Legislature(2017 - 2018)CAPITOL 17
02/21/2017 10:15 AM 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 | |
| Presentation: Alaska Energy Authority Agency Overview | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
February 21, 2017
10:32 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Adam Wool, Chair
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Vice Chair
Representative Matt Claman
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Jennifer Johnston
Representative George Rauscher
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Dean Westlake
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY AGENCY OVERVIEW
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHAEL LAMB, Interim Executive Director and CFO
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint titled "Alaska
Energy Authority Agency Overview."
KATIE CONWAY, Government Relations Manager
Alaska Energy Authority
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint titled "Alaska
Energy Authority Agency Overview."
KRIS NOONAN, Program Manager
Rural Power Systems
Alaska Energy Authority
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the Alaska Energy
Authority agency overview.
SEAN SKALING, Assistant Executive Director
Policy & Programs Director
Alaska Energy Authority
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the Alaska Energy
Authority agency overview.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:32:12 AM
CHAIR ADAM WOOL called the House Special Committee on Energy
meeting to order at 10:32 a.m. Representatives Wool, Spohnholz,
Claman, Johnson, Johnston, and Rauscher were present at the call
to order.
^Presentation: Alaska Energy Authority Agency Overview
Presentation: Alaska Energy Authority Agency Overview
10:32:46 AM
CHAIR WOOL announced that the only order of business would be a
presentation by the Alaska Energy Authority.
10:33:14 AM
MICHAEL LAMB, Interim Executive Director and CFO, Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA), Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development, read from slide 2, stating that AEA's mission was
to reduce energy in Alaska. He reported that AEA had been
formed in 1976, and then in 1999, the Alaska State Legislature
reasserted that AEA was the state energy office. He shared that
there was desire at that time for a reuniting of the energy
programs and the owned assets. He said that there had been a
renewed focus of funding for rural infrastructure. He stated
that in 2007 - 8, when oil prices "went exceedingly high", there
was a renewed focus by the legislature for renewable energy
development and energy planning. At this time, the AEA board
changed its bylaws and management structure, separated from
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), and
AEA focused on the cost of energy, while AIDEA focused on jobs
and economic development. He pointed out that, in 1993, the
Alaska State Legislature had consolidated Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority and AEA. He noted that these
organizations had shared services since then.
10:36:52 AM
CHAIR WOOL asked if the two organizations still shared services.
MR. LAMB noted that the agency was outlined in AS 44.83.070,
stating that AEA promoted and developed economic welfare, as
well as providing a means to finance and operate power projects
and facilities. He referenced AS 42.45.900 which was "more on
point to the things that we're gonna talk about today." He
relayed that the statute stated that "the authority shall
provide the technical assistance to help with rural utilities
and help with catastrophic prevention." He added that these
provided training programs for utility projects to improve
efficiency, safety, dependability, affordability, and
reliability of the power systems. He relayed that AS 42.45
instructed that "at a minimum, the assistance and training must
include" and be related to distribution systems, generators to
be more fuel efficient, preventative maintenance, safety
inspections, and include priority for contracting with the
private industry.
10:40:14 AM
MR. LAMB moved to slide 3, "Alaska Energy Authority Activity
Quadrants," which depicted a four quadrant system with two rural
quadrants and two urban quadrants for ongoing programs and
infrastructure projects. He pointed out that the programs were
items in the operating budget and the projects were capital
budget items.
10:41:20 AM
MR. LAMB moved on to slide 4, "Presentation Order," which he
deemed to be the basics items the committee had requested to
cover. He addressed slide 6, "Rural Programs/Services" and
spoke about the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) utility training.
This was a program for clerks from rural communities for on-site
training at the AEA offices. He added that the utility operator
training program was hands on, technical training in Seward for
individuals from the rural communities who operated the utility
systems. He stated that technical assistance was a phone system
for the rural communities to call when necessary. He explained
that the circuit rider was when central staff went on-site to
the locations.
10:43:59 AM
KATIE CONWAY, Government Relations Manager, Alaska Energy
Authority, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development, directed attention to slide 7, "Rural
Projects/Infrastructure" and relayed that she would explain this
list of rural energy programs later in the presentation.
MR. LAMB presented slide 8, "PCE Clerk Training (by community)
(2012-2016)" and slide 9, "Utility Operator Training (by
community) 2011-2016." He said that 37 communities had sent
employees to the AEA offices in Anchorage for PCE training, and
92 communities had sent operators for training. He pointed out
that, as there was staff turnover, this often resulted in the
same community sending employees for training more often.
10:46:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked if there was any cross training
between these two programs.
MR. LAMB said that there was a rural outreach person who talked
about PCE.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON suggested that there could be a cross
fertilization connectivity done through the circuit rider.
MR. LAMB offered his belief that everyone in the AEA shop was
aware of the PCE program and its critical need to the
communities.
10:48:53 AM
CHAIR WOOL asked if there was a requirement that a community
which received PCE funding had to receive PCE training.
MR. LAMB replied that, at some point, someone in each PCE
community had received the training. He relayed that the
difficulty arose when that trained person left, and it was then
necessary to get a new person trained.
MS. CONWAY added that rural operators were brought in for
training during construction of new power house systems.
MR. LAMB explained that everyone at AEA did whatever was
necessary to ensure that the rural communities had the necessary
training and help. He directed attention to slide 10, "Utility
Remote Technical Assistance (by community) 2012-2016," and
reported that 77 communities had used the service, noting that
during one three-month period there had been more than 1,000
calls. He reiterated how critically important this program was
for rural communities.
10:51:46 AM
MR. LAMB addressed slide 11, "Circuit Rider Assistance (by
community) 2011-2016," and slide 12, which reflected the
dispersal for the coverage of the AEA programs and services. He
moved on to slide 13, and discussed electrical emergency
assistance provided by AEA. He opined that this emergency
response availability was linked to appropriations, and he
pointed out that "electrical emergency" was defined as an
imminent danger to life or likelihood of significant disruption
of electrical service. He said that this was funded out of the
project budget, which he deemed made sense. He pointed out that
AEA could respond if there was an imminent danger, whereas in
the event that AEA does not receive funding, then the lights
have to be out before any other group could respond to the
emergency.
10:56:21 AM
MR. LAMB shared slide 14, "Emergency Response Flow" which
depicted the sequence of events that happen when there was an
emergency. He stated that it was especially directed toward
funding, what would happen in the future, and how responsible
the state was for a loss of power. He questioned whether there
was a dis-incentive for utilities to not maintain equipment in
the rural communities, if they were aware that the state would
come and fix it. He shared the sequence for a power outage,
followed by a phone call to activate the AEA Emergency Response
to help diagnose the problem, and then, depending on the nature
of the problem, the utility staff, AEA personnel, or a
contractor would be engaged for the repairs. Once the problem
was fixed and power was restored, the "imminent danger" was
over. He declared that this was the point when the AEA role and
financial responsibility was finished. After the emergency, it
became the responsibility of the utility to do the necessary
permanent repairs.
10:58:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked if the state liability was over
once the imminent danger was passed.
MR. LAMB expressed his agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked if a distance response for
utilities was this still available to manage the generation from
afar.
MR. LAMB replied that the AEA technicians had ongoing monitoring
of the utilities.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON mused that this technology was being
used.
MR. LAMB said, yes, to some extent. He stated that, prior to
the circuit rider program, there was an average of one
catastrophic failure of a generating facility per year; whereas,
now there was one catastrophic failure every five years. He
stated that the training and the phone calls had "hugely
benefited all of the utilities in the state."
CHAIR WOOL asked if AEA billed the community.
MR. LAMB replied, "no."
CHAIR WOOL asked whether the catastrophic failure rate was per
year or per community.
MS. CONWAY replied that the rate was per year.
MR. LAMB reported that there were about 244 generating utilities
in Alaska.
CHAIR WOOL mused that for these 244 utilities there was about
one failure every five years.
MR. LAMB relayed that the bad news was always reported to the
board, but not as much of the good news.
11:02:37 AM
MR. LAMB returned to slide 14, and shared that Arctic Village
and Diomede had received funding for the necessary permanent
repairs. In response to Chair Wool, he said that Diomede had
used money from the CDQ, Community Development Quota, which he
called "fish money."
11:03:24 AM
MR. LAMB moved on to slide 15, "Electrical Emergencies FY 06-16
(by community)" and explained that the communities were each
color coded to reflect the amount of emergency assistance
requested during that time frame. He stated that the amount of
assistance was "not as bad as you would think" and that this was
trending upward toward fewer emergencies. He addressed slide
16, "Ten Year Average for Emergency Response," and said that, on
average about $285,000 per year was paid by the state for work
on about $1 billion of infrastructure. He offered an analogy
for the cost of roadside assistance per vehicle.
CHAIR WOOL asked about if all the communities had some contact
with AEA either through assistance or training.
MR. LAMB offered his belief that, outside the Railbelt, AEA had
contact with many communities.
MS. CONWAY touched on slide 17, "Bulk Fuel and Rural Power
System Upgrades 2000-2016," stating that these were project
oriented programs which worked in tandem with the technical
assistance and training in rural communities. She reported that
communities with fewer than 2,000 persons were eligible for
these programs. She shared slide 18, "Investing in rural energy
projects" and stated that Rural Power System Upgrades projects
generally increased the efficiency for generating electricity by
10 - 20 percent or more. She declared that it was imperative
for these remote communities to have a facility for buying fuel
in bulk and thereby lowering the fuel cost. She noted that
there had been more than 100 rural power system upgrade projects
and more than 100 bulk fuel upgrade projects completed over the
past 10 years.
11:11:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked about soil contamination from oil
tank farms.
MS. CONWAY replied that the bulk fuel upgrade program did
address contaminated soils and any necessary remediation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked if there was a fiscal note for
this impact.
MR. LAMB explained that AEA did not have responsibility for the
individual fuel farms. He shared that, as the older fuel farms
were being rebuilt, then higher standards were put into place.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked whether there was any state
liability for exposure.
11:12:56 AM
KRIS NOONAN, Program Manager, Rural Power Systems, Alaska Energy
Authority, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development, in response to Representative Johnston, said that
AEA worked with the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) if a contaminated site was located in a community, and
that DEC was the entity responsible for any clean-up work on a
contaminated site. He stated that AEA would work in conjunction
with DEC to mitigate as much damage as possible when building a
new tank farm.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked who owned the land occupied by the
tank farm.
MR. LAMB replied "whomever it could be" and, in response, he
said that generally it was not owned by the state.
11:14:38 AM
MR. LAMB read an e-mail from Fort Yukon regarding combined heat
and power.
11:16:32 AM
MR. LAMB presented slide 20, "Power Cost Equalization (PCE)
Communities" which depicted a map of Alaska and the PCE
communities. He reported that there were 193 PCE communities as
of February 2017. He moved on to slide 21, "Stabilizing Power
Rates" which charted the PCE base rate, determined by the
average rates in Fairbanks, Juneau, and Anchorage, and the cost
per kilowatt to generate and distribute electricity in all the
PCE communities. The graph also depicted the effective net rate
after payment of the PCE.
11:19:13 AM
SEAN SKALING, Assistant Executive Director, Policy & Programs
Director, Alaska Energy Authority, Department of Commerce,
Community & Economic Development, in response to Representative
Claman, explained that the least expensive communities portrayed
on the graph were in the North Slope Borough and the most
expensive communities were [indisc.], those communities with
small loads and high costs for delivery.
CHAIR WOOL asked if some of the communities depicted were not
receiving PCE.
MR. LAMB explained that there was a formula, and that a low
effective rate did not always allow for PCE.
11:21:00 AM
MR. LAMB addressed slide 22, "Electric Sales in PCE Communities
(kWh)," a pie chart which showed that 71 percent of all kWh
(kilowatt hours) were not PCE eligible, this would increase
local pressure to ensure low rates. He reminded the committee
that each residential household only qualified for PCE for the
first 500 kWh.
MS. CONWAY, in response to Representative Johnston, said that
community facilities were determined dependent on use.
11:23:16 AM
[indisc]
11:23:46 AM
CHAIR WOOL offered his belief that, if 29 percent of kWh were
eligible for PCE, then the rate referred to on slide 21 should
not be reduced by more than this amount.
MR. LAMB explained that slide 21 was not a depiction in dollars,
but rates per kilowatt.
CHAIR WOOL reiterated his question. He asked if PCE was a
disincentive to trying alternative energy.
MR. LAMB pointed out that slide 21 represented the effective
kilowatt rate and did not represent the actual dollars charged
and collected. He noted that, although the residential customer
benefited, the bill was paid by the state and the residential
customer. He reported that a rural household used far less
electricity than an urban household, often less than the 500
kWh.
CHAIR WOOL surmised that, as the rate went so high after 500
kWh, the rural household was more cognizant of use. He
suggested that the way PCE worked was not as obvious to an urban
dweller.
MR. LAMB relayed that the cost per kWh was whatever it was, and
that rural residents would not haphazardly use electricity
because they would have to pay full rate beyond 500 kWh. He
said that the cost was a huge incentive, and that it was still
very high, even with PCE. He moved on to slide 23, and said
that renewable energy fund (REF) projects did not penalize PCE
recipients. He explained that, from a savings by an REF
project, there was a savings to community PCE-ineligible kWhs,
to the PCE program through reduced disbursements, and to the
kWhs already subsidized through PCE.
11:31:06 AM
MR. LAMB, in response to Chair Wool, explained that 95 percent
of the utility cost under $1, was used to calculate the PCE
level.
CHAIR WOOL said that the higher the energy cost or the kWh rate,
the more the subsidy would "kick in."
MR. LAMB added "until you hit a dollar. So any of those
communities that are over a dollar... "
CHAIR WOOL reiterated that this was not a flat fee discount, it
was dependent on the price of the energy.
MR. LAMB expressed his agreement, and moved on to slide 24,
"Alaska Energy Authority Rural Services/Programs," which
depicted the aforementioned programs on the map of Alaska.
11:32:45 AM
MS. CONWAY presented slides 26 - 27, "Urban/Statewide
Programs/Services" and mentioned the technical assistance and
energy technology, energy policy work, and programmatic work on
Railbelt assets. She addressed slide 28, "Technical Assistance
- energy technologies," and stated that this was a different
type of technical assistance than discussed earlier. She listed
the five most critical technology areas: end-use efficiency,
hydro, biomass, wind, and heat recovery, and stated that these
were of the most critical importance. She relayed that work had
been moving forward in full recognition for the necessary
adaptations to the changing fiscal climate. She listed the
"lighter touch" technology areas, those without an AEA program
manager, which included energy storage, heat pumps, solar PV,
transmission, solar thermal, and advanced grid. She relayed
that there was a unique situation at AEA, as there was expertise
for the appropriate and achievable energy solutions for a whole
community, tailored to the specific needs of that community.
AEA funded on-going technical support in these areas, which
included program and project development, stakeholder engagement
through technology working groups, and grant writing for
competitive federal dollars.
11:36:03 AM
MS. CONWAY moved on to slide 29, "Village Energy Efficiency
Program 2005-2016." She said that a commonly heard mantra was
"Energy Efficiency First," as the necessity for "more bang for
our buck" was recognized. She reported that AEA had managed
building energy efficiency programs in almost 150 communities
for both electric and heat programs.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked if AEA was the project manager or
the technological assistant.
MS. CONWAY replied that AEA served both roles. She explained
that each of the iterations of the village energy efficiency
program was managed a bit differently.
11:37:21 AM
CHAIR WOOL asked about management for each of the five critical
technology areas listed on slide 28.
MS. CONWAY replied that there was a program manager for each,
with the same program manager for Biomass and Heat Recovery.
CHAIR WOOL asked about the other six "lighter touch" technology
areas.
MS. CONWAY replied that there was an assortment of experience
from the project managers already on staff who have historically
worked on these types of projects. In response to Chair Wool,
she stated that the five critical technologies were more
important and any support with technical assistance, project
development assistance, and appropriate achievable financing
could bring these projects to fruition. She noted that the six
"lighter touch" technology areas were not as mature or prevalent
in Alaska.
11:38:57 AM
MS. CONWAY moved on to slide 30, "Renewable Energy Fund Grants
Rounds 1 - 9," which showed all 287 project applications funded
to date through the Renewable Energy Fund (REF). She pointed
out that some projects had multiple applications. Directing
attention to slide 31, "70 Projects Operational," she reported
that these were operational projects which resulted from the
Renewable Energy Fund investments. She added that 21 more
projects had secured funding through construction and would be
coming on line. She explained that PCE reimbursed eligible
expenses, and, if an REF project was funded entirely through a
grant, there would not be any cost. This did not hurt the PCE
and was still a benefit to the community. She declared that the
two programs were synergistic, not oppositional.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSTON asked about the two geothermal projects,
directing attention to a geothermal project east of Homer and
another near Juneau.
MR. SKALING said that these projects were ground source heat
pumps.
11:42:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ referred to slide 31, asking if the 21
additional projects were funded but not yet operational.
MS. CONWAY said that was correct, and pointed out that not all
funding, in order to get to construction, came from the REF, and
that many projects had supplemental funding.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked if there would be 91 operational
projects.
MS. CONWAY replied, "in theory, yes, barring the unexpected."
CHAIR WOOL asked for clarification to the relationship between
electricity and heat, that although PCE would subsidize the
electrical portion, a utility could produce and sell both.
MR. LAMB offered his belief there was a benefit for lower heat
cost.
11:44:55 AM
MS. CONWAY returned attention to slide 32, "AEA Energy Projects
are Effective," and pointed out that the Renewable Energy Fund
(REF) had not had money for the last year. She declared that
the program served a very important function, and would continue
to do so for the Alaska energy landscape. She reported that the
investment of $257 million had jumpstarted the renewable energy
market in Alaska, had proven that these projects do work, and
had provided good case studies for how, why, where, and when.
She added that the REF had leverage hundreds of millions of
federal and private dollars, and displaced a tremendous amount
of diesel use annually. The 31 million gallons of diesel
displaced in 2016 had a dollar equivalent savings of about $63
million.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if was there had been an evaluation
of towns for which renewable energy could replace diesel.
MS. CONWAY replied that the Alaska Affordable Energy model was a
planning tool which could be used.
MR. LAMB opined that there were slides which showed potential
hydro and wind power, and that there was a lot of opportunity
across the state.
CHAIR WOOL questioned the availability of funding.
MS. CONWAY replied that this depended on what was considered
funding, as financing could be a form of funding.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON shared that it was of critical importance
for small villages to have the opportunity to move beyond
diesel.
11:47:49 AM
MS. CONWAY pointed to slide 33, "Benefits and costs perspectives
differ," and shared that the required economic analysis carried
different perspectives, dependent on the costs and benefits
considered. As the state took a universal approach, all costs
and all benefits were counted regardless for who paid or
benefited. However, at the local community level or for a
project developer, not everything would be included, such as the
value of the grant funds or the reduction of PCE payments. She
directed attention to the chart on slide 33, which listed the
state perspective with a benefit cost ratio of 0.8, which was
lower than the community perspective with a benefit cost ratio
of 1.4. She offered examples of the benefit cost ratio to other
REF projects.
CHAIR WOOL addressed various line items of the benefit cost
ratio, noting that the state may include some, whereas the
community would not.
MS. CONWAY noted that this resulted in the different
perspectives, and could cause some disagreement for what should
be funded with state dollars.
MR. LAMB declared that, when money was involved, there could be
friction.
11:51:19 AM
MS. CONWAY addressed slide 34, which depicted the "Energy
Planning Regions" across Alaska. She stated that regional
energy planning was a way to determine energy priorities and
formulate a concrete, implementable, fundable energy plan. She
shared that electricity, heat, and transportation plans had been
completed for every region in the state. She said that regional
energy plans were, primarily, bottom up planning initiatives
which relied on extensive stakeholder engagement to produce a
list of projects to lower energy costs. Some of the categories
for recommended actions included utility management and
operations, building efficiency, electricity, heating,
transportation, and ongoing planning. She reminded that the
Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy was a set of recommended
policy, regulatory, and statutory changes to make it possible to
reach the energy project goals outlined in the regional energy
planning process.
11:52:42 AM
MS. CONWAY presented slide 35, "Alaska Affordable Energy
Strategy" and declared that there was a strong relationship
between the regional energy plans and the strategy. She
reported that a critical piece of the strategy was the
stakeholder engagement foundation based, primarily, on the
regional energy planning initiative. She said that regional
energy plans provided the basis for policy research, which were
the strategy recommendations. She pointed out that the chart on
the slide showed the interplay between community and regional
planning, statewide planning and policy development, and project
implementation. As recommended by the Alaska Affordable Energy
Strategy, this system relied on strong data collection and
continuous stakeholder engagement, as well as an effective
project funding mechanism, which was not exclusively grant
funding.
MS. CONWAY shared an example of the multi-agency coordination of
planning and policy work with the leveraging of resources for
the feasibility of development for a regional power pool that
would provide management and operational support to small,
single site electric utilities in Rural Interior Alaska.
MS. CONWAY said that a broad group of staff contributed to
energy policy work, which was largely dictated by legislative
mandates, as well as occasional policy initiatives from other
bodies such as the governor's office.
11:55:17 AM
MS. CONWAY pointed to slide 36, "AkAES: Targeted Review," and
listed the one-stop-shop Community Energy Fund for Alaska, on-
bill financing, empowering the RCA to have siting authority, and
establishing a universal service charge.
CHAIR WOOL suggested, as time was limited, to limit the
discussion to the One-Stop-shop and the universal service
charge.
MS. CONWAY reported that the Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy
research had found that, although many communities and utilities
were in the position to take on more debt, they needed more
flexibility for funding opportunities to better address their
needs and assistance for access to these opportunities; hence,
the Community Energy Fund for Alaska (CEFA), a one-stop-shop, to
allow communities to more effectively tap into the resources.
11:57:26 AM
MS. CONWAY, in response to Chair Wool, spoke about establishment
of a universal service charge, as the statute which created the
Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy also required a way to pay for
projects. She said that a universal service charge would secure
a reliable funding stream that did not rely on government
appropriations to address industry specific issues. The
recommendation only specified for how to collect the funds, and
the projects and programs that could be supported. She reported
that, in many parts of the country, the utility industry was
responsible for the administration of energy programs and
projects designed to lower costs for the consumers. She
emphasized that the report did not recommend for any communities
within the Railbelt. In response to Chair Wool, she stated that
the universal charge would be a small percentage collected per
kilowatt hour, or per gallon. She reported that the study did
not suggest any amount, only the concept as a way to generate
revenue to pay for projects and programs. She said that
determination for the best way to implement this policy concept
would be part of the public and deliberative process. She added
that this concept had worked in other places, often areas with
much larger utilities.
12:00:09 PM
MS. CONWAY concluded with slide 48, "AEA is Relevant to Alaska,"
and declared that there was a lot of growth potential for energy
efficiency, hydro, biomass, and wind project development work.
She declared that there was hardly a community or utility in
Alaska that was not touched by an AEA program or project, and
that these efforts were comprehensively improving energy safety,
stability, reliability, and affordability with the benefits
shared across rural and urban Alaska, utilities and consumers
alike. She reiterated that there was a lot of growth potential,
as the resources were abundant and there were opportunities to
find financing through the federal government and the private
sector.
12:01:29 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 12:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AEA One-Page Summary for HENE 2-21-17.pdf |
HENE 2/21/2017 10:15:00 AM |
|
| HENE AEA overview 2-21-17.pdf |
HENE 2/21/2017 10:15:00 AM |
|
| PCE One-Page Summary for AEA HENE 2-21-17.pdf |
HENE 2/21/2017 10:15:00 AM |