MEA Candidate Questions—Mark Masteller
Voting opens on April 3 in MEA’s board election and runs through its Annual Meeting on April 29. Members can vote in 3 ways:
Electronically—materials will be sent out electronically on April 3, online voting closes at 5 p.m. on April 28
By mail—ballots and election pamphlets will be mailed on April 3, mail-in ballot must be received by 5 p.m. on April 28
At the MEA Annual Meeting, to be held at 3 p.m. on April 29 at the Glenn Massay Theater.
More information is available on the MEA election page.
Here are the questionnaire responses for Mark Masteller, who is running for reelection in the Matanuska District. Masteller has served on the MEA Board since 2017. Now retired, he has worked as a biologist for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and a faculty member/program head of the Sustainable Energy Programs at UAA and UAF. His other volunteer work includes service on the Matanuska-Susitna Borough’s Energy Policy Review Commission and Planning Commission.
Mark Masteller, from his MEA candidate profile
1. Why do you want to serve on the MEA Board?
This is a pivotal moment for our cooperative. With 85% of our power reliant on natural gas and gas purchases being the largest expense for our member-owners, the stakes couldn’t be higher. MEA’s gas supply contract ends in 2028, and all future gas options indicate our members could face steep price hikes. My eight years of MEA board experience, and background in energy diversification, helps provide important perspective as the board confronts this critical challenge.
MEA is charged with safely providing reliable and affordable electricity. The board’s job is to represent current and future member-owners, ensure the financial health of the organization and help shape important decisions that impact our member-owners. In member surveys reliable power consistently ranks as the number one concern.
Our current gas supply crisis offers both challenges and opportunities. The board must carefully analyze solutions that allow for near-term certainty with long-term flexibility to meet that mission. To keep member costs low we need to develop rational short-, medium- and long-term strategies to reduce our dependence on natural gas. These strategies include conserving our gas supply through efficiency actions, carefully evaluating our supply options (with an eye toward reducing purchased fuel costs), and continuing to work with independent power providers developing renewable energy projects – solar, wind, batteries, hydro, geothermal - that make economic sense for our members.
2. What do you think are the biggest challenges facing MEA over the next 5-10 years? What can be done to prepare to meet them?
The two biggest near- and mid-term challenges facing MEA are:
1. Ensuring a reliable near-term gas supply while NOT making longer-term investments in “permanent” gas (or other fossil energy) infrastructure or supply, and,
2. Keeping rates affordable by developing an aggressive renewable energy vision/goal and practical strategy to transition away from increasingly expensive natural gas.
To address the critical, near-term challenge we will need to import natural gas, and possibly even use diesel fuel. This strategy allows us to both ensure reliability for our members and minimize investment in gas infrastructure. In the board room I need to continue to try to convince other board members that any energy supply that comes with a fuel cost (i.e. fossil energy) exposes our members to unpredictable risks related to future fuel availability and volatile price instability.
Importing gas in the near term allows MEA the flexibility to take stronger steps to move away from gas in the middle and long term. Diversifying our supply options with clean energy will help keep rates as low as possible for our co-op member-owners, and MEA surveys show more than 70% of our member-owners want a larger share of our power to come from renewable sources.
What the board must do is set the vision and goal. During 2023 I was instrumental in establishing the current MEA goal of 50% clean energy by 2050. This is one step we can take to help reduce dependence on increasingly expensive natural gas. (By the way, I proposed a more aggressive goal, but this is what the board could agree on.) Deliberate, economical actions to reduce our dependence on gas benefits our member-owners in the near and long term. (Kodiak Electric, also facing very high fuel costs, successfully transitioned to 99.5% renewable generation once their board established a goal and transition strategy.)
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 believe there could be more collaboration among Railbelt utility boards, and indeed there have been attempts at this over the last couple years. It’s proven difficult, however; many board members believe this involves ceding board authority and abrogating our responsibility to co-op members. When board members from various utilities do get together (e.g. at APA [Alaska Power Association] meetings) it’s understood that no action can be taken. If the majority of each board agreed we could 1) gather publicly in a properly noticed way to address any open meeting issues, and 2) direct staff to work together toward agreed-upon goals. While I don’t see this happening any time soon, things can change as board members change.
A possible avenue to help make progress in this area is to convince boards and staff to treat the Railbelt as a “single load balancing area.” Not to get too much in the weeds, but in fact this was stipulated by the utilities for the recent (E3) Railbelt wind studies report. At MEA this would start with a board discussion of the pros and cons of establishing a single load balancing area. (MEA and CEA already work together as a single load balancing area.)
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?
The board is charged with providing direction for the cooperative, which includes developing any positions presented to legislators. Any talking points developed should be first approved by the board.
5. MEA is involved in making decisions about the full or partial restoration of the Eklutna River and its salmon run. Are you committed to working with Indigenous councils and leadership toensure that their perspectives are given full consideration on issues like the Eklutna restoration?
If so, what steps would you take to ensure that MEA takes a more proactive approach to collaboration with Indigenous communities on this and other local energy projects?
I believe the MEA board should work with local/regional Native organizations as we would any other government entity or corporation. Regarding Eklutna River and Hydro, I advocated for actions that would connect the river to the lake, which would benefit sockeye salmon (as well as the other four species of salmon). However, that was not the final position of our board. I’m looking forward to proposed Indigenous-owned energy projects that provide community partnership opportunities for MEA and enhance overall system reliability and stability. MEA has shown a successful history of establishing power purchase agreements with independent power providers, given they can supply power at a price that benefits our members.
6. Although MEA is a member-owned cooperative, levels of member engagement and involvement are low—only 12 percent 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?
While I think the board and staff should always work to increase member engagement, I have to say that right now there are not many obstacles to member engagement during open session at board meetings and at the annual meeting. People can attend in person or virtually. I am constantly inviting people to make comments during our public comment segment, but it rarely happens. One member recently pointed out, with testimony at a board meeting, that it can be difficult to know how to attend a board meeting if using a phone to access our web site. This was very valuable information and staff will work on it.
However, I know that when there’s a big issue our members will turn out. While I consider our gas supply crisis a BIG issue, apparently the majority of our members do not. Perhaps increasing rates (due to increases in natural gas cost and/or use of diesel fuel) will generate more engagement? I would welcome organizations like yours working to get people to board meetings--or to contact the board via email - with concise, cogent comments.
The board could also consider meeting later in the day. In my experience many people can make a 4pm meeting, and I would not want to change that unless board members got a number of emails or phone calls asking to change the meeting start time. I would be more than willing to advocate for a later start time if I knew people wanted that.
There is also a spot at our annual meeting (April 29 this year) for member comments. We know from surveys that 90+% of our members have never attended an annual meeting, and have no desire to, but it’s another opportunity to make input – usually with a bigger crowd in attendance. It’s just hard to get people to show up.
7. The extensive use of executive session by utility boards contributes to member disengagement. In 2024 MEA’s Board spent more time in executive session than it did in the open portions of its meetings (54% of overall meeting time was 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 MEA’s Board minimize its use of executive session? If so, what steps could be taken to achieve this goal?
Yes, the MEA board should minimize use of executive session – and I’m a bit surprised it’s only 54% of our time in executive session. I have had some success getting more of the CEO report in open session by reminding staff, and the board chair, that there are clear guidelines for use of executive session. In the past few months our staff has done a better job, regarding the monthly CEO/staff report, separating out items that do not need to be covered in executive session.
8. Beyond the issues discussed above, are there any other policies or issues facing the MEA Board you would like to address?
Along with establishing the Railbelt as a single load balancing area, the Railbelt could sure use a 200-300MW hydro project – preferably a pumped hydro system – to help provide baseload (“firm”) power. This would be on top of proposed large-scale wind projects. Of course hydro projects take a long time to develop. To further diversify we need some geothermal energy, and also tidal power.
Policies/program aimed at “beneficial electrification” are being considered, but right now everything is taking a back seat to the gas supply crisis. Given that situation I proposed (in 2023) a general efficiency goal – to reduce MEA’s consumption of gas by 10% by 2027. This received little support from our board.
It’s probably well known that a private company is proposing a coal-fired power plant, with carbon capture and sequestration systems, near Skwentna. It’s a highly speculative project with MANY unknowns, and does not have much support from MEA member-owners (as reported in our recent member survey). In my opinion it deserves no investment from MEA.
