CEA candidate questions—Todd Lindley
Voting in the Chugach Electric Association’s 2024 board election started on April 17 and runs through the CEA Annual Meeting on May 17. Members will elect two directors (CEA directors are at-large and represent the entire membership). There are also two bylaw changes on the ballot.
Members can vote three ways: electronically, by mail, or in person at the Annual Meeting.
--Members should have received an email with instructions for on-line voting on April 17—electronic voting will close at 3 p.m. on May 17. Election-related emails will come from the address noreply@directvote.net
--Those wishing to vote by mail need to contact the Election Administrator at 866-909-3549 to request a ballot. Mail-in ballots must be received by noon on May 16. Please note that the Election Administrator is located in Minnesota, not Anchorage.
--In person voting will be at the Annual Meeting on May 17 (registration starts at 5 p.m.)
For more information, see the CEA Election page.
Here are the responses to the AETP questionnaire from Todd Lindley, who is running for one of the two at-large seats on the Board. Lindley has worked for 15 years in the oil, gas, and energy field, and is currently employed as a mechanical engineer at the Aleyska Pipeline Service Company. Lindley has been a CEA member for 9 years. His campaign website is www.votechugachstability.org
Todd Lindley from his CEA candidate profile
1. Why do you want to serve on the CEA Board?
I want to serve on the CEA board because I think that I have the technical and leadership skills necessary to help navigate the future of the utility. I am a Professional Mechanical Engineer, with 15 years of experience in the energy industry having worked throughout the US (including onshore, offshore and Arctic) and in Russia. I have experience in risk management, project execution, emergency response, and strategic planning across large organizations. I have technical expertise in rotating equipment and process facilities as well as supervision of engineering and operations and maintenance personnel.
2. What do you think are the biggest challenges facing CEA over the next 5-10 years? What can be done to prepare to meet them?
The biggest challenges in the next 5-10 years are all centered around decarbonization. As it stands, there continues to be talk of gas shortages but the stall tactic of the current board is only increasing the price of gas making CO2 prices appear more attractive. When CEA signed up to meet certain decarbonization goals, they signaled to the public a pivot away from traditional sources of energy to new green energy that does not have a track record of affordability and reliability. A business cannot decarbonize and solve a natural gas ‘crisis’ because they are two different ideologies, only one wins.
What can be done. Undo the decarbonization policies at the utility level. At the service area level it is opposing bad policy in the legislature or advocating for protective amendments for the members so their rates are minimally impacted from a rapid and poorly thought through plan.
3. Although CEA is a member-owned cooperative, levels of member engagement and involvement are low—only 15.7 percent of members voted in the last election (and that was a significant increase from previous years) and few members attend board meetings. What can the board do to encourage greater member engagement and involvement in helping to guide the cooperative’s policies? For example, would you support moving board meetings to a time when more members could attend? Is there anything you would do as an individual board member to facilitate member engagement?
The use of social media has broken down barriers to allow for a wider broadcast of events and discussions. While I think that CEA has done a great job at advertising meetings and keeping calendars current, unless the members who receive bills every month take an interest, we won’t see an increase in participation. I’m indifferent on moving the times because it may not achieve the result. If that is something that is a concern, then the board can survey the membership and find out if there is a time that works better but I would not offer that without first gauging the board and the members. As an individual board member, I would promote events and messages on social media. It’s the quickest way to reach a wide audience in the community. Also being open to presenting at community councils, chamber events, and other gatherings of the member service area.
4. One practice that contributes to member disengagement is the extensive use of executive session in board meetings. In 2023 CEA’s board spent about a third of its regular board meetings (31.1 percent of meeting time) in executive session. This was a substantial decrease from 2022, when the board spent over 65 percent of its regular meetings in executive session, but still a considerable portion of meetings. Recognizing that the use of executive session is necessary at times, 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 continue to work to minimize its use of executive session? If so, what steps could be taken to achieve this goal?
Yes. The answer to this lies in how the executive session topics are questioned to identify and differentiate confidential matters from common matters. As an individual board member, I will ask those questions to test what information absolutely must be done in executive session and push to keep as much in regular sessions as possible.
5. In recent years there have been attempts to foster greater collaboration among the Railbelt utilities. Do cooperative boards have a role in facilitating greater cooperation, engaging directly with other boards, or should they defer to staff around collaborative efforts?
Yes but as far as a contract allows. The first priority is always to the CEA members and our ability to provide reliable and affordable power. If there is an arrangement related to a power sharing or a project collaboration it is necessary to ensure the terms are met. Up to the point, the staff should do everything within their scope of work to optimize the reliability for the CEA members. It is on the board to provide clarity on the mission of the company and why that collaboration is important for the utility and it’s members.
6. The increased collaboration among Railbelt cooperatives has included participation in several Railbelt-wide organizations. These have operated with varying levels of transparency. Some, like the Railbelt Reliability Council (the Electric Reliability Organization, or ERO, whose creation was mandated by the Legislature) have made an effort to be as transparent as possible. Others, such as the Utility Working Group looking at future gas supplies or the Bradley Project Management Committee (in its discussions of transmission planning and applications for federal grants), have conducted their work largely behind closed doors without consultation of other stakeholders, announcing their decisions to the public only after they have been made. (CEA’s board has been much more transparent about CEA’s independent gas supply study, including periodic updates during the public portions of their meetings).
Allowing that some aspects of these discussions need to be confidential, should boards be working to help make as much information as possible about them public before the final decisions are made? Or should these deliberations continue to be conducted in private?
We are all in competition in some form or fashion and if we are following the ebbs and flows of a supply and demand economy, then it is within the utilities right to pay for the information on their own to retain a competitive advantage. My view is, that in those groups the information that should be tested are the assumptions and these are what is to be debated. Any information beyond that can be worked up to the boundaries of the service area territory.
7. According to the report prepared by Black and Veatch, CEA could be facing shortfalls of Cook Inlet natural gas as soon as 2029. Given that CEA currently relies on Cook Inlet natural gas for 82 percent of its power generation (2022 figures), what should it be doing to plan for its generation needs over the next 10 years? Is this an area where the cooperatives should be collaborating on solutions? Should the state be playing a role?
The first thing would be to undo the decarbonization goals and forecast a realistic project timeline at the reliability targets under consideration. In the words of every individual in the energy sector and government, natural gas isn’t going away, so now it is time to even diversify how natural gas is deployed either by well or LNG [liquified natural gas]. The second thing is to define the reliability, availability, and capacity targets in the same time period and pursue diversification projects to carve a bigger wedge out of the gas towards coal and hydro.
Collaboration between the utilities may be necessary because not every area has access to gas, coal or hydro. Projects can be developed, like the Eklutna project where utilities can build these projects and tie-ins for their respective service area.
The state should be reversing their positions related to carbon legislation and ESG policy. These are counterproductive an ‘energy crisis’ and serve only put at risk individual liberties and private property. There is no place for policies like a Renewable Portfolio Standard, Clean Energy Standard, and Integrated Transmission Line legislation that do more to prohibit growth and disincentivize true energy security and independence.
8. Beyond the issues already discussed in this questionnaire, are there any particular policies or issues you think the board needs to address?
CEA needs to become self-aware and know that groups like REAP [the Renewable Energy Alaska Project] and the Alaska Center do not have the best interest of the members at heart. They are pursuing a renewable path built on federal tax credits and unreliability. I also believe REAP does not care about the natural gas resources because they have hired EarthJustice to support the rate case. Earthjustice’s stated goal is to “End the Extraction and Burning of Fossil Fuels”. REAP and the Alaska Center are behind policies like RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standards] and removal of the Eklutna Dam. The utility and the board need to know that these groups will do more harm than good to the utility and put the entire business at risk including those on the board that have a conflict of interest related to these groups.
