribution is applied. Energy Region Total Rounds 1-8 Funding % of Total Funding Burden of Energy Cost Pre-stage 4 R9 recommendations Post-stage 4 R9 recommendations Aleutians $17,798,352 7% 11.42% $668,630 $668,630 Bering Straits $21,429,215 8% 34.04% $650,047 $881,370 Bristol Bay $13,647,042 5% 20.48% $0 $0 Copper River/Chugach $21,900,938 8% 12.23% $3,400,000 $3,400,000 Kodiak $19,499,319 8% 13.16% $0 $0 Lower Yukon- Kuskokwim $33,573,319 13% 25.87% $0 $0 North Slope $2,185,342 1% 3.31% $0 $0 Northwest Arctic $23,203,362 9% 24.56% $0 $0 Railbelt $30,106,142 12% 6.73% $281,323 $0 Southeast $60,014,716 23% 9.34% $0 $0 Yukon- Koyukuk/Upper Tanana $15,093,379 6% 32.31% $0 $50,000 Statewide $565,439 0% 8.85% $0 $0 TOTAL $259,016,564 100% $5,000,000 $5,000,000 The table below shows the target allocation based on the burden of energy cost and the difference between actual (R 1-8) funding levels and 50 percent of that target. Cumulative R1-8 funding Energy Region Target allocation based on burden of energy cost Funding amount above/(below) 50% of target funding level Aleutians $14,628,320 $10,484,192 Bering Straits $43,580,580 ($361,075) Bristol Bay $26,219,322 $537,381 Copper River/Chugach $15,659,389 $14,071,243 Kodiak $16,848,555 $11,075,041 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim $33,124,569 $17,011,035 North Slope $4,241,561 $64,561 Northwest Arctic $31,445,048 $7,480,838 Railbelt $8,615,417 $25,798,433 Southeast $11,957,725 $54,035,854 Y-K/Upper Tanana $41,368,641 ($5,590,942) Page 137 of 138 Summary of AEA Technical Assistance on Round 9 REF Applications January 6, 2016 AEA staff members Jessie Huff and Chris Gobah provided technical assistance on 7 applications to Round 9 of the Renewable Energy Fund. Of those applications, 4 were recommended for funding by AEA program managers. The specific nature of assistance given varied from brief communications about whether a given application should be submitted to in-depth review of application drafts and recommendations for improvement, but did not include any actual writing of application text. The table below lists the specific applications that received assistance. Application Number Project Name Applicant Name Recommended? 1204 Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project: Phase II Alaska Power Company No 1219 False Pass Hydroelectric Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design City of False Pass Yes 1221 Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project: Geotechnical Study and Final Design Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Inc. Yes 1226 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI) Yes 1230 Kotzebue 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Kotzebue Electric Association, Inc. No 1245 Adak Hydro Power Generator TDX Adak Generating, Inc. (TAG) - TDX Power, Inc. Yes 1251 Circle 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Circle Utilities, Inc. No Page 138 of 138