Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
02/27/2025 01:30 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 | |
| Presentation(s): Launch Alaska | |
| Presentations(s): Cache Energy Long-term Energy Storage | |
| Presentation(s): Sage Geosystems | |
| 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 27, 2025
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ky Holland, Co-Chair
Representative Donna Mears, Co-Chair
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative George Rauscher
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Mia Costello
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): LAUNCH ALASKA
- HEARD
PRESENTATIONS(S): CACHE ENERGY LONG-TERM ENERGY STORAGE
- HEARD
PRESENTATION(S): SAGE GEOSYSTEMS
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
ISSAC VANDERBURG, CEO
Launch Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint presentation on
Launch Alaska.
PENNY GAGE, Chief Policy and Partnership Officer
Launch Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-presented a PowerPoint presentation on
Launch Alaska.
ARPIT DWIVEDI, Founder
Cache Energy
Champaign, Illinois
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation on Cache
Energy.
MIKE EROS, Chief Geoscientist
Sage Geosystems
Houston, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation on Sage
Geosystems.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:43 PM
CO-CHAIR DONNA MEARS called the House Special Committee on
Energy meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Representatives Holland,
Mears, Tilton, and Rauscher were present at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION(S): Launch Alaska
PRESENTATION(S): Launch Alaska
1:33:40 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation by Launch Alaska.
1:34:17 PM
ISSAC VANDERBURG, CEO, Launch Alaska, co-presented the
PowerPoint presentation on Launch Alaska [hard copy included in
the committee packet]. On slide 2, he discussed the background
of Launch Alaska, which was founded in 2016. He noted that Co-
Chair Holland had been one of the founding members. He stated
that Launch Alaska is a nonprofit company, which initially
promoted startup companies with its Accelerator Program, but its
focus has narrowed to the support of the energy, transportation,
and industrial sectors that work to reduce cost and emissions.
He stated that Launch Alaska promotes projects by bringing
companies from around the world together with infrastructure
owners. In addressing Alaska's energy challenges, he expressed
the belief that innovation would be the key to unlocking
economic opportunities. He pointed out that Launch Alaska has
11 employees who have expertise in different areas of
technology.
MR. VANDERBURG stated that Launch Alaska receives funding
support from the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Office
of Navel Research. He added that it is also supported by many
other organizations, as seen on slide 3. He noted that the
company focuses on people, partnerships, projects, and policy,
as seen on slide 4.
1:37:37 PM
PENNY GAGE, Chief Policy and Partnership Officer, Launch Alaska,
co-presented the PowerPoint presentation on Launch Alaska. She
stated that Launch Alaska's Accelerator Program is an annual,
eight-month program that focuses on deploying projects on
industry, transportation, and energy, as seen on slide 5 and
slide 6. She noted that startup companies are currently being
recruited for the program, and these startups will often offer
new technologies. She noted that Alaska has a high cost of
energy, extreme environments, and obvious effects of climate
change. She expressed the opinion that some of the new
technologies could address these challenges, while creating
economic opportunities. She noted that the next two
presentations would be by companies discussing geothermal energy
and long-duration energy storage. She stated that the two
companies have both worked with Launch Alaska. She expressed
excitement about the technologies that these two companies would
be discussing, as these could meet Railbelt and remote energy
needs. She noted that Launch Alaska currently has 41 companies
in its portfolio, while 171 companies have gone through the
Accelerator Program. She added that "only the best of the best"
would be part of the portfolio.
1:40:25 PM
MR. VANDERBURG, in response to a question from Co-Chair Holland,
expressed the belief that startups would benefit the state
because they are powerful in tackling pressing relevant issues.
Concerning the energy crisis in the state, he said that startup
companies are relevant because they present new pathways, such
as methods for storing intermittent energy for long periods. He
added that startups are also the largest job creators, and they
bring in private investment. He suggested that startups are "an
economic bright spot for the state," and as a sector, they are a
driver for the future of the state.
MS. GAGE added that every six months the portfolio companies
would be questioned on their work, such as in creating jobs,
reducing emissions, and having project commitments. She noted
that 77 new jobs have been reported, with 90 new projects. In
response to a follow-up question on the distinction between
Railbelt and rural Alaska statistics, she stated that she would
report back to the committee, as this data has been tracked.
She added that the companies are not just deploying on the
Railbelt, but in rural communities as well.
MR. VANDERBURG, in response to a question from Representative
Rauscher, expressed concern about possible impacts from frozen
federal funds. He noted that the frozen funds could affect
heating-cost projects, such as a project that would provide heat
pumps to thousands of Alaskans. He pointed out that the hardest
hit companies would be those relying on tax credits, as this
could stall projects that are aimed at the state's declining
natural gas supply.
1:47:15 PM
MS. GAGE, in response to a question from Co-Chair Holland,
stated that the application deadline for the Accelerator Program
would be May 1. She noted that industry, transportation, and
energy projects have been chosen in the past because these are
the sources of the highest emissions in the state. She stated
that Launch Alaska is interested in mid-to-late-stage startups
that are ready for customers, as this shows market traction.
She stated that Launch Alaska's team evaluates the applications,
along with an external review company, which consists of experts
in the various fields. She pointed out that the process is
phased.
CO-CHAIR MEARS discussed the need for seasonal energy storage in
the state.
^PRESENTATIONS(S): Cache Energy Long-term Energy Storage
PRESENTATIONS(S): Cache Energy Long-term Energy Storage
1:50:14 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS announced that the next order of business would
be a presentation from Cache Energy.
1:50:30 PM
ARPIT DWIVEDI, Founder, Cache Energy, gave a PowerPoint
presentation on Cache Energy [hard copy included in the
committee packet]. He stated that Cache Energy is working on
solutions for long-term energy storage. He expressed the
opinion that the two main problems in Alaska are the natural gas
storage and the need for long-term seasonal energy storage, as
seen on slide 2. He asserted that the intermittency of solar
and wind energy often leads to overbuilding or underutilizing,
as seen on slide 3. He expressed the opinion that the only
solution at the present is to use lithium-ion batteries;
however, this storage is not scalable. He explained that these
batteries cannot store a bulk of energy, and buying excess
batteries would not be cost effective. He also discussed how
these batteries lose capacity with time. Noting Alaska's harsh
climate, he said that solutions in the Lower 48 could not always
be implemented in Alaska.
MR. DWIVEDI moved from slide 4 to slide 5 and discussed Cache
Alaska's approach to fuel storage. He stated that it promotes a
proven technology that is comparable to fossil fuels, and he
noted that fossil fuels are a low-cost source of shippable
energy. He stated that this proven technology is like coal, but
it would not have the consequences, and it is rechargeable. He
continued, stating that this new technology would be like a
battery, but with the features of fuel. On slide 6, he
explained the chemistry behind the new technology, which
involves storing and releasing cheap energy by dehydrating and
rehydrating lime. He continued that, because the lime cannot be
reused, Cache Alaska came up with the solution of turning lime
into stable pellets, which create cyclability. He expressed the
understanding that these pellets could be discharged and
recharged thousands of times. He noted that Cache Alaska has
won prizes for developing this technology. He discussed a pilot
program that took place in Anchorage using the technology, and
he showed the committee a short video demonstrating this [link
to the video provided on slide 7].
1:59:14 PM
MR. DWIVEDI pointed out that there are many ways to store
energy, and he argued that using lime would provide the duration
needed in harsh weather conditions. He asserted that as long as
the pellets are contained, they would not lose energy. He
pointed out that lime is cheap, and it does not require extreme
heat to bring up the temperature, so stainless steel could be
used for this. He pointed out the graph on slide 8 that showed
a cost comparison. He expressed the understanding that using
lime for heat storage would be one third of the cost of using
batteries. He noted that this is targeting heat and not
electricity.
MR. DWIVEDI moved to slide 9 and discussed the storge of the
lime pellets. He noted that the pellets could be stored in
basic containers, as the lime can withstand extreme weather
conditions, even in Prudhoe Bay. He moved to slide 10 and
discussed project ideas for using this technology, and he
pointed out that currently Cache Alaska is looking for areas
with a cheap source of intermittent excess energy generation.
He pointed out that Cache Alaska has been working with Chugach
Electric, the Municipality of Anchorage, and on a project in
Kotzebue. He discussed the process of tying this technology
into an already existing system. He pointed out that because
lime is cheap, the driving factor for cost would be
transportation. He noted that producing the pellets close to
customers would be beneficial, so a critical number of customers
would be needed to promote building a factory in the state. He
added that once the company has a customer base in the state, it
could obtain the limestone locally. He moved to slide 11 and
pointed out Cache Alaska's partners. In conclusion, he
suggested that the larger energy projects in the state should
continue, while smaller, low-cost projects could be done in
conjunction with Cache Alaska, as this technology is ready to
deploy.
2:05:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned the amount of water needed to
make heat from the lime pellets.
MR. DWIVEDI responded that an exact amount of water would need
to be added to the lime pellets to obtain the right temperature.
He continued that the amount of water could be changed to raise
or lower the temperature, as needed. In response to a follow-up
question, he stated that if the stored pellets became wet, a
warm puddle would be created, or if steam were created, a
thermal runway would be needed. He added that the pellets have
a thermal limit of 1000 degrees Fahrenheit, and the reaction
would stop there. He pointed out that when coal, oil, and gas
grow hotter, they burn faster, and they would need a thermal
runway. He responded that the pellet container would not become
hot enough to melt.
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND questioned the environment needed [within
communities] to support innovative technologies. He noted the
regulations surrounding utility companies, along with the cost
associated with the utility companies.
MR. DWIVEDI expressed the belief that the technology developers
would need to earn the trust and confidence of communities. He
expressed the opinion that there should be healthy skepticism
concerning any energy production. He asserted that Cache Alaska
has worked to earn confidence by shipping its pilot project to
Alaska and opening the process up for the public to see. He
stated that another way to create trust would be to have a lease
program for communities who find it hard to make the investment.
He opined that there needs to be openness to shifts in industry;
otherwise, a sunk-cost fallacy would be created.
MR. DWIVEDI, in response to a question from Representative
Rauscher, stated that when charging and discharging the pellets,
they are never wet. He clarified that vapor would be passed
over the particles, not liquid water. He explained this process
in more detail.
MR. DWIVEDI, in response to a question from Co-Chair Holland
concerning the cycle process, explained that this technology is
flexible, as the design allows it to be charged or discharged in
any amount needed. In response to a follow-up question, he
stated that 1 unit of pellets would create 100 kilowatts of
energy, which would equal around $100,000.
2:15:24 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS, concerning the size of a unit, discussed the
variables in shipping and usage. She questioned whether this
would depend on the application.
MR. DWIVEDI responded that this would depend on the size of the
community, as a bigger community would need a larger reactor, or
charger. He continued that the number of pellets needed would
depend on the length of time the energy is needed. He explained
that a full shipping container could be used, depending on the
seasonal extremes in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND questioned the space needed for the reactor and
the storage of the pellets. He questioned the community size
that could benefit from this technology.
MR. DWIVEDI responded that to be economically viable, there
would need to be a minimum limit of around 50 houses, equating
to 100,000 megawatts. Concerning the benefit for communities,
he stated that the higher the heating price a community has, the
more the benefit. He added that the impact on cost would be
greater if a community has cheaper energy part of the year. In
response to a follow-up question on storage, he stated that one
shipping container could be used through a few months of very
cold weather for a community of 100 people. He reminded the
committee that this is not a fuel, but a rechargeable resource
that would not require yearly shipments.
2:20:43 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS expressed the understanding that heat would be
the ideal product. She questioned whether larger scale projects
could use this technology.
MR. DWIVEDI responded that retrofits studies on larger projects
are being done in the Lower 48. These projects are looking at
converting heat into electricity. He noted that one of these
studies is looking at using a decommissioned 600-megawatt coal
plant.
MR. DWIVEDI, in response to a question from Co-Chair Holland,
expressed uncertainty on the capacity for the recovery generator
at the new Chugach Electric plant. He stated that he would
follow-up with the answer to this question after the meeting.
MR. DWIVEDI, in response to a question from Representative
Rauscher concerning the end of life for the pellets, stated that
with each cycle, there would be some breakdown, but they are
still able to store energy. He explained that the storage comes
from the lime, and the storage capacity would not change, but
after a few hundred cycles, the lime becomes too small. He
stated that this equates to two years of daily usage. He added
that the breakdown turns into powder, and the pellets could be
remade cheaply from this powder. In response, he stated that
one barrel of pellets would have the same density as water.
^PRESENTATION(S): Sage Geosystems
PRESENTATION(S): Sage Geosystems
2:26:13 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS announced that the final order of business would
be the Sage Geosystems presentation.
2:26:35 PM
MIKE EROS, Chief Geoscientist, Sage Geosystems, gave a
PowerPoint presentation on Sage Geosystems [hard copy included
in the committee packet]. He shared his qualifications, which
included work at Exxon Mobile. He stated that he joined Sage
Geosystems in 2021. He pointed out that Sage is staffed with
former employees of the oil and gas industry, and its focus is
making long duration energy storage that could be used for
heating. He stated that its focus especially involves using
geothermal heating and energy storage.
MR. EROS reviewed Sage's team, as seen on slide 2. He noted the
company's goal of securing independent capital to test the
economic viability of low-cost energy supplies. He expressed
the understanding that these supplies need to be de-risked
before they are brought to the market. On slide 3, he covered
Sage's timeline, pointing out that the company was created in
2020. He discussed Sage's funding sources, which included
funding from climate change philanthropists. He added that it
has also secured funding from Nabors, which is the largest owner
of land rigs in the world. He stated that Sage has raised
around $55 million in the last 3 years, and it has spent around
$45 million on testing geothermal energy storage. He discussed
the progress towards a demonstration project, pointing out that
Sage has an agreement with META to provide geothermal power on a
pilot scale by 2027. He noted that Sage would be ready to
provide energy solutions to the market in around 12-to-14
months.
MR. EROS discussed the map on slide 4, which showed the
geothermal heat flow and geothermal energy storage potential in
Alaska. The map highlighted the Railbelt and the major power
grids, and it also highlighted sedimentary basins in the state.
He stated that these type basins could be drilled for less cost
and used for subsurface energy storage. He discussed the needed
scale, which would be more than 500 kilowatts for stored energy.
MR. EROS moved to slide 5 and discussed Sage's two main product
lines, which are energy storage and geothermal energy. He noted
that he would focus mainly on energy storage, as these projects
are shovel ready. He stated that the first plant has been built
in Texas, and it is currently being tested. He noted that this
technology could also be applied to the future use of
geothermal. He discussed the first diagram on the slide,
explaining that the injection and production processes would
happen within the same well. He continued that there would be a
timestep between the process of injecting water into a deep well
and the process of pumping it back to the surface. He pointed
out that grid power from various sources would be used to do
this. He continued that, once the water is injected, high
pressure would be created in the formation. The water would
then be ejected through the casing at about 5000 pounds per
square inch, and this would turn the turbine, which turns the
generator and puts power back on the grid. He stated that the
pump would be the biggest energy load, adding that the system
has around 75 precent efficiency.
MR. EROS discussed the geothermal process, shown on the right
side of slide 5. He pointed out that this process has not been
field-tested. He stated that it has the same set up, using a
vertical well, but the well would need to be five times the size
of the energy storage model. Concerning the scale of
applicability, he stated that this system would serve villages
with the population of around 1000 people. This population
would justify the needed size of a well to produce around 500
kilowatts.
MR. EROS moved to slide 6 and noted that Sage is doing projects
with the U.S. Department of Defense. He stated that these
projects involve gathering data on application risk factors. He
stated that it has secured funding for geothermal testing with
the U.S. Airforce, and the project should begin in 2025 in
Texas. He expressed the understanding that the military is
concerned about securing energy assets and lowering energy costs
across the country.
2:43:01 PM
MR. EROS, in response to a question from Representative Rauscher
concerning the cost to a community for project installation,
stated that Sage is working to be competitive with the price of
natural gas, coal, and other power sources. He discussed the
variables in the price projection in Texas, noting that this
could be higher in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that Texas is flat and populated,
while Alaska is not. He expressed the opinion that the cost in
Alaska would "escalate" from the projected cost in Texas. He
questioned whether the discussed cost would be relatable to
Anchorage.
MR. EROS expressed the understanding that this would be a "fair
assumption." He further speculated on other scenarios. In
parsing out the cost, he expressed the opinion that the 20
percent needed for engineering, procurement, and design would
likely increase in an application in Alaska. He opined that
there could be advantages that Alaska might have over Texas. In
response to a follow-up question from Co-Chair Holland, he
stated that the required drilling would not involve the larger
rigs, as this energy storage would only require a 9,000 foot
well. He added that rigs are being made more mobile and
lightweight.
MR. EROS moved to slide 7 and pointed out the turbine/generator
used in San Antonio, Texas. He stated that this is used by the
San Miguel Electric Cooperative to diversify its energy
portfolio by building on 2 megawatts of solar within the next 10
years. He noted that Sage has a lease to work on this project.
MR. EROS moved to slide 10 to discuss the potential for
geothermal energy in Alaska. He pointed out that Sage is
partnered with GeoAlaska, as GeoAlaska is securing a lease to
drill on Augustine Island. He stated that GeoAlaska would be
involved with the geothermal portion, while Sage would be
working on the hot dry rock process. He pointed out the
conventional geothermal system, as seen on the slide. He stated
that this relies on the system being close to volcanos, where
the production rates are unreliable and exploration is
expensive; therefore, new geothermal projects are being
developed, including using the hot dry rock process. He noted
that Sage is developing a hot rock system that has lower cost
and higher efficiencies. In conclusion, he expressed
appreciation to Sage's investors, as seen on slide 13.
2:52:27 PM
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND questioned any barriers in Alaska that Sage
foresees, especially concerning the needed landscape and access
to the underground. He questioned any regulatory work that
might be needed.
MR. EROS responded that Sage seeks to be competitive with other
energy resources, especially concerning parity with oil and gas
regulations. He expressed the opinion that, in general, Alaska
has a favorable environment. He noted that, concerning
utilities in the state, it would be helpful to have a discussion
on leveling the cost of storage and energy, so alternative
energy systems could be compared equally with traditional
systems. He pointed out that this would concern the cost to
make a system and the net-life benefit that results from this
system. He expressed the understanding that there might be
opportunities in Alaska unknown to Sage. Concerning these
opportunities, he suggested that Sage could provide a public
benefit.
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND pointed out that Sage's team has many years of
experience working in the oil and gas industry. He questioned
the role of this experience in the transition to newer energy
systems.
MR. EROS, in response, encouraged committee members to research
Jamie Beard, as she is the person who has suggested that oil and
gas professionals could be the future of renewable energy. He
stated that there is an 80 percent overlap with the required
skills in the renewable and fossil fuel sectors. He suggested
that oil and gas entities are seeing the commerciality of the
innovative solutions.
CO-CHAIR MEARS spoke to the complexity of the future of energy.
She expressed appreciation to the presenters and made closing
comments.
2:58:15 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 2:58 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Cache_AK_House Energy.pptx |
HENE 2/27/2025 1:30:00 PM |
Launch Alaska |
| Cache_AK_House Energy.pdf |
HENE 2/27/2025 1:30:00 PM |
Launch Alaska |
| FINAL 2025.2.27 House Energy Committee Launch Alaska Overview.pdf |
HENE 2/27/2025 1:30:00 PM |
Launch Alaska |
| Alaska_House_Brief_Sage Geosystems_Overview_27_Feb2025.pdf |
HENE 2/27/2025 1:30:00 PM |
Launch alaska |