HomeMy WebLinkAboutREF Evaluation Process Manual1
ALASKA RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND
Evaluation Process Manual
September 9, 2015
DRAFT
2
Table of Contents
Purpose of this Manual ................................................................................................................................. 4
Role of the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC) ............................................................. 4
General Information ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Calendar for current round ....................................................................................................................... 4
Document management ........................................................................................................................... 4
Conflicts of Interest ................................................................................................................................... 5
Communication management .................................................................................................................. 5
Additional Information Requests .............................................................................................................. 5
Not Recommended Applications .............................................................................................................. 5
Reconsideration Process ........................................................................................................................... 5
Preparing for a new round ............................................................................................................................ 6
General Scoring Criteria ................................................................................................................................ 8
Stage 1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 9
Reviewers .................................................................................................................................................. 9
Criteria ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
Stage 1 Criterion 1 Applicant Eligibility ................................................................................................... 10
Stage 1 Criterion 2 Project Eligibility ....................................................................................................... 10
Stage 1 Criterion 3 Formal Authorization ............................................................................................... 11
Stage 1 Criterion 4 Phase Description ..................................................................................................... 11
Stage 1 Criterion 5 Complete Application ............................................................................................... 11
Stage 1 Criterion 6 Ownership, Site Control, and Operation .................................................................. 11
Stage 1 Criterion 7 Design Submittal ...................................................................................................... 11
Process .................................................................................................................................................... 12
Stage 2 ......................................................................................................................................................... 12
Reviewers ................................................................................................................................................ 12
Criteria .................................................................................................................................................... 13
Stage 2 Criterion 1 Project Management, Development, and Operation .............................................. 13
Stage 2 Criterion 2 Qualifications and Experience .................................................................................. 13
Stage 2 Criterion 3 Technical Feasibility ................................................................................................. 14
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio ............................................................................... 14
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan ..................................................................................................... 15
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (c) Other Public Benefits .......................................................................................... 16
3
Process .................................................................................................................................................... 16
Stage 3 ......................................................................................................................................................... 18
Reviewers ................................................................................................................................................ 18
Criteria .................................................................................................................................................... 19
Stage 3 Criterion 1 Cost of Energy .......................................................................................................... 19
Stage 3 Criterion 2 Matching Funds ........................................................................................................ 20
Stage 3 Criterion 3 Project Feasibility ..................................................................................................... 20
Stage 3 Criterion 4 Project Readiness ..................................................................................................... 21
Stage 3 Criterion 5 Public Benefit ........................................................................................................... 21
Stage 3 Criterion 6 Sustainability ............................................................................................................ 22
Stage 3 Criterion 7 Local Support ........................................................................................................... 22
Stage 3 Criterion 8 Regional Balance ...................................................................................................... 22
Stage 3 Criterion 9 Compliance ............................................................................................................... 23
Process .................................................................................................................................................... 23
Funding Limitations on Recommendations (Sec 1.15 of RFA) ................................................................ 23
Recommendation Guidelines – Pre Regional Spreading (Stage 4) ......................................................... 24
Stage 4 ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
Reviewers ................................................................................................................................................ 25
Process .................................................................................................................................................... 25
Calculating Regional Cost of Energy Burden (COEB) ............................................................................... 25
Recommendations to the Legislature .......................................................................................................... 26
Creating the Status Report ...................................................................................................................... 27
Updating charts ....................................................................................................................................... 27
4
Purpose of this Manual
The primary purpose of this manual is to document the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) evaluation
process so that all staff evaluators efficiently follow the same process, which is in accordance with the
program statutes, regulations, and Request for Applications (RFA), and established internal processes.
Role of the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC)
AEA staff requests and receives input from the REFAC regarding the application and evaluation process
and final funding recommendations. There are at least three points at which the REFAC can provide AEA
with policy and program recommendations to reconsider.
1. Spring/Summer REFAC meeting: At this meeting the REFAC will review the RFA for the upcoming
round of the Renewable Energy Fund (REF).
2. Fall REFAC meeting: At this meeting the REFAC is briefed on the applications received and the
evaluation process for the current REF round.
3. Winter REFAC meeting: At this meeting the REFAC will be presented with the list of
recommended projects and updated on the regional distribution of funding allocated in past
rounds as well as potential current year allocation of recommended funds. The REFAC will
provide guidance on the regional distribution of funds and AEA’s grant recommendations to the
legislature.
General Information
Calendar for current round
The current year calendar is linked here Process Guide Calendar
Document management
Each project will be assigned a folder; within this folder is:
The application folder
o Original application
o Application for web with resumes removed
The evaluation folder
o PM evaluations document (final posted by lead PM)
The templates are located H:\AEEE Shared Files\Renewable Energy Fund\Round
9\Stage 2\Project Evaluation Templates. Please note that the lead PM is
responsible for completing this form but it includes input from the assigned
Integration PM (last box on last page).
o Economic evaluation spreadsheet and word doc (final documents posted by Lead
Economist)
o Community Assistance project information sheet (posted by AEA Energy Information
Analyst)
o Other resources: e.g. relevant studies, reports, experience
o Emails and other logged communication internal and external. All notes are considered
public records and subject to Alaska public records act disclosure requirements.
5
Conflicts of Interest
If reviewers think they may have a potential conflict of interest, (financial or personal interest, such as
friend or family members) they will inform their supervisor immediately of the potential nature of the
conflict.
Communication management
All communication with the applicant should cc or go through the Grants Administrator
All communication with contract economists should cc or go through the Lead Economist
All communication with DNR will be facilitated by the Data Manager
Disagreements over technical or economic analysis should first be discussed with participating
parties with the goal of finding consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, a meeting with
Directors involved in the evaluation will be held and Directors will make the final decision.
Additional Information Requests
If an evaluator believes they need additional information from the applicant, they will request
the information either through or copying the Grants Administrator in their request.
Any requests for additional information will be made to the applicant by e-mail, requesting a
response in 7 days or fewer.
Applicants that fail to respond to requests for information may be rejected in any stage.
Not Recommended Applications
When an application is deemed “not recommended”, a letter will be drafted and sent to the applicant
before the start of the next round.
The evaluator will draft the letter which will clearly list all rationale which lent to their
determination. Evaluators should specifically address the requirements in the statutes,
regulations, and/or request for applications that were not satisfied.
o In Stage 1, the Grants Administrator drafts the not recommended letters.
o In Stage 2, the PMs draft the not recommended letters.
Letters will then be reviewed by the Energy Policy and Outreach Manager.
The Director of PD&E will do a final review and send the letters to applicants.
Letters will be sent to applicants no more than one week after a determination has been made.
Reconsideration Process
Any appeals from rejected applicants will be directed to the Grants Administrator. The Executive
Director will make the final determinations in accordance with regulations (3AAC 107.650).
An AEA staff member designated as the reconsideration coordinator by the Director of PD&E,
who is not participating in the current round REF evaluation, will gather information for
consideration by the Executive Director including:
o Information submitted by the applicant requesting reconsideration
o PM Evaluation Form
o Emails and logged internal and external communication
o Final economic analysis
o Other relevant material supplied by evaluation staff, the applicant, and gathered by the
reconsideration coordinator.
6
The reconsideration coordinator will facilitate all communication between AEA evaluation staff
and the ED and between the applicant and the ED.
The ED may:
(1) Concur with the decision of staff and reject the application. If the executive director concurs
with staff that the application should be rejected, the executive director should notify the
applicant in writing that the application did not advance past that stage of review and that
no further requests for reconsideration will be permitted from the applicant.
(2) Request additional information from the applicant before making a decision on the request
for reconsideration. If the executive director believes more information is needed before
she can make a decision on the request for reconsideration, the executive director may
request additional information from the applicant prior to making a determination.
(3) Require further consideration of the application under the next stage of review. If the
executive director determines that staff erred in its rejection of the application, the
executive director may require further consideration of the application under the next stage
of review (Stage 2 or Stage 3). The applicant shall be notified in writing of the executive
director’s decision.
3 AAC 107.650 Request for reconsideration:
“(a) An applicant whose application is rejected in the eligibility review or the feasibility and
public benefit review may request that the executive director of the authority reconsider the
decision of the authority's staff to reject the application. The request for reconsideration must be
in writing, including by electronic mail, must state the basis for reconsideration, and must be
received by the authority no more than 10 days after the applicant has been provided written
notice of the rejection, including notice by electronic mail. (b) The executive director may concur
with the decision of staff and reject the application, request additional information from the
applicant before making a decision, or require further consideration of the application under 3
AAC 107.645 or 3 AAC 107.655 if the executive director determines that the authority erred in its
rejection of the application.”
Preparing for a new round
REF calendar update
The assistant economist will update the annual REF calendar with input from the Director of
PD&E, the lead economist and working backwards from the date of the current year legislative
session and considering holidays.
Responsible party(s): Assistant Economist
Establish contracts
Economists, DNR, others as needed. AEA has a five year term contract for third party economic
analysis. Contracts need to be renewed each year with AEA contracting staff to allow for NTPs
for work once REF applications are ready for review. An RSA with DNR should be established
each year to allow for review of REF applications.
7
Responsible party(s): Lead Economist
RFA update
The Request for Applications is updated each year in an effort led by the Director of Program
Development and Evaluation and their designees. The RFA should be updated to reflect new
dates, changes in requirements, and any other program changes and will be accompanied by a
cover letter signed by the Executive Director. The RFA should be reviewed by at least two staff
designated by the Director, the Director of Program Development and Evaluation and the Grants
Administrator.
Responsible party(s): Director of PD&E and Grants Administrator
Applications update
As needed, the Director of Program and Evaluation will assign staff to provide updates to the
electric and heat applications to reflect any program changes or changes in requirements.
Responsible party(s): Director of PD&E
Best Practices checklists update
Each year Project Managers will review their best practices checklists and make updates as
needed.
Responsible party(s): Program Managers
Economic Model update
Updates to the economic model include annual and periodic updates. Annual updates include
updating fuel price projections, checking all links and formulas, moving all dollars to current
year, and other improvements as needed. The largest component of this work is updating the
fuel price projections. The methodology for updating fuel prices is found in the “Assumptions”
tab of the economic model and should be updated as needed.
Responsible party(s): Lead Economist (primary) and Assistant Economist
Issue RFA
After The RFA has been updated and finalized the Lead Economist will:
o Post materials on web including RFA, updated applications, economic model, and best
practices checklists. Work with IT staff.
o Send announcement of RFA release to list serve. Work with Executive Administrative
Assistant.
o Issue a press release announcing RFA and application period. Work with Communication
Director.
Responsible party(s): Lead Economist (primary responsibility) and Assistant Economist
Update appendix statuses
8
Update REF project statuses in the Alaska Energy Data Gateway. PMs will update the status of
their projects in the Gateway. This information is the basis of the Appendix that is delivered
each year to the legislature. Updating statuses begins before REF applications are due to avoid
adding work during the busy evaluation time period. The Data Manager is responsible for
tracking completion and sending reminders to PMs. Once updates are complete they will be
reviewed for: completion, grammar, ability to understand, readability and consistency in tone
and content. This review will be completed first by a staff assigned by the Lead Economist based
on workload and subsequently by the Director of Communication or their designee.
Responsible party(s): Data Manager (primary responsibility), Project Managers, and Lead
Economist
Update REval
Annual updates to REval (AEA’s database used for evaluating applications) as needed. The work
will be directed by the Assistant Economist and completed by staff assigned by IT.
Responsible party(s): Assistant Economist
Internal kickoff meeting
The purpose of the annual AEA kickoff meeting is to confirm calendar, tasks, areas of
responsibility and ensure everyone is on the same page. The Assistant Economist will work with
the Director of PD&E and the Lead Economist to develop an agenda and meeting material (if
needed) and will schedule the meeting prior to application deadline.
Responsible party(s): Assistant Economist
Contract Economist kickoff meeting
The purpose of this meeting is to confirm schedule of evaluation, clarify expectations and
describe any changes in the economic model.
Responsible party(s): Lead Economist
General Scoring Criteria
Pass/Fail scoring means either the criteria are fully met or they are not.
N/A means that the criteria does not apply to the project and should not be considered in the
evaluation.
When providing a subjective numerical score, reviewers should use the following scoring
guideline as a standard in addition to the specific formula scoring matrices for some criteria
defined in sections below.
Score Guidelines (Intent is to provide a range)
10 The application demonstrates a thorough understanding of the criteria
requirements and completely addresses them in a thoughtful manner.
There is no need for additional follow-up with the applicant to understand
how they meet the requirements of the criteria
7 The application provides information that is generally complete and well-
9
supported. Evaluators may still have a few questions regarding how the
applicant meets the criterion but it is clear the applicant understands what is
required.
5 The application addresses the criteria in an adequate way and meets
minimum requirements under each of the criteria. Some issues may still
need to be clarified prior to awarding a grant.
3 The application information is incomplete or fails to fully address what is
needed for the project or information has errors. AEA may need more info
to be able to complete the evaluation or need to resolve issues before
recommending or awarding a grant.
0 The application fails to demonstrate understanding of the criteria
requirements or project proposed. Required information is poor or absent
in the proposal.
For all numerical scores:
o Each criterion will be given a single unweighted score.
Where more than one evaluator is scoring a given criterion, the scores of all
evaluators for that criterion will be averaged.
o The score for each criterion will then be weighted according to the stage weights
applied in the current round.
o The stage score is the sum of the weighted scores for all criteria in that stage.
o The ranking score is the stage 3 score which will be used to order recommended
projects for funding priority.
Stage 1
All applications that are received will be logged on the server and entered into REval, assessed for
eligibility and completeness, and given a determination on whether they can move on to the stage 2
evaluation.
Reviewers
Administrative Assistant – log applications as they are received.
Grants Administrator – manage application submission process; ask PM’s to verify EE match;
evaluate Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6; track additional information requests; and direct reconsideration
requests to designated staff.
Director(s) – evaluate Criteria 4 and 5 and assign PMs to each application that passes Stage 1.
Project Managers – perform director’s Stage 1 evaluations and verify EE match as needed.
Criteria
Each of the numbered criteria below will be rated as pass/fail/not applicable.
Failure to meet any of these criteria results in rejection of the application.
Criteria Pass/Fail
1. Applicant Eligibility
10
2. Project Eligibility
3. Formal Authorization
4. Phase Description
5. Complete Application
6. Ownership, Site Control, and Operation
7. Design Submittal
Application must pass all Stage 1 criteria to continue to Stage 2
Stage 1 Criterion 1 Applicant Eligibility
To be eligible for a grant recommendation, the applicant must be one of the following types of entities:
An electric utility holding a certificate of public convenience and necessity under AS 42.05;
An independent power producer as defined under 3 AAC 107.695 (a) (1):
"independent power producer" means a corporation, person, agency, authority, or other legal
entity or instrumentality, that is not an electric utility and that owns or operates a facility for the
generation or production of energy entirely for use by the residents of one or more municipalities
or unincorporated communities recognized by the Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development for community revenue sharing under AS 29.60.850 - 29.60.879 and 3
AAC 180.
A local government, or
A governmental entity (which includes tribal councils and housing authorities).
Stage 1 Criterion 2 Project Eligibility
To be eligible for a grant recommendation, the project must be a:
new project not in operation on August 20, 2008 or,
an addition to an existing project made after August 20, 2008.
And be a project that generates energy from or involves the direct use of:
wind, solar, geothermal, waste heat recovery, hydrothermal, wave, tidal, river in-stream,
hydropower, or
low-emission nontoxic biomass based on solid or liquid organic fuels from wood, forest and field
residues, or animal or fish products, or
dedicated energy crops available on a renewable basis, or
landfill gas and digester gas.
“Direct use of energy” means that it either uses renewable energy to generate energy or to make
fuel used to generate energy. (3 AAC 107.615)
Or
11
be a facility that generates electricity from fuel cells that use hydrogen from renewable energy
resources or natural gas.
Or
be a natural gas project (other than landfill or digester gas) that benefits a community that:
o has a population of 10,000 or less, and
o does not have economically viable renewable energy resources that it can develop.
Or
be a transmission or distribution infrastructure located in Alaska that links an eligible renewable
energy project or eligible natural gas project to other transmission or distribution
infrastructures. For electrical projects, distribution from the grid to end users is not an eligible
use. (An applicant requesting a grant for transmission or distribution infrastructure is not
required to be involved in the financing or construction of the renewable energy project or
natural gas project it may be connecting.)
o For heat recovery systems, if the excess heat is currently being wasted, then the project is
eligible. However, Renewable Energy Fund grant funds will be allocated only to the portions
of existing fossil fuel systems that are required for the capture and distribution of heat.
Stage 1 Criterion 3 Formal Authorization
A resolution or other formal authorization of the applicant’s governing body is included with the
application to demonstrate the applicant’s commitment to the project and any proposed matching
funds are available and in the applicant’s control.
Stage 1 Criterion 4 Phase Description
The application provides a detailed description of the phase(s) of project proposed, i.e. reconnaissance
study, conceptual design/feasibility study, final design/permitting, and/or construction.
Stage 1 Criterion 5 Complete Application
The application is complete in that the information provided is sufficiently responsive to the RFA to
allow AEA to consider the application in the next stage of evaluation.
Stage 1 Criterion 6 Ownership, Site Control, and Operation
The applicant demonstrates that they will take ownership of the project; own, lease, or otherwise
control the site upon which the project is located; and upon completion of the project operate and
maintain it for its economic life for the benefit of the public.
Stage 1 Criterion 7 Design Submittal
Wind applications requesting Phase III (Final Design and Permitting) or Phase IV (Construction,
Commissioning, Operation and Reporting) funding will submit documentation necessary to demonstrate
the fulfillment of all requirements for earlier phases of the project identified in Section 2 of the RFA [i.e.
Phase II (Feasibility Analysis, Conceptual Design) or Phase III (Final Design and Permitting)]
approximately 30 days prior to the application deadline (date to be established in the RFA each year). All
other application materials for wind applications are due by the grant application deadline.
12
For all non-wind applications, the deadline for this information is the grant application deadline.
Submittals which do not demonstrate the fulfillment of all requirements of earlier phases identified in
Section 2 of the RFA by the stated deadline may result in an application being deemed incomplete
during Stage 1 review or result in an application receiving lower scores during AEA Stage 2 review.
Process
As applications arrive, the administrative assistant will assign application numbers, enter
application information into REval, and save applications to the server.
o Once all applications are received, the administrative assistant will also create CD’s and
thumb drives for distribution.
If applicants for heat projects list building efficiency investment as a form of match, the Grants
Administrator will ask the Lead Economist to work with efficiency staff and appropriate resource
PM to verify the match using documentation provided in the application. Efficiency staff will
determine whether the cited costs are reasonable for the efficiency work completed. If so, the
Lead Economist will contact the Grants Administrator to approve the match amount.
If it appears that an application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional
information, the Director may make a recommendation to the Grants Administrator to request
additional information according to the process defined in the General Information section of
this document.
The Grants Administrator and directors rate each application according to the criteria defined
above.
o Project Managers may be designated to perform the Director’s evaluations as needed.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed
Stage 1 according to the process defined in the General Information section.
Requests for reconsideration from rejected applicants in Stage 1 will be directed to the Grants
Administrator and addressed according to the process defined in the General Information
section.
Stage 2
All applications that pass Stage 1 will be reviewed for technical and economic feasibility in accordance
with the criteria below.
All projects that pass Stage 2 will be recommended for funding and will advance to Stage 3 to rank the
projects according to the ranking criteria. Applications that fail to adequately address the criteria in the
technical review may not be recommended for funding or further review. A minimum score of 40 is
required for Stage 2 in order to pass to Stage 3.
Reviewers
Project Managers – the AEA staff providing technical subject matter expertise and leading the
technical review. This PM will coordinate with the Integration PM.
Integration Project Managers – AEA staff providing technical expertise related to integrating a
renewable resource with an existing diesel system.
Staff from Department of Natural Resources – technical experts providing specific review and
comment on projects that may have issues related to permitting and natural resource
development.
Economists - contracted economist(s) who will review cost/benefit ratio and other cost and
pricing information provided for each application for the purpose of providing the authority an
13
independent assessment of the economics of the proposed project using a standardized
economic evaluation across all projects.
AEA Staff Economists – manage, oversee, and ensure equal evaluations between economists
and perform a quality assurance review of economic analysis work for projects.
Directors – oversee the work of the Project Managers.
Grant Administrator – track additional information requests and direct reconsideration requests
to designated staff.
Criteria
Each of the numbered criteria below will be scored with a numerical score 1-10 and weighted
per the percentages below.
Criteria
Round IX
Weight
1. Project Management, Development, and Operation 20%
2. Qualifications and Experience 20%
3. Technical Feasibility 20%
4a. Economic Benefit Cost Ratio 25%
4b. Financing Plan 5%
4c. Other Public Benefits 10%
Application Stage 2 weighted score must total 40.0 or higher to continue to Stage 3
Stage 2 Criterion 1 Project Management, Development, and Operation
(Maximum Stage 2 Weighted Score: 20)
Up to ten points are available and may be assigned as follows. If evaluators believe there are other
project management, development, and operation criteria that should be considered they may adjust
the score when awarding points for this criteria.
The proposed schedule is clear, realistic, and described in adequate detail.
The cost estimates for project development, operation, maintenance, fuel, and other project
items meet industry standards or are otherwise justified.
The Applicant’s communications plan, including monitoring and reporting, is described in
adequate detail.
Logistical, business, and financial arrangements for operating and maintaining the project
throughout its lifetime and selling energy from the completed project are reasonable and
described in adequate detail.
Stage 2 Criterion 2 Qualifications and Experience
(Maximum Stage 2 Weighted Score: 20)
Up to ten points are available and may be assigned as follows. If evaluators believe there are other
qualifications and experience criteria that should be considered they may adjust the score when
awarding points for this criteria.
14
If an applicant submits multiple applications the evaluation team will meet before scoring to
determine what score that applicant will receive for each project. This pre-scoring meeting will
ensure that applicants are scored consistently from project to project.
o An applicant may receive different points for experience and qualifications if there are
differences in the type of project. For example an applicant may have a lot of experience
developing biomass projects and receive maximum points but that same applicant
might receive fewer points in an area (hydro, solar, etc.) where they have less
experience.
The applicant, partners, and/or contractors have sufficient knowledge and experience to
successfully complete and operate the project.
o If the applicant has not yet chosen a contractor to complete the work, qualifications and
experience points will be based on the applicant’s capacity to successfully select
contractors and manage complex contracts/projects.
The project team has staffing, time, and other resources to successfully complete and operate
the project.
The project team is able to understand and address technical, economic, and environmental
barriers to successful project completion.
Stage 2 Criterion 3 Technical Feasibility
(Maximum Stage 2 Weighted Score: 20)
Up to ten points are available and may be assigned as follows. If evaluators believe there are other
technical feasibility criteria that should be considered they may adjust the score when awarding points
for this criteria.
The renewable energy resource is available on a sustainable basis, and project permits and
other authorizations can reasonably be obtained.
A site is available and suitable for the proposed energy system.
Project technical and environmental risks are reasonable.
The proposed energy system can reliably produce and deliver energy as planned.
Or, if a reconnaissance project is being proposed:
The renewable energy resource is present and can potentially be used for energy generation.
The proposed technology is suitable for the resources and demands of the community.
The proposed technology has reached a level of maturity necessary for the proposed
application.
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (a) Economic Benefit Cost Ratio
(Maximum Stage 2 Weighted Score: 25)
AEA staff will consider the economist evaluation when scoring this criterion. They will compare the
economist’s and any applicant supplied B/C and determine which of the B/C values may be most
appropriate. If there is wide discrepancy between the two B/C ratios they will use their best judgment
based on their understanding of the technical aspects of the proposal to assign a score. A project will be
15
scored at 0 if the Benefit Cost ratio value is < 0.90 or if no, or insufficient, information is provided by the
applicant to do an economic analysis.
Benefit / Cost (B/C) Ratio Value Score
Less than or equal to 0.90 0
>0.90 – =<1.00 1
>1.00 – =<1.10 3
>1.10 – =<1.20 4
>1.20 – =<1.30 5
>1.30 – =<1.40 6
>1.40 – =< 1.50 7
>1.50 – =< 1.60 8
>1.60 – =< 1.70 9
>1.7 10
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (b) Financing Plan
(Maximum Stage 2 Weighted Score: 5)
The Financing Plan score will be scored based on the applicant’s intent and the level of detail described
in the application on how the applicant proposes to fund the project.
Questions to be considered under these criteria:
If recommended, are funds needed to complete the work identified in the application available
and adequate to complete all the work in the grant?
If additional funds are needed does the applicant specifically identify where they will come
from?
Are these additional funds secured, or are they pending future approvals?
Is there a reasonable plan for covering potential cost increases or shortfalls in funding?
What impact, if any, would the timing of availability of additional funds have on the ability to
proceed with the grant?
For construction projects, if the above questions are addressed in the application and there is an
adequate plan, the project will be given 10 points. For all other applications, if the above questions are
addressed in the application and there is an adequate plan, this will be given a point score of 7. If the
plan is not adequate it will be scored lower based on the likelihood of funding being available to
complete the project, or additional commitments that may need to be made by the applicant prior to
award of a grant.
For example, an applicant may request funding for construction of a project that exceeds the RFA cap
but does not indicate how the additional funding will be obtained. They may receive a lower score than
an applicant who can demonstrate they have all the financial resources in place to complete the grant
work proposed in the application.
If future stages of work will be needed beyond the scope of the application (non-construction projects),
consideration should be given as to the likelihood of funding for the future stages. Three of the
available points should be scored based upon the applicant’s financing plan for future stages of the
16
project. To receive all 3 points the applicant must identify sources to complete the project, to cover cost
overruns, have the ability to raise revenue and outline a reasonable financing plan.
Stage 2 Criterion 4 (c) Other Public Benefits
(Maximum Stage 2 Weighted Score: 10)
For the purpose of evaluating this criterion, public benefits are those benefits that would be considered
unique to a given project and not generic to any renewable resource. For example, decreased
greenhouse gas emission, stable pricing of fuel source, won’t be considered under this category.
Economists will provide a qualitative assessment of potential public benefits in their project review
summary for each project they review. Economists will not provide scores for the criteria.
Each category may be scored 0-2 with the maximum total public benefit weight of no more than 10
points.
0 No documented benefit
1 Some benefit / not well documented
2 Good benefit / well documented
Process
Program Manager Analysis
The Director of PD&E will assign PMs and Integration PMs to each of the REF applications that
passes stage 1.
PMs and Integration PMs will do a quick read through of all applications assigned to them to
identify difficult and/or complex applications. A list of potentially complex or difficult projects
will be forwarded to the Directors involved in the REF evaluation. These applications will be
prioritized for review internally and with contract economists.
PMs will carefully review proposals for their assigned technology group, coordinate with
integration PMs, and provide an initial feasibility score on all criteria, a funding
recommendation, and draft statement regarding AEA’s funding recommendation.
Other Public Benefits Score
Will the project result in developing infrastructure (roads, trails, etc.) that can be used
for other purposes?
0 – 2
Will the project result in a direct long-term increase in jobs (operating, supplying fuel,
etc.)?
0 – 2
Will the project solve other problems for the community (waste disposal, food
security, etc.)?
0 – 2
Will the project generate useful information that could be used by the public in other
parts of the state?
0 – 2
Will this project either promote or sustain long-term commercial economic
development for the community?
0 – 2
Are there other public benefits identified by the applicant? 0 – 2
17
PMs will provide AEP (Annual Energy Production) estimates to the evaluation team and contract
economists for applications that significantly underestimate or overestimate possible
production.
PMs will use the evaluation template appropriate for the project technology to prepare
information and scores prior to the final evaluation of the application.
o PMs will include a summary of any correspondence with the applicant and additional
information provided to the PM that was not included in the application.
o If a PM suspects that an application may not be recommended for funding, they will
prepare a narrative which clearly and entirely explains why. PMs should reference
requirements outlined in the statutes, regulations, and request for applications
whenever possible to substantiate their determinations.
Economist Analysis
AEA will assign contract economists applications for review based on prior experience with the
project, technology or community and to balance workload.
o A list of past applications will be compared with new applicants to identify those that
have applied multiple times for one or multiple phases of funding. This information will
be shared with all involved in the evaluation process including contract economists and
DNR staff.
AEA lead economist will schedule a pre-evaluation meeting between contract economist and
appropriate PM to establish general assumptions and coordinate application review order.
Contract economists will review the economic information and provide an independent analysis
of cost and benefits of each project as well as identification of public benefits not quantified in
the cost/benefit model.
Contract economists will work with AEA staff as directed by AEA lead economist and will use
technical staff as a resource to inform their analysis. All email communication between contract
economists and AEA will copy the AEA lead economist.
If there is a difference of opinion about the economic evaluation the lead economist will
facilitate meetings to see if the two sides can come to consensus. If consensus cannot be found
a meeting will be called which includes the Directors involved in the REF evaluation and they will
make a final decision.
Community Assistance contribution
CA will provide information based on knowledge gathered through regional planning efforts and
community interactions. This narrative will be saved in the project evaluation folder.
CA will provide due diligence checks on communities including: liens, tax default, and loan
default.
Department of Natural Resources analysis
The Data Manager will deliver to DNR copies of the applications along with a list of applications
noting their lat/long and any previous REF applications for the same project.
DNR staff will provide a narrative review of any potential lands access or permitting issues that
may impact the project.
Making Recommendations in Stage 2
18
Project specific recommendations for full, partial, or no funding, as well as recommendations for
special provisions are applied during Stage 2. Projects may be recommended for partial funding,
funding of fewer phases than requested, or funding for a phase different than requested if they
are viable but the following circumstances apply:
o Documentation submitted with the application is not sufficient to justify full funding for
more than one phase of a project, or the project is not ready for the requested phase
and AEA recommends funding for a prior phase.
o Funding for proposed project development phases will not be used until late FY 2017 or
later. That is, funds will be tied up unreasonably.
o AEA believes that proposed costs are excessive for the proposed scope of work.
o The applicant requests AEA to manage the project and the AEA Project Manager can
confidently estimate a lower cost.
o The proposal includes operating costs, ineligible costs, unreasonably high costs, or other
costs not recommended for funding.
If it appears that an application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional
information, the PM may make a recommendation to the Grants Administrator to request
additional information according to the process defined in the General Information section of
this document.
If PMs make changes to the costs, phases, etc. from what was requested in the application, the
updated data should be entered into REval only in the designated AEA fields. This preserves a
record of the information that was included in the original application and also shows that the
project was altered during the evaluation process.
Applications that fail to pass will be provided written notice as to why their application failed
Stage 2 according to the process defined in the General Information section.
Requests for reconsideration from rejected applicants in Stage 2 will be directed to the Grants
Administrator and addressed according to the process defined in the General Information
section.
Stage 3
All applications that pass the technical review will be evaluated for the purpose of ranking applications
and making recommendations to the Legislature based on the following criteria which include criteria
required by 3 AAC 107.655 and AS 42.45.045.
AEA will develop a regional ranking of applications and a draft ranking of all projects for the REFAC to
review.
The REFAC will review AEA’s final Stage 3 scores and regional ranking recommendations. The REFAC may
make recommendations to assist in achieving a statewide balance but will not be rescoring based on the
criteria.
Reviewers
Grants Administrator – evaluate Criteria 2 and 7, track additional information requests, and
direct reconsideration requests to designated staff.
Two Directors – oversee the work of the Project Managers.
Project Managers – the AEA staff providing technical subject matter expertise and leading the
technical review. This PM will coordinate with the Integration PM.
19
Integration Project Managers – AEA staff providing technical expertise related to integrating a
renewable resource with an existing diesel system.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee – review regional ranking and funding
recommendations.
Criteria
Criteria listed below will be scored and weighted as noted in the following table. Additional
details regarding each criterion are in the Stage 3 criteria section below.
Criteria
Round IX
Weight
1. Cost of energy 35%
2. Matching Funds 15%
3. Project feasibility (Levelized score from Stage 2) 20%
4. Project readiness 5%
5. Public benefits 15%
6. Sustainability 5%
7. Local Support 5%
8. Regional balance P/F
9. Compliance P/F
Application Stage 3 weighted score will be used to rank projects for funding priority
Stage 3 Criterion 1 Cost of Energy
(Maximum Stage 3 Weighted Score: 35)
In Round VII, heat applications were separated from the rest of the renewable energy grant fund
applications for the first time and a new methodology was employed for scoring the cost of energy. This
scoring allowed applications to be scored either by their community’s cost of power or cost of heating
fuel, depending on the application type.
In Round IX, the calculation was changed again to incorporate both the cost of power and cost of
heating fuel in a community as well as regional differences in climate. These metrics are used to
generate an average Household Energy Cost (HEC) upon which the Cost of Energy criterion is now based
for both application types. (Refer to the Calculating Regional Cost of Energy Burden section for more
details on sources and methods involved in the HEC calculation.)
The Household Energy Cost is calculated as follows:
HEC = (cost of power*6,000 kWh/yr) + (cost of heating fuel*regional mean HH gallons/yr)
The Cost of Energy Score is then assigned using the following formula:
COE Score = (HEC) / $15,254.77 x 10, Score cannot be greater than 10
Communities with an average combined residential energy bill at or above $15,234.49 are assigned the
maximum score of 10. This value is the cost that allows 10% of all communities in the state to receive
full points for this criterion in the current year.
A spreadsheet with the cost of power and cost of heating fuel for each community in Alaska can be
20
found here: ..\..\Stage 4\COEB\COEB REF R9.xlsx
Stage 3 Criterion 2 Matching Funds
(Maximum Stage 3 Weighted Score: 15)
The Grants Administrator will calculate the application score according to the following table:
Type of Match 5
Pts
+ Percentage of
Total Match to
Total Grant
Request
10
Pts
Support of any kind referenced but not given
a specific value i.e. housing offered to
outside workers, administration of project
without compensation
1 .01% - <5% of
Grant =
1
Previous investment towards project
completion including investments in building
efficiency completed in the last 5 years if
applying for a heat project
2 =>5% - =<10% of
Grant =
2
Another grant [state] as match 3 >10% - =<15% of
Grant =
4
Another grant [fed or private] 4 >15% - =<30% of
Grant
6
Loan or local cash or any documented in-
kind match (including energy efficiency
improvements directly related to the
project)
5 >30% - =<49% of
Grant =
8
> 49% of Grant 10
Documentation must be provided on the nature and cost of building efficiency investments to be used
as in-kind match for heat projects, including:
Energy efficiency pre and post audit reports,
Invoices for work completed,
Photos of the building and work performed, and/or
Any other available verification such as scopes of work, technical drawings, and payroll for work
completed internally.
For details on the verification process for this type of match, refer to the Stage 1 Process section of this
document.
If there are multiple types of match, an average score will be generated. This average will be weighted
according to the amount of each type of match. Scoring for the percentage of match will be based upon
the sum of all types of match.
Stage 3 Criterion 3 Project Feasibility
(Maximum Stage 3 Weighted Score: 20)
21
This criterion is based on the total Stage 2 score of the application. Because of the 40 point threshold to
advance from Stage 2 to Stage 3, Stage 2 total scores are first levelized in order to allow a full range of
possible scores for this criterion. The Stage 3 Project Feasibility score will be calculated as follows:
Stage 3 Project Feasibility = (Stage 2 Total Score – 40) * (5/3)
Stage 3 Criterion 4 Project Readiness
(Maximum Stage 3 Weighted Score: 5)
Up to ten points are available and may be assigned as follows. If evaluators believe there are other
readiness criteria that should be considered they may adjust the score when awarding points for this
criteria.
For reconnaissance and feasibility projects evaluators should consider the bullets below and assign 0 to
10 points:
Proposed work is reconnaissance level and is consistent with specific recommendations under
the Alaska Energy Pathway or Regional Energy Plan.
Project is currently underway with feasibility or reconnaissance work, design work related to the
project, or actual construction of the project and the applicant is using their own funds, or funds
from another eligible source, to finance the activity.
Applicant has completed previous phase(s) of proposed project and desires additional funding
to complete the next phase.
The proposed work and timeline is reasonable and the project team has been identified and is
qualified to complete the work.
Land access and use issues have been identified and resolved, or there is a reasonable plan to
address potential land access and use issues.
For design and construction projects evaluators should consider the bullets below and assign 0 to 10
points:
Project is currently underway with feasibility or reconnaissance work, design work related to the
project, or actual construction of the project and the applicant is using their own funds, or funds
from another eligible source, to finance the activity.
Applicant has completed previous phase(s) of proposed project and desires additional funding
to complete the next phase.
Applicant has completed required feasibility and/or design work for project and is prepared to
place an order for necessary equipment for the project, such as an item with a ‘long lead time’
to procure.
Applicant has obtained all necessary permits, met all permit requirements, and addressed all
regulatory agency stipulations.
Applicants for heat projects have provided evidence of investment in and commitment to
thermal energy efficiency in the building(s) to be served by the heat project.
Stage 3 Criterion 5 Public Benefit
(Maximum Stage 3 Weighted Score: 15)
This criterion will be scored using a weighted calculation from the Stage 2 Economic Benefit Cost Ratio
(4a) and Other Public Benefit (4c) scores. Stage 3 scores are assigned using the following formula:
22
Preliminary Score = (Stage 2 Economic Benefit x .75) + (Stage 2 Other Public Benefit x .25)
Stage 3 Criterion 6 Sustainability
(Maximum Stage 3 Weighted Score: 5)
This criterion will be scored from 0 to 10 with a total Stage 3 weighting of 5% based on the evaluators’
assessment of:
The capability of the grantee to demonstrate the capacity, both administratively and financially,
to provide for the long-term operation and maintenance of the proposed project,
The likelihood of the resource being available over the life of the project, and
The likelihood of market for energy produced over the life of the project.
For heat projects the criteria will be scored from 0 to 10 based on the considerations listed above as well
as:
The condition of the building(s) to be served by the heat project, in particular how well the
applicant has demonstrated an investment in and commitment to thermal energy efficiency.
If evaluators believe there are other readiness criteria that should be considered they may adjust the
score when awarding points for this criteria.
Stage 3 Criterion 7 Local Support
(Maximum Stage 3 Weighted Score: 5)
This criterion will be scored from 0 to 10 with a total Stage 3 weighting of 5%. The Grants Administrator
will calculate the application score according to the following table:
Documented unresolved issues concerning the application: no points
will be given if these exist regardless of demonstrated support
0 points
Resolution from City, Village Council, or other local government entity
or listed in Regional Energy Plan
2 points each
Support demonstrated by local entity other than applicant 1 point each up to 6
points
Opposition demonstrated by local entity -1 point each
Letters of support from legislators do not count toward this criterion. No more than 5 points may be
given for this criterion and a negative criterion score may not be assigned regardless of the number of
demonstrated opposition by local entities.
Stage 3 Criterion 8 Regional Balance
This criterion will be rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable.
If there is more than one project from the same community or area, the project that has received an
overall higher score during the review and/or has demonstrated that local residents are in favor of the
project. Exceptions may be made for non-construction projects.
23
Stage 3 Criterion 9 Compliance
This criterion will be rated as Pass, Fail, or Not Applicable.
Evaluators will rate the applicant’s (and, if applicable, any project partner’s) compliance with previous
award requirements. Previous awards to be considered for this criterion include direct legislative energy
grants, Alternative Energy Solicitation grants (Round 0), or REF Round I-VIII grants. In rating this criteria,
evaluators will consider the following:
Has the grantee provided all necessary information for grant preparation for grants awarded
from previous solicitations?
Is the grantee making verifiable and adequate progress using previous grant funds; for this or
another project?
Has the grantee provided all required financial and progress reports, per the terms of any
previous grants?
Process
Reviewers will provide scores using each designated criterion in Stage 3.
o Two Directors or their designees and the PMs will provide scores for Criteria 4, 6, 8, and
9.
The Stage 3 Criterion 1 score will automatically be calculated in REval using HEC values entered
by staff economists before Stage 3.
The total score from Stage 2 will be automatically levelized and scored in Stage 3 Criterion 3
using the formulas outlined in this document.
The weighted average of Stage 2 Criterion 4 (a) and Stage 2 Criterion 4 (c) will be used for initial
scoring of Stage 3 Criterion 5. This score will be reviewed by the Directors.
The Grants Administrator, with staff assistance, will score Stage 3 Criterion 2 and Stage 3
Criterion 7 using the formulas and methods outlined in this document.
The evaluation team may conduct interviews of applicants to determine a more complete
understanding of the technical or financial aspects of their application.
If it appears that an application could be complete with a clarification or minor additional
information, the PM may make a recommendation to the Grants Administrator to request
additional information according to the process defined in the General Information section of
this document.
Funding Limitations on Recommendations (Sec 1.15 of RFA)
Evaluators should take these limits into account when making recommendations as the applicants were
instructed that they would be responsible for any project costs beyond the grant funds available to
complete the project.
Project Type/Phase Grant Limits
Construction projects on the Railbelt and SE
Alaska communities that have a low cost of
power.
$2 Million per project
Construction in all other areas of the state
not mentioned above.
$4 Million per project
24
Low energy cost areas are defined as communities with a residential retail electric rate of below $0.20
per kWh, before Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program funding is applied. For heat projects, low
energy cost areas are communities with natural gas available as a heating fuel to at least 50% of
residences, or availability is expected by the time the proposed project is constructed.
Recommendation Guidelines – Pre Regional Spreading (Stage 4)
The final recommendations will be one of the following:
o Recommend – Full funding per application request
o Recommend – Partial funding with a recommended funding amount
(Special Provisions may be applied to any recommended project)
o Not recommended for grant funding – (basis for not recommending to be explained)
o Did not pass Stage 2 (minimum score)
o Did not pass Stage 1
Final AEA recommendations may also suggest specific terms or conditions be imposed on the
grantee to assure the project is successful and the public receives value for the funds to be
expended.
In its final decision on an application AEA may recommend funding for fewer phases or earlier
phases than the applicant requested. For example, if an application asks for construction
funding but a feasibility study is still needed, AEA can give the applicant the opportunity to
accept a recommendation for feasibility funding. If the applicant does not accept an earlier
phase of funding, the project may be considered premature and not recommended for funding.
Multi-phase funding guidelines
o Fund multiple phases: Multiple phases can be completed in FY 2016/17, and project is
well-defined, relatively inexpensive, and low-risk.
o Fund limited phases: Later phases would not occur until 2017 or later, not well-defined,
expensive, higher risk, or there are competing projects for which planning is desirable.
Competing or interactive projects guidelines
o If AEA is aware of the potential for substantial interaction among proposed and/or other
known projects, then recommend planning with appropriate level of analysis and public
input before committing substantial funding to one or more alternatives.
Partial funding guidelines
o Partial funding levels will correspond to amount proposed in phases that are
recommended.
o Exception 1: If AEA believes project can be built for less, then lower figure can be
recommended. AEA will provide justification for lower figure in its recommendations.
o Exception 2: Proposal requests funding for operating expense (labor, fuel) or non-
renewable energy components (e.g. a diesel generator) not eligible for funding.
o Exception 3: If limiting funding to a maximum dollar limit for specific areas, groups, or
types of projects would provide the best statewide balance of funds AEA may do that.
Guidelines for recommendations for bio-fuels Projects (RFA 1.14)
o Bio-fuel projects where the applicant does not intend to generate electricity or heat for
sale to the public will be limited to reconnaissance and feasibility phases only.
Consideration of resource assessment projects
o Resource assessment associated with one or more site-specific projects is eligible for
phase 2 funding. General regional or statewide assessment, not tied to particular
proposed projects, is not eligible, and more appropriately done through other programs.
Recommendation guidelines will be documented and a part of the grant file.
25
Ranking applications: Applications will be ranked based on final Stage 3 score.
Stage 4
All applications recommended for grants as a result the Stage 3 evaluation will be ranked in accordance
with 3 AAC 107.660.
To establish a statewide balance of recommended projects, AEA provides to the REFAC a statewide and
regional ranking of all applications recommended for funding in Stage 3.
In consultation with the REFAC, AEA makes a final prioritized list of all recommended projects giving
significant weight to providing a statewide balance for grant money and, taking into consideration the
amount of money that may be available, the number and types of project within each region, regional
rank, and statewide rank of each application.
Reviewers
Directors – examine results of allocation cost of power basis and regions identified as
overserved or underserved and approve resulting adjustments to project ranking.
Executive Director – examine results of allocation cost of power basis and regions identified as
overserved or underserved and approve resulting adjustments to project ranking.
AEA Staff Economists – perform Stage 4 regional spreading procedure and produce ranking
sheets and analysis for REFAC review.
Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee – review regional ranking and funding
recommendations.
Process
AEA will prepare a summary of the draft recommendations by energy region that will compare potential
allocations of funding based on the Governor’s proposed budget for the following fiscal year. This
summary will compare the grant funding allocations to each region by the regional cost of energy
burden weighted according to the populations of each community in the region.
Calculating Regional Cost of Energy Burden (COEB)
The cost of energy burden for a region is estimated using community-based cost of electricity, space
heat, household income and population weighting community results.
Electricity: All households (HH) are assumed to consume 500kWh/month of electricity. Cost of
electricity is the current year residential rate taken from PCE and other sources.
Household heating fuel consumption is based on the 2014 Cold Climate Housing Research
Center housing assessment http://www.cchrc.org/publications. The cost of heating fuel is from
the DCRA community fuel price survey
https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/ResearchAnalysis/FuelPriceSurvey.aspx and
proxies for those communities not surveyed.
Median income is based on the 5-year average American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by
the US Census Bureau.
Community level information is population weighted for the regional COEB which is used in
regional spreading.
Cost of Energy Burden = (HH cost of electric + HH heat energy) / HH income
26
A region is considered under-served if they have received less than 50% of their target funding
allocation. Each region’s target funding allocation is based on cumulative REF funding and the regions’
population weighted cost of energy burden. A workbook updating the inputs to the COEB calculation
and generating the regional spreading table below is saved in the Stage 4 folder each year.
Recommendation Cost of Power
Energy Region
Total Prior
Rounds
Funding
% of Total
Funding
Cost
burden
(HH
cost/HH
income)
Allocation cost
of power basis
Additional
funding
needed to
reach 50%
Aleutians
Bering Straits
Bristol Bay
Copper River/Chugach
Kodiak
Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim
North Slope
Northwest Arctic
Railbelt
Southeast
Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper
Tanana
Statewide
TOTAL
In order to attain the goal of regional spreading AEA will refer to the Stage 3 statewide ranking list and
limit regions of the state that have received more than twice their regional funding target; these regions
will not be allowed to grow their current share of REF cumulative funding. AEA may also move
recommended projects up the list if they are found to be in an underserved region. No project will be
moved from the not recommended list the recommended list, regardless of which region they fall into.
A top tier of applications will be defined that fit within the Governor’s budget and the remaining
recommended applications will fall into a second tier. The REFAC may provide additional
recommendations to AEA as to the funding level of individual projects, the final ranking of projects, and
the total amount of funding and number of projects AEA recommends to the legislature.
The final list of recommended projects for funding will provide a reasonable statewide balance of funds
taking into consideration the overall score, the cost of energy burden, and the rank of projects within a
region.
Recommendations to the Legislature
The final recommendation to the legislature is delivered in the form of the legislative status report
which is printed for delivery to the legislature and posted on the AEA website.
The final recommendation to the legislature may also contain specific information for each project as
requested by the legislature and a summary of each project. Applicants may be required to provide
additional information to the Legislature upon request.
27
Creating the Status Report
Project manager: Lead Economist
Other staff/contractor resources: Assistant Economist, graphic design contractor, ISER
Reviewers: PD&E PMs, PD&E Director, Director of Communications, Executive Director
The Status Report is created in In-Design, all files are kept in the Status Report folder within the
appropriate REF round.
Updating charts
Figure 1
Actual and projected fuel displacement (bar chart). Excel file called “Figure 1 annual fuel
displaced”.
o Use performance report table from Alaska Energy Data Gateway for actual fuel
displacement projections.
o All REF projects funded through final design and/or construction and not yet generating
are included in the projected fuel displaced. Start dates are estimated based on
Gateway and updated with PM input.
Figure 2
REF prior round projects map
o This is a GIS map updated by AEA GIS staff. The list of funded projects from the most
recent REF round is assigned latitudes/longitudes by AEA Data Manager and used to
generate the comprehensive REF project map.
Figure 3
Funding by energy resource (pie chart).
o Pull Gateway report on funded projects for all rounds by resource. Compare to past year
totals.
o Work with grants to finalize numbers in the spreadsheet titled “Figures 3 & 4” in the
status report folder.
Figure 4
Funded grants by energy region
o Pull Gateway report on funded projects for all rounds by resource. Compare to past year
totals.
o Work with grants to finalize numbers in the spreadsheet titled “Figures 3 & 4” in the
status report folder.
NPV Currently operating projects
Update spreadsheet called “Figure 5 NPV chart for energy stats” (bar chart)
o Add all projects that have started generating in the previous year to the list of currently
operating projects. The Data Manager should have this list as part of performance
reporting tracking.
28
o Use the estimated NPV of capital costs and NPV of benefits from the economic analysis
to calculate an overall b/c for the program and generate the chart.
Grant and Funding Summary table
This table is generated by the Grants Administrator and totals must be reconciled with other
expressions of funding spent.
Performance of REF currently operating projects table
REF project operators have to submit performance reports two times per year at minimum,
once to report on the first three quarters of the year ending Sept 30 and again to report on the
final quarter.
Performance reporting is managed by the AEA Data Manager and supervised by the Lead
Economist. Review of information submitted by applicants is performed first by the Data
Manager to identify illogical values and then (once those are resolved) by the PM most
knowledgeable about the project. The Data Manager is responsible for uploading the
information into the Gateway and ensuring that the dataset is complete.
Current REF Recommended Rank List tables
Combined recommended list
o This table is generated in excel and ranks all recommended current round REF applicants
statewide, separating into a top tier (within the Governor’s budget) and a 2nd tier
(outside the Governor’s budget but still recommended).
Separated heat and electric recommended list
o This table is generated in excel and ranks all recommended current round REF applicants
statewide, separating into two lists, one for heat projects and one for electric projects.
Within each list (heat and electric) there is a top tier (within the Governor’s budget) and
a 2nd tier (outside the Governor’s budget but still recommended).
Applications not recommended for funding
o This excel generated list is ranked by final score.
All tables are presented with supporting notes.
Heat and standard application recommendations are also displayed in map and bar chart format
(both funding by resource and funding by region). The Data Manager will produce the maps
based on lat/long for all recommended projects and the charts are generated based on the
funding recommendations tables.
Narrative: Each year the narrative is updated and adjusted based on current conditions and on
feedback received from the legislature and the public in the past year. The Director of PD&E
should make the final determination about any changes to the narrative sections.
Photos for the Status Report should be selected from the library of REF project photos housed in
the Gateway.