The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREFAC Presentation December 2019-CEREDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKAREDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) Neil McMahon Program Manager Energy Planning REFAC Meeting December 3, 2019 REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 2 Agenda 1-1:15 p.m.Welcome and Introductions 1:15-1:20 p.m.Approve minutes and agenda 1:20-2:10 p.m.Refreshers Energy in Alaska REF Evaluation process REFAC Advisory Role REF impact to date 2:10-2:45 p.m.Informational Items Fund balance One-page description for potential funders Request for Application schedule Incentivizing Operations and Financial Planning Metering requirements 2:45-3 p.m.Break 3-3:45 p.m.Action Items Change funding limits Prioritize early stage projects Increase local match weighting Incentivize supply-and demand-side efficiency 3:45-4 p.m.Member comments 4 p.m.Adjourn REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 3 740,000 People 660,000 Sq. Miles 200 Islanded power systems Energy in Alaska REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 4 Alaska Generation Infrastructure REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 5 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Percent of electricity generated by fuel source Source: Energy Statistics, EIA, and PCE data (2008-2017) Coal Natural gas Oil Wind Hydro18% 29% Alaska State Energy Policy (2010): Goal of 50% of electricity generated by renewable source by 2025 REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Eligible Projects Must: Be a new project not in operation in 2008, or a and Be a hydro, direct use of renewable energy, a facility that generates electricity from fuel cells that use hydrogen from RE or natural gas (certain conditions for natural gas), or be a facility that generates electricity using renewable energy. Evaluation Process: Develop a methodology for determining the order of projects that may receive assistance, most weight being given to projects that serve any area in which the average cost of energy to each resident of the area exceeds the average cost to each resident of other areas of the state, significant weight given to a statewide balance of grant funds and to the amount of matching funds 6 REF Statutory Guidance REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 7 Four Stage REF Evaluation Process Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Completeness/eligibility (AEA staff) Feasibility and public benefit (AEA, DNR, Contractors) Technical and economic evaluation Qualifications and experience of team Project management, development, operation Ranking projects (AEA/REFAC) Cost of energy single biggest criterion (30%) Levelized feasibility score from stage 2 (25%) Other criteria include public benefits, readiness, local support and match Regional spreading (AEA/REFAC) REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA REFAC Advisory Committee 8 NAME SECTOR APPOINTED BY Meera Kohler Small rural electric utility Governor Unfilled Representative of an Alaska Native Organization Governor Chris Rose Business/Organization involved in renewable energy Governor Alicia Siira Denali Commission Governor Lee Thibert Large urban electric utility Governor Natasha von Imhof Senate member 2 Senate President David Wilson Senate member 1 Senate President Adam Wool House member 2 Speaker of the House Tiffany Zulkosky House member 1 Speaker of the House REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Statutes (AS 42.45.045) AEA “in consultation with the advisory committee…develop a methodology for determining the order of projects that may receive assistance….” AEA “shall, at least once each year, solicit from the advisory committee funding recommendations for all grants.” Regulations (3 AAC 107.660) (a) To establish a statewide balance of recommended projects, the authority will provide to the advisory committee established in AS 42.45.045 (i) a statewide and regional ranking of all applications recommended for grants. (b) In consultation with the advisory committee established in AS 42.45.045 (i), the authority will (1) make a final prioritized list of all recommended projects, giving significant weight to providing a statewide balance of grant money, and taking into consideration the amount of money that may be available, number and types of projects within each region, regional rank, and statewide rank 9 REFAC Roles REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA REFAC Input Since Inception Includes: 10 Increase focus on high energy cost communities Encourage heat projects Encourage energy efficiency points in scoring for heat projects Regional spreading of grant funds Support recommendations to the legislature REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA REF Appropriations ($ millions) $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX REF Round 11 Rounds I-IX: 851 total applications received 295 applications funded $268 million granted $165 million in direct project match REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 12 REF Spending to Date by Region ($ millions) REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 13 Approximately 30 active REF projects remain to be completed REF Projects Rounds I-IX REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Wind $91.5 Hydro $84.8 Biomass $27.0 Heat Recovery $20.3 Heat Pump $16.4 Transmission $12.5 Ocean/River $3.9 Solar $0.5 Other $0.1 14 REF Spending to Date by Resource ($ millions) REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 15 REF Fuel Savings From Construction Projects 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Fuel Displaced (diesel equivalent, gallons)MillionsBiomass Heat Pump Heat Recovery Hydro Biofuel Solar Transmission Wind Wind to Heat Total fuel cost savings in 2017: ~$74M REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 1616 $- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Value of diesel saved in PCE-eligible communities (2009-2017) Wind to Heat Wind Transmission Solar PV Hydro Heat Recovery REF Projects in PCE-Eligible Communities Total fuel cost savings to PCE- eligible utilities 2009-2017: ~$29M REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 17 Fund balance One-page description for potential funders Request for Application schedule Business operations plan template/Best Practices checklists Metering requirements Other Informational Items REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA REF Balance and Potential Funding 18 Uncommitted: ~$8.58M as of 9/30/2019 Fiscal Year PCE endowment fund earnings Excess earnings from PCE Endowment potentially available to REF Action FY20 $76.6M $454,000 Vetoed by governor FY21 $74.1M <$200,000 Operating Fund Commitment: $1.948M (FY20) $1.4M (FY21 proposed) REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 19 One Pager and Potential Funders Requested by REFAC in November 2018 REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 20 Action Expected Dates RFA release March 2020 Applications due June/July 2020 REFAC meeting July/August 2020 Evaluate applications July-November 2020 REFAC meeting December 2020/January 2021 Deliver recommendations to legislature January 29, 2021 Grants could begin July 1, 2021 RFA Release Schedule REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 21 Current Rules Statute No Reference Regulations Public benefit… “ability to ..operate and maintain the project for the life of the project.” Recommended additions to Scoring Criteria and Grant application Stage 2 Criterion 2 Qualifications and Experience (20% of Stage 2) The applicant, partners, and/or contractors have sufficient knowledge and experience to successfully complete and operate the project. The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete and operate the project. For construction projects, include the final operational and business plan completed under Phase III--Final Design & Permitting, including financial and operational plans for end-of- life. Operational plans should be detailed and include labor and material costs, training needed, minor and major repair schedules, etc. [This would be added to 4.1.2 Expertise and Resources in grant application Stage 3: Section 7—Sustainability The capability of the grantee to demonstrate the capacity, both administratively and financially, to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project For construction projects, attach and describe how the applicant will implement the final financial and operational plan to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project. [This would be added to Section 7--Sustainability in grant application] Incentivizing Operations and Financial Planning REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 22 Template for business and operations planning Will be available through AEA’s website Assisting with Operations and Financial Planning REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 23 Data Collection Recommended Language Metering Equipment Please provide a short narrative, and cost estimate, identifying the metering equipment that will be used to comply with the operations reporting requirement identified in Section 3.15 of the Request for Applications. Any identified metering equipment will not be included as a project cost. Energy Cost Calculation The Household Energy Cost is calculated as follows: HEC = (cost of power*6,000 kWh/yr) + (cost of heating fuel*regional mean HH gallons/yr) The Cost of Energy Score is then assigned using the following formula: COE Score = (HEC) / $15,254.77 x 10, Score cannot be greater than 10 Communities with an average combined residential energy bill at or above $15,254.77 are assigned the maximum score of 10. This value is the cost that allows 10% of all communities in the state to receive full points for this criterion in the current year. Other –Metering Equipment, Cost of Energy REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 24 Operational data What are we going to do with it Much simpler status report to the legislature to meet statutory requirement Other Changes REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Action Items 25 Potential changes to the 2020 RFA based on 2018 REFAC requests: Change funding limits Prioritize early stage projects Increase local match weighting Incentivize supply-and demand-side efficiency REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Change Funding Limits Goals and Justification 26 Currently: Average grant size ~$950,0000 61% less than or equal to $500k 12% between $500k and $1M 27% greater than $1M Possible: Fund more projects Probably more likely to be pre- construction and/or heating projects Might increase applicant match REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA CurrentFundingLimits 27 Phase Grant Limits by location Low Energy Cost Areas High Energy Cost Areas Phase I, Reconnaissance The per-project total of Phase I and II is limited to 20% of anticipated construction cost (Phase IV), not to exceed $2M.Phase II, Feasibility and Conceptual Design Phase III,Final Design and Permitting 20% of anticipated construction cost (Phase IV), and counting against the total construction grant limit below. Phase IV,Construction and Commissioning $2M per project, including final design and permitting (Phase III) costs, above. $4M per project, including final design and permitting (Phase III) costs, above. Exceptions Biofuel Projects Biofuel projects where the applicant does not intend to generate electricity or heat for sale to the public are limited to reconnaissance and feasibility phases only at the limits expressed above. Geothermal projects The per-project total of Phase I and II for geothermal projects is limited to 20% of anticipated construction costs (Phase IV), not to exceed $4M. Any amount above the usual $2M cap spent on these two phases combined shall reduce the total Phase III and IV grant limit by the same amount, thereby keeping the same total grant dollar cap as all other projects. REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Change Funding Limits Impact on Application Types 28 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 Kodiak Northwest Arctic Copper River/Chugach Southeast Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Aleutians Railbelt Bristol Bay Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana North Slope Average Grant Amount Average Grant Amount by AEA Energy Region Round 1-9 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 Geothermal Wind Transmission Hydro Heat Pumps Heat Recovery Biomass Ocean/River Solar Average Grant Amount Average Grant Amount by Technology Type Round 1-9 REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Focus on phases with most risk, i.e. pre- construction 1.Lack of capital to do pre-construction work 2.Risk of doing pre-construction work 3.Non-state funds are more easily secured after pre-construction activities 4.Create a “pipeline” of new projects 29 Prioritize Early Stage Projects Goals and Justification Project Phase Target Allocation – Percentage of Grant Funds Recommended I. Reconnaissance Study 50% II. Feasibility/ Conceptual Design III. Final Design and Permitting 50% IV. Construction and Commissioning Additional target Heat projects 30% of total funding Round 9 Targets REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Prioritize Early Stage Projects 30 ConsPros More projects will be funded – Pre-construction projects average ~$327k vs. ~$1.5M for construction projects Potentially create a “pipeline” of projects Fewer projects constructed with REF funds Is it consistent with statute and regulations? Biomass projects would likely be represented less Other risks, such as access to capital, may limit the number of projects that make it to construction Assume smaller, less wealthy communities would be less likely to finance construction without state support May not know if projects are ever constructed REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 31 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 Average Grant Award by Technology and Phase Avg. Construction Avg. Pre-Construction 0 15 30 45 60 Number of Grants Awarded by Technology and Phase Construction Projects Pre-Construction Projects Prioritize Early Stage Projects Impact on Application Types REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Increasing Local Match 32 Current Rules Statute Scoring must be significant Cost of energy must have most weight Regulations “Significant” Round 1-2 = 25% Round 3-4 = 20% Round 5-9 = 15% What will greater match do? Will it increase match supplied? Will it reduce or change access to program by region, project type, project phase? Would it change order of selections? Will it improve project outcomes? What category(ies) will be decreased in importance? Recommendation Without identification of clear, specific need, don’t change things REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Increasing Local Match Impact on Match provided 33 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Average and Median Match Percent by Round All applications REF Round 1-9 Average Match Median Match Match weight Changing match weight does not appear to appreciably change the amount of match offered REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Increasing Local Match Impact on Application Types 34 0 4 8 12 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bristol Bay Aleutians Northwest Arctic Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Bering Straits Copper River/Chugach Southeast North Slope Railbelt Average match score Average match score by AEA Energy Region Passed Stage 2, REF Round 1-9 0 3 6 9 12 15 HeatRecovery Biomass Solar Wind Geothermal Hydrokinetic Other Hydro Transmission Storage HeatPump Average match score Average match score by Technology Type Passed Stage 2, REF Round 1-9 0 4 8 12 Government Entity Local Government Utility IPP Average match score Average match score by Applicant Type Passed Stage 2, REF Round 1-9 Changing match weight will likely increase the likelihood of certain regions, applicant types, and technology type being more successful in securing grants. REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 35 Not precluded by statute or regulation Should be fair and consistent across all projects Limit unintended consequences Incentivizing Supply-and Demand-Side Efficiency REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA Incentivizing Supply-and Demand-Side Efficiency 1.Conditions for receiving credit: Improve RE integration Improve performance of RE project Care was taken to not negatively impact vulnerable populations. 2. Proof required to receive credit: Documentation must be provided on the nature and cost of investments to be used as in-kind match, including: Pre-and post-implementation reports, Invoices for work completed, Photos of the work performed, and/or Any other available verification such as scopes of work, technical drawings, and payroll for work completed internally. Applicant can decide if include in B/C YES Cost included as Match, Efficiency improvement included as a benefit, Cost is included in B/C Improvement may be included in Sustainability, Readiness, Technical Feasibility, and/or Other Public Benefits NO Improvement may be included in Sustainability, Readiness, Technical Feasibility, and/or Other Public Benefits 36 REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 37 Member Comments REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 38 Next Meeting? REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA 39 SAFE, RELIABLE, & AFFORDABLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888-300-8534