The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutREF Phases--include with Modelproject__master_project_code 10001 10005 10033 10036 10056 10061 10121 10220 10223 10270 10299 10158 10294 10333 10136 10282 10351 10361 10363 10439 10173 10004 10017 10027 10030 10037 10041 10060 10067 10074 10125 10148 10259 10265 10301 10316 10354 10414 10418 10300 10297 10308 10422 10279 10053 10089 10090 10098 10099 10104 10111 10196 10200 10388 10428 10034 10107 10160 10190 10268 10376 10331 10101 10248 10314 10105 10009 10020 10024 10040 10045 10051 10075 10084 10127 10149 10211 10253 10257 10293 10315 10325 10416 10096 10286 10038 10068 10186 10224 10287 10319 10387 10429 10018 10029 10044 10049 10062 10065 10116 10124 10209 10276 10340 10441 10446 10147 10152 10332 10070 10444 10063 10083 10171 10191 10204 10234 10251 10304 10324 10355 10362 10372 10395 10396 10407 10408 10409 10410 10411 10413 10438 10443 10445 10102 10043 10086 10087 10115 10126 10137 10202 10242 10247 10379 10442 10165 10012 10014 10103 10026 10032 10100 10313 10050 10064 10066 10069 10071 10073 10085 10093 10097 10144 10145 10159 10194 10195 10197 10198 10199 10212 10213 10233 10292 10302 10306 10307 10309 10310 10312 10318 10320 10322 10373 10384 10385 10389 10184 10157 10285 10055 10013 10059 10118 10243 10267 10079 10076 10058 10139 10321 10323 10430 10440 10106 10025 10088 10023 10146 10002 10003 10132 10189 10341 10390 10391 10392 10394 Application Number Round 0 818 314 33 54 840 622 1047 1109 925 623 654 1026 1013 235 823 844 856 858 1061 1074 603 1247 1207 1015 1225 430 58 1249 1221 1205 248 922 676 1020 675 1235 908 976 1219 624 607 641 915 1210 804 1153 889 90 102 803 616 669 646 871 604 1072 445 112 260 292 476 982 705 105 448 843 1073 435 1029 407 813 42 48 1212 84 626 469 1162 1165 812 825 1082 688 917 97 960 35 66 287 611 503 969 67 911 212 15 26 1021 649 1053 1152 1147 1087 881 1164 1215 1142 1032 1208 621 252 706 68 1031 1242 61 967 271 1044 307 658 1055 1130 687 848 934 1041 243 244 937 939 940 941 1085 944 1052 1040 1043 1134 40 895 87 210 655 1226 914 1046 1250 1220 1244 892 9 11 108 906 811 808 672 1224 205 62 64 122 70 870 518 94 666 613 612 1067 513 1115 515 1068 878 506 1237 1139 512 633 639 640 642 1066 664 1080 680 685 876 839 1231 966 1133 652 1035 53 10 57 653 630 837 78 75 56 486 1079 686 912 1027 111 1218 22 1201 523 88 1034 1232 106 Project Type Geothermal Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Geothermal HeatHydro HeatPump HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatWind Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Other Solar Solar Solar Solar Transmission Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Geothermal HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatWind Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydrokinetic Other Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal HeatBiofuel HeatPump HeatPump HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatWind Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydrokinetic Other Other Solar Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Biomass Geothermal Geothermal HeatBiofuel Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Other Solar Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Geothermal HeatPump HeatRecovery Hydro Hydro Hydrokinetic Transmission Transmission, Other Wind Phase Construction Construction Feasibility Design Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Construction Design Feasibility Feasibility Recon Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Construction Design Design Construction Construction Design Feasibility Construction Construction Design Feasibility Design Construction Recon Design Design Feasibility Design Feasibility Recon Construction Construction Construction Feasibility Recon Construction Feasibility Construction Construction Construction Recon Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Construction Feasibility Recon Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Construction Recon Design Construction Construction Design Recon Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Construction Recon Feasibility Construction Feasibility Construction Feasibility Design Construction Design Construction Construction Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Recon Recon Construction Feasibility Feasibility Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Construction Design Construction Construction Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Design Design Feasibility Feasibility Recon Design Construction Design Recon Design Construction Construction Feasibility Feasibility Recon Construction Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Construction Feasibility Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Design Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Design Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Recon Recon Feasibility Feasibility Design Construction Design Construction Design Feasibility Construction Construction Construction Feasibility Design Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Recon Design Feasibility Feasibility Design Feasibility Design Operational Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No Yes No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Continuing to Operation No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No Performing as Expected No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Annual MWH Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 988 3441 0 19500 0 0 350 1100 300 0 0 0 0 0 756 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3832 0 0 0 2800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 517 0 0 450 721 1293 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 596 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1473 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3294 Annual MMBtu Production 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2537.58 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32551.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7094.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41447.93 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4252.17 0 0 0 1136 28791.28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7818.5 14128.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13853.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56238.33 Annual Diesel Displaced 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 237.31 0 0 0 0 34.539 96.33 24 0 0 0 0 0 51.723 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 302.172 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 8.474 209.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 410 Generation Start Date 10/7/2008 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42644 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2021 2019 0 2019 0 0 2017 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42614 0 0 0 2018 43009 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 2020 2017 2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2017 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2020 Total Cost Through Construction 1075000 43940 441229 382779 401873 1800000 3144200 679950 18000000 755500 3330467 135254 230200 1215627 295800 582000 327201 486180 689251 259817 226000000 7200000 20675000 49000000 59067808 100015360 2440000 2298280 10317500 3019975 0 8009000 5800000 14500000 34530000 4114132 2600000 3400000 125000 72000 100000 165750 61780000 0 1348032 3000000 8363886 23150000 93300000 4250000 2000000 252905 4660750 110000 3606255 2868000 1300000 1540023 492652 510000 165000 1050000 615591 338578 320456 49500000 31500000 17031000 27050000 60000 3000000 37041535 461950 6300000 1491000 1400000 1750000 723138 30402216 21772523 5520836 145000000 1937072 8696494 2220141 96000000 8100000 4433000 2100000 0 8710000 10000 839000 628825 1374892 565485 335456 309450 872635 1423292 590000 236602 526108 2200000 403550 45000000 187361 26000 7400000 362805 991815 114765 2011412 204428 500000 472787 250000 439453 1005000 133350 425701 558814 3612000 4257116 668350 1341063 183200 985808 469311 548000 603000 753313 757299 284562 207500 16700000 4555922 400000 18530700 6580000 46475000 7224213 3835000 6950000 5795000 9395283 3260000 40000 190000 175000 30000000 3840000 4019600 5157000 8150000 8000000 3197986 4313603 278378 10755497 21923000 10200000 4433000 4433000 4833000 3890042 4886000 4436800 3946050 2676273 1812000 1072305 4526458 22193000 3554889 750000 2000000 2000000 3214875 1466813 52050 2937068 1075000 252905 6736891 7751695 190000 2692700 300000000 49000000 4007900 10153000 3087000 15907950 40200000 25000000 12231750 605000 10921428 1571240 2566000 2123536 90000 148800 1950000 5260000 565439 14510599 19772275 Project Name Juneau airport ground source heat pump Gulkana Village Biomass Fuels Project McGrath Biomass Feasibility Haines Central Wood Heating System Construction (Low Income Housing Project) Galena Wood Heating Construction Kobuk Biomass Design & Construction Project Cordova Community Biomass Feasibility Study Galena Community Wood Heat Project Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion Upper Tanana Biomass CHP Project Susitna Valley High School Wood Heat Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Resource Assessment Atka Dispatchable Heat Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat Pump Kotzebue HR and Ammonia Power Cycle Tatitlek Heat Recovery Project Russian Mission Heat Recovery System Shishmaref Heat Recovery Project Togiak Waste Heat Recovery Project Emmonak Heat Recovery System Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Analysis Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project: Construction Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project Construction Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project Chuniisax Creek Hydroelectric Construction Indian River Hydroelectric Project - Construction Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project âˆ’Geotechnical Study and Final Design Neck Lake Hydropower Project: Phases II-III Loud Creek Hydro_Akutan Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Eska Creek Hydroelectric Project Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility and Conceptual Design Battle Creek Diversion Project Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Capacity Increase Knutson Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting False Pass Hydroelectric Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Wrangell Electric Vehicle Feasibility Study Lime Village Photovoltaic System Retrofit Kaltag Solar Construction Eagle Solar Array Project Evaluation of a Community Solar Project Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources (Mount Spurr) Unalakleet Wind-Diesel Optimization Nikolski Renewable Energy Wind Project St. George Wind Farm Construction Delta Junction Wind Farm Construction Pillar Mtn High Penetration Wind Project GVEA Eva Creek Wind Turbine Purchase Akiachak Wind Feasibility & Conceptual Design Scammon Bay Wind Feasibility Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Shaktoolik Water System Heat Bethel Renewable Energy Project Igiugig Wind Resource Feasibility and Conceptual Design District Wood Heating in Fort Yukon Delta Junction Wood Chip Heating Feasibility Study Biomass Hydronic Heating_YKSD Chalkyitsik District Heat_Village Council City Tribe Biomass Energy Conservation Community Facilities Woody Biomass Space Heating Project Japonski Island Boathouse Heat Pump North Pole Heat Recovery Construction Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade Atmautlauk Washeteria/ Power Plant Waste Heat Recovery Project Kongiganak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Nushagak Area Hydropower Project (NAHP) Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project Rehabilitation Whitman Lake Project Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Whittier Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design & Permitting Ruby Hydrokinetic Construction Carlson Creek Hydroelectric Project Akutan Hydroelectric System Repair and Upgrade Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study â€“ Phase II Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction AVTEC Hydroelectric Training Facility and 827 Thayer Lake Hydropower Development Transmission/Generation Project Stetson Creek Diversion Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project Pelican Hydroelectric Upgrade Project Blue Lake Hydroelectric Expansion Project Nenana Hydrokinetic Construction TidGen? Array Project Hooper Bay Wind Farm Construction Coal Mine Road Wind Farm Final Design Tok Wind Construction_VWP Point Hope Wind Turbine Design St. Paul Wind Diesel Project Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project Bethel Wind Farm Construction (BNC land) Levelock Wind Reconnaissance Study Akiachak Wind_ANCEC Chistochina Central Wood Heating Construction Cordova Wood Processing Plant Construction Haines Borough Municipal Buildings Biomass Project Kenny Lake School Wood Fired Boiler Yakutat Biomass District Heating Loop Lake and Peninsula Borough Wood Boilers Southeast Island School District wood boilers Kake Community Energy Tanacross Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project Port Graham Community Building Biomass Heat Distribution Project Huslia Water System and Clinic Biomass Boiler Project Gateway Borough Recreation and Schools Central Heating Plant Design Biomass Heat for Minto Community Buildings Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Construction Akutan Geothermal Development Project Manley Village Council Geothermal Sitka Renewable Energy Feasibility for Wastewater Treatment Plant Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity Construction Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump Project Heat Pump System For City Owned Buildings McGrath Heat Recovery Construction Cold Bay Waste Heat Recovery Project Unalaska Heat Recovery Venetie Clinic Heat Recovery Ambler HR_City of Ambler Organic Rankine Cycle Field Testing Alaska SeaLife Center Heat Recovery Project Holy Cross Power Plant Heat Recovery for Water Distribution System Hoonah Heat Recovery Project Sleetmute Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant Savoonga Heat Recovery System - Power Plant to Water Plant Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat Recovery Wainwright Heat Recovery Point Lay Heat Recovery Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria Stebbins Heat Recovery Project Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Community Store Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Nunam Iqua Heat Recovery Project Brevig Mission Water System Heat Recovery St Marys Heat Recovery System Kwigillingok Wind Heat System â€“ Electric Thermal Storage Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting Fishhook Hydroelectric Construction Kiseralik_Chikuminuk Hydro_AVCP Housing Triangle Lake Hydroelectric Project Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction Phase Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project Gunnuk Creek Hydro Rehabilitation - IPEC Kake Kvichak River RISEC Project Wrangell Hydro Based Electric Boilers Construction Aleutians East Borough Renewable Energy Reconnaissance McKinley Village Solar Thermal Construction Coffman Cove Hydropower Line Extension Kake-Petersburg Inter-Connection Engineering Reynolds Creek Hydro Transmission Line Snettisham Transmission Line Avalanche Mitigation Mountain Village-St. Maryâ€™s Wind Intertie Project â€“ Final Design and Construction Banner Wind Construction_Nome Chignik Lake Area Wind-Hydro Final Design Lake Pen Borough Wind Feasibility Study Bethel Wind Power Project Times 4 Quinhagak Wind Farm Construction Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System Heat High Penetration Wind-Battery-Diesel Hybrid Nikolaevsk Wind Farm Final Design Kenai Winds Expansion Wainwright Wind Turbine Design Point Lay Wind Generation Design Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design Teller Wind-Final Design, Permitting & Construction St. Maryâ€™s-Pitkaâ€™s Point Wind Energy Construction Project New Stuyahok Wind-Feasibility Analysis, Resources Assessment & Conceptual Design Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Emmonak/Alakanuk Phase 2 Wind Energy Construction Tatitlek High Penetration Wind-Diesel Project Sand Point High Penetration Wind System Chefornak Wind Heat System Kivalina Wind-Intertie Feasibility Analysis & Conceptual Design Nushagak Community Wind Power Project Eek Wind Feasibility Elim Wind Feasibility Koyuk Wind Phase II Feasibility Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Project Kwethluk Wind Feasibility False Pass Wind Energy Project Cold Bay Wind Energy Project Napaskiak Wind, Power and Heat Recovery Gambell Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Gambell Water System Heat and 898 Nome Renewable Energy Expansion/Optimization Project Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design High-penetration Wind Energy Project- Kokhanok Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project Mount Spurr Geothermal Project Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource North Pole Biomass Electricity/Heat Construction Falls Creek Hydroelectric Construction South Fork Hydroelectric Construction Terror Lake Unit 3 Hydroelectric Project Schubee Lake Hydroelectric Project Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Girdwood Gas CHP/Hydro/Wind Solar Construction Ambler Solar PV Construction Buckland/Deering/Noorvik Wind Farm Construction Pilot Point Wind Power & Heat Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery Port Heiden Wind Turbine Project Egegik Wind Feasibility Study Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump Construction (Aquatic Center) Saxman Low-Rent Multifamily Air Source Heat Pump Cordova Heat Recovery Construction Water Treatment Plant Inline Micro Turbines Thayer Lake Hydropower Development (TLHD) Generation Statewide Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Nome/ Banner Peak Wind Farm Construction S2 Comments in latest application 0 Applicant proposes assessing kind, quantity, and delivered cost of biomass near four communities--apps #311 Tanana, #312 Tanacross, #313 Nenana, #314 McGrath. Methodology and objectives are identical for the four applications. The proposed site-specific assessments are an important component of feasibility analysis for wood energy development in these communities. However, of these comunities, only McGrath is proposing significant utilization of local wood for energy. Fuel prices are highest in McGrath. While Tanana has recently developed a wood boiler for the washeteria, wood supply has not been identified as a major issue. While a larger scale chip boiler system is under development in Tok, wood supply is less of an issue since it is on the road system. Funding only one of the four projects will be sufficient to show that the method is useful for biomass supply assessment. Recommend full funding of $34,740 for the McGrath biomass supply assessment (app #314) with requirement that the project team coordinates with McGrath Light and Power and other project participants in assessing harvest supply requirements and system. Recommend no funding for apps #311 Tanana, #312 Tanacross, #313 Nenana at this time. Applicant proposes design and construction of cordwood-fired heating systems for four 4-plex housing units. Project offers good potential savings over heating oil and provides a demonstration project for southeast Alaska. Recommend. Applicant proposes a high-efficiency cordwood-fired boiler to supply heat to a community building in Galena. Project appears well-conceived and economic. Project management and development team is strong. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes final design and construction of a cordwood ?fired heating system to supply the water treatment plant facilities. Assessment for wood heating in Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk was funded under two earlier projects: 1) Feasibility in round 1 (# 59) and 2) final design in round 4 to NW Inupiat Housing Authority (NWIHA) (#668). Work includes fuel supply plan, business plan, and technology assessment. The project would consume 35 cords of year harvested from NANA lands. A letter from NANA states its support. The system would operated through the Alaska Rural Utility Collaborative and represents their first wood-fired system. AEA is concerned that the economics appear marginal. They could be improved by identifying ways of reducing capital cost and/or increasing diesel displacement during the design phase. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. AEA is also concerned that the Kobuk Valley Electric is not participating regularly in the PCE program. Recommend full funding with requirements that 1) The City must coordinate with NWIHA and their consultant in developing the project, 2) AEA must accept final design before construction funding is disbursed and 3) wood supply contracts for 5 years must be in place before construction funding is disbursed. Applicant Native Village of Eyak proposes assessing feasibility of heating buildings in Cordova with local wood and waste cardboard. The applicant also proposes to develop a community energy audit protocol. The applicant requested funding for this project last year (#408) and AEA recommended partial funding. However, the project was not funded due to insufficient funding. Based on prefeasibility reports provided upon AEA request, the community may need to utilize local wood in addition to the burn pile. The budget provided in the application does provide justification for what appears to be a very expensive feasibility analysis. Based on experience with other biomass thermal projects in Alaska, AEA recommends partial funding of $75,000. The City of Galena is proposing installation and commissioning of a low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested chip-fired boiler system to heat its school district and the Galena Interior Learning Academy School (GILA). This project is estimated to displace a total 203,850 gallons per year of fuel oil, using 2,300 tons of chips per year. The technical feasibility phase of this project is complete, but the final design and harvest/fuel inventory work is still in process. The application includes substantial support from the community, the Louden Tribal Council, Galena City School District, and Gana?A-Yoo Limited. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Also, AEA must review and approve Phase III ? Final Design. Recommend full funding with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design funded in Round 6, including the decreased load resulting from end-use efficiency measures; business/operational plan with heat sales agreement; harvest plan; biomass storage; inventory plan prior to the release of construction funds. The Craig High School District in Craig, AK requests funding for engineering design and construction of a chip fueled biomass heating system for the Craig High School. The project is estimated to displace 18,485 gallons of fuel/year. The Craig City School District has over 6 years of experience in operating and maintaining a chip system at their middle school, elementary school, and pool complex. The chips will be supplied by a local sawmill and will be dried by dryer funded through the Renewable Energy Fund. Energy efficiency improvements are underway or completed at the high school to maximize the efficiency of the heating system. Recommend funding for design and construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design and the final business/operational plan prior to starting the construction phase. The feasibility study for this application was received in December of 2012. A brief review of the study has identified the following concerns: ? Running various economic scenarios results in B/C ratios ranging from .66 to 1.49. ? The feasibility study assumes 100% displacement of electrical loads. Load following capabilities for biomass systems are a technical concern. ? There is no plan to utilize the waste heat. Without use of the waste heat, the plant will operate between 17.7% and 19.4% efficient. While AEA supports this project, there are technical and economic questions that need to be answered before full funding for design and permitted is recommended. AEA will perform a comprehensive review of the study in the following month and provide additional feedback to AP&T to address technical and economic questions. Recommend partial funding of $400,000 to complete the conceptual design (35%) report, including identifying a use for the recoverable heat, further development of the capital estimate and economic analysis, and selecting a technology that will meet the specifications of the project objectives. A detailed scope for this funding will be developed after the feasibility study has been reviewed and accepted. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough proposes design and construction of a cordwood-fired heating system for the Susitna Valley High School. The project would displace approximately 22,000 gallons of heating oil per year using approximately 250 cords of wood per year with a delivered cost of $200/cord. The proposal is based on a detailed feasibility analysis completed in 2009 with support from a grant under the Denali Commission/AEA alternative energy grant program. The analysis considered conceptual design of the wood boiler systems as well wood fuel availability and cost. The proposal to heat the school has many attractive features, including creating jobs and enhancing educational opportunities of the local students, providing a research forest, and demonstrating biomass energy in a relatively accessible part of the state. Based on the feasibility report there is an ample, sustainable wood supply and the school would save $20,000-50,000 per year. AEA has received a letter expressing concern about the project impacts on the nearby forest, air emissions from the facility, and economic benefit versus cost. AEA is concerned about the relatively high project cost and marginal economics using the standard 20-year project life assumption. The feasibility report runs sensitivity analyses and concludes that project economics are attractive using only the most optimistic assumptions for heating load, wood consumption and price, and project cost. During the final design and permitting stage, AEA strongly encourages the Borough to consider alternate combustion systems and construction methods to improve the economics of the system Recommend full funding with the requirement that before construction funds are released for the project, the Borough prepare a final design acceptable to AEA. UAF proposes to assess geothermal resources at Pilgrim Hot Springs through refurbishing existing shallow wells and drilling deep wells. This is a resubmittal of a RE Fund round 2 proposal (#258) and a partial resubmittal of a round 3 proposal (#466) that was recommended for funding, but which received only partial funding of $613,174 due to limited RE Fund appropriation. USDOE funding will fund up to $4,274,792 (~69% of the project cost). Land above the resource is now owned by Unaatuq LLC, a consortium of seven Native organizations. The Nome Energy Study identified development of the Pilgrim Hot Springs geothermal resource as the least-cost option for long-term power supply. The applications includes letters of support from Nome Joint Utilities and Mary\'s Igloo Native Council (the owner of the adjacent land). DGGS indicates support for the project (see above). Recommend full funding with the provision that prior to the disbursement of funds, UAF confirm legal access to the resource with the new landowner. City of Atka requests $114,965 in grant funds to install dispatchable electrical heating systems in public buildings to utilize excess hydroelectric generation from the Chuniisax Creek Hydroelectric Project. The project is expected to displace 8,300 gallons of diesel fuel annually. The City completed permitting and design under a Round 3 REF grant (#7030001) for $80,000. AEA has the following concerns: The environmental report did not investigate the potential for encountering lead based paint and asbestos containing materials in the installation of the new heating equipment in the older buildings to be served. This oversight may add risk to the project, since, if found, these would require specialty subcontractors to remediate. Also, it appears the powerhouse load bank will still be in use for frequency regulation, which will continue to ?waste? electricity. AEA recommends making energy efficiency improvements to the buildings that will receive hydro heat, further enhancing the benefit of the hydro energy. Recommend full funding. The City and Borough of Sitka proposes to install an air source heat pump system as a part of a renovation of the Kettleson Library. Although air source heat pump performance in southeast Alaska is not well documented, the planned renovation offers a good opportunity to replace the existing fuel oil boilers with an air source heat pump system and could provide valuable data of the performance of newer air source heat pump models in southeast Alaska. While there is little doubt regarding the technical feasibility of the proposed system, full project payback appears highly dependent on fuel oil prices. Full funding recommended. Applicant proposes to install equipment that will recover unutilized heat from the diesel generator exhaust stacks for district heating and absorption chiller to make ice for the fishing fleet. Utility has track record in heat recovery and high level of management expertise. Stack heat recovery is commercially viable. Recommend full funding of $915,627. The Tatitlek Tribal Council proposes updating a 2006 mechanical design plan and construction of a diesel heat recovery system that will supply the Tatitlek Community Center, which houses the Village IRA Council administrative offices, from the power plant, 50 feet away. The generating station and admin building were designed to accommodate this application when the power plant was refurbished in 2006, and the only phase remaining for this project is construction and installation. The original designer would manage design and construction. The cost estimate was developed based on an AEA field visit in July 2011. The project is estimated to displace 6,000 gallons of fuel oil. The technology is proven and the construction complexity will be low. The operation and maintenance of the system will be performed by the current operator. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA accept the final design cost estimate prior to releasing funds for construction. City of Russian Mission, in cooperation with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes final design and construction of a heat recovery system that will supply the school and teacher housing. The project will include a marine jacket retrofit on the prime genset, thus doubling available recoverable heat.. The project will displace approximately 12,000 gallons of diesel per year. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. The City of Shishmaref, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from the AVEC generating station to the clinic, city office, and the water treatment plant. The project will displace approximately 7,900 gallons of diesel per year. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency are addressed in conjunction with this project. City of Togiak, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from AVEC?s generating station to the water treatment plant, clinic, police station, City Office, and the ?Old School? Community Activity Building. The project will displace approximately 13,700 gallons of diesel per year according to a 2010 Heat Recovery Analysis. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Emmonak are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the AVEC power plant planned for 2015 to the Water Treatment Plant, Boys and Girls Club, and the City Office/Hotel. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. The design should consider the opportunity for marine jacketed engines supplying heat to additional community buildings. Recommend full funding. Tuntutuliak received REF Round 2 and direct legislative appropriation funding to install five Windmatic 17S 95-kilowatt wind turbines, completing that project in 2012. This proposal would make use of excess electricity by diverting surplus kilowatts to residential heat loads. Unlike the other two project proposed for Kongiganak and Kwigillingok, the economics of this project suffer from the lower residual energy available having already installed 30 stoves instead of just 20 stoves in Kong and Kwig, plus Tuntutuliak\'s ~10% lower wind regime, plus their lower cost of diesel fuel. Applicant and contractor have prior experience installing ETS units. Average benefits seen for existing 30 installations will be somewhat lower when aggregated among 50 homes. Residents see full benefits of heat savings. Final determination and survey of homes for install (community designation) must be accepted by AEA prior to release of additional funds. Project needs to integrate with a separate project to upgrade the village distribution system as a condition of funding. Applicant has not been timely in submitting required quarterly operations and maintenance reports on the existing wind energy project. Applicant needs to meet reporting requirements on existing project from this point forward to receive funding. Recommend full funding. CB of Sitka requests additional funding for assessing feasibility of the potential 28 MW Takatz Lake hydro project. To date RE Fund round 1 has awarded partial funding of $1,152,134 to the project for this purpose. For this application CBS is requesting an additional $2 million. Project is consistent with findings of the 2008 Sitka Power Supply Plan and would follow less expensive alternatives, including increasing capacity of the existing Blue Lk Hydro project, in order to avoid more costly diesel generation. There is potential for developing road and marine facilities associated with the project that would provide access to the eastern Baranof Island. FERC has issued a preliminary permit to Sitka to assess feasibility of Takatz. Given the widespread interest in linking major electric generation and loads in Southeast, development of Takatz should be coordinated with the SE Alaska Regional Energy Plan. AEA has recently determined that additional funding is available from round 1 funds to support funding this project at the original Rd 1 application amount of $2 million. This is also the cap amount for feasibility for this project. The existing grant will be amended to increase its funding level to $2 million. No additional funding recommended due to the cap. 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. 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. CVEA requests $5,914,491 to construct a 6.5 MW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Allison Creek. The funds would be used to complete construction of the project. The project is expected to offset up to 1.4 million gallons of diesel fuel annually. AEA has the following concerns: A portion of the land the project will use will be purchased in the future from Alyeska Pipeline, however an agreement is in place to allow construction; and a FERC license amendment is being sought to allow penstock to be installed below grade and a portion to be within a tunnel. Despite these concerns substantial progress has been made over the last year to advance the project including: issuance of FERC license, completion of final design, Maximum Allowable Construction Cost contract has been awarded, PM contract awarded, turbine-generator owner equipment has been awarded, and owner CM contract awarded. AEA requires that the grantee obtain the FERC amendment prior to expending Round 7 grant funds. The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) on 1/7/14 advised AEA to recommend to the Legislature partial funding this project if funding is kept within the Governor?s budget of $20M. REFAC further advised AEA to include the initial recommendation of full funding should the Legislature make available additional funds this year. One other hydro project, Statson Creek Diverson, was also recommended for partial funding. The primary reason was to allow the funding of six additional projects in higher cost areas of the state. AEA recommends partial funding of $4,764,652 (80% of request) if the Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 budget is limited to $20M, and recommends this project second in line for any additional funding beyond $20M, up to the requested grant amount of $5,941,491. 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 1,000-foot-wide 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 1,000-foot-wide 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. The City of Angoon proposes to conduct feasibility and conceptual design for FERC pre-licensing work on Ruth Lake hydro. The hydro project, a significant distance from the City, will not be connnected to the Angoon system within the foreseeable future. AEA believes that in order for a project of this type to be successful, there needs to be demonstrated buy-in from all regional stakeholders, including the City, SEAPA, IPEC, and Kotznoowoo. There is no indication that the stakeholders listed have agreed to this concept. In particular on p22 the application indicates the City would sell power to the utilities of Petersburg and Wrangell. However, there is no indication that these communities would purchase power from the project, nor descritption of a mechnism to flow the vbenefits of the project directly to the ratepayers of Angoon. Kootznoowoo is has submitted a proposal for Thayer Lake hydro (#517 and 523) that would serve the Angoon system, indicates a direct path for benefits to flow to Angoon ratepayers, and has the support of the local utility IPEC. Recommend full funding with the provision that prior to release funds beyond phase 1 work plan review and coordination, the applicant must 1) convene an in-state stakeholder meeting, 2) secure letters of support from SEAPA, Thomas Bay Power Authority, and the cities of Petersburg, Wrangell, Kake, and Ketchikan, and 3) develop a process acceptable to AEA for benefits to flow to all affected ratepayers equally. This project is approximately 45% complete and has received funding support from Deanli Commission through AEA\'s rural power system upgrade program. Currently the project is halted due to insufficient construction funding. There are no other major barriers to development. While the project did not indicate a particular team, the application describes a process underway with EDA for selection of a design and construction team. AEA recommends full funding with the following conditions before funding is made available: 1) City of Atka provide a revised and detailed project schedule, including outstanding permits, and budget, 2) submit management team resumes for approval by AEA, 3) submit revised final design and cost estimate for AEA approval. 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. 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. 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. Existing reconnaissance study completed in 1989 indicates the proposed site may be a good prospect. Substantial load at Trident and letter of support has been provided by them. With the existing 105 kW hydro repaired, this project will not be needed unless extra power can be sold to Trident to offset their diesel generation and provide income to City. Trident should agree to purchase excess power before any future grants for construction funds be considered Recommend full funding. . IPEC requests construction funds for Gartina Falls Hydro project. The project was previously funded for permitting and final design in round 3 (#462). Schedule proposed is aggressive and adds to the project risk of construction cost overruns. Special provisions: AEA must approve the deliverables from the prior grant #462 before any construction funds will be reimbursed: 1) Proof of site control, 2) FERC license and all permits, 3) site adapted final design plans and specs, 4) construction cost estimate, 5) project budget, 6) renegotiation to lower management/PM fees and 7) schedule. Applicant proposes recon assessment of a 1.45 MW run-of-river hydropower project at Eska Creek near Sutton. The project would include a very long (13,000 ft) penstock. Environmental issues are undefined. DNR notes potential conflicts with other uses and proximity of the project to Castle Mt Fault. Recommend full funding. The Haines Borough requests funds for a feasibility assessment of two hydroelectric projects totaling 3 MW, and 1.5 miles of transmission to connect to the Ocean Beauty\'s fish processing facility and residences in the non-organized community of Excursion Inlet. The processor and most residences are seasonal. There is no community power system, which would be necessary to distribute the power to the community. The project received a Round 4 grant (#625) to perform a two-step reconnaissance study. The first step to determine the reach of the anadromous fish habitat is now complete. Work continues on the second half of the study. The currently funded second half of the reconnaissance study is to address: the fish habitat; electrical service and estimated load for the Borough subdivision; establishment of community utility; business arrangement for selling power to the fish processor Ocean Beaut;, site control and land ownership, and FERC jurisdiction. It will include consideration of fish habitat issues as it affects the cost, capacity, and energy output of the project and environmental licensing concerns. While the fish habitat study has been completed, the final reconnaissance study has not been reviewed or accepted by the Authority. Because this study is not complete it provides no support for this application. The applicant should also be aware that the Renewable Energy Fund has a strong public benefit purpose. An estimated 2 percent of the energy generated would serve the public, while 98% would serve a private company. AEA encourages Haines Borough and Excursion Inlet to work directly with AEA staff to address the community energy needs. Please contact AEA?s energy planning staff for direct assistance. The application is not recommended due to incomplete prior phases of the project. Chugach Electric Association, on behalf of the Bradley Project Management Committee, proposes preliminary design of diversion of Middle Fork Battle Creek into Bradley Lake. The work would also include permitting, environmental and fish studies and preparation of an application to amend the Bradley Lake hydro project FERC license. BPMC would also provide matching funds on a 1:1 basis. AEA staff would manage the project. Work completed to date includes reconnaissance and analysis of environmental and energy production impacts. Stream gauging is in progress. Recommend full 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. INNEC requests grant funding to study expansion of the Tazimina Hydroelectric Project thru replacement of the turbine-generators and controls from 824 kW (existing) up to 1.5 MW total. The FERC license was issued for the larger units and the plant throughput was built with this in mind, but the smaller Francis turbine/generators were installed when the project was built in 1996. Annual energy is expected to increase up to 2,600,000 kWh. New markets for this increase in energy may include new dispatchable heating systems in private businesses and city governments at Newhalen, Illiamna and Nondalton. If the study shows the project is feasible, procurement documents will be prepared from this phase grant funding for the replacement turbine-generators and control systems. AEA recommends full funding. A recon study was completed in 2009 for the Knutson River Hydroelectric Project in Pedro Bay. Since then the school and clinic have closed and the village population decreased to 44. A feasibility study has been drafted. Neither of these studies were funded by the Renewable Energy Fund. The proposed 150 kW r-o-r hydro project appears to be oversized for community needs, especially since village is losing residents. Additionally, there is > 1 mile of Knutson Creek with anadromous and resident fish habitat which will be affected by the proposed project leading to substantial licensing challenges. It is unknown if the project will be found jurisdictional by FERC. Recommend special provisions as follows: (1) AEA to receive feasibility study and must review and approve its findings before any REF funds committed; and (2) project size to be re-evaluated based upon current village population reduction. 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 sub-basin 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 sub-basin and Unga Man project. The City and Borough of Wrangell proposes assessing feasibility of using electric vehicles utilizing excess hydro from the southern Southeast electric grid. Specifically, as an output of the project the City proposes to purchase an electric car and develop a charging station in Wrangell. AEA supports the concept of displacing transportation fuel using renewable energy resources where shown to be economically feasible. AEA notes the benefit/cost ratio is 0.39 assuming 5 cent per kWh power over a 15 year project life. We are concerned that power may not be available at this rate for the long-term. Impacts of conventional power consumption, heating conversions, and electric transportation are being considered in the Southeast Alaska IRP project, expected to be complete by the end of 2011. For this reason we feel it would be useful to the IRP project for portions of this work to be done. Specifically, work that would be useful includes studies on the impacts of electric vehicles on the City distribution system, incremental impacts that electric vehicles will have on the future energy consumption and power demand for the Wrangell system, and opportunities for deploying smart grid technology. Recommend partial funding of $25,000 for reconnaissance study that will be useful to the Southeast IRP project with requirement that scope must be developed in coordination with the AEA-led IRP. AVCP proposes refurbishing the existing 12 kW photovoltaic-diesel hybrid system in Lime Village. The system was installed in 1999-2001 with donations by British Petroleum and Siemens for the PV panels. Although the panels are reportedly operable, the charger-inverter and control system does not work. The status of the ~100 kWh lead acid battery system is unknown. AEA notes that the efficiency of the Lime Village power system is very low (7.88 kWh/gal). Given the remoteness and very high cost of fuel in Lime Village, it makes sense to determine if and how the system can be reactivated before allocating funds for the task. $25,000 is a reasonable estimate for system evaluation. Recommend partial funding for system evaluation. AVEC proposes installation of a 10 kW low penetration photovoltaic-diesel system to supply station service power to the Kaltag system. Panels would be located on the Kaltag power house. Project economics are marginal (B/C=0.67) given the minimal amount of fuel that the system will displace. However AVEC states that the main value of the project is to demonstrate performance of a solar-diesel system in a utility environment. Full funding recommended. Project is simple, low-cost and straightforward. It takes advantage of the worldwide drop in PV module prices and cost of installation. Technology is proven and Tier 1 suppliers are selected. The applicant may be underestimating the power output from the PV system as low temperature and ground bounce can increase the output along with improved inverter power-curve optimization technology. Likewise, the applicant may be overestimating power output if snow is not removed in a timely fashion. The utility must ensure that snow is removed from the panels to ensure the desired benefits. Final design must be submitted to and accepted by AEA prior to allocation of construction funds. Post-construction, AEA requires the grantee to report the minimum loading of the diesel gensets at maximum solar output. Full funding recommended. 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. Chugach Electric proposes final design, surveying, geotechnical assessment, and permitting of substations and switchyards associated with the transmission for the potential Mt. Spurr geothermal project. AEA has budgeted funding for RE Fund round 4 feasibility and route selection for the transmission project (#615). That work is underway at the time of this review. Currently Mt. Spurr geothermal developer Ormat remains in the resource assessment phase and AEA expects a report of the results of 2011 field work by the end of 2011. Since the resource at Mt. Spurr is not yet proven and the Rd 4 feasibility and route selection remains to be completed, AEA believes that it is premature to support final design and permitting work for the transmission line. No funding recommended. Unalakleet Village Electric Cooperative (UVEC) has applied for a $295,775 grant, with $29,650 in matching funds, to collect and analyze high-resolution electric power data from the hybrid diesel-wind project in Unalakleet. The results of the data collection and analysis would be used to model the system and as the basis for a conceptual design report describing system improvements to optimize its performance in terms of power quality, electric grid stability, and fuel savings. The UVEC wind farm is performing nearly as expected in a class four wind resource and UVEC's recent improvements to the controls will result in further performance improvements. There is limited potential for improving the production performance of the UVEC diesel-wind hybrid project. At a proposed cost of over $300,000 for the data collection and analysis, the potential incremental performance improvements do not support these high costs. AEA does support continued improvements to the wind-diesel system performance and recommends continuing to work with AEA's wind and powerhouse programs and staff to identify specific areas to improve grid stability and efficiency in a more cost-effective manner. No funding recommended. The Native Village of Nikolski requests funding to complete construction and commissioning of a 65-kW wind-diesel system. In May 2006 AEA constructed a power plant with a total capacity of 180 kW. The community purchased a refurbished Vestas V15 wind turbine generator with a grant from USDA RUS and cost share from APICDA in July 2007 ($474,475). In 2009, Nikolski received an RE Fund round 1 grant (#89) for $409,430 to integrate the wind turbine generator with a heat-recovery system by installing boilers and thermal nodes. Most of the work was done by the community?s contractor TDX Power. Currently the wind system remains inoperable. Given our experience with the project, AEA has the following concerns: 1. Proposed budget seems too high. 2. The wind turbine generator may need repair due to extended non-operation in a marine environment. 3. The power output from the wind turbine generator is too high for the village load and diesel power system. 4. The proposed solution has not been demonstrated to be functional in other Alaska wind systems and is thus not guaranteed to provide a working system. Recommend full funding of $331,240 with a special provision that AEA will be directly involved in the management of this project. AEA staff will work directly with the community and its contractors to establish a scope, design and budget for a functioning power system. The design portion of this project will not exceed $50,000. Construction funds will be unallocated until the design, budget and schedule has been accepted by AEA. AEA notes that the round 1 grant recommendation requires a 5-year O&M agreement with an entity acceptable to AEA. This application proposes a 225 kW high penetration wind system that would serve the St. George power system, including a new lodge and fish processing facility to be developed by APICDA. The project would be located on St. George Tanaq Native Corporation land. The City and Corporation have not yet come to formal agreement on using the land, but the application states that there are no problems with site ownership, and the Corporation submitted a support letter for the project. The introduction of a high penetration system into a moderate-sized community that includes remotely controlled dumploads brings along a significant level of complexity. Successful performance will require commitment to providing skilled and timely operation and maintenance. Recommend full funding with the following conditions that must be met before funds are disbursed: 1) AEA approval of final design, 2) the grantee establish a five-year operation and maintenance contract with an contractor acceptable to AEA that has expertise in this area. Applicant seeks funding for a 2 MW wind energy project in the Delta area. The project, as submitted, would install 20 Northwind 100 kW turbines. In a letter dated November 13, after the submittal deadline, the applicant requested an amendment to the project that would result in substituting 2 Americas Wind Energy 900 kW turbines for eighteen of the Northwind 100 turbines, yielding a reduced cost. Since AEA received the requested amendment after the deadline, the evaluation here is based on the original submittal. AEA will evaluate the amended proposal in Round 2 of the RFA. The applicant has already received $801,500 in RE Fund funding from AEA for installation of NorthWind 100 wind turbines on the proposed site. The applicant\'s current proposal would bring the total number of NorthWind 100 turbines up to twenty. Based on AEA\'s high resolution wind map, the wind resource at the proposed location is Class 1 (poor). However the applicant provided 10 months of wind data that indicates a better wind resource. For the purpose of this evaluation, AEA has assumed a Class 3 resource (fair). Recommend partial funding with the following grant conditions: 1) AEA will require confirmation of an acceptable wind resource prior to dispersing funds to the project. 2) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with GVEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($6,269,750) minus amount already offered ($801,500). Kodiak Electric Association requests $8 million for 1) installation of three additional GE 1.5 MW SLE turbines and 2) addition of a 1 MWh energy storage system. KEA is requesting funding for construction and commissioning of the proposed project. The project is expected to cost $23,150,000, of which $8,000,000 would come as matching funds provided by KEA. An additional $7,150,000 will be spent by KEA but will be ineligible for match as the money will be spent prior to July 1, 2012. KEA received $4 million from a RE Fund round 1 grant (#103) for the construction and commissioning of three GE 1.5 MW SLE turbines. KEA?s wind turbines have been the highest wind energy producers in the State. The proposed system changes will boost wind and hydro penetration to almost 100% and displace approximately 780,000 gallons of diesel per year. Under the round 5 solicitation KEA is eligible for a total of $8 million in cumulative funding for the wind project. The proposed battery system, estimated to cost $3.8 million, will provide system stability and a bridge between the more variable wind generation and KEA?s Terror Lake Hydro project. The proposed battery system will increase the renewable output of the wind-hydro system. Although the battery system is proposed in the current application, AEA believes that the battery system is not solely a component of the wind system, and is therefore not subject to the $8 million wind system funding cap. AEA notes that KEA has received $4 million in RE Fund grants for upgrades to the hydro system (#401 and 653). In round 5 the total allocation of the wind and hydro system, including the battery system, should not exceed $16 million. Recommend partial funding of $7.8 million ($4 million for the wind system and $3.8 million for the battery system). GVEA requests funding for ordering wind turbines for a 24 MW project in the Healy area. AEA has provided $2 million toward feasibility and permitting in round 1 (#109). Turbines are scheduled for purchase in summer 2011 following consideration of bids from turbine suppliers and EPC contractors by the GVEA board. Site work and turbine erection would be completed in summer 2012. The project would be commissioned in summer 2012. GVEA has received federal approval for CREB bond financing. Recommend full funding. Akiakchak Native Corporation proposes reconnaissance and feasibility of a wind-energy system in Akiakchak. Akiakchak was recommended in round 2 (#212) for feasibility assessment, however there was insufficient funding. Akaikchak has a met tower on site, but it is not erected and operational. The geotech portion of the budget ($75,000) appears rather high, while conceptual design appears low. Recommend full funding. AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Scammon Bay. This is a resubmittal of a round 3 application (#514) that AEA recommended for funding, but which did not receive funding due to insufficient funds. Wind resource is estimated as a class 5 based on the state\'s high-resolution wind map. AVEC notes that the wind turbines will provide a local landmark for navigation. This application is one of seven wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 4. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2 and 3 for feasibility assessment in three other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks?including project development/scoping and contractor solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. AVEC eliminates the cost of wind resource assessment in this application, due to the presence of a met tower. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and management of these projects. Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, AVEC will prepare budgets for all round 4 wind feasibility projects with the goal of identifying opportunities to reduce costs. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy created by Shaktoolik?s existing 200 kW wind system funded in RE Fund round 2 (#303). The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. The round 2 grant included a 260 kW electric boiler as a secondary load to be installed in the power plant. AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $252,905, of which $12,645 (5%) would come as an in-kind match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $240,260, is requested from the RE Fund. The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and ANTHC. The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current system configuration, only 44% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 56% of the output is excess power and available for offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA?s modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration. Recommend full funding. TDX Power proposes feasibility, design, and construction of 1-2 MW wind energy project for Bethel. TDX owns and/or operates three wind-diesel power systems in St. Paul, Sand Point, and Tin City. TDX states in their application that they will be assuming operation of the Bethel power utility by summer 2011. Given these circumstances, TDX is an attractive and logical entity to develop a large-scale wind project in Bethel. However there are other significant energy planning and project development activities taking place in Bethel. The City of Bethel has been funded through the RE Fund round 1 for a 400 kW wind project. To date the City and utility have not reached an agreement for power purchase or interconnection. Additionally Village Wind Power is funded under round 0 to assess feasibility of a large scale wind power project. AVCP has submitted an application for final design and construction in round 4 for a 200 kW wind project to serve Bethel (#600). Napakiak is proposing feasibility and design of wind generation (#697) along its intertie with Bethel. Finally AVCP Regional Housing Authority is proposing study of hydro at the Kiseralik and Chikuminuk Rivers in Round 2 of the RE Fund. Therefore, there is a need for a regional integrated resource energy plan in the Bethel area to coordinate when and where energy projects should be developed. This proposal should be considered in the context of an integrated plan to assure proper sizing, timing, and integration of multiple energy projects. AEA believes that such an overall plan for the Bethel power system should be developed before proceeding with any additional wind development. AEA has met with the City of Bethel, AVCP Rural Housing Authority, Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, Calista Corporation and TDX to discuss regional energy planning, including wind and hydro development. The group has agreed to pursue coordinated energy planning for the region and the Bethel grid. AEA believes that Bethel?s large load provides the opportunity for deploying megawatt scale turbines with better economics than smaller-scale wind installations. TDX proposes a logical, stepwise approach for developing large scale wind generation in Bethel. Recommend partial funding of $213,690 for feasibility analysis and conceptual design with the requirement that TDX work with the City, the Housing Authority, the Health Corp, Calista, Napakiak Ircinraq Power Company, and other entities in regional and community energy planning. Igiugig Village Council, applying as a governmental entity, proposes to complete a feasibility study and conceptual design report to study the advisability of installing wind turbines in Igiugig, Alaska. The applicant has finished a meteorological tower study and has submitted a Wind Resource Report with the application. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the Wind Resource Analysis and Feasibility Study be accepted by AEA prior to allocation of Conceptual Design funds. Applicant is proposing funding for the construction of a wood chip fired district heating system. The application includes a conceptual design report. There is an existing RE Fund grant for final design work and business plan development. This is a community wood heating system that combines wood harvest and transport, combustion, district heating and energy sales. AEA remains concerned about the project\'s complexity and risks. However, these risks are somewhat mitigated by a strong project team and the project\'s phased development under AEA\'s oversight. It is very important that provisions be included in the business plan to account for the operation and maintenance of the proposed system. Recommend full funding contingent on completion of an acceptable final design and business plan. This project is linked to a previously funded renovation and energy upgrade of the Delta HS that includes the heating system and the external thermal envelop. Together the projects will result in the development of a fully fuctional, energy efficient facility that uses local sources of renewable energy. There is substantial accessible biomass wood supply in the upper Tanana from sawmills, two pellet mills in development, and state-owned forest land. Tok Umbrella Corp received a grant for a whole tree chipper which can potentially be used to supply fuel for this project. Recommend. Applicant requests funding for recon, feasibility, and final design of wood-fired heating system(s) for the community of Kaltag\'s school and community buildings. AEA\'s heat recovery system inventory indicates that AVEC\'s power system supplies a modest amount of heat to the school. The application does not supply information about fuel usage in buildings in Kaltag, which uses 18000 gallons/year. There was not sufficent information in the application to assess project economics. Project management would be by the YK school district. Bill Wall would perform the proposed recon and feasibility work. AEA is concerned that Wall will have sufficient time to perform this work since he is also involved in similar wood energy projects in Upper Kobuk, Ft. Yukon, and McGrath. Recommend partial funding for reconnaisance at $16,550. Chalkyitsik proposes feasibility and final design for stick-fired wood boiler and district heating systems to supply heat to school, school housing, water system, and the village tribal office. The estimated project cost at $1.54 M is expensive. Recon assessment was done for this project by CATG in the summer of 2008. Bill Wall would perform the proposed feasibility work. AEA is concerned that Wall will have sufficient time to perform this work since he is also involved in similar wood energy projects in Upper Kobuk, Ft. Yukon, and McGrath. Recommend partial funding for feasibility (task 1,2) at $32,500. Applicant proposes funding to install a biomass heating source and solar panels for the Assisted Living Facility for elders in Tanana, the Tanana Tribal Offices and the Internet high tech training center in Tanana. The project would replicate the successful wood fired boiler system at the washeteria. The economics of the photovoltaic system are not favorable. AEA estimates that the $80,000 cost of the photovoltaic system would displace approximately 800 gallons of diesel per year. Recommend partial funding of $412,642 for the biomass portion of the project. Mentasta Village Council proposes final design and construction of a cordwood boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of the school, teen center, council building, post office, and clinic. The system would consume approximately 220 cords per year and displace 22,000 gallons of fuel oil per year. Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. MVC is supplying a building to house the boiler (s) as a match. AEA is concerned by the lack of a specific fuel supply plan for the project. However, we recognize the existing fuel wood market in the Tok area. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with requirement that Mentasta provide a fuel supply plan and final design acceptable to AEA before construction funds are disbursed. City and Borough of Sitka (CBS) proposes design and construction of a ground source heat pump for the historic Japonski Island boathouse, a 2500 sq ft building undergoing substantial renovations. A capacity of 4-tons is expected for the GSHP system. The GSHP would be deployed horizontally within the tidal zone, with HDPE pipes buried four feet deep in 2000 sq. ft. of Sitka Sound. The expected coefficient of performance (ratio of heat delivered to electrical energy input) is 3-4. Design would be complete in October 2011. Construction would be completed by October 2012. The project is expected to cost approximately $90,000 more than a conventional oil-fired system. AEA is concerned about the high project cost versus the relatively small amount of heating oil (2,700 gal/yr) that is being displaced. The applicant notes that that there may be permitting delays due to staff shortage at DNR. DNR agrees with this point. The project would provide a demonstration of a ground source heat pump in a prominent location. Given the small project size, AEA believes it is reasonable to fund both design and construction. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA accept final design and construction budget before any construction funds are disbursed. This project is ready to go. Mechanical work to be awarded via bid process. Recommend. The City of St Paul is proposing funding for the puchase and installation of a replacement generator and the extension of the existing heating loop for the utility facilities. The replacement of the generator does not qualify for Renewable Energy Funding. See economist description of allocation between genset and heat recovery costs. Recommend partial funding of $98,149 for the design and installation of the heat recovery loop. The Atmautluak Traditional Council in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the community power plant to the refurbished washeteria. This project is estimated to displace 4395 gallons of fuel oil. The AEA-managed power plant replacement for the community is in the conceptual design phase with funding targeted for 2012. The power plant replacement is not required for this project to be successful, but it could enhance the availability of recovered heat. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2011. AEA notes that the application narrative states that final design funding is requested for 2011, although funding would not be available until July 2012. The budget form gives a later timeframe. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. Kongiganak received REF Round 1 and direct legislative appropriation funding to install five Windmatic 17S 95-kilowatt wind turbines, completing that project in 2012. This proposal would make use of excess electricity by diverting surplus kilowatts to residential heat loads. Applicant and contractor have prior experience installing ETS units. Average benefits seen for existing 20 installations will be somewhat lower when aggregated among 50 homes. Residents see full benefits of heat savings. Final determination and survey of homes for install (community designation) must be accepted by AEA prior to release of additional funds. Project needs to integrate with a separate project to upgrade the village distribution system as a condition of funding. Recommend full funding. Nushagak Coop is seeking to develop a 2.7 MW hydro project at Grant Lake and a 1.7 MW hydro project at Lake Elva as part of their Nushagak Area Hydro Project (NAHP). Nushagak has submitted two applications in earlier RE Fund rounds: 1) AEA has awarded $300,000 in round 1 funding for recon and feasibility assessment of the 1.7 MW Lake Elva project , and has allocated an additional $3.9 million for further development activities (#6). 2) AEA recommended against funding permitting, final design and construction of Grant Lk (#204) because Nushagak did "not provide adequate justification to proceed to final design and construction". AEA has provided $25,000 to Nushagak toward an integrated energy resource plan (IRP) for the Dillingham and Aleknagik grid. The plan will address wind energy, hydro and other alternatives for energy production. The Lake Elva grant requires that this IRP be completed and approved by AEA before funds are made available for permitting and final design. The current application requests $20 million in funding for recon, feasibility, final design, permitting, and construction of the Grant Lake project and a 60-mile intertie to Aleknagik and on to Dillingham. The proposed RE Fund request represents 40% of the $49.5 million Grant Lake portion of NAHP. AEA believes there remains inadequate justification for providing funding for final design, permitting, and construction at this time. Nushagak and their contractor have completed recon and preliminary feasibility work on the NAHP. Additional work needs to be done, including stream gauging, geotechnical assessment, detailed economic and financial analysis of alternatives, and field studies to support future potential permitting activities. Recommend partial funding of $700,000 for completion of feasibility activities with the provision that funds will not be disbursed until IRP is approved by AEA. AEA recommends that $700,000 of the remaining round 1 funds be made available for these purposes. The Native Village of Cantwell requests funds for feasibility assessment of a 3 MW storage hydroelectric project on Jack River. The Village received grant funds in Round 4 (#606) for reconnaissance assessment of the project and has installed a stream gauge. The results of the funded reconnaissance report were that a hydroelectric project on Jack River is technically possible with a range of installed capacities from 1.7 to 7.3 MW. The proposed project reconnaissance report had a cost estimate of $31.5-$50.3 million. AEA used a mid-range estimate, or $40.9 million, to arrive at the benefit/cost ratio of 0.79, indicating the project is likely to have poor economics and would likely be costlier than the existing energy system. The project was scored but did not pass minimum Stage 2 scoring. Cordova Electric proposes to complete relocation and replacement of the intake structure for the Humpback Creek hydro project, inoperational after a fire and a flood in 2005 and 2006. AEA has awarded $4 million in RE fund round 1 dollars for this work; however the installed cost of the project has increased by $5,431,000 since construction bids came in much higher than expected. CEC has awarded a construction contract and the project is now on schedule for completion by November 2010. There is substantial support from the local Native tribe Eyak and fish procesors, and cost share by FEMA. FERC has issued a license for the rebuild. Eyak submitted a proposal to USDOE for stimulus funding for $4.85 million and expects to receive results by March 2010. Despite a substantially increased project cost, project economics remain attractive. CEC has obtained debt financing in the event that no additional grant funds are secured. Recommend full funding of $4,000,000 with the provision that AEA will decrease the grant to CEC by the amount that CEC receives in federal stimulus grant funding for the project. Ketchikan Public Utilities requests funding for contruction of the 4.6 MW Whitman Hydro project. The project would benefit the local fish hatchery owned by the SSRAA by providing a new water supply. Prior grants include a RE Fund round 1 (#37) for final design and permitting of $1.3M and a round 4 grant for construction (#620) of $700,000. The Legislature provided $1 million in 2010, and $8.025 million in 2011. Total state funding available for construction is $8.73 million. KPU has obtained authority to issue a $15 million revenue bond for construction. Recently the cost estimate for the project was adjusted upwards from $16.5 million to $26.5 million due to FERC licensing conditions and escalation of costs over time. AEA has recently learned that KPU must obtain an amendment to its power purchase agreement with SEAPA, without which KPU will be legally unable to use energy from the Whitman Lake project for its ratepayers. At the time of this evaluation, this matter remains unresolved. At a SEAPA board meeting in November SEAPA staff presented an analysis showing that under the latest load forecast (the SEIRP reference case) a substantial amount of energy from the combined hydro systems would be spilled, thus significantly limiting public benefit. AEA believes that additional funding for this project is unwarranted at this time. No funding recommended. Applicant proposes studying feasibility of a potential 500-2000 kW hydro project at Burro Creek on private land near Skagway. Project would supplement other hydro projects that serve AP&T\'s Haines-Skagway grid. Recommend for full funding. For economic viability this project will likely need to be interconnected to the Railbelt grid. Recommend project team evaluate technical and regulatory issues associated with interconnection. Recommend. 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. The short-term economics of this project are moderately beneficial, however its primary value is as a pilot project to prove the technical feasibility of this technology. The technology is just recently migrating into the commercial realm and has significant potential in rural Alaska. The applicant team has proven its competence in the 2008 season. Recommend full funding. APC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Alaska Power and Telephone) proposes feasibility assessment, permitting and final design for a 300 kW hydro project at Carlson Cr. that would serve Slana and Chistochina. This is a continuation of a project reconnaissance assessment funded in round 2 (#226), now projected to be complete in spring 2013. As part of the current work APC will request a project jurisdictional determination by FERC. APC submitted a similar proposal in round 3 (#443) that was recommended for funding. However insufficient funding was available. Work under the current proposal would not begin until fall 2013. It is reasonable for APC to complete current work and resubmit an application for funding after determining project viability. Recommend no funding. Applicant City of Akutan requests funding for repair of 105 kW hydro project at Town Creek. Work would include upgrading the existing access road, repairs to the intake, rebuilding the hydro turbine, providing hydro maintenance equipment and storage building, and upgrading the system controls. AEA has awarded round 2 funding for final design and permitting and notes that $64,000 has not been spent from the current grant. Recommend full funding with the provision that any funds remaining after completion of permitting and final design from round 2 will be returned for reallocation to other grantees. AEA recommends continued feasibility work consistent with the reconnaissance study. TDXâ€™s application is focused on the smaller of the two hydroelectric options identified. In order to fully address the feasibility of hydro development in Adak it is recommended that the scope of work and budget be increased to examine all recommendations in the reconnaissance report. Specific recommendations include performing feasibility level studies to further evaluate future load growth (or decline) along with fish processor loads, perform hydrology data collection and analysis, develop more detailed project cost estimates, and provide project capacity and storage recommendations with concept designs. Additional requirements for this phase include aquatic investigations and review of environmental flow restrictions, agency consultation, appropriate permitting investigations, and coordination with other community rehabilitation efforts particularly related to water and energy use. AEA recommends funding of $390,000 to complete a larger scope of work to include stream gauging, mapping, additional aquatic investigations, data collection as necessary, energy and economic modeling, concept designs, preliminary design criteria, initial agency consultation, and final recommendations for design and permitting. Recommended for funding with the special provision that additional funding be used to expand the scope of the feasibility study as described above. This application was submitted for construction funding. However, permits, land use authorization, construction ready design and specifications, final design cost estimate and an updated business plan need to be completed prior to consideration for construction funding, per the AEA Request for Applications 15003 section 2.2 to 2.6. No funding recommended. AVTEC proposes to renovate, refurbish and upgrade the City\'s existing Marathon Hydro plant, currently unused. The application is largely the same as #657 in round 4. For that application AEA recommended partial funding of $67,000 for final design and permitting. AEA and AVTEC entered into a grant agreement in July 2011 for this work, but little work has been completed to date. Since the design and permitting work is not yet completed, the scope of work, cost estimate, and schedule cannot be verified, and there is not sufficient basis to recommend funding at this time. Recommend no funding. Kootznoowoo Inc. proposes construction of a 1+ MW run-of-river hydroelectric project and 6.7 mi transmission project to supply the community of Angoon. Kootznoowoo has supplied separate applications for each of the projects (#825 and 827). AEA is combining the two project proposals together for the purposes of evaluation. AEA has a Round 4 (#670) grant to Kootznoowoo in the amount of $1,060,500 for permitting and final design with equal match from DOE. Although the application indicates that design and permitting will be complete by September 2012, AEA believes this schedule is overly optimistic and that it is premature to allocate construction funds to this project. AEA initially recommended against funding this project due to concerns that Kootznoowoo would not be able to complete design and permitting by September 2012. Kootznoowoo requested reconsideration of this recommendation on the basis that ten months is sufficient time for them to complete design and permitting. In response AEA is willing to recommend funding for construction, with the requirement that no construction funds will be granted until AEA accepts final design, Kootznoowoo completes current grant activities, and the project team demonstrates that all permits have been issued and that project financing and power sales agreements are in place. Full funding recommended with the above special provisions. Chugach Electric Association requests $3,453,920 to complete construction of the Stetson Creek Diversion to Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project. Project will add 6,020,000 kWh annually. It will also provide environmental benefits for increase in 1) water temperature and 2) increase flows at upper reaches of Cooper Creek to enhance fish habitat. Bids were opened on 9/28/12 and construction is underway. Project cost is $21,772,523. CEA received funds in Round 4 (#674) for $576,080 for design and permitting and a State appropriation for $5,825,000 in FY13 for construction. The project applied for funding in Round 6 but failed to score within the funding limit. CEA will continue to seek grant funding and finance any cost in excess of grant amounts. Construction of this project satisfies the Settlement Agreement established in support of the FERC re-license of Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project, which, along with this diversion, has annual energy of 48,000,000 kWh. The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) on 1/7/14 advised AEA to recommend to the Legislature partial funding this project if funding is kept within the Governor?s budget of $20M. REFAC further advised AEA to include the initial recommendation of full funding should the Legislature make available additional funds this year. One other hydro project, Allison Creek, was also recommended for partial funding. The primary reason was to allow the funding of six additional projects in higher cost areas of the state. AEA recommends partial funding of $1,760,019 if the Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 budget is limited to $20M, and recommends this project first in line for any additional funding beyond $20M, up to the requested grant amount of $3,453,920. The City of Pelican proposes completing construction of a 650 kW run-of-river hydro project. Design and construction has been supported by the Denali Commission through an AEA-managed rural power system upgrade project. Other energy-related projects completed recently in Pelican by AEA include a bulk fuel plant and a new diesel powerhouse. The hydro project is a rebuild of the 1940s era hydro project that supplied the fish processing facility and the community. The project is now approximately 60% complete and is scheduled for start-up in 2012. The fish processing facility has had financial problems over the last few years. Site control for the project is not finalized. While the Pelican Utility District (PUD), owned by Kake Tribal Corp, holds a DNR easement for the hydroelectric project from the intake to the power house, the City holds an easement on this same tract only for water and sewer improvements. The City is in discussion with the PUD to establish an operating agreement for the power system. The City will obtain site control in conjunction with this agreement. Recommend full funding with requirements that before construction funding is disbursed the City must obtain and demonstrate to satisfaction of AEA 1) site control for the hydro project, 2) FERC approval of revised construction plans dated 10/11/10, 3) final design and specifications for all grant-funded project elements, 4) a finance plan for the entire project, and 5) an updated business plan. City and Borough of Sitka request funds for construction of an expansion to the Blue Lake dam. Construction elements include 83 feet raise of existing reinforced concrete arch dam, new powerhouse with three new turbine-generator units totaling 15.9 MW capacity, a new intake and connection tunnel, and a new surge chamber. The project construction bids came in higher than expected so the CBS is seeking additional state funding and planning to sell more revenue bonds to cover the new estimated project cost of $145M. Special provision: AEA will require finalized financial plan before any new grants will be put in place. AEA recommends full funding. Applicant proposes resource assessment and feasibility analysis and permitting/deployment of a hydrokinetic device at Nenana. The project team appears well-qualified. The primary benefit of this project to the State of Alaska is the demonstration and testing of a technology with significant potential in rural Alaska. However, project costs appear excessive. At $975,000, (p13) cost of development and construction of the 30 kW ORPC generating unit is of concern, especially in regard to the potential for eventual technology commercialization. Recommend partial funding for resource assessment (tasks 1-3). ORPC has demonstrated a commitment to a sustained presence in Alaska and has been a pioneer in hydrokinetic development in Alaska and in the country, and has a track record of hiring local contractors. Significant work has gone into resource evaluation and permitting for what will be the first tidal installation in Alaska. ORPC has garnered significant local support, including that of Homer Electric Association. Initial costs are high and projected to drop for subsequent installations. The benefit/cost ratio increases as the project expands (roughly $4M for the first unit, and $4M for the next 3 units). However, according to AEA?s analysis, the B/C ratio remains below 1 even for a 100 MW plant. Given the high risk associated with the installation of a new technology in Cook Inlet and the uncertainty surrounding costs, it is logical to wait for the results of the installation of the first turbine before committing funds to expand the project. Not recommended for funding. Applicant proposes to install 200 kW of wind turbine at $2.2 million to displace 16,000 gallons per year of heating fuel at the Hooper Bay water treatment plant. Given modest savings in fuel AEA has concerns that the project is not optimized to maximize diesel displacement for community heat and power. For this reason we recommend that applicants consult with the community and power utility to integrate the project into the community energy system. We recommend funding be limited to feasibility analysis that matches heating load profile with resource availability, and develop alternate scenarios. Develop two scenarios--1) interconnected with utility grid, 2) stand alone for water treatment plant only. Recommend partial funding of $80,000 under task 6 to prepare feasibility assessment and conceptual design as above. Applicant proposes to study impacts on raptors and migratory birds of a potential 40-50 MW wind farm near Delta that would tie into the GVEA grid. Proposal follows onsite wind measurement at two sites, for 9 and 21 months that estimatesa 30% capacity factor. Applicant is an IPP that includes AP&T as a partner. Recommend full funding with the requirement that applicant will be required to cooperate and share data, including interconnection study analysis and outputs, on a non-confidential basis with the ongoing AEA-sponsored Railbelt Regional Integrated Resource Plan project. The proposed project is a 2MW wind farm near Tok. The turbines would be tied into the Tok, Tanacross, Dot Lake and Tetlin grids. The application is for resource assessment through construction. The application lacks detail on reasoning for site selection, integration issues, interconnection of villages, plans for using excess wind energy, or current energy usage. Without having an onsite wind resource assessment it is impossible to evaluate the viability of the project. Recommend partial funding for wind resource assessment only. The North Slope Borough proposes final design and permitting for a 300 kW wind project to serve the Point Hope grid. The Borough is currently working on a round 3 grant for conceptual design (#413) and has completed onsite wind resource assessment which indicates a class 6 resource. The proposed budget includes $160,000 for final environmental assessment and mitigation plans. The current work includes $102,000 for similar activities. AEA believes that it is reasonable to reduce the budget for this on the basis of the previous award. Since conceptual design is not yet complete, construction cost estimates are very approximate; However, unless the construction cost can be reduced economics for constructing the project will not be favorable, Recommend partial funding of $298,000 with requirement that before final design funds are disbursed AEA accept the feasibility and conceptual design report. TDX Corporation proposes design and construction of the interconnection and integration of TDX\'s 675 kW wind farm and the City of Saint Paul\'s power system. TDX proposes to work with the City to resolve a longstanding impasse on sales of wind power to the City. The application indicates that if TDX and the City cannot secure an agreement on power purchase terms and conceptual design of modifications to the City power system, no funds will be requested. Recommend full funding with the requirement that 1) before final design and construction funds are disbursed TDX and the City must finalize an agreement that addresses power purchase terms and 2) before construction funds are disbursed the TDX and City must finalize an agreement on the design of modifications to the City power system. The lack of an accepted conceptual design prohibits awarding funds for design activity as AEA is unable to properly assess the viability of the wind resource, the powerhouse, the electrical distribution system, community heat loads and the various wind turbine and integration options evaluated. The applicant should proceed with the feasibility and conceptual design work already funded through round 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund. Not recommended for funding. There are two entities planning wind energy projects in Bethel: 1) the City of Bethel (# 122) is proposing a 400 kW construction project in addition to a 100 kW project that was approved by the AEA and the Denali Commission in the alternative energy RFP, and 2) Village Wind Power is proposing construction of up to 2 MW (# 67). Additionally AVCP Regional Housing Authority is proposing study of hydro at the Kiseralik and Chikuminuk Rivers in Round 2 of the RE Fund. Therefore, there is a need for a regional integrated resource energy plan in the Bethel area to coordinate when and where energy projects should be developed. This proposal should be considered in the context of an integrated plan to assure proper sizing, timing, and integration of multiple energy projects. A 2 MW wind project will likely impact system reliability and stability of the existing diesel power system. However there is no allowance in the proposed work plan and budget to integrate the project into the existing network to ensure continued reliability. Without the integration work the viability of the project cannot be assured. On the basis of our integration concerns, AEA recommends not awarding funding for construction. While the existing wind resource model predicts only class 2 winds in Levelock, class 4 winds exist further south at the coast. There is no current wind data. The applicant proposes a low-cost method to collect valid, usable wind data. A larger met tower would be needed for any future feasibility study, but the 10-meter configuration proposed will work well for reconnaissance so long is the tower is placed in an area of minimal surrounding vegetation and away from buildings that might block the wind. Even if only a class 3 wind site is discovered, the high cost of fuel in this community might allow for an economic medium-penetration project using a remanufactured turbine. ull funding recommended. F Applicant proposes feasibility through construction of a wind energy system of unspecified scale and location in Akiakchak. The applicant requests AEA to manage the project. The application provides only a general description of the project. There is no detailed budget. AEA recommends funding only onsite wind resource assessment at $15,000. AEA will supply an instrumented met tower. Project is low risk and potentially very beneficial. Long term wood supply is reliable and sustainable. However at $839,000 the project is expensive compared to wood heating installations in Tanana and Ionia, so B/C is poor. AEA would manage project per request in proposal. AEA Project manager thinks this project can be built for $500,000. Wood storage may not be required and bulding cost at $150/sf, not $350/sf, is appropriate. Project can be coordinated with Gulkana for economy. Recommended. At lower cost. Project appears to be well-conceived and a practical way to use a local energy resource. We are concerned about efficiency of the current residential woodstoves and possible health impacts from increased smoke. We do not recommend funding for processing and distributing the firewood. Recommend funding for only firewood processor equipment and freight as quoted ($147,720). Recommend at lower project cost. The Haines Borough is proposing final design and installation of low emissions; high efficiency; 3rd party tested pellet-fired boiler systems to heat Borough-owned buildings; Haines School and Pool, Chilkat Center, Sewer Treatment Plant, Water Treatment Plant, Vocational Education Building, The Library, old City Shop, new City Shop, The Public Safety Building and The Sheldon Museum. This project is estimated to displace a total of 80,000 gallons per year of fuel oil, using 695 tons of pellets per year. The project has completed feasibility/conceptual design phase work. The application includes substantial support from the community and Borough. Haines Borough has already purchased and installed a pellet system at the Borough Senior Center. This project will develop an anchor tenant for pellet supply in the Southeast Alaska region and will potentially support the development of pellet manufacturing infrastructure. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding for design, permitting, and construction with requirements of AEA acceptance of final design, fuel supply plan, biomass storage, and business/operational plan before construction funds are released. Copper River School District proposes to construct a 1.8 MMBtu/hr wood pellet-fired heating plant to supply the Kenny Lake School. RE Fund round 1 (#46) provided funding for final design. Upon request of the grantee AEA is managing the project. Pellets would be purchased from the new Superior Pellets fuel facitlity in Fairbanks. Other potential supply is from Canada. Project is scheduled for completion in December 2011. The project would represent the first instituional-scale pellet heating plant in Interior. Recommend full funding. The City and Borough of Yakutat is proposing final design and installation of low emissions; high efficiency; 3rd party tested cordwood boiler systems to heat three City/Borough-owned buildings: City Hall Building; Court House Building; Yakutat Community Center . This project is estimated to displace a total of 7,238 gallons per year of fuel oil, using 38 cords of wood per year. The project has completed a feasibility study. This project is an example of good collaboration efforts among community organizations in an effort to provide low cost heating to the entire community of Yakutat. Also the local community appears to be supportive of a district biomass heating project. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. AEA recommends partial funding of design and permitting to allow the City and Borough of Yakutat to make an informed decision about pursing biomass as a heating option. Recommend partial funding with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design; biomass storage; business/operational plan; harvest plan; inventory plan, $103,000. The Lake and Pen Borough proposes the construction of cordwood boilers for the communities of Port Alsworth (Improvement Center and Fire Hall), Nondalton (single structure or multiple units), and Pedro Bay (Smokehouse Bay Annex). This project would displace approximately 9,104 gallons of heating fuel. This application is based on a feasibility study that was completed in June of 2010 that recommends different technology from what is proposed in this application. There is no discussion of the engineering design or the business/operational plan of the proposed system. Wood inventory work has only been completed on Native Allotments in this area. While the volume of wood required for this project is very small, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated the sustainability of this project without a business/operating plan. AEA recommends no funding at this time, but encourages the Lake and Pen Borough to apply for updated feasibility studies through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group and to further develop the business and operational plan for the biomass systems. No funding recommended. The Southeast Island School District currently operates cordwood fueled heating systems at their Coffman Cove and Thorne Bay Schools. The Thorne Bay system is undersized, so the school district is proposing the relocation of the Thorne Bay boilers to the schools in Hollis and Whale Pass. The application also includes the design and construction of replacement boilers for Thorne Bay and the design and construction of a heating system for the Naukati School to replace the heat recovery system that is being eliminated by the decommissioning of the Naukati power plant. The Southeast Island School District has proven the successful operation of cordwood boiler systems and has integrated the operation and maintenance of these systems into their culture. Greenhouses heated by the biomass systems have been installed on Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove, and more are planned in conjunction with this project. SEISD is a success story for the State of Alaska Biomass Program. Recommend full funding. The Organized Village of Kake is proposing final design and permitting for a low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested district wood-fired heating loop for a tribal government office building, Kake City School District, Tlingit and Haida Senior Center, the City of Kake?s Bingo Hall, and a lodge owned by the Organized Village of Kake (OVK), a federally recognized tribe. This project is estimated to displace approximately 35,000 gallons per year of fuel oil. The application includes substantial support from the community and endorsement from the Kake Community Energy Committee. AEA recommends partial funding of design and permitting to allow the Organized Village of Kake to make an informed decision about pursing biomass as a heating option. AEA recommends partial funding for the final design and permitting includes business/operations plan; biomass storage; biomass resource inventory assessment; harvest plan, $175,000. Tanacross Village Council proposes final design and construction of a three-Garn wood boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of the multi-use facility, water/sewer heating loop, fire station, and the community hall. The system would consume approximately 260 cords per year and displace 25,300 gallons of fuel oil per year?90% of the facility loads. Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. TVC is supplying match including materials for a boiler building and arctic pipe system. AEA is concerned by the lack of a specific fuel supply plan for the project. However, we recognize the existing fuelwood market in the Tok area. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with requirement that Tanacross provide a fuel supply plan and final design acceptable to AEA before construction funds are disbursed. The Port Graham Village Council proposes the construction of a cordwood fired biomass boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of four buildings: community hall; the clinic/police; an office; and a shop. The system would displace 5,365 gallons of fuel oil per year. The design and business/operating plan were funded in Round IV of the Renewable Energy Fund for $75,000. The project also received $127,640 from the US Department of Energy for design and permitting activities. The economics of this project are very challenging due mostly to the small amount of fuel that will be displaced and resulting in a benefit/cost ratio of 0.36. The applicant submitted additional heat loads that could be added to the system at the time they appealed AEA's decision to not fund the project. The integration costs associated with these loads was not included. The project B/C ratio would still be less than 1.0 with the additional loads, and even lower with the additional integration costs. This proposed change did not elevate the stage 2 score above the minimum threshold. No funding recommended. Did not pass stage 2. 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. 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 108,715 gallons of fuel/year. 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 design of a pellet boiler for the airport complex, and has received construction funding through the Renewable Energy Fund â€“ 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 feasibility update and design. Village of Minto proposes final design and construction of a biomass boiler system that is low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested to supply heat to the Minto Multi-Purpose Building/Lodge and the Health Clinic. The system would consume approximately 99 cords per year and displace 11,400 gallons of fuel oil per year. Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. Village of Minto is supplying a building to house the boiler (s) as a match. AEA is concerned by the lack of a harvest /operations plan for the project, but it is a deliverable. However, we recognize the existing fuel wood market in the interior Region. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding for final design, permitting, and construction with requirement that Minto provide a harvest plan; business/operations plan; biomass storage; final design that must be reviewed and approved by AEA before construction funds are disbursed. 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 â€“ 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. The City of Akutan proposes to complete final design and permitting of a geothermal power plan serving the City and Trident Seafoods. The City of Akutan began this project under a RE Fund Round 2 grant (#246) and continued with partial funding under a round 3 grant (#470). In the summer of 2009, the City performed surface exploration work, including field mapping, CSAMT and remote sensing, to help choose drill sites. In summer 2010 two wells were drilled with good results. The first well hit several shallow, hot aquifers (up to 359F at 585 ft). The second well was evidently less permeable and did not encounter much fluid, although an elevated geothermal gradient was recorded. The City is proceeding with feasibility stage activities, scheduled for completion in June 2011. Pending are finalization of the resource assessment, conceptual design and project cost, financial analysis, preliminary power sales agreement, and a draft operational and business plan. DGGS finds that "Drilling at Akutan during the summer of 2010 confirmed the presence of a high-temperature geothermal resource at Akutan. This resource is comparable to that at Makushin, and is in the tens-of-megawatts class.." The substantial geothermal resource combined with the substantial energy load of the fish processing plant and the City of Akutan indicates promise for this project. Recommend full funding with provision that before funds are made available for final design and permitting, the City must provide to AEA and AEA must accept a feasibility assessment that justifies continued project development. Applicant proposes to do exploratory drilling and data collection on the Manely Hot Springs area geothermal resource for the purpose of producing heat and power for the community. The Denali Commission has provided $725,000 through the alternative energy RFP and AEA has provided $215,000 in renewable energy fund funding to TDX Power for the Manley Hot Springs Geothermal Plant project. TDX Power is the local certificated electrical utility. In the current proposal there is no mention of any involvement by TDX in the proposed project nor any indication of power sales discussions. This proposal is by an entity other than TDX, which already has been allocated funding for geothermal development in Manley. Becuase the application does not demonstrate coordination with the funded TDX work, we recommend no funding. The City and Borough of Sitka proposes a reconnaissance through conceptual design for an effluent heat pump to heat the city\'s wastewater treatment plant. Two 60-ton heat pumps would transfer the heat in the effluent to heat the wastewater treatment plant. The expected coefficient of performance (the ratio of the heat output relative to the electrical energy inputted) is 3-4. The project would also provide cooling by direct heat transfer. The current HVAC system has reached its useful life and needs to be replaced. Although the preliminary economic analysis prepared for the REF review indicates marginal economics, further design work and refinement of assumptions may improve project viability. Recommend full funding. Given overall Muni of Anchorage support and extent of matching funds we expect successful power sales agreement negotiations. Note proposal 93 - Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity requests funding for Alaska Wind Energy LLC to do similar work. While both have technical and economic merit, the application by the owner of the landfill may simplify the project. Under this project the Muni can work with an Alaska Wind or another IPP to develop and operate the project. Additionally the Muni proposes 50% match. We recommend that either proposal 68 or proposal 93 be funded, but not both. . The Cook Inlet Housing Authority proposes to install a ground source heat pump system in the Seldovia House housing complex in order to reduce the building?s heating oil consumption. Despite some unknowns regarding ground source heat pump performance on the Kenai Peninsula, the economics of the proposed installation appear to hold up to a range of conservative assumptions. The project could provide useful GSHP performance data for the Kenai Peninsula in addition to demonstrating the effectiveness of a hybrid heat pump/fuel oil system. The high cost of fuel oil in Seldovia makes the potential savings of a ground source heat pump attractive despite higher local electricity costs. Full funding recommended. 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 projectâ€™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. Proposal includes a new 456 kW genset in addition to the exhaust and jacket water heat recovery system. Recommend partial funding for the complete heat recovery system development, but excluding the genset and associated freight. The genset is not considered an element of the "waste heat recovery" system eligible for funding under the RE Fund legislation. Proposal number 30 requests funding for development of a community wood heating system that would likely interact with this proposal. Proposal 30 refers to integration with a water project with Village Safe Water and refers to future coordination with this project. We note there are different engineering teams supporting the two projects. On this basis we require coordination of design of both projects. G&K Electric Utility proposes a Feasibility/Conceptual Design study for the implementation of diesel heat recovery at their existing power plant. The grant will be managed by the Aleutians East Borough. This Cold Bay utility is a good candidate for a heat recovery system as identified in the Alaska Energy Pathway. AEA has worked extensively with heat recovery feasibility studies in the past few years. A feasibility study with sufficient information to qualify for Design and Construction funding through the Renewable Energy Fund should not cost more than $30,000. Recommend partial funding of $30,000. Applicant proposes to recover heat from diesel generation plant to supply a 200 kW organic rankine cycle generator. Applicant would provide 32% of total project funding. Project would be complete by summer 2010. Recommend full funding of $1,300,000. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the Village of Venetie are proposing to extend the use of recovered heat from the existing Venetie power plant for heating the newly constructed clinic. Recovered heat is already being used to heat the Washeteria and Water Treatment Plant. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes to recover heat from AVEC diesel generators and supply heat to the city water plant and washeteria. ANTHC would design and manage the project as part of the water system improvements. Project completion would be in April 2010. The application does not include a letter of support from AVEC, however the app does refer to initial discussions with AVEC that indicate general agreement price. The application provides a detailed preliminary design. Recommend full funding of $435,000 with requirement that City and AVEC provide a heat purchase agreement to AEA before disbursement of funds. ACEP in partnership with Tanana Chiefs Conference proposes to follow up lab testing of 50 kW Electrotherm ammonia cycle engine that converts recovered heat to power. It is part of an overall program funded by EPA and AEA to develop and perform independent evaluation of organic rankine cycle and similar technology for use in rural Alaska. Following completion of lab testing in summer 2011 the unit would be moved to a suitable community power plant in the TCC region. This project represents applied research that can provide immediate benefits to communities. Because it is not fully commercialized there is significant technical risk. Recommend full funding contingent upon AEA accepting report from lab testing that indicates the technology is potentially viable for rural Alaska. The City of Seward proposes to install a run around heat recovery loop in the Alaska SeaLife Center to recover wasted heat from exhaust fans, appliances, and overheated rooms and deliver it into the building?s sea water source heat pump system, resulting in improved heat pump performance. The calculated benefit derived from improved heat pump performance expected with the addition of the recovered heat into the system appears to be marginal, even assuming a dramatically increased heat pump output than is currently used. However, the additional benefit of avoiding the costs of a dedicated split cooling system for the overheated rooms is substantial. Even using more conservative assumptions regarding performance increase, the project appears to be economic. Full funding recommended. The applicant did not demonstrate an economical project with clear public benefits. The long distances to the heating loads from the power plant and the potential to offset only moderate amounts of heating fuel make the economics of a heat recovery system at Holy Cross challenging. Additionally, there were numerous discrepancies between the 2013 and 2014 feasibility studies for a heat recovery system that should be clarified. No funding recommended. IPEC proposes construction of a diesel heat recovery system in Hoonah that will consist of jacket water heat recovery equipment and a piping loop that will supply heat to the school complex and community buildings. The heat recovery system is estimated to displace approximately 57,000 gallons of heating fuel per year. AEA is managing this project on behalf of IPEC under the Denali Commission-funded rural power system upgrade program. The power system upgrade may also include hydro projects at Gartina and Water Supply creeks with average output of 340 kW. In the event that the hydro resource is developed, amount of recoverable diesel heat is expected to decrease to approximately 46,000 gallons/year. IPEC is requesting supplementary funds above the $530,000 available for the heat recovery project that the Denali Commission is contributing. The project is scheduled for completion in August 2012. Recommend full funding. Sleetmute Traditional Council, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from the Middle Kuskokwim Electric generating station to the water treatment plant. The project will displace approximately 1,779 gallons of diesel per year according to a 2010 Heat Recovery Analysis. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. The City of Savoonga in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC power plant and an excess wind electric boiler to the water treatment plant, water loop, and water storage tank. This project is estimated to displace 100% of the current fuel oil usage of 8800 gallons. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2011 and the heat recovery design was completed in 2012. The wind design of this project must be completed. The heat recovery system will be operated and maintained through the Alaska Rural Utility Collaborative program. Recommend full funding contingent on a heat sales agreement and accepted final design. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Chevak are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant to the Water Treatment Plant and Vacuum Sewer System. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. ANTHC has funding for an electric heater for excess wind. The design should take into account the integration of wind-to-heat. The design should also consider the opportunity for marine jacketed engines supplying heat to additional community buildings. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes to recover heat from jacket water of existing diesel generators and pump hot water to various public buildings. Applicant estimated recoverable heat available but did not correlate availability with specific building heating load. Applicant also did not provide an estimate of amount of arctic pipe that would be required or heat loss from distribution. This is an expensive project that requires a high level of engineering and construction expertise. Due to the project\'s arctic location there will be a high cost for design, installation, and long-term operation. Recommend partial funding of $300,000 for final design (task #1). Applicant proposes to recover heat from jacket water of existing diesel generators and pump hot water to various public buildings. Applicant estimated recoverable heat available but did not correlate availability with specific building heating load. Applicant also did not provide an estimate of amount of arctic pipe that would be required or heat loss from distribution. Projected O&M costs appear low. This is an expensive project that requires a high level of engineering and construction expertise. Due to the project\'s arctic location there will be a high cost for design, installation, and long-term operation. Recommend partial funding of $395,912 for final design (task #1). The Native Village of Quinhagak in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC power plant to the water treatment plant/combined utility and washeteria. This project is estimated to displace 62% or 14,200 gallons of the current fuel oil usage per year. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations. A project is currently underway to prove the viability of marine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this project will be significantly less. Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. The Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative in collaboration with ANTHC and the community of Stebbins is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the community power plant to the new Water treatment plant, existing water treatment plant, washeteria, head start building, clinic, and school. This project is estimated to displace 57,000 gallons of fuel oil out of an annual usage of 69,000 gallons. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. The City of Marshal in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC power plant to the Water treatment plant and Community Store. This project is estimated to displace 100% or 7,700 gallons of the current fuel oil usage per year. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations. A project is currently underway to prove the viability of marine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this project will be significantly less. Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. City of Noorvik in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction of a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC power plant to the water treatment plant. This project is estimated to displace 87% or 18,600 gallons of the current fuel oil usage per year. The heat recovery system will be operated and maintained through the Alaska Rural Utility Collaborative (ARUC) program. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations. A project is currently underway to prove the viability of marine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this project will be significantly less. Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the Native Village of Tuntutliak are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant planned to the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. The utility has funding for an electric heater for excess wind. The design should take into account the integration of wind-to-heat. Recommend full funding. The Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative and the Southwest Region School District are proposing to provide recovered heat from the existing New Stuyahok power plant for heating the adjacent New Stuyahok High School, built in 2007. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment for the AVEC Power Plant and New Stuyahok School project was completed in 9/19/12. Recommend full funding contingent on a heat sales agreement and accepted final design. The Community of Nunam Iqua is proposing the design and construction of a recovered heat system from the new power plant to the washeteria/water treatment plant for building heat; the water treatment plant for process heat; and to the Clinic, Community Hall and Corporation Store for building heat. This project is proposed to be managed by AEA in conjunction with the design and construction of the new power plant. The preliminary heat recovery assessment performed in September 2013 showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. Recommend full funding. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Brevig Mission are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant to the Water Treatment Plant and the Washeteria/City Office. The Heat Recovery System will require the installation of a marine manifold on one of the existing generators. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. The intertie to Teller was damaged and AVEC is working with FEMA on repairs. Significant more recoverable heat will be available when the intertie is repaired, and the heat recovery system should be designed to handle this heat load. The uninsulated AVEC power plant modules should be insulated to maximize available heat. Recommend full funding. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Saint Mary?s are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing AVEC power plant to City Shop, Water Circulation Loop, Cold Storage/Hotel, and City Office Building. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. Recommend full funding. Kwigillingok received Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 1 and direct legislative appropriation funding to install five Windmatic 17S 95-kilowatt wind turbines, completing that project in 2012. This proposal would make use of excess electricity by diverting surplus kilowatt-hours to residential heat loads. The current performance of the wind system is only 27% of the goal according to FY2014 PCE data - well below the level that could be explained by curtailing of wind turbines due to a lack of additional ETS heaters. The average benefits seen for the existing 27 ETS installations would be significantly lower if the number of heaters were increased to 50 as proposed in the application. The applicant has not been timely in submitting required quarterly operations and maintenance reports on the existing wind energy project and has not provided as-built drawings and an operations and maintenance plan required to close out the REF Round 1 grant. There is a pending grant to upgrade the Kwigillingok power distribution system. When the REF Round 1 deliverables have been met, the distribution system upgrade is underway and wind system performance increases significantly, and economic viability can be demonstrated, the applicant could consider reapplying in a future funding round. No funding recommended. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Recommend this proposed feasibility study be funded up to $207,500 and that the three applicants be required to coordinate on data collection, study and milestones. We note that Trident Seafoods holds the FERC license for the current project and the applicant proposes to negotiate the use of Trident\'s license to expand the hydro project and generate electricity for the community at large. Recommend that an agreement that ensures access to the resource be signed by City and Trident before expenditure of any grant funds. Independence Power LLC proposes for permitting and final design for a 5.4 MW run-of-river hydro facility on Fourth of July Creek near Seward. This request builds on previously funded grants in Round II (#86) for reconnaissance and in Round IV (#693) for feasibility. The grant award document indicates work began on the funded feasibility study in September 2011 and is expected to be completed in September 2012. This round 5 request is contingent upon findings of a favorable outcome from this feasibility study with AEA review and approval of those results. However, those results will not be available until late 2012. There is also a significant issue regarding how the project, estimated at $16.7-27M will be financed. No funding recommended. AEA considered this project in the Denali Commission / AEA alternative energy RFP, and has offered $553,071 in state grant funds to the projects. This appears to be a viable hydro resource that will benefit the Railbelt network. At 2 MW, the project\'s relatively small capacity and energy output will likely not impact regional planning. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with MEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($2,242,961) minus amount already offered ($553,071). Applicant proposes recon and feasibility assessment of hydro projects that would serve the Bethel area. Although an engineering firm is not selected, selection would follow a formal process. Storage hydro would be complementary with wind energy, under development in Bethel. There may be significant permitting issues--see DNR comments. Substantial regional is demonstrated. Recommend full funding of $250,000. Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) proposes assessing feasibility of a 4 MW storage hydro project at Triangle Lk. Improved access to the proposed hydro site by recent road construction to Walden Point makes hydro development more reasonable to consider at this site. Project would be located on federal trust land. Major issue remains a market for power, which should be assessed in a regional IRP. This proposal is similar to a Round 3 proposal (#450) that was recommended for funding, but which did not receive a grant due to insufficient funds. Because the project would connect to the SEAPA grid that has numerous existing and proposed alternatives for generation and transmission, AEA concludes that there is insufficient information provided to assign a benefit to cost ratio. Recommend full funding with requirement that scope of work is consistent with findings of the Southeast Alaska IRP. 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. APC proposes additional three new environmental studies (feasibility), final design and permitting activities for a potential 12+ MW storage hydro project at Connelly Lake. AEA and APC entered into a grant agreement for $585,000 to support feasibility and conceptual design for the project under round 4 application (#627). Current funded work includes concept optimization, preliminary FERC notice of intent and preliminary application document, FERC scoping activities (documents and study plans), field studies (stream gauge installation; seismic refraction surveys; fish, wildlife, botanical, wetland, and heritage surveys; water quality testing); and the final feasibility report. This work was scheduled for completion in December 2012, but some snags in the licensing process have occurred and more studies are required. APC has challenges with site control with access through the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve, Haines State Forest and across several private parcels. FERC has requested they demonstrate this access to perform studies before FERC will devote any staff time on licensing for Connelly Lake. Environmental opposition to the project has been received in the past from some Haines residents. AEA believes additional grant funding for the 3 new environmental studies is warranted, but the request to fund final design and permitting is premature, given that several additional years of data collection may be necessary and project feasibility is uncertain. AEA also finds the amount requested for the three studies is excessive and therefore recommends grant funding be limited with a 20% cash match by applicant. Recommend partial funding. The Tanalian Electric Cooperative requests funds to assess hydroelectric and hydrokinetic resource potential and economics of the Tanalian River for electrical generation for Port Alsworth. The Tanalian River is located in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve and any hydroelectric development would require specific authorization by Congress, indicating significant permitting challenges. The application included a support letter from the National Park Service (NPS) for investigation of a potential hydrokinetic project; however, the letter was dated October 29, 2008 and was in support of a previous Round 3 grant application and applicant (#436), and did not indicate any support for a conventional hydroelectric project. It is unknown if the NPS supports hydroelectric studies in the Tanalian River. Additionally, the river is a known salmon stream and is listed as anadromous by Alaska Department of Fish & Game. In Round 4, Alaska Green Energy submitted and was funded for a similar proposal (#436) to conduct a reconnaissance study of hydroelectric potential for Port Alsworth. However, the grant was canceled before expending any grant funds due to inactivity and inability of applicant to obtain support letters for the project and to hold community and agency meetings. Although assessment of the hydrokinetic potential of the river was mentioned in the application, no detail was provided regarding the work to be performed, the amount budgeted for the work, or the location of interest. Even if NPS support for a hydrokinetic project had been renewed, insufficient detail was provided for consideration of this component of the proposal. Additionally, hydrokinetics is a developing technology and economics are unlikely to be positive at this time. Until the applicant can demonstrate that a project has a reasonable chance to be developed and permitted at the location, funding is not recommended. The Community of Elfin Cove Non-profit 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 off-season, 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. 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 control 2. Become current on financial and progress reports 3. Amend existing grants to reflect proposed milestone and deliverables 4. 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. The City of Kake's application for construction funding is based on a reconnaissance report and IPECs self-funded 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. The Iguigig Village Electric Company proposes a reconnaissance final design and construction to install hydrokinetic turbines on the Kvichak River. The application would follow up feasibility and conceptual design work supported by RE Fund Round 2 (#265) funding of $707,250. A reconnaissance report by EPRI in 2008, indicated that the Kvichak River near Iguigig was promising for hydrokinetic power due to suitable sites near the village and that the Kvichak River is generally ice- and debris-free. The application proposes to test multiple hydrokinetic devices (including ORPC and Whitestone device) in mid-2012 and 2013. The project proposes to continue development through FERC?s pilot project stage, leaving commercial licensing until 2018. A field study performed by Terrasond in 2011 under the Round 2 grant, located an area of interest that had depths of 2-3-meter depth, peak velocities near 2.5 m/s, and a highest average velocity across one transect at 2.3 m/s. Terrasond also performed geotechnical studies on the areas of interest. These characteristics make it likely that the area would have a suitable resource for hydrokinetic development. The application includes in-kind contributions from ORPC, which will test a 150 kW unit near Nikiski with support of a RE Fund grant (#660). The application also proposes to fund the completion, construction, and testing of the Whitestone Poncelet device, an undershot waterwheel under development by the Whitestone Community through assistance of a DOE grant. AEA has the following concerns about this proposal: 1. Assuming a $9.4 million project cost and $100,000/yr in fuel savings, economics are poor. 2. Given that the chief goal of this project is technology development and demonstration, the site is remote from logistical and technical support. Since the application aims to fund completion of an experimental device with no working prototype and test several other devices, it appears the Emerging Energy Technology Fund would be a more appropriate funding mechanism. No funding recommended. This project would retrofit heating systems of public buildings in Wrangell to utilize interruptible power for resistance heating. AEA has concern that widespread use of resistance heating will exhaust available hydro capacity and energy. However we recognize value of this project for demonstration. Therefore, recommend full funding with the following provisions: 1) Prior to final design analyze relative merits of heat pump vs resistance heating design concepts, 2) Make results available in near future for regional integrated resource plan. Proposal requests assistance for recon assessment of alternatives in Cold Bay, False Pass, and Nelson Lagoon. The proposal plans to look at current and tidal potential; these options should only be covered briefly in the study since there is little chance of immediate help from these emerging technologies. Recommend full funding with condition of AEA review and approval of RFP and consultant before AEA disbursement of grant funds. Golden Valley Electric Association proposes to develop a solar thermal system for the Denali Education Center owned by Denali Education Foundation. The project would save an estimated 32-36 MWh/yr and cost $190,000. At an educational center the project would demonstrate technology potentially applicable to other areas of Alaska. In order to minimize risk of scalding and provide adequate energy storage this project will have to include significant O&M and controls costs. Currently GVEA is working on a feasibility analysis, not yet complete. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA approve feasibility analysis and conceptual design in progress. City of Coffman Cove requests $175K in grant funds for permitting and final design, and construction of a 1.75 mile single phase line extension along existing roads within the City to serve 91 privately-owned lots with renewable energy. The RE sources are from Black Bear Lake Hydro and South Fork Hydro. Project design, permitting and construction to be by Alaska Power Company. Special provision: Provide evidence of site control with stamped plans and recorded easement for the line extension. Southeast Alaska Power Authority proposes feasibility and conceptual design to assess impacts of delivering SEAPA power to Kake. Currently there are three sources of funding for the 50-mile Kake-Petersburg Intertie focused on completing final design and permitting: 1) $2.99 million from RE Fund Round 1 (#29), 2) $500,000 grant from a 2008 legislative appropriation, and 3) $2 million grant from an additional legislative appropriation. Currently work under the KWETICO (Kwaan) grant has consisted of conceptual design and environmental field studies for the two primary routes under consideration. An MOU between SEAPA, KWETICO, IPEC and AEA establishes ownership, maintenance, and operation responsibilities for the project. AEA, the grantees, and SEAPA will enter into a project management agreement. AEA believes that the work proposed under this grant will advance the Kake-Petersburg Intertie. However, AEA believes that the current work proposed can be accomplished using current project funding. Existing grants require a project management agreement. AEA will require that SEAPA take the lead on this work under that agreement. AEA will work with its partners to ensure that the proposed scope of work is accomplished as proposed. No funding recommended. Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) proposes funding for the transmission portion of the 5 MW Reynolds Creek hydropower project. Haida Energy, a joint venture of AP&T and Haida Corp, would own the project and sell power on a wholesale basis to APC, the certificated utility on Prince of Wales (PoW) Island. The project is a component of Reynolds Creek Hydro Project, which received $2M (App #104) in grant funding already. In Round 3, an application (#439) was submitted for transmission line construction for Reynolds Creek. Although AEA recommended the project for funding there was insufficient funding appropriated to fund this project. The following grant allocations totaling $6.1 million have been made for the Reynolds Creek project: 1) $100,000 of Denali Comm funds to Haida Corp through the Denali Commission / AEA alternative energy RFP 2) $1 million in RE fund round 1 funds to Haida Corp (#104) 3) $1 million in RE fund round 1 funds to Haida Power, a joint venture between APC and Haida Corp 4) $2 million in legislative appropriation to Southeast Conference 5) $2 million in RE Fund round 4 to APC (#629) The project will be dispatched in conjunction with AP&T\'s existing Black Bear Lk and South Fork hydro projects. Previous applications state that Reynolds Creek hydro will only be used after the existing hydro projects are fully dispatched. An extension of PoW transmission to the northern portion of island to serve Coffman Cove and Naukati has been funded by the Denali Commission and RE Fund round 1. AEA has the following concerns about this application: 1. The application provides a cost estimate of $18.6 million for the hydro project, including transmission. However the most recent budget information available to AEA indicates a total project cost of $27.6 million. 2. While AEA agreed to reimburse up to $2 million in order to begin construction and preserve the FERC license, it was with the condition that Haida Energy provide an acceptable power sales agreement and finance plan prior to additional reimbursement. Haida Energy submitted a finance plan with a Power Project Loan Fund (PPLF) application to AEA for $20 million, at the limit authorized by the Legislature. However, AEA has rejected the proposed loan terms and asked Haida Energy to revise and resubmit with terms that conform to the PPLF statutes. Because of these unresolved issues, AEA believes additional funding is not warranted at this time. No funding recommended. Alaska Electric Light and Power proposes final design and construction of one tower replacement, two tower structural modifications, and addition of snow diversion structures to two towers on the intertie that connects the Snettisham project to Juneau. AEL&P proposes a two-phase design and construction schedule. Phase 1 begins in late 2010 and ends in fall 2011. Phase 2 begins in late 2011 and ends in fall 2012. Round 4 funds are available only for activities that take place after July 1, 2011 (Phase 2 work). The project is eligible for funding under the RE Fund because it will reduce the likelihood of the number of outages occurring due to avalanches that necessitate diesel generation (e.g. the major outages in the winters of 2008 and 2009) in addition to improving reliability of Snettisham hydropower. Recommend funding of up to $2 million for activities that take place after July 1, 2011. 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. Same as Stage 2 comments from Round 1 application #106. Stage 3 review update: Following discussions on regional funding allocation, no funding is recommended consistent with policy that not more than one project in a community that uses the same renewable resource be funded for construction in Rounds 1 and 2. In this case round 1 project #52 Nome Newton Peak Wind farm has a higher overall score and is recommended for funding. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Because all three proposals request feasiblity assistance, the proposed wind/hydro integration/transmission budget is too large. Milestones 7 to 13 are final design and permitting activities that should only be undertaken if a decision is made to interconnect the three communities. Recommend that feasbility milestones 1, 3-6 be funded at this time and that the three applicants be required to coordinate on data collection, study and milestones. Applicant proposes to assess feasibility of and prepare conceptual designs for potential wind systems in Pedro Bay, Port Alsworth, Egegik, Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton, Port Heiden and Pilot Point. The major outcome of the work would be a set of bid documents for a regional design-build package for wind systems in suitable locations. Recommend specialized experts to consult in wind-diesel integration work. Recommend full funding. There are two entities planning wind energy projects in Bethel: 1) the City of Bethel (# 122) is proposing a 400 kW construction project in addition to a 100 kW project that was approved by the AEA and the Denali Commission in the alternative energy RFP, and 2) Village Wind Power is proposing construction of up to 2 MW (# 67). Additionally AVCP Regional Housing Authority is proposing study of hydro at the Kiseralik and Chikuminuk Rivers in Round 2 of the RE Fund. Therefore, there is a need for a regional integrated resource energy plan in the Bethel area to coordinate when and where energy projects should be developed. This proposal should be considered in the context of an integrated plan to assure proper sizing, timing, and integration of multiple energy projects. Recommend full funding but require interconnection study and power purchase agreement to be finalized prior to releasing funds. Applicant proposes design and construction of a 300 kW wind farm in Quinhagak. Proposal is well thought out and permitting risks appear low because of previous USFWS consultation. Construction budget is detailed and realistic. The project appears to result in high wind penetration, but the proposal does not provide detailed information regarding integration of wind into the existing system. Given an annual fuel displacement estimated at 46,223 gallons and a project cost of $4.3 million, present value of net monetary benefits over the life of the project appear to be less than the project cost. Recommend full funding with provision that prior to release of construction funding AEA requires the applicant to produce detailed integration documentation and dispatch strategy for the wind-diesel system. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy created by Mekoryuk?s existing 200 kW wind system funded in RE Fund round12 (#72). The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $278,378, of which $123,919 (5%) would come as a match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $264,459, is requested from the RE Fund. The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and ANTHC. The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current system configuration, only 49% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 51% of the output is excess power and available for offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA?s modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration. Recommend full funding. Kotzebue Electric Association proposes final design and construction of a 1.8 MW expansion to its current 1.14 MW wind farm. The project would include a Premium Power Transflow 2000 flow battery system with 3.7 MWh of storage and ability to produce of 500 kW of power. This application follows from a similar earlier RE Fund round 1 application that was capped at $4 million (#85). The $4 million in round 1 funding remains allocated to the project. KEA submitted HOMER optimization model with the application. The application did not provide an assessment of alternative integration/storage options or wind data obtained from onsite measurement. KEA has recently upgraded their power system with new SCADA. This project is attractive because it will upgrade Alaska\'s first large-scale wind farm to a high-penetration system. Recommend full funding with the condition that prior to the release of construction funds, the applicant must provide detailed final design, detailed construction budget, and detailed integration plans based on empirical load and wind resource data for AEA\'s acceptance. This wind energy project would supply most of its output during the winter months, when load is greatest. Applicant Alaska Wind Energy is a partnership of Cook Inlet Region Inc. and renewable energy developer EnXco Development Corp. The project would be located on CIRI land. The project would tie into the HEA system at the Anchor Point substation. A 10-mile 24.9 kV line would connect the wind turbines to the substation. The final location of the line is not yet established. The line may cross CIRI, Native Village of Ninilchik, Kenai Borough, and State land. The applicant references a number of existing project feasibility analyses, but does not provide the analyses or their content in detail. The application includes a letter of support from local utility Homer Electric. Project risks indicated in the application are the ability to obtain a power purchase agreement with HEA and powerline right-of-way with land owners. By December 2009 the applicant proposes to obtain all permits and rights-of-way, complete all necessary field studies, complete a design-build package, finalize design, and substantially complete construction. Given the uncertainty of obtaining necessary permits and rights-of-way, allocation of construction funding for the project appears premature. Recommend partial funding for Final Design and Permitting with requirements that before the disbursement of grant funds that AEA review and approve feasibility studies. In the application there is no indication that the plan has the approval of RCA. As noted in the application this project will affect not only HEA but other Railbelt utilities. Recommend partial funding for final and design and permitting (phase 3 tasks 1-10 excluding task 11 the downpayment on wind turbines) with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the release of funds applicant is required to submit, and AEA must approve, a detailed plan to obtain RCA regulatory approval of power purchase agreements and certification 2) Because this project involves public funds AEA will require that all power produced by this project be sold to a public utility. Project failed Stage 1 - capped out. The North Slope Borough proposes final design and permitting for a 300 kW wind project to serve the Wainwright grid. The Borough is currently working on a round 3 grant for conceptual design (#412) and has completed onsite wind resource assessment which indicates a class 4-5 resource. The proposed budget includes $160,000 for final environmental assessment and mitigation plans. The current work includes $102,000 for similar activities. AEA believes that it is reasonable to reduce the budget for this on the basis of the previous award. Since conceptual design is not yet complete, construction cost estimates are very approximate; However, unless the construction cost can be reduced economics for constructing the project will not be favorable, Recommend partial funding of $298,000 with requirement that before final design funds are disbursed AEA accept the feasibility and conceptual design report. The North Slope Borough proposes final design and permitting for a 300 kW wind project to serve the Point Lay grid. The Borough is currently working on a round 3 grant for conceptual design (#421) and has completed onsite wind resource assessment which indicates a class 4-5 resource. The proposed budget includes $160,000 for final environmental assessment and mitigation plans. The current work includes $102,000 for similar activities. AEA believes that it is reasonable to reduce the budget for this on the basis of the previous award. Since conceptual design is not yet complete, construction cost estimates are very approximate; However, unless the construction cost can be reduced economics for constructing the project will not be favorable, Recommend partial funding of $298,000 with requirement that before final design funds are disbursed AEA accept the feasibility and conceptual design report. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a utility, proposes to complete a wind feasibility study and conceptual design report to study the advisability of installing wind turbines in Mountain Village, Alaska. The applicant performed a meteorological tower study from November 2009 to August 2011. A Wind Resource Analysis based on this study was submitted with the application and demonstrates a class five wind resource. Class four through seven wind regimes typically support viable wind-diesel projects in Western Alaska. A best case scenario is often used by AEA Project Managers when evaluating the merits of a feasibility project and, in regards to this proposal, resulted in higher production estimates than the applicant. The proposed project and future design work would refine production estimates prior to construction. Recommend full funding. AVEC proposes final design, permitting, and construction of a 300 kW wind farm that will serve the communities of Teller and Brevig Mission. AVEC has received funding from the Denali Commission for the intertie connecting the two villages and funding from RE Fund round 2 for resource assessment and feasibility (#297). A met tower was erected in September 2009. Preliminary wind resource assessment numbers based on Tier 3 wind mapping program output estimate a gross capacity factor of 16%. Recommend partial funding of $240,300 for final design and permitting with the requirement that AEA accepts that wind resource data collected to date justifies continued project development. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a utility, proposes the construction of a wind farm along the St. Mary's/Pitka's Point intertie along with components necessary for the integration of wind power into the diesel power plant. The wind-diesel system would serve the communities of St. Mary's and Pitka's Point. The basis for the proposed wind-diesel system is a design funded through Round 4 RE Fund grant #7040017. Permitting for the project is completed, site control has been established and a 65% design has been submitted to the Authority. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the 95% design be accepted by the Authority prior to allocation of construction funds. AVEC proposes onsite wind resource assessment, geotech analysis, feasibility, and conceptual design of a wind system to supply New Stuyahok. AVEC requested funding of $117,610 for a similar project in RE Fund round 2 (#301). AEA notes that the current project request of $142,500 for feasibility costing $150,000 has risen substantially in the current application. However the revised cost appears consistent with AEA\'s experience for a project of this nature. Recommend full funding. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a Utility, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community of Stebbins, Alaska. The wind-diesel system would service the communities of Stebbins and Saint Michael, Alaska. The final design will be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040008. The feasibility study and conceptual design report have been reviewed and accepted by the AEA Wind Program. Recommend full funding. AVEC proposes to add two NW100 turbines to their 400 kW Emmonak wind farm, boosting capacity to 600 kW. Although the first project was awarded in Round 1, a wind resource analysis report was not published until August 2010. This wind resource report estimates a capacity factor of only 18.7% for a NW100B at 80% turbine availability. This is substantially less than AVEC?s estimate (23.8% capacity factor corresponding to a total of 1,250,000kWh). Neither AEA nor AVEC were aware at the time of the Round 1 proposal and award that the wind resource would result in the low capacity factors and wind power densities actually seen at this site. Depending on energy production assumptions, the benefit/cost ranges from 0.61 to 0.69, thus appearing to be marginal at this point. A more accurate assessment of production will be available after a year or so of operation of the existing 400kW wind system. No funding recommended. Tatitlek IRA Council/Tatitlek Electric Company proposes final design, permitting, and construction of a 100 kW high-penetration wind system in Tatitlek. Currently the applicant is funded for resource assessment and feasibility by RE Fund round 2 (#316). Tatitlek has secured federal funding of $900,000 for project development. Feasibility, final design, and permitting is scheduled for completion in May 2011. Construction would commence in summer 2011. Given that round 3 funding would not be expended until summer 2011, the applicant can reapply for RE Fund round 4 support in 2010. Recommend no funding at this time. 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 fixed-RPM gensets. The ultra-capacitor bridging allows the system to provide spinning reserve while keeping voltage and frequency within spec. The system will allow for significant periods of diesel-off operation and the generator's power converter doubles as a grid-forming 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 high-resolution operational data for those systems. Recommend full funding. The City of Chefornak, applying as a local government, and working with Intelligent Energy Systems, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting of: a 475 kW wind farm; distribution repairs and upgrades; a secondary load at the power plant in the form of an electric boiler to control grid frequency and for the capture of excess wind power for use as heat; and 40 secondary loads to be installed in residential homes in the form of electric thermal storage (ETS) units that would capture excess wind power for use as heat. The proposed system would serve the community of Chefornak, Alaska. The final design would be based on a feasibility study and CDR (Conceptual Design Report) performed under a Round 4 Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grant #7040056. A feasibility study and CDR have been submitted for review. This project did not score high enough to pass the stage 2 technical and economic evaluation minimum score of 40. The primary contributing factor for the low score was the economic feasibility scores in criteria 4a which comprises 25 percent of the score. AEA's calculated benefit/cost ratio is 0.71. This score reflects a reduction in predicted annual energy production due to the underperformance of comparable projects. A score below 0.9 earns 0 points for criteria 4a. Other significant contributing factors to the low score are the tardiness of deliverables and reports and the underperformance of comparable systems in Kongiganak, Tuntutuliak, and Kwigillingok. The current CDR does not validate the selection of the proposed project. AEA recognizes that the wind resource in Chefornak is good and that a CDR that compared various turbine types and quantities and various secondary heat loads could identify an economical project for the community. AEA has met with Intelligent Energy Systems to discuss the project potential and improving the project economics. In addition to the low economic score, AEA has the following concerns that also influenced the stage 2 score: tardiness of project deliverables, progress reports and financial reports on the existing Chefornak wind feasibility grant, the underperformance of comparable high penetration systems, and the CDR not addressing the causes of the existing similar systems' low performance and recommending remedies in the proposed new conceptual design. Additionally, the application identifies upgrades and repairs to the distribution line that are required to proceed with the project as planned. Repairs are not eligible for funding and the upgrades required will need to be as a direct result of the proposed wind-diesel system to be eligible for funding. Any required, ineligible, upgrades or repairs necessary for the proposed project will need to be addressed prior to funding. AEA will continue to work with the applicant and their contractor towards completion of their CDR. No funding recommended. Did not pass stage 2 minimum score. AVEC proposes resource assessment, conceptual design, feasibility assessment, final design, permitting, and construction of a 300 kW project in Kivalina. AVEC is also interested in assessing a wind project up to 3.3 MW in capacity and an intertie connecting Kivalina to the Delong Mountain Transportation System. If the larger project is viable AVEC proposes establishing a power purchase agreement with Teck Alaska. The proposal includes a letter of support from NANA. Recommend full funding. Nushagak Cooperative requests funding for final design and construction of a 450 kW wind project. Currently Nushagak has received a $100,000 grant from the Denali Commission under the Alternative Energy Grant program for wind feasibility. Nushagak has a grant to study hydro feasibility for project(s) at Lake Elva and Grant Lake north of Aleknagik. Nushagak?s proposal demonstrates impressive level of community support for developing a utility-scale wind project in Dillingham. The utility has performed a substantial amount of work in preparation for wind development, including a reconnaissance level assessment of energy alternatives prepared by the University. AEA has the following concerns regarding this proposal: 1. The feasibility information submitted is not sufficient to provide a basis for final design and construction. Specifically, it does not include a conceptual design. 2. Alternatives assessed were limited to small turbines. There is no discussion of the risks associated with deploying a new turbine model in the state. 3. The economics of this project are marginal and may be improved by considering other sites, equipment, and project size. 4. Nushagak has not yet completed a substantial portion of or drawn any conclusions from the wind feasibility work underway. 5. The proposed scheduled begins in October 2010 with design and permitting completed in May 2011 before funding from the RE Fund would be available. Recommend no funding. AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Eek. Wind resource is estimated from the state?s high resolution map as a class 3. The applicant estimates wind resource as a class 4 based on nearby Quinhagak?s measured resource. The community operates a single phase power system. The Northwind 100 turbines operates in three phase. AVEC has prepared a recon- level wind power report for Eek based on regional wind data. This application is one of 7 wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 4. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2 and 3 for feasibility assessment in 3 other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks?including project development/scoping and contractor solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and management of these projects. Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, AVEC will prepare budgets for all round 4 wind feasibility projects with the goal of identifying opportunities to reduce costs. AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Elim. Wind resource is estimated from the state?s high resolution map as a class 3-4. AVEC notes that wind towers would provide a landmark for navigation in Norton Sound. This application is one of 7 wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 4. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2 and 3 for feasibility assessment in 3 other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks?including project development/scoping and contractor solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and management of these projects. Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, AVEC will prepare budgets for all round 4 wind feasibility projects with the goal of identifying opportunities to reduce costs. AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Koyuk. Wind resource is estimated from the state?s high resolution map as a class 3. AVEC notes that the wind turbines would provide a landmark for navigation in the area. This application is one of seven wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 4. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2 and 3 for feasibility assessment in three other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks?including project development/scoping and contractor solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and management of these projects. Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, AVEC will prepare budgets for all round 4 wind feasibility projects with the goal of identifying opportunities to reduce costs. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a Utility, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community of Marshall, Alaska. The final design would be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040021. The draft conceptual design report was submitted and reviewed by AEA prior to the Round 7 RE Fund application deadline. A final conceptual design report has been submitted. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the final conceptual design report be accepted by AEA prior to allocation of design and permitting funds. The Village of Kwethluk proposes feasibility assessment and conceptual design of a wind energy system to be located on the old runway owned by Alaska DOTPF. AEA\'s high-resolution wind map indicates a class 4 resource. Despite the location on the runway, some level of geotechnical assessment will be required. Geotech is not listed in the proposal. At the same time, tasks 4-7 basically consisting of cost analysis and conceptual design are budgeted $114,000. AEA thinks this figure is rather high. Recommend full funding with requirement that grant scope needs to include geotechnical assessment. The City of False Pass Electric Utility, applying as a local government, proposes feasibility and conceptual design work to determine the advisability of installing wind turbines on the False Pass electrical grid. This work will augment feasibility and conceptual design work already performed under a Round 4 Renewable Energy Fund Grant #7040051. The results of the Round 4 grant demonstrated that the False Pass wind regime contains enough energy to create a feasible wind project but, due to complex terrain, has high turbulence. The applicant proposes to continue wind and electrical data collection to investigate other locations in False Pass for a less turbulent wind regime and better understanding of community loads. The applicant proposes to then revise the existing Conceptual Design Report based on the aggregate findings. Recommend full funding with the special provision that Wind Resource Assessment(s) and Feasibility Study be accepted by AEA prior to the allocation of Conceptual Design funds. G&K Electric Utility proposes recon and feasibility assessment of wind energy and diesel heat recovery in Cold Bay. The proposal is consistent with the recommendations from a general energy assessment of Cold Bay, False Pass and Nelson Lagoon sponsored by the 2008 Denali Commission/AEA Alternative Energy grant program and AEA?s Energy Pathway publication. Airport data and the Pathway indicate a class 7 wind resource. Aleutians East Borough would manage the project. Diesel heat recovery potential appears excellent. The power system is adjacent to several public facilities and the power plant has a manifold on the diesel cooling system. Recommend partial funding for reconnaissance assessment, including a met tower. The City of Napaskiak requests funding for reconnaissance and feasibility assessment of wind generation and heat recovery for the City power system. The Energy Pathways document notes a class 5 wind resource. However the newly-revised AEA wind high resolution wind map estimates Napaskiak is a class 3 wind resource. The recon phase budget includes $52,250 for land use permitting and environmental analysis. AEA believes that it is not justified to spend this large amount of money before the overall wind resource is understood and the concept is validated. Recommend partial funding of $61,225 with a required match of $2,800 for reconnaissance assessment. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy created by Gambell?s existing 300 kW wind system. The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $252,905, of which $12,645 (5%) would come as an in-kind match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $240,260, is requested from the RE Fund. The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and ANTHC. The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current system configuration, only 55% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 45% of the output is excess power and available for offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA?s modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration. Nome Joint Utility System proposes the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a second EWT 900 turbine at the Banner Wind Farm. In a second proposal (#898) NJUS requests funding to integrate existing 1875 kW and 3660 kW units into Nome?s Power Plant and reconfigure plant controls to reduce operating costs, provide greater stability, and improve efficiency. The second proposal scope includes relocating the 1875 kW unit from a different building. AEA believes that this work is not consistent with the intent of the RE Fund, therefore not eligible. Only the integration of a secondary load controller and resistive dump boiler, estimated to cost $325,000, are consistent with the objectives of the RE Fund and eligible for funding. For the purposes of review AEA will consider proposal #839 and the eligible portion of #898 as one application. NJUSs? original proposal (#52) was for the construction of a 3 MW wind farm at a project cost of $13.5 million. The project was partially funded at $4 million and the scope reduced to the installation of a single EWT 900 turbine. Of this cost, $69,000 is for conceptual design and feasibility, while $3,931,000 is for final design and construction. A RE Fund round 1 grant is in place for the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a single EWT 900 turbine. A conceptual design report, which includes analysis of a wind-diesel system with both one and two EWT 900 turbines, has been accepted by AEA. NJUS is requesting funds for the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of the proposed project. The project is expected to cost $4,115,000, of which $411,500 would come as matching funds provided by NJUS. NJUS is requesting $3,703,500 from the RE Fund in proposal #839. The combined proposed project (#52, 839, 898) has a relatively low price per installed kilowatt and can lead to a significant drop in diesel usage for electricity in the community. AEA is concerned that the current diesel configuration is oversized for the community and especially so for the installation of significant wind power. Integrating the smaller generators will help to address this situation. Recommend funding of $4,069,000 ($8,000,000 cap - $3,931,000 from the round 1 grant) with the requirement that 1) AEA accept final design and permitting, and 2) NJUS reconfigures the existing diesel generators, (including the non-RE Fund eligible work) before construction funds are released. 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. The application includes a 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. The 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. The Kokhanok wind project has been running in curtailment mode for more than a year. The equipment has all been installed. Wind turbines are functioning. Applicant is seeking funding to complete the hybrid supervisory controller development. Applicant has not requested REF for this project in the past. If successful, Alaska turns a curtailed project into a successful one. This project is gating other proposed high-penetraion wind systems. Until we have success and learning on the Kokhanok system, AEA is holding off funding for other proposed high-penetration systems. Wind resource is very good. Recommend full funding. The City of Kotzebue is proposing the design and construction of a refuse derived fuel (RDF) fired boiler system to heat two city owned buildings. This project is estimated to displace a total 98,000 of gallons per year of fuel oil, using cardboard, paper, and construction debris supplemented with wood pellets. Feasibility was completed with Round 4 funding through the Renewable Energy Fund. This project has the opportunity to provide key direction for rural communities struggling with municipal solid waste disposal. AEA recommends partial funding of $200,000 for the final resource inventory/operations plan, final design, and permitting. The City of Kotzebue should first assess the waste fuel availability and develop an operating plan to confirm the economics of this project. Final design and permitting must select appropriate technology to meet EPAâ€™s new emissions standards for incinerators. Recommend partial funding. Ormat proposes to drill the first full-sized geothermal production well at Mt. Spurr. Prior to the award of this grant Ormat will have completed its exploration program funded in round 3 (#477) which has or will include 1) geophysical exploration, 2) surface mapping, 3) four temperature gradient wells, and 4) two slim holes. Ormat proposes to begin the construction phase of the project in the summer of 2012 based on a go/no-go decision if the current work indicates a high likelihood of the presence of a high quality geothermal resource. This decision would be made in August 2011. Ormat\'s preliminary estimate for the net capacity of the project between 50 and 100 MW at a cost of $5,000-6,000/kW. Although the proposed drilling work would not take place until summer 2012, Ormat needs to select contractors for the work in fall 2011. Ormat would mobilize the drill rig in spring 2012 at their own expense. Ormat will match state dollars on a 2 to 1 basis for the proposed work. Recommend funding with the requirement that AEA, in consultation with DGGS, must concur with Ormat\'s decision to proceed with the proposed work before any funds are disbursed. With a Round 4 Renewable Energy Fund grant, IPEC completed a reconnaissance study to investigate the Tenakee Inlet geothermal resource. The study indicated some encouraging early signs regarding the potential resource, but also confirmed that the significant transmission line and access road costs make the project very expensive and economically unfavorable, with a benefit/cost ratio below 1. While there does not appear to be demand for electricity produced by the project in either Pelican or Tenakee Springs, many residents of Hoonah demonstrated their support for the project. Construction of a road to the geothermal site and the addition of other large electrical loads in the area could change the economic picture for a geothermal plant, but at this point both prospects are speculative. Without exploration wells?proposed in this application?key characteristics of the geothermal resource and the viability of a geothermal power plant will remain unknown. But absent a clear economic justification for the power plant itself (a community energy demand and an apparent cost-effective manner to generate the energy), costly geothermal exploration is inappropriate. No funding recommended. Applicant proposes construction of a 400 kW (net) biomass (wood and paper)-fired combined heat and power plant in the North Pole area. The project would include two 250 UTC Pure Cycle ORC units; a biomass boiler; fuel processing, storage, and handling equipment; cooling pond; controls and grid tie-in. As a small biomass-fired CHP system the project holds considerable value as a demonstration project for rural heat and power production. Note that $1 million of the requsted $2 million has been approved for RE Fund funding already. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with GVEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($2,000,000) minus amount already offered ($1,000,000). This 800 kW hydro project is 90% complete but needs additional funding for completion. Recommend full funding. This appears to be a viable hydro resource that will benefit the Railbelt network. At 1 MW, the project\'s relatively small capacity and energy output will likely not impact regional planning. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with MEA prior to release of construction grant funds. Recommend with conditions. Kodiak Electric proposes construction funding for an additional 11.25 MW hydro turbine for the existing Terror Lk project. There have been two prior RE Fund grants, a round 2 grant of $500,000 (#215) for feasibility and a round 3 grant (#401) of $248,160 for final design and bid documents. During feasibility analysis, KEA has concluded that there will be no adverse impacts to stream flow by adding an additional turbine. This will likely facilitate acceptance by the resource agencies during the required FERC license amendment process. In November 2010 AEA received a draft FERC capacity amendment application that indicates energy production drops from 12.4 GWh/yr to 2.9 GWh/yr and project cost drops from $15.9 million to $10.6 million. Although the project economics are somewhat poorer given these new estimates, they remain highly attractive. The current schedule indicates equipment procurement would begin in January 2012, while site work would begin a year later. The project is scheduled for completion in July 2013. Recommend partial funding of $3,751,840 ($4,000,000 cap minus $248,160) with provision that KEA provides AEA, and AEA accepts, final design, final construction cost estimate and bid documents. AP&T proposes funding feasibility of developing a 6 MW storage hydro project at Schubee Lake. This proposal is almost identical to a round 3 proposal for this purpose (#441) that for which AEA recommended partial funding. However, insufficient funds were available to provide a grant. As before, AP&T has not prepared a formal reconnaissance assessment of the project that meets requirements of the RFA. AP&T is responding to a level of public opposition to developing another hydro site at Connelly Lk. AEA is recommending feasibility funding for Connelly Lk (#627). AEA has the following concerns with Schubee Lk: 1) it is located on USFS lands and would be subject to FERC licensing, 2) it has a higher relative cost with less energy output than Connelly, 3) it would require an expensive connection to the existing submarine cable connecting Haines and Skagway. AEA recognizes the importance for the Haines Borough citizens to make informed decisions regarding development of alternative hydro locations. However we believe that sufficient information for determining the development path can be achieved by more limited analysis. Recommend partial funding of $80,000 for reconnaissance assessment with the provisions that 1) AP&T must provide a revised scope of work for approval by AEA before funds are disbursed, 2) scope of work is consistent with findings of the Southeast Alaska IRP . 9/21/2011 application withdrawn This proposal includes four components: 1) Final design and construction of a natural gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) plant, 2) final design and construction of a thermoelectric generator (TEG) using heat from the CHP plant, 3) final design and construction of a 125 kW microhydro plant at California Cr. and feasibility through construction of microhydro at Virgin Cr., and 4) reconnaissance through construction of wind and solar power generation. We exclude from consideration the combined CHP /TEG facility, since it is fueled by natural gas in an area that has viable renewable energy resources. We exclude the wind and solar plants because the application did provide enough information to evaluate the component of the project. We limit consideration to California Creek microhydro, since this is the only component of the application that is defined in suffient detail for meaningful evaluation. California Cr. hydro appears to be a valid stand-alone project. However, the feasibility analysis does not adequately address interconnection with Chugach Electric, permitting, land use agreements, and resource availability. Recommend partial funding for reconaissance. Applicant proposes to install 50 kW of photovoltaic in the existing Ambler power system. Resulting project would be the largest hybrid PV-diesel system in the state. PV system would generate an average of 5 kW. AVEC submitted virtually identical proposals for Ambler, Noatak, and Shungnak (#75, 76, and 77). The project would be the largest utility scale photovoltaic-diesel hybrid project in Alaska. O&M costs, which were assumed to be zero in the application, may include panel cleaning, rreplacement of broken panels, electrical component replacement (inverters, controls, relays), snow removal from panels and twice annual panel angle adjustment. During rare periods of peak PV output and miminum electrical loads AEA questions whether there will there be system stability issues and whether the diesel genset efficiency and reliability of the smallest genset will be adversely affected. Installed cost of the project is high relative to the estimated savings. As an arctic utility PV-diesel hybrid application, however, the project has demonstration value above its modest economic return. For this reason we feel it is reasonable to support funding one of the three PV-diesel proposals as a demonstration. Recommend full funding for either project #75, 76, or 77 at the choice of applicant. It is likely that viable projects with proposed energy savings can be completed. Recommend full funding with requirement that prior to disbursement of construction funding applicant submit feasibility and final design documents acceptable to AEA that indicate viable project. The City of Pilot Point requests funding for design and construction of a high penetration wind project consisting of one 100 kW Northwind turbine to be sited on City land. Pilot Point has operated a 10 kW Bergey turbine for 6 years. The City has consulted with USFWS and an archeologist to assess wildlife and historic/archaeological issues. There no indications that permitting will be an issue. AEA completed a power system upgrade in 2008 which facilitates wind integration. A diesel heat recovery system supplies the school. Recommend full funding. The New Koliganek Village Council, applying as a governmental entity, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community of Koliganek Alaska. The final design will be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040011. The feasibility study has been completed and a draft conceptual design report has been reviewed by the AEA Wind Program. A final conceptual design report will be completed in early 2014 in conjunction with an AEA Rural Power System Upgrade Program power plant conceptual design report. Recommend full funding with the special provision that a final wind-diesel conceptual design report be accepted by the Authority prior to the allocation of final design and permitting funds. Lake and Pen Borough proposes final design and construction of a 330 kW wind project in Port Heiden through a design-build process. Lake and Pen Borough has supplied a very thorough feasibility study. However the report does not include conceptual design drawings or a geotechnical study. AEA has the following concerns about the project: 1. Economic feasibility appears to require a high penetration system. AEA believes the construction cost estimate is rather low for a high-penetration project. 2. Based on the expected 50-year extreme wind speed for the site, the feasibility report recommends an IEC class 1 turbine. The only turbine that meets this condition is the Enercon turbine. The Enercon turbine may not be available in the U.S. 3. Port Heiden has not received PCE since December 2009 because they have neglected to file an annual report with RCA. This raises questions regarding the community?s ability to support a relatively complex energy project. Given these considerations AEA believes that it is premature to allocate construction funding to this project. The design budget is configured assuming the design-build process. Assuming that design and construction are funded separately and the work includes a geotech study, AEA believes that $250,000 is sufficient to complete design and permitting. Recommend $250,000 for design and permitting. Hill east of the old airport appears to be the best place to start measuring wind. Budget is high for a reconnaissance study - especially $45,000 for cost of energy and market analysis. The applicant only needs money to hire a contractor to purchase and install a met tower and power house monitoring and to analyze and write a wind resource report. The report should include HOMER analysis of wind, diesel and solar against the seasonal load profile of Egegik. An RFP should be put out to see who can do this in the most cost-effective manner. Recommend partial funding of $60,000 to collect wind, solar and electrical load data for a minimum of one year, write a wind/solar assessment report and perform some basic HOMER modeling. The applicant has studied the wind resource in other locations south and southwest of Tok. AP&T has a very experienced staff working in Port Townsend as well as the Tok facility. APC already has a 50-meter tower staged in Tok ready for deployment to the Chisana Mtn site. Access to the proposed site is relatively easy. Met tower site is adjacent to a 15kV buried transmission line. Permitting is relatively straightforward for this project. A class 4 wind regime has been found elsewhere in the region. The electrical load allows for a fair amount of wind energy on the system. Construction costs for this project would be among the lowest for wind projects in the state do to the location on the road system. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes final design and construction of a ground source heat pump system at the Juneau Aquatic center. Project appears well-conceived and organized with relatively low risk. Excellent technical analysis and detailed cost info. Recommend for 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 air-source heat pump system to offset the use of heating oil at the Saxman Low-Rent 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. Project appears viable but proposer does not provide adequate level of detail on design, cost estimate, ORC equipment and integration, and schedule. Recommend full funding and careful review of final design by AEA project manager prior to release of construction funds. 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. Kootznoowoo Inc proposes a 1+ MW run-of-river hydroelectric project and 6.7 mi transmission project to supply the community of Angoon. Kootznoowoo has supplied seperate applications for each of the projects. AEA is lumping the two project proposals together for the purposes of evaluation. The application includes a letter of support from local utility Inland Passage Electrical Coop (IPEC). Kootznoowoo has received a grant $1,110,500 from USDOE for preconstruction activities. Project appears to be a promising source of renewable energy for the community of Angoon. Special legislation (ANILCA Section 506) has granted Kootznoowoo, Inc..certain rights for development of a hydroelectric facility at Thayer Creek and has simpliifed the permitting for the project. The project is only six miles from Angoon and closely matches Angoon\'s energy requirements. Recommend partial funding of $1,060,500 for completion of all preconstruction activities, including final design and permitting (culminating in the issuance of the USFS Special Use Authorization for the project) with the provisions that prior to releasing any AEA grant funds: 1) Kootznoowoo and IPEC must provide a written joint report acceptable to AEA that documents the integration of project design and operation with the needs of the existing IPEC system, 2) Kootznoowoo and IPEC must finalize an MOU that defines a viable business arrangement and will include intent to sign a cost-based power sales agreement.. Applicant proposes to assess hydrokinetic resource in 24 Alaskan locations. Proposal includes an excellent use of university resources and good training for Alaskan students in alternative energy technologies that may be deployed in Alaska. The proposal is not clear on how will sites will be chosen. AEA project manager will assist the project team. Recommend full funding. Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) proposes construction of an intertie that connects Metlakatla to Ketchikan. AEA is providing $2 million in Renewable Energy Fund rounds 1 and 4 (applications #20 and #656). Additionally another $2 million in grant funds from the state have been awarded. The RE Fund round 4 grant was negotiated this year (2013). Conditions of the grant support a step-wise approach to determine feasibility; conceptual design; and completion of all preconstruction activities (including final design documents, final construction cost estimate, demonstration of site control, bathymetry, NEPA, and permitting) prior to construction funding being awarded. AEA is assisting MIC in complying with these conditions; however this work remains in process. The review team believes it is premature to allocate construction funds. $4M has previously been provided to the requesting entity and previous grants suggest a step-wise approach. Funding for this round is not recommended until such time as the previous grant?s milestones have been met as described above. Not recommended for funding. This current application is for final design and permitting for the â€œBarrow to Atqasuk Transmission Line and Home Conversions to Electric Space Heatingâ€. 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. Independent power producer Banner Wind LLC has erected 18 Entegrity EW15 turbines providing installed capacity of 1,170 kW. Banner Wind LLC is owned by Bering Straits Native Corporation and Sitnasuak Native Corporation. Nome Joint Utilities System has requested funding for the 2-mile intertie between Banner Wind farm and the Nome power system, completed in December 2008, through a separate proposal (Nome Banner Peak transmission #47). We also note there is a separate proposal for larger turbines on Newton Peak #52, consistent with the USDOE/AEA-supported Nome Region Energy Assessment. The three proposals do not indicate coordination between wind projects, and AEA is concerned that this may result in unnecessarily high development, integration, and operation costs. NJUS is preparing a feasibility assessment for the Newton Peak project that will address the quality of the wind energy resource, wind system design and integration into the existing power system, operation and maintenance, land ownership and other development issues. This study should provide valuable information for integrating the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms into the NJUS system. Recommend full funding for expenses incurred after August 20, 2008 with the following conditions: 1) before any funds are disbursed NJUS provide to AEA, and AEA approves, a feasibility assessment and conceptual design for the Newton Peak project that addresses integration of the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms and other developent issues, 2) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with NJUS prior to release of construction grant funds. Last Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full FUnding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 2 Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Not Recommended Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 2 Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 2 Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Withdrawn Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Master Code 10004 10005 10006 10007 10008 10009 10010 10011 10012 10013 10014 10015 10016 10017 10018 10019 10020 10021 10022 10023 10024 10025 10026 10027 10028 10029 10030 10031 10032 10033 10034 10035 10036 10037 10038 10039 10040 10041 10042 10043 10044 10045 10046 10047 10048 10049 10050 10051 10052 10053 10054 10055 10056 10057 10058 10059 10060 10061 10062 10063 10064 10065 10066 10067 10068 10069 10070 10071 10072 10073 10074 10075 10076 10077 10078 10079 10080 10082 10083 10084 10085 10086 10087 10088 10089 10090 10091 10092 10093 10094 10095 10096 10097 10098 10099 10100 10101 10102 10103 10104 10105 10106 10107 10109 10111 10112 10113 10114 10115 10116 10117 10118 10119 10120 10121 10122 10123 10124 10125 10126 10127 10128 10129 10130 10131 10133 10134 10135 10136 10137 10138 10139 10140 10141 10142 10143 10144 10145 10146 10147 10148 10149 10150 10151 10152 10153 10154 10155 10156 10157 10158 10159 10160 10161 10162 10163 10164 10165 10166 10167 10168 10169 10170 10171 10172 10173 10174 10175 10176 10177 10178 10179 10180 10181 10182 10183 10184 10185 10186 10187 10188 10190 10191 10192 10193 10194 10195 10196 10197 10198 10199 10200 10201 10202 10203 10204 10205 10206 10207 10208 10209 10210 10211 10212 10213 10214 10215 10216 10217 10218 10219 10220 10221 10222 10223 10224 10225 10226 10227 10228 10229 10230 10231 10232 10233 10234 10235 10236 10237 10238 10239 10240 10241 10242 10243 10244 10245 10247 10248 10249 10250 10251 10252 10253 10254 10255 10256 10257 10258 10259 10260 10261 10262 10263 10264 10265 10266 10267 10268 10269 10270 10271 10272 10273 10274 10275 10276 10277 10278 10279 10280 10281 10282 10283 10284 10285 10286 10287 10288 10289 10290 10291 10292 10293 10294 10295 10296 10297 10298 10299 10300 10301 10302 10303 10304 10305 10306 10307 10308 10309 10310 10311 10312 10313 10314 10315 10316 10317 10318 10319 10320 10321 10322 10323 10324 10325 10326 10327 10328 10330 10331 10332 10333 10334 10335 10336 10337 10338 10339 10340 10342 10343 10344 10345 10346 10347 10348 10349 10350 10351 10352 10353 10354 10355 10356 10357 10358 10359 10360 10361 10362 10363 10364 10365 10366 10367 10368 10369 10370 10371 10372 10373 10374 10375 10376 10377 10378 10379 10380 10381 10382 10383 10384 10385 10386 10387 10388 10389 10395 10396 10397 10398 10399 10400 10401 10402 10403 10404 10405 10406 10407 10408 10409 10410 10411 10412 10413 10414 10415 10416 10417 10418 10419 10420 10421 10422 10423 10424 10425 10426 10427 10428 10429 10430 10431 10432 10433 10434 10435 10436 10437 10438 10439 10440 10441 10442 10443 10444 10445 10446 10447 10448 10449 10450 10451 10452 10453 10454 10455 10456 10457 10458 10460 10461 10462 10463 10464 10465 10466 10467 10468 10469 10470 10471 10472 10473 10474 10475 10476 10477 10478 10479 10480 10481 Application Number 603 818 3 4 5 435 7 411 9 10 11 12 13 1247 15 16 1029 18 520 1034 407 22 906 1207 224 26 1015 28 811 314 445 32 33 1225 35 36 813 430 822 40 1021 42 43 44 45 649 205 48 1051 1153 1213 53 54 55 56 57 58 840 1053 61 62 1152 64 1249 66 122 68 70 851 870 1221 1212 75 1058 946 78 79 82 967 84 518 895 87 88 889 90 91 295 94 963 96 97 666 102 803 808 105 1134 108 616 1073 111 112 121 669 207 208 209 210 1147 214 653 216 217 622 970 220 1087 1205 655 626 227 416 229 230 232 233 234 235 1226 237 486 239 240 241 242 613 612 1232 621 248 469 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 652 654 1067 260 261 1236 263 463 892 266 267 268 1002 270 271 972 1074 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 1133 510 287 288 691 292 1044 294 492 513 1115 646 515 1068 878 871 304 914 306 307 308 309 310 311 881 1009 1162 506 1237 318 319 320 321 400 403 1047 1076 409 1109 611 415 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 1139 658 427 428 429 431 432 433 601 1046 630 442 444 1250 448 451 618 1055 651 1165 456 457 459 812 461 922 600 465 467 468 471 676 694 837 476 888 925 663 661 698 485 487 1164 489 490 804 1161 1054 823 499 659 1035 960 503 815 505 683 509 512 825 1026 521 522 607 619 623 624 1020 633 634 1130 638 639 640 641 642 1066 1141 664 672 843 1082 675 677 1080 969 680 1079 685 686 687 688 696 699 701 704 705 706 1013 802 805 806 1104 814 817 1215 824 826 1024 1148 831 924 1239 1078 842 844 845 949 1235 848 850 852 853 1217 855 856 934 858 859 860 861 1206 973 867 1223 1117 1041 876 877 981 982 883 884 1220 1252 893 894 896 839 1231 285 67 604 966 243 244 979 907 1131 921 923 959 1007 971 935 1008 937 939 940 941 1085 943 944 908 1106 917 1084 976 1028 905 1001 915 1050 928 1039 958 1004 1072 911 912 948 950 952 953 961 1101 984 1052 1061 1027 1142 1244 1040 1031 1043 1032 1233 1057 1107 1214 1033 1030 1211 1081 1075 1019 1006 1127 1113 1222 1248 1135 1143 1114 1238 1234 1216 1204 1230 1145 1202 1129 1144 1149 1246 1155 1156 1157 1121 1167 1251 Application Round 4 5 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 7 1 3 7 3 1 6 9 2 1 7 1 5 2 3 1 1 9 1 1 5 3 5 1 7 1 1 1 1 4 2 1 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 7 1 1 8 1 9 1 1 1 1 5 5 9 9 1 7 6 1 1 1 6 1 3 5 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 6 1 1 4 1 5 5 1 8 1 4 7 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 8 2 4 2 2 4 6 2 7 9 4 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 2 3 2 2 2 2 4 4 9 4 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 7 2 2 9 2 3 5 2 2 2 7 2 2 6 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 3 2 2 4 2 7 2 3 3 8 4 3 7 5 5 2 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 7 8 3 9 2 2 2 2 3 3 7 7 3 8 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 8 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 7 4 3 3 9 3 3 4 7 4 8 3 3 3 5 3 6 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 5 6 4 4 4 3 3 8 3 3 5 8 7 5 3 4 7 6 3 5 3 4 3 3 5 7 3 3 4 4 4 4 7 4 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 7 8 4 4 5 7 4 4 7 6 4 7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 5 5 5 8 5 5 9 5 5 7 8 5 6 9 7 5 5 5 6 9 5 5 5 5 9 5 5 6 5 5 5 5 9 6 5 9 8 7 5 5 6 6 5 5 9 9 5 5 5 5 9 2 1 4 6 2 2 6 6 8 6 6 6 7 6 6 7 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 6 8 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 7 7 7 8 9 7 7 7 7 9 7 8 9 7 7 9 7 7 7 7 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 8 9 8 8 8 9 8 8 8 8 8 9 Applicant Project Name Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Analysis Gulkana Village Biomass Fuels Project Anchorage Waste Gasification Feasibility Study Palmer Waste Gasification Feasibility Study Fairbanks Waste Gasification Feasibility Study Nushagak Area Hydropower Project (NAHP) Naknek/King Salmon Fish Waste Feasibility Study Anchorage geothermal district heating project Wrangell Hydro Based Electric Boilers Construction Falls Creek Hydroelectric Construction Aleutians East Borough Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Juneau Waste Gasification Reconnaissance Study Ketchikan Waste Gasification Reconnaissance Study Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project Chistochina Central Wood Heating Construction Mt. Redoubt/Mt. Spur Geothermal Construction Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Pike\'s Ridge Geothermal Final Design The Angoon Commercial Demonstration Tidal Power Project Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project Rehabilitation Cordova Heat Recovery Construction Coffman Cove Hydropower Line Extension Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project: Construction Haines Assistant living GSHP_Apt Cordova Wood Processing Plant Construction Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project Construction Hoonah - Hawk Inlet Intertie Construction Kake-Petersburg Inter-Connection Engineering McGrath Biomass Feasibility District Wood Heating in Fort Yukon Statewide Biomass Reconnaissance Study Haines Central Wood Heating System Construction (Low Income Housing Project) Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Hooper Bay Wind Farm Construction Statewide Heat Recovery Demonstration Project Whitman Lake Project Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project Wood Heating Feasibility in Public Facilities, Interior Region Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Haines Borough Municipal Buildings Biomass Project Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Palmer Gas CHP Construction Whittier Gas CHP Construction Anchorage Wood Processing and Heating Construction Kenny Lake School Wood Fired Boiler Banner Wind Construction_Nome Whittier Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance AGSD Extension of Heating Loop Unalakleet Wind-Diesel Optimization Ambler Washeteria and City Office Biomass Heating System North Pole Biomass Electricity/Heat Construction Galena Wood Heating Construction Snake Mountain Wind Farm Construction Buckland/Deering/Noorvik Wind Farm Construction South Fork Hydroelectric Construction Chuniisax Creek Hydroelectric Construction Kobuk Biomass Design & Construction Project Yakutat Biomass District Heating Loop McGrath Heat Recovery Construction Chignik Lake Area Wind-Hydro Final Design Lake and Peninsula Borough Wood Boilers Lake Pen Borough Wind Feasibility Study Indian River Hydroelectric Project - Construction Coal Mine Road Wind Farm Final Design Bethel Wind Power Project Times 4 Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity Construction Quinhagak Wind Farm Construction Toksook Bay Heat Recovery Feasibility Study Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System Heat Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project âˆ’Geotechnical Study and Final Design Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design & Permitting Ambler Solar PV Construction Noatak Utility Size Photovoltaic Array Construction Project Shungnak Solar Energy Construction Project Girdwood Gas CHP/Hydro/Wind Solar Construction Palmer Coal Bed Methane CHP Construction Juneau Based Statewide Hydro/Ammonia Electricity Construction Cold Bay Waste Heat Recovery Project Ruby Hydrokinetic Construction High Penetration Wind-Battery-Diesel Hybrid Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting Fishhook Hydroelectric Construction Statewide Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study Nikolski Renewable Energy Wind Project St. George Wind Farm Construction Napaimute Solar PV Construction Delia Creek Hydro_HPML Nikolaevsk Wind Farm Final Design Mount Makushin Geothermal Project Crooked Creek Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Study Nenana Hydrokinetic Construction Kenai Winds Expansion Delta Junction Wind Farm Construction Pillar Mtn High Penetration Wind Project Reynolds Creek Hydro Transmission Line North Pole Heat Recovery Construction Kwigillingok Wind Heat System â€“ Electric Thermal Storage McKinley Village Solar Thermal Construction GVEA Eva Creek Wind Turbine Purchase Kongiganak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump Construction (Aquatic Center) Delta Junction Wood Chip Heating Feasibility Study Ambler Solar and Wind Power Construction Akiachak Wind Feasibility & Conceptual Design PetroStar HR_VFDA Coffman Cove Wood Boiler_SEISD Kasaan Wood Boiler_Village of Kasaan Kiseralik_Chikuminuk Hydro_AVCP Housing Southeast Island School District wood boilers Air Source Heat Pump_BIHA Terror Lake Unit 3 Hydroelectric Project Little Port Walter Hydro_Ameresco Camp Hill Wind_NVE Cordova Community Biomass Feasibility Study Kipnuk Wind Diesel Power Generation and Heating Heat Recovery UMED_MLPUAA Kake Community Energy Neck Lake Hydropower Project: Phases II-III Triangle Lake Hydroelectric Project Carlson Creek Hydroelectric Project AK_BC Intertie_Wrangell Sunrise Lake Project AVTEC Wind Wood Gasification_KISKIL Bristol Bay Fish Waste_NEA Crooked Creek Hydro Kinetic Knik Arm CHC_KAPP Kotzebue HR and Ammonia Power Cycle Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Kotlik Pellet Stove_KYE Pilot Point Wind Power & Heat Biomassheat Anchorage_Earth Run Energy Wasteoil for Heat_#2 Fuel Natural Gas Distribution_AGPA Wainwright Coal Bed Methane Phase III Wainwright Wind Turbine Design Point Lay Wind Generation Design Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Akutan Geothermal Development Project Loud Creek Hydro_Akutan Akutan Hydroelectric System Repair and Upgrade Galena Hydrokinetic AEB Geothermal Assessment_AGDAP Manley Village Council Geothermal Chena Power Hydrogen Victor Creek Hydro_Kenai Hydro Chena Hot Springs Reservoir Modeling_ACEP Statewide Heat Pump Analysis_ACEP Mount Spurr Geothermal Project Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Resource Assessment Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design Biomass Hydronic Heating_YKSD Alternative Energy Recon_YKSD West Creek Hydroelectric Project Alternative Energy Feasibilty_CSD Yakutat Wave Energy Pilot Demonstration Kvichak River RISEC Project Birch Creek Solar Mobile Biodiesel Processing Plant_CCTHIA UAF Absorption Chiller Poncelet Kinetics RHK100 Prototype Demonstration UAF Photovoltaic Unalaska Heat Recovery Akiak Wind Resource Assessment Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Wind Recon_NPRHA Nenana Healy Hydro Phase II_GVEA Integrated Resource Plan_FDPPA Angoon HR_IPEC Solar Hot Water NWAB_NIHA Tanalian River Hydro_AGE Alternative Energy Assessment_Perryville NVOP Tanana Alternative Energy Assessment _Tanana Power Tidal Feasibility_City of Homer Statewide Biomass Assessment_UAF Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project Slana Wind Farm-Wind Energy Resource Assessment Tok Wind Construction_VWP St Paul Wind Construction_City of St. Paul Glacier Fork Hydroelectric Project Chalkyitsik District Heat_Village Council Venetie Clinic Heat Recovery Sitka CHP_City and Borough Archangel Creek Hydroelectric Project Teller Wind-Final Design, Permitting & Construction St. Maryâ€™s-Pitkaâ€™s Point Wind Energy Construction Project Scammon Bay Wind Feasibility New Stuyahok Wind-Feasibility Analysis, Resources Assessment & Conceptual Design Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Emmonak/Alakanuk Phase 2 Wind Energy Construction Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Shaktoolik Water System Heat Geothermal Resource Assessment Seward Pen_AVEC Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Aleutian Peninsula Broadcasting Wind Ambler HR_City of Ambler Plasma Gasification_Solena Group Orutsaramiut Native Council ORPC Cook Inlet Tidal Tanana Biomass Feasibility Tanacross Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project Nenana Collaborative Biomass Heating System Project Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study â€“ Phase II Tatitlek High Penetration Wind-Diesel Project Sand Point High Penetration Wind System Chignik Lake CBM_AGE Wood Pellet Plant_AHTNA Marshall Wood Fired Boiler_Ohogamiut Traditional Council Noatak Biomass_Native Village of Noatak Wood Chip Boiler Heating System Delta Junction Wood Pellet Boiler: Biofuel Pilot Program Galena Community Wood Heat Project NWAB School District Solar Thermal Systems Gastineau Elementary School Geothermal Loopfield Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion Point Hope Wind Turbine Design Clearwater Wind Farm Wrangell Downtown Revitalization Spur Road Distribution Line Extension Wrangell Street Light Conversion Alaska British Columbia (AK-BC) Intertie Project Renewable Support Mode for BESS A Feasibility & Planning Project to Recapture & Utilize Waste Heat from the Healy Clean Coal Project Combined/Hybrid solar-thermal collection & storage with ground-source heat-pumps Chefornak Wind Heat System Organic Rankine Cycle Field Testing Greenhouse Feasibility and Application in Rural Alaska Cultivating Rural Alaska for Biomass Energy Keep it Sustainable, Keep it Local (KISKIL) Renewable Energy Project Tyonek Native Village Wind Project Skyline Mini Wind Farm Seldovia small wind generation facility Waste Energy Powered Absorption Refrigeration Unit Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction Phase Schubee Lake Hydroelectric Project Port Frederick Tidal Power Project SEAPA Integrated Resource Planning Project (IRP) Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade MSB Solar and Wind Potential CVEA Silver Lake Feasibility Alaska SeaLife Center Heat Recovery Project Southwest Alaska Regional Geothermal Energy Project Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction 2MW Refinery Waste Energy Recovery Hybrid Biomass and Solar Combined Heat and Power System City of Kotzebue Biomass Tactical Garbage to Energy Refinery (TGER) Project AVTEC Hydroelectric Training Facility Thermal Engine Generator System (TEGS) for Ugashik, AK Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project AVCP Housing Wind Turbine Project Melozi-Horner Hot Springs Geothermal Resource Estimate Waste to Energy Feasibility Assessment for UAF and other medium sized communities in AK Alaska Wind for Schools Program Virgin Creek Hydroelectric Project Eska Creek Hydroelectric Project Southern Railbelt Small Hydro Reconn. Study Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study City Tribe Biomass Energy Conservation Kodiak High School Ground Source Heat Pump Upper Tanana Biomass CHP Project Ionia Renewable Energy Training Center Turnagain Arm Tidal Electrical Generation Project Kongiganak Flywheel Energy Storage Scenery Lake Hydroelectric Project Kwigillingok Flywheel Energy Storage Port Graham Community Building Biomass Heat Distribution Project Statewide run-of-river hydropower assessment Tribal & Regional Energy Planning Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources (Mount Spurr) Hoonah Biomass District Heating Loop Multiple Alternative Energy Sources for Napakiak Tatitlek Heat Recovery Project Biomass for Energy: Supply Side Knowledge Base Kachemak Bay Tidal Power Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource TidGen? Array Project St. Paul Wind Diesel Project Wave Energy/ Sequestration Technology (WEST) West Cook Inlet Energy Cumulative Impacts Cook Inlet Tidal Hydrokinetic Power Generation Jarvis Creek Natural Gas Project Kivalina Wind-Intertie Feasibility Analysis & Conceptual Design and 827 Thayer Lake Hydropower Development Transmission/Generation Project Atka Dispatchable Heat Fuel Cell Feasibility City of Ouzinkie Wind Generator Project Lime Village Photovoltaic System Retrofit Port St. Nick Fish Enhancement Hydropower Susitna Valley High School Wood Heat Wrangell Electric Vehicle Feasibility Study Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility and Conceptual Design Nushagak Community Wind Power Project Nikiski Combined Cycle Conversion (NCCC) Holy Cross Power Plant Heat Recovery for Water Distribution System Yukon River Debris Mitigation Project Eek Wind Feasibility Elim Wind Feasibility Kaltag Solar Construction Koyuk Wind Phase II Feasibility Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Project Selawik Water System Heat Recovery Kwethluk Wind Feasibility Snettisham Transmission Line Avalanche Mitigation Atmautlauk Washeteria/ Power Plant Waste Heat Recovery Project Stetson Creek Diversion Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project Battle Creek Diversion Project Akiak Hydro Study False Pass Wind Energy Project Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project Cold Bay Wind Energy Project Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery Napaskiak Wind, Power and Heat Recovery Port Heiden Wind Turbine Project Hoonah Heat Recovery Project Pelican Hydroelectric Upgrade Project Merrill Field Landfill Gas Heating/Energy Project Akiak Integrated Renewable Energy Projects Palmer Ice Arena Geothermal & Heat Recovery Improvements Kwigillingok Wind Energy Storage Japonski Island Boathouse Heat Pump Sitka Renewable Energy Feasibility for Wastewater Treatment Plant Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat Pump Petersburg Public Library Geothermal Heat Pump Construction Black Bear Lake Hydro Project Storage Increase Upper Tanana Area Intertie Project SEAPA Wind Resource Assessment Glennallen School Campus Biomass Heating Project Solomon Gulch unit 2 Efficiency Upgrade Huslia Water System and Clinic Biomass Boiler Project Anaktuvuk Pass Geothermal Feasibility Study Wrangell Electrical Capacitor Bank Walker Lake Hydro Project Feasibility Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project Juneau Super Critical Water Oxidation Sewage Sludge to Energy Seward Schools Biomass Heating System Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project Chickaloon Solar Thermal and Biomass Project Golovin Wind Feasibility Study Russian Mission Heat Recovery System Noorvik Heat Recovery System Feasibility Study Kotlik Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project Sleetmute Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant Water Plant Biomass System Feasibility Study New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Study White Mountain Heat Recovery Feasibility Study Klawock School Biomass Fuel Boiler Project Old Kasigluk Wind Feasibility Study Shishmaref Heat Recovery Project Savoonga Heat Recovery System - Power Plant to Water Plant Togiak Waste Heat Recovery Project Goodnews Bay Wind Generator Study City of Angoon Wind to Energy Feasibility Study Saint Michael Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Study Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska Elim Geothermal Resource Assessment I Feasibility Reconnaissance Study of the Geothermal Potential for the Ivanoff Bay Region Shishmaref Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project Goodnews Bay Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat Recovery Gambell Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Gambell Water System Heat Upper Kalskag Solar Construction Tanana Solar Domestic Hot Water Heating Project Community Facilities Woody Biomass Space Heating Project Transmission Line from Fire Island Wind Project Nenana?s Solar-Powered Student Living Center Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project Igiugig RivGenÂ® Power System Commercial Project Reconnaissance Study of Thomas Bay Public Projects Alakanuk Waste Water Treatment Facility Wind Generation MEA Power Plant Waste Heat Utilization Reconnaissance Study and 898 Nome Renewable Energy Expansion/Optimization Project Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design Delta Wind Construction_AWP Bethel Wind Farm Construction (BNC land) Bethel Renewable Energy Project High-penetration Wind Energy Project- Kokhanok Wainwright Heat Recovery Point Lay Heat Recovery Waste-to-Energy Feasibility Study Petersburg Community Heating System Retrofit Feasibility Study Hydaburg Schools Wood Fired Boiler Project AVCP RHA Wood Biomass Heating System Afognak Biomass Feasibility Study Ticasuk Brown School Pellet Boiler Project-Phase 2 Mendenhall Valley Library Geothermal HVAC System Eastern Copper Basin Geothermal Assessment Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery Project Chuathbaluk Water System Heat Recovery Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria Stebbins Heat Recovery Project Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Community Store Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery OIT Inc Waste Heat Turbine Project New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Capacity Increase Mahoney Lake Hydropower Project Blue Lake Hydroelectric Expansion Project Juniper Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance Study Knutson Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting Carlo Creek Hydroelectric Project Reconnaissance Study HydroPower Surplus to Stored Hydrogen Feasibility Study Northwest Arctic Borough Solar PV Project Eagle Solar Array Project Bristol Bay Borough School District Solar PV Project Bathymetric survey and marine geological study to refine submarine cable route for Kodiak-Ouzinkie Electrical Inter-tie project Four Villages lntertie Design Wrangell Power Plant Upgrade Karluk Tribal Council Wind Energy System Igiugig Wind Resource Feasibility and Conceptual Design Levelock Wind Reconnaissance Study Egegik Wind Feasibility Study Wales Wind Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project Russian Mission Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design Project Cosmos Hills Wind Resource and Intertie Assessment Hotham Peak Wind Resource and lntertie Assessment Atka Wind Power Project Manokotak Renewable Energy Feasibility Project Noatak Wind Resource Assessment Nunam Iqua Heat Recovery Project Emmonak Heat Recovery System Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project Gateway Borough Recreation and Schools Central Heating Plant Design Gunnuk Creek Hydro Rehabilitation - IPEC Kake Brevig Mission Water System Heat Recovery Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump Project St Marys Heat Recovery System Biomass Heat for Minto Community Buildings Grayling Water System Heat Recovery Mertarvik Renewable Energy Feasibility and Conceptual Design Swan Lake Reservoir Expansion Project Eek Water System Heat Recovery Sitka Sea Water Source Heat Pump Project Flywheels ESS for Kodiak Pier Electric Crane Sitka Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Heat Pump Waste to Energy Reconnaissance Study Cascade Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Survey Creek Hydroelectric Project NEA Stack Heat to Power Project Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study: False Pass, Alaska Angoon low-income housing pellet district heat Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery Module Construction Crater Lake Power and Water Project Lepquinum Wellness Center Ground Source Heat Pump Scammon Bay Community Facilities Heat Recovery Klawock low-income housing pellet heat Koyuk Water System Heat Recovery Wales Water System Heat Recovery Shungnak Wind-Diesel Conceptual Design Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project: Phase II 100 Kilowatt Solar Array for Kotzebue IRHA Facility Biomass Feasibility Study Upper Hidden Basin Diversion - Geotechnical Investigation Nikolai Community Biomass Heating System Kake senior housing solar PV Southcentral Small Hydro Assessments St. Paul Island 80% Renewable Energy Feasibility Study City of Noorvik Solar-PV Northwest Alaska Wind Resource Assessment and Intertie Study Deadhorse Waste Heat to Energy Plant Biomass for Akiachak Native Community Electric Company Community Solar Project 100 Kilowatt Solar Array for Circle Project Type Hydro Biomass HeatBiofuel HeatBiofuel HeatBiofuel Hydro HeatBiofuel Geothermal Other Hydro Other HeatBiofuel HeatBiofuel Hydro Biomass Geothermal Hydro Geothermal Hydrokinetic Transmission Hydro HeatRecovery Transmission Hydro Geothermal Biomass Hydro Transmission Transmission Biomass Biomass HeatBiofuel Biomass Hydro Wind HeatRecovery Hydro Hydro Biomass Hydro Biomass Hydro NaturalGas NaturalGas Biomass Biomass Wind Hydro HeatRecovery Wind Biomass HeatBiofuel Biomass Wind Wind Hydro Hydro Biomass Biomass HeatRecovery Wind Biomass Wind Hydro Wind Wind HeatBiofuel Wind HeatRecovery Wind Hydro Hydro Solar Solar Solar Other Other Other HeatRecovery Hydro Wind Hydro Hydro Hydrokinetic Wind Wind Solar Hydro Wind Geothermal Other Hydrokinetic Wind Wind Wind Transmission HeatRecovery HeatWind Solar Wind HeatWind Geothermal Biomass Other Wind HeatRecovery Biomass Biomass Hydro Biomass Other Hydro Hydro Wind Biomass Wind HeatRecovery Biomass Hydro Hydro Hydro Transmission Hydro Wind Biomass HeatBiofuel Hydrokinetic Biomass HeatRecovery Hydro Biomass Wind Biomass Other NaturalGas Other Wind Wind Transmission, Other Geothermal Hydro Hydro Hydrokinetic Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal Hydro Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal Wind Biomass Other Hydro Other Hydrokinetic Hydrokinetic Solar HeatBiofuel HeatRecovery Hydrokinetic Solar HeatRecovery Wind HeatWind Wind Hydro Other HeatRecovery Solar Hydro Other Other Hydrokinetic Biomass Biomass Wind Wind Wind Hydro Biomass HeatRecovery Biomass Hydro Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Geothermal Hydro Wind HeatRecovery HeatBiofuel NaturalGas Hydrokinetic Biomass Biomass Biomass Hydro Wind Wind HeatBiofuel Biomass HeatBiofuel Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass HeatSolar Geothermal Biomass Wind Wind Transmission Hydro Other Transmission Other HeatRecovery Solar Wind HeatRecovery HeatRecovery Biomass Biomass Wind Wind Wind Other Hydro Hydro Hydrokinetic Hydro Hydro HeatRecovery Solar Hydro HeatRecovery Geothermal Hydro HeatRecovery Solar Biomass Hydro HeatRecovery Hydro Wind Geothermal Biomass Wind Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Biomass Geothermal Biomass Biomass Other Other Hydro Wind Biomass Hydro Other Transmission Biomass Wind HeatRecovery Biomass Other Geothermal Other Wind Hydrokinetic Other Other NaturalGas Wind Hydro HeatHydro Other Wind Solar Hydro Biomass Other Hydro Wind HeatRecovery HeatRecovery Other Wind Wind Solar Wind Wind HeatRecovery Wind Transmission HeatRecovery Hydro Hydro Hydrokinetic Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind HeatRecovery Hydro Other Other Geothermal Other Geothermal Geothermal HeatPump Geothermal Hydro Transmission Wind Biomass Hydro Biomass Geothermal Transmission Hydro Hydro Biomass Biomass Hydro Biomass Wind HeatRecovery HeatRecovery Wind Hydro HeatRecovery Biomass HeatRecovery HeatRecovery Biomass Wind HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery Wind Wind Transmission Hydrokinetic Geothermal Geothermal Wind Wind HeatRecovery Wind Solar Solar Biomass Transmission Solar Hydro Hydrokinetic Hydro Wind HeatRecovery Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatBiofuel Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass HeatPump Geothermal HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Other Solar Solar Solar Transmission Transmission Other Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind HeatRecovery HeatRecovery Wind Biomass Hydro HeatRecovery HeatPump HeatRecovery Biomass HeatRecovery Wind Hydro HeatRecovery HeatPump Storage HeatRecovery, HeatPump HeatBiofuel Hydro Hydro HeatRecovery Hydrokinetic Biomass HeatRecovery Hydro, Storage, Other HeatPump HeatRecovery Biomass HeatRecovery HeatRecovery Wind Hydro Solar Biomass Hydro, Storage Biomass Solar Hydro Wind, Transmission, Solar, Storage Solar Wind, Transmission HeatRecovery Biomass Solar Solar Application Type Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Heat Heat Standard Heat Heat Heat Standard Standard Standard Standard Heat Heat Heat Heat Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Heat Heat Heat Standard Standard Heat Standard Standard Heat Heat Heat Standard Standard Standard Heat Standard Heat Heat Standard Standard Heat Standard Heat Standard Heat Standard Standard Standard Heat Standard Heat Standard Standard Standard Heat Standard Heat Standard Standard Standard Heat Standard Standard Standard Heat Heat Heat Heat Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Heat Heat Standard Heat Standard Heat Heat Heat Heat Heat Standard Standard Heat Heat Standard Heat Standard Standard Standard Heat Standard Heat Heat Standard Heat Heat Heat Heat Heat Standard Standard Standard Heat Standard Heat Standard Standard Standard Standard Standard Heat Heat Standard Standard Beginning Phase Design Feasibility Design Feasibility Design Recon Design Recon Feasibility Construction Recon Recon Recon Design Feasibility Recon Design Feasibility Recon Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Construction Construction Feasibility Feasibility Design Construction Recon Feasibility Design Feasibility Recon Construction Feasibility Design Design Feasibility Design Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Recon Feasibility Recon Design Feasibility Construction Construction Feasibility Construction Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Design Construction Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Design Feasibility Construction Construction Design Construction Feasibility Design Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Design Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Recon Recon Feasibility Construction Construction Construction Construction Construction Design Construction Construction Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Recon Feasibility Feasibility Design Recon Construction Recon Construction Design Recon Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Feasibility Design Feasibility Feasibility Recon Feasibility Recon Design Design Recon Feasibility Construction Construction Feasibility Design Recon Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Feasibility Design Feasibility Recon Recon Recon Construction Recon Design Recon Construction Recon Design Recon Recon Design Recon Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Construction Construction Feasibility Design Construction Recon Design Recon Feasibility Feasibility Recon Design Recon Recon Recon Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Recon Feasibility Feasibility Recon Design Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Recon Design Construction Feasibility Design Recon Recon Design Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Recon Feasibility Design Recon Feasibility Feasibility Construction Construction Feasibility Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Recon Feasibility Design Design Design Recon Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Recon Feasibility Recon Recon Design Feasibility Recon Design Construction Construction Design Feasibility Feasibility Recon Construction Feasibility Construction Feasibility Design Design Construction Design Recon Recon Design Construction Feasibility Feasibility Construction Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Construction Recon Recon Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Recon Recon Design Construction Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Recon Feasibility Construction Construction Feasibility Feasibility Construction Construction Feasibility Recon Design Feasibility Feasibility Design Recon Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Construction Design Recon Design Feasibility Recon Feasibility Recon Feasibility Construction Construction Feasibility Recon Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Recon Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Recon Feasibility Construction Design Recon Feasibility Recon Recon Construction Feasibility Design Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Feasibility Construction Design Design Feasibility Design Feasibility Feasibility Construction Feasibility Design Feasibility Recon Feasibility Recon Recon Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Construction Construction Feasibility Construction Feasibility Construction Design Recon Recon Recon Feasibility Design Feasibility Construction Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Design Recon Design Feasibility Recon Construction Feasibility Recon Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Design Construction Recon Feasibility Recon Design Construction Construction Feasibility Feasibility Design Feasibility Feasibility Design Recon Recon Design Design Recon Design Recon Recon Feasibility Construction Feasibility Design Feasibility Construction Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Feasibility Design Recon Construction Design Feasibility Construction Design Recon Design Recon Feasibility Feasibility Design Construction Design Design Design Design Design Design Feasibility Feasibility Design Feasibility Feasibility Design Construction Recon Recon Design Feasibility Recon Recon Construction Feasibility Energy Region Southeast Copper River/Chugach Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Railbelt Southeast Southeast Aleutians Southeast Southeast Bristol Bay Copper River/Chugach Railbelt Railbelt Bristol Bay Southeast Southeast Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana Southeast Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Southeast Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Statewide Southeast Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Statewide Southeast Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Bristol Bay Southeast Southeast Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Copper River/Chugach Bering Straits Railbelt Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Bering Straits Northwest Arctic Railbelt Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Bristol Bay Northwest Arctic Railbelt Aleutians Northwest Arctic Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Southeast Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Kodiak Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Railbelt Railbelt Statewide Aleutians Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Northwest Arctic Railbelt Railbelt Statewide Aleutians Aleutians Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Railbelt Aleutians Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Kodiak Southeast Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Railbelt Northwest Arctic Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Copper River/Chugach Southeast Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Southeast Kodiak Southeast Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Southeast Southeast Southeast Copper River/Chugach Southeast Southeast Railbelt Railbelt Bristol Bay Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Northwest Arctic Copper River Chugach Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bristol Bay Railbelt Southeast Railbelt North Slope North Slope North Slope North Slope Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Aleutians Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Copper River/Chugach Southeast Bristol Bay Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Aleutians Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Copper River/Chugach Railbelt Southeast Southeast Northwest Arctic Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Railbelt Railbelt Northwest Arctic Copper River/Chugach Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Aleutians Railbelt Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Railbelt Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bristol Bay Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bering Straits Railbelt Southeast Aleutians Northwest Arctic Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Railbelt Aleutians Copper River/Chugach Aleutians Bristol Bay Copper River/Chugach Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Railbelt Railbelt Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Northwest Arctic Southeast Southeast North Slope Railbelt Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Railbelt Railbelt Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Statewide Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Copper River/Chugach Bristol Bay Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Aleutians Railbelt Copper River/Chugach Railbelt Bristol Bay Copper River/Chugach Railbelt Railbelt Northwest Arctic Railbelt Bristol Bay Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Railbelt Statewide Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Kodiak Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Railbelt Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Statewide Copper River/Chugach Railbelt Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Copper River/Chugach Statewide Railbelt Southeast Railbelt Aleutians Southeast Railbelt Railbelt Railbelt Northwest Arctic Southeast Aleutians Railbelt Kodiak Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Railbelt Southeast Southeast Bristol Bay Railbelt Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bering Straits Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Aleutians Aleutians Aleutians Bristol Bay Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bristol Bay Southeast Southeast Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Copper River/Chugach Copper River/Chugach Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana North Slope Southeast Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Railbelt Kodiak Railbelt Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bristol Bay Bering Straits Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bering Straits Bering Straits Bristol Bay Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Bering Straits Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Copper River/Chugach Railbelt Railbelt Aleutians Bristol Bay Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Bering Straits North Slope Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bristol Bay North Slope North Slope Railbelt Southeast Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Kodiak Railbelt Southeast Copper River/Chugach Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Southeast Southeast Railbelt Bristol Bay Railbelt Southeast Northwest Arctic Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Bristol Bay Kodiak Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Kodiak Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bristol Bay Bering Straits Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic Aleutians Bristol Bay Northwest Arctic Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Southeast Bering Straits Railbelt Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Lower Yukon Kuskokwim Southeast Kodiak Southeast Railbelt Copper River/Chugach Southeast Bristol Bay Aleutians Southeast Lower Yukon Kuskokwim Copper River Chugach Southeast Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Southeast Bering Straits Bering Straits Northwest Arctic Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana Northwest Arctic Railbelt Kodiak Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Railbelt Aleutians Northwest Arctic Northwest Arctic North Slope Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim Railbelt Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana Community to Benefit Chignik, Alaska Cantwell, Carlo Creek, and McKinley Village. Metlakatla, Ketchikan and potentially other communities connected to the grid of the Southeast Alaska Power Agency. interconnected communities of the Upper Tanana region, including Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. Valdez, Glennallen, Gakona, Gulkana, Tazlina, Copper Center, Kluti- Kaah, Copperville, Kenny Lake, Tolsona, Mendeltna, Nelchina, Eureka, and Sheep Mountain. utility customers on the Kenai Peninsula Haines Borough Tok Unalakleet, AK Yakutat, AK Port Alsworth, Nondalton and Pedro Bay Tenakee Springs, Alaska Old Harbor, Alaska Ambler, Shungnak and Kobuk Noatak, Alaska the residents of Kwigillingok, Alaska Kongiganak, Alaska The communities of Thorne Bay, Whale Pass, Hollis, and Naukati Kake Whale Pass, Alaska Chitina, Alaska The City of Atqasuk will be the beneficiary of this project Mountain Village Skagway, AK; Dyea, AK; Haines, AK; the Yukon Territory of Canada Whitestone Tuntutuliak, Alaska Kotzebue, Alaska Venetie St. Maryâ€™s and Pitka's Point Stebbins Nenana, AK Adak, Alaska Sand Point, Alaska Galena Ambler, Buckland, Deering, Kiana, Kivalina, Kobuk, Kotzebue, Noatak, Noorvik, Selawik, and Shungnak community of Craig Chefornak, Alaska Port Alsworth Elfin Cove, Alaska Seward, AK Chenega Bay, Alaska Port Graham, Alaska Hoonah, Alaska Napakiak, Alaska Hoonah and Pelican Atka, AK Excursion Inlet Holy Cross, Alaska Marshall Selawik, Alaska Anchorage, Girdwood, Portage, Hope, Cooper Landing, Moose Pass and Tyonek) as well as the City of Seward. City of False Pass Koliganek, Alaska Sitka communities serviced by SEAPA Huslia, Alaska Klukwan, Chilkat Valley, Haines and Skagway Scammon Bay, Alaska Ouzinkie, Alaska Sutton, AK Scammon Bay, Alaska Klawock, Alaska False Pass, Alaska Shishmaref, Alaska Goodnews Bay, Alaska Chevak, AK City of King Cove Igiugig, AK Kaktovik, Alaska Hydaburg, Alaska Juneau Chuathbaluk, AK Tuntutuliak, Alaska City of Ketchikan, the City of Saxman, the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Wrangell, and Petersburg by providing renewable energy via existing transmission lines. railbelt energy grid Cantwell, Carlo Creek, and McKinley Village Kotzebue Bristol Bay Borough and Naknek, AK Bethel, Akiachak, Akiak, Kwethluk, Karluk Village of Igiugig Manokotak, Alaska and immediate vicinity Nunam Iqua Emmonak, Alaska Tok, Tetlin, Tanacross, & Dot Lake Ketchikan Gateway Borough All IPEC Communities Brevig Mission, Alaska Seldovia, AK. St. Mary?s, Alaska Village of Minto, Alaska Grayling, Alaska The Mertarvik, Alaska Community (Newtok) communities of Petersburg, Wrangell, and Ketchikan Eek, Alaska City and Borough of Sitka, AK cooperative members of Kodiak Electric Association, Inc. Sitka, Alaska Anchorage, Girdwood, Portage, Hope, Moose Pass, Cooper Landing, Tyonek and Seward. Communities served by Copper Valley Electric Association, Inc. (CVEA), which includes Valdez, Glennallen, Gakona, Gulkana, Tazlina, Copper Center, Kluti- Kaah, Copperville, Kenny Lake, Tolsona, Mendeltna, Nelchina, Eureka, and Sheep Mountain. Edna Bay Naknek, King Salmon, South Naknek False Pass, Alaska Angoon Alaska Bethel, Alaska Cordova, Alaska and Eyak Village, Alaska Metlakatla Indian Community, Metlakatla, Alaska Klawock Alaska Koyuk, Alaska Wales, Alaska Shungnak, Alaska interconnected communities of the Upper Tanana region, including Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin, and Dot Lake. Kotzebue, Alaska Fairbanks and Nenana will have a direct benefit, Interior region villages will benefit indirectly by having IRHA reduce its overhead. Kodiak, Alaska Nikolai, Alaska Kake Alaska Communities served by Chugach include Anchorage, Indian, Bird, Girdwood, Portage, Whittier, Hope, Moose Pass, Cooper Landing, Beluga, Tyonek and Seward. St. Paul Island, AK 99660 Noorvik, Alaska Kiana, Alaska, Noorvik, Alaska, Selawik, Alaska Prudhoe Bay (Sagavanirktok) in the North Slope Borough Akiachak The residents of the Kenai Peninsula Circle, Alaska Project Location Sitka, AK Community of Gulkana, AK Anchorage Matanuska-Susitna Borough Fairbanks Dillingham, AK Bristol Bay Anchorage, AK Wrangell, AK Gustavus, AK Cold Bay, False Pass, Nelson Lagoon, AK Juneau, AK Ketchikan, AK Chignik, Alaska Chistochina, AK Redoubt or Spur Jack River approximately 3 miles southeast of Cantwell Pike\'s Ridge site in King Salmon Angoon, AK on Annette Island between Metlakatla and Walden Point and a submarine cable crossing of Revillagigedo Channel between Walden Point on Annette Island and Mountain Point on Revillagigedo Island. Cordova, AK Orca Plant/ Cordova Coffman Cove, Prince of Wales Island, Alaska Haines Cordova Valdez City of Hoonah Petersburg, AK McGrath Fort Yukon, AK Statewide Haines Grant Lake watershed located near Moose Pass, Alaska. Hooper Bay, AK Statewide Whitman Creek/Achilles Creek Watersheds Thomas Bay, AK 8 Interior AK Villages Chignik Haines Skagway Palmer Whittier Anchorage Kenny Lake, AK Nome Whittier Tok 186 Main Street Ambler, Alaska North Pole Galena Snake Mountain Buckland, Deering and Noorvik Eagle River, AK Atka Kobuk, AK Yakutat Mcgrath, Ak Chignik bay, Chignik Lagoon and Chignik lake Port Alsworth, Nondalton and Pedro Bay Pedro Bay, Newhalen/Ilimna, Nondalton, Port Alsworth, Egegik, port Heiden and Pilot Point on Indian River Coal Mine Rd , south of Delta Junction Bethel, AK Anchorage Regional Landfill Quinhagak, AK Toksook Bay Mekoryuk, AK Old Harbor, Alaska Kogoluktuk River Ambler, AK Noatak This project will be constructed in Shungnak, Alaska (population: 261) and will benefit Shungnak and its neighbor, Kobuk (population: 148). Girdwood, AK Palmer, AK Juneau, AK Cold Bay is located on the Alaska Peninsula, approximately 634 miles southwest of Anchorage and 180 miles northeast ofUnalaska. Yukon River Kotzebue, AK Seward, AK Fishhook Creek in Hatcher Pass Statewide Nikolski, AK St George Village of Napaimute Delia Creek Village of Nikolaevsk, Southern Kenai Peninsula Mount Makushin is an ice-covered stratovolcano located on Unalaska Island in the Aleutian Islands approximately 800 miles southwest of Anchorage. With an elevation of (6,680 ft), its summit is the highest point on the island (See Figure 1). The City of Unalaska, which includes Dutch Harbor, is the main community on the Island. The Port of Dutch Harbor is the only deep draft, ice-free port from Unimak Pass west to Adak and north to the headwaters of the Bering Straits. Unalaska?s economy is based primarily on commercial fishing, seafood processing, fleet services and marine transportation. Unalaska relies on diesel fueled generators to supply most of its power. The City of Unalaska and its customers will benefit most from this project. This project will play a major role in providing clean, reliable, and affordable base-load renewable power. The local community will also benefit from increased local hire and local services for the development and eventually construction work contemplated in this project as well as on-going maintenance and operations. Crooked Creek, AK Tanana River by Nenana Nikiski, AK Delta Junction, AK Pillar Mtn near Kodiak Prince of Wales Island, AK North Pole Expansion Plant community of Kwigillingok Denali Education Center Ferry, AK Kongiganak Juneau\'s Mendenhall Valley Delta Junction Ambler, AK Akiachak, AK Valdez Coffman Cove Kasaan Calista Region Thorne Bay, Alaska Sitka Kodiak Island, AK Baranof Island Little Port Walter Cordova Cordova, AK Kipnuk, AK Anchorage Kake, Alaska Project is near Whale Pass, Prince of Wales Island Annette Island, AK Slana, AK AK-BC SE AK to BC Wrangell, AK Seward Delta Region Statewide Crooked Creek Anchorage Kotzebue on Fivemile Creek Kotlik Pilot Point, AK Anchorage Statewide North Pole/Salcha Wainwright Wainwright, AK Point Lay, AK area of the North Slope between the communities of Atqasuk and Barrow Akutan, AK Akutan Akutan Island, AK Galena Aleutians East Borough Manley Chena Hot Springs Moose Pass Statewide Statewide Mount Spurr, Alaska Pilgrim Hot Springs, Alaska Mountain Village Kaltag Kaltag West Creek CSD Whittier, Chenega, Tatilek Yakutat, AK Igiugig, AK Birch Creek Southeast, Southcentral,Statewide Fairbanks Community of Whitestone Fairbanks Unalaska The actual met tower site will need to be determined upon initial evaluation of the site. The Akiak IRA is interested in a met tower east of the community approximately 4 miles at 60?54\'25.80"N and 161? 6\'19.02"W. Tuntutuliak Chenega Bay, Tatitick Healy Ketchikan, Wrangell, Petersburg Angoon NWAB Port Alsworth Perryville Tanana Homer, Seldovia, Port Graham Statewide 258 Third Avenue Kotzebue, Alaska Chistochena, AK Tok St. Paul Glacier Fork, Knik River Chalkyitsik Venetie Sitka Sutton, AK Teller, AK near Pitkaâ€™s Point Scammon Bay, AK New Stuyahok, AK Stebbins Emmonak and Alakanuk, AK Shaktoolik, AK Seward Peninsula Haines, Lutak, and Skagway Sand Point Ambler Statewide Bethel Anchorage Tanana Tanacross, AK Nenana Adak, Alaska Tatitlek, AK Sand Point, Alaska Chignik Lake Statewide Village of Marshall Native Village of Noatak Delta Junction, AK Delta Junction Galena Ambler School ? Latitude 67.084985, Longitude -157.8632 Buckland School ? Latitude 65.899971, Longitude -161.57341 Deering School ? Latitude 65.894924, Longitude -162.552567 Kiana School ? Latitude 66.971982, Longitude -160.436275 Kivalina School ? Latitude 67.654166, Longitude -164.06456 Kobuk School ? Latitude 66.90489, Longitude -157.029362 Kotzebue School ? Latitude 66.8983, Longitude -162.5959 Noatak School ? Latitude 67.624386, Longitude -163.001633 Noorvik School ? Latitude 66.833224, Longitude -161.042926 Selawik School ? Latitude 66.599159, Longitude -160.014675 Shungnak School ? Latitude 66.893844, Longitude -157.159138 Juneau, AK Craig, Alaska Point Hope, AK Delta Junction, AK Wrangell, AK Wrangell, AK Wrangell, AK British Columbia Border Fairbanks, AK Healy, AK Fairbanks, AK Chefornak, Alaska Rural Alaska Communities Galena, AK Bethel, Eyak, Nenana, Nome & Fairbanks Delta Junction, AK Village of Tyonek Eagle River Seldovia Valdez, AK Tanalian water falls and in-river along the Tanalian River Haines, AK Hoonah, AK Melakatla, AK on Crooked Creek and Jim's Lake Saint Paul, AK Matanuska-Susitna Borough Silver Lake, AK Seward Naknek, AK Chenega Bay, Alaska North Pole, AK Chena Hot Springs, AK Kotzebue, AK Seward, AK Ugashik, AK Hoonah, Alaska Bethel, AK Ruby, AK Fairbanks, AK Fairbanks, AK Girdwood, AK Sutton, AK Railbelt Hunter Creek tributary to Knik River Tanana, AK Kodiak, AK The Upper Tanana Biomass CHP (Combined Heat & Power) Project will be located in the Alaska Interior community of Tok (pop. 1270), at the junction of the Alaska Highway and the Tok Cutoff to the Glenn Highway, 200 miles southeast of Fairbanks, 93 miles from the Canadian border. This project will serve an isolated power grid that connects the communities of Tok, Tanacross, Tetlin and Dot Lake (combined population estimate 1580) Kasilof, AK Turnagain Arm, AK Kongiganak, AK Thomas Bay, AK Kwigillingok, AK Port Graham, Alaska Anchorage, AK Chistochina, AK Mount Spurr Hoonah, Alaska Napakiak Tatitlek, AK Fairbanks, AK Homer, AK at the head of Tenakee Inlet on Chichagof Island in Southeast Alaska The TidGen? Array Project, part of a larger commercial project at East Foreland, near Nikiski, Alaska, is a pilot project to test the effectiveness of Ocean Renewable Power Company?s TidGen? Power System in Cook Inlet. The energy produced will be delivered to the Railbelt Grid via interconnect to the Homer Electric Association (HEA) distribution system in the early stages of the project, and ultimately via a dedicated transmission line to the Bernice Lake Substation. From there, it can be delivered to any of the Railbelt utilities and associated communities St. Paul Island Cannon Beach in Yakutat, AK Cook Inlet Cook Inlet, AK Delta Junction, AK Kivalina, AK Angoon, AK Atka Houstan, AK Ouzinkie, AK Lime Village, AK Craig, AK SVHS Mile 98 Parks Highway Wrangell, AK Excursion Inlet Dillingham, AK Nikiski, AK Holy Cross, Alaska Eagle, AK Eek, AK Elim, AK Kaltag, AK Koyuk, AK Marshall Selawik, Alaska Kwethluk, AK Juneau, AK Atmautlauk, AK Stetson Creek, Cooper Lake Homer, AK Akiak, AK False Pass Nelson Lagoon is situated on the north coast of the Alaska Peninsula on a slender strand of sand between the Bering Sea and a lagoon of the same name, approximately 580 miles southwest of Anchorage. Cold Bay, AK Koliganek Napaskiak, AK Port Heiden, AK Hoonah, AK Pelican, AK Anchorage, AK Akiak, AK Palmer, AK Kwigillingok, AK Sitka, AK Sitka, AK Sitka Petersburg, AK BBL Prince of Wales Island, AK Tok, AK Copper River School District Glennallen Campus Across from the city of Valdez, AK on Dayville Road Huslia, Alaska Anaktuvuk Pass, AK Wrangell, AK 27 miles northeast of Haines, Alaska Scammon Bay, Alaska Juneau, AK Location ? latitude and longitude or street address or community / communities served: The proposed project will serve the community of Seward, AK, located on the Kenai Peninsula. The three locations for the project are: 1. Seward Middle School, 304 Sea Lion Avenue, Seward, AK 99664 2. William H. Seward Elementary School, 606 Sea Lion Avenue, Seward, AK 99664 3. Seward High School, P.O. Box 1049, Seward, AK 99664 Ouzinkie, Alaska Sutton Golovin, AK Russian Mission, AK Noorvik, AK Kotlik (population 601) is located on the east bank of the Kotlik Slough, 35 miles northeast of Emmonak in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. It lies 165 air miles northwest of Bethel and 460 miles from Anchorage. Scammon Bay, Alaska Sleetmute, AK Lower Kalskag, AK New Stuyahok, AK White Mountain Klawock, Alaska Old Kasigluk, AK Shishmaref, AK Savoonga is located on the northern coast of St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea, 164 miles west of Nome. The water treatment plant (WTP) is located approximately 200 feet from the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) power plant. Togiak, AK Goodnews Bay, AK Angoon, AK St. Michael, AK False Pass, Alaska Elim (pop. 337) is located on the northwest shore ofNorton Sound on the Seward Peninsula, 96 miles east of Nome. between Perryville and Port Moller, AK Shishmaref, Alaska Chevak Gambell, AK Upper Kalskag, AK Tanana, AK Mentasta Village, AK Fire Island to International Substation Nenana, AK small creek located approximately 5 miles north of downtown King Cove Igiugig, AK Three SE communities: Petersburg, Kake, Angoon Alakanuk, AK Eklutna, AK Nome, AK Kaktovik, Alaska Delta Bethel, Ak Bethel, AK Kokhanok, Alaska is located on the southern shore of Iliamna Lake. Kokhanok is 88 miles northeast of King Salmon, Alaska Wainwright Point Lay Anchorage: specific location to be determined. If a Waste-to-Energy (WtE) plant was constructed it could be by Chugach\'s Headquarters (5601 Electron Drive} or centrally located elsewhere in Anchorage, preferably near the solid waste transfer station (1111 E. 561 h Avenue) to minimize handling and transportation logistics. Petersburg, AK- Numerous locations in the city. School Buildings, Parks and Recreation Facilities, Municipal buildings, etc. Hydaburg School, located in Hydaburg Alaska, Prince of Wales Island in SE Alaska Project will be located at AVCP Housing campus in Bethel, AK. The beneficiaries will include AVCP Housing and its 60-plus staff, new AVCP Housing regional headquarters, the 30-bed AVCP Aviation Dormitory, 32-unit Bethel Low Rent Apartment Complex, 16-unit Lulu Heron Assisted Living Facility, 20-bed Construction Worker Bunkhouse, AVCP RHA\'s Maintenance Facility, Warehouse and Satellite Office Buildings. Kodiak Island ? City of Kodiak and road system communities Ticasuk Brown Elementary School 785 Lakloey Drive North Pole, AK 99705 Juneau The project is located in the Eastern Copper Basin of Central Alaska. Primarily in the Tazlina and Copper Center area on the east side of the Copper River. See attached maps. The Tazlina anomaly is located on the old Copper Valley School Road near Tazlina Village. Atmautluak, AK. The power plant and washeteria buildings Chuathbaluk Quinhagak, AK. The power house, washeteria, and combined utility building This project will be located in Stebbins, AK and connect the existing power plant, water treatment plant, school, Head Start building, clinic, and washeteria. Marshall, AK. The existing power plant community store and the water treatment plant. Noorvik, AK. The existing power plant and water treatment plant. Tuntutuliak The OIT Inc Waste Heat Turbine Project is located in Moose Creek, Alaska 20 miles from Fairbanks, AK. The project will create electrical power through use of a steam turbine driven by waste heat generated during operations at OIT?s remediation facility. The turbine project will create 335KWH providing enough electrical power to operate OIT?s facility while adding 157KWH to the GVEA grid in cogenerated surplus electrical power. The 157KWH in supplementary power would benefit the general Moose Creek, AK population consisting mainly of small business, churches and homes. The school is located near the old airstrip 2000 feet northwest of the Nushagak river approximately 5 miles northeast of Ketchikan, Alaska The project is located on Sawmill Creek, formerly the Medvetche River, in the Borough of Sitka, Alaska. The project currently occupies a total of 1,676 acres of federal lands administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (U.S. Forest Service), and under the City of Sitka?s proposal, it would occupy 1,798 acres of federal lands. Juniper Creek The project is located on Knutson Creek near the Village of Pedro Bay Carlo Creek SEAPA hydro generation is located at Tyee Lake and Swan Lake Kotzebue, AK The communities of Eagle and Eagle Village will benefit from this project Naknek The project is located between the City of Kodiak on Kodiak Island and the City of Ouzinkie on Spruce Island. This specific grant request is to assess the underwater structures in the marine channel between the two islands. The project will benefit the communities of Ouzinkie and Kodiak. Bethel, Alaska 60.7922 N 161 .7558 w Akiachak, Alaska 60.9094 N 161.4314 w Akiak, Alaska 60.9122 N 161.2139W Kwethluk, Alaska 60.8122 N 161.4358 w City & Borough of Wrangell Karluk Igiugig The village of Levelock located on the Kvichak River approximately 230 miles SW of Anchorage City of Egegik located on the King Salmon River approximately 330 miles SW of Anchorage Wales (population 154) is located on Cape Prince of Wales, at the western tip of the Seward Peninsula, 111 miles northwest of Nome. Russian Mission (population 303) is located on the west bank of the Yukon River in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, 25 miles southeast of Marshall. It lies 70 air miles northeast of Bethel and 376 miles west of Anchorage The communities impacted by this project are Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk. These villages are located in Northwest Alaska on the Kobuk River. The communities impacted by this project are Noorvik, Kiana, and Selawik. They are all located in Northwest Alaska. Atka, Alaska located about 1,100 miles from Anchorage, 350 miles west of Unalaska, and 90 miles east of Adak in the Aleutian Islands. Noatak is located on the west bank of the Noatak River, 55 miles north of Kotzebue and 70 miles north of the Arctic Circle. This is the only settlement on the 396 mile-long Noatak River, just west of the 66- million acre Noatak National Preserve. Nunam Iqua Emmonak Chisana Mountain Ketchikan Gateway Borough Kake, Alaska Brevig Mission Seldovia St. Mary?s Minto Grayling, Alaska Vicinity of the new Mertarvik Community Site remote area of Revillagigedo Island at the northern end of Carroll Inlet, approximately 22 air miles northeast of Ketchikan, Alaska. Eek, Alaska Sitka Kodiak Sitka, Alaska Anchorage Cascade Creek Survey Creek on Kosiusko Island near the community of Edna Bay Naknek False Pass, Alaska Xootz Road, Buildings 1 â€“ 9. Bethel, Alaska Crater Lake, Cordova Alaska Metlakatla Indian Community, Metlakatla, Alaska Klawock Senior Center Koyuk, Alaska Wales, Alaska at the proposed new landfill in Shungnak, Alaska Approximately 15 miles south of Tok, Alaska co-located with existing wind farm, located approximately 4 miles southeast of Kotzebue Fairbanks and Nenana Kodiak, Alaska Nikolai, Alaska Kake Senior Center Lowell Creek in Seward and Ship Creek in Anchorage St. Paul Island, AK 99660 Noorvik, Alaska Hotham Ridge 100 Powerplant Way, Deadhorse, AK 99734 Akiachak, Alaska Parcel No. 75, Northeast corner of East Road and Bear Creek Drive, Homer, Alaska Circle, Alaska Project Latitude 61.22 61.6 64.83 58.72 56.47 58.4 55.2 58.3 55.33 56.29528 62.57 61.3 63.21 58.72 55.127 60.55 56.0037 63.379197 60.55 61.055388 58.1 64.83 59.23 60.461317 61.52 61.6 56.3 59.141224 59.45 61.6 60.77 61.22 60.77 63.327019 63.876925 67.086437 64.75 64.73 58.97 65.98 61.32 52.191111 59.559038 62.95 56.23 60.202524 59.78 57.785776 64.03 60.78 61.22 59.75 57.197222 66.964444 67.08 67.572031 66.88806 60.93 61.6 58.3 55.204694 64.75 61.6 61.22 56.6 61.53 59.83 53.907574 61.87 64.57 64.03 64.75 59.868038 63.655489 59.95993 58.3 64.03 67.08 55.687638 59.93889 56.97724 56.097806 61.582261 70.48122 62.0856 59.525833 64.156278 60.907167 60.343042 66.897263 67.016009 62.03278 63.51722 59.4235727 64.564075 51.879532 55.340103 64.741678 67.084985 55.488697 60.15907 60.19806 58.1989 60.099943 60.0657 58.084479 63.334806 59.348592 58.110181 60.695536 57.5924 60.722092 52.1157 58.25 62.198619 61.87778 66.604053 60.44611 54.52443 55.999489 59.72861 57.025062 56.18906 65.701462 59.395144 61.843879 60.127554 57.925879 61.42697 63.03417 61.843879 55.553311 63.69417 54.85394 64.7 66.25667 59.12 61.527769 65.173056 62.93155 55.069129 59.328889 70.132607 60.78 59.4416 61.169528 56.815274 55.204971 60.804019 57.7934954 64.82569 58.377756 62.05079 60.86694 61.528424 59.75148 63.52222 61.878974 66.839487 60.371787 64.713889 59.45278 59.904488 55.416653 57.065378 61.257 59.79833 63.57 56.18906 66.895127 64.783544 58.732329 57.92361 60.7922 56.461753 57.556361 59.32688 59.11417 58.21556 65.60917 61.785 67.0063889 66.8086111 52.207002 58.99567 67.589961 62.515487 62.779254 63.186 55.34517 56.9708 65.330894 59.438063 62.051472 65.14712 62.90554 60.826028 60.2187 57.11252 57.782 57.047394 61.17417 61.19673 55.5641 58.72833 54.85394 57.496 60.7922 60.572401 55.125514 55.555 64.933871 65.610613 66.880226 63.1513 66.838394 64.8378 57.608333 63.01347 56.977 60.101173 57.122962 66.83201 66.8 70.198287 65.741918 Project Longitude -149.88 -149.1 -147.72 -157 -132.37 -135.73 -162.7 -134.4 -131.63 -158.40222 -144.67 -152.25 -148.49 -157 -131.576 -145.75 -132.4836 -143.602086 -145.75 -146.348126 -135.43 -147.72 -135.43 -149.337272 -166.08 -149.1 -158.4 -135.264226 -135.3 -149.1 -148.68 -149.88 -148.68 -142.994328 -160.791306 -157.856047 -147.35 -156.93 -159.05 -161.13 -149.57 174.193611 -139.749895 -155.58 -158.78 -154.314218 -154.1 -135.193628 -145.73 -161.75 -149.88 -161.9 -153.307778 -156.73 -157.87 -162.975085 -157.13639 -149.17 -149.1 -134.4 -162.718386 -155.5 -149.1 -149.88 -169.53 -158.68 -151.58 -166.930389 -158.1 -149.08 -145.73 -147.35 -163.159663 -148.834642 -162.893479 -134.4 -145.73 -157.87 -132.526403 -164.04139 -133.945663 -133.138525 -144.436483 -157.42 -163.7294 -135.4125 -145.861078 -161.105283 -162.663078 -162.592764 -146.421061 -163.28778 -162.28444 -135.664053 -149.091442 -176.65675 -160.489627 -156.956306 -157.8632 -133.128597 -164.269437 -154.34194 -136.3553 -149.441035 -148.0104 -135.381367 -142.964639 -151.829739 -135.442792 -161.982822 -135.562 -151.413974 -174.9248 -135.2634 -159.770336 -162.08111 -160.012811 -149.84944 -163.24646 -161.207267 -157.28444 -135.20554 -131.48126 -156.389489 -136.144681 -165.581303 -149.443803 -152.502766 -148.54249 -163.55333 -165.581303 -133.099242 -170.47889 -163.40883 -162.467 -166.07194 -161.59 -165.586624 -152.1 -143.79273 -162.313385 155.885278 -143.623838 -161.75 -154.75514 -149.91124 -132.953314 -132.822037 -161.790939 -152.393707 -147.532489 -134.588592 -145.43588 -162.26306 -165.586452 -161.90188 -162.28806 -162.081642 -161.032963 -162.658081 -147.138056 -157.31194 -154.692138 -131.529814 -135.198442 -149.73 -154.1575 -148.81 -131.48126 -162.599894 -141.204028 -157.004415 -152.50222 -161.7558 -132.379074 -154.447639 -155.892706 -156.85889 -157.37583 -168.0875 -161.32028 -157.0566667 -160.6894444 -174.201729 -159.002809 -163.133906 -164.877377 -164.550176 -142.553 -131.637603 -133.9339 -166.487846 -151.710884 -163.175812 -149.36631 -160.066681 -164.487494 -162.0259 -135.39277 -152.436 -135.355222 -149.99611 -145.552136 -133.4316 -157.01389 -163.40883 -133.947 -161.7558 -145.699744 -131.577267 -133.095 -161.156731 -168.087044 -157.168627 -143.198217 -162.555569 -147.7164 -153.002778 -154.375076 -133.947 -149.449241 -170.279317 -161.047705 -160.8 -148.460364 -144.225858 Annual MWH Production 988 3441 19500 350 1100 3832 300 517 3294 10 2800 596 450 476 756 403 532 721 205 1473 1293 2000 947 1704 99 32400 1242 10 Annual MMBtu Production 0 32551.02 376 0 0 41447.93 4252.17 0 56238.33 2537.58 4389.33 1136 4947.46 7094.67 1737 4418.55 5418.08 7818.5 13853.83 3566.33 28791.28 14128.17 698 504 1524.33 1563.7 28464 6446.83 1508.83 651.54 1283 1042 7269.83 0 356633.34 37.021 Annual Diesel Displaced 76 237.31 3.516 34.539 96.33 302.172 31 24 410 18.5 32 8.474 36.069 51.723 16.2 32.213 39.5 57 101 26 209.9 103 6.518 4000 11.113 11.4 207.514 47 11 4.75 11.971 9.726 53 117.5 2592 0.27 Generation Start Date 2021 2019 2019 2018 2017 2019 42614 2019 2020 2025 2017 42644 2020 2018 2018 2020 2019 2020 2017 2018 2019 42614 43009 2018 2018 2018 2018 42644 2023 2020 42856 42644 2018 2018 2019 2021 2017 2021 2020 2019 Total Cost Through Construction 226000000 1075000 200000000 60000000 100000000 49500000 100000 1070000000 3260000 10153000 40000 7200000 839000 98150000 31500000 10020000 6000000 14510599 17031000 5260000 175000 20675000 2379007 628825 49000000 37459970 30000000 43940 3606255 286149 441229 59067808 2220141 7000000 27050000 100015360 207500 1374892 60000 15000000 15000000 300000 565485 5157000 3000000 629000 484691 4007900 382779 13100000 10921428 3087000 2440000 401873 335456 991815 8150000 309450 8000000 2298280 96000000 3197986 7400000 4313603 278378 10317500 37041535 605000 447800 650000 12231750 20824011 800000 114765 461950 10755497 16700000 4555922 565439 1348032 3000000 123494.29 1550000 21923000 311304000 178000 1937072 10200000 8363886 23150000 3840000 1050000 284562 190000 93300000 320456 1950000 2868000 150000 4250000 35000000 355056 32000 400000 872635 142000 15907950 1430000 8945073 1800000 4067778 55000000 1423292 3019975 18530700 6300000 5033414 4637616 708936 6134785.5 100000 368000 40000000 1215627 6580000 626400 1571240 42000 116625 30000 3612000 4433000 4433000 19772275 45000000 1491000 279331 6000000 187361 2482803 19860400 198168 95984 300000000 3330467 4833000 1300000 120500 1380439 10644000 9395283 112200 1572050 15000000 1940558 370000 2011412 2000000 259817 313000 24000000 312000 617934 996000 4097000 95581 393298.5 2498591 454828 2692700 4000000 8100000 1760000 370000000 1540023 204428 32000 7785000 3890042 4886000 2000000 4436800 3946050 2676273 252905 4600000 46475000 146750 500000 100000000 7858177 39869 590000 3244225 1400000 1812000 1072305 1995000 15760000 357152 50000 2868000 932250 3144200 467252 1250000 679950 4433000 4500000 1506857 161386 416392 31000000 300000 167390 101500 4526458 472787 313280 578719 1497500 240000 340000 658000 36016000 7224213 40200000 22000000 312000 3835000 615591 322283 89560000 250000 160830500 1750000 7815000 1861500 1600000 723138 232170 8009000 3795000 219071 275142 293238 4200000 5800000 175000000 25000000 492652 6903000 18000000 274623 2500000000 1561368 98626186 1661368 236602 675185 267024 61780000 2284000 295800 212942 6452000 49000000 8696494 2100000 4962965 5000000 3600000 160000000 22193000 30402216 135254 45000 650000 72000 198000 755500 125000 14500000 3554889 85000000 439453 1190876 750000 2000000 100000 2000000 3214875 200718 1466813 4019600 338578 21772523 34530000 52050 2937068 2566000 1075000 2123536 1005000 5520836 2200000 142000 1344695 165000 26000 230200 264400 3040000 9546005 170583 3244897 2440000 526108 2100000 81973 825000 4283056 19725000 1415234 401441 152867 582000 3060000 4114132 133350 858556 327201 425701 486180 502819 10000000 45000000 2689400 1634500 558814 252905 100000 81700 510000 36795000 340000 6950000 2131740 2400000 31350 8000000 6736891 7751695 135300000 8710000 4660750 190000 3612000 4257116 51360 660977 3399387 1633974 350000 825000 0 360500 225660 668350 1341063 183200 985808 469311 3258447 548000 2600000 45320707 145000000 2350000 3400000 8340000 244385 77000 165750 235000 6129000 1250000 117136 1300000 110000 10000 90000 1020000 1530000 233000 23000000 2100000 2000000 603000 689251 148800 2200000 5795000 753313 362805 757299 403550 439982 8000000 13391869 319394 388838 3800000 795421 2250000 3562772 1940379 6870575 292184 9000000 17306696 3479490 763898 102275 703269 656613 5485000 15891000 449178 50000 79992000 705893 60000 165000 25000000 13717479 3100000 427600 AEA Recommendation Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 1 Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Partial Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 1 Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Partial Funding Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 2 Not Recommended Partial Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Partial Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Did Not Pass Stage 1 Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Withdrawn Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Partial Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Partial Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Not Recommended Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding Not Recommended Withdrawn Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding Partial Funding Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 1 Did Not Pass Stage 1 Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 2 Not Recommended Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Withdrawn Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Partial Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 1 Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 1 Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding Not Recommended Full FUnding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 2 Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Partial Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Partial Funding Partial Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Withdrawn Partial Funding Not Recommended Partial Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 2 Did Not Pass Stage 1 Did Not Pass Stage 1 Not Recommended Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 1 Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Not Recommended Partial Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 1 Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 2 Partial Funding Did Not Pass Stage 1 Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Partial Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 1 Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Withdrawn Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 1 Did Not Pass Stage 1 Did Not Pass Stage 2 Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Not Recommended Partial Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 2 Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Partial Funding Not Recommended Partial Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 2 Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 2 Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Did Not Pass Stage 1 Did Not Pass Stage 1 Not Recommended Award Code 2195423 2195387 2195408 2195380 7030009 2195407 2195399 7071015 2195459 7030021 2195373 2195439 2195388 7071021 2195400 7040055 2195396 2195358 2195443 2195377 2195434 2195376 7050840 7071053 2195416 2195409 2195374 2195465 2195432 2195430 2195383 7050870 2195412 2195422 7060967 2195402 7030015 2195435 2195442 2195398 2195426 2195437 2195370 7050803 2195391 2195394 7040031 7071073 2195393 2195395 7040057 2195447 7040013 7040054 7071087 7040074 2195454 7030007 7040024 7040027 7040050 2195472 7030003 7040032 7040007 7071067 2195474 2195449 2195476 2195451 7071044 7040022 7030006 7071068 7050871 2195453 7050881 7071047 7040026 7040046 7040067 7030004 7060922 7040063 7030022 7060925 7050823 7030002 7030016 7050825 7071026 7040018 7040062 7040070 7040019 7040053 7040049 7040052 7040020 7040039 7071082 7040003 7040004 7040016 7040009 7040036 7040040 7040001 7040072 7050844 7050848 7050856 7060934 7050858 7071041 7050876 7060982 7050839 7040015 7060966 2195471 2195467 7060935 7060937 7060939 7060940 7060941 7071085 7060944 7060908 7060917 7060976 7060915 7071072 7060911 7060912 7071052 7071061 7071027 7071040 7071031 7071043 7071032 project__master_project_code 10001 10005 10018 10029 10033 10034 10036 10044 10049 10056 10061 10062 10065 10107 10116 10121 10124 10160 10184 10190 10209 10220 10223 10268 10270 10276 10299 10340 10376 10441 10446 10106 10147 10152 10157 10158 10285 10331 10332 10055 10070 10294 10333 10444 10025 10063 10083 10101 10136 10171 10191 10204 10234 10248 10251 10282 10304 10314 10324 10351 10355 10361 10362 10363 10372 10395 10396 10407 10408 10409 10410 10411 10413 10438 10439 10443 10445 10102 10105 10173 10004 10009 10013 10017 10020 10024 10027 10030 10037 10040 10041 10043 10045 10051 10059 10060 10067 10074 10075 10084 10086 10087 10115 10118 10125 10126 10127 10137 10148 10149 10202 10211 10242 10243 10247 10253 10257 10259 10265 10267 10293 10301 10315 10316 10325 10354 10379 10414 10416 10418 10442 10088 10096 10165 10012 10014 10079 10286 10300 10076 10103 10297 10308 10422 10023 10026 10032 10100 10279 10313 10146 10038 10050 10053 10058 10064 10066 10068 10069 10071 10073 10085 10089 10090 10093 10097 10098 10099 10104 10111 10139 10144 10145 10159 10186 10194 10195 10196 10197 10198 10199 10200 10212 10213 10224 10233 10287 10292 10302 10306 10307 10309 10310 10312 10318 10319 10320 10321 10322 10323 10373 10384 10385 10387 10388 10389 10428 10429 10430 10440 10002 10003 10132 10189 10341 10390 10391 10392 10394 Application Number 818 15 26 314 445 33 1021 649 54 840 1053 1152 112 1147 622 1087 260 1133 292 881 1047 1109 476 925 1164 623 1215 982 1142 1032 1208 111 621 252 652 654 1035 705 706 53 68 1026 1013 1031 1242 1218 22 61 967 105 235 271 1044 307 658 448 1055 823 1130 843 687 844 848 856 934 858 1041 243 244 937 939 940 941 1085 944 1052 1061 1040 1043 1134 1073 1074 603 435 10 1247 1029 407 1207 1015 1225 813 430 40 42 48 57 58 1249 1221 1212 84 895 87 210 653 1205 655 626 1226 248 469 914 1162 1046 630 1250 1165 812 922 676 837 825 1020 1082 675 688 1235 1220 908 917 976 1244 1219 1201 523 88 97 892 9 11 78 960 624 75 108 607 641 915 1210 1034 906 811 808 804 672 1224 1232 35 205 1153 56 62 64 66 122 70 870 518 889 90 94 666 102 803 616 669 486 613 612 1067 287 513 1115 646 515 1068 878 871 506 1237 611 1139 503 512 633 639 640 642 1066 664 1080 969 680 1079 685 686 876 839 1231 67 604 966 1072 911 912 1027 212 106 Project Type Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Biomass Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal Geothermal HeatBiofuel HeatBiofuel HeatHydro HeatPump HeatPump HeatPump HeatPump HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatRecovery HeatWind HeatWind HeatWind Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydro Hydrokinetic Hydrokinetic Hydrokinetic Other Other Other Other Other Solar Solar Solar Solar Solar Solar Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission Transmission, Other Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Wind Project Name Gulkana Village Biomass Fuels Project Chistochina Central Wood Heating Construction Cordova Wood Processing Plant Construction McGrath Biomass Feasibility District Wood Heating in Fort Yukon Haines Central Wood Heating System Construction (Low Income Housing Project) Haines Borough Municipal Buildings Biomass Project Kenny Lake School Wood Fired Boiler Galena Wood Heating Construction Kobuk Biomass Design & Construction Project Yakutat Biomass District Heating Loop Lake and Peninsula Borough Wood Boilers Delta Junction Wood Chip Heating Feasibility Study Southeast Island School District wood boilers Cordova Community Biomass Feasibility Study Kake Community Energy Biomass Hydronic Heating_YKSD Kotzebue Paper and Wood Waste to Energy Project Chalkyitsik District Heat_Village Council Tanacross Woody Biomass Community Facility Space Heating Project Galena Community Wood Heat Project Craig High School Wood Heat Conversion City Tribe Biomass Energy Conservation Upper Tanana Biomass CHP Project Port Graham Community Building Biomass Heat Distribution Project Susitna Valley High School Wood Heat Huslia Water System and Clinic Biomass Boiler Project Community Facilities Woody Biomass Space Heating Project Gateway Borough Recreation and Schools Central Heating Plant Design Biomass Heat for Minto Community Buildings Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Construction Juneau Ground Source Heat Pump Construction (Aquatic Center) Akutan Geothermal Development Project Manley Village Council Geothermal Mount Spurr Geothermal Project Pilgrim Hot Springs Geothermal Resource Assessment Feasibility Study of Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Resource Japonski Island Boathouse Heat Pump Sitka Renewable Energy Feasibility for Wastewater Treatment Plant North Pole Biomass Electricity/Heat Construction Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity Construction Atka Dispatchable Heat Sitka Kettleson Library Air Source Heat Pump Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump Project Heat Pump System For City Owned Buildings Saxman Low-Rent Multifamily Air Source Heat Pump Cordova Heat Recovery Construction McGrath Heat Recovery Construction Cold Bay Waste Heat Recovery Project North Pole Heat Recovery Construction Kotzebue HR and Ammonia Power Cycle Unalaska Heat Recovery Venetie Clinic Heat Recovery Ambler HR_City of Ambler Organic Rankine Cycle Field Testing Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade Alaska SeaLife Center Heat Recovery Project Tatitlek Heat Recovery Project Holy Cross Power Plant Heat Recovery for Water Distribution System Atmautlauk Washeteria/ Power Plant Waste Heat Recovery Project Hoonah Heat Recovery Project Russian Mission Heat Recovery System Sleetmute Heat Recovery - Power Plant to Water Plant Shishmaref Heat Recovery Project Savoonga Heat Recovery System - Power Plant to Water Plant Togiak Waste Heat Recovery Project Chevak Water and Vacuum Plant Heat Recovery Wainwright Heat Recovery Point Lay Heat Recovery Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria Stebbins Heat Recovery Project Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant and Community Store Heat Recovery for the Water Treatment Plant Tuntutuliak Heat Recovery New Stuyahok Heat Recovery Nunam Iqua Heat Recovery Project Emmonak Heat Recovery System Brevig Mission Water System Heat Recovery St Marys Heat Recovery System Kwigillingok Wind Heat System â€“ Electric Thermal Storage Kongiganak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Tuntutuliak Wind Heat Electrical Thermal Storage Takatz Lake Hydroelectric Feasibility Analysis Nushagak Area Hydropower Project (NAHP) Falls Creek Hydroelectric Construction Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project Jack River Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study Humpback Creek Hydroelectric Project Rehabilitation Yerrick Creek Hydropower Project: Construction Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project Construction Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Whitman Lake Project Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project Indian Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Burro Creek Hydro Feasibility Study Whittier Creek Hydroelectric Reconnaissance South Fork Hydroelectric Construction Chuniisax Creek Hydroelectric Construction Indian River Hydroelectric Project - Construction Old Harbor Hydroelectric Project âˆ’Geotechnical Study and Final Design Cosmos Hills Hydroelectric Design & Permitting Ruby Hydrokinetic Construction Fourth of July Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting Fishhook Hydroelectric Construction Kiseralik_Chikuminuk Hydro_AVCP Housing Terror Lake Unit 3 Hydroelectric Project Neck Lake Hydropower Project: Phases II-III Triangle Lake Hydroelectric Project Carlson Creek Hydroelectric Project Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Loud Creek Hydro_Akutan Akutan Hydroelectric System Repair and Upgrade Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Adak Hydroelectric Feasibility Study â€“ Phase II Port Alsworth Hydropower PreConstruction Phase Schubee Lake Hydroelectric Project Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting Chenega Bay Hydroelectric Construction AVTEC Hydroelectric Training Facility Gartina Falls Hydroelectric Project Eska Creek Hydroelectric Project Hunter Creek Hydroelectric Project Feasibility Study and 827 Thayer Lake Hydropower Development Transmission/Generation Project Excursion Inlet Hydro Project Feasibility and Conceptual Design Stetson Creek Diversion Cooper Lake Dam Facilities Project Battle Creek Diversion Project Pelican Hydroelectric Upgrade Project Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project Waterfall Creek Hydroelectric Construction Project Tazimina Hydroelectric Project Capacity Increase Blue Lake Hydroelectric Expansion Project Knutson Creek Hydroelectric Project Design and Permitting Gunnuk Creek Hydro Rehabilitation - IPEC Kake False Pass Hydroelectric Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Water Treatment Plant Inline Micro Turbines Thayer Lake Hydropower Development (TLHD) Generation Statewide Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study Nenana Hydrokinetic Construction Kvichak River RISEC Project Wrangell Hydro Based Electric Boilers Construction Aleutians East Borough Renewable Energy Reconnaissance Girdwood Gas CHP/Hydro/Wind Solar Construction TidGen? Array Project Wrangell Electric Vehicle Feasibility Study Ambler Solar PV Construction McKinley Village Solar Thermal Construction Lime Village Photovoltaic System Retrofit Kaltag Solar Construction Eagle Solar Array Project Evaluation of a Community Solar Project Metlakatla to Ketchikan Intertie Coffman Cove Hydropower Line Extension Kake-Petersburg Inter-Connection Engineering Reynolds Creek Hydro Transmission Line Transmission Line to Renewable Energy Resources (Mount Spurr) Snettisham Transmission Line Avalanche Mitigation Mountain Village-St. Maryâ€™s Wind Intertie Project â€“ Final Design and Construction Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting Hooper Bay Wind Farm Construction Banner Wind Construction_Nome Unalakleet Wind-Diesel Optimization Buckland/Deering/Noorvik Wind Farm Construction Chignik Lake Area Wind-Hydro Final Design Lake Pen Borough Wind Feasibility Study Coal Mine Road Wind Farm Final Design Bethel Wind Power Project Times 4 Quinhagak Wind Farm Construction Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Mekoryuk Water System Heat High Penetration Wind-Battery-Diesel Hybrid Nikolski Renewable Energy Wind Project St. George Wind Farm Construction Nikolaevsk Wind Farm Final Design Kenai Winds Expansion Delta Junction Wind Farm Construction Pillar Mtn High Penetration Wind Project GVEA Eva Creek Wind Turbine Purchase Akiachak Wind Feasibility & Conceptual Design Pilot Point Wind Power & Heat Wainwright Wind Turbine Design Point Lay Wind Generation Design Mountain Village Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design Tok Wind Construction_VWP Teller Wind-Final Design, Permitting & Construction St. Maryâ€™s-Pitkaâ€™s Point Wind Energy Construction Project Scammon Bay Wind Feasibility New Stuyahok Wind-Feasibility Analysis, Resources Assessment & Conceptual Design Stebbins St Michael Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Emmonak/Alakanuk Phase 2 Wind Energy Construction Shaktoolik Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Shaktoolik Water System Heat Tatitlek High Penetration Wind-Diesel Project Sand Point High Penetration Wind System Point Hope Wind Turbine Design Chefornak Wind Heat System St. Paul Wind Diesel Project Kivalina Wind-Intertie Feasibility Analysis & Conceptual Design Nushagak Community Wind Power Project Eek Wind Feasibility Elim Wind Feasibility Koyuk Wind Phase II Feasibility Marshall Wind Energy Final Design and Permitting Project Kwethluk Wind Feasibility False Pass Wind Energy Project Nelson Lagoon Wind Energy Project Cold Bay Wind Energy Project Koliganek Wind Diesel and Heat Recovery Napaskiak Wind, Power and Heat Recovery Port Heiden Wind Turbine Project Gambell Surplus Wind Energy Recovery for Gambell Water System Heat and 898 Nome Renewable Energy Expansion/Optimization Project Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design Bethel Wind Farm Construction (BNC land) Bethel Renewable Energy Project High-penetration Wind Energy Project- Kokhanok Igiugig Wind Resource Feasibility and Conceptual Design Levelock Wind Reconnaissance Study Egegik Wind Feasibility Study Chisana Mountain Wind Feasibility Project Akiachak Wind_ANCEC Nome/ Banner Peak Wind Farm Construction S2 Comments in latest application 0 Project is low risk and potentially very beneficial. Long term wood supply is reliable and sustainable. However at $839,000 the project is expensive compared to wood heating installations in Tanana and Ionia, so B/C is poor. AEA would manage project per request in proposal. AEA Project manager thinks this project can be built for $500,000. Wood storage may not be required and bulding cost at $150/sf, not $350/sf, is appropriate. Project can be coordinated with Gulkana for economy. Recommended. At lower cost. Project appears to be well-conceived and a practical way to use a local energy resource. We are concerned about efficiency of the current residential woodstoves and possible health impacts from increased smoke. We do not recommend funding for processing and distributing the firewood. Recommend funding for only firewood processor equipment and freight as quoted ($147,720). Recommend at lower project cost. Applicant proposes assessing kind, quantity, and delivered cost of biomass near four communities--apps #311 Tanana, #312 Tanacross, #313 Nenana, #314 McGrath. Methodology and objectives are identical for the four applications. The proposed site-specific assessments are an important component of feasibility analysis for wood energy development in these communities. However, of these comunities, only McGrath is proposing significant utilization of local wood for energy. Fuel prices are highest in McGrath. While Tanana has recently developed a wood boiler for the washeteria, wood supply has not been identified as a major issue. While a larger scale chip boiler system is under development in Tok, wood supply is less of an issue since it is on the road system. Funding only one of the four projects will be sufficient to show that the method is useful for biomass supply assessment. Recommend full funding of $34,740 for the McGrath biomass supply assessment (app #314) with requirement that the project team coordinates with McGrath Light and Power and other project participants in assessing harvest supply requirements and system. Recommend no funding for apps #311 Tanana, #312 Tanacross, #313 Nenana at this time. Applicant is proposing funding for the construction of a wood chip fired district heating system. The application includes a conceptual design report. There is an existing RE Fund grant for final design work and business plan development. This is a community wood heating system that combines wood harvest and transport, combustion, district heating and energy sales. AEA remains concerned about the project\'s complexity and risks. However, these risks are somewhat mitigated by a strong project team and the project\'s phased development under AEA\'s oversight. It is very important that provisions be included in the business plan to account for the operation and maintenance of the proposed system. Recommend full funding contingent on completion of an acceptable final design and business plan. Applicant proposes design and construction of cordwood-fired heating systems for four 4-plex housing units. Project offers good potential savings over heating oil and provides a demonstration project for southeast Alaska. Recommend. The Haines Borough is proposing final design and installation of low emissions; high efficiency; 3rd party tested pellet-fired boiler systems to heat Borough-owned buildings; Haines School and Pool, Chilkat Center, Sewer Treatment Plant, Water Treatment Plant, Vocational Education Building, The Library, old City Shop, new City Shop, The Public Safety Building and The Sheldon Museum. This project is estimated to displace a total of 80,000 gallons per year of fuel oil, using 695 tons of pellets per year. The project has completed feasibility/conceptual design phase work. The application includes substantial support from the community and Borough. Haines Borough has already purchased and installed a pellet system at the Borough Senior Center. This project will develop an anchor tenant for pellet supply in the Southeast Alaska region and will potentially support the development of pellet manufacturing infrastructure. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding for design, permitting, and construction with requirements of AEA acceptance of final design, fuel supply plan, biomass storage, and business/operational plan before construction funds are released. Copper River School District proposes to construct a 1.8 MMBtu/hr wood pellet-fired heating plant to supply the Kenny Lake School. RE Fund round 1 (#46) provided funding for final design. Upon request of the grantee AEA is managing the project. Pellets would be purchased from the new Superior Pellets fuel facitlity in Fairbanks. Other potential supply is from Canada. Project is scheduled for completion in December 2011. The project would represent the first instituional-scale pellet heating plant in Interior. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes a high-efficiency cordwood-fired boiler to supply heat to a community building in Galena. Project appears well-conceived and economic. Project management and development team is strong. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes final design and construction of a cordwood ?fired heating system to supply the water treatment plant facilities. Assessment for wood heating in Ambler, Shungnak, and Kobuk was funded under two earlier projects: 1) Feasibility in round 1 (# 59) and 2) final design in round 4 to NW Inupiat Housing Authority (NWIHA) (#668). Work includes fuel supply plan, business plan, and technology assessment. The project would consume 35 cords of year harvested from NANA lands. A letter from NANA states its support. The system would operated through the Alaska Rural Utility Collaborative and represents their first wood-fired system. AEA is concerned that the economics appear marginal. They could be improved by identifying ways of reducing capital cost and/or increasing diesel displacement during the design phase. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. AEA is also concerned that the Kobuk Valley Electric is not participating regularly in the PCE program. Recommend full funding with requirements that 1) The City must coordinate with NWIHA and their consultant in developing the project, 2) AEA must accept final design before construction funding is disbursed and 3) wood supply contracts for 5 years must be in place before construction funding is disbursed. The City and Borough of Yakutat is proposing final design and installation of low emissions; high efficiency; 3rd party tested cordwood boiler systems to heat three City/Borough-owned buildings: City Hall Building; Court House Building; Yakutat Community Center . This project is estimated to displace a total of 7,238 gallons per year of fuel oil, using 38 cords of wood per year. The project has completed a feasibility study. This project is an example of good collaboration efforts among community organizations in an effort to provide low cost heating to the entire community of Yakutat. Also the local community appears to be supportive of a district biomass heating project. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. AEA recommends partial funding of design and permitting to allow the City and Borough of Yakutat to make an informed decision about pursing biomass as a heating option. Recommend partial funding with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design; biomass storage; business/operational plan; harvest plan; inventory plan, $103,000. The Lake and Pen Borough proposes the construction of cordwood boilers for the communities of Port Alsworth (Improvement Center and Fire Hall), Nondalton (single structure or multiple units), and Pedro Bay (Smokehouse Bay Annex). This project would displace approximately 9,104 gallons of heating fuel. This application is based on a feasibility study that was completed in June of 2010 that recommends different technology from what is proposed in this application. There is no discussion of the engineering design or the business/operational plan of the proposed system. Wood inventory work has only been completed on Native Allotments in this area. While the volume of wood required for this project is very small, the applicant has not adequately demonstrated the sustainability of this project without a business/operating plan. AEA recommends no funding at this time, but encourages the Lake and Pen Borough to apply for updated feasibility studies through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group and to further develop the business and operational plan for the biomass systems. No funding recommended. This project is linked to a previously funded renovation and energy upgrade of the Delta HS that includes the heating system and the external thermal envelop. Together the projects will result in the development of a fully fuctional, energy efficient facility that uses local sources of renewable energy. There is substantial accessible biomass wood supply in the upper Tanana from sawmills, two pellet mills in development, and state-owned forest land. Tok Umbrella Corp received a grant for a whole tree chipper which can potentially be used to supply fuel for this project. Recommend. The Southeast Island School District currently operates cordwood fueled heating systems at their Coffman Cove and Thorne Bay Schools. The Thorne Bay system is undersized, so the school district is proposing the relocation of the Thorne Bay boilers to the schools in Hollis and Whale Pass. The application also includes the design and construction of replacement boilers for Thorne Bay and the design and construction of a heating system for the Naukati School to replace the heat recovery system that is being eliminated by the decommissioning of the Naukati power plant. The Southeast Island School District has proven the successful operation of cordwood boiler systems and has integrated the operation and maintenance of these systems into their culture. Greenhouses heated by the biomass systems have been installed on Thorne Bay and Coffman Cove, and more are planned in conjunction with this project. SEISD is a success story for the State of Alaska Biomass Program. Recommend full funding. Applicant Native Village of Eyak proposes assessing feasibility of heating buildings in Cordova with local wood and waste cardboard. The applicant also proposes to develop a community energy audit protocol. The applicant requested funding for this project last year (#408) and AEA recommended partial funding. However, the project was not funded due to insufficient funding. Based on prefeasibility reports provided upon AEA request, the community may need to utilize local wood in addition to the burn pile. The budget provided in the application does provide justification for what appears to be a very expensive feasibility analysis. Based on experience with other biomass thermal projects in Alaska, AEA recommends partial funding of $75,000. The Organized Village of Kake is proposing final design and permitting for a low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested district wood-fired heating loop for a tribal government office building, Kake City School District, Tlingit and Haida Senior Center, the City of Kake?s Bingo Hall, and a lodge owned by the Organized Village of Kake (OVK), a federally recognized tribe. This project is estimated to displace approximately 35,000 gallons per year of fuel oil. The application includes substantial support from the community and endorsement from the Kake Community Energy Committee. AEA recommends partial funding of design and permitting to allow the Organized Village of Kake to make an informed decision about pursing biomass as a heating option. AEA recommends partial funding for the final design and permitting includes business/operations plan; biomass storage; biomass resource inventory assessment; harvest plan, $175,000. Applicant requests funding for recon, feasibility, and final design of wood-fired heating system(s) for the community of Kaltag\'s school and community buildings. AEA\'s heat recovery system inventory indicates that AVEC\'s power system supplies a modest amount of heat to the school. The application does not supply information about fuel usage in buildings in Kaltag, which uses 18000 gallons/year. There was not sufficent information in the application to assess project economics. Project management would be by the YK school district. Bill Wall would perform the proposed recon and feasibility work. AEA is concerned that Wall will have sufficient time to perform this work since he is also involved in similar wood energy projects in Upper Kobuk, Ft. Yukon, and McGrath. Recommend partial funding for reconnaisance at $16,550. The City of Kotzebue is proposing the design and construction of a refuse derived fuel (RDF) fired boiler system to heat two city owned buildings. This project is estimated to displace a total 98,000 of gallons per year of fuel oil, using cardboard, paper, and construction debris supplemented with wood pellets. Feasibility was completed with Round 4 funding through the Renewable Energy Fund. This project has the opportunity to provide key direction for rural communities struggling with municipal solid waste disposal. AEA recommends partial funding of $200,000 for the final resource inventory/operations plan, final design, and permitting. The City of Kotzebue should first assess the waste fuel availability and develop an operating plan to confirm the economics of this project. Final design and permitting must select appropriate technology to meet EPAâ€™s new emissions standards for incinerators. Recommend partial funding. Chalkyitsik proposes feasibility and final design for stick-fired wood boiler and district heating systems to supply heat to school, school housing, water system, and the village tribal office. The estimated project cost at $1.54 M is expensive. Recon assessment was done for this project by CATG in the summer of 2008. Bill Wall would perform the proposed feasibility work. AEA is concerned that Wall will have sufficient time to perform this work since he is also involved in similar wood energy projects in Upper Kobuk, Ft. Yukon, and McGrath. Recommend partial funding for feasibility (task 1,2) at $32,500. Tanacross Village Council proposes final design and construction of a three-Garn wood boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of the multi-use facility, water/sewer heating loop, fire station, and the community hall. The system would consume approximately 260 cords per year and displace 25,300 gallons of fuel oil per year?90% of the facility loads. Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. TVC is supplying match including materials for a boiler building and arctic pipe system. AEA is concerned by the lack of a specific fuel supply plan for the project. However, we recognize the existing fuelwood market in the Tok area. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with requirement that Tanacross provide a fuel supply plan and final design acceptable to AEA before construction funds are disbursed. The City of Galena is proposing installation and commissioning of a low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested chip-fired boiler system to heat its school district and the Galena Interior Learning Academy School (GILA). This project is estimated to displace a total 203,850 gallons per year of fuel oil, using 2,300 tons of chips per year. The technical feasibility phase of this project is complete, but the final design and harvest/fuel inventory work is still in process. The application includes substantial support from the community, the Louden Tribal Council, Galena City School District, and Gana?A-Yoo Limited. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Also, AEA must review and approve Phase III ? Final Design. Recommend full funding with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design funded in Round 6, including the decreased load resulting from end-use efficiency measures; business/operational plan with heat sales agreement; harvest plan; biomass storage; inventory plan prior to the release of construction funds. The Craig High School District in Craig, AK requests funding for engineering design and construction of a chip fueled biomass heating system for the Craig High School. The project is estimated to displace 18,485 gallons of fuel/year. The Craig City School District has over 6 years of experience in operating and maintaining a chip system at their middle school, elementary school, and pool complex. The chips will be supplied by a local sawmill and will be dried by dryer funded through the Renewable Energy Fund. Energy efficiency improvements are underway or completed at the high school to maximize the efficiency of the heating system. Recommend funding for design and construction with the requirements that AEA must review and accept the final engineering design and the final business/operational plan prior to starting the construction phase. Applicant proposes funding to install a biomass heating source and solar panels for the Assisted Living Facility for elders in Tanana, the Tanana Tribal Offices and the Internet high tech training center in Tanana. The project would replicate the successful wood fired boiler system at the washeteria. The economics of the photovoltaic system are not favorable. AEA estimates that the $80,000 cost of the photovoltaic system would displace approximately 800 gallons of diesel per year. Recommend partial funding of $412,642 for the biomass portion of the project. The feasibility study for this application was received in December of 2012. A brief review of the study has identified the following concerns: ? Running various economic scenarios results in B/C ratios ranging from .66 to 1.49. ? The feasibility study assumes 100% displacement of electrical loads. Load following capabilities for biomass systems are a technical concern. ? There is no plan to utilize the waste heat. Without use of the waste heat, the plant will operate between 17.7% and 19.4% efficient. While AEA supports this project, there are technical and economic questions that need to be answered before full funding for design and permitted is recommended. AEA will perform a comprehensive review of the study in the following month and provide additional feedback to AP&T to address technical and economic questions. Recommend partial funding of $400,000 to complete the conceptual design (35%) report, including identifying a use for the recoverable heat, further development of the capital estimate and economic analysis, and selecting a technology that will meet the specifications of the project objectives. A detailed scope for this funding will be developed after the feasibility study has been reviewed and accepted. The Port Graham Village Council proposes the construction of a cordwood fired biomass boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of four buildings: community hall; the clinic/police; an office; and a shop. The system would displace 5,365 gallons of fuel oil per year. The design and business/operating plan were funded in Round IV of the Renewable Energy Fund for $75,000. The project also received $127,640 from the US Department of Energy for design and permitting activities. The economics of this project are very challenging due mostly to the small amount of fuel that will be displaced and resulting in a benefit/cost ratio of 0.36. The applicant submitted additional heat loads that could be added to the system at the time they appealed AEA's decision to not fund the project. The integration costs associated with these loads was not included. The project B/C ratio would still be less than 1.0 with the additional loads, and even lower with the additional integration costs. This proposed change did not elevate the stage 2 score above the minimum threshold. No funding recommended. Did not pass stage 2. The Matanuska-Susitna Borough proposes design and construction of a cordwood-fired heating system for the Susitna Valley High School. The project would displace approximately 22,000 gallons of heating oil per year using approximately 250 cords of wood per year with a delivered cost of $200/cord. The proposal is based on a detailed feasibility analysis completed in 2009 with support from a grant under the Denali Commission/AEA alternative energy grant program. The analysis considered conceptual design of the wood boiler systems as well wood fuel availability and cost. The proposal to heat the school has many attractive features, including creating jobs and enhancing educational opportunities of the local students, providing a research forest, and demonstrating biomass energy in a relatively accessible part of the state. Based on the feasibility report there is an ample, sustainable wood supply and the school would save $20,000-50,000 per year. AEA has received a letter expressing concern about the project impacts on the nearby forest, air emissions from the facility, and economic benefit versus cost. AEA is concerned about the relatively high project cost and marginal economics using the standard 20-year project life assumption. The feasibility report runs sensitivity analyses and concludes that project economics are attractive using only the most optimistic assumptions for heating load, wood consumption and price, and project cost. During the final design and permitting stage, AEA strongly encourages the Borough to consider alternate combustion systems and construction methods to improve the economics of the system Recommend full funding with the requirement that before construction funds are released for the project, the Borough prepare a final design acceptable to AEA. 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. Mentasta Village Council proposes final design and construction of a cordwood boiler system to supply a small district heating system consisting of the school, teen center, council building, post office, and clinic. The system would consume approximately 220 cords per year and displace 22,000 gallons of fuel oil per year. Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. MVC is supplying a building to house the boiler (s) as a match. AEA is concerned by the lack of a specific fuel supply plan for the project. However, we recognize the existing fuel wood market in the Tok area. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with requirement that Mentasta provide a fuel supply plan and final design acceptable to AEA before construction funds are disbursed. 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 108,715 gallons of fuel/year. 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 design of a pellet boiler for the airport complex, and has received construction funding through the Renewable Energy Fund â€“ 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 feasibility update and design. Village of Minto proposes final design and construction of a biomass boiler system that is low emission, high efficiency, and 3rd party tested to supply heat to the Minto Multi-Purpose Building/Lodge and the Health Clinic. The system would consume approximately 99 cords per year and displace 11,400 gallons of fuel oil per year. Reconnaissance assessment through the Alaska Wood Energy Development Task Group indicates a viable project. Village of Minto is supplying a building to house the boiler (s) as a match. AEA is concerned by the lack of a harvest /operations plan for the project, but it is a deliverable. However, we recognize the existing fuel wood market in the interior Region. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding for final design, permitting, and construction with requirement that Minto provide a harvest plan; business/operations plan; biomass storage; final design that must be reviewed and approved by AEA before construction funds are disbursed. 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 â€“ 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. Applicant proposes final design and construction of a ground source heat pump system at the Juneau Aquatic center. Project appears well-conceived and organized with relatively low risk. Excellent technical analysis and detailed cost info. Recommend for full funding. The City of Akutan proposes to complete final design and permitting of a geothermal power plan serving the City and Trident Seafoods. The City of Akutan began this project under a RE Fund Round 2 grant (#246) and continued with partial funding under a round 3 grant (#470). In the summer of 2009, the City performed surface exploration work, including field mapping, CSAMT and remote sensing, to help choose drill sites. In summer 2010 two wells were drilled with good results. The first well hit several shallow, hot aquifers (up to 359F at 585 ft). The second well was evidently less permeable and did not encounter much fluid, although an elevated geothermal gradient was recorded. The City is proceeding with feasibility stage activities, scheduled for completion in June 2011. Pending are finalization of the resource assessment, conceptual design and project cost, financial analysis, preliminary power sales agreement, and a draft operational and business plan. DGGS finds that "Drilling at Akutan during the summer of 2010 confirmed the presence of a high-temperature geothermal resource at Akutan. This resource is comparable to that at Makushin, and is in the tens-of-megawatts class.." The substantial geothermal resource combined with the substantial energy load of the fish processing plant and the City of Akutan indicates promise for this project. Recommend full funding with provision that before funds are made available for final design and permitting, the City must provide to AEA and AEA must accept a feasibility assessment that justifies continued project development. Applicant proposes to do exploratory drilling and data collection on the Manely Hot Springs area geothermal resource for the purpose of producing heat and power for the community. The Denali Commission has provided $725,000 through the alternative energy RFP and AEA has provided $215,000 in renewable energy fund funding to TDX Power for the Manley Hot Springs Geothermal Plant project. TDX Power is the local certificated electrical utility. In the current proposal there is no mention of any involvement by TDX in the proposed project nor any indication of power sales discussions. This proposal is by an entity other than TDX, which already has been allocated funding for geothermal development in Manley. Becuase the application does not demonstrate coordination with the funded TDX work, we recommend no funding. Ormat proposes to drill the first full-sized geothermal production well at Mt. Spurr. Prior to the award of this grant Ormat will have completed its exploration program funded in round 3 (#477) which has or will include 1) geophysical exploration, 2) surface mapping, 3) four temperature gradient wells, and 4) two slim holes. Ormat proposes to begin the construction phase of the project in the summer of 2012 based on a go/no-go decision if the current work indicates a high likelihood of the presence of a high quality geothermal resource. This decision would be made in August 2011. Ormat\'s preliminary estimate for the net capacity of the project between 50 and 100 MW at a cost of $5,000-6,000/kW. Although the proposed drilling work would not take place until summer 2012, Ormat needs to select contractors for the work in fall 2011. Ormat would mobilize the drill rig in spring 2012 at their own expense. Ormat will match state dollars on a 2 to 1 basis for the proposed work. Recommend funding with the requirement that AEA, in consultation with DGGS, must concur with Ormat\'s decision to proceed with the proposed work before any funds are disbursed. UAF proposes to assess geothermal resources at Pilgrim Hot Springs through refurbishing existing shallow wells and drilling deep wells. This is a resubmittal of a RE Fund round 2 proposal (#258) and a partial resubmittal of a round 3 proposal (#466) that was recommended for funding, but which received only partial funding of $613,174 due to limited RE Fund appropriation. USDOE funding will fund up to $4,274,792 (~69% of the project cost). Land above the resource is now owned by Unaatuq LLC, a consortium of seven Native organizations. The Nome Energy Study identified development of the Pilgrim Hot Springs geothermal resource as the least-cost option for long-term power supply. The applications includes letters of support from Nome Joint Utilities and Mary\'s Igloo Native Council (the owner of the adjacent land). DGGS indicates support for the project (see above). Recommend full funding with the provision that prior to the disbursement of funds, UAF confirm legal access to the resource with the new landowner. With a Round 4 Renewable Energy Fund grant, IPEC completed a reconnaissance study to investigate the Tenakee Inlet geothermal resource. The study indicated some encouraging early signs regarding the potential resource, but also confirmed that the significant transmission line and access road costs make the project very expensive and economically unfavorable, with a benefit/cost ratio below 1. While there does not appear to be demand for electricity produced by the project in either Pelican or Tenakee Springs, many residents of Hoonah demonstrated their support for the project. Construction of a road to the geothermal site and the addition of other large electrical loads in the area could change the economic picture for a geothermal plant, but at this point both prospects are speculative. Without exploration wells?proposed in this application?key characteristics of the geothermal resource and the viability of a geothermal power plant will remain unknown. But absent a clear economic justification for the power plant itself (a community energy demand and an apparent cost-effective manner to generate the energy), costly geothermal exploration is inappropriate. No funding recommended. City and Borough of Sitka (CBS) proposes design and construction of a ground source heat pump for the historic Japonski Island boathouse, a 2500 sq ft building undergoing substantial renovations. A capacity of 4-tons is expected for the GSHP system. The GSHP would be deployed horizontally within the tidal zone, with HDPE pipes buried four feet deep in 2000 sq. ft. of Sitka Sound. The expected coefficient of performance (ratio of heat delivered to electrical energy input) is 3-4. Design would be complete in October 2011. Construction would be completed by October 2012. The project is expected to cost approximately $90,000 more than a conventional oil-fired system. AEA is concerned about the high project cost versus the relatively small amount of heating oil (2,700 gal/yr) that is being displaced. The applicant notes that that there may be permitting delays due to staff shortage at DNR. DNR agrees with this point. The project would provide a demonstration of a ground source heat pump in a prominent location. Given the small project size, AEA believes it is reasonable to fund both design and construction. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA accept final design and construction budget before any construction funds are disbursed. The City and Borough of Sitka proposes a reconnaissance through conceptual design for an effluent heat pump to heat the city\'s wastewater treatment plant. Two 60-ton heat pumps would transfer the heat in the effluent to heat the wastewater treatment plant. The expected coefficient of performance (the ratio of the heat output relative to the electrical energy inputted) is 3-4. The project would also provide cooling by direct heat transfer. The current HVAC system has reached its useful life and needs to be replaced. Although the preliminary economic analysis prepared for the REF review indicates marginal economics, further design work and refinement of assumptions may improve project viability. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes construction of a 400 kW (net) biomass (wood and paper)-fired combined heat and power plant in the North Pole area. The project would include two 250 UTC Pure Cycle ORC units; a biomass boiler; fuel processing, storage, and handling equipment; cooling pond; controls and grid tie-in. As a small biomass-fired CHP system the project holds considerable value as a demonstration project for rural heat and power production. Note that $1 million of the requsted $2 million has been approved for RE Fund funding already. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with GVEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($2,000,000) minus amount already offered ($1,000,000). Given overall Muni of Anchorage support and extent of matching funds we expect successful power sales agreement negotiations. Note proposal 93 - Anchorage Landfill Gas Electricity requests funding for Alaska Wind Energy LLC to do similar work. While both have technical and economic merit, the application by the owner of the landfill may simplify the project. Under this project the Muni can work with an Alaska Wind or another IPP to develop and operate the project. Additionally the Muni proposes 50% match. We recommend that either proposal 68 or proposal 93 be funded, but not both. . City of Atka requests $114,965 in grant funds to install dispatchable electrical heating systems in public buildings to utilize excess hydroelectric generation from the Chuniisax Creek Hydroelectric Project. The project is expected to displace 8,300 gallons of diesel fuel annually. The City completed permitting and design under a Round 3 REF grant (#7030001) for $80,000. AEA has the following concerns: The environmental report did not investigate the potential for encountering lead based paint and asbestos containing materials in the installation of the new heating equipment in the older buildings to be served. This oversight may add risk to the project, since, if found, these would require specialty subcontractors to remediate. Also, it appears the powerhouse load bank will still be in use for frequency regulation, which will continue to ?waste? electricity. AEA recommends making energy efficiency improvements to the buildings that will receive hydro heat, further enhancing the benefit of the hydro energy. Recommend full funding. The City and Borough of Sitka proposes to install an air source heat pump system as a part of a renovation of the Kettleson Library. Although air source heat pump performance in southeast Alaska is not well documented, the planned renovation offers a good opportunity to replace the existing fuel oil boilers with an air source heat pump system and could provide valuable data of the performance of newer air source heat pump models in southeast Alaska. While there is little doubt regarding the technical feasibility of the proposed system, full project payback appears highly dependent on fuel oil prices. Full funding recommended. The Cook Inlet Housing Authority proposes to install a ground source heat pump system in the Seldovia House housing complex in order to reduce the building?s heating oil consumption. Despite some unknowns regarding ground source heat pump performance on the Kenai Peninsula, the economics of the proposed installation appear to hold up to a range of conservative assumptions. The project could provide useful GSHP performance data for the Kenai Peninsula in addition to demonstrating the effectiveness of a hybrid heat pump/fuel oil system. The high cost of fuel oil in Seldovia makes the potential savings of a ground source heat pump attractive despite higher local electricity costs. Full funding recommended. 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 projectâ€™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. 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 air-source heat pump system to offset the use of heating oil at the Saxman Low-Rent 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. Project appears viable but proposer does not provide adequate level of detail on design, cost estimate, ORC equipment and integration, and schedule. Recommend full funding and careful review of final design by AEA project manager prior to release of construction funds. Proposal includes a new 456 kW genset in addition to the exhaust and jacket water heat recovery system. Recommend partial funding for the complete heat recovery system development, but excluding the genset and associated freight. The genset is not considered an element of the "waste heat recovery" system eligible for funding under the RE Fund legislation. Proposal number 30 requests funding for development of a community wood heating system that would likely interact with this proposal. Proposal 30 refers to integration with a water project with Village Safe Water and refers to future coordination with this project. We note there are different engineering teams supporting the two projects. On this basis we require coordination of design of both projects. G&K Electric Utility proposes a Feasibility/Conceptual Design study for the implementation of diesel heat recovery at their existing power plant. The grant will be managed by the Aleutians East Borough. This Cold Bay utility is a good candidate for a heat recovery system as identified in the Alaska Energy Pathway. AEA has worked extensively with heat recovery feasibility studies in the past few years. A feasibility study with sufficient information to qualify for Design and Construction funding through the Renewable Energy Fund should not cost more than $30,000. Recommend partial funding of $30,000. This project is ready to go. Mechanical work to be awarded via bid process. Recommend. Applicant proposes to install equipment that will recover unutilized heat from the diesel generator exhaust stacks for district heating and absorption chiller to make ice for the fishing fleet. Utility has track record in heat recovery and high level of management expertise. Stack heat recovery is commercially viable. Recommend full funding of $915,627. Applicant proposes to recover heat from diesel generation plant to supply a 200 kW organic rankine cycle generator. Applicant would provide 32% of total project funding. Project would be complete by summer 2010. Recommend full funding of $1,300,000. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the Village of Venetie are proposing to extend the use of recovered heat from the existing Venetie power plant for heating the newly constructed clinic. Recovered heat is already being used to heat the Washeteria and Water Treatment Plant. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes to recover heat from AVEC diesel generators and supply heat to the city water plant and washeteria. ANTHC would design and manage the project as part of the water system improvements. Project completion would be in April 2010. The application does not include a letter of support from AVEC, however the app does refer to initial discussions with AVEC that indicate general agreement price. The application provides a detailed preliminary design. Recommend full funding of $435,000 with requirement that City and AVEC provide a heat purchase agreement to AEA before disbursement of funds. ACEP in partnership with Tanana Chiefs Conference proposes to follow up lab testing of 50 kW Electrotherm ammonia cycle engine that converts recovered heat to power. It is part of an overall program funded by EPA and AEA to develop and perform independent evaluation of organic rankine cycle and similar technology for use in rural Alaska. Following completion of lab testing in summer 2011 the unit would be moved to a suitable community power plant in the TCC region. This project represents applied research that can provide immediate benefits to communities. Because it is not fully commercialized there is significant technical risk. Recommend full funding contingent upon AEA accepting report from lab testing that indicates the technology is potentially viable for rural Alaska. The City of St Paul is proposing funding for the puchase and installation of a replacement generator and the extension of the existing heating loop for the utility facilities. The replacement of the generator does not qualify for Renewable Energy Funding. See economist description of allocation between genset and heat recovery costs. Recommend partial funding of $98,149 for the design and installation of the heat recovery loop. The City of Seward proposes to install a run around heat recovery loop in the Alaska SeaLife Center to recover wasted heat from exhaust fans, appliances, and overheated rooms and deliver it into the building?s sea water source heat pump system, resulting in improved heat pump performance. The calculated benefit derived from improved heat pump performance expected with the addition of the recovered heat into the system appears to be marginal, even assuming a dramatically increased heat pump output than is currently used. However, the additional benefit of avoiding the costs of a dedicated split cooling system for the overheated rooms is substantial. Even using more conservative assumptions regarding performance increase, the project appears to be economic. Full funding recommended. The Tatitlek Tribal Council proposes updating a 2006 mechanical design plan and construction of a diesel heat recovery system that will supply the Tatitlek Community Center, which houses the Village IRA Council administrative offices, from the power plant, 50 feet away. The generating station and admin building were designed to accommodate this application when the power plant was refurbished in 2006, and the only phase remaining for this project is construction and installation. The original designer would manage design and construction. The cost estimate was developed based on an AEA field visit in July 2011. The project is estimated to displace 6,000 gallons of fuel oil. The technology is proven and the construction complexity will be low. The operation and maintenance of the system will be performed by the current operator. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA accept the final design cost estimate prior to releasing funds for construction. The applicant did not demonstrate an economical project with clear public benefits. The long distances to the heating loads from the power plant and the potential to offset only moderate amounts of heating fuel make the economics of a heat recovery system at Holy Cross challenging. Additionally, there were numerous discrepancies between the 2013 and 2014 feasibility studies for a heat recovery system that should be clarified. No funding recommended. The Atmautluak Traditional Council in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the community power plant to the refurbished washeteria. This project is estimated to displace 4395 gallons of fuel oil. The AEA-managed power plant replacement for the community is in the conceptual design phase with funding targeted for 2012. The power plant replacement is not required for this project to be successful, but it could enhance the availability of recovered heat. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2011. AEA notes that the application narrative states that final design funding is requested for 2011, although funding would not be available until July 2012. The budget form gives a later timeframe. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. IPEC proposes construction of a diesel heat recovery system in Hoonah that will consist of jacket water heat recovery equipment and a piping loop that will supply heat to the school complex and community buildings. The heat recovery system is estimated to displace approximately 57,000 gallons of heating fuel per year. AEA is managing this project on behalf of IPEC under the Denali Commission-funded rural power system upgrade program. The power system upgrade may also include hydro projects at Gartina and Water Supply creeks with average output of 340 kW. In the event that the hydro resource is developed, amount of recoverable diesel heat is expected to decrease to approximately 46,000 gallons/year. IPEC is requesting supplementary funds above the $530,000 available for the heat recovery project that the Denali Commission is contributing. The project is scheduled for completion in August 2012. Recommend full funding. City of Russian Mission, in cooperation with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes final design and construction of a heat recovery system that will supply the school and teacher housing. The project will include a marine jacket retrofit on the prime genset, thus doubling available recoverable heat.. The project will displace approximately 12,000 gallons of diesel per year. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. Sleetmute Traditional Council, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from the Middle Kuskokwim Electric generating station to the water treatment plant. The project will displace approximately 1,779 gallons of diesel per year according to a 2010 Heat Recovery Analysis. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. The City of Shishmaref, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from the AVEC generating station to the clinic, city office, and the water treatment plant. The project will displace approximately 7,900 gallons of diesel per year. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency are addressed in conjunction with this project. The City of Savoonga in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC power plant and an excess wind electric boiler to the water treatment plant, water loop, and water storage tank. This project is estimated to displace 100% of the current fuel oil usage of 8800 gallons. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2011 and the heat recovery design was completed in 2012. The wind design of this project must be completed. The heat recovery system will be operated and maintained through the Alaska Rural Utility Collaborative program. Recommend full funding contingent on a heat sales agreement and accepted final design. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. City of Togiak, in collaboration with ANTHC, proposes to construct a waste heat recovery system to connect waste heat from AVEC?s generating station to the water treatment plant, clinic, police station, City Office, and the ?Old School? Community Activity Building. The project will displace approximately 13,700 gallons of diesel per year according to a 2010 Heat Recovery Analysis. A feasibility and conceptual design has been completed. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Chevak are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant to the Water Treatment Plant and Vacuum Sewer System. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. ANTHC has funding for an electric heater for excess wind. The design should take into account the integration of wind-to-heat. The design should also consider the opportunity for marine jacketed engines supplying heat to additional community buildings. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes to recover heat from jacket water of existing diesel generators and pump hot water to various public buildings. Applicant estimated recoverable heat available but did not correlate availability with specific building heating load. Applicant also did not provide an estimate of amount of arctic pipe that would be required or heat loss from distribution. This is an expensive project that requires a high level of engineering and construction expertise. Due to the project\'s arctic location there will be a high cost for design, installation, and long-term operation. Recommend partial funding of $300,000 for final design (task #1). Applicant proposes to recover heat from jacket water of existing diesel generators and pump hot water to various public buildings. Applicant estimated recoverable heat available but did not correlate availability with specific building heating load. Applicant also did not provide an estimate of amount of arctic pipe that would be required or heat loss from distribution. Projected O&M costs appear low. This is an expensive project that requires a high level of engineering and construction expertise. Due to the project\'s arctic location there will be a high cost for design, installation, and long-term operation. Recommend partial funding of $395,912 for final design (task #1). The Native Village of Quinhagak in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC power plant to the water treatment plant/combined utility and washeteria. This project is estimated to displace 62% or 14,200 gallons of the current fuel oil usage per year. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations. A project is currently underway to prove the viability of marine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this project will be significantly less. Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. The Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative in collaboration with ANTHC and the community of Stebbins is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the community power plant to the new Water treatment plant, existing water treatment plant, washeteria, head start building, clinic, and school. This project is estimated to displace 57,000 gallons of fuel oil out of an annual usage of 69,000 gallons. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. AEA will work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. Recommend full funding. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. The City of Marshal in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC power plant to the Water treatment plant and Community Store. This project is estimated to displace 100% or 7,700 gallons of the current fuel oil usage per year. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations. A project is currently underway to prove the viability of marine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this project will be significantly less. Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. City of Noorvik in collaboration with ANTHC is proposing the design and construction of a waste heat recovery system to connect recovered heat from the AVEC power plant to the water treatment plant. This project is estimated to displace 87% or 18,600 gallons of the current fuel oil usage per year. The heat recovery system will be operated and maintained through the Alaska Rural Utility Collaborative (ARUC) program. The feasibility study for this project was completed in 2012. The fuel displacement is based on converting the existing diesels to marine jacketed configurations. A project is currently underway to prove the viability of marine jackets on Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Without this conversion, the financial benefit of this project will be significantly less. Recommend full funding contingent on the success of proving the viability of marine jacketed Detroit Diesel Series 60 generators. Construction funding is contingent on AEA accepting the final design and the business/operating plan with heat sales agreements. AEA will also work with the grantee to ensure that building energy efficiency is addressed in conjunction with this project. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the Native Village of Tuntutliak are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant planned to the Water Treatment Plant and Washeteria. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. The utility has funding for an electric heater for excess wind. The design should take into account the integration of wind-to-heat. Recommend full funding. The Alaska Village Electrical Cooperative and the Southwest Region School District are proposing to provide recovered heat from the existing New Stuyahok power plant for heating the adjacent New Stuyahok High School, built in 2007. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment for the AVEC Power Plant and New Stuyahok School project was completed in 9/19/12. Recommend full funding contingent on a heat sales agreement and accepted final design. The Community of Nunam Iqua is proposing the design and construction of a recovered heat system from the new power plant to the washeteria/water treatment plant for building heat; the water treatment plant for process heat; and to the Clinic, Community Hall and Corporation Store for building heat. This project is proposed to be managed by AEA in conjunction with the design and construction of the new power plant. The preliminary heat recovery assessment performed in September 2013 showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. Recommend full funding. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Emmonak are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the AVEC power plant planned for 2015 to the Water Treatment Plant, Boys and Girls Club, and the City Office/Hotel. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. The design should consider the opportunity for marine jacketed engines supplying heat to additional community buildings. Recommend full funding. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Brevig Mission are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing power plant to the Water Treatment Plant and the Washeteria/City Office. The Heat Recovery System will require the installation of a marine manifold on one of the existing generators. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. The intertie to Teller was damaged and AVEC is working with FEMA on repairs. Significant more recoverable heat will be available when the intertie is repaired, and the heat recovery system should be designed to handle this heat load. The uninsulated AVEC power plant modules should be insulated to maximize available heat. Recommend full funding. The Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and the City of Saint Mary?s are proposing to design and construct a recovered heat system from the existing AVEC power plant to City Shop, Water Circulation Loop, Cold Storage/Hotel, and City Office Building. The Preliminary Heat Recovery Assessment was completed in September of 2013 and showed sufficient excess heat to support this project. Recommend full funding. Kwigillingok received Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Round 1 and direct legislative appropriation funding to install five Windmatic 17S 95-kilowatt wind turbines, completing that project in 2012. This proposal would make use of excess electricity by diverting surplus kilowatt-hours to residential heat loads. The current performance of the wind system is only 27% of the goal according to FY2014 PCE data - well below the level that could be explained by curtailing of wind turbines due to a lack of additional ETS heaters. The average benefits seen for the existing 27 ETS installations would be significantly lower if the number of heaters were increased to 50 as proposed in the application. The applicant has not been timely in submitting required quarterly operations and maintenance reports on the existing wind energy project and has not provided as-built drawings and an operations and maintenance plan required to close out the REF Round 1 grant. There is a pending grant to upgrade the Kwigillingok power distribution system. When the REF Round 1 deliverables have been met, the distribution system upgrade is underway and wind system performance increases significantly, and economic viability can be demonstrated, the applicant could consider reapplying in a future funding round. No funding recommended. Kongiganak received REF Round 1 and direct legislative appropriation funding to install five Windmatic 17S 95-kilowatt wind turbines, completing that project in 2012. This proposal would make use of excess electricity by diverting surplus kilowatts to residential heat loads. Applicant and contractor have prior experience installing ETS units. Average benefits seen for existing 20 installations will be somewhat lower when aggregated among 50 homes. Residents see full benefits of heat savings. Final determination and survey of homes for install (community designation) must be accepted by AEA prior to release of additional funds. Project needs to integrate with a separate project to upgrade the village distribution system as a condition of funding. Recommend full funding. Tuntutuliak received REF Round 2 and direct legislative appropriation funding to install five Windmatic 17S 95-kilowatt wind turbines, completing that project in 2012. This proposal would make use of excess electricity by diverting surplus kilowatts to residential heat loads. Unlike the other two project proposed for Kongiganak and Kwigillingok, the economics of this project suffer from the lower residual energy available having already installed 30 stoves instead of just 20 stoves in Kong and Kwig, plus Tuntutuliak\'s ~10% lower wind regime, plus their lower cost of diesel fuel. Applicant and contractor have prior experience installing ETS units. Average benefits seen for existing 30 installations will be somewhat lower when aggregated among 50 homes. Residents see full benefits of heat savings. Final determination and survey of homes for install (community designation) must be accepted by AEA prior to release of additional funds. Project needs to integrate with a separate project to upgrade the village distribution system as a condition of funding. Applicant has not been timely in submitting required quarterly operations and maintenance reports on the existing wind energy project. Applicant needs to meet reporting requirements on existing project from this point forward to receive funding. Recommend full funding. CB of Sitka requests additional funding for assessing feasibility of the potential 28 MW Takatz Lake hydro project. To date RE Fund round 1 has awarded partial funding of $1,152,134 to the project for this purpose. For this application CBS is requesting an additional $2 million. Project is consistent with findings of the 2008 Sitka Power Supply Plan and would follow less expensive alternatives, including increasing capacity of the existing Blue Lk Hydro project, in order to avoid more costly diesel generation. There is potential for developing road and marine facilities associated with the project that would provide access to the eastern Baranof Island. FERC has issued a preliminary permit to Sitka to assess feasibility of Takatz. Given the widespread interest in linking major electric generation and loads in Southeast, development of Takatz should be coordinated with the SE Alaska Regional Energy Plan. AEA has recently determined that additional funding is available from round 1 funds to support funding this project at the original Rd 1 application amount of $2 million. This is also the cap amount for feasibility for this project. The existing grant will be amended to increase its funding level to $2 million. No additional funding recommended due to the cap. Nushagak Coop is seeking to develop a 2.7 MW hydro project at Grant Lake and a 1.7 MW hydro project at Lake Elva as part of their Nushagak Area Hydro Project (NAHP). Nushagak has submitted two applications in earlier RE Fund rounds: 1) AEA has awarded $300,000 in round 1 funding for recon and feasibility assessment of the 1.7 MW Lake Elva project , and has allocated an additional $3.9 million for further development activities (#6). 2) AEA recommended against funding permitting, final design and construction of Grant Lk (#204) because Nushagak did "not provide adequate justification to proceed to final design and construction". AEA has provided $25,000 to Nushagak toward an integrated energy resource plan (IRP) for the Dillingham and Aleknagik grid. The plan will address wind energy, hydro and other alternatives for energy production. The Lake Elva grant requires that this IRP be completed and approved by AEA before funds are made available for permitting and final design. The current application requests $20 million in funding for recon, feasibility, final design, permitting, and construction of the Grant Lake project and a 60-mile intertie to Aleknagik and on to Dillingham. The proposed RE Fund request represents 40% of the $49.5 million Grant Lake portion of NAHP. AEA believes there remains inadequate justification for providing funding for final design, permitting, and construction at this time. Nushagak and their contractor have completed recon and preliminary feasibility work on the NAHP. Additional work needs to be done, including stream gauging, geotechnical assessment, detailed economic and financial analysis of alternatives, and field studies to support future potential permitting activities. Recommend partial funding of $700,000 for completion of feasibility activities with the provision that funds will not be disbursed until IRP is approved by AEA. AEA recommends that $700,000 of the remaining round 1 funds be made available for these purposes. This 800 kW hydro project is 90% complete but needs additional funding for completion. Recommend 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. The Native Village of Cantwell requests funds for feasibility assessment of a 3 MW storage hydroelectric project on Jack River. The Village received grant funds in Round 4 (#606) for reconnaissance assessment of the project and has installed a stream gauge. The results of the funded reconnaissance report were that a hydroelectric project on Jack River is technically possible with a range of installed capacities from 1.7 to 7.3 MW. The proposed project reconnaissance report had a cost estimate of $31.5-$50.3 million. AEA used a mid-range estimate, or $40.9 million, to arrive at the benefit/cost ratio of 0.79, indicating the project is likely to have poor economics and would likely be costlier than the existing energy system. The project was scored but did not pass minimum Stage 2 scoring. Cordova Electric proposes to complete relocation and replacement of the intake structure for the Humpback Creek hydro project, inoperational after a fire and a flood in 2005 and 2006. AEA has awarded $4 million in RE fund round 1 dollars for this work; however the installed cost of the project has increased by $5,431,000 since construction bids came in much higher than expected. CEC has awarded a construction contract and the project is now on schedule for completion by November 2010. There is substantial support from the local Native tribe Eyak and fish procesors, and cost share by FEMA. FERC has issued a license for the rebuild. Eyak submitted a proposal to USDOE for stimulus funding for $4.85 million and expects to receive results by March 2010. Despite a substantially increased project cost, project economics remain attractive. CEC has obtained debt financing in the event that no additional grant funds are secured. Recommend full funding of $4,000,000 with the provision that AEA will decrease the grant to CEC by the amount that CEC receives in federal stimulus grant funding for the project. 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. CVEA requests $5,914,491 to construct a 6.5 MW run-of-river hydroelectric project on Allison Creek. The funds would be used to complete construction of the project. The project is expected to offset up to 1.4 million gallons of diesel fuel annually. AEA has the following concerns: A portion of the land the project will use will be purchased in the future from Alyeska Pipeline, however an agreement is in place to allow construction; and a FERC license amendment is being sought to allow penstock to be installed below grade and a portion to be within a tunnel. Despite these concerns substantial progress has been made over the last year to advance the project including: issuance of FERC license, completion of final design, Maximum Allowable Construction Cost contract has been awarded, PM contract awarded, turbine-generator owner equipment has been awarded, and owner CM contract awarded. AEA requires that the grantee obtain the FERC amendment prior to expending Round 7 grant funds. The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) on 1/7/14 advised AEA to recommend to the Legislature partial funding this project if funding is kept within the Governor?s budget of $20M. REFAC further advised AEA to include the initial recommendation of full funding should the Legislature make available additional funds this year. One other hydro project, Statson Creek Diverson, was also recommended for partial funding. The primary reason was to allow the funding of six additional projects in higher cost areas of the state. AEA recommends partial funding of $4,764,652 (80% of request) if the Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 budget is limited to $20M, and recommends this project second in line for any additional funding beyond $20M, up to the requested grant amount of $5,941,491. 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 1,000-foot-wide 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 1,000-foot-wide 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. Ketchikan Public Utilities requests funding for contruction of the 4.6 MW Whitman Hydro project. The project would benefit the local fish hatchery owned by the SSRAA by providing a new water supply. Prior grants include a RE Fund round 1 (#37) for final design and permitting of $1.3M and a round 4 grant for construction (#620) of $700,000. The Legislature provided $1 million in 2010, and $8.025 million in 2011. Total state funding available for construction is $8.73 million. KPU has obtained authority to issue a $15 million revenue bond for construction. Recently the cost estimate for the project was adjusted upwards from $16.5 million to $26.5 million due to FERC licensing conditions and escalation of costs over time. AEA has recently learned that KPU must obtain an amendment to its power purchase agreement with SEAPA, without which KPU will be legally unable to use energy from the Whitman Lake project for its ratepayers. At the time of this evaluation, this matter remains unresolved. At a SEAPA board meeting in November SEAPA staff presented an analysis showing that under the latest load forecast (the SEIRP reference case) a substantial amount of energy from the combined hydro systems would be spilled, thus significantly limiting public benefit. AEA believes that additional funding for this project is unwarranted at this time. No funding recommended. The City of Angoon proposes to conduct feasibility and conceptual design for FERC pre-licensing work on Ruth Lake hydro. The hydro project, a significant distance from the City, will not be connnected to the Angoon system within the foreseeable future. AEA believes that in order for a project of this type to be successful, there needs to be demonstrated buy-in from all regional stakeholders, including the City, SEAPA, IPEC, and Kotznoowoo. There is no indication that the stakeholders listed have agreed to this concept. In particular on p22 the application indicates the City would sell power to the utilities of Petersburg and Wrangell. However, there is no indication that these communities would purchase power from the project, nor descritption of a mechnism to flow the vbenefits of the project directly to the ratepayers of Angoon. Kootznoowoo is has submitted a proposal for Thayer Lake hydro (#517 and 523) that would serve the Angoon system, indicates a direct path for benefits to flow to Angoon ratepayers, and has the support of the local utility IPEC. Recommend full funding with the provision that prior to release funds beyond phase 1 work plan review and coordination, the applicant must 1) convene an in-state stakeholder meeting, 2) secure letters of support from SEAPA, Thomas Bay Power Authority, and the cities of Petersburg, Wrangell, Kake, and Ketchikan, and 3) develop a process acceptable to AEA for benefits to flow to all affected ratepayers equally. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Recommend this proposed feasibility study be funded up to $207,500 and that the three applicants be required to coordinate on data collection, study and milestones. We note that Trident Seafoods holds the FERC license for the current project and the applicant proposes to negotiate the use of Trident\'s license to expand the hydro project and generate electricity for the community at large. Recommend that an agreement that ensures access to the resource be signed by City and Trident before expenditure of any grant funds. Applicant proposes studying feasibility of a potential 500-2000 kW hydro project at Burro Creek on private land near Skagway. Project would supplement other hydro projects that serve AP&T\'s Haines-Skagway grid. Recommend for full funding. For economic viability this project will likely need to be interconnected to the Railbelt grid. Recommend project team evaluate technical and regulatory issues associated with interconnection. Recommend. This appears to be a viable hydro resource that will benefit the Railbelt network. At 1 MW, the project\'s relatively small capacity and energy output will likely not impact regional planning. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with MEA prior to release of construction grant funds. Recommend with conditions. This project is approximately 45% complete and has received funding support from Deanli Commission through AEA\'s rural power system upgrade program. Currently the project is halted due to insufficient construction funding. There are no other major barriers to development. While the project did not indicate a particular team, the application describes a process underway with EDA for selection of a design and construction team. AEA recommends full funding with the following conditions before funding is made available: 1) City of Atka provide a revised and detailed project schedule, including outstanding permits, and budget, 2) submit management team resumes for approval by AEA, 3) submit revised final design and cost estimate for AEA approval. 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. 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. 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. The short-term economics of this project are moderately beneficial, however its primary value is as a pilot project to prove the technical feasibility of this technology. The technology is just recently migrating into the commercial realm and has significant potential in rural Alaska. The applicant team has proven its competence in the 2008 season. Recommend full funding. Independence Power LLC proposes for permitting and final design for a 5.4 MW run-of-river hydro facility on Fourth of July Creek near Seward. This request builds on previously funded grants in Round II (#86) for reconnaissance and in Round IV (#693) for feasibility. The grant award document indicates work began on the funded feasibility study in September 2011 and is expected to be completed in September 2012. This round 5 request is contingent upon findings of a favorable outcome from this feasibility study with AEA review and approval of those results. However, those results will not be available until late 2012. There is also a significant issue regarding how the project, estimated at $16.7-27M will be financed. No funding recommended. AEA considered this project in the Denali Commission / AEA alternative energy RFP, and has offered $553,071 in state grant funds to the projects. This appears to be a viable hydro resource that will benefit the Railbelt network. At 2 MW, the project\'s relatively small capacity and energy output will likely not impact regional planning. Recommend with the following grant conditions: 1) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with MEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($2,242,961) minus amount already offered ($553,071). Applicant proposes recon and feasibility assessment of hydro projects that would serve the Bethel area. Although an engineering firm is not selected, selection would follow a formal process. Storage hydro would be complementary with wind energy, under development in Bethel. There may be significant permitting issues--see DNR comments. Substantial regional is demonstrated. Recommend full funding of $250,000. Kodiak Electric proposes construction funding for an additional 11.25 MW hydro turbine for the existing Terror Lk project. There have been two prior RE Fund grants, a round 2 grant of $500,000 (#215) for feasibility and a round 3 grant (#401) of $248,160 for final design and bid documents. During feasibility analysis, KEA has concluded that there will be no adverse impacts to stream flow by adding an additional turbine. This will likely facilitate acceptance by the resource agencies during the required FERC license amendment process. In November 2010 AEA received a draft FERC capacity amendment application that indicates energy production drops from 12.4 GWh/yr to 2.9 GWh/yr and project cost drops from $15.9 million to $10.6 million. Although the project economics are somewhat poorer given these new estimates, they remain highly attractive. The current schedule indicates equipment procurement would begin in January 2012, while site work would begin a year later. The project is scheduled for completion in July 2013. Recommend partial funding of $3,751,840 ($4,000,000 cap minus $248,160) with provision that KEA provides AEA, and AEA accepts, final design, final construction cost estimate and bid documents. 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. Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) proposes assessing feasibility of a 4 MW storage hydro project at Triangle Lk. Improved access to the proposed hydro site by recent road construction to Walden Point makes hydro development more reasonable to consider at this site. Project would be located on federal trust land. Major issue remains a market for power, which should be assessed in a regional IRP. This proposal is similar to a Round 3 proposal (#450) that was recommended for funding, but which did not receive a grant due to insufficient funds. Because the project would connect to the SEAPA grid that has numerous existing and proposed alternatives for generation and transmission, AEA concludes that there is insufficient information provided to assign a benefit to cost ratio. Recommend full funding with requirement that scope of work is consistent with findings of the Southeast Alaska IRP. APC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Alaska Power and Telephone) proposes feasibility assessment, permitting and final design for a 300 kW hydro project at Carlson Cr. that would serve Slana and Chistochina. This is a continuation of a project reconnaissance assessment funded in round 2 (#226), now projected to be complete in spring 2013. As part of the current work APC will request a project jurisdictional determination by FERC. APC submitted a similar proposal in round 3 (#443) that was recommended for funding. However insufficient funding was available. Work under the current proposal would not begin until fall 2013. It is reasonable for APC to complete current work and resubmit an application for funding after determining project viability. Recommend no 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. Existing reconnaissance study completed in 1989 indicates the proposed site may be a good prospect. Substantial load at Trident and letter of support has been provided by them. With the existing 105 kW hydro repaired, this project will not be needed unless extra power can be sold to Trident to offset their diesel generation and provide income to City. Trident should agree to purchase excess power before any future grants for construction funds be considered Recommend full funding. . Applicant City of Akutan requests funding for repair of 105 kW hydro project at Town Creek. Work would include upgrading the existing access road, repairs to the intake, rebuilding the hydro turbine, providing hydro maintenance equipment and storage building, and upgrading the system controls. AEA has awarded round 2 funding for final design and permitting and notes that $64,000 has not been spent from the current grant. Recommend full funding with the provision that any funds remaining after completion of permitting and final design from round 2 will be returned for reallocation to other grantees. APC proposes additional three new environmental studies (feasibility), final design and permitting activities for a potential 12+ MW storage hydro project at Connelly Lake. AEA and APC entered into a grant agreement for $585,000 to support feasibility and conceptual design for the project under round 4 application (#627). Current funded work includes concept optimization, preliminary FERC notice of intent and preliminary application document, FERC scoping activities (documents and study plans), field studies (stream gauge installation; seismic refraction surveys; fish, wildlife, botanical, wetland, and heritage surveys; water quality testing); and the final feasibility report. This work was scheduled for completion in December 2012, but some snags in the licensing process have occurred and more studies are required. APC has challenges with site control with access through the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve, Haines State Forest and across several private parcels. FERC has requested they demonstrate this access to perform studies before FERC will devote any staff time on licensing for Connelly Lake. Environmental opposition to the project has been received in the past from some Haines residents. AEA believes additional grant funding for the 3 new environmental studies is warranted, but the request to fund final design and permitting is premature, given that several additional years of data collection may be necessary and project feasibility is uncertain. AEA also finds the amount requested for the three studies is excessive and therefore recommends grant funding be limited with a 20% cash match by applicant. Recommend partial funding. AEA recommends continued feasibility work consistent with the reconnaissance study. TDXâ€™s application is focused on the smaller of the two hydroelectric options identified. In order to fully address the feasibility of hydro development in Adak it is recommended that the scope of work and budget be increased to examine all recommendations in the reconnaissance report. Specific recommendations include performing feasibility level studies to further evaluate future load growth (or decline) along with fish processor loads, perform hydrology data collection and analysis, develop more detailed project cost estimates, and provide project capacity and storage recommendations with concept designs. Additional requirements for this phase include aquatic investigations and review of environmental flow restrictions, agency consultation, appropriate permitting investigations, and coordination with other community rehabilitation efforts particularly related to water and energy use. AEA recommends funding of $390,000 to complete a larger scope of work to include stream gauging, mapping, additional aquatic investigations, data collection as necessary, energy and economic modeling, concept designs, preliminary design criteria, initial agency consultation, and final recommendations for design and permitting. Recommended for funding with the special provision that additional funding be used to expand the scope of the feasibility study as described above. The Tanalian Electric Cooperative requests funds to assess hydroelectric and hydrokinetic resource potential and economics of the Tanalian River for electrical generation for Port Alsworth. The Tanalian River is located in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve and any hydroelectric development would require specific authorization by Congress, indicating significant permitting challenges. The application included a support letter from the National Park Service (NPS) for investigation of a potential hydrokinetic project; however, the letter was dated October 29, 2008 and was in support of a previous Round 3 grant application and applicant (#436), and did not indicate any support for a conventional hydroelectric project. It is unknown if the NPS supports hydroelectric studies in the Tanalian River. Additionally, the river is a known salmon stream and is listed as anadromous by Alaska Department of Fish & Game. In Round 4, Alaska Green Energy submitted and was funded for a similar proposal (#436) to conduct a reconnaissance study of hydroelectric potential for Port Alsworth. However, the grant was canceled before expending any grant funds due to inactivity and inability of applicant to obtain support letters for the project and to hold community and agency meetings. Although assessment of the hydrokinetic potential of the river was mentioned in the application, no detail was provided regarding the work to be performed, the amount budgeted for the work, or the location of interest. Even if NPS support for a hydrokinetic project had been renewed, insufficient detail was provided for consideration of this component of the proposal. Additionally, hydrokinetics is a developing technology and economics are unlikely to be positive at this time. Until the applicant can demonstrate that a project has a reasonable chance to be developed and permitted at the location, funding is not recommended. AP&T proposes funding feasibility of developing a 6 MW storage hydro project at Schubee Lake. This proposal is almost identical to a round 3 proposal for this purpose (#441) that for which AEA recommended partial funding. However, insufficient funds were available to provide a grant. As before, AP&T has not prepared a formal reconnaissance assessment of the project that meets requirements of the RFA. AP&T is responding to a level of public opposition to developing another hydro site at Connelly Lk. AEA is recommending feasibility funding for Connelly Lk (#627). AEA has the following concerns with Schubee Lk: 1) it is located on USFS lands and would be subject to FERC licensing, 2) it has a higher relative cost with less energy output than Connelly, 3) it would require an expensive connection to the existing submarine cable connecting Haines and Skagway. AEA recognizes the importance for the Haines Borough citizens to make informed decisions regarding development of alternative hydro locations. However we believe that sufficient information for determining the development path can be achieved by more limited analysis. Recommend partial funding of $80,000 for reconnaissance assessment with the provisions that 1) AP&T must provide a revised scope of work for approval by AEA before funds are disbursed, 2) scope of work is consistent with findings of the Southeast Alaska IRP . The Community of Elfin Cove Non-profit 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 off-season, 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. This application was submitted for construction funding. However, permits, land use authorization, construction ready design and specifications, final design cost estimate and an updated business plan need to be completed prior to consideration for construction funding, per the AEA Request for Applications 15003 section 2.2 to 2.6. No funding recommended. AVTEC proposes to renovate, refurbish and upgrade the City\'s existing Marathon Hydro plant, currently unused. The application is largely the same as #657 in round 4. For that application AEA recommended partial funding of $67,000 for final design and permitting. AEA and AVTEC entered into a grant agreement in July 2011 for this work, but little work has been completed to date. Since the design and permitting work is not yet completed, the scope of work, cost estimate, and schedule cannot be verified, and there is not sufficient basis to recommend funding at this time. Recommend no funding. IPEC requests construction funds for Gartina Falls Hydro project. The project was previously funded for permitting and final design in round 3 (#462). Schedule proposed is aggressive and adds to the project risk of construction cost overruns. Special provisions: AEA must approve the deliverables from the prior grant #462 before any construction funds will be reimbursed: 1) Proof of site control, 2) FERC license and all permits, 3) site adapted final design plans and specs, 4) construction cost estimate, 5) project budget, 6) renegotiation to lower management/PM fees and 7) schedule. Applicant proposes recon assessment of a 1.45 MW run-of-river hydropower project at Eska Creek near Sutton. The project would include a very long (13,000 ft) penstock. Environmental issues are undefined. DNR notes potential conflicts with other uses and proximity of the project to Castle Mt Fault. Recommend full funding. 9/21/2011 application withdrawn Kootznoowoo Inc. proposes construction of a 1+ MW run-of-river hydroelectric project and 6.7 mi transmission project to supply the community of Angoon. Kootznoowoo has supplied separate applications for each of the projects (#825 and 827). AEA is combining the two project proposals together for the purposes of evaluation. AEA has a Round 4 (#670) grant to Kootznoowoo in the amount of $1,060,500 for permitting and final design with equal match from DOE. Although the application indicates that design and permitting will be complete by September 2012, AEA believes this schedule is overly optimistic and that it is premature to allocate construction funds to this project. AEA initially recommended against funding this project due to concerns that Kootznoowoo would not be able to complete design and permitting by September 2012. Kootznoowoo requested reconsideration of this recommendation on the basis that ten months is sufficient time for them to complete design and permitting. In response AEA is willing to recommend funding for construction, with the requirement that no construction funds will be granted until AEA accepts final design, Kootznoowoo completes current grant activities, and the project team demonstrates that all permits have been issued and that project financing and power sales agreements are in place. Full funding recommended with the above special provisions. The Haines Borough requests funds for a feasibility assessment of two hydroelectric projects totaling 3 MW, and 1.5 miles of transmission to connect to the Ocean Beauty\'s fish processing facility and residences in the non-organized community of Excursion Inlet. The processor and most residences are seasonal. There is no community power system, which would be necessary to distribute the power to the community. The project received a Round 4 grant (#625) to perform a two-step reconnaissance study. The first step to determine the reach of the anadromous fish habitat is now complete. Work continues on the second half of the study. The currently funded second half of the reconnaissance study is to address: the fish habitat; electrical service and estimated load for the Borough subdivision; establishment of community utility; business arrangement for selling power to the fish processor Ocean Beaut;, site control and land ownership, and FERC jurisdiction. It will include consideration of fish habitat issues as it affects the cost, capacity, and energy output of the project and environmental licensing concerns. While the fish habitat study has been completed, the final reconnaissance study has not been reviewed or accepted by the Authority. Because this study is not complete it provides no support for this application. The applicant should also be aware that the Renewable Energy Fund has a strong public benefit purpose. An estimated 2 percent of the energy generated would serve the public, while 98% would serve a private company. AEA encourages Haines Borough and Excursion Inlet to work directly with AEA staff to address the community energy needs. Please contact AEA?s energy planning staff for direct assistance. The application is not recommended due to incomplete prior phases of the project. Chugach Electric Association requests $3,453,920 to complete construction of the Stetson Creek Diversion to Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project. Project will add 6,020,000 kWh annually. It will also provide environmental benefits for increase in 1) water temperature and 2) increase flows at upper reaches of Cooper Creek to enhance fish habitat. Bids were opened on 9/28/12 and construction is underway. Project cost is $21,772,523. CEA received funds in Round 4 (#674) for $576,080 for design and permitting and a State appropriation for $5,825,000 in FY13 for construction. The project applied for funding in Round 6 but failed to score within the funding limit. CEA will continue to seek grant funding and finance any cost in excess of grant amounts. Construction of this project satisfies the Settlement Agreement established in support of the FERC re-license of Cooper Lake Hydroelectric Project, which, along with this diversion, has annual energy of 48,000,000 kWh. The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) on 1/7/14 advised AEA to recommend to the Legislature partial funding this project if funding is kept within the Governor?s budget of $20M. REFAC further advised AEA to include the initial recommendation of full funding should the Legislature make available additional funds this year. One other hydro project, Allison Creek, was also recommended for partial funding. The primary reason was to allow the funding of six additional projects in higher cost areas of the state. AEA recommends partial funding of $1,760,019 if the Renewable Energy Fund Round 7 budget is limited to $20M, and recommends this project first in line for any additional funding beyond $20M, up to the requested grant amount of $3,453,920. Chugach Electric Association, on behalf of the Bradley Project Management Committee, proposes preliminary design of diversion of Middle Fork Battle Creek into Bradley Lake. The work would also include permitting, environmental and fish studies and preparation of an application to amend the Bradley Lake hydro project FERC license. BPMC would also provide matching funds on a 1:1 basis. AEA staff would manage the project. Work completed to date includes reconnaissance and analysis of environmental and energy production impacts. Stream gauging is in progress. Recommend full funding. The City of Pelican proposes completing construction of a 650 kW run-of-river hydro project. Design and construction has been supported by the Denali Commission through an AEA-managed rural power system upgrade project. Other energy-related projects completed recently in Pelican by AEA include a bulk fuel plant and a new diesel powerhouse. The hydro project is a rebuild of the 1940s era hydro project that supplied the fish processing facility and the community. The project is now approximately 60% complete and is scheduled for start-up in 2012. The fish processing facility has had financial problems over the last few years. Site control for the project is not finalized. While the Pelican Utility District (PUD), owned by Kake Tribal Corp, holds a DNR easement for the hydroelectric project from the intake to the power house, the City holds an easement on this same tract only for water and sewer improvements. The City is in discussion with the PUD to establish an operating agreement for the power system. The City will obtain site control in conjunction with this agreement. Recommend full funding with requirements that before construction funding is disbursed the City must obtain and demonstrate to satisfaction of AEA 1) site control for the hydro project, 2) FERC approval of revised construction plans dated 10/11/10, 3) final design and specifications for all grant-funded project elements, 4) a finance plan for the entire project, and 5) an updated business plan. 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. 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 control 2. Become current on financial and progress reports 3. Amend existing grants to reflect proposed milestone and deliverables 4. 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. INNEC requests grant funding to study expansion of the Tazimina Hydroelectric Project thru replacement of the turbine-generators and controls from 824 kW (existing) up to 1.5 MW total. The FERC license was issued for the larger units and the plant throughput was built with this in mind, but the smaller Francis turbine/generators were installed when the project was built in 1996. Annual energy is expected to increase up to 2,600,000 kWh. New markets for this increase in energy may include new dispatchable heating systems in private businesses and city governments at Newhalen, Illiamna and Nondalton. If the study shows the project is feasible, procurement documents will be prepared from this phase grant funding for the replacement turbine-generators and control systems. AEA recommends full funding. City and Borough of Sitka request funds for construction of an expansion to the Blue Lake dam. Construction elements include 83 feet raise of existing reinforced concrete arch dam, new powerhouse with three new turbine-generator units totaling 15.9 MW capacity, a new intake and connection tunnel, and a new surge chamber. The project construction bids came in higher than expected so the CBS is seeking additional state funding and planning to sell more revenue bonds to cover the new estimated project cost of $145M. Special provision: AEA will require finalized financial plan before any new grants will be put in place. AEA recommends full funding. A recon study was completed in 2009 for the Knutson River Hydroelectric Project in Pedro Bay. Since then the school and clinic have closed and the village population decreased to 44. A feasibility study has been drafted. Neither of these studies were funded by the Renewable Energy Fund. The proposed 150 kW r-o-r hydro project appears to be oversized for community needs, especially since village is losing residents. Additionally, there is > 1 mile of Knutson Creek with anadromous and resident fish habitat which will be affected by the proposed project leading to substantial licensing challenges. It is unknown if the project will be found jurisdictional by FERC. Recommend special provisions as follows: (1) AEA to receive feasibility study and must review and approve its findings before any REF funds committed; and (2) project size to be re-evaluated based upon current village population reduction. The City of Kake's application for construction funding is based on a reconnaissance report and IPECs self-funded 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. 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 sub-basin 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 sub-basin and Unga Man project. 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. Kootznoowoo Inc proposes a 1+ MW run-of-river hydroelectric project and 6.7 mi transmission project to supply the community of Angoon. Kootznoowoo has supplied seperate applications for each of the projects. AEA is lumping the two project proposals together for the purposes of evaluation. The application includes a letter of support from local utility Inland Passage Electrical Coop (IPEC). Kootznoowoo has received a grant $1,110,500 from USDOE for preconstruction activities. Project appears to be a promising source of renewable energy for the community of Angoon. Special legislation (ANILCA Section 506) has granted Kootznoowoo, Inc..certain rights for development of a hydroelectric facility at Thayer Creek and has simpliifed the permitting for the project. The project is only six miles from Angoon and closely matches Angoon\'s energy requirements. Recommend partial funding of $1,060,500 for completion of all preconstruction activities, including final design and permitting (culminating in the issuance of the USFS Special Use Authorization for the project) with the provisions that prior to releasing any AEA grant funds: 1) Kootznoowoo and IPEC must provide a written joint report acceptable to AEA that documents the integration of project design and operation with the needs of the existing IPEC system, 2) Kootznoowoo and IPEC must finalize an MOU that defines a viable business arrangement and will include intent to sign a cost-based power sales agreement.. Applicant proposes to assess hydrokinetic resource in 24 Alaskan locations. Proposal includes an excellent use of university resources and good training for Alaskan students in alternative energy technologies that may be deployed in Alaska. The proposal is not clear on how will sites will be chosen. AEA project manager will assist the project team. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes resource assessment and feasibility analysis and permitting/deployment of a hydrokinetic device at Nenana. The project team appears well-qualified. The primary benefit of this project to the State of Alaska is the demonstration and testing of a technology with significant potential in rural Alaska. However, project costs appear excessive. At $975,000, (p13) cost of development and construction of the 30 kW ORPC generating unit is of concern, especially in regard to the potential for eventual technology commercialization. Recommend partial funding for resource assessment (tasks 1-3). The Iguigig Village Electric Company proposes a reconnaissance final design and construction to install hydrokinetic turbines on the Kvichak River. The application would follow up feasibility and conceptual design work supported by RE Fund Round 2 (#265) funding of $707,250. A reconnaissance report by EPRI in 2008, indicated that the Kvichak River near Iguigig was promising for hydrokinetic power due to suitable sites near the village and that the Kvichak River is generally ice- and debris-free. The application proposes to test multiple hydrokinetic devices (including ORPC and Whitestone device) in mid-2012 and 2013. The project proposes to continue development through FERC?s pilot project stage, leaving commercial licensing until 2018. A field study performed by Terrasond in 2011 under the Round 2 grant, located an area of interest that had depths of 2-3-meter depth, peak velocities near 2.5 m/s, and a highest average velocity across one transect at 2.3 m/s. Terrasond also performed geotechnical studies on the areas of interest. These characteristics make it likely that the area would have a suitable resource for hydrokinetic development. The application includes in-kind contributions from ORPC, which will test a 150 kW unit near Nikiski with support of a RE Fund grant (#660). The application also proposes to fund the completion, construction, and testing of the Whitestone Poncelet device, an undershot waterwheel under development by the Whitestone Community through assistance of a DOE grant. AEA has the following concerns about this proposal: 1. Assuming a $9.4 million project cost and $100,000/yr in fuel savings, economics are poor. 2. Given that the chief goal of this project is technology development and demonstration, the site is remote from logistical and technical support. Since the application aims to fund completion of an experimental device with no working prototype and test several other devices, it appears the Emerging Energy Technology Fund would be a more appropriate funding mechanism. No funding recommended. This project would retrofit heating systems of public buildings in Wrangell to utilize interruptible power for resistance heating. AEA has concern that widespread use of resistance heating will exhaust available hydro capacity and energy. However we recognize value of this project for demonstration. Therefore, recommend full funding with the following provisions: 1) Prior to final design analyze relative merits of heat pump vs resistance heating design concepts, 2) Make results available in near future for regional integrated resource plan. Proposal requests assistance for recon assessment of alternatives in Cold Bay, False Pass, and Nelson Lagoon. The proposal plans to look at current and tidal potential; these options should only be covered briefly in the study since there is little chance of immediate help from these emerging technologies. Recommend full funding with condition of AEA review and approval of RFP and consultant before AEA disbursement of grant funds. This proposal includes four components: 1) Final design and construction of a natural gas-fired combined heat and power (CHP) plant, 2) final design and construction of a thermoelectric generator (TEG) using heat from the CHP plant, 3) final design and construction of a 125 kW microhydro plant at California Cr. and feasibility through construction of microhydro at Virgin Cr., and 4) reconnaissance through construction of wind and solar power generation. We exclude from consideration the combined CHP /TEG facility, since it is fueled by natural gas in an area that has viable renewable energy resources. We exclude the wind and solar plants because the application did provide enough information to evaluate the component of the project. We limit consideration to California Creek microhydro, since this is the only component of the application that is defined in suffient detail for meaningful evaluation. California Cr. hydro appears to be a valid stand-alone project. However, the feasibility analysis does not adequately address interconnection with Chugach Electric, permitting, land use agreements, and resource availability. Recommend partial funding for reconaissance. ORPC has demonstrated a commitment to a sustained presence in Alaska and has been a pioneer in hydrokinetic development in Alaska and in the country, and has a track record of hiring local contractors. Significant work has gone into resource evaluation and permitting for what will be the first tidal installation in Alaska. ORPC has garnered significant local support, including that of Homer Electric Association. Initial costs are high and projected to drop for subsequent installations. The benefit/cost ratio increases as the project expands (roughly $4M for the first unit, and $4M for the next 3 units). However, according to AEA?s analysis, the B/C ratio remains below 1 even for a 100 MW plant. Given the high risk associated with the installation of a new technology in Cook Inlet and the uncertainty surrounding costs, it is logical to wait for the results of the installation of the first turbine before committing funds to expand the project. Not recommended for funding. The City and Borough of Wrangell proposes assessing feasibility of using electric vehicles utilizing excess hydro from the southern Southeast electric grid. Specifically, as an output of the project the City proposes to purchase an electric car and develop a charging station in Wrangell. AEA supports the concept of displacing transportation fuel using renewable energy resources where shown to be economically feasible. AEA notes the benefit/cost ratio is 0.39 assuming 5 cent per kWh power over a 15 year project life. We are concerned that power may not be available at this rate for the long-term. Impacts of conventional power consumption, heating conversions, and electric transportation are being considered in the Southeast Alaska IRP project, expected to be complete by the end of 2011. For this reason we feel it would be useful to the IRP project for portions of this work to be done. Specifically, work that would be useful includes studies on the impacts of electric vehicles on the City distribution system, incremental impacts that electric vehicles will have on the future energy consumption and power demand for the Wrangell system, and opportunities for deploying smart grid technology. Recommend partial funding of $25,000 for reconnaissance study that will be useful to the Southeast IRP project with requirement that scope must be developed in coordination with the AEA-led IRP. Applicant proposes to install 50 kW of photovoltaic in the existing Ambler power system. Resulting project would be the largest hybrid PV-diesel system in the state. PV system would generate an average of 5 kW. AVEC submitted virtually identical proposals for Ambler, Noatak, and Shungnak (#75, 76, and 77). The project would be the largest utility scale photovoltaic-diesel hybrid project in Alaska. O&M costs, which were assumed to be zero in the application, may include panel cleaning, rreplacement of broken panels, electrical component replacement (inverters, controls, relays), snow removal from panels and twice annual panel angle adjustment. During rare periods of peak PV output and miminum electrical loads AEA questions whether there will there be system stability issues and whether the diesel genset efficiency and reliability of the smallest genset will be adversely affected. Installed cost of the project is high relative to the estimated savings. As an arctic utility PV-diesel hybrid application, however, the project has demonstration value above its modest economic return. For this reason we feel it is reasonable to support funding one of the three PV-diesel proposals as a demonstration. Recommend full funding for either project #75, 76, or 77 at the choice of applicant. Golden Valley Electric Association proposes to develop a solar thermal system for the Denali Education Center owned by Denali Education Foundation. The project would save an estimated 32-36 MWh/yr and cost $190,000. At an educational center the project would demonstrate technology potentially applicable to other areas of Alaska. In order to minimize risk of scalding and provide adequate energy storage this project will have to include significant O&M and controls costs. Currently GVEA is working on a feasibility analysis, not yet complete. Recommend full funding with requirement that AEA approve feasibility analysis and conceptual design in progress. AVCP proposes refurbishing the existing 12 kW photovoltaic-diesel hybrid system in Lime Village. The system was installed in 1999-2001 with donations by British Petroleum and Siemens for the PV panels. Although the panels are reportedly operable, the charger-inverter and control system does not work. The status of the ~100 kWh lead acid battery system is unknown. AEA notes that the efficiency of the Lime Village power system is very low (7.88 kWh/gal). Given the remoteness and very high cost of fuel in Lime Village, it makes sense to determine if and how the system can be reactivated before allocating funds for the task. $25,000 is a reasonable estimate for system evaluation. Recommend partial funding for system evaluation. AVEC proposes installation of a 10 kW low penetration photovoltaic-diesel system to supply station service power to the Kaltag system. Panels would be located on the Kaltag power house. Project economics are marginal (B/C=0.67) given the minimal amount of fuel that the system will displace. However AVEC states that the main value of the project is to demonstrate performance of a solar-diesel system in a utility environment. Full funding recommended. Project is simple, low-cost and straightforward. It takes advantage of the worldwide drop in PV module prices and cost of installation. Technology is proven and Tier 1 suppliers are selected. The applicant may be underestimating the power output from the PV system as low temperature and ground bounce can increase the output along with improved inverter power-curve optimization technology. Likewise, the applicant may be overestimating power output if snow is not removed in a timely fashion. The utility must ensure that snow is removed from the panels to ensure the desired benefits. Final design must be submitted to and accepted by AEA prior to allocation of construction funds. Post-construction, AEA requires the grantee to report the minimum loading of the diesel gensets at maximum solar output. Full funding recommended. 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. Metlakatla Indian Community (MIC) proposes construction of an intertie that connects Metlakatla to Ketchikan. AEA is providing $2 million in Renewable Energy Fund rounds 1 and 4 (applications #20 and #656). Additionally another $2 million in grant funds from the state have been awarded. The RE Fund round 4 grant was negotiated this year (2013). Conditions of the grant support a step-wise approach to determine feasibility; conceptual design; and completion of all preconstruction activities (including final design documents, final construction cost estimate, demonstration of site control, bathymetry, NEPA, and permitting) prior to construction funding being awarded. AEA is assisting MIC in complying with these conditions; however this work remains in process. The review team believes it is premature to allocate construction funds. $4M has previously been provided to the requesting entity and previous grants suggest a step-wise approach. Funding for this round is not recommended until such time as the previous grant?s milestones have been met as described above. Not recommended for funding. City of Coffman Cove requests $175K in grant funds for permitting and final design, and construction of a 1.75 mile single phase line extension along existing roads within the City to serve 91 privately-owned lots with renewable energy. The RE sources are from Black Bear Lake Hydro and South Fork Hydro. Project design, permitting and construction to be by Alaska Power Company. Special provision: Provide evidence of site control with stamped plans and recorded easement for the line extension. Southeast Alaska Power Authority proposes feasibility and conceptual design to assess impacts of delivering SEAPA power to Kake. Currently there are three sources of funding for the 50-mile Kake-Petersburg Intertie focused on completing final design and permitting: 1) $2.99 million from RE Fund Round 1 (#29), 2) $500,000 grant from a 2008 legislative appropriation, and 3) $2 million grant from an additional legislative appropriation. Currently work under the KWETICO (Kwaan) grant has consisted of conceptual design and environmental field studies for the two primary routes under consideration. An MOU between SEAPA, KWETICO, IPEC and AEA establishes ownership, maintenance, and operation responsibilities for the project. AEA, the grantees, and SEAPA will enter into a project management agreement. AEA believes that the work proposed under this grant will advance the Kake-Petersburg Intertie. However, AEA believes that the current work proposed can be accomplished using current project funding. Existing grants require a project management agreement. AEA will require that SEAPA take the lead on this work under that agreement. AEA will work with its partners to ensure that the proposed scope of work is accomplished as proposed. No funding recommended. Alaska Power Company (APC), a subsidiary of Alaska Power and Telephone (AP&T) proposes funding for the transmission portion of the 5 MW Reynolds Creek hydropower project. Haida Energy, a joint venture of AP&T and Haida Corp, would own the project and sell power on a wholesale basis to APC, the certificated utility on Prince of Wales (PoW) Island. The project is a component of Reynolds Creek Hydro Project, which received $2M (App #104) in grant funding already. In Round 3, an application (#439) was submitted for transmission line construction for Reynolds Creek. Although AEA recommended the project for funding there was insufficient funding appropriated to fund this project. The following grant allocations totaling $6.1 million have been made for the Reynolds Creek project: 1) $100,000 of Denali Comm funds to Haida Corp through the Denali Commission / AEA alternative energy RFP 2) $1 million in RE fund round 1 funds to Haida Corp (#104) 3) $1 million in RE fund round 1 funds to Haida Power, a joint venture between APC and Haida Corp 4) $2 million in legislative appropriation to Southeast Conference 5) $2 million in RE Fund round 4 to APC (#629) The project will be dispatched in conjunction with AP&T\'s existing Black Bear Lk and South Fork hydro projects. Previous applications state that Reynolds Creek hydro will only be used after the existing hydro projects are fully dispatched. An extension of PoW transmission to the northern portion of island to serve Coffman Cove and Naukati has been funded by the Denali Commission and RE Fund round 1. AEA has the following concerns about this application: 1. The application provides a cost estimate of $18.6 million for the hydro project, including transmission. However the most recent budget information available to AEA indicates a total project cost of $27.6 million. 2. While AEA agreed to reimburse up to $2 million in order to begin construction and preserve the FERC license, it was with the condition that Haida Energy provide an acceptable power sales agreement and finance plan prior to additional reimbursement. Haida Energy submitted a finance plan with a Power Project Loan Fund (PPLF) application to AEA for $20 million, at the limit authorized by the Legislature. However, AEA has rejected the proposed loan terms and asked Haida Energy to revise and resubmit with terms that conform to the PPLF statutes. Because of these unresolved issues, AEA believes additional funding is not warranted at this time. No funding recommended. Chugach Electric proposes final design, surveying, geotechnical assessment, and permitting of substations and switchyards associated with the transmission for the potential Mt. Spurr geothermal project. AEA has budgeted funding for RE Fund round 4 feasibility and route selection for the transmission project (#615). That work is underway at the time of this review. Currently Mt. Spurr geothermal developer Ormat remains in the resource assessment phase and AEA expects a report of the results of 2011 field work by the end of 2011. Since the resource at Mt. Spurr is not yet proven and the Rd 4 feasibility and route selection remains to be completed, AEA believes that it is premature to support final design and permitting work for the transmission line. No funding recommended. Alaska Electric Light and Power proposes final design and construction of one tower replacement, two tower structural modifications, and addition of snow diversion structures to two towers on the intertie that connects the Snettisham project to Juneau. AEL&P proposes a two-phase design and construction schedule. Phase 1 begins in late 2010 and ends in fall 2011. Phase 2 begins in late 2011 and ends in fall 2012. Round 4 funds are available only for activities that take place after July 1, 2011 (Phase 2 work). The project is eligible for funding under the RE Fund because it will reduce the likelihood of the number of outages occurring due to avalanches that necessitate diesel generation (e.g. the major outages in the winters of 2008 and 2009) in addition to improving reliability of Snettisham hydropower. Recommend funding of up to $2 million for activities that take place after July 1, 2011. 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. This current application is for final design and permitting for the â€œBarrow to Atqasuk Transmission Line and Home Conversions to Electric Space Heatingâ€. 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. Applicant proposes to install 200 kW of wind turbine at $2.2 million to displace 16,000 gallons per year of heating fuel at the Hooper Bay water treatment plant. Given modest savings in fuel AEA has concerns that the project is not optimized to maximize diesel displacement for community heat and power. For this reason we recommend that applicants consult with the community and power utility to integrate the project into the community energy system. We recommend funding be limited to feasibility analysis that matches heating load profile with resource availability, and develop alternate scenarios. Develop two scenarios--1) interconnected with utility grid, 2) stand alone for water treatment plant only. Recommend partial funding of $80,000 under task 6 to prepare feasibility assessment and conceptual design as above. Same as Stage 2 comments from Round 1 application #106. Stage 3 review update: Following discussions on regional funding allocation, no funding is recommended consistent with policy that not more than one project in a community that uses the same renewable resource be funded for construction in Rounds 1 and 2. In this case round 1 project #52 Nome Newton Peak Wind farm has a higher overall score and is recommended for funding. Unalakleet Village Electric Cooperative (UVEC) has applied for a $295,775 grant, with $29,650 in matching funds, to collect and analyze high-resolution electric power data from the hybrid diesel-wind project in Unalakleet. The results of the data collection and analysis would be used to model the system and as the basis for a conceptual design report describing system improvements to optimize its performance in terms of power quality, electric grid stability, and fuel savings. The UVEC wind farm is performing nearly as expected in a class four wind resource and UVEC's recent improvements to the controls will result in further performance improvements. There is limited potential for improving the production performance of the UVEC diesel-wind hybrid project. At a proposed cost of over $300,000 for the data collection and analysis, the potential incremental performance improvements do not support these high costs. AEA does support continued improvements to the wind-diesel system performance and recommends continuing to work with AEA's wind and powerhouse programs and staff to identify specific areas to improve grid stability and efficiency in a more cost-effective manner. No funding recommended. It is likely that viable projects with proposed energy savings can be completed. Recommend full funding with requirement that prior to disbursement of construction funding applicant submit feasibility and final design documents acceptable to AEA that indicate viable project. Note that app# 14 Chignik Lagoon hydro, app# 62 Chignik hydro/wind feas, and app#40 Chignik Hydro all address the same subregion. Because all three proposals request feasiblity assistance, the proposed wind/hydro integration/transmission budget is too large. Milestones 7 to 13 are final design and permitting activities that should only be undertaken if a decision is made to interconnect the three communities. Recommend that feasbility milestones 1, 3-6 be funded at this time and that the three applicants be required to coordinate on data collection, study and milestones. Applicant proposes to assess feasibility of and prepare conceptual designs for potential wind systems in Pedro Bay, Port Alsworth, Egegik, Iliamna-Newhalen-Nondalton, Port Heiden and Pilot Point. The major outcome of the work would be a set of bid documents for a regional design-build package for wind systems in suitable locations. Recommend specialized experts to consult in wind-diesel integration work. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes to study impacts on raptors and migratory birds of a potential 40-50 MW wind farm near Delta that would tie into the GVEA grid. Proposal follows onsite wind measurement at two sites, for 9 and 21 months that estimatesa 30% capacity factor. Applicant is an IPP that includes AP&T as a partner. Recommend full funding with the requirement that applicant will be required to cooperate and share data, including interconnection study analysis and outputs, on a non-confidential basis with the ongoing AEA-sponsored Railbelt Regional Integrated Resource Plan project. There are two entities planning wind energy projects in Bethel: 1) the City of Bethel (# 122) is proposing a 400 kW construction project in addition to a 100 kW project that was approved by the AEA and the Denali Commission in the alternative energy RFP, and 2) Village Wind Power is proposing construction of up to 2 MW (# 67). Additionally AVCP Regional Housing Authority is proposing study of hydro at the Kiseralik and Chikuminuk Rivers in Round 2 of the RE Fund. Therefore, there is a need for a regional integrated resource energy plan in the Bethel area to coordinate when and where energy projects should be developed. This proposal should be considered in the context of an integrated plan to assure proper sizing, timing, and integration of multiple energy projects. Recommend full funding but require interconnection study and power purchase agreement to be finalized prior to releasing funds. Applicant proposes design and construction of a 300 kW wind farm in Quinhagak. Proposal is well thought out and permitting risks appear low because of previous USFWS consultation. Construction budget is detailed and realistic. The project appears to result in high wind penetration, but the proposal does not provide detailed information regarding integration of wind into the existing system. Given an annual fuel displacement estimated at 46,223 gallons and a project cost of $4.3 million, present value of net monetary benefits over the life of the project appear to be less than the project cost. Recommend full funding with provision that prior to release of construction funding AEA requires the applicant to produce detailed integration documentation and dispatch strategy for the wind-diesel system. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy created by Mekoryuk?s existing 200 kW wind system funded in RE Fund round12 (#72). The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $278,378, of which $123,919 (5%) would come as a match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $264,459, is requested from the RE Fund. The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and ANTHC. The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current system configuration, only 49% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 51% of the output is excess power and available for offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA?s modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration. Recommend full funding. Kotzebue Electric Association proposes final design and construction of a 1.8 MW expansion to its current 1.14 MW wind farm. The project would include a Premium Power Transflow 2000 flow battery system with 3.7 MWh of storage and ability to produce of 500 kW of power. This application follows from a similar earlier RE Fund round 1 application that was capped at $4 million (#85). The $4 million in round 1 funding remains allocated to the project. KEA submitted HOMER optimization model with the application. The application did not provide an assessment of alternative integration/storage options or wind data obtained from onsite measurement. KEA has recently upgraded their power system with new SCADA. This project is attractive because it will upgrade Alaska\'s first large-scale wind farm to a high-penetration system. Recommend full funding with the condition that prior to the release of construction funds, the applicant must provide detailed final design, detailed construction budget, and detailed integration plans based on empirical load and wind resource data for AEA\'s acceptance. The Native Village of Nikolski requests funding to complete construction and commissioning of a 65-kW wind-diesel system. In May 2006 AEA constructed a power plant with a total capacity of 180 kW. The community purchased a refurbished Vestas V15 wind turbine generator with a grant from USDA RUS and cost share from APICDA in July 2007 ($474,475). In 2009, Nikolski received an RE Fund round 1 grant (#89) for $409,430 to integrate the wind turbine generator with a heat-recovery system by installing boilers and thermal nodes. Most of the work was done by the community?s contractor TDX Power. Currently the wind system remains inoperable. Given our experience with the project, AEA has the following concerns: 1. Proposed budget seems too high. 2. The wind turbine generator may need repair due to extended non-operation in a marine environment. 3. The power output from the wind turbine generator is too high for the village load and diesel power system. 4. The proposed solution has not been demonstrated to be functional in other Alaska wind systems and is thus not guaranteed to provide a working system. Recommend full funding of $331,240 with a special provision that AEA will be directly involved in the management of this project. AEA staff will work directly with the community and its contractors to establish a scope, design and budget for a functioning power system. The design portion of this project will not exceed $50,000. Construction funds will be unallocated until the design, budget and schedule has been accepted by AEA. AEA notes that the round 1 grant recommendation requires a 5-year O&M agreement with an entity acceptable to AEA. This application proposes a 225 kW high penetration wind system that would serve the St. George power system, including a new lodge and fish processing facility to be developed by APICDA. The project would be located on St. George Tanaq Native Corporation land. The City and Corporation have not yet come to formal agreement on using the land, but the application states that there are no problems with site ownership, and the Corporation submitted a support letter for the project. The introduction of a high penetration system into a moderate-sized community that includes remotely controlled dumploads brings along a significant level of complexity. Successful performance will require commitment to providing skilled and timely operation and maintenance. Recommend full funding with the following conditions that must be met before funds are disbursed: 1) AEA approval of final design, 2) the grantee establish a five-year operation and maintenance contract with an contractor acceptable to AEA that has expertise in this area. This wind energy project would supply most of its output during the winter months, when load is greatest. Applicant Alaska Wind Energy is a partnership of Cook Inlet Region Inc. and renewable energy developer EnXco Development Corp. The project would be located on CIRI land. The project would tie into the HEA system at the Anchor Point substation. A 10-mile 24.9 kV line would connect the wind turbines to the substation. The final location of the line is not yet established. The line may cross CIRI, Native Village of Ninilchik, Kenai Borough, and State land. The applicant references a number of existing project feasibility analyses, but does not provide the analyses or their content in detail. The application includes a letter of support from local utility Homer Electric. Project risks indicated in the application are the ability to obtain a power purchase agreement with HEA and powerline right-of-way with land owners. By December 2009 the applicant proposes to obtain all permits and rights-of-way, complete all necessary field studies, complete a design-build package, finalize design, and substantially complete construction. Given the uncertainty of obtaining necessary permits and rights-of-way, allocation of construction funding for the project appears premature. Recommend partial funding for Final Design and Permitting with requirements that before the disbursement of grant funds that AEA review and approve feasibility studies. In the application there is no indication that the plan has the approval of RCA. As noted in the application this project will affect not only HEA but other Railbelt utilities. Recommend partial funding for final and design and permitting (phase 3 tasks 1-10 excluding task 11 the downpayment on wind turbines) with the following conditions: 1) Prior to the release of funds applicant is required to submit, and AEA must approve, a detailed plan to obtain RCA regulatory approval of power purchase agreements and certification 2) Because this project involves public funds AEA will require that all power produced by this project be sold to a public utility. Project failed Stage 1 - capped out. Applicant seeks funding for a 2 MW wind energy project in the Delta area. The project, as submitted, would install 20 Northwind 100 kW turbines. In a letter dated November 13, after the submittal deadline, the applicant requested an amendment to the project that would result in substituting 2 Americas Wind Energy 900 kW turbines for eighteen of the Northwind 100 turbines, yielding a reduced cost. Since AEA received the requested amendment after the deadline, the evaluation here is based on the original submittal. AEA will evaluate the amended proposal in Round 2 of the RFA. The applicant has already received $801,500 in RE Fund funding from AEA for installation of NorthWind 100 wind turbines on the proposed site. The applicant\'s current proposal would bring the total number of NorthWind 100 turbines up to twenty. Based on AEA\'s high resolution wind map, the wind resource at the proposed location is Class 1 (poor). However the applicant provided 10 months of wind data that indicates a better wind resource. For the purpose of this evaluation, AEA has assumed a Class 3 resource (fair). Recommend partial funding with the following grant conditions: 1) AEA will require confirmation of an acceptable wind resource prior to dispersing funds to the project. 2) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with GVEA prior to release of construction grant funds. The recommended funding amount equals total amount requested from the state ($6,269,750) minus amount already offered ($801,500). Kodiak Electric Association requests $8 million for 1) installation of three additional GE 1.5 MW SLE turbines and 2) addition of a 1 MWh energy storage system. KEA is requesting funding for construction and commissioning of the proposed project. The project is expected to cost $23,150,000, of which $8,000,000 would come as matching funds provided by KEA. An additional $7,150,000 will be spent by KEA but will be ineligible for match as the money will be spent prior to July 1, 2012. KEA received $4 million from a RE Fund round 1 grant (#103) for the construction and commissioning of three GE 1.5 MW SLE turbines. KEA?s wind turbines have been the highest wind energy producers in the State. The proposed system changes will boost wind and hydro penetration to almost 100% and displace approximately 780,000 gallons of diesel per year. Under the round 5 solicitation KEA is eligible for a total of $8 million in cumulative funding for the wind project. The proposed battery system, estimated to cost $3.8 million, will provide system stability and a bridge between the more variable wind generation and KEA?s Terror Lake Hydro project. The proposed battery system will increase the renewable output of the wind-hydro system. Although the battery system is proposed in the current application, AEA believes that the battery system is not solely a component of the wind system, and is therefore not subject to the $8 million wind system funding cap. AEA notes that KEA has received $4 million in RE Fund grants for upgrades to the hydro system (#401 and 653). In round 5 the total allocation of the wind and hydro system, including the battery system, should not exceed $16 million. Recommend partial funding of $7.8 million ($4 million for the wind system and $3.8 million for the battery system). GVEA requests funding for ordering wind turbines for a 24 MW project in the Healy area. AEA has provided $2 million toward feasibility and permitting in round 1 (#109). Turbines are scheduled for purchase in summer 2011 following consideration of bids from turbine suppliers and EPC contractors by the GVEA board. Site work and turbine erection would be completed in summer 2012. The project would be commissioned in summer 2012. GVEA has received federal approval for CREB bond financing. Recommend full funding. Akiakchak Native Corporation proposes reconnaissance and feasibility of a wind-energy system in Akiakchak. Akiakchak was recommended in round 2 (#212) for feasibility assessment, however there was insufficient funding. Akaikchak has a met tower on site, but it is not erected and operational. The geotech portion of the budget ($75,000) appears rather high, while conceptual design appears low. Recommend full funding. The City of Pilot Point requests funding for design and construction of a high penetration wind project consisting of one 100 kW Northwind turbine to be sited on City land. Pilot Point has operated a 10 kW Bergey turbine for 6 years. The City has consulted with USFWS and an archeologist to assess wildlife and historic/archaeological issues. There no indications that permitting will be an issue. AEA completed a power system upgrade in 2008 which facilitates wind integration. A diesel heat recovery system supplies the school. Recommend full funding. The North Slope Borough proposes final design and permitting for a 300 kW wind project to serve the Wainwright grid. The Borough is currently working on a round 3 grant for conceptual design (#412) and has completed onsite wind resource assessment which indicates a class 4-5 resource. The proposed budget includes $160,000 for final environmental assessment and mitigation plans. The current work includes $102,000 for similar activities. AEA believes that it is reasonable to reduce the budget for this on the basis of the previous award. Since conceptual design is not yet complete, construction cost estimates are very approximate; However, unless the construction cost can be reduced economics for constructing the project will not be favorable, Recommend partial funding of $298,000 with requirement that before final design funds are disbursed AEA accept the feasibility and conceptual design report. The North Slope Borough proposes final design and permitting for a 300 kW wind project to serve the Point Lay grid. The Borough is currently working on a round 3 grant for conceptual design (#421) and has completed onsite wind resource assessment which indicates a class 4-5 resource. The proposed budget includes $160,000 for final environmental assessment and mitigation plans. The current work includes $102,000 for similar activities. AEA believes that it is reasonable to reduce the budget for this on the basis of the previous award. Since conceptual design is not yet complete, construction cost estimates are very approximate; However, unless the construction cost can be reduced economics for constructing the project will not be favorable, Recommend partial funding of $298,000 with requirement that before final design funds are disbursed AEA accept the feasibility and conceptual design report. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a utility, proposes to complete a wind feasibility study and conceptual design report to study the advisability of installing wind turbines in Mountain Village, Alaska. The applicant performed a meteorological tower study from November 2009 to August 2011. A Wind Resource Analysis based on this study was submitted with the application and demonstrates a class five wind resource. Class four through seven wind regimes typically support viable wind-diesel projects in Western Alaska. A best case scenario is often used by AEA Project Managers when evaluating the merits of a feasibility project and, in regards to this proposal, resulted in higher production estimates than the applicant. The proposed project and future design work would refine production estimates prior to construction. Recommend full funding. The proposed project is a 2MW wind farm near Tok. The turbines would be tied into the Tok, Tanacross, Dot Lake and Tetlin grids. The application is for resource assessment through construction. The application lacks detail on reasoning for site selection, integration issues, interconnection of villages, plans for using excess wind energy, or current energy usage. Without having an onsite wind resource assessment it is impossible to evaluate the viability of the project. Recommend partial funding for wind resource assessment only. AVEC proposes final design, permitting, and construction of a 300 kW wind farm that will serve the communities of Teller and Brevig Mission. AVEC has received funding from the Denali Commission for the intertie connecting the two villages and funding from RE Fund round 2 for resource assessment and feasibility (#297). A met tower was erected in September 2009. Preliminary wind resource assessment numbers based on Tier 3 wind mapping program output estimate a gross capacity factor of 16%. Recommend partial funding of $240,300 for final design and permitting with the requirement that AEA accepts that wind resource data collected to date justifies continued project development. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a utility, proposes the construction of a wind farm along the St. Mary's/Pitka's Point intertie along with components necessary for the integration of wind power into the diesel power plant. The wind-diesel system would serve the communities of St. Mary's and Pitka's Point. The basis for the proposed wind-diesel system is a design funded through Round 4 RE Fund grant #7040017. Permitting for the project is completed, site control has been established and a 65% design has been submitted to the Authority. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the 95% design be accepted by the Authority prior to allocation of construction funds. AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Scammon Bay. This is a resubmittal of a round 3 application (#514) that AEA recommended for funding, but which did not receive funding due to insufficient funds. Wind resource is estimated as a class 5 based on the state\'s high-resolution wind map. AVEC notes that the wind turbines will provide a local landmark for navigation. This application is one of seven wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 4. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2 and 3 for feasibility assessment in three other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks?including project development/scoping and contractor solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. AVEC eliminates the cost of wind resource assessment in this application, due to the presence of a met tower. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and management of these projects. Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, AVEC will prepare budgets for all round 4 wind feasibility projects with the goal of identifying opportunities to reduce costs. AVEC proposes onsite wind resource assessment, geotech analysis, feasibility, and conceptual design of a wind system to supply New Stuyahok. AVEC requested funding of $117,610 for a similar project in RE Fund round 2 (#301). AEA notes that the current project request of $142,500 for feasibility costing $150,000 has risen substantially in the current application. However the revised cost appears consistent with AEA\'s experience for a project of this nature. Recommend full funding. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a Utility, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community of Stebbins, Alaska. The wind-diesel system would service the communities of Stebbins and Saint Michael, Alaska. The final design will be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040008. The feasibility study and conceptual design report have been reviewed and accepted by the AEA Wind Program. Recommend full funding. AVEC proposes to add two NW100 turbines to their 400 kW Emmonak wind farm, boosting capacity to 600 kW. Although the first project was awarded in Round 1, a wind resource analysis report was not published until August 2010. This wind resource report estimates a capacity factor of only 18.7% for a NW100B at 80% turbine availability. This is substantially less than AVEC?s estimate (23.8% capacity factor corresponding to a total of 1,250,000kWh). Neither AEA nor AVEC were aware at the time of the Round 1 proposal and award that the wind resource would result in the low capacity factors and wind power densities actually seen at this site. Depending on energy production assumptions, the benefit/cost ranges from 0.61 to 0.69, thus appearing to be marginal at this point. A more accurate assessment of production will be available after a year or so of operation of the existing 400kW wind system. No funding recommended. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy created by Shaktoolik?s existing 200 kW wind system funded in RE Fund round 2 (#303). The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. The round 2 grant included a 260 kW electric boiler as a secondary load to be installed in the power plant. AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $252,905, of which $12,645 (5%) would come as an in-kind match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $240,260, is requested from the RE Fund. The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and ANTHC. The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current system configuration, only 44% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 56% of the output is excess power and available for offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA?s modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration. Recommend full funding. Tatitlek IRA Council/Tatitlek Electric Company proposes final design, permitting, and construction of a 100 kW high-penetration wind system in Tatitlek. Currently the applicant is funded for resource assessment and feasibility by RE Fund round 2 (#316). Tatitlek has secured federal funding of $900,000 for project development. Feasibility, final design, and permitting is scheduled for completion in May 2011. Construction would commence in summer 2011. Given that round 3 funding would not be expended until summer 2011, the applicant can reapply for RE Fund round 4 support in 2010. Recommend no funding at this time. 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 fixed-RPM gensets. The ultra-capacitor bridging allows the system to provide spinning reserve while keeping voltage and frequency within spec. The system will allow for significant periods of diesel-off operation and the generator's power converter doubles as a grid-forming 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 high-resolution operational data for those systems. Recommend full funding. The North Slope Borough proposes final design and permitting for a 300 kW wind project to serve the Point Hope grid. The Borough is currently working on a round 3 grant for conceptual design (#413) and has completed onsite wind resource assessment which indicates a class 6 resource. The proposed budget includes $160,000 for final environmental assessment and mitigation plans. The current work includes $102,000 for similar activities. AEA believes that it is reasonable to reduce the budget for this on the basis of the previous award. Since conceptual design is not yet complete, construction cost estimates are very approximate; However, unless the construction cost can be reduced economics for constructing the project will not be favorable, Recommend partial funding of $298,000 with requirement that before final design funds are disbursed AEA accept the feasibility and conceptual design report. The City of Chefornak, applying as a local government, and working with Intelligent Energy Systems, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting of: a 475 kW wind farm; distribution repairs and upgrades; a secondary load at the power plant in the form of an electric boiler to control grid frequency and for the capture of excess wind power for use as heat; and 40 secondary loads to be installed in residential homes in the form of electric thermal storage (ETS) units that would capture excess wind power for use as heat. The proposed system would serve the community of Chefornak, Alaska. The final design would be based on a feasibility study and CDR (Conceptual Design Report) performed under a Round 4 Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grant #7040056. A feasibility study and CDR have been submitted for review. This project did not score high enough to pass the stage 2 technical and economic evaluation minimum score of 40. The primary contributing factor for the low score was the economic feasibility scores in criteria 4a which comprises 25 percent of the score. AEA's calculated benefit/cost ratio is 0.71. This score reflects a reduction in predicted annual energy production due to the underperformance of comparable projects. A score below 0.9 earns 0 points for criteria 4a. Other significant contributing factors to the low score are the tardiness of deliverables and reports and the underperformance of comparable systems in Kongiganak, Tuntutuliak, and Kwigillingok. The current CDR does not validate the selection of the proposed project. AEA recognizes that the wind resource in Chefornak is good and that a CDR that compared various turbine types and quantities and various secondary heat loads could identify an economical project for the community. AEA has met with Intelligent Energy Systems to discuss the project potential and improving the project economics. In addition to the low economic score, AEA has the following concerns that also influenced the stage 2 score: tardiness of project deliverables, progress reports and financial reports on the existing Chefornak wind feasibility grant, the underperformance of comparable high penetration systems, and the CDR not addressing the causes of the existing similar systems' low performance and recommending remedies in the proposed new conceptual design. Additionally, the application identifies upgrades and repairs to the distribution line that are required to proceed with the project as planned. Repairs are not eligible for funding and the upgrades required will need to be as a direct result of the proposed wind-diesel system to be eligible for funding. Any required, ineligible, upgrades or repairs necessary for the proposed project will need to be addressed prior to funding. AEA will continue to work with the applicant and their contractor towards completion of their CDR. No funding recommended. Did not pass stage 2 minimum score. TDX Corporation proposes design and construction of the interconnection and integration of TDX\'s 675 kW wind farm and the City of Saint Paul\'s power system. TDX proposes to work with the City to resolve a longstanding impasse on sales of wind power to the City. The application indicates that if TDX and the City cannot secure an agreement on power purchase terms and conceptual design of modifications to the City power system, no funds will be requested. Recommend full funding with the requirement that 1) before final design and construction funds are disbursed TDX and the City must finalize an agreement that addresses power purchase terms and 2) before construction funds are disbursed the TDX and City must finalize an agreement on the design of modifications to the City power system. AVEC proposes resource assessment, conceptual design, feasibility assessment, final design, permitting, and construction of a 300 kW project in Kivalina. AVEC is also interested in assessing a wind project up to 3.3 MW in capacity and an intertie connecting Kivalina to the Delong Mountain Transportation System. If the larger project is viable AVEC proposes establishing a power purchase agreement with Teck Alaska. The proposal includes a letter of support from NANA. Recommend full funding. Nushagak Cooperative requests funding for final design and construction of a 450 kW wind project. Currently Nushagak has received a $100,000 grant from the Denali Commission under the Alternative Energy Grant program for wind feasibility. Nushagak has a grant to study hydro feasibility for project(s) at Lake Elva and Grant Lake north of Aleknagik. Nushagak?s proposal demonstrates impressive level of community support for developing a utility-scale wind project in Dillingham. The utility has performed a substantial amount of work in preparation for wind development, including a reconnaissance level assessment of energy alternatives prepared by the University. AEA has the following concerns regarding this proposal: 1. The feasibility information submitted is not sufficient to provide a basis for final design and construction. Specifically, it does not include a conceptual design. 2. Alternatives assessed were limited to small turbines. There is no discussion of the risks associated with deploying a new turbine model in the state. 3. The economics of this project are marginal and may be improved by considering other sites, equipment, and project size. 4. Nushagak has not yet completed a substantial portion of or drawn any conclusions from the wind feasibility work underway. 5. The proposed scheduled begins in October 2010 with design and permitting completed in May 2011 before funding from the RE Fund would be available. Recommend no funding. AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Eek. Wind resource is estimated from the state?s high resolution map as a class 3. The applicant estimates wind resource as a class 4 based on nearby Quinhagak?s measured resource. The community operates a single phase power system. The Northwind 100 turbines operates in three phase. AVEC has prepared a recon- level wind power report for Eek based on regional wind data. This application is one of 7 wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 4. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2 and 3 for feasibility assessment in 3 other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks?including project development/scoping and contractor solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and management of these projects. Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, AVEC will prepare budgets for all round 4 wind feasibility projects with the goal of identifying opportunities to reduce costs. AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Elim. Wind resource is estimated from the state?s high resolution map as a class 3-4. AVEC notes that wind towers would provide a landmark for navigation in Norton Sound. This application is one of 7 wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 4. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2 and 3 for feasibility assessment in 3 other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks?including project development/scoping and contractor solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and management of these projects. Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, AVEC will prepare budgets for all round 4 wind feasibility projects with the goal of identifying opportunities to reduce costs. AVEC proposes assessing feasibility of a wind-diesel system in Koyuk. Wind resource is estimated from the state?s high resolution map as a class 3. AVEC notes that the wind turbines would provide a landmark for navigation in the area. This application is one of seven wind feasibility projects that AVEC is proposing in round 4. AVEC has received funding in rounds 2 and 3 for feasibility assessment in three other communities. All of the proposals include standardized descriptions of feasibility tasks?including project development/scoping and contractor solicitation, detailed energy resource analysis (met tower wind resource assessment), identification of land and regulatory issues, permitting and environmental analysis, detailed analysis of existing and future energy costs and markets, conceptual business and operations plans, assessment of alternatives, detailed economic and financial analyses, conceptual design analysis and cost estimate, and final report and recommendations. Given the similar tasks among multiple projects, AEA thinks that it is reasonable that, if AVEC receives funding for multiple projects, the utility may be able to reduce costs through coordinated procurement and management of these projects. Recommend full funding with requirement that before grant is finalized, AVEC will prepare budgets for all round 4 wind feasibility projects with the goal of identifying opportunities to reduce costs. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, applying as a Utility, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community of Marshall, Alaska. The final design would be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040021. The draft conceptual design report was submitted and reviewed by AEA prior to the Round 7 RE Fund application deadline. A final conceptual design report has been submitted. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the final conceptual design report be accepted by AEA prior to allocation of design and permitting funds. The Village of Kwethluk proposes feasibility assessment and conceptual design of a wind energy system to be located on the old runway owned by Alaska DOTPF. AEA\'s high-resolution wind map indicates a class 4 resource. Despite the location on the runway, some level of geotechnical assessment will be required. Geotech is not listed in the proposal. At the same time, tasks 4-7 basically consisting of cost analysis and conceptual design are budgeted $114,000. AEA thinks this figure is rather high. Recommend full funding with requirement that grant scope needs to include geotechnical assessment. The City of False Pass Electric Utility, applying as a local government, proposes feasibility and conceptual design work to determine the advisability of installing wind turbines on the False Pass electrical grid. This work will augment feasibility and conceptual design work already performed under a Round 4 Renewable Energy Fund Grant #7040051. The results of the Round 4 grant demonstrated that the False Pass wind regime contains enough energy to create a feasible wind project but, due to complex terrain, has high turbulence. The applicant proposes to continue wind and electrical data collection to investigate other locations in False Pass for a less turbulent wind regime and better understanding of community loads. The applicant proposes to then revise the existing Conceptual Design Report based on the aggregate findings. Recommend full funding with the special provision that Wind Resource Assessment(s) and Feasibility Study be accepted by AEA prior to the allocation of Conceptual Design funds. The lack of an accepted conceptual design prohibits awarding funds for design activity as AEA is unable to properly assess the viability of the wind resource, the powerhouse, the electrical distribution system, community heat loads and the various wind turbine and integration options evaluated. The applicant should proceed with the feasibility and conceptual design work already funded through round 4 of the Renewable Energy Fund. Not recommended for funding. G&K Electric Utility proposes recon and feasibility assessment of wind energy and diesel heat recovery in Cold Bay. The proposal is consistent with the recommendations from a general energy assessment of Cold Bay, False Pass and Nelson Lagoon sponsored by the 2008 Denali Commission/AEA Alternative Energy grant program and AEA?s Energy Pathway publication. Airport data and the Pathway indicate a class 7 wind resource. Aleutians East Borough would manage the project. Diesel heat recovery potential appears excellent. The power system is adjacent to several public facilities and the power plant has a manifold on the diesel cooling system. Recommend partial funding for reconnaissance assessment, including a met tower. The New Koliganek Village Council, applying as a governmental entity, proposes to complete a final design of and permitting for a wind-diesel power system in the community of Koliganek Alaska. The final design will be based on a feasibility study and conceptual design report performed under a Round 4 RE Fund Grant #7040011. The feasibility study has been completed and a draft conceptual design report has been reviewed by the AEA Wind Program. A final conceptual design report will be completed in early 2014 in conjunction with an AEA Rural Power System Upgrade Program power plant conceptual design report. Recommend full funding with the special provision that a final wind-diesel conceptual design report be accepted by the Authority prior to the allocation of final design and permitting funds. The City of Napaskiak requests funding for reconnaissance and feasibility assessment of wind generation and heat recovery for the City power system. The Energy Pathways document notes a class 5 wind resource. However the newly-revised AEA wind high resolution wind map estimates Napaskiak is a class 3 wind resource. The recon phase budget includes $52,250 for land use permitting and environmental analysis. AEA believes that it is not justified to spend this large amount of money before the overall wind resource is understood and the concept is validated. Recommend partial funding of $61,225 with a required match of $2,800 for reconnaissance assessment. Lake and Pen Borough proposes final design and construction of a 330 kW wind project in Port Heiden through a design-build process. Lake and Pen Borough has supplied a very thorough feasibility study. However the report does not include conceptual design drawings or a geotechnical study. AEA has the following concerns about the project: 1. Economic feasibility appears to require a high penetration system. AEA believes the construction cost estimate is rather low for a high-penetration project. 2. Based on the expected 50-year extreme wind speed for the site, the feasibility report recommends an IEC class 1 turbine. The only turbine that meets this condition is the Enercon turbine. The Enercon turbine may not be available in the U.S. 3. Port Heiden has not received PCE since December 2009 because they have neglected to file an annual report with RCA. This raises questions regarding the community?s ability to support a relatively complex energy project. Given these considerations AEA believes that it is premature to allocate construction funding to this project. The design budget is configured assuming the design-build process. Assuming that design and construction are funded separately and the work includes a geotech study, AEA believes that $250,000 is sufficient to complete design and permitting. Recommend $250,000 for design and permitting. Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, proposes to install a secondary load installation to capture the excess energy created by Gambell?s existing 300 kW wind system. The recovered energy would be used for the water treatment plant space heating, drinking water loop circulation heating, and water storage tank heating. AVEC is requesting funding for design and construction of the proposed project. This phase is expected to cost $252,905, of which $12,645 (5%) would come as an in-kind match provided by ANTHC, provided through project labor and rest of the amount, $240,260, is requested from the RE Fund. The project would result in a substantial amount of fuel displaced at the water treatment plant. The proposal represents a solid partnership between AVEC and ANTHC. The highest benefit for wind power is to displace diesel generator fuel before heating oil. Based on HOMER modeling, AEA is concerned that, under the current system configuration, only 55% of the wind turbine output can be used to offset generator fuel, while 45% of the output is excess power and available for offsetting heating fuel. Including a smaller genset in the diesel system will result in significantly greater amount of generator fuel being saved according to AEA?s modeling. Although the proposed project will result in economic payback, additional savings could be achieved by optimizing the diesel generator configuration. Nome Joint Utility System proposes the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a second EWT 900 turbine at the Banner Wind Farm. In a second proposal (#898) NJUS requests funding to integrate existing 1875 kW and 3660 kW units into Nome?s Power Plant and reconfigure plant controls to reduce operating costs, provide greater stability, and improve efficiency. The second proposal scope includes relocating the 1875 kW unit from a different building. AEA believes that this work is not consistent with the intent of the RE Fund, therefore not eligible. Only the integration of a secondary load controller and resistive dump boiler, estimated to cost $325,000, are consistent with the objectives of the RE Fund and eligible for funding. For the purposes of review AEA will consider proposal #839 and the eligible portion of #898 as one application. NJUSs? original proposal (#52) was for the construction of a 3 MW wind farm at a project cost of $13.5 million. The project was partially funded at $4 million and the scope reduced to the installation of a single EWT 900 turbine. Of this cost, $69,000 is for conceptual design and feasibility, while $3,931,000 is for final design and construction. A RE Fund round 1 grant is in place for the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of a single EWT 900 turbine. A conceptual design report, which includes analysis of a wind-diesel system with both one and two EWT 900 turbines, has been accepted by AEA. NJUS is requesting funds for the design, permitting, construction and commissioning of the proposed project. The project is expected to cost $4,115,000, of which $411,500 would come as matching funds provided by NJUS. NJUS is requesting $3,703,500 from the RE Fund in proposal #839. The combined proposed project (#52, 839, 898) has a relatively low price per installed kilowatt and can lead to a significant drop in diesel usage for electricity in the community. AEA is concerned that the current diesel configuration is oversized for the community and especially so for the installation of significant wind power. Integrating the smaller generators will help to address this situation. Recommend funding of $4,069,000 ($8,000,000 cap - $3,931,000 from the round 1 grant) with the requirement that 1) AEA accept final design and permitting, and 2) NJUS reconfigures the existing diesel generators, (including the non-RE Fund eligible work) before construction funds are released. 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. The application includes a 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. The 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. There are two entities planning wind energy projects in Bethel: 1) the City of Bethel (# 122) is proposing a 400 kW construction project in addition to a 100 kW project that was approved by the AEA and the Denali Commission in the alternative energy RFP, and 2) Village Wind Power is proposing construction of up to 2 MW (# 67). Additionally AVCP Regional Housing Authority is proposing study of hydro at the Kiseralik and Chikuminuk Rivers in Round 2 of the RE Fund. Therefore, there is a need for a regional integrated resource energy plan in the Bethel area to coordinate when and where energy projects should be developed. This proposal should be considered in the context of an integrated plan to assure proper sizing, timing, and integration of multiple energy projects. A 2 MW wind project will likely impact system reliability and stability of the existing diesel power system. However there is no allowance in the proposed work plan and budget to integrate the project into the existing network to ensure continued reliability. Without the integration work the viability of the project cannot be assured. On the basis of our integration concerns, AEA recommends not awarding funding for construction. TDX Power proposes feasibility, design, and construction of 1-2 MW wind energy project for Bethel. TDX owns and/or operates three wind-diesel power systems in St. Paul, Sand Point, and Tin City. TDX states in their application that they will be assuming operation of the Bethel power utility by summer 2011. Given these circumstances, TDX is an attractive and logical entity to develop a large-scale wind project in Bethel. However there are other significant energy planning and project development activities taking place in Bethel. The City of Bethel has been funded through the RE Fund round 1 for a 400 kW wind project. To date the City and utility have not reached an agreement for power purchase or interconnection. Additionally Village Wind Power is funded under round 0 to assess feasibility of a large scale wind power project. AVCP has submitted an application for final design and construction in round 4 for a 200 kW wind project to serve Bethel (#600). Napakiak is proposing feasibility and design of wind generation (#697) along its intertie with Bethel. Finally AVCP Regional Housing Authority is proposing study of hydro at the Kiseralik and Chikuminuk Rivers in Round 2 of the RE Fund. Therefore, there is a need for a regional integrated resource energy plan in the Bethel area to coordinate when and where energy projects should be developed. This proposal should be considered in the context of an integrated plan to assure proper sizing, timing, and integration of multiple energy projects. AEA believes that such an overall plan for the Bethel power system should be developed before proceeding with any additional wind development. AEA has met with the City of Bethel, AVCP Rural Housing Authority, Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation, Calista Corporation and TDX to discuss regional energy planning, including wind and hydro development. The group has agreed to pursue coordinated energy planning for the region and the Bethel grid. AEA believes that Bethel?s large load provides the opportunity for deploying megawatt scale turbines with better economics than smaller-scale wind installations. TDX proposes a logical, stepwise approach for developing large scale wind generation in Bethel. Recommend partial funding of $213,690 for feasibility analysis and conceptual design with the requirement that TDX work with the City, the Housing Authority, the Health Corp, Calista, Napakiak Ircinraq Power Company, and other entities in regional and community energy planning. The Kokhanok wind project has been running in curtailment mode for more than a year. The equipment has all been installed. Wind turbines are functioning. Applicant is seeking funding to complete the hybrid supervisory controller development. Applicant has not requested REF for this project in the past. If successful, Alaska turns a curtailed project into a successful one. This project is gating other proposed high-penetraion wind systems. Until we have success and learning on the Kokhanok system, AEA is holding off funding for other proposed high-penetration systems. Wind resource is very good. Recommend full funding. Igiugig Village Council, applying as a governmental entity, proposes to complete a feasibility study and conceptual design report to study the advisability of installing wind turbines in Igiugig, Alaska. The applicant has finished a meteorological tower study and has submitted a Wind Resource Report with the application. Recommend full funding with the special provision that the Wind Resource Analysis and Feasibility Study be accepted by AEA prior to allocation of Conceptual Design funds. While the existing wind resource model predicts only class 2 winds in Levelock, class 4 winds exist further south at the coast. There is no current wind data. The applicant proposes a low-cost method to collect valid, usable wind data. A larger met tower would be needed for any future feasibility study, but the 10-meter configuration proposed will work well for reconnaissance so long is the tower is placed in an area of minimal surrounding vegetation and away from buildings that might block the wind. Even if only a class 3 wind site is discovered, the high cost of fuel in this community might allow for an economic medium-penetration project using a remanufactured turbine. ull funding recommended. F Hill east of the old airport appears to be the best place to start measuring wind. Budget is high for a reconnaissance study - especially $45,000 for cost of energy and market analysis. The applicant only needs money to hire a contractor to purchase and install a met tower and power house monitoring and to analyze and write a wind resource report. The report should include HOMER analysis of wind, diesel and solar against the seasonal load profile of Egegik. An RFP should be put out to see who can do this in the most cost-effective manner. Recommend partial funding of $60,000 to collect wind, solar and electrical load data for a minimum of one year, write a wind/solar assessment report and perform some basic HOMER modeling. The applicant has studied the wind resource in other locations south and southwest of Tok. AP&T has a very experienced staff working in Port Townsend as well as the Tok facility. APC already has a 50-meter tower staged in Tok ready for deployment to the Chisana Mtn site. Access to the proposed site is relatively easy. Met tower site is adjacent to a 15kV buried transmission line. Permitting is relatively straightforward for this project. A class 4 wind regime has been found elsewhere in the region. The electrical load allows for a fair amount of wind energy on the system. Construction costs for this project would be among the lowest for wind projects in the state do to the location on the road system. Recommend full funding. Applicant proposes feasibility through construction of a wind energy system of unspecified scale and location in Akiakchak. The applicant requests AEA to manage the project. The application provides only a general description of the project. There is no detailed budget. AEA recommends funding only onsite wind resource assessment at $15,000. AEA will supply an instrumented met tower. Independent power producer Banner Wind LLC has erected 18 Entegrity EW15 turbines providing installed capacity of 1,170 kW. Banner Wind LLC is owned by Bering Straits Native Corporation and Sitnasuak Native Corporation. Nome Joint Utilities System has requested funding for the 2-mile intertie between Banner Wind farm and the Nome power system, completed in December 2008, through a separate proposal (Nome Banner Peak transmission #47). We also note there is a separate proposal for larger turbines on Newton Peak #52, consistent with the USDOE/AEA-supported Nome Region Energy Assessment. The three proposals do not indicate coordination between wind projects, and AEA is concerned that this may result in unnecessarily high development, integration, and operation costs. NJUS is preparing a feasibility assessment for the Newton Peak project that will address the quality of the wind energy resource, wind system design and integration into the existing power system, operation and maintenance, land ownership and other development issues. This study should provide valuable information for integrating the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms into the NJUS system. Recommend full funding for expenses incurred after August 20, 2008 with the following conditions: 1) before any funds are disbursed NJUS provide to AEA, and AEA approves, a feasibility assessment and conceptual design for the Newton Peak project that addresses integration of the Newton Peak and Banner Peak wind farms and other developent issues, 2) applicant required to petition RCA for a certificate of public convenience and necessity and economic rate regulation prior to release of construction funds, 2) establish a power purchase agreement with NJUS prior to release of construction grant funds. Number of Applications for Project 1 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 4 1 3 2 3 1 4 3 4 1 4 1 2 4 4 1 3 4 2 3 2 3 1 0 1 3 2 3 3 4 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 6 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 4 3 3 1 9 7 2 7 4 6 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 7 5 3 1 4 2 1 3 6 3 3 5 1 2 5 7 2 2 6 4 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 6 3 2 5 3 1 0 5 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 4 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 9 3 2 6 2 2 2 4 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 4 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Last Recommendation Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full FUnding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Did Not Pass Stage 2 Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Did Not Pass Stage 2 Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Withdrawn Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Not Recommended Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Not Recommended Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Not Recommended Full Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Did Not Pass Stage 1 Partial Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Full Funding Full Funding Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Partial Funding Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Full Funding Partial Funding Did Not Pass Stage 2 Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding with Special Provision Not Recommended Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Not Recommended Partial Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding Partial Funding Full Funding with Special Provision Number of proposed projects with identified barrier Percent of Proposed projects with identified barrier Grant Status Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Open Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Open Open Closed Open Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed Closed Open Closed Open Open Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Open Open Open Open Open Open Closed Closed Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Open Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Open Open Open Closed Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Open Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Open Closed Open Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Open Open Open Open Closed Open Open Open Open Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Open Open Open Closed Open Open Closed Closed Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Open Closed Closed Open Closed Open Open Open Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Operational? (1=Yes/ 0=No) 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 0.291666666666667 Continuing to Operation? (1=Yes/ 0=No) 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 53 0.34640522875817 Performing as expected per the application? (1=No/ 0=Yes) 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 17 0.26984126984127