Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
REF Round X Status Report
January 2017 STATUS REPORT AND ROUND X RECOMMENDATIONS RENEWABLEENERGY FUND akenergyauthority.org ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY 813 West Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, Alaska 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 Toll Free (Alaska Only)888-300-8534 AEA’s mission: Reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. 813 West Northern Lights Blvd.Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000Fax: (907) 771-3044 Toll Free (Alaska Only) 888-300-8534 2 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund provides benefits to Alaskans by assisting communities across the state to both reduce and stabilize the cost of energy. The program also creates jobs, uses local energy resources and keeps money in local economies. Managed by AEA, the REF provides funding for the development of qualifying and competitively selected renewable energy projects in Alaska. The program is designed to produce cost-effective renewable energy for heat and power. As the program matures, the quality of proposed projects continues to grow as does the knowledge base for designing, constructing and operating renewable energy projects in Alaska’s diverse climates and terrain. Operational REF projects have an overall benefit cost ratio of 2.51 based on total known project cost, of which State funding is only a portion. Investing in renewable energy will provide price stability and will save Alaska communities millions of dollars for decades to come. This status report is provided to the legislature in compliance with the program’s legislative reporting requirements. From 2008 to 2015, appropriations totaling $257 million have been issued for Renewable Energy Fund (REF) projects. This funding has been matched with hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from local sources to develop projects that reduce and stabilize the cost of energy in Alaska communities. In the 2016 legislative session, there were no appropriations made to the REF. In recognition of the State’s current fiscal challenges, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), in consultation with the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC), made the decision not to release a solicitation for applications for Round X of the REF and instead to supply the legislature with the list of projects that were recommended for Round IX funding for consideration during the 2017 legislative session. INTRODUCTION CONTENTS: This 2017 status report has two parts and a separate appendix: 1. A summary analysis of projects funded to date, including the performance and savings associated with projects that are currently generating heat and power. (pg. 1 - 8) 2. A summary of AEA’s recommendations to the Legislature for funding in 2017. These pages are largley unchanged from those presented to the legislature in 2016. (pg. 9 - 19) An appendix of individual project scopes and statuses for funded projects accompanies this report. It is available in searchable PDF form at www.akenergyauthority.org Additional information is available on AEA’s website www.akenergyauthority.org and includes: • Appendix of project statuses (Rounds I - VIII) • Economic evaluations (Round I - IX) • Application summaries (Round I - IX) This report only includes performance of REF funded projects and thus is not a complete view of renewable energy production in Alaska. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2009Actual 2010Actual 2011Actual 2012Actual 2013Actual 2014Actual 2015Actual 2016Actual*2017Projected 2018Projected 2019ProjectedFuel Displaced (diesel equivalent, gallons)MillionsEstimated Balance Biomass Heat Pump Heat Recovery Hydro Biofuel Solar Transmission Wind Wind to Heat FUEL DISPLACED (diesel equivalent, gallons)MILLIONSFigure 1 shows continued strong growth in energy generation and fuel displacement. Renewable Energy Fund projects saved Alaska communities an estimated 21.2 million gallons of diesel fuel (equivalent) in the first three quarters of 2016, a savings of nearly $44 million dollars. The majority of projects that became operational in 2016 were heat projects which now comprise 44 percent of all operating. 2010ACTUAL 2011 ACTUAL 2012ACTUAL 2013ACTUAL 2015 ACTUAL 2016 ACTUAL* 2017 PROJECTED 2019PROJECTED 25 20 15 10 5 0 Wind / Heat Wind Transmission Biofuel Solar PV Hydro Heat Recovery Heat Pumps Biomass JANUARY 2017 | 19 RECONNAISSANCE: A preliminary feasibility study designed to ascertain whether a feasibility study is warranted. FEASIBILITY/CONCEPTUAL DESIGN: Detailed evaluation intended to assess technical, economic, financial, and operational viability and to narrow focus of final design and construction. This category also includes resource assessment and monitoring. FINAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING: Project configuration and specifications that guide construction. Includes land use and resource permits and leases required for construction. CONSTRUCTION: Completion of project construction, commissioning, and beginning of operations. This category also includes follow-up operations and maintenance reporting requirements. DIESEL EQUIVALENT GALLON: Most REF communities are displacing diesel fuel (Diesel #2), however some projects displace natural gas, naphtha, propane or Diesel #1. In those instances the displaced fuel is converted to BTUs and then expressed as diesel equivalent gallons for reporting purposes. B/C: The B/C, or benefit/cost ratio is the total net present value of savings over the life of a project divided by the net present value of a project’s total cost. The assumed project life is 50 years for hydro and transmission, 30 years for solar PV and 20-25 years for all others. The B/C is one component of the overall project score; it is possible for a project to score DEFINITIONS ANSWERS TO COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS high enough in other areas (e.g. being high cost of energy) to be recommended with a B/C of less than 1. B/C ratios are calculated using best available data appropriate for the project’s development phase. Early phase projects use assumptions based on prior similar experience, late phase projects use refined project models and are much more certain. AEA attempts to be as realistic as possible when using assumptions for early phase projects, while also attempting to avoid rejecting potentially good early-phase projects due to overly conservative assumptions. TECHNICAL/ECONOMIC SCORE: This score is based on a project’s technical and economic viability. The technical score considers resource availability, maturity of the proposed technology, the technical viability of the proposed project, and the qualifications and experience of the project team. The economic score is based on the projected costs and benefits associated with the project including consideration of the future price of fuel, current and future local demand for energy and the ability of the applicant to finance the project to completion. ENERGY COST BURDEN: Household energy cost divided by household income. WHAT IMPACT DO REF PROJECTS HAVE ON RATES? It depends. Some electrical projects will lower rates immediately and some may only stabilize rates and keep them from increasing over time due to inflation and changing fuel costs. Heating projects result in immediate and direct fuel savings costs to the building owners. DO POWER COST EQUALIZATION (PCE) COMMUNITIES BENEFIT FROM THE REF? Yes, in a number of ways: 1. Statewide, in PCE communities, about 30 percent of total kWhs sold are eligible for the PCE subsidy. That means that any savings from REF projects are passed directly to the other 70 percent of kWhs sold. Schools and privately owned businesses benefit greatly from reduced cost of electricity. 2. REF projects provide stability in the face of uncertain and often volatile fuel prices. 3. 100 percent of the value created by heat projects stays in the community. 4. REF projects create local employment opportunities and local energy independence. WHICH PROJECTS ARE THE BEST FIT FOR REF FUNDING? • Technically strong • Economically viable • Located in high energy cost communities • Provides public benefit • Matching funds provided HOW MUCH ARE REF PROJECTS REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS? 2009-2016, an estimated 857,875 metric tons of CO2. 2018PROJECTED 30 2014 ACTUAL 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Projected The Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee is comprised of nine members, five of whom are appointed by the governor to staggered three-year terms, with representation from each of the following groups: • One member from a small Alaska rural electric utility, Brad Reeve • One member from a large Alaska urban electric utility, Bradley Evans • One member from an Alaska Native organization, Jodi Mitchell • One member from businesses or organizations engaged in the renewable energy sector, Chris Rose • One member from the Denali Commission, Kathleen Wasserman • Four remaining members come from the legislature: • Two members of the House of Representatives, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rep. Bryce Edgmon and Rep. Jim Colver • Two members of the Senate, appointed by the President of the Senate, Sen. Lyman Hoffman and Sen. Anna MacKinnon RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ADVISORY COMMITTEE In establishing the program, the REFAC worked with AEA to define eligibility criteria for the Renewable Energy Fund grants, to develop methods for ranking projects, and to adopt regulations identifying criteria to evaluate the benefit and feasibility of projects seeking legislative support. The REFAC continues to consult with AEA, offering valuable guidance and policy direction regarding the application and evaluation process, and final funding recommendations. Following is a summary of REFAC involvement with REF in Round X. • AEA staff and REFAC members met in June 2016 to update members of operating projects and active grants and to discuss a path forward for Round X of the Renewable Energy Fund. • In recognition of the State’s current fiscal challenges and in an effort to not unduly burden potential applicants the REFAC supported the decision to not issue a request for new applications. • Instead, the same list of ranked recommended projects that were provided to the legislature for FY16 funding consideration but did not receive funding, will be resubmitted for FY17 funding consideration. 18 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 Millions JANUARY 2017 | 3 Figure 4 shows cumulative grant funding by AEA energy region totaling to $257 million in rounds I-VIII. The three highest recipients to date are Southeast with $60 million, Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim with $36.6 million, and Railbelt with $28.2 million. $0 FUNDED GRANTS BY ENERGY REGION ($ millions) ROUNDS I-VIII FUNDED GRANTS BY ENERGY RESOURCE ($ millions) ROUNDS I-VIII Figure 2 below demonstrates the wide geographic distribution of REF projects across all areas of the state. Most funding is provided to high cost-of-energy communities. Figure 3 shows funding by energy resource, with wind and hydro grants making up just less than 70 percent of total funding. RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PROJECTS ROUNDS I-VIII Hydro $84.8 Biomass $27.0 Heat Recovery $20.3 Heat Pumps $16.4 Trans-mission $12.5 Ocean/ River $3.9 Solar $0.5 Other $0.1 Wind $91.5 Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River/Chugach Kodiak Lower Y-K North Slope Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Statewide Y-K/Upper Tanana $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 Brad Reeve Senator Hoffman Senator MacKinnonRep. ColverRep. Edgmon Jodi Mitchell Kathy WassermanBradley Evans Chris Rose $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 PV Capital Cost PV Benefits$ MillionsREF CURRENTLY OPERATING PROJECTS Biofuel Biomass Heat Pumps Heat Recovery Hydro Solar Transmission Wind • The present value of the capital expenditures used to build the 66 projects that were operational by the third quarter of 2016 is $562 million and the present value of benefits is $1,413 million. Based on the present value of capital cost and future estimated benefits, these projects have an overall benefit-cost ratio of 2.51. • For every dollar invested, these projects have an estimated return of $2.51. It is important to note that the REF invested $158 million of total project costs in these 66 projects. The balance was invested from other sources. • The technology with the largest number of generating projects continues to be wind, at 27 percent. This share has declined each year since 2013 when wind projects represented 40 percent of all REF projects. • Biomass projects continue to come online and currently account for 20 percent of all active projects. Heat recovery projects make up an additional 20 percent of operational projects; these projects take heat from diesel powerhouse engines that would otherwise be wasted and put that heat to use in buildings and water systems, displacing thousands of gallons of costly heating fuel. • The large majority of both capital cost and future benefit are from hydroelectric and wind projects. This is because of a handful of relatively large hydro and wind projects in more populated parts of the state including the Railbelt, Kodiak and Sitka. • Three additional projects have come online in the fourth quarter of 2016 and will be included in the May 2017 update of this report. • See pages 6 and 7 for information about where these $1.4 billion of benefits accrue. Renewable Energy Fund Rounds I – VIII Grant and Funding Summary As of January 18, 2017 Round I Round II Round III Round IV Round V Round VI Round VII Round VIII Round IX Totals Applications Received Applications Funded Grants Currently in Place Amount Requested1 ($M) AEA Recommended ($M) Appropriated ($M) Match Budgeted ($M)5 1. Total grant amount requested, all applications. 2. $26.6 Million was appropriated for Round IV, and an additional $10.0 million was reappropriated from rounds I, II and III for use in Round IV. 3. $20.0 Million was appropriated for Round VII, and an additional $2.8 million was reappropriated from previous rounds for use in round VII. 4. $9.5 million was reappropriated from Mt. Spurr Geothermal Project (FSSLA 2011 CH5, P137) for Round VIII and $2 million was reappropriated from previous rounds for use in Round VIII. 5. Represents only match recorded in active and completed grants does not capture all funding needed to complete all phase of the project. 1. Total grant amount requested by all applicants. 2. $26.6 million was appropriated for round IV, and an additional $10 million was re- appropriated from previous rounds for use in round IV. 3. $20 million was appropriated for round VII, and an additional $2.8 million was re- appropriated from previous 4 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT PERFORMANCE & SAVINGS REF CURRENTLY OPERATING PROJECTS - 2016 Q3 GRANT AND FUNDING SUMMARY rounds for use in round VII. 4. $9.5 million was re-appropriated from the Mt. Spurr geothermal project (FSSLA 2011 CH5, P137) for round VIII, and an additional $2.0 million was re-appropriated from previous rounds for use in round VIII. 5. Represents only amounts recorded in active and completed grants, does not capture all funding needed to construct the project. NOTES: JANUARY 2017 | 17 RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ROUND X | RECOMMENDED HEAT PROJECTS $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River/ Chugach Kodiak Lower Yukon- Kuskokwim North Slope Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/ UpperTanana $ Millions$0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0 Biomass Heat Pumps Heat Recovery $ Millions HEAT PROJECTS BY RESOURCE HEAT PROJECTS BY REGION The two bar charts show Round IX recommended projects by energy resource and by region for heat projects. None of these projects received funding for FY16 and are being resubmitted for consideration for FY17 funding. The top three ranked heat projects are heat recovery projects, two in the Bering Straits and one in the Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana energy regions. $MILLIONSFigure 5 shows the present value (PV) of the 66 projects that are operational at end of Q3 2016. Heat Recovery Heat Pumps Biomass $0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0 Y-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Railbelt NW Arctic North Slope Lower Y-Kuskokwim Kodiak Copper River Chugach Bering Straits Bristol Bay Aleutians $0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $ Millions$ Millions 16 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND ROUND X | RECOMMENDED STANDARD PROJECTS $0.0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 Aleutians Bering Straits Bristol Bay Copper River/ Chugach Kodiak Lower Yukon- Kuskokwim North Slope Northwest Arctic Railbelt Southeast Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper… $ Millions$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 Hydro Other Solar PV Storage of Renewable Transmission Wind $ Millions STANDARD PROJECTS BY RESOURCE STANDARD PROJECTS BY REGION The two bar charts show Round IX recommended funding by energy resource and by region for standard projects. None of these projects received funding for FY16 and all but one are being resubmitted for consideration for FY17 funding. Waterfall Creek, a hydroelectric project in King Cove, was recomended for Round IX funding but has since secured financing through AEA’s Power Project Fund loan program and the Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority to construct the project. Developing a hydro project in the Allison Creek drainage was a concept considered for many decades. In 2016, modern equipment, efficient contracting and construction and funding from the REF program. coupled with the dedication of Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA), converged to make the Allison Creek Hydroelectric Project a reality. The project serves more than 8,000 members of the CVEA cooperative in 15 communities in Southcentral Alaska. Like most rural areas, the high and variable cost of fuel is a burden. The Allison Creek project reduces dependence on fossil fuels and provides electric cost-stability and certainty in the region. The Allison Creek project will provide an additional 15 GWh of hydro power on an annual basis. However, should demand in the area grow, the project has the potential to generate about 23 GWh annually. Total estimated fuel savings from the Allison Creek hydro is 725,000 gallons annually at present day demand. The Allison Creek Project is a run of river (ROR) hydro project that is operated in conjunction with the existing Solomon Gulch storage hydro project to displace diesel generation to meet the demands of the service area. RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND SUCCESS STORY JANUARY 2017 | 5 REF AWARDS | $10.3 million DIRECT STATE APROPRIATION | $10 million MATCHING FUNDS | $34.7 million TOTAL PROJECT COST | $55 million EXPECTED PROJECT LIFE | 50 years ALLISON CREEK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT The project has a capacity of 6.5 MW and will displace 15 gigawatt-hours of diesel-generated electricity annually The Allison Creek hydro project involved construction of a diversion structure at an elevation of 1,300 feet which diverts up to 80 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water from the creek into a 40 inch buried steel penstock to generate 6.5 megawatts of power via a single twin jet Pelton turbine. Major features of the infrastructure include: A 16 foot high diversion structure above a glacial moraine foundation spanning approximately 95 feet across Allison Creek. A 7,900 foot long steel penstock ranging in size from 40 inch diameter at the intake to 36 inch diameter at the powerhouse. A 700 foot long 16 foot diameter tunnel housing the 36 inch diameter penstock. A 65 foot x 65 foot powerhouse with a floor slab to peak roof height of 48 feet, pitched to guide snow away from parking and the entrance to the building. The building also supports a large crane for handling the generation equipment. A single twin jet 6.5 MW Canyon Pelton turbine and a tailrace located above the anadromous salmon reach of lower Allison Creek. A 3.8 mile long 34.5 kV transmission line to the Copper Valley switching station near the Petro Star facility along Dayville Road. Chevak wind turbines Gambell Alaska, photo credit Carl Remley Y-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana Southeast Railbelt NW Arctic North Slope Lower Y-Kuskokwim Kodiak Copper River Chugach Bering Straits Bristol Bay Aleutians $0 $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 $0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 $25.0 $ Millions $ Millions Wind Transmission Storage of RE Solar Other Hydro 6 2 3 4 5 14 15 16 17 Technology Type Fuel Displaced Grantee Project Name Start date Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) 1 Hydro Natural Gas Chugach Electric Association, Inc.Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake 08/15 2,994 - 401 142 4,002 - 536 190 6,995 - 936 332 2 Hydro Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co-op Gartina Falls - Hoonah 07/15 568 - 38 144 867 - 59 184 1,435 - 97 328 3 Hydro Diesel Chignik Lagoon Power Utility Packers Creek 03/15 562 - 52 235 546 - 51 177 1,108 - 103 412 4 Hydro Diesel City of Akutan Akutan Hydro 12/14 11 - 1 5 47 - 5 14 58 - 7 19 5 Hydro Diesel City and Borough of Sitka Blue Lake Expansion 11/14 59,272 - 4,559 14,594 44,729 - 3,441 8,361 112,756 - 8,674 25,110 6 Hydro Diesel City of Ketchikan Whitman Lake 10/14 8,762 - 674 2,851 6,231 - 479 1,256 17,480 - 1,345 4,916 7 Hydro Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Terror Lake 01/14 118,044 - 8,432 34,233 93,272 - 6,662 19,987 220,621 - 15,714 56,980 8 Hydro Diesel Cordova Electric Co-op Humpback Creek 07/11 3,074 - 236 768 3,331 - 256 743 17,801 - 1,364 4,698 9 Hydro Diesel Gustavus Electric Falls Creek 07/09 2,149 - 165 613 1,682 - 129 424 13,734 - 1,022 3,740 10 Hydro Diesel City of Atka Chuniixsax Creek 12/12 381 - 29 150 226 - 17 119 1,283 - 99 553 11 Landfill Gas Nat Gas Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage Landfill Gas 08/12 50,032 - 4,783 1,079 33,772 - 3,229 586 186,685 - 17,815 8,131 12 Solar PV Diesel Alaska Power Company Eagle Solar Array Project 01/16 - - - - 17 - 1 6 17 - 1 6 13 Solar PV Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Kaltag Solar 10/12 8 - 1 2 8 - 1 3 34 - 2 10 14 Transmission Diesel AK Electric Light & Power Snettisham - Juneau 01/14 936 - 72 112 936 - 72 157 2,807 - 216 381 15 Transmission Diesel Alaska Power & Telephon North Prince of Wales Intertie 09/11 1,352 - 104 289 1,222 - 94 264 5,745 - 406 1,312 16 Transmission Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Wind Transmission 10/10 1,650 - 102 307 982 - 60 151 8,130 - 488 1,490 17 Wind Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Peak Wind Expansion 08/13 1,642 - 100 304 753 - 46 115 4,290 - 262 807 18 Wind Diesel Northwest Arctic Borough Buckland, Deering, Noorvik Wind Farm 01/16 - - - - 95 - 7 40 95 - 7 40 19 Wind Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.Eva Creek 10/12 72,639 - 5,115 8,324 49,428 - 3,481 4,355 278,547 - 19,616 41,029 20 Wind Diesel Kotzebue Electric Association Kotz Wind-Battery-Diesel 05/12 2,511 - 171 542 2,001 - 136 369 11,909 - 810 2,718 21 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Shaktoolik Wind 04/12 283 - 22 84 354 - 27 114 1,287 - 99 398 22 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind 09/11 327 - 23 84 563 - 40 206 2,450 - 174 725 23 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Quinhagak Wind Farm 11/10 403 - 31 115 495 - 38 189 2,833 - 213 877 24 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Mekoryuk Wind Farm 11/10 180 - 13 48 115 - 8 50 1,056 - 72 289 25 Wind Naphtha Alaska Environmental Power Delta Area Wind Turbines 09/10 2,013 - 130 351 938 - 61 159 9,983 - 626 1,615 26 Wind Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Pillar Mountain Wind 09/10 29,107 - 2,050 5,417 21,620 - 1,523 2,750 146,304 - 10,297 30,831 27 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Toksook Wind Farm 08/09 168 - 12 46 563 - 41 248 1,722 - 123 552 ELECTRICAL PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 359,069 - 27,317 70,838 268,794 - 20,500 41,215 1,057,164 - 80,588 188,296 28 Hydro Diesel City of Pelican Pelican Hydro Upgrade 03/13 1,298 - 93 415 869 - 62 191 3,880 431 282 1,174 29 Biomass Diesel AK Gateway School District Tok Wood Heating 10/10 306 6,136 59 124 71 3,794 37 106 646 29,216 276 769 30 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Unalaska Unalaska Heat Recovery 09/14 470 - 36 114 406 - 31 54 956 - 74 188 31 Wind/Heat Diesel Tuntutuliak Comm Svs Assoc.Tunt Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 01/13 215 128 17 64 181 - 14 67 747 696 57 246 32 Wind/Heat Diesel Kwigillingok Power Company Kwig Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 02/12 464 238 38 126 271 153 22 104 994 696 82 321 33 Wind/Heat Diesel Aleutian Wind Energy Sand Point Wind 08/11 974 360 72 326 742 - 55 248 4,580 773 336 1,539 34 Wind/Heat Diesel Puvurnaq Power Company Kong Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 12/10 330 435 29 96 364 420 32 145 1,602 2,033 141 568 35 Wind/Heat Diesel Unalakleet Valley Electric Co Unalakleet Wind Farm 12/09 972 228 72 273 925 - 67 305 6,561 779 471 1,747 ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 5,029 7,525 416 1,537 3,828 4,367 319 1,218 19,966 34,624 1,718 6,552 36 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Chevak Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 - 121 1 6 - 73 1 4 - 195 2 10 37 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Gambell Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 474 174 2 6 - 85 1 4 - 294 3 11 38 Biomass Diesel Ketchikan Gateway Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass Heat 08/16 - - - - - 190 2 1 - 190 2 1 39 Biomass Diesel Venetie Village Council Venetie District Heating 02/16 - - - - - 307 3 27 - 307 3 27 40 Biomass Diesel City of Kobuk Upper Kobuk River Biomass 01/16 - - - - - 247 3 13 - 247 3 13 41 Biomass Diesel Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Pen Wood Boilers 01/15 - 45 0 2 - 35 0 2 - 81 1 4 42 Biomass Diesel Interior Regional Housing Wood Heating Interior Commmunities 01/15 - 272 3 10 - 911 8 42 - 1,183 11 52 43 Biomass Diesel Mentasta Traditional Council Mentasta Community Facility Heat 10/14 - 542 5 22 - 705 6 11 - 1,247 11 33 44 Biomass Diesel City of Tanana Tanana City-Tribe Biomass 01/14 - 1,360 11 57 - 554 5 23 - 3,886 35 131 45 Biomass Diesel Southeast Island School District Thorne Bay School Biomass 01/13 - 2,121 19 64 - 487 4 6 - 4,241 38 106 46 Biomass Diesel Native Village of Eyak Cordova Wood Processing 12/11 - 840 7 28 - 1,066 8 22 - 5,986 48 170 47 Biomass Diesel Chilkoot Indian Association Haines Central Wood Heating 10/11 - 141 2 2 - - - - - 852 8 18 48 Biomass Diesel Delta/Greely School District Delta Wood Chip Heating 09/11 - 3,339 32 105 - 1,370 13 24 - 16,407 158 495 49 Biomass Diesel Gulkana Village Council Gulkana Central Wood Heating 10/10 - 198 2 6 - 379 4 8 - 4,377 40 132 50 Heat Pumps Diesel Cook Inlet Housing Authority Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump 01/16 - - - - - 205 2 1 - 205 2 1 51 Heat Pumps Diesel City of Seward Sealife Center Seawater Heat Pump 11/11 - 4,179 40 105 - 2,090 20 18 - 16,599 160 391 52 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Airport Ground Source Heat Pump 05/11 - 6,400 46 153 - 6,400 46 145 - 36,117 266 899 53 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Aquatic Cntr Ground Source Heat Pump 04/11 - 4,621 39 68 - 2,955 25 30 - 17,920 152 350 54 Heat Recovery Diesel Native Village of Quinhagak Heat Recovery Water Plant & Washeteria 12/15 - - - - - 625 6 28 - 625 6 28 55 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Marshall Heat Recovery - Marshall Water Plant & Store 09/15 - - - - - 1,703 15 80 - 1,703 15 80 56 Heat Recovery Diesel Atmautluak Traditional Council Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery 08/15 - - - - - 64 1 4 - 64 1 4 57 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Saint Paul Electric Utility Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade 02/15 - 5,680 51 265 - 3,414 31 114 - 9,094 82 379 58 Heat Recovery Diesel Sleetmute Traditional Council Heat Recovery to Water Plant 11/14 - 176 2 9 - 175 2 8 - 351 3 17 59 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Savoonga Savoonga Heat Recovery - Water Plant 10/14 - - - - - 1,214 9 46 - 1,214 9 46 60 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Ambler Ambler Heat Recovery 10/13 - 494 5 26 - 315 3 18 - 1,325 14 103 61 Heat Recovery Diesel North Slope Borough Point Lay Heat Recovery 08/13 - 1,555 15 71 - 827 8 14 - 4,535 43 182 62 Heat Recovery Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co-op Hoonah Heat Recovery Project 08/12 - 4,099 39 148 - 14,606 140 441 - 29,411 283 1,029 63 Heat Recovery Diesel City and Borough of Wrangell Wrangell Hydro Electric Boilers 02/11 - 7,588 78 25 - 2,385 25 69 - 40,063 408 734 64 Heat Recovery Diesel McGrath Light & Power McGrath Heat Recovery 05/10 - 2,390 23 95 - 1,731 17 124 - 15,723 147 872 65 Heat Recovery Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.North Pole Heat Recovery 11/09 - 2,040 23 93 - 2,016 23 59 - 17,229 287 810 66 Solar Thermal Propane Golden Valley Electric Assoc.McKinley Village Solar Thermal 06/10 - 120 1 11 - 101 1 3 - 762 7 47 HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 474 48,495 446 1,378 - 47,235 430 1,390 - 232,433 2,245 7,177 GRAND TOTAL 364,572 56,020 28,178 73,753 272,621 51,602 21,249 43,823 1,077,130 267,057 84,550 202,025 HEAT PROJECTS ELECTRICAL PROJECTS Energy Production Fuel Displaced ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS Cumulative Total (2009 - 2016)2015Energy Production Fuel Displaced Energy Production Fuel Displaced 2016 - January through September only PERFORMANCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND PROJECTS PROJECTS IN OPERATION DURING THE PERIOD 2009- 2016 Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Not Recommended Applications CountEnergy Region ID Project Name Applicant Energy Source B/C Ratio Household Energy Cost Tech/ Econ Score State- wide Rank Project Cost Through Construction Applicant Grant Requested Applicant Match Offered Requested Phase(s)AEA Recomnd 40 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1204 Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project: Phase II Alaska Power Company Hydro 0.74 $7,963 37.00 40 $15,400,000 $386,000 $100,000 Feas DNP Stage 2 41 Railbelt 1229 Knik Arm Power Plant Biomass to Power Central Environmental Inc.Biofuel 0.42 $5,594 31.17 41 $3,000,000 $400,000 $2,600,000 Recon DNP Stage 2 42 Southeast 1203 Craig Water Treatment Plant Micro-Hydro City of Craig Hydro 1.07 $7,351 N/A 42 $386,000 $80,000 $10,000 Feas, Design Not Recomnd 43 Aleutians 1206 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study City of False Pass Hydrokinetic 0.13 $8,145 N/A 43 $6,300,000 $440,319 $62,500 Feas Not Recomnd 44 Southeast 1227 Hoonah Waste-to-Energy Project City of Hoonah Biofuel 0.54 $9,956 N/A 44 $5,289,000 $5,282,000 $277,000 Constr Not Recomnd 45 Railbelt 1228 Point McKenzie Correction Farm Solar SOA Dept. of Corrections Solar 0.29 $6,260 N/A 45 $448,663 $140,000 $210,000 Recon, Feas, Design, Constr Not Recomnd 46 Northwest Arctic 1230 Kotzebue 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Kotzebue Electric Association, Inc.Solar 0.43 $11,759 N/A 46 $800,000 $384,730 $64,448 Design, Constr Not Recomnd 47 Southeast 1236 West Creek Hydroelectric Project Municipality of Skagway Borough Hydro 0.47 $7,750 N/A 47 $168,000,000 $320,000 $25,000 Design Not Recomnd 48 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1241 Minto PV Solar Project Minto Development Corporation Solar 0.37 $9,471 N/A 48 $86,400 $140,000 $210,000 Recon, Feas, Constr Not Recomnd 49 Copper River/Chugach 1243 Maximizing Cordova Hydro with Controlled Systems Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.Heat Hydro 1.15 $11,122 N/A 49 $392,959 $95,733 $61,996 Feas Not Recomnd 50 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1251 Circle 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Circle Utilities, Inc.Solar 0.44 $9,399 N/A 50 N/A $75,000 $10,000 Feas Not Recomnd 51 Bristol Bay 1252 Igiugig RivGen© Power System Igiugig Electric Company Hydrokinetic 0.20 $16,003 N/A 51 $2,131,740 $1,490,077 $641,663 Design, Constr Not Recomnd 52 Southeast 1240 Solar Panels for Kake Community Buildings City of Kake Solar N/A $11,412 N/A 52 N/A $255,000 $0 Feas, Design, Constr DNP Stage 1 Totals, Not Recommended Projects $202,234,762 $9,488,859 $4,272,607 Not Recommended Projects Project Cost Recommendation JANUARY 2017 | 15 Haida Energy began construction of the Hiilangaay hydroelectric project on Prince of Wales Island. The project will increase hydro capacity on the island by 5MW and received early investment from the Renewable Energy Fund as well as a loan through AEA’s Power Project Fund loan program. 14 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Not Recommended Applications CountEnergy Region ID Project Name Applicant Energy Source B/C Ratio Household Energy Cost Tech/ Econ Score State- wide Rank Project Cost Through Construction Applicant Grant Requested Applicant Match Offered Requested Phase(s)AEA Recomnd 40 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1204 Clearwater Creek Hydropower Project: Phase II Alaska Power Company Hydro 0.74 $7,963 37.00 40 $15,400,000 $386,000 $100,000 Feas DNP Stage 2 41 Railbelt 1229 Knik Arm Power Plant Biomass to Power Central Environmental Inc.Biofuel 0.42 $5,594 31.17 41 $3,000,000 $400,000 $2,600,000 Recon DNP Stage 2 42 Southeast 1203 Craig Water Treatment Plant Micro-Hydro City of Craig Hydro 1.07 $7,351 N/A 42 $386,000 $80,000 $10,000 Feas, Design Not Recomnd 43 Aleutians 1206 False Pass Hydrokinetic Feasibility Study City of False Pass Hydrokinetic 0.13 $8,145 N/A 43 $6,300,000 $440,319 $62,500 Feas Not Recomnd 44 Southeast 1227 Hoonah Waste-to-Energy Project City of Hoonah Biofuel 0.54 $9,956 N/A 44 $5,289,000 $5,282,000 $277,000 Constr Not Recomnd 45 Railbelt 1228 Point McKenzie Correction Farm Solar SOA Dept. of Corrections Solar 0.29 $6,260 N/A 45 $448,663 $140,000 $210,000 Recon, Feas, Design, Constr Not Recomnd 46 Northwest Arctic 1230 Kotzebue 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Kotzebue Electric Association, Inc.Solar 0.43 $11,759 N/A 46 $800,000 $384,730 $64,448 Design, Constr Not Recomnd 47 Southeast 1236 West Creek Hydroelectric Project Municipality of Skagway Borough Hydro 0.47 $7,750 N/A 47 $168,000,000 $320,000 $25,000 Design Not Recomnd 48 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1241 Minto PV Solar Project Minto Development Corporation Solar 0.37 $9,471 N/A 48 $86,400 $140,000 $210,000 Recon, Feas, Constr Not Recomnd 49 Copper River/Chugach 1243 Maximizing Cordova Hydro with Controlled Systems Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.Heat Hydro 1.15 $11,122 N/A 49 $392,959 $95,733 $61,996 Feas Not Recomnd 50 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1251 Circle 100 Kilowatt Solar Array Circle Utilities, Inc.Solar 0.44 $9,399 N/A 50 N/A $75,000 $10,000 Feas Not Recomnd 51 Bristol Bay 1252 Igiugig RivGen© Power System Igiugig Electric Company Hydrokinetic 0.20 $16,003 N/A 51 $2,131,740 $1,490,077 $641,663 Design, Constr Not Recomnd 52 Southeast 1240 Solar Panels for Kake Community Buildings City of Kake Solar N/A $11,412 N/A 52 N/A $255,000 $0 Feas, Design, Constr DNP Stage 1 Totals, Not Recommended Projects $202,234,762 $9,488,859 $4,272,607 Not Recommended Projects Project Cost Recommendation APPLICATIONS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FUNDING NOTES FOR TABLES PAGES 10-11 Individual project summaries are available on AEA’s website www.akenergyauthority.org B/C = AEA Benefit/Cost Ratio over the life of the project. *Refer to page 15 for an explanation of the benefit-cost ratio and recommended projects with a B/C ratio of less than 1.0. The rows that appear in bold font are those projects in underserved regions. Applications #1238, 1233 and 1223 were moved up the list during stage four regional distribution. Impacted Population includes the population of a community(s) or utility service area(s) which a project is located in or may impact. The Household Energy Cost is a measure of the annual heating and electricity costs for a typical household in a given community. The technical and economic score is the total stage 2 score and is on a scale of 0 to 100. A minimum score of 40 is required to pass stage 2. Match offered is applicant’s offered cash and in-kind match, including supporting efficiency work and wood harvest value where applicable. If the awarded funding amount is reduced from the requested amount, the required match will also be reduced. The Energy Region Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana was shortened to Y-K/Upper Tanana for printing purposes. †The economic benefits of this project (1209) were ineligible for consideration in the REF evaluation because the project displaces renewable hydro generated energy. #1207, Yerrick Creek Hydro, is in an under-served region but was not elevated because the funding request was $4 million and only $38,401 was available within the FY16 Governor’s budget. Instead #1233, a smaller project from the same region was elevated for nearly full funding. ** Sand Point High Penetration Wind (1237) - As a prerequisite for consideration, if funding is appropriated the applicant shall provide documentation that the proposed engine meets all applicable regulatory requirements. SP = Special Provisions 2 3 4 5 14 15 16 17 Technology Type Fuel Displaced Grantee Project Name Start date Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) Electrical (MWh) Thermal (MMBtu) Diesel (Gal x 1000) Value ($ x 1000) 1 Hydro Natural Gas Chugach Electric Association, Inc.Stetson Creek Diversion/Cooper Lake 08/15 2,994 - 401 142 4,002 - 536 190 6,995 - 936 332 2 Hydro Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co-op Gartina Falls - Hoonah 07/15 568 - 38 144 867 - 59 184 1,435 - 97 328 3 Hydro Diesel Chignik Lagoon Power Utility Packers Creek 03/15 562 - 52 235 546 - 51 177 1,108 - 103 412 4 Hydro Diesel City of Akutan Akutan Hydro 12/14 11 - 1 5 47 - 5 14 58 - 7 19 5 Hydro Diesel City and Borough of Sitka Blue Lake Expansion 11/14 59,272 - 4,559 14,594 44,729 - 3,441 8,361 112,756 - 8,674 25,110 6 Hydro Diesel City of Ketchikan Whitman Lake 10/14 8,762 - 674 2,851 6,231 - 479 1,256 17,480 - 1,345 4,916 7 Hydro Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Terror Lake 01/14 118,044 - 8,432 34,233 93,272 - 6,662 19,987 220,621 - 15,714 56,980 8 Hydro Diesel Cordova Electric Co-op Humpback Creek 07/11 3,074 - 236 768 3,331 - 256 743 17,801 - 1,364 4,698 9 Hydro Diesel Gustavus Electric Falls Creek 07/09 2,149 - 165 613 1,682 - 129 424 13,734 - 1,022 3,740 10 Hydro Diesel City of Atka Chuniixsax Creek 12/12 381 - 29 150 226 - 17 119 1,283 - 99 553 11 Landfill Gas Nat Gas Municipality of Anchorage Anchorage Landfill Gas 08/12 50,032 - 4,783 1,079 33,772 - 3,229 586 186,685 - 17,815 8,131 12 Solar PV Diesel Alaska Power Company Eagle Solar Array Project 01/16 - - - - 17 - 1 6 17 - 1 6 13 Solar PV Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Kaltag Solar 10/12 8 - 1 2 8 - 1 3 34 - 2 10 14 Transmission Diesel AK Electric Light & Power Snettisham - Juneau 01/14 936 - 72 112 936 - 72 157 2,807 - 216 381 15 Transmission Diesel Alaska Power & Telephon North Prince of Wales Intertie 09/11 1,352 - 104 289 1,222 - 94 264 5,745 - 406 1,312 16 Transmission Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Wind Transmission 10/10 1,650 - 102 307 982 - 60 151 8,130 - 488 1,490 17 Wind Diesel Nome Joint Utility System Banner Peak Wind Expansion 08/13 1,642 - 100 304 753 - 46 115 4,290 - 262 807 18 Wind Diesel Northwest Arctic Borough Buckland, Deering, Noorvik Wind Farm 01/16 - - - - 95 - 7 40 95 - 7 40 19 Wind Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.Eva Creek 10/12 72,639 - 5,115 8,324 49,428 - 3,481 4,355 278,547 - 19,616 41,029 20 Wind Diesel Kotzebue Electric Association Kotz Wind-Battery-Diesel 05/12 2,511 - 171 542 2,001 - 136 369 11,909 - 810 2,718 21 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Shaktoolik Wind 04/12 283 - 22 84 354 - 27 114 1,287 - 99 398 22 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Emmonak/Alakanuk Wind 09/11 327 - 23 84 563 - 40 206 2,450 - 174 725 23 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Quinhagak Wind Farm 11/10 403 - 31 115 495 - 38 189 2,833 - 213 877 24 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Mekoryuk Wind Farm 11/10 180 - 13 48 115 - 8 50 1,056 - 72 289 25 Wind Naphtha Alaska Environmental Power Delta Area Wind Turbines 09/10 2,013 - 130 351 938 - 61 159 9,983 - 626 1,615 26 Wind Diesel Kodiak Electric Assoc.Pillar Mountain Wind 09/10 29,107 - 2,050 5,417 21,620 - 1,523 2,750 146,304 - 10,297 30,831 27 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Toksook Wind Farm 08/09 168 - 12 46 563 - 41 248 1,722 - 123 552 ELECTRICAL PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 359,069 - 27,317 70,838 268,794 - 20,500 41,215 1,057,164 - 80,588 188,296 28 Hydro Diesel City of Pelican Pelican Hydro Upgrade 03/13 1,298 - 93 415 869 - 62 191 3,880 431 282 1,174 29 Biomass Diesel AK Gateway School District Tok Wood Heating 10/10 306 6,136 59 124 71 3,794 37 106 646 29,216 276 769 30 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Unalaska Unalaska Heat Recovery 09/14 470 - 36 114 406 - 31 54 956 - 74 188 31 Wind/Heat Diesel Tuntutuliak Comm Svs Assoc.Tunt Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 01/13 215 128 17 64 181 - 14 67 747 696 57 246 32 Wind/Heat Diesel Kwigillingok Power Company Kwig Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 02/12 464 238 38 126 271 153 22 104 994 696 82 321 33 Wind/Heat Diesel Aleutian Wind Energy Sand Point Wind 08/11 974 360 72 326 742 - 55 248 4,580 773 336 1,539 34 Wind/Heat Diesel Puvurnaq Power Company Kong Wind-Diesel Smart Grid 12/10 330 435 29 96 364 420 32 145 1,602 2,033 141 568 35 Wind/Heat Diesel Unalakleet Valley Electric Co Unalakleet Wind Farm 12/09 972 228 72 273 925 - 67 305 6,561 779 471 1,747 ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 5,029 7,525 416 1,537 3,828 4,367 319 1,218 19,966 34,624 1,718 6,552 36 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Chevak Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 - 121 1 6 - 73 1 4 - 195 2 10 37 Wind Diesel AK Village Electric Co-op Gambell Surplus Wind to Heat Water 07/15 474 174 2 6 - 85 1 4 - 294 3 11 38 Biomass Diesel Ketchikan Gateway Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass Heat 08/16 - - - - - 190 2 1 - 190 2 1 39 Biomass Diesel Venetie Village Council Venetie District Heating 02/16 - - - - - 307 3 27 - 307 3 27 40 Biomass Diesel City of Kobuk Upper Kobuk River Biomass 01/16 - - - - - 247 3 13 - 247 3 13 41 Biomass Diesel Lake and Peninsula Borough Lake and Pen Wood Boilers 01/15 - 45 0 2 - 35 0 2 - 81 1 4 42 Biomass Diesel Interior Regional Housing Wood Heating Interior Commmunities 01/15 - 272 3 10 - 911 8 42 - 1,183 11 52 43 Biomass Diesel Mentasta Traditional Council Mentasta Community Facility Heat 10/14 - 542 5 22 - 705 6 11 - 1,247 11 33 44 Biomass Diesel City of Tanana Tanana City-Tribe Biomass 01/14 - 1,360 11 57 - 554 5 23 - 3,886 35 131 45 Biomass Diesel Southeast Island School District Thorne Bay School Biomass 01/13 - 2,121 19 64 - 487 4 6 - 4,241 38 106 46 Biomass Diesel Native Village of Eyak Cordova Wood Processing 12/11 - 840 7 28 - 1,066 8 22 - 5,986 48 170 47 Biomass Diesel Chilkoot Indian Association Haines Central Wood Heating 10/11 - 141 2 2 - - - - - 852 8 18 48 Biomass Diesel Delta/Greely School District Delta Wood Chip Heating 09/11 - 3,339 32 105 - 1,370 13 24 - 16,407 158 495 49 Biomass Diesel Gulkana Village Council Gulkana Central Wood Heating 10/10 - 198 2 6 - 379 4 8 - 4,377 40 132 50 Heat Pumps Diesel Cook Inlet Housing Authority Seldovia House Ground Source Heat Pump 01/16 - - - - - 205 2 1 - 205 2 1 51 Heat Pumps Diesel City of Seward Sealife Center Seawater Heat Pump 11/11 - 4,179 40 105 - 2,090 20 18 - 16,599 160 391 52 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Airport Ground Source Heat Pump 05/11 - 6,400 46 153 - 6,400 46 145 - 36,117 266 899 53 Heat Pumps Diesel City and Borough of Juneau Aquatic Cntr Ground Source Heat Pump 04/11 - 4,621 39 68 - 2,955 25 30 - 17,920 152 350 54 Heat Recovery Diesel Native Village of Quinhagak Heat Recovery Water Plant & Washeteria 12/15 - - - - - 625 6 28 - 625 6 28 55 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Marshall Heat Recovery - Marshall Water Plant & Store 09/15 - - - - - 1,703 15 80 - 1,703 15 80 56 Heat Recovery Diesel Atmautluak Traditional Council Atmautluak Washeteria Heat Recovery 08/15 - - - - - 64 1 4 - 64 1 4 57 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Saint Paul Electric Utility Saint Paul Fuel Economy Upgrade 02/15 - 5,680 51 265 - 3,414 31 114 - 9,094 82 379 58 Heat Recovery Diesel Sleetmute Traditional Council Heat Recovery to Water Plant 11/14 - 176 2 9 - 175 2 8 - 351 3 17 59 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Savoonga Savoonga Heat Recovery - Water Plant 10/14 - - - - - 1,214 9 46 - 1,214 9 46 60 Heat Recovery Diesel City of Ambler Ambler Heat Recovery 10/13 - 494 5 26 - 315 3 18 - 1,325 14 103 61 Heat Recovery Diesel North Slope Borough Point Lay Heat Recovery 08/13 - 1,555 15 71 - 827 8 14 - 4,535 43 182 62 Heat Recovery Diesel Inside Passage Electric Co-op Hoonah Heat Recovery Project 08/12 - 4,099 39 148 - 14,606 140 441 - 29,411 283 1,029 63 Heat Recovery Diesel City and Borough of Wrangell Wrangell Hydro Electric Boilers 02/11 - 7,588 78 25 - 2,385 25 69 - 40,063 408 734 64 Heat Recovery Diesel McGrath Light & Power McGrath Heat Recovery 05/10 - 2,390 23 95 - 1,731 17 124 - 15,723 147 872 65 Heat Recovery Naphtha Golden Valley Electric Assoc.North Pole Heat Recovery 11/09 - 2,040 23 93 - 2,016 23 59 - 17,229 287 810 66 Solar Thermal Propane Golden Valley Electric Assoc.McKinley Village Solar Thermal 06/10 - 120 1 11 - 101 1 3 - 762 7 47 HEAT PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 474 48,495 446 1,378 - 47,235 430 1,390 - 232,433 2,245 7,177 GRAND TOTAL 364,572 56,020 28,178 73,753 272,621 51,602 21,249 43,823 1,077,130 267,057 84,550 202,025 HEAT PROJECTS ELECTRICAL PROJECTS Energy Production Fuel Displaced ELECTRICAL & HEAT PROJECTS Cumulative Total (2009 - 2016)2015 Energy Production Fuel Displaced Energy Production Fuel Displaced 2016 - January through September only JANUARY 2017 | 7 The power and heat generation presented is this table is the annual amount produced by projects that have re- ceived REF investment. In certain cases the interactions between REF-funded and previously existing or subse- quently built projects are not separable. These cases are noted and total renewable generation is provided. Project specific notes: Row 1 - Stetson Creek Diversion: Values based on grantee reported performance for period and modeled value of diversion project. Row 5 - Blue Lake Expansion: The production numbers shown are for the whole system. Row 7 - Terror Lake Hydro: REF funded the installation of turbine three at Terror Lake. The production numbers shown are for the whole hydro system. Years prior to 2015 reported modeled estimates of turbine three contri- butions. The cumulative total is the sum of all years as reported. Row 14 - Snettisham Transmission Line Avalanche Mitigation: actual production values are not available, the figures reported are based on initial economic valuation. Rows 25 and 27 - Delta and Toksook performance values are only for REF funded turbines, not the whole wind farm. Delta performance is estimated, grantee is no longer required to report. Row 29 - Tok Wood: 2016 values are lower b/c the system shut down to install new steam engine and replace tur- bine. Row 31 - Tuntutuliak Wind: Electric values are reported through PCE reporting. Row 32 - Kwigillingok Wind: Electric values are reported through PCE reporting. Heat values are based on prior years reported values. Row 34 - Kong Wind: Heat values are based on prior years reported values. Row 40 - Cordova Wood Processing: Estimates based on prior year production is presented. Row 44 - Tanana Biomass: value reported based on prior years reported. Row 45 - Juneau Airport Ground Source Heat Pump: the project does not have metering. The values reported are estimates based on grantee information. Row 47 - Haines Wood Heating: the project did not oper- ate in 2016 due to low diesel prices. Row 58 - Sleetmute Heat Recovery: value reported based on prior year. Row 59 - Savoonga Heat Recovery: value reported based on application. Row 65 - North Pole Heat Recovery: value reported based on prior years. Grantee no longer required to report. Some not recommended projects’ B/C ratios may not be listed due to incomplete information In 2013, the City of Kobuk received funding through the Renewable Energy Fund to incorporate a biomass boiler system in their water treatment plant. The intent of the project was to increase the use of locally available biomass energy for thermal heating. The biomass boiler relies on locally harvested wood, creating new jobs and keeping dollars spent on energy in the community. In addition to creating local harvest jobs, the biomass boiler also increased the number of work hours available for the water treatment plant operators who now regularly stoke the boiler. The diesel displaced by this project is approximately 3,550 gallons per year. Over its useful life, the project is estimated to save over $500,000 resulting in a benefit- cost ratio of 1.25 8 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND SUCCESS STORY KOBUK BIOMASS REF AWARD | $356,424 MATCHING FUNDS | $45,449 TOTAL PROJECT COST | $401,873 EXPECTED LIFE | 20 YEARS This project was bolstered by the purchase of a 34 ton log splitter, allowing local wood cutters to more easily process timber they have harvested. The community is very pleased with the biomass boiler; its success has spurred the Northwest Arctic Borough to pursue biomass heating feasibility studies in other communities in the region. JANUARY 2017 | 13 REF ROUND X RECOMMENDED PROJECTS WITH LOW B/C RATIOS The benefit-cost (B/C) ratio is an estimate of a project’s life cycle present value (benefits) divided by present costs. A ratio of 1.0 is gen- erally considered the break-even point where the benefits equal the costs, however, this economic metric is only an estimate. Benefits counted in the REF economic evaluation mostly take the form of displaced diesel fuel but this value will fluctuate as it follows the global price of oil. The B/C ratios become more reliable as projects move to later phases of development because more comprehensive cost and benefit information is available and there is less time for circumstances to change before construction. By design in statute and regula- tions, the B/C ratio is only one portion of the overall project score. The REF evaluation considers other measures such the local cost of energy, the statewide distribution of grant funds, the amount of matching funds provided, the project’s technical feasibility, project readiness, other economic development impacts, and other criteria. This mix of weighted factors allows projects with B/C ratios of less than 1.0 to be recommended if other project merits are high. See Round IX Project Summaries for more information. Early phase projects such as reconnaissance or feasibility studies are designed to determine economic and technical feasibility based on the renewable energy resource available. If there is a reasonable chance of im- proving economics, projects with moderately low B/C ratios often can advance through the REF evaluation process. Projects receive no points in the scoring criteria if the B/C ratio is below 0.9, and only 1 out of 10 points for 0.9 to 1.0. Below is more project-specific information about projects with B/C ratios of less than 1.0. 1223 Shishmaref wind: The applicant requested funding for the feasibility stage. The B/C ratio could potentially increase based on site specific meteorological data once it is available for analysis. The state-wide wind model often under-predicts the wind resource on the west coast of Alaska. Wind measurement at the specific targeted site through the requested feasibility study will increase the confidence of the project economics. 1233 Grayling water heat recover: The applicant requested design and construction funding. AEA recommends funding only the final design. AEA believes that cost saving measures can be identified during the final design phase that can significantly improve the project economics. 1249 Indian River hydro: 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 in the first half of 2016. 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 B/C ratio has declined to slightly less than 1.0. If grant funded the applicant anticipates that the grant will reduce energy costs to residents by $0.13 per kWh. 1215 Huslia water and clinic biomass: The applicant requested design and construction funding. AEA recommends funding final design only with an emphasis on improving the project economics before committing to construction. If constructed, the project will save the community an estimated 8,474 gallons of fuel per year and would provide local wood fuel jobs. Many of the costs in the B/C ratio would remain in the local economy for wood harvest and biomass plant operator jobs. 1218 Saxman heat pump: The applicant requested funding for final design and construction of an air source heat pump to replace existing oil-fired boilers that are nearing the end of life. The project would replace 100 percent of their heating oil by efficiently using hydro-powered electricity through an air source heat pump to heat the low-income multi-family complex. The economics are chal- lenged by the high renovation costs to allow for lower temperature emitters in the building. 1248 Crater lake hydro: The applicant requested funding for final design. The B/C ratio is based upon initial findings from a draft feasibility study that had not yet been finalized at the time of evaluation, nor accepted by the applicant or AEA. Once the final feasibility study is finalized, the B/C ratio may change up or down. AEA’s issuance of the final design grant is contingent upon acceptance of the feasibility study that demonstrates a technically and economically feasible project. 1210 Chugach community solar: The project is recommended for partial funding as AEA believes the feasibility can be completed at half of the applicant’s estimated total phase cost. The feasibility study will help determine the project economics, including possible use of federal incentives. 1239 Ouzinkie hydro: The applicant has recently reconstructed a failed dam which provides drinking water for the community. That project was funded through water project funding sources. The REF application seeks design and construction funding to rebuild the end-of-life penstock and hydro turbine to provide electricity. AEA’s economic evaluations capture the full cost of each project. In this case the full cost of the dam is counted as a cost, and the full benefits of all hydro power displacing diesel generation is counted as the benefit. This method, while fair and consistent to all applicants, may be a conservative approach due to the dam construction having been completed with other funding. If only the turbine costs and the full hydro benefit are used in the model, the economics are very good. The AEA B/C ratio of 0.73 provides information about the net value of the overall project (drinking water and energy) over its lifetime. 1231 Kaktovik wind: The applicant requests funds for final design for wind project. The budget is high due to arctic conditions but the application scored well elsewhere in the evaluation and wind may be the community’s only renewable energy option. Kobuk’s log splitter improves the efficiency of processing their local fuel source Firewood is harvested and stored near the water treatment plant in Kobuk for up to one year to give the wood time to dry. 12 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT JANUARY 2017 | 9 The recommendations for Round X are identical to last year’s Round IX recommendations with the exception of Waterfall Creek in King Cove which has withdrawn their application. There was no new request for Round X applications due to lack of funding for projects that were evaluated and recommended for funding in the 2016 legislative session. The 38 projects recommended for Round X funding collectively requested $40.3 million in grants and offered $27.7 million in matching funds. AEA recommends funding of $35.4 million for these 38 projects. REVIEW PROCESS The recommendation process involves three stages of review and scoring and a fourth stage where regional distribution is applied. The first three stages evaluate and score: eligibility, technical and economic feasibility, cost of energy, experience and qualifications, and ranking based on criteria established in statute and regulation. The technical and economic evaluation is a thorough vetting process conducted by AEA technical reviewers, independent economists, and the Department of Natural Resources. Following the third stage of evaluation, AEA presents a ranked list of recommended projects, a list of not recommended projects, and a regional distribution recommendation to the REFAC to ensure that there is regional equity in the cumulative rounds I through IX funding. ADVISORY COMMITTEE/REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION Below is the approach to regional distribution. Calculating a regional funding target: Use a regional population weighted “burden of energy cost” metric to establish regional funding bands. The burden of energy cost for a household is calculated based on regionally appropriate average annual residential heating fuel equivalent consumption, 6,000 kWh per year electric consumption and household income. Burden of energy cost = (HH cost of electric + heat energy) / HH income A regional population weighted burden of energy cost is calculated for each energy region in the state. The burden number is then used to calculate a target funding level for each region, such that regions with high energy cost burden are eligible to receive more funding cumulatively across all years of the REF. Underserved: In order for a region to be classified as underserved they must have received less than 50 percent of the calculated target. Projects in underserved regions will be moved up on the list (if the project they are replacing is in an adequately or overserved region). • Based on Round I-VIII funding both Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana and Bering Straits are considered underserved. In Round IX three projects were moved up for this reason. Overserved: For a region to be considered overserved they must have received more than two times their calculated target. To achieve a better balance of funding across the state, regions that are determined to be overserved will be capped so their share of the overall fund cannot grow. • Based on Round I-VIII funding both Southeast and the Railbelt are considered overserved; neither region had a project that ranked within the Governor’s budget so this rule did not affect any region this round. AEA’S RECOMMENDATIONS The REFAC met in June 2016 and accepted AEA’s recommendation to not solicit additional applications for Round X of the REF. Instead, with the support of the committee, AEA presents the legislature with the following tables of recommended projects for funding consideration. The ranked list of recommended projects for Round X is identical to the Round IX list presented last year with the exception of Waterfall Creek Hydro which has secured funding and is nearly through construction. Pages 10 and 11 identify all projects that are recommended for funding by AEA in ranked order. Standard electric projects are blue and heat projects are orange. Notes for both recommended and not recommended project tables appear after the not recommended list on page 14. ROUND X RECOMMENDED APPLICATIONSPARTIAL FUNDING ROUND IX/X RECOMMENDED PROJECTS In the table on pages 10 and 11 there are a number of projects with a recommendation for partial funding. The table below provides the rationale behind each of these recommendations. 1245 Adak hydro: Application requested funding for feasibility, design and construction. AEA recommends partial funding to complete only the feasibility study. 1238 Koyuk water heat recovery: Application was for funding final design and construction. AEA recommends limiting funding to final design to evaluate the potential to improve project economics and better assess value. 1233 Grayling water heat recovery: Application was for funding final design and construction. AEA recommends funding only the de- sign phase to allow for more refined construction cost estimates prior to making a determination about funding the construction phase. Additionally, the funds requested for design were higher than expected. AEA recommends partial funding for final design phase only. 1221 Old Harbor hydro: Applicant requested funding for final design, including extensive geotechnical work. AEA recommends fully funding the design and partially funding geotech work with the recommendation that ground penetrating radar and/or seismic surveys be done prior to investing in costly helicopter supported drilling. 1214 Eek water heat recover: Application was for final design and construction. AEA recommends funding only the design phase to allow for more refined construction cost estimates prior to making a determination about funding the construction phase. Additionally, funds requested for design are higher than expected. AEA recommends partial funding for final design phase only. 1235 Scammon Bay hydro: Application requested funding for stream gauging and preliminary design. AEA recommends the project for partial funding to complete stream gauging to better understand the hydroelectric resource potential of Hillside Creek. 1215 Huslia water and clinic biomass: Application was for funding final design and construction. Recommend partial funding of $53,116 to complete the design phase only and to better evaluate the potential for an economic project. 1201 Unlaska inline micro-turbines: Application was for funding feasibility, final design and construction. AEA recommends partially funding the feasibility and final design phases of this project to better understand operation of power recovery turbine and pressure reduction valve under varying flow conditions and events such as load rejection. 1217 Klawock school biomass: Application requested funding for final design and construction. While the economics of this project are good, the engineering will be challenging due to the site constraints. Recommend partial funding for the development of final design and a business/operating plan. 1210 Chugach community solar: The application for a 500 kW solar garden project is recommended for funding at 50% of the request- ed level. AEA estimates that the applicant should be able to complete the proposed feasibility study, conceptual design and cost estimate within this reduced budget. 1209 Ketchikan schools central heating: Application requested feasibility and design funding. AEA recommends partial funding of for a feasibility study phase only to better assess the potential economic benefit. 10 | RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND STATUS REPORT REF ROUND X RECOMMENDED PROJECTS RANK LIST Renewable Energy Fund Round IX Final Recommended Applications and Funding CountEnergy Region ID Project Name Applicant Energy Source B/C Ratio Impacted Pop. Household Energy Cost Tech/ Econ Score State- wide Rank Project Cost Through Construction Applicant Grant Requested Applicant Match Offered Recommended Phase(s) AEA Recomnd Recommended Funding Cumulative Funding 1 Copper River/Chugach 1226 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project Chitina Electric Inc. (CEI)Hydro 1.71 116 $12,269 75.67 1 $6,589,090 $3,400,000 $2,600,000 Constr Full $3,400,000 $3,400,000 2 Aleutians 1237 Sand Point High Penetration Wind System Sand Point Generating, TDX Wind 2.19**946 $10,793 83.33 2 $1,067,309 $649,030 $423,275 Design, Constr Full $649,030 $4,049,030 3 Bering Straits 1234 Wales Water System Heat Recovery City of Wales Heat Recovery 1.44 146 $17,269 72.50 3 $653,277 $650,047 $6,566 Design, ConstrFull $650,047 $4,699,077 4 Aleutians 1245 Adak Hydro Power Generator TDX Adak Generating, TDX Hydro 1.75 247 $14,961 59.50 4 $1,750,000 $294,102 $126,044 Feas Partial $19,600 $4,718,677 5 Bering Straits 1238 Koyuk Water System Heat Recovery City of Koyuk Heat Recovery 1.06 321 $18,742 61.50 8 $695,269 $688,386 $6,884 Design Partial $90,922 $4,809,599 6 Bering Straits 1223 Shishmaref Wind Feasibility & Conceptual Design Alaska Village Electric Coop Wind 0.93*607 $15,812 52.50 18 $2,529,400 $152,000 $8,000 Feas Full SP $152,000 $4,961,599 7 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1233 Grayling Water System Heat Recovery City of Grayling Heat Recovery 0.98*191 $12,652 54.50 21 $431,982 $427,705 $4,277 Design Partial $38,401 $5,000,000 7 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1233 Grayling Water System Heat Recovery City of Grayling Heat Recovery 0.98*191 $12,652 54.50 21 $431,982 $427,705 $4,277 Design Partial $11,599 $5,011,599 8 Railbelt 1242 Heat Pump System for City of Seward City of Seward Heat Pump 1.97 2,768 $9,005 83.17 5 $955,458 $725,000 $125,000 Design, Constr Full $725,000 $5,736,599 9 Southeast 1244 IPEC Gunnuk Creek Hydro Rehab in Kake Inside Passage Electric Coop Hydro 2.23 1,913 $10,561 73.00 6 $5,715,000 $3,920,000 $1,545,000 Constr Full SP $3,920,000 $9,656,599 10 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1224 Mountain Village-St. Mary's Wind Intertie Alaska Village Electric Coop Trans, Wind 1.00 1,524 $12,362 66.00 7 $6,196,000 $3,196,000 $3,000,000 Design, Constr Full SP $3,196,000 $12,852,599 11 Southeast 1250 Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Permitting Elfin Cove Utility Commission Hydro 1.22 16 $12,008 67.33 9 $3,705,000 $88,000 $22,000 Design Full $88,000 $12,940,599 12 Northwest Arctic 1216 Shungnak Wind-Diesel Conceptual Design Native Village of Shungnak Wind 1.04 460 $17,752 50.00 10 $5,598,500 $135,000 $39,000 Feas Full SP $135,000 $13,075,599 13 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1222 Bethel Power Plant Heat Recovery Module Alaska Village Electric Coop Heat Recovery 2.16 6,241 $10,766 71.67 11 $8,233,369 $2,555,489 $283,943 Constr Full SP $2,555,489 $15,631,088 14 Bristol Bay 1247 Chignik Hydroelectric Dam Project City of Chignik Hydro 1.86 96 $8,746 73.67 12 $7,783,428 $1,025,175 $60,251 Design Full $1,025,175 $16,656,263 15 Kodiak 1221 Old Harbor Hydro Geotech & Final Design Alaska Village Electric Coop Hydro 1.38 213 $12,095 68.50 13 $9,317,500 $1,092,500 $57,500 Design Partial $792,500 $17,448,763 16 Kodiak 1202 Upper Hidden Basin Geotech Investigation Kodiak Electric Association Hydro, Storage 4.24 8,465 $7,047 79.00 14 $79,247,000 $750,000 $750,000 Feas Full $750,000 $18,198,763 17 Southeast 1249 Indian River Hydroelectric Project - Construction Tenakee Springs Electric Hydro 0.94*128 $11,498 56.33 15 $5,473,280 $809,000 $1,115,280 Constr Full $809,000 $19,007,763 18 Northwest Arctic 1212 Cosmos Hills Hydro Design & Permitting NANA Regional Corporation Hydro 1.08 734 $15,410 40.50 16 $50,797,871 $341,335 $37,200 Design Full $341,335 $19,349,098 19 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1214 Eek Water System Heat Recovery City of Eek Heat Recovery 1.01 349 $12,572 59.50 17 $311,394 $308,311 $3,083 Design Partial $50,000 $19,399,098 20 Southeast 1211 Sitka Wastewater Plant Effluent Heat Pump City and Borough of Sitka Heat Pump 1.13 9,061 $6,991 72.50 19 $826,067 $667,000 $113,000 Design, Constr Full $667,000 $20,066,098 21 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1207 Yerrick Creek Hydro Construction Upper Tanana Energy Hydro 1.23 1,539 $7,963 57.17 20 $20,744,264 $4,000,000 $15,000,000 Constr Full SP $3,925,000 $23,991,098 22 Southeast 1205 Neck Lake Hydropower Project: Phases II-III Alaska Power Company Hydro 1.21 39 $9,630 63.17 22 $3,016,475 $395,200 $98,800 Feas, Design Full $395,200 $24,386,298 23 Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim 1235 Scammon Bay Hydroelectric Project City of Scammon Bay Hydro 1.25 528 $12,698 49.67 23 $4,283,056 $305,000 $3,050 Feas Partial $90,000 $24,476,298 24 Y-K/Upper Tanana 1215 Huslia Water & Clinic Biomass Boiler City of Huslia Biomass 0.72*338 $13,795 44.67 24 $496,526 $491,610 $4,916 Design Partial $53,116 $24,529,414 25 Aleutians 1219 False Pass Hydro Feasibility & Conceptual Design City of False Pass Hydro 1.87 34 $8,145 73.67 25 $4,380,000 $187,000 $33,000 Feas Full $187,000 $24,716,414 26 Aleutians 1246 St. Paul Island 80% Renewable Energy Feasibility TDX Power, Inc.Other, Wind 1.66 436 $8,560 48.83 26 $5,731,500 $265,200 $66,300 Recon, Feas Full $265,200 $24,981,614 27 Northwest Arctic 1213 Ambler Washeteria and City Office Biomass Heating City of Ambler Biomass 1.06 274 $11,345 49.17 27 $484,691 $429,892 $54,799 Design, Constr Full SP $429,892 $25,411,506 28 North Slope 1232 Atqasuk Transmission Line Design and Permitting North Slope Borough Trans, Other 2.02 4,698 $3,417 78.00 28 $32,840,509 $2,017,818 $201,782 Design Full $2,017,818 $27,429,324 29 Southeast 1218 Saxman Low-Rent Multifamily Air Source Heat Pump Tlingit-Haida RHA Heat Pump 0.93*8,314 $6,194 60.83 29 $438,341 $296,038 $213,193 Design, Constr Full $296,038 $27,725,362 30 Aleutians 1201 Unalaska Water Treatment Inline Micro Turbines City of Unalaska Hydro 1.24 4,689 $7,677 58.00 30 $1,340,000 $1,100,000 $240,000 Feas, Design Partial $144,000 $27,869,362 31 Southeast 1208 Ketchikan High School Biomass Boiler Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass 1.33 8,314 $6,194 82.67 31 $1,365,890 $1,251,000 $0 Constr Full $1,251,000 $29,120,362 32 Southeast 1217 Klawock School Biomass Fuel Boiler Project Klawock City School District Biomass 1.38 802 $7,488 59.67 32 $858,556 $833,556 $25,000 Design Partial $111,986 $29,232,348 33 Copper River/Chugach 1248 Crater Lake Power and Water Project Cordova Electric Cooperative Hydro, Storage 0.91*2,286 $11,122 45.17 33 $17,306,696 $1,227,000 $420,680 Design Full SP $1,227,000 $30,459,348 34 Railbelt 1210 Chugach Electric Solar Project Chugach Electric Association Solar 0.36*172,380 $3,751 59.67 34 $1,814,049 $100,000 $100,000 Feas Partial $50,000 $30,509,348 35 Railbelt 1225 Grant Lake Hydroelectric Project Kenai Hydro LLC Hydro 1.10 49,918 $6,643 56.67 35 $58,936,366 $4,000,000 $875,528 Design Full $4,000,000 $34,509,348 36 Kodiak 1239 Ouzinkie Hydroelectric Power Project City of Ouzinkie Hydro 0.73*171 $7,460 40.67 36 $4,603,385 $397,427 $4,014 Design, Constr Full SP $397,427 $34,906,775 37 North Slope 1231 Kaktovik Wind Diesel Design North Slope Borough Wind 0.79*251 $6,293 58.17 38 $7,606,795 $440,000 $44,000 Design Full $440,000 $35,346,775 38 Southeast 1209 Ketchikan Schools Recreation Heating Plant Ketchikan Gateway Borough Biomass N/A†8,314 $6,194 62.00 39 $2,600,000 $220,000 $0 Feas Partial $40,000 $35,386,775 Sub Totals, All Recommended Projects $367,155,275 $40,258,526 $27,715,642 $35,386,775 Recommended Projects Project Cost Recommendation JANUARY 2017 | 11 See page 14 for table notes Individual project summaries are available on AEA’s website Blue cells indicate a standard electric generation application Orange cells indicate a heat project application