Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
03/06/2025 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): Railbelt Decarbonization Project | |
| 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
March 6, 2025
1:32 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ky Holland, Co-Chair
Representative Donna Mears, Co-Chair
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mia Costello
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Cathy Tilton
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): RAILBELT GRID SCENARIOS FOR 2050
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
STEVE COLT, Research Professor
Alaska Center for Energy and Power
University of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave the Railbelt Decarbonization Project
presentation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:32:03 PM
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND called the House Special Committee on Energy
meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. Representatives Mears, Rauscher,
Costello, and Holland were present at the call to order.
^PRESENTATION(S): Railbelt Decarbonization Project
PRESENTATION(S): Railbelt Decarbonization Project
1:33:07 PM
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND announced that the only order of business would
be the Railbelt Decarbonization Project presentation.
1:34:06 PM
STEVE COLT, Research Professor, Alaska Center for Energy and
Power (ACEP), University of Alaska (UA), directed attention to a
PowerPoint presentation, titled "Railbelt Grid Scenarios for
2050" [hard copy included in the committee packet]. He started
on slide 2, which highlighted the Railbelt 2050 Scenarios
Project that considers whether a much larger electricity demand
could be met in the Railbelt in 2050 by using alternative
generation sources while maintaining reliability and stability,
and what this might cost. It also enumerated the partners
involved in the project that ran from 2022 to 2023. He added
that an update was done in mid-2024. Slide 3 outlined the
multi-step analytical approach to the project, which required a
large team of specialists and heavy involvement from electrical
engineers. Slide 4 defined the project's challenge: meet the
hourly 2050 projected electricity demand, which equaled twice
the 2021 demand, and more winter-peaking while maintaining
reliability.
1:41:08 PM
MR. COLT, in response to a series of committee questions,
recalled that the doubling of the load could be associated with
more than half the vehicles on the road being electric by 2050;
however, it wouldn't take a lot of data centers to account of
the Railbelt load. He confirmed that consideration had been
given to the type of demand and how that characterizes the load
on the grid, but the load dimension could not be fully explored
due to lack of time and resources. He noted that the Alaska
Center for Energy and Power treated a large portion of the
electric vehicle (EV) load as if it were a pumped storage
installation where energy could be put when available and taken
out when needed. He shared his belief that the fall 2024
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 2 study took an
intermediate load growth, while NREL 1 assumed a flat load. He
agreed that it is equally important to consider some kind of
flat load scenario as a reality check. One thing about the
Railbelt, he noted, is that there's adequate capacity to meet
the current load if the state is willing to continue burning
fossil fuels. In addition, the "business as usual" (BAU)
scenario meets the doubled load with a minimal additional
investment in thermal generating capacity.
1:50:37 PM
MR. COLT continued to Slide 5, which outlined the following 5
scenarios:
BAU: Build Dixon Diversion, 30 MW Little Mt. Su Wind,
HVDC to Beluga, Upgrade Kenai intertie. Add thermal
capacity as needed.
Wind/Solar: Build wind, solar & storage. Upgrade both
Kenai and Anchorage-Fairbanks transmission to 230 kV.
Wind/Solar/Hydro: Build Susitna-Watana475-600 MW
hydro, plus wind, solar & storage. Transmission
upgrades same as W/S.
Wind/Solar/Tidal: Build 400 MW tidal project in Lower
Cook Inlet, plus wind, solar & storage. Transmission
upgrades same as W/S.
Wind/Solar/Nuclear: Build 2 small modular reactors
(308+231 MW), plus wind, solar & storage. Transmission
upgrades same as W/S.
MR. COLT highlighted the wind/solar scenario - a new addition
based on the committee's prior feedback - that attempted to rely
on wind and solar as core resources with additional resources as
needed. In response to a follow up question, he said the
production cost model assumed that gas was available at
$14/mmbtu in 2050.
1:54:27 PM
MR. COLT continued to Slide 6, which assessed resource selection
and sizing based on availability and cost. In response to a
question from the co-chair, he replied that the load growth is
proportional to the three existing load centers. He added that
there was no attempt to collocate blocks of loads with potential
supplies. Slide 7 showed a bar chart of installed capacity by
resource. He reiterated that the modeling shows that the
doubled load could be met with minimal additional investment in
thermal capacity if the state wants to remain fuel dependent.
Further, the wind needed for the wind/solar scenario is not much
more than the amount needed for the other scenarios that include
big anchor resources.
2:02:28 PM
MR. COLT, in response to a series of committee questions,
explained that the assumption on battery cost is quite
conservative, and no new technology was assumed. The cost of
existing lithium-ion technology was used, with no storage
duration greater than six hours. He said every scenario modeled
on slide 7 retains the need for significant thermal capacity, so
batteries plus wind plus solar is not enough. He confirmed that
if all existing thermal units were run 24/7, it would generate
twice as much energy needed to meet the doubled load, which
illustrates the capacity utilization of thermal. He added that
a cost benefit analysis was not conducted on the upgrades and
emphasized that the results depend on the availability of basic
upgrades and a vastly increased use of transmission.
2:13:25 PM
MR COLT resumed the presentation on slide 8, which displayed a
bar chart of annual generation in 2050 featuring an hour-by-hour
analysis. He walked the committee through each scenario. In
response to a question from the co-chair, he said reliability
and stability are the reason that fossil fuel isn't entirely
eliminated in the nuclear option. Slide 9 showed the cost of
capacity, which would require billions in capital investment.
Modeling showed that the double load could be run of a fossil
fuel system in 2050 without the Northern upgrade. All other
scenarios include the Northern and Southern upgrade. He further
noted that the capital investment required for each scenario is
after applying a 30 percent tax credit. Slide 10 addressed the
cost of service to ratepayers. The essence of the tradeoff, he
said, is whether to stick with fuel, or go with capital
investment that get's the state away from fuel.
2:29:30 PM
MR. COLT, in response to committee questions, said the basic
assumption on cost of capital is 5 percent interest and debt
finance. He continued to slide 11 and discussed the generation
and transmission (G&T) cost of service across 25 sensitivity
cases, which produced remarkably similar results. He explained
that by assuming fuel is 25 percent higher, wind/solar starts to
look like the cheapest option, but uncertainty around the cost
of wind construction in particular is phenomenal and much
greater than even four months ago. He concluded that the cost
of electricity would be similar under all scenarios. He began a
summary of transmission and stability on slide 12, noting that
the Railbelt grid is very weak and would require a lot of
"tender, love, and care" with the addition of renewables. He
explained that wind and solar are intermittent and lack the
inertia required for a stable grid. Slide 13 analyzed intertie
utilization up 5-20-fold and highlighted the increase in both
magnitude and direction of the flows. Slide 14 charted the
"highest renewable week generation and operations" under various
scenarios, highlighting periods with inverter-based resources
(IBR) versus synchronous generation (GS). Slide 15 considered
what it would take to make the grid work on renewables with less
SG and whether IBRs could effectively replace SG. It showed
that by sticking with thermal in the BAU scenario, there is a
lot of SG, as well as with hydro, nuclear, and tidal due to the
massive spinning turbines. There would be a lot less of it in
the wind/solar scenario and more IBR. Slide 16 recapitulated
the annual wind and solar generation as percentage of load. He
pointed out that wind/solar would offer a lot of free energy if
used correctly.
2:47:32 PM
MR. COLT, in response to committee questions, acknowledged that
geographic diversity was taken into account. He noted that the
first approximation was to put wind/solar into batteries. He
summarized a transmission analysis on slide 17, and continued to
slide 18, which listed the equipment needed for stability and
reliability to ensure that inverter-based resources can achieve
their intended purpose. Slide 19 considered operational
mitigation options. He reported that it was more cost effective
to put in new transmission compared to burning more fuel. Slide
20 provided graphics of grid-forming inverters from an
engineering perspective and highlighted certain scenarios that
produced system collapse. Ultimately, they determined that
grid-forming inverters in conjunction with batteries would
stabilize the system under difficult conditions, such as loss of
the biggest intertie.
2:58:01 PM
MR. COLT, in response to a series of committee questions, said
the analysis was pre-artificial intelligence (AI). He said
strategic thinking begins with considering optionality and which
projects foreclose it versus create it. With regard to
uncertainty around demand, he recommended more flexibility to
follow it, adding that creating new loads is within the purview
of public policy.
3:06:02 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Colt ACEP Railbelt 2050 Study for House Energy 06Mar2025.pdf |
HENE 3/6/2025 1:30:00 PM |
|
| ACEP Railbelt 2050 one-pager v4.1 05Mar2025.pdf |
HENE 3/6/2025 1:30:00 PM |