Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
04/10/2025 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 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 153 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
April 10, 2025
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ky Holland, Co-Chair
Representative Donna Mears, Co-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mia Costello
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Cathy Tilton
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 153
"An Act relating to generation of electricity from renewable
energy resources; relating to a renewable portfolio standard;
relating to power cost equalization; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 153
SHORT TITLE: UTILITIES: RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HOLLAND
03/24/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/24/25 (H) ENE, RES
03/26/25 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER RES
04/01/25 (H) ENE AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/01/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/01/25 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
04/03/25 (H) ENE AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
04/03/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/03/25 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
04/10/25 (H) ENE AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
SHAINA KILCOYNE, Staff
Representative Ky Holland
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Holland, prime
sponsor, presented the summary of changes proposed under a
committee substitute to HB 153.
CARROLL CAMPBELL, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
WAYNE WOODS, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
GORDON BISSELL, representing self
Chickaloon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
DOUG GLENN, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
PAUL SEATON, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
DAVID BRAILEY, Owner & Operator
RAM Valley LLC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
KEN HUCKEBA, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
MICHAEL CRAFT, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
CHRIS ROSE, Director
Renewable Energy Alaska Project
Sutton, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
AIDAN MACKINNON, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
CASSIE ANDREWS, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
SANTA CLAUS, representing self
North Pole, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
JULIA INGA, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
MELISSA SWOPE, representing self
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
MARCUS MOORE, representing self
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
DOUG JOHNSON, Director of Development
Ocean Renewable Power Co.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
MARK MASTELLER, representing self
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
BEN MAY, CEO & Founder
Alaska Solar
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
AMANDA GARVEY, Sunstone Electric
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
TODD LINDLEY, representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
KEN GRIFFIN, representing self
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
PENNY GAGE, Chief Policy & Partnership Officer
Launch Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
AURORA ROTH
representing self
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: testified in support of HB 153
ED MARSHALL, representing self
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 153.
PATRICE LEE, representing self
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
BEN BOETTGER, Energy Specialist
Cook Inlet Keeper
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 153.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:05:19 PM
CO-CHAIR DONNA MEARS called the House Special Committee on
Energy meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Holland,
Mears, Kopp, Rauscher, and Costello were present at the call to
order. Representative Edgmon arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HB 153-UTILITIES: RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD
1:05:57 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 153, "An Act relating to generation of
electricity from renewable energy resources; relating to a
renewable portfolio standard; relating to power cost
equalization; and providing for an effective date."
1:06:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 153, Version 34-LS0501\G, Walsh, 4/10/25,
as a working document.
1:06:40 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS objected for the purpose discussion.
1:06:52 PM
CO-CHAIR HOLLAND, as prime sponsor, said the changes in the
proposed CS were due in part to cooperation with the utilities
over some of their concerns over the renewable energy portfolio
standards and would provide more structure. He deferred to his
staff for a summary of changes.
1:07:34 PM
SHAINA KILCOYNE, Staff, Representative Ky Holland, Alaska State
Legislature, to the current Committee Substitute for HB 153. {
on behalf of Representative Holland, prime sponsor, presented
the summary of changes in the proposed committee substitute to
HB 153 [included in the committee file], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Sec. 5 AS 42.05.900(1) - Extends the 40% target date
from 12/31/30 to
12/31/32.
Sec. 42.05.905(b) Clarifies the process for
calculating energy produced
and used by a customer, which includes the multiplier
of 2.
Sec. 42.05.905(d) Replaces "energy efficiency
investments" with
"investments in energy efficiency technologies". Also
allows energy
investments through programs that are established or
approved by the state.
Sec. 42.05.910 Section clarifies renewable portfolio
credit use within the
load-serving entities that are subject to the electric
reliability organization,
or Railbelt utilities. This language change is also
reflected in Sec.
42.05.905(c).
Sec. 42.05.915(g) Allows for a utility to use any
noncompliance fee,
whether they have reached the 40% threshold or not, to
defray the costs of
building future renewable electricity projects,
integrating renewable
electricity projects, including battery storage, into
the load-serving entity's
systems, or purchasing renewable electricity. Funds
shall be spent by 2035
for the first target threshold and 2040 for the second
target threshold. Any
unspent funds shall be remitted into the account to
the Alaska Energy
Authority for deposit in the Alaska Renewable Energy
Grant Fund.
Replaces "fine" with "remittance" to establish a
difference from standard
penalties levied by the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska.
Sec. 42.05.925 Definitions
(2) Adds a community energy facility as defined in AS
42.05.735 under the
definition of "distributed energy system".
(7) Modifies the definition "renewable energy
resource" to mean a resource,
other than fossil fuel.
(7)(B)(ii) Removes the requirement that landfill gas
be produced by
municipal solid waste.
Removes all reference to power cost equalization (PCE)
communities:
Removes the ability to purchase Renewable Electricity
Credits from an
electric utility that serves customers who receive
PCE. Removes the
exemption of revenue from the sale of recovered heat
or revenue from the
sale of renewable energy credits from the PCE
calculation.
1:11:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER sought confirmation that the committee
had been told that utilities in Alaska were in support of HB
153.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND clarified that his office had contacted
utility companies to ask for their input on HB 153. He deferred
to Ms. Kilcoyne to comment further.
MS. KILCOYNE confirmed that she and other members of the
sponsor's staff have been in contact with utility companies and
that some of the changes in the proposed CS were in response to
their input. However, because some of the conversations with
these utility companies were still ongoing, the changes were not
complete.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER observed that after the five-year period
referenced in Sec. 42.05.915(g), funds not spent on a renewable
energy project would be paid into the renewable energy fund
(REF) within respective districts. If so, he asked whether
those funds could be used anywhere within Alaska and, if that
were the case, whether that would reduce fees for ratepayers.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND replied that Representative Rauscher's
understanding was correct, but the provisions within the
proposed CS provide more options for spending, including battery
storage projects, infrastructure construction, other renewable
projects, and purchasing renewable power. So, because there are
plenty of places to use them, Representative Holland said, those
funds were "money intended to help the utility move towards the
benefit of the renewables but giving them some time and
flexibility to aggregate this money if they don't meet it in
time." Therefore, if funds were to completely lapse, those
funds would go into the REF and thus would be kept within the
purview of renewable energy projects and "keep the state moving
ahead in a direction of trying to reduce its energy costs
overall." However, more directly to Representative Rauscher's
point, Representative Holland said, "at the end of the day, if
we got all the way down to that eventual waterfall, it would be
going to the benefit of the state's reduced cost of energy and
not directly to that one utility." Representative Holland
stated that the intent of the proposed legislation was to
construct a transition to renewable energy in a way that helps
that utility to manage and reduce the cost of the energy
generated.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER clarified that he wanted to know whether
the lapsed funds could be pointed toward the "offending
district," as it was his understanding of the intent of the
original bill version. He then asked about the changes outlined
in Sec. 42.05.905(d), which would replace "energy efficiency
investments" with "investments in energy efficiency
technologies" and if such changes also would allow energy
investments through programs that are established or approved by
the state. He pointed to Idaho's policy of energy investment
and the technologies being deployed in response to it, and he
cautioned that if investing in similar technologies count toward
renewable energy credits as outlined in HB 153, it may lead to a
wealth transfer out of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked Ms. Kilcoyne for a technical
clarification for the terms used in Representative Rauscher's
question, saying, "I don't think the intent is the money is
going out anyplace, but I think it is expanding and clarifying
how the money could be used by the utility for the utility to
enhance their renewable conformance through the renewable
targets in there." He then yielded to Ms. Kilcoyne for the
clarification of terms.
1:16:20 PM
MS. KILCOYNE confirmed the change in terms but said that she did
not think that utilities would be able to use out-of-state funds
for renewable energy development, and that the intent of the
terminology change was only so that funds could be used by
utilities for their own power-grid systems. Should this
terminology need to be clarified further, she stated that she
and the staff of Representative Holland would be happy to work
on that.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER then stated that he was concerned about
the cost to the consumer of the provisions in HB 153. According
to Representative Rauscher, if targets for energy transition
thresholds are met, the consumer is paying more for said energy
to do so and therefore asked if that should be considered a
policy success or is that a problem the legislature should
consider. Representative Raucher said that although the targets
for energy transition have been modified, and the rate of
transition depends on the year, the risk for higher energy costs
is still present.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND stated that the challenge that HB 153 is
trying to address has two facets: that 90 percent of new energy
projects across the country are renewable because renewable
energy is cheaper to operate when compared to fossil fuels; and
the volatility in the price of fossil fuels themselves. To
support his statement, Representative Holland pointed to the
Fire Island Wind Energy project and global data suggesting that
renewable energy, though some projects may have higher initial
costs, is much cheaper and more predictable in pricing.
Therefore, Representative Holland stated that the intent of the
proposed legislation is to move toward controlling, perhaps
decreasing, and stabilizing the price of energy.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER then asked about the change of the term
"fines" to "remittance" as outlined in Sec. 42.05.915(g),
wishing to ascertain the technical desire to do so.
MS. KILCOYNE stated that this is to clarify that fines issued by
the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) to utilities typically
are paid to the RCA, and the use of said terminology in HB 153
is so such fees either would stay with the utility to help them
transition towards a renewable energy grid or be paid to the
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA).
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if there was a way to enforce
utility companies who have misused the remittance money on
something that is not qualified for renewable energy credits.
He expressed concern about the money a ratepayer may pay and
ensuring the money is spent as intended should the proposed
legislation be enacted.
MS. KILCOYNE stated that Representative Rauscher asked a good
question. She further elaborated, saying that such remittance
money typically just goes through the RCA. The utility would
presumably be reported to the RCA, according to Ms. Kilcoyne,
though this may have to be clarified in policy, or may be
implemented in regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how the designated funds would
work once the first five-year transition period passed.
MS. KILCOYNE answered that typically the funds are allocated to
the REF by the legislature. Therefore, designated funds would
go directly to REF but would have to be appropriated by the
legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND clarified that the legal basis for the
REF is on line 7, page 9, where Sec. 42.05.915(g) states, "A
load-serving entity may, within one year after the commission
imposes a noncompliance fine, satisfy the fine by paying a
customer all or a portion of the customer's costs of installing
a distributed energy system or electricity efficiency
technologies". He said the account such funds would be held in
would be one approved by the commission, and thus the commission
would have purview over it.
1:23:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO asked about the removal of the portion
of the bill allowing purchase of renewable electricity credits
from customers that have power cost equalization (PCE)
communities as it pertains to the amount of utilities that
receive PCE.
MS. KILCOYNE said that she did not know the exact number of
utility companies affected by such classifications off the top
of her head but said that she believed it was over one hundred.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, in response to Representative Costello's
question and Ms. Kilcoyne's answer, proffered that the number of
utility companies affected by such classifications was in the
mid-80s, and the number of PCE communities was well over one
hundred.
REPRESENTATIVE COSTELLO noted that the proposed committee
substitute would not allow utilities that serve PEC customers to
sell their Renewable Energy Credits (RECs). In response to this
change in the provisions, she questioned whether there may be a
problem in creating one group of utilities that can sell their
RECs versus another group from which you cannot purchase
credits. She asked whether any consideration had been given to
allowing utilities that serve PCE customers to purchase credits
from each other.
MS. KILCOYNE explained that the changes made under the proposed
CS are intended to create a closed market for Railbelt
utilities. She further stated that such changes do not disallow
a community that receives PCE from selling credits either to
Railbelt communities or amongst themselves, as the proposed
legislation says nothing about such action. Rather, because the
term "renewable energy credit" has been replaced by the term
"renewable portfolio credit", the latter can be traded only
within the Railbelt, the removal of the earlier provision was
only due to the new standard created within the bill.
1:26:30 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS removed her objection to the motion to adopt the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 153, Version 34-
LS0501\G, Walsh, 4/10/25, as a working document. There being no
objection, Version G was before the committee.
1:27:07 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:27:07 PM to 1:27:37 PM.
1:27:37 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS confirmed that the committee had adopted Version
G to HB 153.
1:28:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND responded to Representative Costello's
question on changes in Version G to the trading of PCEs. He
said that Version G removes making any changes to the "PCE
world." He further elaborated saying that in earlier versions
of the bill, PCE communities could be a source of RECs that
Railbelt communities might have purchased, but clarified for the
benefit of PCE utilities that selling those credits would not
affect their qualifications for PCE funds. Thus, these
provisions were to give PCEs a new source of revenue, for which
they would not be harmed. By deleting any mention of PCEs in
Version G, the proposed legislation now has nothing within it
that has anything to do with PCEs and shifts the focus of the
bill to RECs that can be generated within the Railbelt of
Alaska.
1:29:39 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS said that she thought that there were more
opportunities to have a robust and comprehensive discussion on
communities that receive PCE status rather than "just dealing it
in pieces of another piece of legislation."
1:29:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP stated that it was his understanding that
Version G "does away with the problem of penalizing ratepayers
for not meeting renewable targets" through the means of a fund
that helps utilities transition to renewable energy sources
rather than simply passing those costs onto rate payers. He
then asked Representative Holland if this understanding was
correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND confirmed that's correct, but added that
the changes in Version G would expand the ways money from the
fund could be used and that if the money that goes into the fund
for the benefit of the concerned utility was partially unused,
it would roll into the renewable energy fund rather than the
unrestricted general fund (UGF), which held a greater risk of
such penalties onto ratepayers. The intent of this action was
that funds could still be used for the benefit of renewable
energy projects, thus transferring remittances for failure to
meet energy transition goals to a state-wide fund was the path
taken by the legislature. Representative Holland continued:
The intent here is that there wouldn't be a balance.
We're not trying to create a source of money; ...
we're just trying to hold it so that the utility can
use it for the benefit of the ratepayers and for the
benefit of projects that would advance renewable
energy, meeting those targets.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP then asked a follow-up question as to the
risk to the state if net zero and decarbonization efforts are no
longer funded by the Federal Government, which would include
impacts on the Alaska natural gas pipeline. He further
elaborated by asking, "Are we now at a time when all the
incentives to support utilities going in this direction are
simply not available now, where maybe they were?"
CO-CHAIR MEARS commented that she would love to see a future
with a plethora of energy generation sources, and that the state
had opportunities to transition to such a future.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND in response to Representative Kopp's
question, referred to the proposed deadline of 2032 and
indicated that time is needed to "see how these things unfreeze
themselves." Globally, many countries are still putting
renewable energy projects forward, even in countries without net
zero emission goals. He further illustrated his point by saying
that although there were changes to U.S. climate and energy
goals, the price in solar energy production and battery storage
has dropped so dramatically that the energy transition the
legislature would like to aid with the passage of HB 153 may
likely occur as it has in other energy markets.
1:33:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said that he wanted a better
understanding as to how money would get appropriated to the
renewable energy fund, and if such funds could be
misappropriated if awarded to the UGF.
1:35:42 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS opened public testimony on HB 153.
1:35:57 PM
CARROLL CAMPBELL, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 153. The first reason that he mentioned for his opposition
was that according to a University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Geological Institute study, coal alone could power Alaska for
15,000 years, thus the state has the resources to meet its
energy needs, specifically in reference to earlier testimony
about the cost of imported gas. Secondly, he stated that
government exists not to "force things on to us," but to "secure
our rights, as stated in the Declaration of Independence."
Stating his third reason, he asked if the legislature could
investigate incentivizing means by which energy could be
introduced into the power grid on a microscale since, he opined,
larger solar and wind farms are ecological disasters. He stated
that the equipment for renewable energy production is "not
completely recyclable," often relies on fossil fuel technology
for support, and the bird kill rate for large wind farms is half
a million. He continued by stressing the impact on Alaska's
tourism industry that the projects HB 153 would incentivize by
asking, then answering: "Do they come to Alaska on their once-
in-lifetime vacation to see giant windfarms? Do they come to
see giant solar farms? No, they don't."
1:38:22 PM
WAYNE WOODS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
153. He related he is a resident since statehood, a
professional hunter by trade, and has operated a tourism-related
business since 1986. He opined that while HB 153 is intended to
reduce and stabilize energy costs for Alaskans through the
renewable portfolio standard (RPS) provision, such measures
would have the opposite effect. This would be because the
legislation, according to Mr. Woods, mandates technology that is
neither cost-effective nor reliable. He said the standards and
goals of HB 153 can only be achieved through the extortion of
government mandates to producers, with increased costs to
consumers and increased public and grant expenditure, "and
selling that to us as investment." He said this is a great deal
for the green energy business, but is "an idea that has passed
its sell-by date." He stated that the directives of the Trump
Administration were "clear, resource development directives to
lower costs to the consumer and increase our living standards."
He concluded his testimony by saying that Alaska is a "resource
super power" and that its residents should not be hindered by
"short-sighted local mandates that benefit the few at the cost
of clear violation of the public trust."
1:40:49 PM
GORDON BISSELL, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
153. He said that he personally has used solar and wind and has
encountered numerous problems with both technologies. All of
those components, according to Mr. Bissell, would have to be
addressed on a much larger scale, both for maintenance and
disposal in case of damage. Pointing to regions of the U.S.
that have sustained high winds or major fluctuating
temperatures, he said that maintaining windmills would be a
major endeavor to simply keep renewable energy facilities
operational. Mr. Bissel stated that such factors would be
exasperated due to the state's frequent earthquakes and volcanic
eruptions. To concerns raised about imported natural gas during
committee proceedings, Mr. Bissel said, "I believe that is a 100
percent fallacy." He offered his understanding that there is
ample exportable North Slope natural gas.
1:43:13 PM
DOUG GLENN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
153. He stated he had a particular dislike for industrial
windmills, as they are high maintenance and have a high kill
rate for migratory water fowl. Mr. Glenn said, "If we wanted to
go to renewable, we would have built the Watana Dam ...." He
said he would rather have a dam than industrial windmills or
solar panel farms." Referencing a web article on the subject,
he said that Germany is undergoing a transition to renewable
energy, and it is estimated to have an increase of 67 percent in
energy costs.
1:44:57 PM
PAUL SEATON, representing self, testified in support of HB 153.
However, he did have a question in the current Committee
Substitution, specifically as pertains to Sec.05.915(g), which
read as follows:
Sec. 42.05.915 (g) A load-serving entity may, within
one year after the commission imposes a noncompliance
fine, satisfy the fine by paying a customer all or a
portion of the customer's costs of installing a
distributed energy system or electricity efficiency
technologies
MR. SEATON noted that it outlines that funds from HB 153 shall
be spent by the end of the five-year deadline, and he
recommended that the funds should be spent on projects that are
ongoing, because the term "spent" could go to the Alaska Energy
Authority rather than to renewable energy projects. He said
that he appreciates the provisions in HB 153 and "anything we
can do to push this along is great." He also stated that the
Homer Electric Association voted in favor to acquire and
complete the Puppy Dog Lake solar farm in Nikiski, and it is
estimated to produce electricity at a cheaper rate than the
current diesel generated electricity.
1:47:00 PM
DAVID BRAILEY, Owner & Operator, RAM Valley LLC, testified in
support of HB 153. He stated that his firm operated the Juniper
Creek Hydroelectric system in Eagle River, which meets the power
requirements for about 200 homes in the upper Eagle River
Valley. He then responded to a comment by Representative
Costello to the committee on April 1, during which
Representative Costello said that instead of state mandates that
would include fines for not meeting renewable energy targets,
the situation should be addressed by having conversations
between ratepayers and utilities at the local level. According
to Mr. Brailey, such conversations have been going on for a long
time. To support his claims, he cited a 2018 Matanuska Electric
Association (MEA) member survey that stated that 70 percent of
its members would support renewable energy production. He noted
that the survey was taken before Hilcorp announced that it would
not renew MEA's gas contract, which would lead to a 50 percent
energy cost increase. Since the survey results have been
published, MEA has not created new renewable energy projects on
its own, the exception being the Gravity Lake Hydroelectric
project and some undertakings by independent power producers in
the region.
MR. BRAILEY stated that the reason that independent power
producers do not have great market reach within the Railbelt
Region of Alaska is because of unfavorable terms in purchase
agreements and contracts with MEA. These include clauses that
require MEA to receive 50 percent of all RECs generated by a
particular project, but requires independent power producers to
cover 100 percent of the costs of connecting and distribution
for the same projects. This contrasts with the continental
U.S., in which independent power producers get paid for both
generation and capacity, which translates to a more reliable
energy distribution system than Alaska. Such contracts and
stipulations result in a situation in Alaska where, according to
Mr. Brailey, "firm renewable power has no value in the Alaska
Railbelt, which is encouraging us to develop unreliable power
sources that will always require fossil fuel back up." He also
stated that in Alaska, no independent power producer has ever
been paid for reactive power, the electricity required to
maintain acceptable voltage levels. In summary, Mr. Brailey
stated that the system was slanted towards utilities, which is a
key reason why Alaska has a renewable market penetration of 2
percent, and if Representative Costello was voting in favor of
conversations between ratepayers and utilities, the situation he
has described will continue.
1:50:52 PM
KEN HUCKEBA, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
153. His reasons for opposition were that the RPS provisions
and the transition deadlines had no cost of risk considered and
continued stating that similar policies have caused so much
damage in other countries choosing to adopt renewable energy.
Another reason for his opposition was that Alaska's geography
would make renewables such as wind and solar unreliable and
expensive. Additionally, he stated that utilities will face
compliance costs which they will pass on to rate payers. He
said HB 153 also ignores more conventional energy sources,
risking blackouts "... in a region where power isn't optional,
it's survival." Mr. Huckeba opined that the timelines for
transition in HB 153 were unrealistic, as upgrading the rural
energy grid would require utilities to undertake massive
unfunded upgrades to meet said deadlines.
MR. HUCKEBA continued, looking into the bill's origins,
particularly as it relates to the bill sponsor, Representative
Holland. A non-governmental organization that Representative
Holland founded, Alaska Version 3, "... pushes economic
reinvention through venture funds, often through very trendy
projects, like renewables over proven industries," according to
Mr. Huckeba. This involvement as well as Representative
Holland's history with Alyeska Venture Management and the Alaska
Accelerator Fund, leads Mr. Huckeba to believe that HB 153 would
ultimately benefit "a clique of wealthy green energy
entrepreneurs rather than everyday Alaskans." Mr. Huckeba then
said, "Mr. Holland pitches this as progress, but it feels like a
pet project leveraging his NGO network to force a one-size-fits-
all policy on a state that thrives on flexibility." Referencing
earlier testimony, Mr. Huckeba opined that Representative
Holland tended to misrepresent the cost and effect related to
various projects around the globe, as according to Mr. Huckeba,
Europe and particularly Germany are struggling to adjust to
using renewable energy sources. Such struggles, Mr. Huckeba
argued, would be replicated in Alaska should HB 153 be enacted.
He also called for Representative Holland to be removed from the
committee or continue to serve in a reduced capacity or perhaps
be forced not to vote on the bill entirely. As to the motion on
stakeholders, Mr. Huckeba saw such concerns as irrelevant, as
the term "stakeholder" appears nowhere in either the U.S. or
Alaska Constitutions, and asked for the cessation of stakeholder
consultation from all legislative procedures.
1:53:47 PM
MICHAEL CRAFT, representing self, testified in support of HB
153. He noted that he is the owner and operator of the Delta
Windfarm and the individual who "put the first [windfarm] on the
Railbelt grid." In reference to Mr. Brailey's earlier
testimony, Mr. Craft said that negotiating projects with utility
companies is "a nightmare." To illustrate his reasoning for
supporting HB 153, he said, "I'll tell you what the public here
in Fairbanks is hearing: generation capacity shortages, fuel
shortages, we're dealing with bad air quality, we're dealing
with ash piles all over our community, and we're paying some of
the highest costs for those privileges." Referencing a 2010
goal of having 50 percent of the state's power be generated by
renewable energy sources by 2025, which had "no teeth to it,"
Mr. Craft remarked that "if we had done it, we would have 50
percent of our power coming from renewables right now."
Addressing concerns on the kill rate of birds in windfarms and
reliability, he said he has never found a dead bird in his
windfarm. Further, he noted that the turbines have operated all
the way down to -50 Fahrenheit consistently for over a decade
with an annual output of four million kilowatt hours from one
year to the next, which is very stable.
MR. CRAFT, addressing concerns about energy security, indicated
he has witnessed gas shortages and oil shortages but claimed
that that would never happen with a renewable energy project,
because "those sources are available 24/7/365, although
intermittent, granted." He offered his understanding that
windmills give visitors "warm and fuzzy" feelings because "they
know that the power they're using is clean and ... reliable."
For these and other reasons, he said that these were the only
options for curtailing energy shortages. He concluded by
proffering, "Anything that you can think of on a form of
hydrocarbons, whether it's a pipeline or a new coal plant, is a
decade or more out, and wind and solar is within twenty-four
months."
1:56:28 PM
CHRIS ROSE, Director, Renewable Energy Alaska Project, testified
in support of HB 153. He said that he does not see any other
piece of legislation being proposed that deals with renewable
energy policy in Alaska. In Southcentral Alaska where Mr. Rose
lives, the region's approximately half a million inhabitants get
at least 85 percent of their electricity from natural gas. He
said the dependence on natural gas "has barely budged," despite
the rise in price of almost 800 percent in the last 35 years.
This is in large part because energy providers failed to
diversify their means of energy production, according to Mr.
Rose because, in part, "there are so many local decision-makers
on a tiny grid." He stated that although local utilities have
had plenty of warning and opportunities about this situation,
"here we are" about to import liquified natural gas (LNG). He
cited a 2009 Department of Natural Resources study that
concluded the supply of Cook Inlet Natural Gas could be
outstripped by demand as early as 2027. Despite several follow-
up studies coming to similar conclusions, the utilities have not
taken significant action on their dependance on similar
resources. Mr. Rose then said that in 2010, Governor Sarah
Palin signed into law a renewable energy generational target of
50 percent that was to be met in 2025, but because the
legislation had "no teeth and set only aspirational goals,
nothing happened." He brought this up not to lay blame on a
politician or party, but to demonstrate that voluntary
commitments to diversifying energy production in Alaska needed
action. Citing local utility companies proposed negotiations to
import liquified natural gas from Canada, he argued that Alaska
was on the verge of becoming dependent on energy from another
country rather than energy independent. He said that this gas
would both initially be between 50 percent and 100 percent more
expensive than currently used Cook Inlet natural gas and would
be indexed to volatile international energy markets. This would
not only impact gas and energy prices for Alaska, but would "not
make this state a very attractive place to live, work, or
invest."
MR. ROSE said that his organization believes in cooperation
between the various utility companies on the Railbelt so they
can deliver better renewable energy projects. He said that the
RPS provisions within HB 153 will help push utilities along the
Railbelt of Alaska toward operating the grid together. To
support his claim, Mr. Rose cited a commission study solicited
by the Railbelt utility companies themselves which concluded
that having multiple operators along the Railbelt power grid is
costing consumers at least $47 million a year. According to Mr.
Rose, the RPS provisions in HB 153 are "not unique" and are
"very doable" and would require the generation of "stably
priced, locally sourced renewable energy." Thus, the RPS
provisions in HB 153 would bring investment to the Railbelt
region and signal that Alaska is open for business and attract
more renewable energy projects according to Mr. Rose, "because
today in the Railbelt, there is no market and there is no
competition, and electricity prices are 50 percent higher than
the rest of the country." Mr. Rose said that his organization
doesn't believe Alaska can wait any longer to implement
ambitious energy goals. He warned that without the legislation,
"we are headed toward a truly uncertain future."
1:59:59 PM
AIDAN MACKINNON, representing self, testified in opposition to
HB 153, saying that the bill's provisions would force
"unreliable energy onto our grid," raise costs, and threaten
power stability for Alaskans. He also pointed to support from
"outside groups" as a reason for his opposition. He said in
response to these concerns, "... We need affordable, reliable
energy, not mandates that punish rate payers." He concluded his
testimony by urging the committee members to vote no on HB 153.
2:00:40 PM
CASSIE ANDREWS, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
153. She said the proposed legislation would force Alaska's
energy co-ops to generate electricity from unreliable sources,
such as wind and solar, "and the state should not be mandating
that liability." She warned that HB 153 would hand co-op boards
"an easy excuse," explaining that when the rates rise or
blackouts happen, they'll just blame it on the state's mandate.
She remarked that ratepayers are not seeking higher rates or
more unreliability, but opined that is exactly what the proposed
policy would deliver. Further reasons for Ms. Andrews'
opposition came from Texas' implementation of RPS standards and
centralized control with the Electric Reliability Council of
Texas (ERCOT). After the Texas Winter Storm Power Outage of
2021, according to Ms. Andrews, over 70 people died, billions of
dollars in energy production were lost, ERCOT faced class action
lawsuits, and "the fallout continues." She said she believes
that the State of Alaska "should be learning from disasters of
centralized planning and mandates, not rushing to repeat them."
She also stated that two days prior to this hearing, President
Donald Trump issued executive orders curtailing provisions like
those contained in HB 153. She stated, "If wind and solar were
truly viable, the co-op boards could adopt them today, but they
know the risks, so they want the state to give them cover." She
concluded her testimony by urging the committee not to move HB
153 forward.
2:02:56 PM
SANTA CLAUS, representing self, testified in support of HB 153.
He said he agreed with researchers who stated that RPS were a
policy that encouraged investment certainty that may attract
experienced independent power producers to compete. Because of
this, according to Mr. Claus, this would provide utilities along
the Railbelt with regulatory certainty and catalyze more
cooperation between them to meet the standards within the
provisions of HB 153. He said the RPS provisions within HB 153
would give a modicum of negotiating leverage that they currently
lack, as it provided "sideboards to current LNG negotiations."
He further stated that the Railbelt Region has great potential
for renewable energy, and that the cost of such technology
continues to decline. Mr. Claus also pointed to currently
proposed renewable energy projects that if implemented could
raise the rate of renewable energy production to 40 percent, as
required by 2032 in the RPS standard. In turn, stimulating such
energy resources could lead to the development of new industries
and could stimulate new jobs, Mr. Claus argued. Further, he
stated that localized energy production could keep Alaska's
energy dollars within Alaska rather than having them flow to
out-of-state or out-of-country providers. He concluded his
testimony by encouraging the legislature to enact HB 153.
2:04:36 PM
JULIA INGA, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
153. She said that Alaskans "need power that works," not "fairy
tales about wind and solar forced down our throats by clueless
mandates." She also referenced a Presidential executive order,
which she said would push against "state overreach" and "those
who will step in to choke out reliable, affordable energy." She
opined that the sources promoted by HB 153 are unreliable,
unproven, too expensive, and would kill "the environment it
pretends to save" and leave us "in the dirt." Instead, Ms. Inga
argued, Alaska should utilize its abundant natural resources,
including oil, gas, and coal. She concluded her testimony by
saying, "I expect you to ditch the hype and fight for what
works. Alaska's counting on it. Prove that you are Alaskans
first, not Alaskans last."
2:06:07 PM
MELISSA SWOPE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
153. She argued that the RPS provisions within HB 153 would be
wrong for the state. She advised that wind towers and solar
panels were very site-specific energy sources, and would thus
not be scalable for much of Alaska, with winters and erratic
winds being cited as a key reason. For these and other reasons,
Ms. Swope argued that renewable energy sources were unreliable.
Instead, she argued in favor of small nuclear reactors, gas, and
exploiting Alaska's coal sources, which "provide reliable power
with less environmental harm." She also raised concerns about
the costs of remote construction and battery storage, which she
said would raise rates. Ms. Swope also said that the
"convoluted credit system" would raise rates for ratepayers, as
it forces utilities to buy credits that ultimately benefit out-
of-state firms. Citing high kill rates for birds and other
migratory species, she argued that implementing renewable energy
would be an ecological disaster. She summarized her reasons for
opposition by saying HB 153 "... pushes unproven technologies
and bureaucratic non-sense over better options, stripping
Alaskans of choice for outsider agendas." She concluded her
testimony by urging the committee members to vote no on HB 153.
2:08:40 PM
MARCUS MOORE, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
153. He argued that HB 153 would be forcing unreliable wind and
solar energy onto Alaska's energy grid, raising costs, and
risking energy stability for Alaskans in the process. He
pointed to the goals for transition to renewable energy listed
in the bill, wherein 40 percent of all energy generated in
Alaska would come from renewable sources by 2035 and 55 percent
by 2040, but argued they were impractical, as currently 15
percent of energy generated in Alaska comes from renewable
energy sources. Mr. Moore said that the same group supporting
HB 153 were also the main organizers for a campaign to remove
the Eklutna Dam, which contributed towards the 14 percent of
renewable energy generated within Alaska by hydroelectricity.
He questioned in response to this, "If hydro is considered a
renewable energy source, why aren't we focusing more on that?
It's already 14 out of the 15 percent of our renewable energy
currently." Mr. Moore said that the provisions under HB 153
would force energy co-ops to adopt renewable energy sources,
which he sees as unreliable. To illustrate his point, he argued
that wind was an intermittent power source and cited an energy
shortage that occurred during the January 2024 cold snap when
the Fire Island wind farm's energy output "fell to zero." As
such resources are implemented, Mr. Moore argued, such
intermittency issues would increase, as "... we're already
seeing rolling blackouts across Anchorage, Eagle River, and Mat-
Su."
MR. MOORE stated that the financial burden to ratepayers is
undeniable. He said that a co-op study on the effects of the
provisions of HB 153 found that if providers missed the
deadlines for transition within HB 153, the result would be a
$45 per megawatt hour shortfall. He pointed to previous
testimony of Representative Holland and members of his staff
that such expenses would ultimately fall to ratepayers. To
illustrate the point, he stated, "For Hospitals using 10,000
megawatt hours annually, a 20 percent shortfall means hundreds
of thousand dollar fines every year. For residential homes,
that's hundreds of dollars more." He further argued that HB 153
and its provisions were not driven by Alaskan's, but by out-of-
state climate activists, non-governmental organizations, and
groups like the Alaska Venture Fund and the Bezos Earth Fund.
Mr. Moore said, "It seems like you're prioritizing their agenda
over our needs, repackaging this renewable portfolio standard
... as a solution to the gas crisis. It's just insanity trying
to do the same thing over and over again expecting different
results." He argued for more reliable, stable, and affordable
energy sources, "not mandates that push rate payers and force
utilities to destabilize our grid." He concluded his testimony
by urging the committee members to reject HB 153 and instead
focus on hydroelectric projects and clean coal.
2:11:26 PM
DOUG JOHNSON, Director of Development, Ocean Renewable Power
Co., testified in support of HB 153 because he believes that
renewable energy is really part of Alaska's energy future. He
added that it is not a question of "if" [the state] is moving to
renewables, it's "when and how." He indicated that the source
for hydrocarbons is not limitless; while there are plenty of oil
and gas reserves that could and should still be developed, "over
time, it is going to be more and more important for ... new
technologies to find our way forward." He noted that in his
current position as development director, he plays a critical
role in the Cook Inlet Tidal Energy Project. He said that a
bill like HB 153 was imperative to ensuring that renewable
energy developers have a "clarity of clear line of sight to the
future for investors to step up and invest in projects like
ours." He said the RPS provisions under HB 153 would set up "a
clear playing field for investment" and the proposed legislation
could serve as a framework for "a bright energy future for
Alaska."
2:13:38 PM
MARK MASTELLER, representing self, testified in support of HB
153. Though he currently sits on the board of the Matanuska
Electric Association and does some work for the Alaska Center
for Energy and Power, he wanted to be clear that he was speaking
only for himself during his testimony. He also stated that he
spent 25 years working in the building science and energy
efficiency fields, which included 10 years in the University of
Alaska Sustainable Energy Program. Drawing from this
experience, he said the proposed legislation would help conserve
Cook Inlet gas resources for when renewable energy is not
available and provide regulation for variable power from wind
and solar. With the establishment of the Railbelt Reliability
Resource Council, HB 153 would also assist in integrative
resource planning. He also argued that the provisions under HB
153 would help stabilize the rates for electricity by
encouraging the development of projects that don't have
recurring fuel costs. These would likely include, according to
Mr. Masteller, projects that would utilize hydroelectric,
geothermal, and tidal power sources. Mr. Masteller also argued
that the provisions of HB 153 would encourage utilities along
the Railbelt Region to continue cooperating regarding the
development of said resources. This would have a positive
effect on rate payers and PCE rates within the state of Alaska,
according to Mr. Masteller. He also said that when one looks at
similar legislation in other jurisdictions, those with RSP
provisions enacted into law not only meet their renewable energy
production goals early but continue to increase their renewable
energy generation capacity after said goals are met. In
conclusion, he expressed his hope that the members of the
committee will continue to support HB 153.
2:15:37 PM
BEN MAY, CEO & Founder, Alaska Solar, testified in support of HB
153. He primarily focused on the double energy credit provision
for residential and commercial generation within HB 153. He
cited this provision as what made HB 153 "a jobs bill," as the
bill's provisions would ensure the construction of renewable
energy infrastructure "built by Alaskans for Alaskans," which
would ensure that more Alaskans stay within the state the money
involved stays in the state. He also said that HB 153 has great
synergy with a separate annual metering bill that was making its
way through the legislature at the time, as the annual profit
from the metering would make power generation much more
profitable to the customer and thus conserve more natural gas
and address the ongoing gas crisis and associated rate raise.
He clarified that currently, power along the Railbelt of Alaska
from his company is generated at a rate of 12 to 14 cents per
kWh, whereas most other utilities charge for fossil fuel
generated electricity at 20 to 25 cents per kWh. Mr. May argued
that solar energy is less expensive and reliable. He drew on
his experience founding and operating a solar company in Alaska
by saying, "With over 10 years of history and over 700
customers, all of our systems are operational; all of them. It
takes very little maintenance; it is very little trouble; solar
panels are very simple; it's a lab made glass; they just keep
working; there's no moving parts." In conclusion, he stated
that Alaska needed a diversified, "shotgun" solution to meet its
energy needs and to lower costs for Alaskans. He encouraged the
members of the committee to support HB 153.
2:18:08 PM
AMANDA GARVEY, Sunstone Electric, testified in support of HB
153. Ms. Garvey stated that she has a background in mechanical
engineering and wastewater management and is an energy auditor.
She stated that her company is a small, Alaska Native-owned,
electrical contracting firm, with work in over two hundred
communities throughout Alaska in residential, commercial, and
industrial work. While her firm has done conventional "hard
generation," they have been recently expanding into contracting
work for renewable energy production and battery storage. Ms.
Garvey said she didn't know if people quite understood the
flexibility within the proposed legislation's provisions. She
explained that HB 153 would not specifically mandate that
utilities invest in renewable energy sources, but would allow
flexibility in how goals or standards are met, whether through
energy efficient projects, net metering programs, purchasing
from an independent power producer (IPP), or purchasing credits.
Further, the bill offers flexibility in terms of how utilities
will meet the standards they outline for renewable energy, and
there also would be standards for affordability.
MS. GARVEY, in response to comments made during previous
testimony about renewable energy projects elsewhere in the U.S.
and abroad, advised that Texas is now the leading adopter of
solar and wind energy production and battery storage production
since its enaction of RPS legislation in 1999 and has exceeded
its goals for renewable energy transition quickly. Further she
referenced a statement from the Dallas Federal Reserve, which
stated the adoption of battery technology has greatly stabilized
the state's grid and that such technology would help enhance
capacity when it came to mining cryptocurrency and the
construction and operation of data centers. To some of the
concerns raised about Germany's transition to renewable energy,
Ms. Garvey said that as a member of the Cross Arctic Exchange
Program at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, she has access to
information surrounding renewable energy production
infrastructure projects. Speaking to some of the information
she has received on said projects, Ms. Garvey said:
I think we missed a lot of the successful projects,
like this one geothermal project, which is now
solvent, and they can now take on large capital
expenditure projects without requiring nonrepayable
public funding, and they have a forty-mile-long
district heating system. The low and stable cost of
energy there, and heating, has spurred the development
of several international industries, including
aluminum smelting and other industrial manufacturing,
and they have a population about half of Alaska's.
MS. GARVEY said the impact of such renewable energy projects in
Alaska would be that places like Unalaska can attract larger
industrial customers and provide a lower cost of energy from
sources like geothermal fuel. She further stated that Homer
Electric Association currently produces hydroelectric power at a
rate of four cents per kWh, but the community's reliance on
natural gas make residential rates higher. She concluded her
testimony by stating that well-designed, renewable energy
projects in Alaska have been shown to be extremely reliable.
2:22:12 PM
TODD LINDLEY, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
153. He said that the committee members spoke of the provisions
within HB 153 as if utility boards were committed to a future
reliant on renewable energy. Mr. Lindley said he did not
believe this is representative of energy co-op membership. He
said it was "quite a coincidence that every utility board
adopted decarbonization goals and supports an RPS to be less
reliable and more expensive against their fiduciary duty." Mr.
Lindley argued that HB 153 would "legalize environmental
racketeering off the backs of every Railbelt ratepayer." He
further stated that claims of renewable energy being cheaper to
produce then conventional sources is "incompetence and
negligence with the intent to defraud the public and extort the
utilities." In conclusion, he asked that HB 153 be "removed
from the ledger" because he warned it "would do more harm and
impose additional economic hardship throughout the state" if
enacted.
2:23:23 PM
KEN GRIFFIN, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
153. He started his testimony by stating that he was a small
business owner, volunteered in the community, donated money, and
was a taxpayer. He then stated that the government has "no
sovereign right, no constitutional powers to mandate how a
private business makes its power, nor where the consumer buys it
from." Stating that the provisions under HB 153 were not about
climate change and have never been, he said that the kinds of
energy sources promoted under HB 153 were "completely
unreliable." Mr. Griffin continued:
It's ridiculous to think that the state feels like it
has the power to tell citizens to take a substandard
way of life, or choice of power, at a higher cost
simply because they're the government and they can do
so. They call that "raison-d'etat"; the idea that the
state has the might, so the state has the right.
Well, you don't, you don't have that right.
MR. GRIFFIN further opined that the notion that the state had
the right to be involved in energy markets was "ridiculous" and
"offensive." Mr. Griffin questioned how ratepayers were
supposed to defend their rights. He talked about two rules of
economics: capital flowing toward economics or capital flowing
toward government mandates. He likened HB 153 to socialism. He
cautioned about the cost of replacing and disposal of such
resources and infrastructure as a reason for his opposition, and
he referred to "thousands of white papers" he said people
testifying were ignoring. He said the state should be focused
on producing "cheap and affordable" power, and he mentioned
blackouts and life-threatening loss of power during severe
weather.
2:26:58 PM
PENNY GAGE, Chief Policy & Partnership Officer, Launch Alaska,
testified in support of HB 153. Though the organization did
prepare a written statement, Ms. Gage chose to give her own oral
testimony. She stated that she started her career in the oil
and gas industry and what drew her to the sector was how
important it was to the lives of everyday citizens. She said
that her organization thinks that HB 153 "represents a smart,
forward-looking policy that can drive job creation, attract
private investment, and help lower long-term energy costs for
Alaskans." Ms. Gage said that her organization represents 41
companies, that have generated over 77 new jobs across 90
projects since its founding. Since 2020, Ms. Gage said that her
organization has supported climate technology ("tech") related
projects with $754 million in investments. Her organization
works with rural and urban communities, utilities, start-ups,
and other industry partners, which are "ready to deploy clean
energy technology" and simply need market certainty. The RPS
provisions under HB 153, Ms. Gage argued, would give utilities,
entrepreneurs, and investors the confidence to invest, plan, and
innovate. She also cited the lowering of costs for renewable
energy and battery storage and the rising cost of natural gas as
another reason for her organization's support. Further, she
said the bill presents "a chance for Alaska to lead in energy
independence and innovation, not just react to economic
pressure, but to shape our own energy future." Thus, HB 153,
according to Ms. Gage, aligns with her organization's mission to
"strengthen our energy, transportation, and industrial sectors
through innovation." In conclusion, she urged members of the
legislature to pass HB 153 and "unlock economic opportunities
that benefit all of Alaska."
2:29:08 PM
AURORA ROTH, representing self, testified in support of HB 153.
She said that because Railbelt utilities are often dependent on
Natural Gas, energy prices within the region are subject to
global price fluctuations, even when Natural Gas is sourced from
Cook Inlet. Because of this, energy prices along the Railbelt
have increased 800% over her lifetime (she was 42 years old at
the time of her testimony). Renewable Energy sources can,
according to Ms. Roth, be locally owned and sourced with stable
pricing as they do not have any associated fuel costs. Though
she did concede that initial capital investment in renewables is
quite high, she argued that once operations commence, prices for
power generated from renewable energy sources are often lower
and are more stable than those based on coal or natural gas.
The result is, according to Ms. Roth, that utilities are not
dependent on coal and natural gas, " ... any way we siphon it."
She stated that her reasons for support were indicated by the
fact that utilities have been looking for the best ways to
integrate renewable energy sources into their grids in recent
years, as this was speaking to renewables being sources of " ...
reliable and affordable energy." The RPS provisions within HB
153 would provide the structure and incentive for investing in
renewable energy projects, and because they would also apply to
independent power producers, this would increase competition
along the grids in the Railbelt and be of benefit for the
consumer, Ms. Roth argued. Without such provisions, Ms. Roth
argued that the energy situation in the Railbelt region would
likely continue to be one dominated by rising gas and energy
costs and a lack of innovation to utilize new technologies. She
noted that these technologies " ... work all across the globe,
including in other cold climates." Thus, she stressed the
importance of utilizing renewable energy technology for the
benefit of all Alaskans. In response to arguments about
government involvement in the energy system, Ms. Roth said that
the US Federal Government already subsidizes the oil and gas
industry through tax credits and other means which renewable
energy markets have had to fight against. Thus, such support
for renewable energy production is not unique to the energy
industry, according to Ms. Roth. She concluded her testimony by
urging the members of the committee to support HB 153 and
thanking the committee members for their time and hard work.
2:31:23 PM
ED MARSHALL, representing self, testified in opposition to HB
153. As a proponent of "free choice and free markets" and a
republic that governs "as close to our houses as we can," he
said that utilities are governed by the votes of the ratepayers.
In reference to efforts for utilities to adopt methods of
renewable energy generation, he shared that he is "all for
lobbyists who want to go to utilities and convince them that
this is the path forward." He then argued that if renewable
energy production were "as good as advertised," it would not
take long for utilities to adopt such methods. Mr. Marshall
said that the legislature's efforts to enact the provisions
under HB 153 lead him to believe that the bill allowed the
legislature to say that "it's not a tax; it's a fine," basically
covering for the utility "so they later go buy renewables from
the lobbyists that have called in today, advertising how great
this is and that they want the state to advertise for them."
MR. MARSHALL recommended the state focus on developing its oil
and gas industry in order to lower energy prices. He expressed
doubt over the provisions within HB 153, saying, in reference to
Representative Holland's earlier comments on the decline in the
cost for renewable energy production, that "if that's the case,
let the utilities, who are voted for by their users, make that
decision." He also stated that there would be potential for
litigation on constitutional grounds over the provisions of HB
153, stating that due to the state's current budgetary
difficulties, it would not be within its interests to enact HB
153. He further recommended that Representative Holland and
others who testified in support of HB 153 put a ballot
initiative for local energy co-op boards. However, until that
opportunity arrives, Mr. Marshall argued that it was not the
state's business to incentivize renewable energy production
within the state of Alaska.
2:34:58 PM
PATRICE LEE, representing self, testified in support of HB 153.
She said in Fairbanks, Alaska, the majority of power generation
comes from facilities that are old, dirty, at the end of their
operational lives, and unreliable. While she was the
coordinator of the group Citizens for Clean Air, she wanted to
associate with other testifiers in support of HB 153 from the
Interior Region of Alaska. She stated that many of those who
testified against HB 153 were confused between the ability of
renewable energy sources to offset energy and to provide
baseload power. To clarify what she thought was the source of
this confusion, Ms. Lee said, "Nobody is saying that solar and
wind are going to become ... the baseload power. What they are
saying is that ... renewable sources are available to offset our
subsistence generation." Further elaborating on her points, Ms.
Lee said that Hawai'i was "paying attention" to Alaska's debate
on renewable energy transition goals in 2010, and as a result
set a goal for 50 percent of its energy needs to be generated
from renewable energy sources by 2025. She said that not only
has Hawai'i met that goal, "they are doing beautifully,
wonderfully." Ms. Lee said Alaska has wind in the winter and
solar in the summer, and harnessing such resources is "proven
everywhere."
MS. LEE said that she found it disconcerting that people
discount renewable sources, saying that Fairbanks experiences
rolling brown-outs and black-outs and does not have enough power
generation to have a reliable source, thus needs "something to
offset that." She also argued that the RPS provisions under HB
153 would provide businesses with a reliable standard so that
they can set their own goals for renewable energy transition.
Further, many of the ideas contained within the bill have been
entertained "for fifteen to twenty years." Ms. Lee further
elaborated on her reasons for supporting HB 153 by saying that
Fairbanks, which experiences temperatures of -40 and -50 degrees
Fahrenheit, will be "in a world of hurt" if it do doesn't "do
something different." She also cited the health effects of
fossil fuel energy generation and that cost analyses of such
generation have yet to take such expenses into account. Ms. Lee
then asked, "Clean coal, what is that? We have coal ash all
over this town." She concluded her testimony by asking, "If
we're not going to ... move forwards and take advantage of
offsetting our power generation with renewables, then what is it
we're going to do?"
2:38:20 PM
BEN BOETTGER, Energy Specialist, Cook Inlet Keeper, testified in
support of HB 153. He stated that no one should be surprised
that natural gas and the energy generated by it have become more
expensive and less reliable. In reference to Mr. Rose's earlier
testimony, he said that utilities on their own have not made
"timely or proactive steps to diversify power," and it is the
legislature's responsibility to incentivize that transition to
renewable energy. Mr. Boettger further elaborated that even if
utilities were to move toward renewables for gas conservation
without a legislative standard, the RPS standard still
encourages better outcomes by requiring the utilities to
coordinate their renewable investment plans through the
community resource plan and provide incentives for shared wind
resources. To elaborate on his point, he referenced a statement
by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory saying that wind
energy was an important part of an economically profitable power
grid. Stating that renewable energy is capital intensive and
has a great variability in economy of scale, he said that the
provisions under HB 153 would be great for utilities, investors,
and ratepayers by providing clear and definite milestones for
energy transition. Mr. Boettger remarked that there was a
"well-documented history of cost to consumers whenever a
Railbelt utility fails to meet their investment," which he
stated the RPS would help with, by helping utilities to switch
to renewables and thus stabilize rates. He further argued that
even if market forces would move utilities to adopt renewable
energy sources, the provisions within HB 153 would still be
beneficial, as it would help utilities with planning,
coordination, and cost to consumers. In conclusion, he urged
committee members to support the bill.
2:40:15 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS, after ascertaining there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed testimony on HB 153.
2:40:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if the committee would hear from
utilities on the provisions of HB 153 before the bill would move
out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND noted that utilities were still
deliberating on the provisions of HB 153. He deferred to his
staff to offer further comment.
MS. KILCOYNE said that Representative Holland's staff were
working closely with utilities throughout the process.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND suggested the utilities may be ready to
make comment by the time the bill is heard in the next committee
of referral. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Rauscher, he said that the underlying work for
RPS has been done within the legislature and across the country
for many years; the framework was "pretty solid" in regards to
constitutionality. He proffered another factor to consider is
that the first threshold for compliance is set to be reported in
2032; therefore, in terms of questions of constitutionality,
should court proceedings take years to complete, the legislature
could have time to explore the potential for conflict between HB
153 and the Alaska Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER then commented that Alaska is one of few
states that have co-ops [in terms of utilities].
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND then commented that members of the
legislature had been receiving lengthy legal memorandums
("memos") on HB 153, and there might be more information
regarding Representative Rauscher's questions within them.
CO-CHAIR MEARS described the legislative legal checks and
balances for bills the committee addresses.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND then asked Ms. Kilcoyne if there were any
memos that his staff had received that that indicated
constitution issues with HB 153 or the current Committee
Substitution.
MS. KILCOYNE, in response to Representative Holland, confirmed
that the sponsor's office has not received any legal memos
stating concern about the constitutionality of HB 153.
2:45:48 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS then stated that the committee was planning for
additional testimony on HB 153, with the next meeting scheduled
th
for Tuesday April 15 at 1:00pm. She encouraged members of the
public to submit testimony via email.
2:46:33 PM
CO-CHAIR MEARS announced HB 153 was held over.
2:46:51 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 2:46 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 153 Written Testimony 04-09-25.pdf |
HENE 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| CS HB 153_G.pdf |
HENE 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| HB 153 Written Testimony 04-10-25.pdf |
HENE 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| HB 153 AlaskaRenewableEnergy2021 TNC-AK.pdf |
HENE 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| HB 153 Clean Energy Tax Credits-An Economic Impact Analysis.pdf |
HENE 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 153 |
| HB 153_G Summary of Changes.pdf |
HENE 4/10/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 153 |