Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
05/08/2025 01:00 PM House ENERGY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB153|| PRESENTATION(S): COOK INLET ENERGY FUTURE | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
^PRESENTATION(S): Cook Inlet Energy Future
PRESENTATION(S): Cook Inlet Energy Future
[Contains discussion of HB 153.]
1:07:21 PM
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND announced that the only order of business would
be presentations on the future of Cook Inlet energy.
1:07:42 PM
KELLY ROGERS, Manager, Marine Energy Council, National
Hydropower Association (NHA), gave a PowerPoint presentation,
titled "Marine Energy: Value to Alaska's Energy Mix" [hard copy
included in the committee packet]. On slide 2, she stated that
NHA supports water power in all its forms, which includes
hydropower, pumped storage hydropower, and marine energy. She
pointed out that hydropower has provided Alaska with affordable
power for decades, and she expressed the belief that marine
energy could be used to compliment this source. She stated that
she leads NHA's Marine Energy Council, advocating marine energy
resources nationally. She pointed out that hydropower has been
recognized recently in a presidential executive order, and this
has been supported by Alaska's delegation in Washington, DC.
She discussed the details, arguing that Alaska has the potential
to take the lead in the development of marine energy
technologies. She maintained that no other state has this same
potential.
MRS. ROGERS moved to slide 3 and stated that hydropower could be
generated from waves, tides, and currents, in oceans, estuaries,
and tidal areas. She stated that hydropower could also be
generated from free-flowing water in rivers, lakes, streams, and
man-made channels. She stated that research shows marine power
could meet up to 60 percent of the nation's energy needs, with
no generation variability. She noted that marine energy could
replace the use of diesel in off-grid applications. She
reiterated the understanding that Alaska has some of the best
potential for marine energy in the country.
MS. ROGERS moved to slide 4 and discussed developments in marine
energy. She stated that research from 2024 shows that the
existing Railbelt grid could support 240 megawatts of tidal
energy without any additional infrastructure changes. She
pointed out that the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) and
its partners are doing research on marine power. She added that
national and international companies are coming to the state to
explore projects in wave, tidal, and river technologies, and
they have shown interest in the available markets. She
discussed the technology developments in the Lower 48, Hawaii,
Canada, the United Kingdom, and Europe.
MS. ROGERS moved to slide 5 and expressed the opinion that
because Alaska contains every hydro energy resource, it is
uniquely positioned to develop this energy. She suggested that
remote communities would be able to replace their diesel usage
with hydro energy, as this would be cleaner energy at a lower
cost, with less supply disruptions. She argued that Cook Inlet
is one of the best tidal resources in North America, as it has
the potential to supply a utility-scale energy grid for local
and industrial loads. She also discussed the potential for wave
energy on the coast, especially in the Gulf of Alaska. She
pointed out that inland rivers could offer riverine hydrokinetic
energy, which would not require the use of damns or conversions,
as this technology could be installed directly in the flow. She
asserted that because of these available resources, the state
would not be limited by geography or marine energy type.
MS. ROGERS moved to slide 6 and slide 7 and discussed the
benefits of marine energy in the state. She asserted that
marine energy would supply highly predictable, year-round
energy, and it would be complementary to renewable energy
technologies like wind and solar. As Alaska seeks to expand its
economy, she suggested that marine energy would support energy-
intensive sectors, such as data centers. She added that it
would also support long-term economic development, as jobs would
be created in engineering, construction, vessel services, and
other fields. She continued discussing the potential for energy
independence and security in the state, suggesting that this new
energy supply chain would create long-term economic development
and diversification. She moved to slide 8 and gave examples of
other regions nationally and internationally that are
researching and implementing marine energy resources. She
suggested that these examples could provide policy approaches
that Alaska could adopt.
MS. ROGERS moved to slide 9 and opined that if the state took
steps to secure marine energy as a priority, investment
opportunities and successful deployment would be created. She
continued that if the state were to explore new policies on
marine energy, investors would be attracted to these
opportunities. She urged the proactive steps of aligning
infrastructure, creating a marine energy working group, and
supporting demonstration projects. She maintained that these
steps would not be risky, and they could have a large impact.
In conclusion, she moved to slide 10 and thanked the committee.
1:24:17 PM
MS. ROGERS, in response to a series of questions from
Representative Rauscher, stated that universities have training
programs for marine energy jobs. She added that some of the
marine energy jobs would require the same skillset that other
energy sectors require. In response to a follow-up question
concerning whether students are pursuing this career, she
discussed the Marine Energy Collegiate Competition, which is a
federal program. She expressed the understanding that this
program is looking for more students, and she offered to follow-
up with information. In response, she expressed uncertainty
concerning the pay level for these jobs. She deferred to the
next presenter.
CO-CHAIR MEARS expressed appreciation for the reference to small
communities in the state that need to move away from diesel
energy. She questioned the economic feasibility for the scale
of the proposed projects.
MS. ROGERS, in response, stated that in example, Cook Inlet has
more energy potential than the current demand in the Railbelt.
She noted that this excess energy could be stored as hydrogen.
CO-CHAIR MEARS noted the state's struggle with the size of
projects, pointing out that it has large energy potential, but
not enough demand to meet this potential. She pointed out that
this creates an economic challenge. In reference to the large
number of remote communities in the state, she noted that
projects would need to be scalable for these small areas to move
away from diesel. She discussed the problem of cost regarding
the projects for small communities.
MS. ROGERS stated that she would follow up after the meeting
with examples of possible solutions to this problem. In
response, she stated that she would also follow-up with examples
of policy tools used to support this development.
1:32:13 PM
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND questioned the effects marine power technology
could have on industries that function within marine areas.
MS. ROGERS, in response, stated that ongoing research is being
done on how this technology would interact with its environment.
She expressed the importance of sharing this research data, as
policy could reference existing knowledge and the marine energy
sector could learn from other sectors and their environmental
integrations, such as with oil platforms and offshore wind
stations. She stated that marine energy companies have used
adaptive management on the deployment needs. In response to a
follow-up question on any foreseeable permitting or regulatory
issues, she expressed the understanding that regulators and
permitters are not as familiar with marine energy as other
energy sources, and this could cause timeline delays and
increased costs. She added that federally, this would be
considered a conventional hydropower license. She suggested
that creating a marine energy license would streamline the
process. She added that any potential offshore leases would go
through the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). She noted
that BOEM has only given one marine energy research lease, and
this was for work on the Oregon Coast. Concerning a question on
navigable river permits, she stated that this would be permitted
through the Army Core of Engineers.
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND questioned whether the current federal
administration has paused federal funding for marine energy
projects.
MS. ROGERS responded that some of the federal funds for research
development have been paused. She expressed the understanding
that at the federal level, the issue of water power is
bipartisan, and the president has expressed some support for
marine energy because it would be a source of abundant energy.
In response to a question concerning the integration of energy
projects in Cook Inlet, she deferred the question to the
upcoming presenter. She suggested that any coastal energy
project should plan for the integration of marine power.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER commented that some river technologies
have been implemented in Emmonak; therefore, "it is doable" per
the state regulations.
1:42:28 PM
DOUG JOHNSON, Director of Development, Ocean Renewable Power
Company (ORPC), gave a PowerPoint presentation, titled "American
Tidal Energy Project" [hard copy included in the committee
packet]. On slide 2, he asserted that developing tidal energy
could create an energy "dominance" for Alaska. He shared that
he has been working on the American Tidal Energy Project since
2006, and ORPC has been deploying tidal energy technology since
2007. He discussed the history of ORPC, pointing out that now
it is operating in four countries, with 70 more countries
interested in projects. He pointed out the interest in the
river system project operating outside of Lake Iliamna.
MR. JOHNSON discussed the potential of tidal energy in Cook
Inlet. He explained that because of Cook Inlet's geometry,
massive amounts of water move in and out of the inlet four times
a day. He added that the inlet's extreme high tides also
contribute to its potential. On the map on slide 4, he pointed
out that the highest concentration of tidal energy in Cook Inlet
would be near Nikiski, in East Foreland. He stated that the
energy potential here is around 18 gigawatts, which is multiple
times of the load for the Railbelt. He shared is personal
career history, noting that he worked in the oil and gas
industry in the past.
1:48:05 PM
MR. JOHNSON, in response to a question from Representative
Rauscher, stated that currently there is a goal to develop 400
megawatts of energy by 2050; however, the American Tidal Energy
Project would only be a demonstration project with the target of
2 megawatts by 2029. He pointed out the potential of capturing
gigawatts of energy, adding that this would not be a target for
the short term.
MR. JOHNSON moved to slide 5 and pointed out that $3 million has
been awarded to phase 1 of the East Foreland project. He noted
that a project in Puget Sound, Washington, has also received
this award. He stated that one of these two projects would be
selected by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) to go forward
with the funding of $29 million. He explained that the East
Foreland project is projecting a production of 2 megawatts. He
stated that, if selected, phase 2 through phase 5 of the project
would occur between 2025 and 2030, but currently the project is
on hold with DoE.
1:51:05 PM
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND expressed the understanding that this project
would be designated as an independent power producer. He
questioned the difference between a distribution supplier and a
transmission supplier.
MR. JOHNSON responded that the demonstration project would be
done on a small distribution scale because this would be more
economical. He stated that the goal of having 400 megawatts by
2050 would be a transmission project into the grid. For this,
he expressed the importance of having a submarine cable to
transmit the energy north.
MR. JOHNSON moved to slide 6, which showed ORPC's turbine
technology. He noted that ORPC is both the project developer
and the technology provider. He discussed the power rating and
the design of the technology. He moved to the next slide and
pointed out technology from Europe that would also be deployed
on the project. He noted that this technology is completely
different from ORPC's technology, as it is like an underwater
wind turbine.
MR. JOHNSON moved to slide 8 and pointed out ORPC's partners and
financial backers. He noted that many of these organizations
are based in Alaska. He moved to the next slide and pointed out
the project's progress up to this point, which includes
submitting documents to DoE, submitting a lengthy application to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, gathering 20 letters
of support, and laying down groundwork for future phases.
1:56:19 PM
MR. JOHNSON, in response to a question from Representative
Rauscher, stated that during the project development phase the
wear on the bearings from the silt in Cook Inlet had been
questioned. He stated that diamond bearing sets were created to
address this silt. He explained that the dunes in Cook Inlet
migrate, and this is why two different technologies would be
deployed. He clarified that because ORPC's technology would be
in the mid-water column, there would be no silt build up;
however, the European technology would sit on the bottom, and
this would need to be watched.
MR. JOHNSON, in response to a question from Co-Chair Mears
concerning the use of preexisting platforms, stated that ORPC is
working with Hilcorp on developing these platforms. He added
that this would not be a priority for the American Tidal Energy
Project, but their possible uses are being discussed.
CO-CHAIR MEARS questioned the updates that electrical systems
would need for this technology to work.
MR. JOHNSON responded that tidal energy is highly predictable,
and during the slack tide, power generation would go down. He
explained that a system is being developed to integrate the
slack tides. He also noted the importance of energy storage
technology. In response to a follow-up question concerning the
low energy from slack tides, he spoke about the placement of the
[turbines] in conjunction with the resource, as the distance
between these would determine the power production. He pointed
out the different areas of concentrated water power.
2:03:45 PM
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND questioned the demand for this potential power,
and he questioned the management of this demand with the
potential large demand needed for other projects, such as with
liquified natural gas projects. He opined that if more clean
energy is to be created, there would need to be demand.
MR. JOHNSON responded that this demand would need to be driven
by the market, with an incentive-based price program. As this
would be a new energy sector, he asserted that it would need
help to compete. He suggested that industry would need to be
brought to the state in order to have the needed scale for this
tidal energy production. He predicted that new industry would
also build the state's economy for the future. He expressed the
understanding that the governor is calling Cook Inlet "an energy
super basin." He continued discussing the possibilities in the
state for industry. In response to a follow-up question
concerning who should take this action, he expressed the belief
that this industry in the state should make this happen, with
support from the legislature.
CO-CHAIR MEARS questioned the American Tidal Energy Project
target date of 2050 for producing 400 megawatts of power. She
expressed the understanding that the 25-year delay is because of
the need for technology maturity, identification of demand, grid
upgrades, and permitting and construction timelines.
MR. JOHNSON responded that the 400-megawatt timeline is only a
goal at this point. He expressed the desire for the project to
go faster; however, he noted that the infrastructure would need
to be in place. He reiterated that there would need to be a
market demand for this capacity, and he asserted that this
should be the focus.
CO-CHAIR MEARS expressed the understanding that 400 megawatts
would be obtained in stages of implementation.
MR. JOHNSON expressed agreement, adding that the 400 megawatts
would be a conservative estimate on what is possible in Cook
Inlet. He added that for full potential and cheap energy, large
industry would be needed in the state.
CO-CHAIR MEARS expressed agreement that there needs to be more
demand before Alaskans could have cheap energy. To incentivize
energy production, she pointed out that the demand would need to
be identified. She asserted that more than just suggestions
would be needed; rather, a real discussion should be had with
the numbers on what is available, and this would need to be
pointed out to industry.
MR. JOHNSON expressed agreement, asserting that this is part of
the future of the state.
2:15:37 PM
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND questioned what the legislature could do during
the interim to clarify this demand. He pointed out some of the
available demand markets, including markets for clean ammonia,
hydrogen, sustainable aircraft fuel, and clean green energy. He
expressed the opinion that more clarity would be needed to
create this demand.
MR. JOHNSON expressed the opinion that Co-Chair Holland had
provided a framework, and he asserted that the industry should
lead the conversation. He continued that an ecosystem would
need to be built, and industry participants would need to come
together in a coherent way so contracts could be made. He added
that this means money would need to be put forward. He
predicted that if this could come together like the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System, "Alaska will be a perpetual energy superpower."
2:18:45 PM
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND, as prime sponsor, spoke to HB 153. He noted
that the Railbelt utilities have not been prepared to speak to
this bill. He stated that work on the proposed legislation and
the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) would continue into the
interim, and this would be in conjunction with the utilities and
Senator Bill Wielechowski's office. He noted that Amendment 2
[labeled 34-LS501\G.2, Walsh, 04/11/25] had been adopted to HB
153 during the meeting [on 4/24/25]. He pointed out that this
amendment had prohibited the use of ratepayer dollars for any
renewable energy project that would increase consumer rates as
utilities worked toward compliance. He stated that this would
include many projects that have been proposed, including the
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project. He expressed the belief
that this was not the amendment's original intention, and this
was a misunderstanding because a mix of energy would be needed
to reduce the reliance on imported gas and the long-term cost of
energy.
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND expressed the understanding that the concern
has been that ratepayers would end up being responsible for the
nonattainment fees in the proposed RPS. In response to this
concern, he argued that new sources of energy would have the
same expense as any renewable energy projects, and he referenced
the presentations on Alaska's "world class" renewable energy
potential. He cited the statistics on the proposed renewable
projects, noting that the cost of past renewable projects has
lowered with time. He provided several examples of this. He
advised that if the state continues to rely on gas for heat and
power, the increasing cost would be passed to ratepayers. He
suggested that imported gas in 2027 would be double the current
price, adding that imported gas would require extra
infrastructure to be built. He spoke to the uncertainty
concerning renewable energy, as heard during the committee's
discussion on RPS; however, he pointed out there would also be
uncertainty and risk concerning the price of natural gas.
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND made closing comments, expressing gratitude to
everyone for their work during the session.
2:27:45 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 2:27 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CIRI Letter of Support HB153.pdf |
HENE 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| ATEP _ HENE 5.8.25.pdf |
HENE 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
Presentation |
| NHA _ HENE 5.8.25.pdf |
HENE 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
Presentation |
| HB 153 Letter of Opposition Kassie Andrews.pdf |
HENE 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| HB 153 Written Testimony Compiled.pdf |
HENE 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| HB 164 Written Testimony_Seaton.pdf |
HENE 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 164 |
| HB 153 letter of Support_ Childers.pdf |
HENE 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| HB 153 Invenergy Letter of Support for AK RPS.pdf |
HENE 5/8/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 153 |