Public Comment Period Open On Energy Security Task Force’s Draft State Energy Plan
By Brian Kassof
The Alaska Energy Security Task Force, created this spring by Governor Dunleavy, released a draft version of its Statewide Energy Master Plan on October 3. The plan’s stated purpose is to find ways to lower power costs and ensure electric reliability across the state in the coming decades. [ed. note—A revised draft of the plan, with significant changes to some sections, was posted without notice to the Task Force’s website on October 20. This article is based on the original draft].
The task force will be accepting public comments on the draft plan through October 24. Members of the public can comment on the draft plan during the task force’s October 24 meeting from 5 to 6 p.m. (note-this represents a change in time. A link will be available on the meeting agenda posted to the task force’s website a couple of days in advance). Written comments can also be submitted to info@akenergysecuritytaskforce.com until October 24. After accepting public comments, the task force will prepare the final version of its plan, which is due to be submitted to the governor on December 1. [ed. note—the deadline for written comments has been extended to 5 p.m. October 30].
The task force, which has fifteen voting and five non-voting members, was created by Governor Dunleavy in February and has been meeting periodically since April. According to the Administrative Order creating the task force its objective is to “develop a comprehensive statewide energy plan that will evaluate energy generation, distribution, and transmission for the state of Alaska…” with the goal of lowering energy prices. In April Governor Dunleavy told the task force that it should find ways to reduce the price of electricity in Alaska to 10 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) by 2030. On average Alaskans currently pay about 23 cents per kWh for power; the national average is around 16 cents per kWh.
The draft plan consists of six sections, each prepared by a corresponding sub-committee. Three are geographically focused (Railbelt, Coastal, Rural) and three on statewide policy (State Energy Data, Incentives and Subsidies, Statutes and Regulations). Each section identifies key goals, strategies to achieve them, and concrete actions to support each strategy. Although the plan will carry no legal weight, its findings are expected to influence proposed legislation and initiatives from the governor’s office.
While a period for public comment has opened, neither it nor the draft plan have been widely advertised. Only a handful of people testified during the task force’s first opportunity for public testimony on October 10 (which occurred less than a week after the draft plan was made available to the public). The meeting was publicly noticed on the state’s Online Public Notices Page, and the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), which is providing logistical support for the task force, shared information about the plan and the public comment opportunities on its social media. An AEA spokesperson said there were no other plans to publicize the draft or public comment opportunities.
The Task Force’s Draft Plan:
The draft plan released on October 3 differs substantially from a list of preliminary actions presented to the task force in late August—the earlier document was a compilation of ideas from a variety of sources, while the draft plan represents the more focused work of the task force’s six sub-committees.
The draft plan contains six sections. Five of the sections lay out key aims and a number of strategic goals to achieve them. Each strategic goal is accompanied by a number of recommended actions. Overall, the plan currently contains 24 strategic goals and 107 recommended actions. The sub-committee on Statutes and Regulations has largely held off on identifying strategies and goals, saying that its recommendations will be shaped to provide legislative and legal support for the rest of the plan. One of the main jobs still facing the task force is to reconcile the different strategies and actions recommended by the six sub-committees—there is a great deal of overlap, and potentially some conflicts, between its different sections.
Some of the draft plan’s notable recommended actions include:
--The transfer/sale of Railbelt transmission assets to either AEA or a non-profit transmission company (an attempt to do this under a for-profit entity failed in 2019). The Railbelt refers to the region served by the Alaska Railroad, running north from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks. The plan also considers a number of steps to standardize the interconnection and integration costs for independent power producers to join transmission systems. (Strategy A-1; Actions B 1.3; C 2.5; E 2.2)
--Calls for a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) or Clean Energy Standard (CES)—both appear in different parts of the plan. An RPS sets firm targets for a percentage of power generation that must be produced by renewable resources by a set date—utilities failing to meet these benchmarks would have to pay fines (a current RPS proposal before the Legislature would require Railbelt utilities to achieve 80 percent renewable generation by 2040). A CES sets unenforced goals for “clean energy” generation (a broader category than renewables that includes nuclear power). The CES proposal here would provide incentives to utilities which met its goals. (Actions A 2.1; E 2.3)
--Revisions to the Power Cost Equalization program (PCE). One idea is to create a “postage-stamp rate” for power that would be charged to all Alaskans, regardless of location. (Strategy E-3; Action D 4.4)
--Promotion of technologies such as heat pumps and other forms of ‘beneficial electrification,’ as well as more support for net-metering (which allows households with solar panels to sell power back into the electric grid) and innovative funding programs such as on-bill financing. (Actions B 1.2, 1.5, 4.1; E 7.2)
--Better compilation and utilization of data on power generation, transmission, and consumption. (Section D)
--Steps to encourage private investment in the power industry. (Strategies E-2, E-7; Actions C 1.2; E 1.5, 5.5, 5.6)
--Efforts to train and develop a workforce to build and maintain existing and new power technologies. (Actions B 1.6, 4.1, 4.5; C 3.1; E 4.4)
--Establishment of a “Green Bank” to support “community scale energy efficiency projects.” (It is not clear how closely this matches the Green Bank bill introduced in the last legislative session). (Action E 4.3)
--Creation of a “community outreach and education program” designed to counter local opposition to mining and hydroelectric projects. (Action C 3.3)
Many of the draft plan’s suggested actions are very brief—one or two sentences, leaving their full significance unclear. There are two appendices (Action Tracking Sheets and Detailed Action Summary pages) that provide more detail on some of the proposed actions, but the majority remain mere sketches, with important details still to be filled in.
Several themes emerge across the plan’s different sections. One is the streamlining and/or elimination of state and federal regulations and permitting requirements for power-related projects. Another is coordinating local and state efforts to leverage federal funding opportunities, particularly funds made available under the 2021 Infrastructure and Jobs Act (IJA) and the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act.
A third theme is using greater demand for electricity, mainly through increased industrial/commercial development and beneficial electrification, as ways to reduce overall energy prices—this appears to be one of the task force’s main strategies to achieve Governor Dunleavy’s call for lower energy prices. Since many of the costs associated with power generation and transmission are fixed (generation plant construction and maintenance, transmission capacity, utility overhead), the more power a utility can sell, the more these costs can be spread out, lowering the cost of each kWh. The draft plan cites Iceland as a successful example of this strategy.
In the case of the Railbelt, the push for greater load appears to be tied to another of that sub-committee’s recommendations—that the state fund new feasibility studies of the construction of a “bullet” gas pipeline from the North Slope and/or the construction of the Susitna-Watana dam, projects that would require billions of dollars of state spending. (A “bullet” pipeline would serve in-state needs only, as opposed to the larger, export-oriented Gasline project). At least one of these would likely be necessary to support any substantial load growth in the Railbelt over the next decade.
The Railbelt has unused generation capacity (the result of a building spree in the 2010s), but is facing shortages of Cook Inlet natural gas, which powers most of its generation plants. Utilities expect to need to find other sources of natural gas as early as 2026. Imports of liquified natural gas (LNG) are expected to be 50 percent more expensive than Cook Inlet gas, making it unlikely to lower power prices. The price of gas from a bullet pipeline from the North Slope would be lower, but only if the state provides about $8 billion in subsidies. John Sims, the president of Enstar, the gas utility serving Southcentral, and a member of the Railbelt sub-committee, has recently called for the state to subsidize such a pipeline. The Susitna-Watana dam is the only other likely project that could significantly expand Railbelt generation; its construction would also require billions of dollars from the state.
The draft plan’s recommendations reflect a mix of innovative technologies, ideas already under consideration, and attempts to pursue long-standing agendas. An example of an innovative technology is the recommendation that Alaska consider allowing “virtual power plants”—this is where a large number of small-scale generation devices and storage systems (such as rooftop solar or the power stored in the battery of an electric vehicle) can be aggregated into a system that sells power into the grid when demand is high. (Action E 7.7)
Examples of long-standing agendas being reframed as part of the energy plan include support for projects that have been discussed for decades, such as a gas pipeline or the Susitna-Watana dam. Some suggested actions appear to be designed to use the building of renewable generation facilities and transmission lines to weaken the federal ‘roadless rule’ in the Tongass National Forest. (Actions B 2.1, 2.2; E 1.2)
Public Comment Opportunities:
The task force held its first public comment session on Tuesday October 10 from 2 to 4 p.m.; a second session was scheduled for the same time on October 24. Only six people testified at this meeting. Four spoke on behalf of community organizations and addressed specific aspects of the plan. The other two commenters criticized the logistics of the plan’s release and opportunities for public input. They expressed concern about the lack of publicity around the plan’s release and opportunities for public testimony, the short window between the draft’s release and the October 10 meeting, and the fact that both opportunities for public testimony were taking place during the work day, making it difficult for many people to participate.
The draft was posted to the task force’s public website on October 4. And while the meeting was publicly noticed on the state’s Online Public Notices Page, the only other public announcement of the draft’s release and the opportunities for public comment came via postings on AEA’s Facebook and LinkedIn pages on the afternoon of Friday October 6.
In response to concerns about the meeting times, Task Force Chair Lt. Governor Nancy Dahlstrom announced that the time for the October 24 meeting was being changed to 5-6 p.m. This will make it easier for members of the public to participate, but also halves the time allotted for testimony that day. AEA Executive Director Curtis Thayer, who serves as one of the task force’s Vice Chairs, also mentioned that individuals unable to attend one of the meetings can submit written comments until October 24.
The Task Force’s Creation and Operation:
Governor Dunleavy has spoken about energy prices and the state’s energy future on a number of occasions. He has stated that low-cost energy is a key for Alaska’s future economic development. In 2022 he sponsored a bill for the creation of an RPS that would have required that 80 percent of Railbelt electric generation come from renewable sources by 2040. This bill did not advance during that legislative session—it was reintroduced in the 2023 Session, but without the governor’s backing.
In the fall of 2022 Governor Dunleavy announced the creation of an Office of Energy Innovation, headed by one of his aides, John Espindola. Espindola was credited with helping to set up the task force, but beyond that there has been no public discussion of the office or its work. No replacement for Espindola was publicly announced when the governor appointed him to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska in June. Another Dunleavy aide, Andrew Jensen, was introduced as the office’s new head at the task force’s June 27 meeting.
The governor’s office announced the creation of the Energy Security Task Force on February 23, and its members were named on March 22. Its fifteen voting members represented state agencies, utilities, independent power producers, mining and other industries, the University of Alaska, and the public. There are also five non-voting members, including representatives from the Legislature.
A full list of task force members can be found here:
The task force’s original charge was to deliver a preliminary report by May 19 and to complete its work by October 31. This schedule has since been revised—the draft plan released last week is its first full report and the deadline to complete its work has been pushed back to December 1. The task force met about once a month from April to August, with more frequent meetings in September and October. The bulk of its work has been carried out by its six sub-committees, which have been meeting since July.
The task force heard numerous presentations from energy experts, including an eight-part Energy Symposium series. All of these presentations, along with recordings of task force meetings (including some, but not all, sub-committee meetings) are available on the task force’s website.
There was some controversy around the task force in June after one of its Vice Chairs, Gwen Holdmann, founding Director of the University of Alaska’s Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) was removed by the governor and replaced with another UA representative. The reasons for her removal remain murky, although they were likely related to a series of opinion-pieces she authored on Alaska’s energy landscape (more on this story can be found in this piece by Nat Herz). Holdmann has continued to consult with the task force after her dismissal as a voting member.
The task force’s report should not be confused with the state’s Energy Security Plan, which is required by the IJA. That plan is being developed separately by AEA—its final version was scheduled to be released on September 30.
