CEA Candidate Questions: Brad Authier
Voting in Chugach Electric Association’s board election will open on April 19. Electronic ballots are due by 3 p.m. on May 19. Paper ballots must be received by May 18. Members can also vote in person at the CEA Annual Meeting held at Changepoint Alaska on May 19 at 6 p.m. More information on voting and candidates can be found on the CEA Election page.
Here are the answers from Brad Authier. Authier is a semi-retired engineer, environmental consultant, and small-business owner. His full candidate profile can be found here. He also has a campaign website and campaign Facebook page.
Brad Authier, from his CEA candidate profile
1. Why do you want to be a CEA board member?
I have been a member of the Chugach Electric Association (CEA) since moving to Alaska with my wife and young daughter in 1989. I have always had the desire to contribute more of my time and experience to my community through volunteer service. I semi-retired in 2016 from a fulfilling and busy professional career, continuing to work part time since then as a consulting environmental engineer. I now have the time and renewed energy to contribute to this important organization in our community. My objective is to bring professional expertise, senior management experience, and a diverse background in business to a governance role as a CEA Board member. I realize CEA is unique in its structure as a member-owned cooperative, but it is a business. Like many businesses, CEA faces significant challenges in the future. As an engineer/scientist and a businessman with a background in resource extraction, I consider myself a pragmatic problem solver and welcome the challenge of working with the Board and Executive Team to find ways to maintain reliability, address the potential natural gas shortage we face at the end of this decade, transition sensibly to renewables, upgrade the transmission system, and provide members affordable rates while controlling operating costs. Our two grown daughters moved back to Alaska permanently after college, and I want them and our two granddaughters to have opportunity – and affordable energy is paramount for that.
2. Are there any particular policies you would champion as a member of the Board? Are there any current or proposed policies you would oppose?
I am an environmental professional with a background in the natural gas extraction industry, and support the energy transition to renewable or clean energy sources such as solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc. I understand that CEA has set ambitious carbon-reduction goals related to this transition over the next 10 to 15 years. This transition will be influenced greatly by the advancement of technology and the capital cost of conversion to solar, wind and such. CEA must continue to pursue clean energy alternatives such as solar and wind, and diversify into these sources as technical feasibility and economic viability permit – conversion to “clean” at any cost is not advisable, given CEA’s immense investment in its natural gas generation facilities. Since reliability is the most significant issue with CEA Members, I would like to see the organization (in concert with the other Railbelt utilities) pursue transmission system upgrades and explore new technology in energy storage in order to better incorporate a mix of renewable power sources into our grid at the same or higher levels of reliability we have come to expect.
3. What are the biggest challenges CEA will face in the next five to ten years? What can be done to prepare to meet them?
From my perspective, moderating rate increases to keep electricity affordable, maintaining infrastructure, and retaining quality employees will always be CEA’s primary long-term challenges. The acquisition of ML&P completed in 2020, but I expect full assimilation of ML&P assets, systems and employees continues to present challenges as CEA works to realize promised cost savings from the acquisition. Balancing more economical and reliable traditional fuels against the relatively higher capital cost and lower reliability of renewables (wind doesn’t always blow, and the sun often does not shine) will be a challenge as CEA strives for reduced carbon or carbon neutral targets in the future – major Railbelt transmission system upgrades will be required to aggressively transition to renewables. Another challenge for CEA: recent articles in the news highlight the limited supply of natural gas in Cook Inlet, and this potential shortage will present significant challenges to CEA and other Railbelt utilities. Further, some of CEA’s long-term gas contracts sunset in 2028. Cook Inlet is a mature basin, and discovering significant new reserves requires investment, which the Railbelt utilities may be able to encourage in the coming years working with CI operators. This forecasted shortage may not impact CEA’s gas supply for four or five more years, but solutions such as building significant renewable capacity, importing LNG, or piping in natural gas from another basin (such as the North Slope) are long lead-time and expensive projects, so the Board must have a sense of urgency in addressing these issues. I believe I’m equipped to support the Board in addressing these challenges and the transition away from fossil fuels.
4. In 2022 CEA’s Board spent over 60% of their regular public board meetings in Executive Session. While Executive Sessions are sometimes necessary, their extensive use excludes member-owners from significant discussions of issues such as strategic planning and sources of power generation. Do you believe that cooperative boards have an obligation to their member-owners to maximize the openness and transparency of their decision making? Should CEA’s Board minimize its use of Executive Session? What could be done to achieve this goal?
Yes, cooperative boards have an obligation to maximize transparency. CEA should minimize use of executive sessions, while members must also recognize that certain topics require executive session due to confidentiality or proprietary concerns. That said, I would work as a board member to minimize executive sessions and optimize transparency.
5. Hilcorp has said that it cannot guarantee natural gas supplies from Cook Inlet beyond its current contracts (CEA’s contract with Hilcorp ends in 2028). Production for CEA’s Beluga River Unit is currently expected to end in 2033. What strategies should CEA use to address potential future shortfalls in Cook Inlet natural gas?
CEA is in a better position than the other Railbelt utilities with respect to gas supply because CEA owns a majority interest in the Beluga gas field, with Hilcorp part owner and field operator. A recent DNR study concludes that Cook Inlet supply will not meet demand by about 2028 (also the year when some CEA CI gas contracts sunset), and the CEA Board has authorized a Black & Veatch (energy consultants) study to develop/evaluate options for shoring up its supply including more efficient gas recovery, supporting additional drilling, gas contract negotiations, LNG import or importing gas from other basins such as the North Slope (dependent on the in-state gas line). As CI operators employ new technologies and improve recovery efficiencies, it is possible the supply shortfall can be deferred.
It may be difficult to avoid a rather imminent shortfall scenario if recent Cook Inlet supply/demand projections hold true. As we ramp up renewable generation, LNG import may be necessary to “bridge the gap.” The feasibility of one each utility-scale wind and solar project west of Mt. Susitna is currently being evaluated, and as a Board we will need to press on other similar proposals/projects so that LNG import may be avoided or minimized. The CEA Board can press only so hard to initiate and negotiate wind and solar farm projects, and upgrades to the power transmission system, so in the next 3-4 years it must realistically evaluate the need for importing LNG (as early as about 2029 based on projected supply shortfalls). Of course, if a North Slope “bullet line” is built to Southcentral Alaska in the next 5-7 years – which is outside the influence of the CEA Board – we will easily have sufficient natural gas availability to bridge the gap to major renewable generation.
6. In recent years many have argued that there needs to be greater collaboration among the Railbelt utilities, leading to the creation of the Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) in 2022. Do you believe that utility Board Directors have a role in fostering greater collaboration and integration among Railbelt utilities, or should they defer to staff on these questions? What can board members do to facilitate greater cooperation?
The Board of Directors should have a role, though with CEA legal counsel holding Seat A on the RRC, and the other Railbelt utilities also each holding a seat, the Board can work through their representative to foster collaboration and integration. CEA’s legal counsel on Seat A (currently M. Clarkson) routinely interacts with the Board, so a conduit exists for collaboration. Board members may attend training, conferences and other events where they can foster cooperation and knowledge exchange with other Railbelt utilities’ directors. The RRC, supported by the Railbelt utilities including CEA, is an example of collaboration between the utilities, and it should enhance collaboration/cooperation once it is fully operational.
7. The Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) proposal introduced last year by Governor Dunleavy was recently reintroduced in the Alaska Legislature (HB 121 and SB 101). This bill would require utilities to reach 80% renewable power generation by 2040 with intermediate targets along the way. Last year the Railbelt utilities supported amendments that pushed back the milestones and changed the RPS into Clean Energy Standards (CES) that included nuclear power and gas generation technologies (waste heat recovery) that the utilities already have in place. Do you support either the RPS or CES? If so, which do you believe would better serve Alaskans? What role should the Board have in advocacy for either?
I would support the RPS, but the currently proposed goals are not realistic and should be altered based on rational discussions and consideration of technology, capital costs, construction costs and siting/permitting/construction timelines. CEA’s renewable generation sources make up about 19% of its total power generation (~81% natural gas), with about 16% hydro and 3% wind (0.1% solar). Increasing the renewable contribution to 55% by 2035 represents an approximate tripling of the renewables contribution. Since hydroelectric proportion increase will likely be minimal (permitting a major dam/hydroelectric project is highly improbable), most of the increase must come from wind and solar. If CEA annual sales in 2020 were 1,945 GWh, this percentage increase in renewables represents an additional contribution of about 660 GWh from wind and solar. This value equates to about 13 wind farms the size of the current Fire Island facility, or building more than one per year by 2035. Economies of scale can certainly improve the outlook for building this much capacity, but given the challenges of testing, siting, land purchase, permitting and constructing such facilities, this goal may not be achievable. However, we MUST sensibly transition to renewables, and I will support that goal provided financial penalties for non-attainment are minimal and will not affect CEA’s credit rating and ability to obtain financing – and such financing will be critical for funding power transmission system upgrades and additional renewable generation projects.
8. How do you think CEA can best take advantage of the many federal infrastructure incentives and grants created under programs such as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)?
I believe the Board can work with the CEA executive team and CEA staff (who are already evaluating these opportunities) to identify major projects that might qualify for funding under these programs. Optimizing opportunity for taking advantage of such programs may require investment in personnel with expertise in this area, and assigning staff to identify and scope qualifying projects.
