MEA Candidate Questions: Dan Tucker

Voting in the Matanuska Electric Association’s 2023 board election begins on March 30. Election information and paper ballots will be mailed to members at the end of March. MEA will be accepting paper ballots until 5 p.m. on April 24. Members may also vote electronically via their SmartHub accounts by the same deadline. Members who have not voted by mail or on-line will also have a chance to vote at the MEA Annual Meeting on April 25.

Here are the answers for Dan Tucker, one of the nine candidates running for two At-Large seat on the MEA Board. Tucker has lived in Wasilla since 1977. After a long career as a fire fighter, he retired from the Anchorage Fire Department as a Battalion Chief and has since owned a number of small businesses. Tucker served as a member of MEA’s Bylaws and Elections Committees before being appointed to an At-Large Seat on MEA’s Board in 2020. His full candidate profile can be found on the MEA Election page.

Dan Tucker from his MEA Candidate profile

1. Why do you want to serve on MEA’s Board?

I want to continue to serve on MEA’s Board to help ensure that our Coop continues to serve its members in the manner that we have become accustomed. I’ve got an investment in our past, present, and future, and I want to ensure that it is protected and preserved.

As an MEA member/owner since 1977, I’ve been around during good times and bad in MEA’s history. I built my home while MEA was enduring a strike – brought about by a heavily politicized and, as far as I’m concerned, corrupt administration. I was a victim of that political manipulation when I ran for the Board in 2007 – the Administration composed, wrote, audited, planned, and counted the ballots. The very wording of some items can hugely influence the interpretation and outcome of the vote. And they used that tactic to the nth degree.

This dark period continued through about June 2009, but the light began shining slightly prior to that. It took a nearly complete change of the Board, beginning during the early 00’s, to bring it about. I have personally known most of the Board members since those times and interacted with and supported them.

I also was on the Bylaw Committee from 2008 until my appointment to the Board in 2020 – I applied for it with the intention of trying to correct the wrongs of the way things were being done. And I, through the committee process and with the support of the other committee members, got that to happen. Literally the entire election process was changed between 2008-2011 to what it is now. In addition, I was actively involved with the Bylaw Committee during the first couple of years that work was being done to update the entire Coop Bylaws, and on the Board of Directors as the present Restated Bylaws were voted on and accepted during our last election. And they work, fairly and equally.

And I was also appointed to the Election Committee and helped get the election committee participation in the elections/voting process completely reorganized so that the member-appointed committee monitors and reviews all aspects of the election process rather than just the administration. And that works, fairly and well.

In 2020 was appointed to the current Board of Directors to fill a vacancy made by a Board member who had to retire out-of-sequence. I’ve been an active participant at the innermost workings of MEA for almost 20 years and know and understand what was, and what is. I have attended over 500 hours of training and more than 20 classes to learn the best ways to be a board member, to operate and direct a Coop, and to learn about the business model and processes. I have achieved Director Gold, the highest certification NRECA awards.

I have a handle on the past and want to be sure we don’t go back there. I have a handle on the present as I helped bring it about. And I’ve been very active in learning what we need to do to be able to keep our lights on in the future. I want to stay on the Board to help achieve 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?

The principal policy that is on our plate is providing safe, efficient, economical power to our members. Ensuring that our employees are well trained and have safe and productive working conditions is paramount – without that, they can’t be effective. And planning for our future power needs is essential. Integrating and utilizing alternative forms of reduced-or-non-carbon- producing energy is a goal.

3. What are the biggest challenges MEA will face in the next five to ten years? What can be done to prepare to meet them?

There are a few, though they are mostly integrated. The Five-Year window is too short for any ‘new options’ to be implemented. The 10-year window offers hope for alternatives technological advances. We’re discussing 15- to 25-years out already.

• The pending ‘gas shortage’ – won’t affect us until 2028 but will impact us one way or another then. Alternative strategies are being investigated and discussed.

• Alternative energy strategies that aren’t sufficient to replace gas-produced power. Alternative options and strategies are being investigated and discussed. Though the lead time for most is long.

• Non-redundant infrastructure – lack of a second gas line/major transmission line. This is being discussed and some potential solutions are being pursued.

4. In 2022 MEA’s Board spent 47% 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 MEA’s Board minimize its use of Executive Session? What could be done to achieve this goal?

It certainly doesn’t seem that we spend that much time in Executive session, though there is an occasional significant issue that can skew the averages and force the numbers to look questionable. The briefings we customarily get each month or so are on items that are not appropriate to discuss in open session and normally only takes 10-20 minutes. On occasion the ES can get lengthy when dealing with certain subjects like personnel issues, review of lawsuits, or security items. But, again, all it takes is one deep subject to really skew the averages.

Understanding there are many reasons to go into ‘Executive Session’, most are literally required by law. We cannot discuss personnel matters in public; there are some items that involve other agencies, or agreements that are under review and/or negotiation that require or have non-disclosure conditions attached; and potential lawsuits and such things as Union contract negotiations are not for public discussion.

And then you would have to take into consideration that no actions or commitments (contracts enacted, etc.) can be made during Executive Sessions; nor are they.

And I will assure you that in my experience, Executive Session is entered into ONLY when necessary and appropriate, and no violations of member trust have occurred while I was in Executive Session.

So, to summarize, I believe we achieve an honest goal of being as open with all discussion as is possible. I know, from the inside, that our actions and activities would stand up to any public scrutiny. We only enter Executive Session when it is absolutely necessary. Again, only for reasons that justify and demand the session.

5. Hilcorp has said that it cannot guarantee natural gas supplies from Cook Inlet beyond its current contracts (MEA’s contract with Hilcorp ends in 2028). What strategies should MEA use to address potential future shortfalls in Cook Inlet natural gas?

The fact of the matter is, MEA cannot do anything to “address potential future shortfalls in Cook Inlet natural gas.” MEA is not a gas company.

MEA can seek alternative sources of natural gas – if any are available.

MEA can lobby all levels of government to promote industry support to either drill for more gas in Cook Inlet; or assist with programs to promote more discovery elsewhere; or to promote the North Slope Bullet Line; or to promote LNG importation.

MEA can also work with IPP’s to bring on more alternative energy sources – though it is reasonably proven that not enough can be brought on-line to solve that problem in a timely manner; and technology has not advanced to the point that it can overcome the energy-demand shortfall.

MEA can also work with members and users of its power to do what they can to reduce demand, which will reduce consumption of gas to produce the power.

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 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?

MEA’s Board has, from day one, fully supported full and complete railbelt energy cooperation. MEA’s Board has a member/representative sitting on the RRC. In addition, we have wholly supported our CEO, who is uniquely and prominently positioned in most all of the groups, committees and collaborations that are working on this subject.

Our Board members are hard pressed to be any more integrated or involved, but willing to do whatever is necessary to get us there.

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 support both/either/neither with conditions. Without significant technological advances, both are unrealistic in goal. Because, while 2040 seems a long way away, few proponents of these proposals are willing to acknowledge the practical requirements of time, planning, development, and hurdles that need to be overcome to reach them. One lawsuit challenging the location, or the environmental studies, or the required infrastructure improvements necessary to achieve them can throw a years-long monkey wrench into the plans.

And we can’t overlook the cost of any or all of these factors.

 As a current Board member, I support study, development and implementation of reduced-carbon and alternative energy sources as soon and as quickly as they are practically achievable. I do not arbitrarily advocate, restrict, favor, or rule out any alternative energy sources. I still remember such false start leaps like Beta/VHS and don’t want to be a leader in a foolhardy effort. We will get there.

8. How do you think MEA 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)?

MEA’s Board is fully on board with exploiting and advantaging any methods or means of accessing and using the funds being made available via these programs. To my knowledge, there are some restrictions to the disbursement of those funds that are not to our individual or (railbelt) collective advantage; and I know that this is being discussed at the highest levels to make them favorably accessible.