HEA Candidate Questions—Erin McKittrick

Voting opened March 28 in HEA’s board election and runs through the Annual Meeting on May 1. Members can vote in 3 ways:

• Electronically via the HEA election portal until 5 p.m. on April 30.

• By mail—beginning this year, members wishing to vote by mail need to request a ballot. Mail in ballots must be received by the election administrator in Minnesota by 5 p.m. on April 30 to be counted.

• In person at the HEA Annual Meeting at Kenai Central High School. The meeting starts at 6 p.m.; voting will be open from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

More information, including access to the online portal and the form to request paper ballots, can be found on the HEA election page.

Here are the questionnaire responses for Erin McKittrick, a candidate in HEA’s District 3 (which includes Homer, Seldovia, and parts of Kasilof). McKittrick was first elected to the HEA Board in 2019 and is running for her third term. She currently is co-chair of HEA’s Renewable Energy Committee. McKittrick is a scientific writer and editor, whose work includes contributions to the Alaska Energy Blog. Her other volunteer experience includes being a founding member and Director of Ground Truth Alaska and serving on the Public Policy Committee of the Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP).

Her campaign website is https://www.erinforhea.com and campaign Facebook page is  https://www.facebook.com/ErinForHEA/. Her HEA candidate page can be found here.

Erin McKittrick, from her HEA candidate profile

1. Why do you want to serve on the HEA Board?

I want to reduce our dependence on natural gas through the proactive addition of renewable energy, continue member-focused energy saving programs like net metering and heat pump rebates, and bring members into the conversation through greater transparency and engagement, publishing my analyses of data and policy online.

2. What do you think are the biggest challenges facing HEA over the next 5-10 years? What can be done to prepare to meet them?

The Cook Inlet natural gas crisis is the biggest one. We’re about to be on an ‘interruptible’ contract for a year, imports may not come through before a shortfall happens, and both imported gas and the remains of Cook Inlet gas will be a lot more expensive than today. We meet this challenge by proactively reducing our dependence on gas, adding renewable energy to our mix. In the near term, solar is quick to build and saves fuel, wind can cover a large portion of our energy needs but likely requires collaborating with other utilities, and slower-to-build location-dependent resources like geothermal and Dixon Diversion hydro can come in to help balance the intermittent sources which were previously backed up with gas.

3. The Railbelt utilities are facing many common issues, such as shortfalls of Cook Inlet natural gas and the need for transmission upgrades. There is some collaboration among utilities to address these issues, although this has sometimes required legislative intervention (such as the formation of the Railbelt Regional Transmission Organization).

What role do cooperative boards have in working toward greater collaboration among the Railbelt utilities? Should this be done solely through directives to staff, or is there a place for direct collaboration between boards and/or board members?

I think boards should interact and collaborate more. Most information we get is fed to us by our own staff, with a utility-specific spin. Even hearing other versions can help us understand where other people are coming from, and potentially address concerns individual utilities have with specific collaboration initiatives. It’s kind of crazy that the managers talk regularly, and the boards, which are in charge of the managers, only occasionally interact at annual meetings (where usually they aren’t all present), unless they seek out those interactions. I’ve found conversations with other Railbelt board members to be very helpful.

4. Legislators give considerable weight to input provided by utilities on legislation that affects them. What role should board members play in developing their cooperative’s stance on bills before the Legislature? How should the Board interact with staff on these issues?

Generally there’s considerable disagreement on this type of legislation on the board, and with management. Theoretically, the board sets policy. Theoretically, management should only lobby for or against pending legislation if the board officially votes on a position. Practically, management ends up saying a lot is “operational” and or “fast moving,” so the board has relatively little input on our lobbying. It’s inevitable that utilities will be asked to testify on these bills, so I think managers should make clear (and legislators should ask them!) when they are stating simple factual information about their utility, when they are expressing an official position as endorsed by the board of directors, and when they are expressing their personal viewpoint based on their knowledge and expertise.

5. Imported LNG is expected to cost about 40-50% more than the current price of Cook Inlet natural gas. A recent ADN story indicated that the Cook Inlet gas from Furie’s new wells will be almost as expensive (this is the anticipated source of the natural gas for HEA’s contract extension with ENSTAR). The contract extension with ENSTAR is also interruptible (meaning the delivery of the contracted gas is not guaranteed). Given these facts:

a/Would you support HEA signing a power purchase agreement with a renewable independent power producer whose cost of power would be higher than the cost of HEA’s current gas-fired generation, but less expensive than power generated with more expensive natural gas in the future?

Yes. This is easy math. If we’re looking at a 20 year power purchase agreement, we need to look at costs and benefits over the whole 20 years. 

It’s the utility’s job to plan for the long term, and HEA already includes increasing gas prices in its investment planning. Not only would this save members money, it would add an important element of stability and predictability. Those prices will be known ahead of time, while gas prices likely won’t be. 

Right now, we buy gas at a price Enstar adjusts every year. It’s also possible that the RCA will order HEA to pay higher prices than Enstar’s other customers. 

b/The developer of the Puppy Dog Lake solar project withdrew from their power purchase agreement with HEA in late January, citing financial reasons. Should HEA work proactively with this (or another) independent power producer to revive the project? Should it consider investing directly in this or a similar project?

Yes. I think it would be a good idea for HEA to develop the project itself, if the owner was willing to sell it. We have fewer financial constraints than an independent company. We don’t need profit, and can access cheaper financing. Also, to be beneficial, the project doesn’t need to beat yesterday’s gas prices, but future ones. I think there is almost certainly an economically good pathway forward to get this built, and all the hurdles of integration planning and land leasing have already been passed.

6. Although HEA is a member-owned cooperative, levels of member engagement and involvement are low—only 16.5% of members voted in the last election and very few members attend board meetings. Do you believe that the Board should try to increase member engagement? If so, what can the Board do to encourage greater member engagement and involvement in helping to guide the cooperative’s policies?

Yes. For my part, I have worked to increase engagement by bringing key information outside of the board room. I analyze data and write updates on key events from board meetings, coop operations and economics, and regulatory and policy proceedings that affect HEA. I post these on social media, and also write longer analyses on my AlaskaEnergy.org blog

Beyond my personal actions, I’d like to see the board record its meetings and put them on the website for members to view later, along with any public presentations. I’d also like if we sometimes specifically put “discussing member comments” on the agenda sometimes. It’s hard to respond in the moment, but I think the few members that comment often see that we sit there, listen, say thanks, and never bring it up again. If we collated all those comments, and brought them up, say, quarterly, and actually discussed them, members could actually see what the board thought about their concerns.

7. The extensive use of executive session by utility boards contributes to member disengagement. In 2024, HEA’s Board spent 27% of its board meetings in executive session. 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 HEA’s Board minimize its use of executive session? If so, what steps could be taken to achieve this goal?

We should use executive session as little as possible. In general, every executive session has a valid reason, but it’s easy for the board to end up discussing an entire topic in executive session, rather than just those parts of it that are confidential. I think we should be more careful to separate out exactly which numbers and facts are secret ahead of time. Generally, this would be something the board would need to direct staff to do (staff tells us we need an executive session, but the board does not generally know the details ahead of time). Then we could present and discuss the general topic in open session before the executive session.

For example, staff could present something like “We’ve been talking to a power producer about a potential project of type X, with this general size range. The economics look good, and our engineers think this could be integrated into our system with our existing battery and could save a substantial amount of gas”  Then the actual contract numbers could be discussed in executive session.

8. Beyond the issues discussed above, are there any other policies or issues facing the HEA Board you would like to address?

Net metering. We have a number of board members who would like to limit or kill net metering based on an incorrect assessment of potential cross subsidization. I’ve analyzed this, and presented it to the board. Any cross subsidization is negligibly tiny and no different than electricity conservation. In contrast, allowing net metering lets members take charge of their own energy and save fuel right away, faster than any utility project can be built.