04/10/2024 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB219 | |
| SB152 | |
| SB257 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 152 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 257 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 219 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 2024
1:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Jesse Bjorkman, Chair
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator Forrest Dunbar
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Click Bishop, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 219
"An Act relating to utilization review entities; exempting
certain health care providers from making preauthorization
requests for certain services; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED SB 219 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 152
"An Act relating to community energy facilities."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 257
"An Act relating to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska;
relating to public utilities; relating to electric reliability
organizations; relating to the Alaska Energy Authority; relating
to the Railbelt Transmission Organization; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 219
SHORT TITLE: PRIOR AUTH EXEMPT FOR HEALTH PROVIDERS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WILSON
02/07/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/24 (S) L&C, HSS
03/13/24 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/13/24 (S) Heard & Held
03/13/24 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/08/24 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/08/24 (S) Heard & Held
04/08/24 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/24 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 152
SHORT TITLE: COMMUNITY ENERGY FACILITIES; NET METERING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) WIELECHOWSKI
05/15/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/15/23 (S) L&C
01/29/24 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
01/29/24 (S) Heard & Held
01/29/24 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/24 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
BILL: SB 257
SHORT TITLE: ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATION
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/01/24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/24 (S) L&C, RES, FIN
03/01/24 (S) L&C WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE,RULE
23
03/04/24 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/04/24 (S) Heard & Held
03/04/24 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/04/24 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/04/24 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/27/24 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/27/24 (S) Heard & Held
03/27/24 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/05/24 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/05/24 (S) Heard & Held
04/05/24 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/24 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, District K
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 152.
SARAH MOON, Co-Founder
Fieldworks Power
San Francisco, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of SB
152.
KEVIN CRAY, Senior Regional Director
Coalition for Community Solar Access
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of SB
152.
JENNY MARIE-STRIKER, Political Director
The Alaska Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 152.
EMILY COHEN, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 152.
KYLA KOSEDNAR, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 152.
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the summary of changes for SB 152.
BECKI ALVEY, Advisory Section Manager
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments and answered questions on
SB 152.
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, District E
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 257.
SARAH LAMBE, CFO, Homer Electric Association
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presenter for a presentation on SB 257.
KERIANN BAKER, Chief Strategic Office, Homer Electric
Association
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presenter for a presentation on SB 257.
MIKE CRAFT, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 257.
KEN HUCKEBA, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 257.
JOEL GROVES, Board Chair
Railbelt Reliability Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concerns on SB 257.
NATALIE KILEY-BERGEN, Energy Lead
Alaska Public Interest Research Group
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concerns on SB 257.
CHRIS ROSE, Director
Renewable Alaska Energy Project
Sutton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concerns on SB 257.
ALEX PETKANAS, Climate and Clean Energy Program Manager
The Alaska Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 257.
ANTONY SCOTT, representing self,
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 257.
DAVID NEWMAN, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 257.
MARYLEE GUTHRIE, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified with concerns on SB 257.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:31:49 PM
CHAIR JESSE BJORKMAN called the Senate Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:31 p.m. Present at the
call to order were Senators Gray-Jackson, Dunbar, Merrick, and
Chair Bjorkman.
SB 219-PRIOR AUTH EXEMPT FOR HEALTH PROVIDERS
1:32:50 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO.
219 "An Act relating to utilization review entities; exempting
certain health care providers from making preauthorization
requests for certain services; and providing for an effective
date."
1:33:33 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN solicited the will of the committee.
1:33:36 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON moved to report SB 219, work order 33-
LS1302\A, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
1:33:51 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN found no objection and SB 219 was reported from
the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
1:34:00 PM
At ease
SB 152-COMMUNITY ENERGY FACILITIES; NET METERING
1:35:11 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 152 "An Act relating to
community energy facilities."
He noted that this is the second hearing of SB 152 by the Senate
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
1:35:45 PM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, District K, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, Sponsor of SB 152; gave a recap of SB 152:
• SB 152 will create a framework for community renewable
energy projects and virtual net metering in Alaska.
• Current net metering regulations require that the
generation facility be tied to a specific meter; this bill
will allow for ratepayers to share a facility and share
their net metering benefits across multiple meters.
• Community energy facilities enabled by this bill could be
as small as a four-plex putting a solar array on the roof
and splitting the benefits with all residents, or larger
scale projects that are crowd-funded by subscribers.
• Community solar is the fastest growing area of the
renewable energy sector, and at least 26 states have passed
community solar legislation.
• Since the initial hearing in January, we have worked
closely with utilities and other stakeholders to craft a
committee substitute to ensure this bill works for
utilities and ratepayers.
1:37:00 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN announced invited testimony for SB 152.
1:37:20 PM
SARAH MOON, Co-Founder, Fieldworks Power, San Francisco,
California, said her team had experience developing and
operating community solar projects in the lower 48 and that SB
152 would enable investment from companies like Fieldworks Power
in the State of Alaska. She said SB 152 offered several tangible
benefits:
1. SB 152 would provide an element of energy choice and
freedom to residents and businesses who choose to subscribe
to these projects. She said this enables access to much-
needed bill relief as subscribers to community solar
generally save ten percent or more on their energy costs.
2. Community solar helps to modernize the grid by leveraging
private investment dollars from companies like Fieldworks
Power to improve local distribution infrastructure. This
investment benefits all ratepayers, especially those who
live near the project.
3. Installing these mid-scale projects across the state
improves reliability and resilience by diversifying energy
resources.
4. Because facilities must be built in the utility service
territory where the customer resides, it creates local,
home-grown energy.
MS. MOON said in other states that have already passed community
solar legislation, the impact has been significant. Over 1600
community solar projects have been built across the country,
enough to power over 1 million homes. She said each of these
projects delivered significant investment to the communities
where they are located, not only through grid upgrades, but also
through local jobs, property taxes, lease payments and more.
MS. MOON concluded passing SB 152 will enable local energy
generation, economic development, grid upgrades, increased
reliability and resilience, and electric bill relief for
consumers and businesses.
1:40:19 PM
KEVIN CRAY, Senior Regional Director, Coalition for Community
Solar Access (CCSA), Denver, Colorado, said CCSA is the national
trade organization solely focused on the community solar
industry, representing 120 members in virtually all community
solar markets across the country and at the federal level. He
said CCSA's mission is to expand customer choice and freedom to
access the benefits of solar energy to all Americans regardless
of their ability to host a solar array. He said community solar
fills several notable gaps in the renewable energy space, whose
sizing perspective is to thread between small rooftop systems
that can already be found across the state and large utility-
scale systems that provide bulk power needs to the system. He
said they are commonly two to five megawatts in capacity and
roughly ten to twenty-five megawatts of land-sizing, meaning
they can be located near areas where people live, work and play,
providing energy close to where it would be consumed. This
locational proximity provides increased grid efficiencies by
reducing the need for costly transmission lines to transport
energy from larger systems to load centers that could be
hundreds of miles away. Smaller system sizes also provide
opportunities for smaller landowners to host projects and reap
the benefits of doing so.
1:41:35 PM
MR. CRAY said from an industry perspective CCSA's members have
collectively deployed over $10 billion of private capital to
upgrade the electric grid, bring electric bill savings to
millions of customers across the lower 48 and drive economic
development primarily in rural communities. He said CCSA stands
ready and excited to bring those investments and economic
opportunities northward to the great state of Alaska upon
passage of SB 152.
MR. CRAY noted that economic development opportunities extend
well beyond the temporary construction jobs needed to physically
build the [energy generation] projects to other in-demand
sectors that include engineering, marketing, sales, land
acquisition, siting, etc. He noted tangential industries such as
logging, food and beverage, transportation that would see a
boost in demand from the development of these projects. He said
these benefits precede the economic impacts of subscribing
customers who will put their energy bill savings to use in their
local communities or taking the trip their family has been
looking forward to.
1:42:51 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN opened public testimony on SB 152.
1:43:12 PM
JENNY MARIE-STRIKER, Political Director, The Alaska Center,
Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 152 on behalf of
The Alaska Center which she said was a state-wide non-profit
organization that seeks to create a thriving, just and
sustainable future for all Alaskans. She said SB 152 would be
very impactful based on communication from Alaskans about the
need for more affordable and accessible community energy. She
described the Solarize program run by The Alaska Center in
Anchorage, Fairbanks and a coalition of other partners, since
2018. She said Solarize brings neighbors, businesses and
community spaces together to purchase solar panels and
installation at group rates. She said there were many people who
would like to access solar energy or participate in the Solarize
program but are unable to for a variety of reasons such as: cost
of solar equipment, inability to support solar equipment, and
renters who don't own their residence. She said SB 152, by
allowing community energy with virtual net metering and a
subscriber model would open energy generation to many more
Alaskans regardless of where they live and whether they own
property or not. In addition to addressing the [energy] needs of
individuals, she said SB 152 would make an impact on Alaska's
overall energy portfolio by encouraging more private investment
from dispersed energy generation.
MS. MARIE-STRIKER noted the natural gas crisis in Alaska and
energy proposals in the legislature to address it. She said SB
152 would add to the toolbox of solutions that Alaskans would
benefit from.
1:45:41 PM
EMILY COHEN, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 152 and that she supports community solar because
it allows residents who rent to have more choice about the
source of the energy they use. She said solar panel ownership is
currently limited to individuals who own their own homes and
land and solar co-ops would allow renters and home owners who
live on shaded property to buy into shares of solar energy farms
in their neighborhoods. She said solar energy has been shown to
decrease energy costs for households and renters deserve the
ability to enjoy those cost savings. She advocated for the
ability to choose her source of energy and said the ability to
buy into a community solar cooperative would help counteract the
monopoly that Chugach Electric Association has in Southcentral
Alaska and a more stable and diverse energy portfolio for
Alaska. She noted the looming [natural] gas crisis in Cook Inlet
said passing SB 152 is an excellent way to insure stable energy
production and consumption in the state. She urged the committee
to pass SB 152 and be energy champions for the state.
1:47:02 PM
KYLA KOSEDNAR, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, said SB 152
would go a long way toward making energy more affordable and
accessible for her family. She said she and her husband own a
home that is part of a homeowner's association (HOA). She said
they don't own their roof and can't invest in rooftop solar,
though she said even if their HOA allowed it, they wouldn't be
able to afford a traditional solar array. She said the community
solar projects proposed by Chugach Electric would not provide
cost savings that would allow them to invest in solar energy
[equipment] and that is why it was important to pass SB 152 to
make energy more accessible to families like theirs and it would
go a long way toward lowering their energy costs. She noted
their two-bedroom townhouse electric bill sometimes exceeds $200
per month in the winter. She said the ability to offset that
cost with savings from solar year-round with virtual net
metering, would make a big difference for their family. She said
passing SB 152 seems like a simple, equitable and inexpensive
way to bring more renewables onto the grid and lower dependency
on natural gas.
1:48:40 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN closed public testimony on SB 152.
1:48:55 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN solicited a motion.
1:48:57 PM
SENATOR GRAY-JACKSON moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for SB 152, work order 33-LS0607\U, as the working
document.
1:49:10 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN objected for purposes of explanation.
1:49:44 PM
DAVID DUNSMORE, Staff, Senator Bill Wielechowski, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, explained the changes in the CS for
SB 152.
[Original punctuation included]
Senate Bill 152
Community Energy Facilities
Summary of Changes Version B to Draft CS Version U
The bill was shortened and streamlined in consultation
with utilities and other stakeholders.
A new Section 1 was added giving the bill the short
title "the Saving Alaskans Money with Voluntary
Community Energy (SAVE) Act."
Throughout the bill, provisions that restated net
metering provisions that currently exist in Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA) regulations were removed.
In new AS 42.05.725 the language related to exemptions
was replaced with a provision that this bill does not
apply to utilities that are exempt from net metering
requirements adopted by the RCA.
In new AS 42.05.727 the term "community energy plan"
is replaced with "community energy tariff." The limit
of 50 megawatts of power from community energy
facilities was removed from this section, and instead
this limit would be set by the utilities and the RCA
through community energy tariffs and regulations.
New Section 42.05.729 was shortened to simply state
that the RCA will adopt rates for community energy
facilities that reflect the full economic value
provided and do not have a negative effect on other
ratepayers. Language was added that the RCA may adopt
different rates for facilities that provide battery
storage.
New AS 42.05.731 was renamed from "Authority of the
commission" to "Authority and duties of the
commission." Provisions were added to this section to
clarify the RCA's role in ensuring the implementation
of community energy programs. The language related to
prevailing wages for construction of community energy
facilities that was previously in new AS. 42.05.733
was moved to this section.
1:51:47 PM
MR. DUNSMORE continued to explain the changes in the CS for SB
152.
New AS 42.05.733 was removed from the bill.
In new AS 42.05.735, terms that are no longer used in
the bill were removed and the definition of
"subscriber" was updated to limit it to residential
ratepayers and commercial ratepayers with monthly
demand of less than 50 kilowatt-hours.
1:52:26 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN noted the new CS for SB 152 would give the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA)a to-do list for the
projects addressed by the bill. He asked how long it would take
to develop a community solar project, working through the RCA.
1:53:02 PM
MR. DUNSMORE said SB 152 would give the RCA one year after the
effective date to adopt regulations. He said the community
energy tariff filings would have the same timeline the RCA uses
for other tariff filings. Regarding specific projects, he said
the goal of SB 152 was that once utilities have approved energy
tariffs in place, utilities and ratepayers and entities looking
to create community energy projects would be provided regulatory
certainty. He said as long as they are interconnecting within
the standards approved through the utility's energy tariff, the
RCA would not be involved in the process.
1:54:09 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN asked for an explanation of the provision in SB
152 to protect other ratepayers from being negatively impacted.
1:54:23 PM
MR. DUNSMORE said the vision for SB 152 was that it would work
similarly to existing net metering regulations where ratepayers
who participate in the metering are credited with the avoided
cost for the electricity they create but are still required to
pay for things like the base rate which would pay for
administrative and transmission services.
1:54:59 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN asked who would pay for installation and
connection of solar generation equipment to the grid under the
provisions of SB 152.
1:55:20 PM
MR. DUNSMORE said the project owner would pay for the equipment
and installation through terms of the subscriptions.
1:55:50 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN asked the RCA representative to comment on SB
152.
1:56:06 PM
BECKI ALVEY, Advisory Section Manager, Regulatory Commission of
Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, noted the timeline for the adoption
of regulations within a year of the effective date of SB 152.
She said the current statutory deadline for regulations is two
years. The provisions of SB 152 would supersede statute. Other
than the timeline, she said the RCA had not taken a position on
SB 152, but in December the RCA approved a pilot community solar
program proposed by Chugach Electric Association as a tariff
filing with the RCA.
1:57:34 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN finding no further objection, CSSB 152 was
adopted as the working document.
1:57:51 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN held SB 152 in the Senate Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee.
#
1:57:59 PM
At ease
SB 257-ELECTRIC UTILITY REGULATION
2:00:10 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 257 "An Act relating to the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska; relating to public utilities;
relating to electric reliability organizations; relating to the
Alaska Energy Authority; relating to the Railbelt Transmission
Organization; and providing for an effective date."
2:00:52 PM
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, District E, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, Sponsor of SB 257, gave a recap of SB 257. She
said she has been inspired by Alaskans coming together to solve
the electric transmission and energy issues of the state. She
reported that she and several others traveled to Iceland and
that she was also inspired by what they have done to solve these
issues for themselves. She said they began with separated and
isolated grid utilities, and they came together with the single
goal to unite and create a more efficient system. She said there
are numerous stakeholders that came together to work on SB 257,
including the governor. She expressed sincere and serious hope
that there was a goal that has united the stakeholders. She
emphasized the federal funding made available through the hard
work of Alaska's federal delegation.
SENATOR GIESSEL said the goal of SB 257 was to unite Alaskans,
to integrate the transmission system into an efficient highway
for electrons, to lower the cost of energy and get the
transmission system open to renewable resources and ultimately
[provide] cleaner, lower cost energy for all Alaskans.
2:02:49 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN announced invited testimony on SB 257.
2:03:06 PM
SARAH LAMBE, Chief Financial Officer, Homer Electric
Association, Homer, Alaska, introduced herself and her colleague
and said they would provide a presentation on SB 257.
2:03:21 PM
KERIANN BAKER, Chief Strategic Officer, Homer Electric
Association, Homer, Alaska, introduced herself and began a
presentation on SB 257. She expressed appreciation for SB 257
and said Homer Electric Association (HEA) shared the goals
expressed by the sponsor. She said HEA would like to see a
unified system with economic dispatch for all. She expressed the
desire to talk through the promises of SB 257 and some concerns
unique to HEA.
2:04:00 PM
MS. BAKER continued to slide 2. She read through the points that
the presentation would address and said SB 257 may not go far
enough. She said HEA has concerns with the manner of the
drafting for SB 257 and she reiterated alignment with the goals
expressed for SB 257.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Overview
SB 257 and its implications
01-
Understanding SB257
• Overview of SB257
02-
Concerns & Impacts
• Potential Impacts of SB257
03-
What's Missing
• Suggestions for Legislative Consideration
04-
Summary
2:05:17 PM
MS. LAMBE continued to slide 3 and expanded on the points
outlined.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Concerns and Impacts
As written, SB 257 may:
07
Potential Member Impact
• Current & future assets investment
• AEEC lost opportunities
• RTO Governance Structure
• Cost Causer vs. Cost Payer
06
Transmission Assets
• Book values & costs will vary based upon age,
debt, etc.
• Consistent valuation methodology needed
05
State: Buying or Leasing
• Refinancing of assets
• Utility LTD rates vs. State LTD rates
• Who is responsible for penalties?
04
Rural/Small Utility Status
• RUS LTD rates
• PACE Program
• USDA NEW ERA Program
• GRIP Topic 1
03
Un-equal Access To Grid
• Islanding of HEA system
• System Constraints
• Bradley Agreement
02
Administrative Burden
• Overlapping & duplicative duties between RRC,
RTO, RCA & AEA
• No clear delineation between duties
• Coordination between 4 entities and 5 utilities
with duplicate duties creates unnecessary
complexity
MS. LAMBE said HEA has invested to reliably serve the generation
and transmission needs of its membership in its own service
territory. She said HEA is the only utility that currently does
not pay any transmission wheeling charges, nor do they receive
transmission wheeling revenues and so HEA is in a unique
position when considering the impact of socializing the cost of
the railbelt transmission system. She described the transmission
system as analogous to a pipe in that only so much water can fit
in it and that the current transmission tie line between Bradley
Lake and Anchorage is only capable of pushing power north. She
said transmission capacity is so restricted that upgrades will
be required if the state and its utility partners invest in the
expansion of Bradley Lake by way of the Dixon Diversion. She
said historically there has not been "room in the pipe" for HEA
to participate in any wholesale sales for resale markets. She
said this has necessitated that HEA right-size projects to fit
their system, prohibiting HEA's ability to take advantage of
economies of scale. To compensate for that, HEA has competed for
and recently received an invitation to apply for a U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) grant under the Power and Clean
Affordable Energy (PACE) program for a battery system necessary
to support HEA achieving a renewable energy level of 60 percent.
She said the PACE program is part of the inflation reduction act
which represents the largest investment in rural electrification
since Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Rural Electrification Act
in 1936. If HEA proceeds under the application, they would
receive 60 percent loan forgiveness of a $100 million investment
with the remaining $40 million recaptured under the IRS direct
pay program.
2:07:14 PM
MS. LAMBE said HEA has diligently been working towards
leveraging its rural electric utility status to diversify its
energy resources, reduce dependence on carbon-based fuel and
reduce the upward pressure on rates. She said HEA's ability to
proceed with the application and to secure these federal funds
amidst SB 257 is relatively unclear and it is not a benefit she
would lightly relinquish.
MS. LAMBE noted the items bulleted under Items 05 and 06 on
slide 3 and said she did not know whether it was the dividing up
of the current pool of transmission costs that was the greatest
concern to HEA, but certainly future plans for replacement and
expansion has HEA looking at it from a return-on-investment
perspective. She said the railbelt modernization and resiliency
plan contemplates an investment close to $3 billion. HEA's
contribution to the plan would gain them access to but would not
provide for the most economic dispatching of generation
resources to HEA's membership. Until the system is unconstrained
and system islanding events contemplated, HEA's service
territory would not be an ideal location for IPPs to invest in
since the greater railbelt resale market is unavailable to HEA.
In addition, HEA's attractiveness as an off-taker for IPP
projects developed in the interior has diminished since system
islanding prevents delivery to HEA for up to three months of the
year for the next five to ten years.
MS. LAMBE concluded that SB 257 provides a path to, but stops
short of delivery of the most economically dispatched [energy]
generation on the railbelt. It may not be the right addition to
the plethora of organizations existing or being set up to
administer these assets on the railbelt.
2:08:58 PM
MS. BAKER continued to slide 4 and said HEA had concerns about
unintended consequences and the unknown.
[Original punctuation provided.]
Concerns and Impacts
The #1 Concern to HEA
01 the Unknown & Unintended Consequences
MS. BAKER noted HEA also sent representatives to Iceland and one
of the things they learned was it took 20 years for Iceland to
accomplish their system. She said HEA does not think it would
take 20 years to accomplish what Alaska needs, but she advocated
for full understanding. She said the railbelt managers set up a
transmission committee, composed of a team of experts and hired
two experts as consultants, one of whom will focus on the
governance model to ensure that it makes sense for Alaska and
the other will focus on inter-regional transfers from a
technical perspective and from a tariff-based perspective.
2:10:18 PM fix
MS. BAKER advanced to slide 5 and expanded on the points
outlined.
[Original punctuation provided.]
What's Missing
A Careful Approach to a Unified Railbelt System
Suggestions for Legislative Consideration
01
Does not reduce prices for utilities or members.
02
Does not resolve the fuel issue.
03
Creates socialized transmission costs without equal
access.
04
Does not increase capacity or re-allocate capacity
05
Transmission Wheeling not based on demand.
06
Does not remove system constraints prior to effective
date.
MS. BAKER said SB 257 would not reduce prices for utility
members and would not resolve the issue of fuel. She said it
would socialize transmission cost but does not create access.
She suggested that, for the Kenai, this is equivalent to putting
out an all-you-can-eat buffet, and charging for a ticket, though
one party has already eaten and can't go through the buffet
line. She acknowledged the over-simplification [of her metaphor]
but maintained the concept and said the importance of an
effective date for the system to be constrained is critically
important for equal access to the market for all. She emphasized
that she refers to access not only for the utilities, but also
for IPPs. She said HEA looks forward to the time when there is a
free, open and competitive market which means energy would be
produced by utilities with free access to the market without
physical or other constraints. She said the IPPs also would
compete with the idea that the lowest cost electrons wins. She
said that is what HEA's members really want; she opined they
don't really care where the electricity comes from as long as it
is the lowest price and HEA is committed to providing that. She
said SB 257 would not increase capacity and it wouldn't
reallocate the capacity. Other concerns HEA would like to
carefully work through with the transmission group are that
transmission wheeling charges would not be based on demand or
use and the system constraints would not be removed prior to the
effective date.
2:11:51 PM
MS. BAKER advanced to slide 6 which depicted a group of people
standing together in an outdoor setting and a paper napkin with
a pencil sketch of a hand poised to draw on the napkin. She said
the slide was meant to suggest "the napkin" drafted in Iceland
by the railbelt managers. She said the managers were very
excited by what they saw in Iceland, and one of the things that
is included [on the napkin sketch] is unified rates when
capacity constraints are removed. She said that is very
important to HEA. She emphasized that HEA is a partner [in the
railbelt transmission system] and advocated for the idea of a
unified system with true economic dispatch. She expressed a
desire to get it right and consider all the issues on the fore-
front so future legislatures are not asking for fixes. She
concurred with the motives and objectives of the bill sponsor
and suggested that SB 257 may not be the vehicle to accomplish
the desired goals.
2:13:38 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN asked for examples of energy constraint to and
from the HEA service area and what causes the constraint.
2:14:05 PM
MS. BAKER answered the current constraint is the limited
capacity of the transmission system. She said HEA is also
constrained by the Bradley Project Management agreement and
settlement, which designated a priority list: 1) Chugach
Electric Association (CEA) native load and Cooper Lake Hydro 2)
Bradley Energy production 3) Bradley Spinning Reserve. She
explained that any remaining capacity after those priorities are
satisfied theoretically could be sold by HEA. However, she said,
there simply would not be enough capacity. She further explained
that when the additional [transmission] line is built the
physical constraint will be removed, so the transfer and
receiving concerns would be removed. She noted that when power
is sent to HEA, called an "off-setting flow", it reduces the
pressure and allows more energy to flow through. It isn't an
equivalent because it offsets what is being sent north.
2:15:39 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN summarized the testimony and said, under the RTO,
as SB 257 is currently written, HEA members would be responsible
to pay for transmission assets as well as any ancillary services
connected to those assets without the benefit of the option to
purchase low-cost power or selling lower cost power to other
areas of the grid. He asked whether this summary was correct.
2:16:10 PM
MS. BAKER confirmed the summary and noted HEA members would also
still be responsible for producing and paying for their own
power and they would have to upgrade their system because they
don't have the access; they would also be responsible for paying
for the [indisc] without equal access to the similar value that
would be provided to other people on the grid. She emphasized
this would be true for IPPs in addition to HEA. She further
opined the IPPs would be reluctant to locate in the HEA area,
even if it made sense from a science or technology perspective,
for the same reason.
2:16:54 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN described the two-line system envisioned after
the Grid Resilience and Innovation Program (GRIP) is completed
and asked whether HEA anticipated truly open access due to the
lifting of constraints on the transmission system with the two
lines.
2:17:20 PM
MS. BAKER confirmed that a second line off the Kenai would
remove the physical constraints [to energy transmission] and
there would be equal access to the market for all parties,
whether utilities or IPPs and regardless of their location.
2:17:41 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN referred to a financial analysis report produced
by Steve Colt [Research Professor of Energy Economics and Policy
at Alaska Center for Energy and Power, University of Alaska]. He
highlighted data in the report regarding potential costs and
benefits for HEA. He asked whether Ms. Baker had seen the
report.
2:18:08 PM
MS. LAMBE answered that there were a number of points in the
document that she opined reflected the complexities that
utilities encounter particularly with regard to ratemaking. She
suggested that, on paper, it would appear HEA is the only winner
in the re-allocation of transmission costs. She suggested the
report did not represent an "apples to apples" comparison of the
utilities and the findings were the result of annual filings HEA
submits to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). She said
Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative (AAEC) and Homer Electric
Association (HEA) have a unique relationship in that they are a
wholly owned subsidiary for Railbelt Generation and Transmission
(RG&T) and the rest of the railbelt utilities are a consolidated
entity. She suggested distinctions could be made regarding the
required tier or margin on the distribution cooperative versus
the transmission and generation cooperative. She referred to the
allocations of costs and what is included in the reporting of
costs and acknowledged the incentive to report costs as
transmission costs with the understanding that the pool of
transmission costs will be shared. She said it is important to
consider the competing priorities the individual utilities have
in representing their transmission costs to be shared. She
recalled specific revenues and costs from the referenced report
and argued that the amount of margins did not accurately reflect
the costs and revenues. She said the report is an example of
taking all the data, throwing it together and creating a
narrative with some of the numbers that support what you want to
report.
2:21:09 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN summarized that the cost analysis report by Colt
and the Alaska Center for Energy and Power did not accurately
reflect HEA's real, on-the ground situation financially and
asked whether that was the view of HEA.
2:21:21 PM
MS. LAMBE replied that the report was an understandable
outsider's perspective on the utility's finances, but she did
not agree with the final analysis.
2:21:32 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN asked how SB 257 would impact grants or other
rural financing HEA receives.
2:21:40 PM
MS. LAMBE said she was not sure. She noted HEA is in the process
of applying for the afore-mentioned PACE grant. She noted the
$100 million loan forgiveness [at 60 percent] provided by the
grant would be applicable to HEA because of its rural and tribal
and energy community status. She said without those attributes,
it becomes a straight loan and so what may be at risk is the 60
percent subsidy.
2:22:40 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN referred to islanding events due to wildfire or
planned maintenance and the perception that HEA has access to
electricity from Bradley Lake when other utilities do not. He
asked for an explanation of what happens in those events from
HEA's perspective. He described the public perception that HEA
can enjoy all the free power they want from Bradley Lake while
the other utilities are disconnected.
2:23:15 PM
MS. BAKER said she wished it worked that way, but it doesn't.
She said one of the Bradley units must be shut down to preserve
the system's stability. HEA is unable to maintain consistent
frequency with those units when they are islanded. She said HEA
does have full use of the water within Bradley, but that it is
their water, their fuel that is stored there and they can't take
another utility's water. She said during islanding events they
then bring on other [energy generation] units. She noted the
additional generating unit required during the Swan Lake
wildfire cost an additional $25,000 per day for fuel. She
explained that the Bradly project is not a regulating source [of
energy] and the extra unit is required to control the electrical
frequency. She said the acquisition of battery storage was
critical for HEA to cut out the extra cost of fuel.
2:24:53 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN asked for confirmation of his understanding that
the battery serves as the spinning reserve and eliminates the
need to start up a new generation set.
2:25:04 PM
MS. BAKER concurred.
2:25:11 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN referred to the suggestion in the presentation
that an RTO may not go far enough from HEA's perspective and
asked for clarification. Specifically, he asked what would
better meet the needs of the railbelt.
2:25:34 PM
MS. BAKER answered that HEA is committed to the agreement made
by the railbelt [utility] managers in Iceland. She said HEA
wonders if a Generation and Transmission (G&T) model would be a
more appropriate vehicle. She also said HEA does not think it is
necessary to pass legislation this year and would prefer to take
more time for the transmission group of experts to consider
various models. She restated the goals shared by HEA with the
sponsors of the legislation and the managers who met in Iceland:
economic dispatch across the railbelt, and the vision of a time
when everyone served by the railbelt energy system would pay the
same price. She noted that the system in Iceland was not
developed overnight and is a system worth looking at. She
considered the possibility of two systems with Bradley under one
big G&T. She said there are numerous things that could be done,
and she advocated for taking time to consider possibilities and
to get it right. She noted that considering the whole system and
how to move forward is very complicated.
2:27:31 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN noted discussions about the Electric Reliability
Organization (ERO) and its board and the success of deliverables
from the ERO. He asked for reflection about the role and
function of the ERO in generation and transmission planning for
the future from the perspective of HEA.
2:28:04 PM
MS. BAKER reflected that the ERO was developed with the best
intent and that it was charged with a lot of responsibility. The
cost of the ERO for HEA is $20,000 monthly; under the new tariff
which will go into effect in August, she said the cost will
increase 116 percent to $43,000 per month. She said ERO's total
budget for 2024 will be $5 million and that is concerning to
HEA. She said HEA would prefer a more streamlined approach with
clearly delineated responsibilities, for example having the ERO
operate as a standards-based organization, developing standards
for safe operation of the grid and how interconnections
function, etc; and the RTO would be the market. She suggested
that it is complicated for the entity that has created the
standards to then function competitively in the market. She said
there is a separation between those duties in other states and
that separation and clearly delineated powers provides a cleaner
way of doing it and would be beneficial for the board members
who, she opined, all have the best intentions.
2:30:27 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN opened public testimony on SB 257.
2:31:06 PM
MIKE CRAFT, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 257. He said he is a home builder, the gravel pit
operator in Fairbanks, the owner and operator of the Delta Wind
Farm, and that he put the first two wind farms on the railbelt
grid in 2008. He served on the Railbelt Reliability Council
(RRC) formation committee. He said he considers his testimony to
be part of an intervention in that the same conversations about
the railbelt grid, utilities working better together etc. have
been happening for over 14 years. Meanwhile there are hundreds
of millions of dollars spent through the Alaska Energy Authority
to develop renewable energy technology in Alaska, which he said
has been very successful. He noted the energy goal [50 percent
of Alaska's power from renewables by 2025] set out by Sarah
Palin in 2010. He noted that the situation now in 2024 is not
enough fuel to power the capacity in the major cities in Alaska.
He detailed recent fuel consumption and shortfalls and the level
of power consumption in cities on the railbelt system. He
expressed frustration with the lack of progress and said there
are a dozen or so [renewable energy] projects that have been
allowed to "die on the vine" in the meantime. He noted that fuel
was at its highest cost and possibly not even available. He said
the utilities are forced to burn fuel in Fairbanks during an air
quality alert which means poor air quality will be exacerbated
and high cost. He said his local utility had a 21 percent
increase in rates in the last 60 days. He concluded saying that
he supported all three energy bills that are currently on the
table, SB 152, SB 257 and the one addressing wheeling rates [SB
217]. He supported any efforts to open the railbelt grid to
competition.
2:34:25 PM
KEN HUCKEBA, representing self, Wasilla, Alaska, testified in
opposition to SB 257. He said he had experience working in the
power producers' world in California and, in his experience,
there were many precautions to be taken to prevent opportunists
and grifters and to save ratepayers and taxpayers money. He said
those precautions needed to be set in place before enacting
legislation. He opposed SB 257 and the comparison to Iceland,
which he characterized as a nationalist grid. He said he is
opposed to any kind of centralized government planning and
consolidation of private assets. He said the entire premise of
SB 257 is to set up to beg for and further legitimize going
after inflationary and damaging federal funds. It stands up yet
another state-owned enterprise at a time when federal and state
spending is wildly out of control. He said the sponsor statement
claims SB 257 lays the groundwork for an electric system that is
more affordable, more sustainable and more equitable. He asked
how that could be true when it requires so much money from
ratepayers and taxpayers. He asked for whom the proposed system
would be more equitable. He claimed SB 257 would be taxation
without representation. He said central planning is government
free-market interference, yet all the invited testimony by
unelected bureaucrats and technocrats tells a different story.
He noted the claims that SB 257 was needed for IPPs, that it
would provide energy security and would result in affordable
energy and would allow free and open access to the grid by
removing barriers. He said, if all that were true, why would
[there be] subsidies and the infrastructure charges just to get
renewables on there. He said he did not see an alternative
analysis for the natural gas pipeline and yet the position is
that's the only way to go forward. He noted invited testimony
points to [experience of] Texas and Hawaii and that they have
adopted this framework yet do not talk about what the
detrimental energy transition policies have done to their grid.
He said he read that the North American Reliability Corporation
consider energy policy as a top risk to grid reliability. He
said SB 257 is a great example of exactly that energy policy. He
urged that SB 257 be tabled until is more formed to protect
Alaskans.
2:37:03 PM
JOEL GROVES, Board Chair, Railbelt Reliability Council,
Anchorage, Alaska, gave a timeline and an overview of the RRC's
history, current work and future direction in order to provide a
better understanding of the RRC and suggest implications for the
potential roll-out of SB 257 if the bill passes. He said the
Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) spent over three years
jumping through the various regulatory hoops in order to obtain
the regulatory approvals needed to function as the Electric
Reliability Organization (ERO). He described the efforts to hire
a CEO and reported that appears to be nearly complete. RRC/ERO
have also retained a chief administrative officer and chief
technical officer as stop-gap measures to get on with the work
of the organization.
MR. GROVES said, with the potential rollout of SB 257, he would
expect a timeline similar to that of the RRC, with a three-year
Senate approval window for the RTO. He summarized by urging the
committee and the legislature at large to consider the realistic
timeframes for the roll-out of SB 257 and the implications for
potential outcomes for the RRC, including the possibility of
sending the RRC back to redo some of the regulatory approvals
due to the reforms implemented.
2:40:24 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN asked what the total revenue after the ERO tariff
was implemented for 2024 and what is expected for 2025.
2:40:33 PM
MR. GROVES answered the total revenue for 2024 under the
currently approved tariff was approximately $2.4 million for
2024.
2:41:01 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN asked whether the amount was expected to increase
for 2025.
2:41:07 PM
MR. GROVES said RRC filed a request with the commission for an
increase to support product development, basically the
initiation of reliability standards and that is to support the
chief technical officer referred to earlier. He said RRC does
expect a higher budget for 2025 and estimated it would be around
$5 million with the expectation of having hired a CEO and the
key staff that will begin and lead the work of the organization.
2:42:00 PM
NATALIE KILEY-BERGEN, Energy Lead, Alaska Public Interest
Research Group, Anchorage, Alaska, said Alaska Public Interest
Research Group (AKPIRG) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and the only
non-partisan, non-governmental consumer advocacy and research
organization in Alaska. AKPIRG serves in the small consumer seat
on the RRC. She said her comments represent the views of AKPIRG
and not necessarily the RRC. She said AKPIRG strongly supports
the inclusion of diverse voices in the legislatures efforts to
improve transmission legislation. Although AKPIRG supports the
creation of a regional transmission entity, she said there are
concerns about sections of SB 257 that repeal the statutory
authority for Electric Reliability Organizations (EROs) to
conduct integrated resource planning. She said the railbelt ERO
is governed by a board that includes representation from
providers of electric energy, transmission and distribution
along with consumer voices. She said RRC board members have a
fiduciary duty to act independently and exercise first loyalty
to the mission of the RRC to achieve what is best for the
railbelt. She said railbelt ratepayers are best served by the
wholistic planning process and the inside approach the RRC
already embodies. She said AKPIRG opposes the notion that the
RRC has been operating for four years with little progress. She
said the RRC has been a certified ERO since September 2022, and
in that time has undertaken substantial effort to create a
framework for RRC planning and has gone through public processes
to create rules and bylaws to insure robust technical excellence
and substantial public participation. She said AKPIRG supports
that the proposed RTO would oversee and manage the railbelt's
key transmission assets and the Regulatory Commission of Alaska
would oversee its management. AKPIRG would like an RTO that
operates a transmission system for economic dispatch of energy
across the railbelt system. This would best serve the collective
interest of ratepayers. Regardless of framework, AKPIRG will
continue to push for robust transparency and stakeholder
engagement within any structure and can provide specific
suggestions in this direction as legislation evolves.
2:44:32 PM
CHRIS ROSE, Director, Renewable Alaska Energy Project, Sutton,
Alaska, said Renewable Alaska Energy Project (REAP) has been
working with electric industry professionals and experts around
the country on issues related to energy efficiency and renewable
energy across the state for the past 20 years. He commended the
Senate Resources Committee for its commitment to reforms in the
railbelt region of Alaska and the Senate Labor and Commerce
Committee for hearing SB 257. He noted that energy in the
railbelt region of Alaska is 60 percent more expensive than the
national average, which makes the need for reform more urgent
than ever. He said REAP supports elements of SB 257 but has
grave concerns about the provision to move planning out of the
Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC). REAP supports SB 257's
intent to eliminate transmission wheeling charges in the
railbelt, while they may prefer language in another bill
currently under consideration. He said they believe eliminating
wheeling is an important reform that has been discussed for
decades. He said REAP also supports enhanced qualifications for
the commissioners on the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA).
However, REAP does not support language in SB 257 that would
take away either generation or transmission planning from the
RRC.
2:45:52 PM
MR. ROSE said in the lower 48, there are seven Regional
Transmission Organizations (RTOs), and all of them with the
exception of Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is
governed by a board that is independent of the owners and users
of the transmission system. He said RTO's with independent
governance in the lower 48 do conduct transmission planning and
much of the latest thinking in the field is that conducting
transmission and generation or resource adequacy planning may be
better done by the same body. In addition, RTO's in the lower 48
also act to dispatch generation resources on the system in the
most economical way to benefit consumers. In contrast, he said
REAP believes it's important to note that the governance of the
RTO as contemplated in SB 257 within the co-ops and Alaska
Energy Authority (AEA) is not independent. There is independent
industry literature and precedent from the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) that explains why independence is
so important, but the essential point is that the owners of the
transmission system all have inherent biases and economic
interest, and putting those owner's interest in charge of
planning the system or dispatching generation resources sets up
the real danger that the interest of one or more of those owners
will dominate the decision-making. He said that it is highly
important that the decision to build transmission be made by
decision-makers that do not have any local or parochial
interest.
MR. ROSE concluded that REAP is not confident the RTO's
governance as described in SB 257 will protect consumers. He
said most of the litigation between the railbelt utilities of
Alaska over the past several decades has been over the issue of
transmission. He said it is not reasonable to think that an RTO
composed of the transmission owners would be able to effectively
plan for the transmission system without major disputes arising.
2:47:57 PM
ALEX PETKANAS, Climate and Clean Energy Program Manager, The
Alaska Center, Anchorage, Alaska, said SB 257 would have some
very positive impacts including increased requirements for
future RCA commissioners and allowing additional considerations
like diversity of supply and the determination of utility areas.
However, he said the Climate and Clean Energy Program was
concerned that removing some or all planning authority from the
existing Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) would create a
slower and less efficient process with less public input and
transparency. He said the ERO represents a wide range of
stakeholders that establish clear methods for engagement to take
significant steps toward developing wholistic standards for
power generation. He said requiring the Alaska Energy Authority
to begin an initial plan and an RTO to take over long-term
planning at this point would undermine work that has already
been done and would complicate and slow down the process.
Establishing a new organization takes time and planning work
would not start immediately. Additionally, he said debates over
exactly who gets to make certain transmission and planning
decisions would further slow the process. He said SB 257 as
written requires the EROs to work with the RTO on planning, but
it is not clear exactly who gets final say over each aspect of
transmission. He said there is no evidence at this point that
creating a new organization would be more efficient than
allowing the existing ERO to continue its work to create a
wholistic plan for the railbelt energy system. He concluded that
the Climate Clean Energy Program strongly opposes removing
planning authority from the ERO.
2:49:40 PM
ANTONY SCOTT, representing self, Anchorage, Alaska, said he was
testifying from his perspective as a former commissioner of the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska. He said SB 257 in it's intent
to create a Regional Railbelt Transmission organization is well-
meaning, but that there are important technical flaws in the
bill. He said the source of the defects have to do with
overlapping jurisdictional authority and concerns about property
rights. He said he had three areas of concern, not with policy,
but concerns with the construction of the authority of the RTO.
MR. SCOTT said, though there is intent that the entity [RTO]
would be regulated by the RCA, there would still be
jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional portions of the
transmission system as is the case today. He noted the portions
of the transmission system that are currently governed under
certain Bradley Lake agreements and the exemption of those
Bradley Lake agreements are under AS 42.05.431(c) and not
addressed in the language [of SB 257].
2:51:14 PM
MR. SCOTT said the concept of "backbone" transmission assets is
a more significant concern. He said that concept does not self-
execute, and he is concerned that it will create significant
litigation and future conflict. The fact that it doesn't self-
execute is called out by the need for new regulations under SB
257 defining that, but he said it is not clear what is
contemplated by "backbone". He pointed out that ten years ago
there was very extensive and expensive litigation over whether
the transmission lines connecting Chugach's generation assets
west of the grid were "backbone" or instead were "radial". The
RCA came up with one answer, but it is unclear what the drafters
of SB 257 had in mind. He said this is a very significant issue
for local utilities which have transmission assets to
potentially being able to meet their Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) obligations when management of
certain assets may be handed over to the RTO.
MR SCOTT sought to address issues over overlapping jurisdictions
and the prospects of litigation that are created by that. He
summarized that he has significant concerns with several
provisions of SB 257 regarding the powers and duties of the RTO
that have been enumerated and overlapping authority with the
RCAs' jurisdiction.
2:53:06 PM
DAVID NEWMAN, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska said he was a
faculty member at UAF in physics and that he had studied power
transmission, blackouts and resource adequacy issues for the
last 30 years. He said he had worked at the academic level and
at the practical level, doing projects for entities such as
California Independent System Operator (ISO), which he said
operates basically like an RTO. He noted the "I" in ISO which
stands for "Independent". He said the sponsor's goal for SB 257
is fabulous and he offered full support for those goals. He said
independent, but unified planning is critical. He said the
planning organization must do both resource planning and
transmission planning to maximize economic dispatch and achieve
system reliability. He said one without the other is a real
problem and has been experienced across the country. He said
Regenerative Fuel Call (RFC) is just getting started now, but he
said its mission is the same as that of SB 257 in the
organization of an RTO. He said IRPs in particular need
integrated planning with cost and reliability included and he
opined that the proposed entity would be reinventing the wheel,
but worse. He said the flaw is that it would no longer be
independent. He said one of the things that contributed to the
development of the RRC board is that though it is not
independent, it is balanced among the stakeholders.
MR. NEWMAN concluded that he supported the establishment of the
RTO in SB 257, but did not support the bill in total because he
said it would make costs higher, reduce reliability and violate
the principles of equal representation.
2:56:20 PM
MARYLEE GUTHRIE, representing self, Fairbanks, Alaska, said she
was a resident with old electric heaters in her house and that
she had been paying electric bills and watching things going on
in Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) in particular. She
said she was very happy a few years ago when the integrated,
independent and transparent processes of the board to integrate
the various pieces of our railbelt came into existence and very
hopeful that it would be a way to help all move forward in the
new energy situation. She said she was concerned that those
features [integrated, independent and transparent] are not a
robust part of SB 257.
2:57:39 PM
CHAIR BJORKMAN noted that changes are coming and are in the
works that will protect utilities like Homer [Electric
Association] and others from islanding issues and making sure
that de-constraining the system is prioritized prior to any
costs being assessed to utilities that may not be served by a
system under constraint.
2:58:20 PM
[CHAIR BJORKMAN held SB 257 in committee.]
2:58:28 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
CHAIR BJORKMAN adjourned the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 2:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB152 Public Testimony-Emily Cohen 02.14.24.pdf |
SL&C 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 152 |
| SB152 Public Testimony-Katy Smith 02.14.24.pdf |
SL&C 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 152 |
| SB152 Public Testimony-Maya Kaup 04.09.24.pdf |
SL&C 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 152 |
| SB152 Public Testimony-Paul Seaton 03.27.24.pdf |
SL&C 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 152 |
| SB152 Public Testimony-Received as of 01.29.24.pdf |
SL&C 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 152 |
| SB152 Blank Draft Proposed CS ver U.pdf |
SL&C 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 152 |
| SB152 Summary of Changes B to U.pdf |
SL&C 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 152 |
| SB152 Sectional Analysis ver U.pdf |
SL&C 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 152 |
| SB219 Public Testimony-Letter_Aetna 04.08.24.pdf |
SL&C 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 219 |
| SB219 Public Testimony-Dr. Kristin Mitchell 04.07.24.pdf |
SL&C 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 219 |
| SB257 Presentation by HEA to SLAC 04.10.24.pdf |
SL&C 4/10/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 257 |