The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-03-01 AEA Agenda and docs 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 T 907.771.3000 Toll Free 888.300.8534 F 907.771.3044 REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG Alaska Energy Authority Board Meeting Wednesday March 1, 2023 8:30 AM AGENDA Dial 1 (888) 585-9008 and enter code 212-753-619# Public comment guidelines are below. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS 3. AGENDA APPROVAL 4. PRIOR MINUTES – January 18, 2023 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (2 minutes per person) see call in number above 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Cook Inlet Gas Supply Challenges - Overview and Discussion i. 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast Presentation to Senate Resources Committee ii. DNR 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast iii. Railbelt Electric Energy System and Energy Transition Presentation 7. OLD BUSINESS - NONE 8. DIRECTOR COMMENTS A. Annual Report B. PCE Report C. Owned Assets Update D. Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC) Update E. Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Program Update F. Electric Vehicle Update G. Bradley Lake Audit H. FY24 Budget Update I. Legislative Update J. IIJA Update K. Community Outreach L. Articles of Interest M. Next Regularly Scheduled AEA Board Meeting Tuesday, April 11, 2023 9. BOARD COMMENTS 10. ADJOURNMENT Public Comment Guidelines Members of the public who wish to provide written comments, please email your comments to publiccomment@akenergyauthority.org by no later than 4 p.m. on the day before the meeting, so they can be shared with board members prior to the meeting. On the meeting day, callers will enter the teleconference muted. After board roll call and agenda approval, we will ask callers to press *9 on their phones if they wish to make a public comment. This will initiate the hand-raising function. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 We will unmute callers individually in the order the calls were received. When an individual is unmuted, you will hear, “It is now your turn to speak.” Please identify yourself and make your public comments. 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG Alaska Energy Authority DRAFT BOARD MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, January 18, 2023 Anchorage, Alaska 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pruhs called the meeting of the Alaska Energy Authority to order on January 18, 2023, at 8:30 am. A quorum was established. 2. ROLL CALL BOARD MEMBERS Members present: Chair Dana Pruhs (Public Member); Vice-Chair Bill Kendig (Public Member); Albert Fogle (Public Member); Adam Crum (Commissioner DOR); Julie Sande (Commissioner DCCED); Bill Vivlamore (Public Member); and Randy Eledge (Public Member). 3. AGENDA APPROVAL Chair Pruhs requested that the people in the boardroom introduce themselves and state their affiliation. There was no objection and the attendees introduced themselves. Jennifer Bertolini, AEA, also introduced the attendees participating via Teams. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Kendig to approve the agenda, as presented. Motion seconded Mr. Vivlamore. The motion to approve the agenda passed without objection. 4. PRIOR MINUTES – December 19, 2022 MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Kendig to approve the prior minutes of December 19, 2022, as presented. Motion seconded by Mr. Vivlamore. The motion to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2022, passed without objection. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (2 minutes per person) There were no members of the public online or in-person who requested to comment. 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Power Cost Equalization Endowment Presentation Curtis Thayer, Executive Director and Secretary-Treasurer, informed that this item is a follow-up from a Board request to have a presentation by the Department of Revenue (DOR) regarding the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Endowment. By statute, the Endowment is managed by the Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 11 Commissioner of Revenue. Mr. Thayer introduced Zachary Hanna, Chief Investment Officer (CIO), State of Alaska, to review the presentation included in the packet. Mr. Hanna described the presentation as a an executive summary of the Department’s asset allocation process, the PCE fund performance, and the impact that downside risk could have on assets and spending. He noted that the appendix to the presentation contains a market review for additional information. Mr. Hanna indicated that the presentation is intended to be a summary discussion and that continued dialog is welcome to continue over time. Mr. Hanna discussed the background of the Treasury Division as shown on page two. Nearly $50 billion in assets are managed and 80% of that is for the Alaska Retirement Management (ARM) Board. Approximately $8 billion is under the fiduciary direction of the Commissioner of Revenue, including the PCE assets, and approximately $300 million is managed for other State fiduciaries, such as Alaska Mental Health Trust, Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trust, and Alaska Student Loan Corporation. Setting investment policies and asset allocation for State funds are key fiduciary duties for the Commissioner of Revenue. An asset allocation process is conducted annually. The investment policies for each fund are based on factors such as time horizon, return objectives, liquidity needs, and capacity for loss. Mr. Hanna noted that performance, investment policy and asset allocations are discussed quarterly in a transparent process with an independent professional investment advisory committee. All the meeting minutes and materials are publicly available on the website. Mr. Hanna informed that Callan is the investment consultant for both the ARM Board and Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC). Callan is not a consultant for the State. However, the State uses Callan’s independent capital market long-term assumptions for consistency, coupled with other market inputs. Mr. Hanna described the yearly process by which potential changes are made to the set of asset classes used to construct State portfolios, as shown on page six. Mr. Hanna explained that even though the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) changed its accredited investor definition in 2021 to allow State funds to purchase illiquid assets like private equity and private real estate, the State portfolios still do not invest in illiquid asset classes because the State funds are subject to annual legislative changes. The portfolios are focused on delivering market-plus returns without downward deviations in the mid-term time horizon. Mr. Hanna reviewed the current Investment Policy for the PCE portfolio shown on page seven. He discussed that statute calls for the Commissioner of Revenue to apply the prudent-investor rule and invest the assets of the fund considering the preservation of the purchasing power over time, while maximizing the expected total return. Mr. Hanna explained that since PCE has a long time horizon, the portfolio can take some volatility in the pursuit of maximizing expected return and preserving the purchasing power. Thus the recommended and adopted portfolio is 70% domestic equity and 30% core bond portfolio. This is the highest risk and return portfolio that can be used for State assets. Mr. Hanna discussed that per statute, PCE uses three-year smoothing. The degree of asset smoothing impacts spending volatility. There is a natural tension between current spending and inflation proofing the portfolio. Mr. Hanna reviewed the year-to-date through November 30, 2022 Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 11 capital market performance update shown on page nine and the portfolio performance shown on page 10. It was a very challenging year for almost all asset classes due to inflationary concerns and rising interest rates. Only cash and commodities provided a positive return over the period. Both fixed income and equities provided similar double-digit losses to portfolios. Mr. Hanna noted that the table on page 10 shows the PCE portfolio performance over the last 10 years. The assets have been managed for decades and longer-term performance numbers are available. The loss for the one-year period was negative 10.31%, compared to the benchmark loss of negative 10.56%. The portfolio is expected to perform similarly to the benchmark and hopefully, outperform the benchmark by an additional 10 to 20 basis points. Over the past 10 years, performance has been 6.76%, with modest excess returns compared with the benchmark. Mr. Hanna discussed the underlying performance of each asset class of the PCE portfolio as shown in the second table on page 10. Mr. Hanna commented that the portfolio is performing within the bounds of expectations of its asset allocation. He discussed that continued market volatility is expected in 2023 as the tug of war between inflation and growth persists. The December monthly returns for equities were down 6%, and the PCE funds were down 2.91%. Chair Pruhs asked if the PCE portfolio has investment restrictions. Mr. Hanna agreed, and noted that even though the portfolio can now invest in alternative investments, it becomes problematic because the Legislature can make changes annually. He discussed that the portfolio needs to have fairly liquid investments in order to ratchet those changes. Chair Pruhs noted that AEA, with the Board’s concurrence, recently approved $160 million of bonding at 6.06% that is backed by the Railbelt utilities for project work. He asked if DOR purchased any of those bonds or if they have the ability to invest in themselves and purchase any of those bonds. Mr. Hanna discussed that the bonds that the State currently invests in have high forward rates of return similar to the referenced AEA bond issuance with similar risks. He does not know specifically if the AEA bonds could be considered, although, he believes it is possible. Mr. Hanna discussed that a separate process is undertaken for investments that are considered non- routine. Chair Pruhs requested that DOR inform and make AEA staff and the Board aware of DOR’s investment parameters for future investment opportunities. Mr. Hanna agreed. Chair Pruhs commented that he directly relates PCE with stable rates of return to support rural Alaska Power Cost Equalization and believes it would benefit the State to invest in its reliable revenue streams. Mr. Hanna noted additional work can be directed to this line of questions. Mr. Hanna continued the presentation on page 12 regarding asset allocation, real returns, and downside risk of the portfolio. He discussed that one characteristic of capital market expectations for the past 10 years is that returns have fallen along with interest rates. Now that interest rates have increased dramatically, the effect on performance has been negative, but the increase will have a positive impact on forward expectations. The expected 10-year compounded return for PCE for FY23 was 5.6%. For FY24, this is expected to increase to 6.59%. Mr. Hanna reviewed the Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 11 downside risk statistics and noted that the three-year 5% probable annual return is negative 9.2% for FY23. He explained that the information contained in the chart provides reasonable statistical downside expectations for the portfolio. Chair Pruhs asked what the downside risk expectations were for FY22. Mr. Hanna noted the expectations for FY22 were very similar to the FY23 expectations. He discussed that Callan’s capital market assumptions did not change much, but that PCE underwent two changes; including the used of the Prudent Investor Rule. The expected 10-year return for FY22 was 5%. The expected 10-year return of 5.6% for FY23 was due to a reasonable increase in the amount of equity in the portfolio. Mr. Hanna reviewed that the long-term real return statistics show the projected total return after accounting for inflation expectations. The statute calls for the consideration of inflation proofing the portfolio. The real return for FY24 is expected to be approximately 4.09%. Spending beyond this level could result in a less than full inflation proofing of the portfolio at Callan’s expected 2.5% inflation assumption. Mr. Hanna discussed the chart on page 13 showing the historical market drawdowns and rolling one-year, three-year, and five-year smoothed returns of a similar 70% equity and 30% bond portfolio over the past 40 years. The frequency of drawdowns impacts the planning strategy. Mr. Hanna discussed the spending limits as shown on page 14. For FY24, the three-year smoothed maximum appropriation limit is $54.9 million. The appropriations have increased from $31.6 million in 2015 to the current, all-time high level. Mr. Hanna reviewed that DOR does not make forecasts regarding the direction of markets, however, if markets remained flat for the next 2.5 years, and PCE continued to spend at the statutory limit, the FY27 spending limit would be $46 million. This is approximately 16% less than the FY24’s spending limit. Chair Pruhs asked if it would make a difference to the outcome if the smoothing was five years rather than three years. Mr. Hanna agreed, and estimated that a five-year smoothing average would reduce the reduction by approximately 3.5%. He explained that five-year smoothing is the industry norm for endowments and PCE uses three-year smoothing. Mr. Hanna discussed that the expected spending reductions over three-year periods is approximately 20%, given the investment structure of PCE. Chair Pruhs asked for the DOR position regarding three-year smoothing and five-year smoothing. Mr. Hanna noted that five-year smoothing is best practice and three-year smoothing is a reasonable practice as well. He does not believe that the change from three-year smoothing to five-year smoothing would have a dramatic effect. However, if prospective legislative changes were to occur, DOR would recommend changing from three-year smoothing to five-year smoothing. Chair Pruhs indicated that the Board would support a resolution recommending the change if it makes economic sense to do so. Commissioner Sande expressed appreciation for the presentation. Mr. Fogle expressed appreciation to Mr. Hanna for the update and presentation. Mr. Fogle asked Alaska Energy Authority Page 5 of 11 Mr. Thayer regarding communication to the participants and if they have been made aware that the funding is on a negative trend. Mr. Thayer reported that the information provided by DOR has been given to the Alaska Power Association and others. They are aware of the negative trend. Mr. Thayer informed that last year, the Legislature increased the amount of PCE kilowatt hours (kWh) per customer from 500 kWh to 750 kWh, which gives the Legislature a larger draw on the PCE program. The Legislature did not provide additional funds into the PCE program. Chair Pruhs expressed appreciation to Mr. Hanna for the presentation. He commented on the interesting decision last year to increase the PCE amount to the private homeowners without adjusting the smoothing from three years to five years. This puts pressure on the three-year smoothing. There were no additional questions or comments. B. Resolution No. 2023-01 FY24 Operating and Capital Budget Submissions Ratification Mr. Thayer explained that Resolution 2023-01 is the annual resolution for the Board to ratify the Governor’s submission to the Legislature for the FY24 Operating and Capital Budget. The Operating Budget last year for FY23 was approximately $41 million. The proposed Operating Budget for FY24 is approximately $58 million. The increased funding is primarily the result of the change of PCE by 50%, from 500 kWh to 750 kWh. Other factors include the Legislature providing an additional appropriation from the General Fund for $683,000 for the 5% cost of living increase to all exempt employees, a technical insurance correction on State healthcare benefits, and $958,000 for five infrastructure positions of two program managers, one grants administrator, one procurement position, and one accounting technician. Mr. Thayer discussed that the Capital Budget is approximately $74 million, comprised of the Federal receipt authority of $46 million and the State contribution of $28 million. The total is less than last year and additional Federal receipt funding is anticipated to be received in a supplemental process that will need legislative approval. Mr. Thayer reviewed the spreadsheets and charts provided in Attachment A. He noted that the internal Renewable Energy & Efficiency Program has funding of $5 million and had not been funded in eight years. The Grants to Names Recipients for Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) of $3 million is new to the Capital Budget. It was requested by the Governor’s Office to route through AEA. Mr. Thayer highlighted that the two supplemental requests that are pending release for FY23 are the Black Rapids Training Site Project for $12 million and the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act (IIJA) State Energy Program for $2.8 million. There were no questions or comments. MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Kendig to approve Resolution 2023-01, FY24 Operating and Capital Budget Submissions Ratification, as presented. Motion seconded by Mr. Vivlamore. A roll call was taken, and the motion to approve Resolution 2023-01 passed unanimously. Alaska Energy Authority Page 6 of 11 MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Kendig to enter into Executive Session to discuss confidential financial matters related to the FY24 Budget, the immediate disclosure of which would have an adverse impact on the Authority. This is supported by the Open Meetings Act, AS 44.62.310, which allows a Board to consider confidential matters in Executive Session. In this case, the Board believes these are subjects which would have an adverse effect upon the finances of AEA or are protected by law due to rules protecting personal privacy and certain business information. Motion seconded by Mr. Vivlamore. A roll call was taken, and the motion to enter into Executive Session was approved unanimously. i. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 9:26 a.m. – To discuss confidential matters related to the FY24 Budget The Board reconvened its regular meeting at 10:22 am. Chair Pruhs advised that the Board did not take any formal action on the matters discussed while in Executive Session. 7. OLD BUSINESS - None 8. DIRECTOR COMMENTS A. Strategic Planning Discussion Mr. Thayer noted that this item is a placeholder to schedule a date and location to conduct a strategic planning discussion. He proposed that the date occur at the end of the legislative session. Chair Pruhs suggested that the strategic planning session occur in Fairbanks during the Energy Fair in August. He recommended that half a day is scheduled for AEA and half a day is scheduled for AIDEA. Mr. Thayer indicated that he would provide Chair Pruhs with the specific dates. There were no other questions or comments. Mr. Fogle informed that he has to leave the meeting and will return around noon. B. Power Revenue Bonds – closed 11/30/2022 (Updated Term Sheet Letter) Mr. Thayer discussed that included in the packet is a memorandum from Fred Eoff, Financial Advisor, summarizing the final terms for the $166 million Series 11 Bonds between AEA and National Cooperative Services Cooperation (NCSC). The duration of the loan is 28 years. The Board previously gave permission for additional negotiations to the terms, which were successful and resulted in the interest rate being lowered by 46 basis points, the inclusion of the option to refinance the 6.5% locked interest rate after 10 years, and the elimination of certain proposed definitions of debt service and debt service coverage. The amortization scheduled is also included in the packet. There were no questions. Alaska Energy Authority Page 7 of 11 C. 2022 Final Audit and Federal Single Audit Mr. Thayer indicated that the 2022 Final Audit and Federal Single Audit were approved at the previous meeting and are included in the packet for informational purposes. There were no questions. D. Hydro Update Mr. Thayer noted that the Hydroelectric Program Update provided by Bryan Carey, Director of Owned Assets, is included in the packet and outlines the current status of the projects. Mr. Thayer highlighted the Dixon Diversion Feasibility Project. It is located five miles from Bradley Lake on State-owned land. The Initial Consultation Document (ICD) with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has been filed. AEA has provided Study Plans in response to Study Requests and a public meeting was held on November 17, 2022. Public and agency comments have been received. The project looks to be a viable opportunity for power. Mr. Thayer noted for the record that a decision has not been made to move forward with the Dixon Diversion Project and additional studies will occur in 2023 and 2024 to make the determination. The Governor has included $5 million in the budget for the studies. Mr. Thayer reviewed the Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project that is funded with a Renewable Energy Funds (REF) grant of $3.4 million and a matching grant of $2.8 million from the Denali Commission. He noted that Audrey Alstrom, AEA, is responsible for the project. Mr. Thayer discussed the Godwin Hydroelectric Project that is located on Godwin Creek in Seward. Chugach Electric Association (CEA) is currently performing the feasibility work on this small project. Mr. Thayer mentioned the Jenny Creek Hydroelectric Project and informed that the Nuyakuk River Hydroelectric Project in Dillingham has REF funding of $2 million for approved studies. He noted that the Thayer Lake Project located near Angoon has unobligated REF funds of $4.9 million. Work continues on the project and it has good potential. The cost of the project is challenging. Chair Pruhs asked if staff’s due diligence analysis of hydroelectric projects includes the permitting process and possible legal challenges. Mr. Thayer agreed and asked Mr. Carey to respond. Mr. Carey explained that during a review of the project, consideration is given to the permitting process, and to whether the project is FERC regulated or State regulated. The FERC licensing follows a different process that includes additional permitting and public engagement. Mr. Carey indicated that highly controversial projects are not typically pursued, unless there is a tremendous benefit that the project will provide a great amount of energy at a cost-effective rate. E. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Concept Papers 1 (Railbelt Backbone Reconstruction), 2(Battery Energy Storage /HVDC0), 3 (Railbelt), & 3 (Rural) Mr. Thayer discussed the three Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) Concept Papers provided for informational purposes. AEA partnered with the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee (BPMC) Railbelt utilities for submission of the first two Concept Papers, GRIP 1 and GRIP 2, which consist of a smart grid for the Railbelt and grid resilience for the Railbelt. Two Alaska Energy Authority Page 8 of 11 Concept Papers were submitted for GRIP 3. The Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project was also submitted in partnership with the BPMC. The Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation Project was submitted by AEA under the diligent direction of Rebecca Garrett, Rural Programs Manager, and her team. Mr. Thayer explained the process that the Concept Papers will be reviewed and if they are accepted, the projects will be invited to compete nationally. Mr. Thayer does not anticipate that all of the Concept Papers will be asked to compete. He noted that the congressional delegation is aware of the process and AEA will review these Concept Papers with them tomorrow to key in their support. F. Required Project Work Update Mr. Thayer noted that the projects that have been vetted and approved are the Sterling to Quartz Creek transmission upgrade, the Bradley to Sterling transmission upgrade, and the three battery storage systems. The bid to remove the old 69 kVa line for the Sterling to Quartz Creek transmission upgrade was awarded to Lineworks, LLC. The plan is to begin to remove the line in January with completion in the spring. Due diligence is being conducted on the battery energy storage systems for the Kenai Peninsula and the specifications are still being developed for the batteries for the other two regions. Mr. Eledge asked how long of a section is the 69 kVa line. Mr. Thayer reported that the SSQ Line is 39 miles, and the 69 kVa was an abandoned line that is not in service and next to the 115 line. The removal of this line must be completed for the upgrade and was also a condition to access the Refuge. All permitting is secured, including a 100-foot right-of-way that allows for the upgrade. G. State Energy Security Plan Update Mr. Thayer discussed that the State Energy Security Plan is a requirement of IIJA. A $200,000 grant has been received from Department of Energy (DOE) to complete the plan, which has been contracted to ICF. The advisory committee meets regularly and has conducted interviews with parties in both rural and urban Alaska. Audrey Alstrom, Director Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency, is leading the effort. ICF is expected to visit Nome, Kotzebue, and rural Alaska in order to better understand the needs for drafting the plan. The plan is scheduled to be completed in May, and will then go to the Governor for approval and submittal. H. Rural Update Mr. Thayer noted that the Rural Update is for informational purposes and was prepared by Ms. Garrett. It highlights personnel training and upgrades to the rural power system and to bulk fuel facilities. Chair Pruhs asked for an update on the status of the infrastructure. Mr. Thayer indicated that with inflation, deferred maintenance on bulk fuel facilities is now behind by more than $800,000. The deferred maintenance on powerhouses is also behind by a greater amount. Mr. Thayer discussed that supply logistics, waiting for equipment to be available, has caused issues and delays to Alaska Energy Authority Page 9 of 11 projects. Chair Pruhs inquired if the inventory assessment is current. Mr. Thayer agreed, and noted that a multi-year contract has been procured to assess the 400 bulk fuel facilities. Additionally, in order to receive PCE funding, an inventory of rural community buildings must be submitted. This will occur simultaneous to the assessment of the bulk fuel facilities. Chair Pruhs asked for an explanation as to who is the responsible party for clean-up and replacement in the event that a containment breach occurs in a bulk fuel tank. Mr. Thayer explained that the responsible party is different for each community. He noted that Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC) is responsible for nearly 50 utilities. Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (IPEC) is responsible for utilities in Southeast. AEA responds to emergencies for approximately 45 communities that own their own facilities and tanks. However, AEA would probably be tasked to be first on the scene for clean-up and replacement. Other State agencies, such as Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), could also be called in an emergency. Chair Pruhs asked if those 50 communities have insurance coverage for such a scenario. Mr. Thayer indicated that he does not know the status of their insurance coverage. Chair Pruhs suggested that the risk to the State from a fuel spillage within those 45 communities should be understood and that a protocol should be developed to identify what steps are taken if a spill occurs and who will ultimately be financially responsible. Mr. Thayer agreed. Chair Pruhs asked if AEA receives annual financial statements or balance sheet information from independent power entities in rural communities. Mr. Thayer explained that information is normally filed in May with the RCA. There were no additional questions. I. Power Cost Equalization Update Mr. Thayer announced that the long-term project manager has retired and that Tim Sandstrom, Chief Operating Officer, has taken the lead until a new manager is identified. There was a backlog of over 300 unprocessed payments. Staff has been successfully working on the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program and the backlog is now 100% current. Mr. Thayer anticipates that the PCE Statistical Report will be completed in early February and subsequently shared with the Legislature. He mentioned that the decrease in performance of the PCE endowment was discussed earlier in the meeting. Mr. Thayer informed that the Utility Monthly Report (UMR) for the communities of Klukwon and Chilkat have been combined because they are served by the same utility. This provides a potential savings of $12,000. Chair Pruhs asked if any communities are behind schedule on completing the PCE application. Mr. Thayer noted that all qualified PCE communities determined by RCA are current, as they have 90 days to file. He is unaware if any communities have been denied by RCA. There were no additional questions. Alaska Energy Authority Page 10 of 11 J. Power Project Loan and Dashboard Mr. Thayer discussed that there are 19 loans and no delinquencies. The uncommitted cash balance is approximately $11.8 million. He informed that staff is following up with a couple of communities who have decided not to receive their loans. There were no questions. K. Denali Commission Update Mr. Thayer identified that the total active awards is approximately $31 million. The total funding remaining in active awards is approximately $13.8 million. Additional federal funding is anticipated to be received in the upcoming funding cycle and will be complemented by the State match. There were no questions. L. Community Outreach Mr. Thayer reviewed the Community Outreach report that itemizes the dates, locations, topics, audiences, and presenters of AEA’s public communication within the last six months. There were no questions. M. Articles of Interest – Included in the packet N. Next Regularly Scheduled AEA Board Meeting Wednesday, March 1, 2023 MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Kendig to enter into Executive Session to discuss confidential personnel issues. Motion seconded by Mr. Vivlamore. A roll call was taken, and the motion to enter into Executive Session was approved unanimously, with Mr. Fogle absent. 9. EXECUTIVE SESSION: 10:47 a.m. – Discuss confidential personnel matters The Board reconvened its regular meeting at 11:59 am. Chair Pruhs advised that the Board did not take any action on matters discussed while in Executive Session. 10. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Crum expressed that he looks forward to working on the AEA Board while focusing on Governor Dunleavey’s priorities of economic development and opportunities to reduce the cost of power. Vice-Chair Kendig expressed appreciation to Mr. Thayer for the informative meeting. Chair Pruhs thanked Mr. Thayer and staff for the good information and project updates during the meeting. Alaska Energy Authority Page 11 of 11 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business of the Board, the AEA meeting adjourned at 12:03 pm. _________________________________________________ Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director Presented by Jhonny Meza & John Burdick Division of Oil & Gas Alaska Department of Natural Resources January 30, 2023 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast Senate Resources Committee AgendaOUTLINE •Cook Inlet Geology •Cook Inlet Supply and Demand Evolution •Cook Inlet Recovery Act and Resulting Activity •Overview of Division of Oil and Gas (DOG) Cook Inlet Studies •2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast •Methodology •Economic constraints •Forecast -outcomes •Comparison to previous studies 22023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast C OOK I NLET G EOLOGY 3 Two Sources of Gas In Cook Inlet Basin 1.Biogenic gas from coals. 2.Oil migrated from source rocks, creating associated gas. 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast C OOK I NLET F IELDS O VERVIEW : G AS P RODUCTION H ISTORY 0 50 100 150 200 250 Annual Production (Billion Cubic Feet per Year)Cook Inlet Gas Production –Gross (BCF per year) WOLF LAKE W MCARTHUR RIV W FORK W FORELAND TRADING BAY THREE MILE CREEK SWANSON RIVER STUMP LAKE STERLING SEAVIEW REDOUBT SHOAL PRETTY CREEK PIONEER NORTH FORK NORTH COOK INLET NINILCHIK NIKOLAEVSK NICOLAI CREEK MOQUAWKIE 4 Note: State Lands Only Note: State + Federal + Private Lands 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Annual Production (Billion Cubic Feet per Year)Production of Cook Inlet gas by lessee from State- owned oil and gas leases XTO Unocal Smaller company Pioneer MOA ML&P Marathon Furie group Exxon ConocoPhillips Chugach Electric Chevron BlueCrest AIX Hilcorp Furie Chugach Electric MOA ML&P C OOK I NLET F IELDS O VERVIEW : P RODUCTION BY F IELD Field Operator and lessees 2022 Gas Production 2022 Oil Production Kenai Loop AIX Energy LLC 1.17 bcf Nicolai Creek Amaroq Resources, LLC 0.1 bcf Hansen Bluecrest Alaska Operating LLC 0.58 bcf 770 bopd Redoubt Shoal Cook Inlet Energy, LLC.0.07 bcf 879 bopd West McArthur River Cook Inlet Energy, LLC.0.00 bcf 240 bopd Kitchen Lights Furie Operating Alaska, LLC; Cornucopia Oil & Gas Company; A. L. Berry; Danny Davis; Taylor Minerals, LLC; Corsair Oil & Gas 4.02 bcf Beaver Creek Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 3.72 bcf 629 bopd Beluga River Hilcorp Alaska, LLC; Chugach Electric Association 11.07 bcf Deep Creek Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 1.17 bcf Granite Pt Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 1.16 bcf 2,199 bopd Ivan River Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 3.37 bcf Kenai Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 5.53 bcf Kenai C.L.U.Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 0.68 bcf Lewis River Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 0.24 bcf McArthur River Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 6.08 bcf 2,631 bopd Middle Ground Shoal Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 0 bcf 0 bopd Nikolaevsk Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 0.08 bcf Ninilchik Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 11.52 bcf North Cook Inlet Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 10.93 bcf Seaview Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 0.06 bcf Swanson River Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 3.65 bcf 705 bopd Trading Bay Hilcorp Alaska, LLC 0.4 bcf 794 bopd North Fork Vision Operating, LLC 1.13 bcf 5 https://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Information/MapsAndGis bcf = billion cubic feet 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast bopd = barrels of oil per day S OUTHCENTRAL G AS D EMAND : D EMAND BY U SER T YPE Kenai LNG Plant •Nikiski liquified natural gas (LNG) facility is operated by Trans-Foreland Pipeline Co. LLC –which is a sub of Marathon Petroleum. •Last exported LNG was 2015. •Department of Energy (DOE) authorization for exporting LNG expired in 2018. •Dec. 2020 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved LNG Imports to this facility an annual capacity up to 1.8 billion cubic feet (bcf) per year. 6 Nutrien Fertilizer Plant •2nd largest ammonia/urea plant in U.S. •Shut down and mothballed in 2007, however Nutrien maintains permits and remains interested in reopening the plant. •Gas prices relative to Lower 48 makes economics difficult. •Potential source for blue hydrogen/blue ammonia. 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 Billion cubic feetDemand for Cook Inlet gas (source: EIA) Interior LNG Fertilizer Plant Kenai LNG O&G field operations in Cook Inlet Residential use in Cook Inlet Electric power use in Cook Inlet Commercial use in Cook Inlet Fertilizer Plant Kenai LNG Export C OOK I NLET R ECOVERY A CT AND R ESULTING A CTIVITY 72023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022Number of wells drilledCook Inlet Basin: Tax System and Wells Drilled Development Exploratory Stratigraphic Test ELF 1977 –Mar. 2006 ACES Jul. 2007 –Dec.2013 PPT Apr. 2006 –Jun. 2007 SB21 (MAPA):Jan. 2014 -now HB247: 2017 -nowHB280 CIRA (2010) ➢Active: •Discovery royalty AS 38.05.180(f)(4) ➢Expired or repealed in 2016 or with HB 247: Before CIRA •Exploration Incentive credit: AS 38.05.180(i) •Alternative Credit for Exploration: AS 43.55.025(a) •Gas Exploration and Development credit: AS 43.20.043 •Qualified Capital Expenditure credit: AS 43.55.023(a) •Small Producer Credit AS 43.55.024: Qualification deadline May 2016 •Carried Forward Annual Loss Credit: Expired with HB 247 CIRA •Well Lease Expenditure Credit AS 43.55.023(l) •Gas Storage Facility Credit AS 43.20.046 •Cook Inlet Jack-Up Rig Credit AS 43.55.025(a)(5) and (l) E XPLORATION & D EVELOPMENT IN C OOK I NLET: C OOK I NLET F UTURE P RODUCTION 8 The CI Basin depends on successful exploration. •The CI Basin has been producing for over 60 years. •Continuous exploration has led to 13 new oil and gas units coming online, and over 450 wellbores drilled since year 2000. •Of the ~200 million cubic feet per day (mmcfd) of produced gas in 2021, ~80% came from wells drilled less than 20 years ago. •Exploration/delineation within and outside the units is crucial to continued security of gas supply for the basin. 69% 53% 20% 31% 47% 80% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2005 2010 2021Share of Gas Production from Two Well CategoriesShare of production from well vintages Wells drilled pre-2000 Wells drilled post 2000 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast O VERVIEW OF D IVISION OF O IL & G AS C OOK I NLET S TUDIES 2009 -Preliminary Engineering and Geological Evaluation of Remaining Cook Inlet Gas Reserves ▪Consisted of engineering and geologic evaluations of 28 currently producing Cook Inlet gas fields to derive estimates of remaining Proved and Probable reserves. ▪Applied single deterministic Decline Curve Analysis (DCA) and Material Balance (MBAL) engineering methods to publicly available production and pressure data obtained from Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). ▪Did not address economics of drilling additional wells, recompleting existing wells, optimizing infrastructure, and the ability to sell the gas into the Cook Inlet market. ▪Proved + Probable reserves estimated at 1.14 trillion cubic feet (tcf). 2011 -Cook Inlet Natural Gas Production Cost Study ▪Investigated investment requirements around various targeted reserves. ▪Addressed commercial viability of remaining gas by postulating conceptual plans to produce natural gas from the Cook Inlet Basin to meet a demand of 90 billion cubic feet (bcf) per year. 92023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast O VERVIEW OF D IVISION OF O IL & G AS C OOK I NLET S TUDIES (CONTINUED ) 2015 -Updated Engineering Evaluation of Remaining Cook Inlet Gas Reserves ▪An update to 2009’s study of 34 currently or historically producing Cook Inlet gas fields to derive estimates of remaining Proved and Probable reserves. ▪Applied single deterministic DCA and MBAL engineering methods to publicly available production and pressure data obtained from AOGCC. ▪Did not address prospective (undiscovered), contingent (discovered, non-producing), and 3P (Proved + Probable + Possible) reserves. ▪Proved + Probable reserves estimated at 1.18 trillion cubic feet (tcf). 2018 -Cook Inlet Natural Gas Availability ▪Built on three previous DOG Cook Inlet gas studies, while incorporating future supplies by formulating hypothetical development projects required to produce undeveloped volumes and estimate each project’s economic viability. ➢500–800 bcf of additional gas is economic to develop at a price range around $6 -8/thousand cubic feet (real 2016 dollars). ▪P50 reserves estimate of 700 bcf when price is $8 per thousand cubic feet (mcf). 102023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast C URRENT S TUDY 2022 -Cook Inlet Gas Forecast ▪A technical reserves assessment of 90 different gas & oil pools in the Cook Inlet Basin using publicly available production data obtained from AOGCC. ▪Decline Curve Analysis (DCA) used to estimate volumes from currently producing well set. Type Curve(s) were developed to estimate volumes from future development wells. ▪Discovered resources contingent upon more favorable commercial conditions and undiscovered (prospective) resources were not included in the forecast. ▪Estimated field level economic limits were used in the “truncated” forecast cases. ▪Forecasted volumes do not account for gas produced from gas storage to avoid duplicative gas volumes produced. ▪Flat gas demand of 70 billion cubic feet per year does not assume future additional requirements nor does it assume possible substitutes or increasing efficiency in consumption both for energy producers and commercial or domestic consumers. 112023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast C OOK I NLET D EVELOPMENT W ELL H ISTORY (PRE-PANDEMIC , 2009 -2019) 12 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 AverageCountsCook Inlet Development Wells Average annual development wells drilled: ≈ 15 per year 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast M ODELING THE E CONOMIC L IMIT FOR EACH F IELD : S TRUCTURE OF THE MODEL 13 1.The technical forecast of oil and gas is run through an economic model. ▪Upstream companies unlikely to operate their fields at a sustained loss (i.e., negative cash flows). ▪If marginal revenue associated with production of oil and gas in a field is not large enough to cover marginal expenditure, t hen the operator will likely stop production. ▪Marginal expenditure includes costs, royalty / overriding royalty payments, and taxes. ▪Remaining technically recoverable gas production beyond the economic limit point will not be available to the market. 2.Structure of the economic model: 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast mcf = thousand cubic feet bbl = barrel Production of gas for sale Not all gas produced is available to the market: Small share used for in -field operations and enhanced oil recovery. Revenue Proxy for gas prices between some Cook Inlet producers and local utilities. Costs One-size-fits-all approach for costs allowing for differences based on proximity to infrastructure (offshore vs. onshore, West vs. East). Royalty Share of gross revenues: 12.5%. Overriding royalty interest Another claim on gross revenues: percentage varies. Taxes O&G production tax ($1/bbl and $0.177/mcf ceilings) and O&G property tax. F ORECAST U NTRUNCATED H IGH -M ID-L OW-M EAN S TREAMS 14 Low Case (P1) Total Gas Reserves (bcf)843.2 Gas (bcf)832.4 Associated Gas (bcf)10.8 Mid Case (P1) Total Gas Reserves (bcf)1,101.4 Gas (bcf)1,079.3 Associated Gas (bcf)22.1 High Case (P1) Total Gas Reserves (bcf)1,404.0 Gas (bcf)1,361.7 Associated Gas (bcf)42.3 Mean Case (P1) Total Gas Reserves (bcf)1,108.8 Gas (bcf)1,085.2 Associated Gas (bcf)23.6 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 Gas Rate (Thousand Cubic Feet per Day)Cook Inlet Gas Forecast Historical Low Case Mid Case High Case Mean Case 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast F ORECAST T RUNCATED H IGH -M ID-L OW-M EAN S TREAMS 15 Low Case (P1) Total Gas Reserves (bcf)602.5 Gas (bcf)597.2 Associated Gas (bcf)5.3 Mid Case (P1) Total Gas Reserves (bcf)823.9 Gas (bcf)807.9 Associated Gas (bcf)16.0 High Case (P1) Total Gas Reserves (bcf)1,108.9 Gas (bcf)1,066.6 Associated Gas (bcf)42.3 Mean Case (P1) Total Gas Reserves (bcf)820.2 Gas (bcf)803.2 Associated Gas (bcf)17.0 - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 Gas Rate (Thousand Cubic Feet per Day)Cook Inlet Gas Forecast Historical Low Case Mid Case High Case Mean Case 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast F ORECAST VS A CTUALS (THROUGH O CTOBER 2022) 16 50,000 500,000 Gas Rate (Thousand Cubic Feet per Day)Cook Inlet Gas Forecast Historical Actuals Low Case Mid Case High Case Mean Case 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast F ORECAST A NNUALIZED G AS V OLUME (UNTRUNCATED ) 172023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast - 20 40 60 80 100 120 Billion Cubic FeetCook Inlet Gas Annualized Volume Forecast Annual High Case Annual Mid Case Annual Mean Case Annual Low Case Demand F ORECAST A NNUALIZED G AS V OLUME (T RUNCATED ) 18 - 20 40 60 80 100 120 Billion Cubic FeetCook Inlet Gas Annualized Volume Forecast Annual High Case Annual Mid Case Annual Mean Case Annual Low Case Demand 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast F ORECAST P ROVED D EVELOPED & P ROVED U NDEVELOPED 192023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041Billion Cubic FeetCook Inlet Gas Proved Developed & Proved Undeveloped (Untruncated Mean Case) Proved Developed (Mean Case)Incremental Proved Undeveloped (Mean Case)Demand F ORECAST P ROVED D EVELOPED & P ROVED U NDEVELOPED 20 - 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Billion Cubic FeetCook Inlet Gas Proved Developed & Proved Undeveloped (Truncated Mean Case) Proved Developed (Mean Case)Incremental Proved Undeveloped (Mean Case)Demand 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast DOG S TUDIES C OMPARED 21 7,756 8,308 8,542 8,876 1,142 1,183 700 820 8,898 9,491 9,242 9,696 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 2009 Study 2015 Study 2018 Study 2022 StudyEstimated Ultimate Recovery (bcf)Cumulative Gas Produced At Time of Study Total Estimated Reserves . Mean Case 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast E XPLORATION & D EVELOPMENT IN C OOK I NLET: C OOK INLET U NDISCOVERED R ESOURCE •Undiscovered, Technically Recoverable Oil & Gas (USGS 2011): •mean conventional oil 599 million barrels of oil •mean conventional gas 13.7 trillion cubic feet •mean unconventional gas 5.3 trillion cubic feet •Undiscovered, Technically Recoverable Gas: •1.2 trillion cubic feet additional mean resource assessed in Southern Cook Inlet OCS (BOEM 2011) South of the USGS study area. •In general, access to additional area provides opportunities for locating and commercializing currently undiscovered resources. 222023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast Q UESTIONS ? 232023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast P ETROLEUM R ESOURCE M ANAGEMENT S YSTEM 24 Proved Reserves (P1) = Proved Developed Gas Pool-Level Decline Curve Analysis + Proved Developed Associated Gas Pool-Level Decline Curve Analysis + Proved Undeveloped Type Curve Analysis 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast S COPE & A PPLICATION •Evaluated 90 different gas & oil pools in the Cook Inlet Basin as defined by AOGCC. ▪Historical production considered through year -end 2021. •Probabilistic High-Mid-Low DCA forecasts performed at Pool-level for gas and associated gas. ▪Pool forecasts begin January 2022. ▪Length of untruncated forecast projections mostly held to 20 years, depending on reservoir performance. ▪Field-level oil forecasts were generated to determine economic field oil rate that directly impact produced associated gas forecasts. •Type Curves used for future development assumed a steady drilling pace of 15 development wells per year based on historical development wells drilled between 2009 and 2019. •DCA & Type Curve forecasts are run through economic model to derive economic limits for each field by using revenue, fiscal, and cost factors to estimate remaining Proved & Proved Undeveloped reserves. •DCA & Type Curve forecasts are then combined and aggregated to produce a basin-wide forecast. 252023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast T ECHNICAL M ETHODOLOGY Decline Curve Analysis •Extrapolates recent trends of production decline into the future. •Probabilistic forecasts were generated for currently producing pools to show a range of possible production into the future. ▪Uses statistical bootstrapping method in addition to traditional DCA to derive a quantifiable probabilistic range of outcomes, including High (P10), Mid (P50), and Low (P90) cases. ▪Weighted toward recent production history. ▪Engineering judgement applied to honor field development and reservoir constraints. 26 Type Curve Analysis •Generated from a population of representative wells in respective pools, intended to characterize behavior of future wells drilled in pools. ▪Accounts for both geological parameters and reservoir conditions. •Grounded in decline curve & statistical analysis using historical production data. •Based on both historical development wells drilled between 2009 and 2019 and confidential information received from operators for specific fields that remain active and continue to develop in the Cook Inlet basin. DCA & Type Curve forecasts are then combined and aggregated to produce a basin-wide forecast. 2023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast D ATA R ELEASE THROUGH THE TAX C REDITS P ROGRAM 272023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast DNR releases well & seismic data collected under the tax credit program (past the statutory holding period) for a nominal charge. For the State: o Increases subsurface resource knowledge o Utility in managing State lands o Purposed to incentivize new and additional investment For Industry/Research: o Lower barrier to entry o Further published research/training o Development of new technologies Source: DNR/DOG Tax Credit Seismic Surveys for Public Release Source: DNR/DOG Tax Credit Well Data for Public Release AgendaEXPLORATION& D EVELOPMENT IN C OOK I NLET: 2000 THROUGH 2021 Recent Cook Inlet exploration activity comprises seismic, aerial surveys, and drilling of exploratory and stratigraphic test wells. 282023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast H ISTORY OF C OOK I NLET TAX C REDIT P ROGRAM : D ESIGN AND PURPOSE The purpose of the Cook Inlet Tax credits is to “entice companies ‘to invest more money in Alaska and drill more wells’ so th at the possibility of both discovery and production could be ‘substantially’ increased.” Minutes, Senate Finance Committee, May 13, 2003, summarizing comments from Sen. Wagoner regarding AS 43.55.025(a) tax credits contained in SB 185 Primary Cook Inlet Credits AS 43.55.023(l) * Well Lease Expenditure Credit •In effect from 2010 –2017 for Cook Inlet •Credit equal to 40% of well or seismic cost (decreased to 20% in 2017) •Not available for North Slope AS 43.55.025(a) * Alternative credit for exploration •In effect from 2003 –2016 for Cook Inlet (2010 for Jack-Up Rig Credit) •Credit equal to 30% or 40% of well or seismic cost (increased from 20% in 2008) •Distance restrictions from existing wells or units to qualify Other Major Tax Credits AS 43.55.023(a) Qualified Capital Expenditure Credit •In effect from 2006 –2017 for Cook Inlet •Credit equal to 10% -20% of capital expenditures AS 43.55.023(b) Carried Forward Annual Loss Credit •In effect from 2006 –2017 for Cook Inlet •Credit equal to 25% of annual loss (increased in 2007) Additional Considerations •Credits could be certificated, and either traded or repurchased by the State •* These credits have DNR data submittal requirements 292023-01-30 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and Gas 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast By John Burdick, Petroleum Reservoir Engineer Jhonny Meza, Commercial Analyst Edited By Sean Clifton, Policy & Program Specialist January 2023 Alaska Division of Oil and Gas, 550 W. 7th Ave, Suite 1100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3560 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 2 Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Scope and Application .................................................................................................................................. 4 Cook Inlet Geological Setting ........................................................................................................................ 5 Reserves Briefly Defined ............................................................................................................................... 7 Technical Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 8 Decline Curve Analysis and Probabilistic Forecasting ............................................................................... 8 Type Curve Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 8 Economic Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 8 Forecast ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Studies Compared ....................................................................................................................................... 17 Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 18 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... 19 References .................................................................................................................................................. 19 Figures Figure 1. Cook Inlet stratigraphic column, with petroleum plays and oil & gas accumulations................... 5 Figure 2. Cook Inlet Sub Crop and Cross Section mapping ........................................................................... 6 Figure 3. 2018 PRMS resource classifications ............................................................................................... 7 Figure 4. Demand for Cook Inlet gas ........................................................................................................... 10 Figure 5. Historical development wells drilled in the Cook Inlet basin between 2009 and 2019 with an average of 15 development wells drilled per year ..................................................................................... 13 Figure 6. Untruncated High-Mid-Low-Mean Streams in thousands of cubic feet per day (mcfd) ............. 14 Figure 7. Truncated High-Mid-Low-Mean Streams in thousands of cubic feet per day (mcfd) ................. 15 Figure 8. Actual production through October 31, 2022 (in thousands of cubic feet per day (mcfd)), overlayed and compared with the probabilistic forecast beginning 2022. ................................................ 15 Figure 9. Annualized Gas Volume with demand in billion cubic feet per year (untruncated).................... 16 Figure 10. Annualized Gas Volume with demand in billion cubic feet per year (truncated) ...................... 16 Figure 11. Proved developed & undeveloped Cook Inlet gas in billion cubic feet per year ....................... 17 Figure 12. Division of Oil and Gas Studies Compared ................................................................................. 18 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 3 Executive Summary The Cook Inlet basin has served as the Railbelt region’s exclusive source of natural gas for over six decades. As oil and gas fields in Cook Inlet continue to mature, there is an ongoing need to assess the basin’s capacity to meet natural gas demand over the coming years. This study provides an updated assessment of Cook Inlet gas availability. Specifically, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) addresses the following key questions: • What is the quantity of proved gas reserves in Cook Inlet? • How long can Cook Inlet gas meet existing demand levels? This analysis builds on three previous DNR Cook Inlet gas studies (Hartz et al., 2009; Munisteri et al., 2015; Redlinger et al., 2018), while incorporating new and relevant information. Modelling of future production is from both existing wells and an applied conservative estimate to new wells being drilled in fields that remain active and continue to develop. There are three main findings of this study: • There are significant gas volumes potentially available through additional investment and development in currently producing fields. DNR estimates that there is 820 billion cubic feet (bcf) of proved gas reserves that is economic to develop. The key uncertainties that drive the variability in these estimates are costs, production rates, and the rate of return companies require to invest in new projects. • The Cook Inlet gas volumes identified in this study can fully satisfy the current demand level of about 70 bcf per year until around 2027, given the assumptions and simplifications of this analysis. • Because the scope of the gas forecast in this study is limited to the proved developed and proved undeveloped categories, the sanctioning of gas projects that are currently under evaluation for their commercial viability is an important contributor in meeting the demand of gas when the economic production in this study falls below 70 bcf per year. There are important limitations to this study. First, this analysis should not be interpreted as a forecast of the demand for Cook Inlet natural gas. The results present the economic feasibility of production from proved developed and proved undeveloped reserves under certain assumptions and simplifications; this study does not estimate future natural gas prices, nor is it an assessment of how specific companies that operate in Cook Inlet will evaluate specific projects. Second, this study does not encompass all the gas that remains in Cook Inlet. Additional supplies may come from sources not considered in this report: new development in some smaller existing gas fields, currently unidentified prospects, added compression that increases ultimate recovery, and unconventional resources. This report is not intended to be a prediction of how Cook Inlet gas supply and demand will play out in future years. Rather, it serves as a tool for understanding Cook Inlet’s capacity to meet natural gas demand under present conditions and assumptions. Accordingly, the results should be considered in the context of the study’s scope and in mind of its limitations. 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 4 Introduction Oil and gas production started in the Cook Inlet basin after the discovery of the Swanson River field in 1958. The Cook Inlet basin has produced 8,876 billion cubic feet (bcf) of gas and 1.4 billion barrels of oil as of December 31, 2021. Historically, gas cycling has been used for enhanced oil recovery purposes within the Cook Inlet basin, particularly within the Swanson River field. Hence, a net balance of produced and injected gas was considered to calculate cumulative produced gas. There is concern over whether present natural gas production and delivery in the Cook Inlet basin can continue to meet the energy demands of south-central Alaska. The gas market in south-central Alaska is a nearly closed market with little current connection to alternative points of sale or supply. This report is a technical and economic reserves assessment of 38 currently or historically producing Cook Inlet gas fields using publicly available production data obtained from the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) and addresses the remaining gas reserves in the Cook Inlet basin. Reservoir engineering principles and commercial analyses were used to evaluate the volumes of gas remaining within the Cook Inlet basin. The analyses represent current estimates by DNR, Division of Oil & Gas (Division) staff, not the operators. AOGCC defines reservoirs as pools, and the same nomenclature has been applied throughout this study. All 38 currently or historically producing Cook Inlet gas fields, many of which contain multiple pools, were evaluated by applying probabilistic decline curve analysis (DCA) and type curve analysis to the publicly available production data. Extrapolating production trends, these techniques were used to derive estimates of remaining reserves, which are considered equivalent to the proved reserves category. Scope and Application This report evaluated 90 different oil and gas pools in the Cook Inlet Basin as defined by AOGCC, within the 38 different fields, with historical production considered through December 31, 2021. Probabilistic DCA forecasts were performed at the pool-level for currently producing gas and associated gas reservoirs beginning January 1, 2022. Due to the time it takes to forecast each of the 90 pools, there is inevitably a time lag between the cutoff date and publication. For observational purposes, this allowed the Division to compare actual production rates to the probabilistic forecast through October 31, 2022. Solution gas associated with fields producing oil must also be considered as part of the gas reserves inventory. Field-level oil forecasts were generated to determine an economic field oil rate that directly impacts produced associated gas forecasts. The length of untruncated forecast projections were held to 20 years or less, depending on reservoir performance. Future development assumed a steady drilling pace of 15 development wells per year for the remainder of the decade, based on both historical development wells drilled between 2009 and 2019 and confidential information received from operators for specific fields that remain active and continue to develop in the Cook Inlet basin. Years beyond 2019 were considered outliers and not factored in this drilling pace assumption due to impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic and associated market crash. The forecast does not assess or assume how many wells may be drilled after 2030. Additional geological considerations, such as potential reserves in bypassed reservoirs, discoveries not yet on production, and nonproducing intervals in existing pools are outside the scope of this report and have not been considered. Furthermore, this report does not address prospective (undiscovered) or 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 5 contingent (discovered, non-producing) resources, nor do these engineering and commercial methods quantify 2P (proved + probable) and 3P (proved + probable + possible) reserves, which would include more speculative gas volumes. This report does not account for gas produced from gas storage reservoirs to avoid duplicative gas volumes produced for sales. Cook Inlet Geological Setting The Cook Inlet basin is a northeast-southwest trending, fault-bounded forearc basin extending from the Matanuska Valley southward between the mountainous uplands of the Kenai Peninsula and the Alaska Peninsula. Numerous northeast-southwest trending anticlinal folds exist within the basin due to extensive right-lateral strike-slip and dip-slip motion along the northern and northwestern basin- bounding faults. Mesozoic and Tertiary sedimentary strata make up the basin fill. Most of the producing reservoirs in Cook Inlet basin are found in the non-marine Tertiary section (Figure 1). Along the basin margins, Tertiary reservoirs consist largely of gravelly alluvial fans and sandy braided channels. Toward the basin axis, the reservoirs consist largely of fluvial channels interlayered with overbank silts, clays, and coals. There are two distinct petroleum systems in the Cook Inlet basin: a thermogenic system, consisting of oil and associated gas derived from deep burial of Mesozoic source rocks, and a biogenic system comprising dry (non-associated) methane generated in the shallow subsurface as a byproduct of bacteria feeding on Tertiary coals (Figure 2, page 6). Reservoirs in the Sterling and Beluga formations are primarily dry gas. Reservoirs in the West Foreland and Hemlock formation are primarily oil. The Tyonek formation contains both dry gas and oil reservoirs. Figure 1. Cook Inlet stratigraphic column, with petroleum plays and oil & gas accumulations 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 6 Figure 2. Cook Inlet Sub Crop and Cross Section mapping 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 7 Reserves Briefly Defined The Petroleum Resources Management System (PRMS) is a system sponsored by various societies worldwide to categorize and classify all petroleum reserves and resources. The PRMS divides total in- place oil and gas into three major categories: undiscovered, discovered sub-commercial, and discovered commercial resources (Figure 3). Undiscovered volumes, also known as prospective resources, are estimated to exist in accumulations not yet found by drilling. Discovered, sub-commercial volumes are often referred to as contingent resources; although confirmed by drilling, resources are not yet ready for production, or have not yet been demonstrated to be commercially viable to produce. Discovered, commercial oil and gas make up the reserves category. Reserves are subcategorized by certainty of production into 1P (proved, or 90% certainty), 2P (proved and probable, or 50% certainty), and 3P (proved, probable, and possible, or 10% certainty). For this report, reserves are determined by Decline Curve Analysis (DCA) and Type Curve Analysis, both of which are deemed as acceptable approaches for approximating the levels of production certainty associated with 1P reserves estimates. Reserves determined through DCA applied to currently producing pools are categorized as proved, or 1P, and represent future production from productive pools without any further investment as of January 1, 2022. The underlying premise of DCA is that a trend from historical production (dependent on drilling, maintenance, and remediation) will behave as such into the future. The results of DCA represent a snapshot of the past performance characteristics of a given reservoir and the resultant trend forecasting future recovery. Figure 3. 2018 PRMS resource classifications 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 8 Technical Methodology Decline Curve Analysis and Probabilistic Forecasting This is an industry standard engineering practice, extrapolating recent trends of production decline into the future. Using this method, future production from a pool is assumed to follow a trend similar to a given segment of production in the past. Probabilistic forecasts were generated for currently producing pools to show a range of possible production into the future by using statistical analysis in addition to traditional DCA to derive a probabilistic range of outcomes, including High (P10), Mid (P50), Low (P90), and calculated Mean Cases. These forecasts are weighted toward recent production history. Engineering judgement is applied to honor recent field development and reservoir constraints. Ultimately, all DCA- based forecasted reserves estimates are dependent on the economic limit applications used to truncate future production and the forecasting assumptions used. Type Curve Analysis Type Curve Analysis is an industry standard engineering practice accounting for both geological parameters and reservoir conditions and is grounded in decline curve and statistical analysis using historical production data. Type curves are generated from a population of representative wells in producing pools to characterize the behavior of future wells drilled in respective pools. Economic Limitations In addition to the estimated technically recoverable gas to be produced from the Cook Inlet basin, this report provides an estimate of the amount of such gas that would be economic to produce based on a number of assumptions and fixed considerations. In other words, the Cook Inlet gas estimate generated by the decline curve and type curve analyses provides an outlook of potential gas production from the proved developed and proved undeveloped categories. However, it is likely that not all this potential gas production would be realized since upstream companies will not operate their fields at a sustained loss. Therefore, this report estimates economically feasible production of Cook Inlet gas by imposing a limit to the technically recoverable gas for each field 1. This economic limit manifests when the marginal revenues associated with production of oil and gas from a field in a month are no longer enough to cover its corresponding marginal costs. In such event, the otherwise technically recoverable gas becomes economically infeasible and no longer available to buyers. If a producer is faced with this event or expects it to occur, then the option to shut down the oil and gas field will more likely be chosen, thus rendering any forecast of gas production beyond such time from a field irrelevant. The development of the economic limit imposed to the technically recoverable gas considers the revenues from the commercialization of oil and gas production from each field, includes assumptions for costs associated with the production of oil and gas, applies the corresponding royalty take by the different royalty owners (namely, the State of Alaska, the federal government, and private 1 While the gas forecast using DCA and type curve analyses is carried out at the pool level, the economic limit test in this report is done at the field level. This is a simplification implemented due to the lack of detailed cost information. A more realistic design of the economic limit test would allow for the presence of different cost centers (e.g., at the well, pool, pad, platform, and field) and their impacts on the economic production for each oil and gas pool. 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 9 organizations 2) where appropriate, and calculates the applicable taxes such as the oil and gas production and property taxes3. In contrast with the case of oil, where market participants are price takers, the price of Cook Inlet gas is not the result of a highly liquid, transparent, and actively traded commodity market. Instead, the Cook Inlet gas market can be characterized as separate and isolated from the evolution of other more liquid and heavily traded gas markets such as Henry Hub in the Lower 48. Therefore, the price of Cook Inlet gas is determined by the market power that producers (as sellers) and buyers (e.g., local utilities, other oil and gas producers in Cook Inlet, or local refineries) have when negotiating gas selling agreements. Figure 4 (page 10) shows that a significant share of the demand for Cook Inlet gas (see the residential and electric segments) stems from the needs of the local utilities (e.g., Enstar Natural Gas Company, Chugach Electric Association Inc., etc.), whose prices for services such as electricity or heating fuel to consumers are subject to the oversight of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Therefore, the calculation of revenues associated with the commercialization of gas production in this study uses an approximation of the schedule of gas prices present in the contracts between the local utilities and the gas producers for the sale of gas from every gas-producing pool for sale to the market. This schedule of gas prices is an input of the review process by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska and the information is publicly available. Although these gas contracts differ in the amounts of gas committed, variability, deliverability, optionality, and duration, this study simplifies the treatment of these contracts as if they offered similar non-price terms, thereby only using the price information contained in them. The focus of this study is on the forecast of gas that would be economically feasible. Considering this, the selection of a particular oil price profile does not create a material impact on the economic feasibility of the aggregate forecast of Cook Inlet gas because, typically, associated gas encountered in oil fields does not represent a significant portion of the potential for gas production in the Cook Inlet basin. It is worth noting that not all the gas produced will be available to the market. This study segregates technically recoverable gas production into two categories: the amount of gas available for sale to buyers, and the remaining amount of gas that would be dedicated to in-field operations (such as fuel needs or for enhanced oil recovery)4 . Therefore, there is a portion of produced gas that neither generates direct revenue to the producer nor creates any royalty payment obligation since it is not being sold. 2 There are producing oil and gas fields in the Cook Inlet basin where the royalty owner is the Bureau of Land Management, representing the U.S. federal government, such as the Swanson River field. Other fields are also partially owned by private individuals, private organizations such as the Cook Inlet Region Inc. or Hilcorp Alaska, LLC, the State of Alaska, and the federal government such as in the Ninilchik field. 3 This study does not consider the state corporate income tax, as defined under AS 43.20, in the construction of the economic limit because the focus of the economic limit is on the oil and gas field whereas this tax is assessed at the taxpayer level. Moreover, if the producer of an oil and gas field is a pass-through entity (an S corporation), then such entity will not be subject to state or federal corporate income tax, but rather its owners. 4 There is a small amount of gas that could be unavoidably lost, flared, or vented. 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 10 This study uses assumed values for the cost of production of oil and gas for the various fields in the Cook Inlet basin which approximate information that is publicly available. Because of the public nature of this report, the protections provided by Alaska Statute (AS) 38.05.035(a)(8), which allows producers to request confidentiality for sensitive business information provided to DNR, and the unavailability to DNR of detailed actual cost information for every oil and gas field, this study follows a one-size-fits-all approach with respect to the cost assumptions. However, this economic analysis allows for differences in the production costs as a function of the proximity of the oil and gas fields to infrastructure such as roads, pipelines, and pads. For example, the cost of production for oil and gas for offshore fields is relatively higher than onshore fields. Likewise, fields located on the Western side of the Cook Inlet basin tend to experience higher costs than those on the Eastern side. As can be expected, varying these cost assumptions that are applied generally to the oil and gas fields in the Cook Inlet basin would change the results of the estimate of economically feasible gas production. For example, a higher cost profile could accelerate the time when some oil and gas fields reach the end of their economic lives. In this way, cost assumptions in this study highlight the effect of the economic limit and the fact that—once considering the revenue profile, the costs of production, royalties, and taxes—the forecast for technically recoverable production of gas in the Cook Inlet basin is constrained. Figure 4 shows the demand for Cook Inlet gas by end use sector on an annual basis for the period 2016- 2021, averaging approximately 70 bcf per year. The scope of this study does not include the modeling of the factors driving the demand for Cook Inlet gas in the future. The focus is constrained to the supply side. However, in considering the outlook for economically feasible gas production from Cook Inlet, this study assumes that the observed demand profile of 70 bcf per year will remain largely unchanged. In other words, this means that, for the forecast period, consumers will not find substitutes for Cook Inlet gas or that they will not reduce their energy consumption. Although it is possible for buyers to decide to replace the need for Cook Inlet gas with other sources of energy, it is also worth noting that there are latent contributors to the outlook for Cook Inlet gas demand. Projects such as Donlin Gold could increase the demand for Cook Inlet natural gas by approximately 12 bcf per year resulting from the need to provide power to its proposed facilities and mining operations. A higher demand profile for Cook Inlet 0102030405060708090100 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021Billion cubic feetDemand for Cook Inlet Gas (source: EIA)Interior LNGOil and gas operationsCommercialResidentialElectric Figure 4. Demand for Cook Inlet gas 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 11 gas could increase the appeal or incentive for further exploration in the basin of contingent or prospective gas resources. The Donlin Gold project includes building a 315-mile natural gas pipeline (located in the vicinity of the Beluga Gas Field)5. Although the project is not yet at the final investment decision stage, its sponsors state that the project is approaching a feasibility study decision while continuing with planned drilling programs6. Other sources of additional demand for Cook Inlet gas cited in Redlinger, M., Burdick, J., & Gregersen, L. (2018) entail a more uncertain outlook for increased demand of Cook Inlet gas. For instance, the potential restart of the Agrium Kenai fertilizer plant is currently conceptualized under the Alaska Hydrogen Hub project sponsored by the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation with the support of Agrium U.S. among other entities 7. Under this proposal, the Kenai fertilizer plant would use natural gas feedstock from the Alaska LNG Project to produce conventional liquid ammonia. Although it may be possible for this fertilizer plant to also demand Cook Inlet gas, this is still uncertain. Another potential source of incremental demand for Cook Inlet gas cited in Redlinger, M., Burdick, J., & Gregersen, L. (2018) is the export of LNG from the Kenai LNG facility. The current owner of the facility, Marathon Petroleum Corporation, via its subsidiary, Trans-Foreland Pipeline Co, received approval by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for an extension of the permit to convert the LNG terminal from an export to an import facility until December 2025 8. Although Marathon Petroleum Corporation has not yet made a final investment decision to build the project, it claims that the next step is the obtention of commercial agreements for the supply of LNG. This significantly reduces the likelihood of a potential need for Cook Inlet gas dedicated to the export of LNG. Lastly, the other potential source for additional demand for Cook Inlet gas is related to the consumption from the Interior Gas Utility. Figure 4 (page 10) shows the demand for Cook Inlet gas coming from needs of the Interior Gas Utility whereby natural gas is transformed into LNG and transported to the Interior for regasification and distribution to customers. Although the Interior Gas Utility has an existing contract with Hilcorp Alaska, LLC for the supply of natural gas from Cook Inlet until 2032, the utility recently announced a 20-year contractual agreement with Hilcorp North Slope, LLC and Harvest Midstream, LLC for the supply of natural gas from the North Slope and conversion to LNG 9. This may reduce the likelihood of future increased demand for Cook Inlet gas by the utility. Although Figure 4 (page 10) shows that the annual consumption remained relatively stable in this period, it is worth noting that the consumption of Cook Inlet gas is seasonal and varies throughout the year, which highlights the important role of gas storage capacity in the Cook Inlet basin. The cost to store such gas is another element in the cost structure that producers of Cook Inlet gas may face. The scope of this study does not include the effects of any lack of available capacity in gas storage fields or the impacts of the cost to store and withdraw gas. 5 See Hanson, Kirk; Michael Woloschuk; and Henry Kim (2021). “NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Donlin Gold Project, Alaska, USA.” https://www.novagold.com/_resources/projects/Technical-Report-Donlin-Gold-2021.pdf 6 See https://www.barrick.com/English/news/news-details/2022/donlin-gold-reports-excellent-initial-2022-drill- program-results/default.aspx. 7 See https://agdc.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Hydrogen-Hub-Application-Announcement-Final.pdf. 8 See https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/marathon-gets-more-time-build-lng-import-project-alaska-2022- 08-16/. 9 1/17/2023 IGU Special Board Meeting Packet at https://www.interiorgas.com/board-documents/. 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 12 Besides production costs, this study includes royalties producers must pay as another component in the economic limit imposed to the technically recoverable gas. In doing so, this study uses the corresponding royalty rates for each producing field in the Cook Inlet basin as well as any applicable decision by the DNR allowing for the reduction of the royalty rates pursuant to AS 38.05.180(f)(4)10 and AS 38.05.180(f)(6)11. This study also considers another type of royalty interest: overriding royalty interests. Much like the case of royalty, they represent another claim on the gross revenues from the production of oil and gas in the Cook Inlet fields before the deduction of operating and capital costs. Typically, these overriding royalty interests result from transfers of working interest ownership in the oil and gas leases or farmout agreements. In some cases, the burden from these overriding royalty interests can be as high as 12.5% which, in combination with the royalty share, can be a significant burden to the economic viability of an oil and gas field. Production of oil and gas in Alaska, even where subsurface rights are not owned by the State of Alaska, is subject to oil and gas production tax under AS 43.55. Similarly, tangible assets associated with oil and gas production in Alaska are subject to property tax under AS 43.56. Thus, in calculating the economic limit of technically recoverable gas production, this study includes an approximation of production tax and property tax obligations stemming from operating oil and gas fields in the Cook Inlet basin. The result of imposing the economic limitation to the technically recoverable gas production assumes that such outlook for the supply of gas will be fully matched by the market demand at the prices used by the study. In other words, this forecast does not account for the impacts on future prices of Cook Inlet gas resulting from possible substitution with alternative energy sources that could become available at better commercial terms and thus affect the market demand for Cook Inlet gas throughout the forecast period. Lastly, this study does not account for the effects that the economic limitation at the field level could have on the economic viability of other fields or the Cook Inlet basin. For example, assume that there are two gas-producing fields that connect to a gas pipeline to transport the gas and deliver it to a buyer. If one of these two fields reaches the end of its economic life, then the throughput in the gas pipeline will be lower. This lower throughput will generate, holding other factors constant, a higher transportation cost on a per-unit basis, which will then translate into a higher cost for the surviving gas- producing field, thus potentially accelerating the end of its economic life. Another example of the basin- wide economic effect that is not captured in this study is the impact that some fields reaching the end of their economic lives could have on the service industry. A fewer number of surviving gas-producing fields could lead to the downsizing of the service industry in terms of providers or the availability of rigs. Forecast The Division developed a probabilistic forecast methodology from currently producing pools, which applied a modified bootstrapping technique to produce a P10, P50, and P90 rate profile for each pool. The P50 profile represents the median production forecast of the pool; implying there is 50-50 chance of actual production being above or below this forecast. There is a 10% chance that the actual production will exceed the P10 profile and there is a 90% chance that the actual production will be above the P90 10 This corresponds to the reduction of the royalty rates for a period of ten years on leases in the Cook Inlet basin when there is a well discovering a previously undiscovered oil or gas pool. 11 This represents a mechanism determining the reduction of royalty rates for oil production from certain platforms when such production is lower than a given threshold. 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 13 profile. When applying this technique, there is an 80% chance that the actual production profile of every pool will occur between the P10 and P90 profile. The application of production ranges to currently producing pools is meant to apply risk to the production forecast. The P90-P50-P10 production profiles show the possible range of future production and is derived from different trends of historical production data. Type curves were equally applied to all relevant future wells drilled for fields that are active and have plans for continued development. Collectively, these future wells create an assumed drilling pace of 15 development wells per year into the future based on historical development wells drilled between 2009 and 2019 and confidential information received from operators (Figure 5). DCA pool forecasts and type curve profiles are combined and aggregated to produce a basin-wide forecast. This is then subjected to economic modeling to derive economic limits using revenue, fiscal, and cost factors to estimate remaining reserves. The probabilistic range of total remaining gas volumes in Cook Inlet with no economics factored (Untruncated) is 1,404 bcf (High Case), 1,101 bcf (Mid Case), 843 bcf (Low Case), and 1,109 bcf (calculated Mean Case12), including associated gas from oil production (see Figure 6, page 14). Forecasted associated gas accounts for 1–3% of total gas being forecasted between the Low and High Cases, respectively. 12 In this report, the Mean Case is a weighted average of the Low, Mid, and High cases. Specifically, this is the result of 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀𝐶𝐶𝑀𝑀=(𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶+4×𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶+𝐻𝐻𝑀𝑀𝐻𝐻ℎ 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶)6 . 05101520253035 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 AverageCountsCook Inlet Development Wells Average annual development wells drilled: ≈ 15 per year Figure 5. Historical development wells drilled in the Cook Inlet basin between 2009 and 2019 with an average of 15 development wells drilled per year 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 14 Figure 6 shows the impact of the future wells to be drilled in the oncoming years. This is reflected in the saw-toothed pattern, which corresponds to the ongoing development drilling in the initial period of the forecast. Figure 6. Untruncated High-Mid-Low-Mean Streams in thousands of cubic feet per day (mcfd) High Case (P1) Mid Case (P1) Low Case (P1) Mean Case (P1) Total Gas Reserves (bcf) 1,404.0 Total Gas Reserves (bcf) 1,101.4 Total Gas Reserves (bcf) 843.2 Total Gas Reserves (bcf) 1,108.8 Gas (bcf) 1,361.7 Gas (bcf) 1,079.3 Gas (bcf) 832.4 Gas (bcf) 1,085.2 Associated Gas (bcf) 42.3 Associated Gas (bcf) 22.1 Associated Gas (bcf) 10.8 Associated Gas (bcf) 23.6 The probabilistic range of total remaining gas volumes at Cook Inlet with economics factored (Truncated) is 1,109 bcf (High Case), 824 bcf (Mid Case), 603 bcf (Low Case), and 820 bcf (calculated Mean Case), including associated gas from oil production (see Figure 7, page 15). Forecasted associated gas accounts for 1–4% of total gas being forecasted between the Low and High Cases, respectively. The next graph (Figure 7, page 15) shows the impact of the economic limit test. Contrary to the case of the previous graph (Figure 6), not every field would continue producing until the last year of the forecast period. Specifically, some fields making up the Cook Inlet basin aggregate gas forecast would experience negative cash flows, which will cause the operators to shut down these fields and thus cease the production of gas to the market. Figure 8 (page 15) shows a focused comparison of the probabilistic forecast versus actual production through October 31, 2022. - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 Gas Rate (mcfd)Cook Inlet Gas Forecast Historical Low Case Mid Case High Case Mean Case 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 15 Figure 7. Truncated High-Mid-Low-Mean Streams in thousands of cubic feet per day (mcfd) High Case (P1) Mid Case (P1) Low Case (P1) Mean Case (P1) Total Gas Reserves (bcf) 1,108.9 Total Gas Reserves (bcf) 823.9 Total Gas Reserves (bcf) 602.5 Total Gas Reserves (bcf) 820.2 Gas (bcf) 1,066.6 Gas (bcf) 807.9 Gas (bcf) 597.2 Gas (bcf) 803.2 Associated Gas (bcf) 42.3 Associated Gas (bcf) 16.0 Associated Gas (bcf) 5.3 Associated Gas (bcf) 17.0 Figure 8. Actual production through October 31, 2022 (in thousands of cubic feet per day (mcfd)), overlayed and compared with the probabilistic forecast beginning 2022. 50,000 500,000 Gas Rate (mcfd)Cook Inlet Gas Forecast Historical Actuals Low Case Mid Case High Case Mean Case - 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000 Gas Rate (mcfd)Cook Inlet Gas Forecast Historical Low Case Mid Case High Case Mean Case 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 16 Figure 9. Annualized Gas Volume with demand in billion cubic feet per year (untruncated) Figures 9 through 11 show alternative displays of the forecast in the form of bar charts. Figure 9 is an annualized gas volume forecast, while Figure 10 includes economic truncations factored for the Low, Mid, calculated Mean, and High cases. Figure 10. Annualized Gas Volume with demand in billion cubic feet per year (truncated) - 20 40 60 80 100 120 Billion Cubic FeetCook Inlet Gas Annualized Volume Forecast Annual High Case Annual Mid Case Annual Mean Case Annual Low Case Demand - 20 40 60 80 100 120 Billion Cubic FeetCook Inlet Gas Annualized Volume Forecast Annual High Case Annual Mid Case Annual Mean Case Annual Low Case Demand 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 17 Figure 11. Proved developed & undeveloped Cook Inlet gas in billion cubic feet per year Figures 9 through 10 (page 17) also show the assumed steady demand profile for Cook Inlet gas of 70 bcf per year. Figure 11 (page 17) is an annualized gas volume forecast of the mean case with economic truncations factored and a decomposition of the proved developed and incremental proved undeveloped tranches. The latter represents the contribution of gas production from the assumed schedule of 15 development wells per year. These figures suggest that the Cook Inlet gas forecast, after the use of economic limitations, has the potential to fully meet the assumed profile of demand for Cook Inlet gas until 2026–2027. Admittedly, the use of different assumptions for costs and for the technically recoverable gas from the oil and gas fields in Cook Inlet would generate a slightly different forecast for the economically feasible gas expected to be produced. Specifically, the timing by which some fields would reach the end of their economic lives would change with the use of different assumptions. However, these figures also show that, after several years, the forecast for the economically feasible gas production is significantly below 70 bcf per year and thus fails to meet the assumed demand profile. It is important to reiterate that the scope of this study focuses on the proved developed and proved undeveloped reserves categories and by design ignores the impact of a potential gas development project that is currently considered in the contingent or prospective resources categories. Studies Compared Since 2009, the Division has released four studies evaluating Cook Inlet gas reserves and Estimated Ultimate Recovery (EUR). Reserves were calculated in different ways and assigned to different categories in the four studies. For example, DNR’s 2018 study incorporated future supplies by formulating hypothetical development projects required to produce undeveloped volumes and estimate each project’s economic viability. - 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Billion Cubic FeetCook Inlet Gas Proved Developed & Proved Undeveloped (Truncated Mean Case) Proved Developed (Mean Case)Incremental Proved Undeveloped (Mean Case)Demand 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 18 For comparison, estimated reserves were shown as a single figure for each study (Figure 12). There was an overall upward trend in EUR for Cook Inlet but had not always increased from one study to the next. This is an example of reserves growth, a common phenomenon in producing basins as they mature, where continuing investment in producing fields yields more production than could be forecasted earlier in field life. Figure 12. Division of Oil and Gas Studies Compared For 2022, decline curve and type curve analyses indicate there is 820 bcf of remaining 1P (proved) reserves, including dry gas and associated gas that can be recovered from currently existing pools (truncated calculated Mean Case). As of December 31,2021, the Cook Inlet basin cumulatively produced 8,876 bcf of gas. Combining the remaining 1P (proved) reserves to cumulative gas produced provides an EUR of 9,696 bcf for the Cook Inlet basin (truncated calculated Mean case). This study does not attempt to estimate 2P and 3P reserves, which would include more speculative gas volumes. These results do not include the gas discovered at Cosmopolitan, where promising gas test rates bode well for future additions to the Cook Inlet gas reserves base. Proprietary early-stage volumetric estimates for these projects will continue to be refined as development proceeds, but at this point, there is no production history for quantifying gas reserves through decline curve analysis. Summary This report summarizes an integrative effort to quantify remaining gas reserves in Cook Inlet. The forecasting methodology provides a probabilistic assessment of forecasted currently producing pools and pools under development. It also aims at reducing the variance in gas production forecasting by applying some stricter criteria on expected production. This approach could potentially lead to a more conservative look at the future, but ultimately it is one that assigns appropriate weight to current production to capture operational and reservoir trends observed in the past and incorporates production from expected field development. 7,756 8,308 8,542 8,876 1,142 1,183 700 820 8,898 9,491 9,242 9,696 - 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 2009 Study 2015 Study 2018 Study 2022 StudyEstimated Ultimate Recovery (bcf)Cumulative Gas Produced At Time of Study Total Estimated Reserves . 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast 19 Acknowledgements The authors would like to recognize and thank Dr. Maduabuchi Pascal Umekwe for his significant contributions and insights regarding the creation, development, and implementation of modelling efforts that enabled aggregating technical forecasts, without which this project would not have been possible. The authors would also like to acknowledge Linda Liu and Travis Peltier for their technical forecasting contributions; Shaun Peterson for providing data applicable to field developments in the Cook Inlet basin; and to Laura Gregersen for support in writing the geologic setting section. References Hanson, Kirk; Michael Woloschuk; and Henry Kim (2021). “NI 43-101 Technical Report on the Donlin Gold Project, Alaska, USA.” https://www.novagold.com/_resources/projects/Technical-Report- Donlin-Gold-2021.pdf Hartz, J., Kremer, M., Krouskop, D., Silliphant, L., Houle, J., Anderson, P., & LePain, D. (2009). Preliminary Engineering and Geological Evaluation of Remaining Cook Inlet Gas Reserves. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Munisteri, I., Burdick, J., & Hartz, J., (2015). Updated Engineering Evaluation of Remaining Cook Inlet Gas Reserves. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Redlinger, M., Burdick, J., & Gregersen, L. (2018). Cook Inlet Natural Gas Availability. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Society of Petroleum Engineers, World Petroleum Council, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers, Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Society of Petrophysicists and Well Log Analysts, European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers. (2018, June). Petroleum Resources Management System. U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - independent statistics and analysis. Natural Gas Annual Respondent Query System (EIA-176 Data through 2021). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/ngqs/ U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - independent statistics and analysis. Form EIA-923 detailed data with previous form data (EIA-906/920). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/ 46+ www.akenergyauthority.org MISSION AEA pursues energy solutions to meet the unique needs of rural and urban communities. IMPACT AEA positively affects nearly every community and ratepayer in Alaska. LEGACY For more than 46 years, AEA has ensured Alaskans have access to safe, reliable, affordable energy. Reducing the cost of energy in Alaska 2022ANNUAL REPORT The South Fork Hydroelectric Plant produces power equivalent to that consumed by approximately 800 homes. CONTENTS About AEA Message from the Governor Message from the Chair Message from the Executive Director Owned Assets Power Cost Equalization Rural Energy Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Grants and Loans Financial Highlights Board of Directors Executive Team 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 16 22 24 26 27 About AEA AEA provides energy solutions to meet the unique needs of Alaska’s rural and urban communities. 02 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT Dan and Carmen Janke inside their South Fork Hydroelectric Plant, located along Hiland Road, in Eagle River. The project, which produces enough power equivalent to that consumed by approximately 800 homes, was supported by AEA’s Power Project Fund. An independent power producer, the facility provides Matanuska Electric Association with renewable energy at an economical, fixed-rate cost. Cover Photo Created in 1976 by the Alaska Legislature, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the state’s energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. AEA positively affects nearly every community and ratepayer in Alaska. Whether building modern and code- compliant bulk fuel tank farms, upgrading to high-efficiency generators in rural powerhouse systems or integrating renewable energy projects, AEA emphasizes community-based project management. AEA works to diversify Alaska’s energy portfolio, lead energy policy, invest in Alaska’s energy infrastructure, and provide technical and community assistance to rural Alaska. AEA built and owns several key pieces of Railbelt electric infrastructure for the benefit of Alaskans. Through its Renewable Energy Fund and the Power Project Fund, AEA offers grants and loans to qualifying projects in the energy projects. AEA also manages the Power Cost Equalization Program, and several Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs to grow Alaska’s clean energy economy. This publication on the activities and financial condition of AEA is submitted in accordance with Alaska Statute 44.83.940. Design and production by AEA. A total of 500 copies of the report were printed at Service Business Printing located in Anchorage, Alaska at a cost of $6.50 per copy. 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 03 Dear Fellow Alaskans, The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) was created in 1976 to promote, finance, and construct power projects to diversify Alaska’s energy portfolio. This time coincided with Alaska’s foray into the arena of large-scale energy infrastructure projects. More than four decades later, the pursuit of energy diversification remains a top priority for our energy independence, security, and sustainability. As the lead agency for statewide of power from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. Improvements to transmission and energy storage infrastructure will increase the reliability and resiliency of the grid, create operational efficiencies, and continue to provide affordable, reliable power to Alaskans. This bonding by AEA, in partnership with the Railbelt utilities, comes at no additional cost to ratepayers and does not add to the burden on the state treasury. Alaska’s energy needs are great and so is our potential to harness it. By continuing to pursue energy that is sustainable, dependable, and affordable we can lower the cost of energy for rural and urban Alaska, open up economic opportunities for all Alaskans, and attract future investments to our Great State. Sincerely, MIKE DUNLEAVY Governor Message fromthe Governor energy program development, AEA is central to diversifying our energy mix. To bolster and guide this collaborative effort between Alaska stakeholders, public and private alike, I established the Office of Energy Innovation. Together with our partners, we will develop innovative, sustainable, and renewable technologies to ensure Alaska’s energy independence and its position as a national and world energy leader. As part of our ongoing commitment to rural Alaska, we invested tens of millions into the design, construction, and maintenance of power systems and bulk fuel tank farms in 19 communities. These investments improve and sustain critical energy infrastructure that enables nearly 200 remote communities’ access to affordable and dependable power. To support the future integration of renewable energy projects on the Railbelt, AEA closed on $166 million in bond financing to improve the efficiency and capacity LEARN MORE ABOUT THE OFFICE OF ENERGY INNOVATION AT https://gov.alaska.gov/admin-orders/administrative-order-no-340/ 04 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT On behalf of the board of directors, it is my privilege to introduce the Alaska Energy Authority’s (AEA) 2022 Annual Report for fiscal year 2021-2022. This report highlights AEA’s key accomplishments, notable initiatives, and financial performance from the preceding year. AEA owns the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, which has provided some of the lowest-cost wholesale power in the state for more than 30 years. To augment its economic power dispatch capacity, AEA, in partnership with the Railbelt utilities, is exploring the overall feasibility of increasing capacity with the Dixon Diversion project. Water from Dixon Glacier basin would be used to increase reservoir levels to allow for greater power production at Bradley Lake. This project would be the largest hydropower project in Alaska since Bradley Lake. In addition to keeping energy costs low, it is expected to provide additional ancillary public benefits including job creation and integration with other renewable energy resources. For the nearly 200 rural communities who benefit from the Power Cost Equalization program, the Governor and Legislature increased the maximum kilowatt-hours (kWh) available to residential customers for reimbursement from 500 kWhs to 750 kWhs per month. PCE, which helps bridge the gap in the cost of energy between urban and rural Alaska, serves as a crucial lifeline for rural Alaskans. This effort underscores AEA’s commitment to rural Alaska. Through its Renewable Energy Fund (REF) program, AEA successfully secured $15 million, the largest appropriation for the REF since the Fiscal Year 2014, to fund all 27 projects as recommended to the Legislature. These projects will provide an array of benefits across the state including the proving of nascent technologies, improvements in rural systems design, and continued integration of renewable energy technologies, further diversifying Alaska’s energy portfolio. As I reflect on another year of change and progress, I want to thank all AEA’s employees for their extraordinary commitment to our mission and the people of Alaska, and I look forward to 2023. J. DANA PRUHS Chair Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, Alaska Message from the Chair AEA is focused on the development of renewable energy projects that move Alaska toward a clean energy future.““ 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 05 Throughout 2022, AEA pursued innovative energy projects that will help ensure Alaskans have access to safe, reliable, affordable energy. This progress would not have been possible without the continued support of the Governor and the Legislature. We also recognize the significant contributions of our federal, state and local partners, public and private alike, for the milestones achieved to date. Alaska is benefiting from the passage of the new Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). For decades, Alaska’s unique infrastructure needs have far exceeded the funds available. With these funding sources, AEA is positioned to advance existing plans, pay for much-needed upgrades to the state’s largest electrical grid, and fund new and existing electric vehicle-related programs. As part of IIJA, the Grid Deployment Office is administering a $10.5 billion Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships Program to enhance grid flexibility and improve the resilience of the power system against growing threats of extreme weather and climate change. These programs will accelerate the deployment of transformative projects that will help to ensure the reliability of the power sector’s infrastructure, so all American communities have access to affordable, reliable, clean electricity anytime, anywhere. In response, AEA has submitted four concept papers in preparation for potential project funding. The IIJA also established the Grid Resilience Formula Fund Program, which allocates $60 million to Alaska over five years, outside of the direct federally recognized tribe allocations. Federal funding for years one and two for the State is set at $12.1 million and $10 million respectively. The program aims to reduce power outages in extreme weather and natural disasters by improving the resilience of the electric grid. The $22.1 million for funding year’s one and two will be made available to program applicants in AEA’s first solicitation cycle upon approval of AEA’s program plan by the United States Department of Energy. The IIJA also makes $11 million available to protect Alaska’s grid infrastructure against cyberattacks. AEA is responsible for developing the State of Alaska’s Energy Security Plan. This plan provides the federal government, the Governor, state and local government agencies, and the energy industry with a blueprint designed to address a potential or actual energy emergency caused by supply In the past year, we pursued innovative energy projects that will enhance the state’s current energy assets and expand its renewable energy portfolio.““ 06 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT Message from the Executive Director disruptions, a rapid and unsustainable increase in energy prices, or other energy emergency. It is a manual for state government leaders charged with the responsibility of ensuring the health, welfare, and safety of Alaskans during these emergency events. In September 2022, AEA and the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) received approval from the United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to implement Alaska’s EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan to build a network of EV charging stations along Alaska’s highway corridors unlocking $19 million to expand EV charging infrastructure in Alaska. Under the IIJA, Alaska is allocated a total of $52 million over five years to support the expansion of an EV charging network in the state, with opportunities to apply for an additional $2.5 billion in competitive grant funding. In collaboration with DOT&PF, AEA is working to ensure efficient and equitable deployment across Alaska. To support the mission of our military members, AEA in collaboration with the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), applied for and was awarded $12,752,540 from the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation’s Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program in September 2022 to expand electricity to the Black Rapids Training Site. The grant will enable Black Rapids to transition from diesel generator power to electric distribution along the Richardson Highway, in turn improving resiliency, saving money, and benefitting the environment. As we look toward the future of AEA and recognize the unprecedented level of federal funding that will become available in 2022 and beyond, we see that AEA is well positioned with existing programs and shovel-ready projects to facilitate Alaska’s transition toward cleaner energy and a more diverse economy. CURTIS W. THAYER Executive Director Last fall, AEA was part of a delegation of Alaskans that visited the United States Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory to learn about microreactor opportunities in Alaska. Saint George Island, Alaska 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 07 Between 2008-2021, the Alaska Intertie saved GVEA customers an average of $37 million per year. Alaska Intertie, Photo by GVEA 08 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT OwnedAssets Throughout the 1980s, AEA developed the state’s energy resources to help diversify Alaska’s economy and provide affordable energy to Alaskans. AEA built and owns several key pieces of Railbelt electric infrastructure — the Alaska Intertie, the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, and the Sterling to Quartz Creek transmission line. These assets benefit Railbelt consumers by reducing the cost of power. Alaska Intertie Completed in 1986, the Alaska Intertie is a 170-mile long, 345-kilovolt (kV) transmission line that stretches between Willow and Healy and operates at 138 kV. The Intertie connects Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), the utility that serves areas north of the Alaska Range, with Southcentral Alaska utilities. It was funded with State of Alaska appropriations totaling $124 million and has no debt service. The Intertie provides significant cost savings through the transmission of economy energy to GVEA. It delivers to GVEA its power share of Bradley Lake and enables the sharing of reserve generation capacity between the Anchorage and Fairbanks load centers. Operation of the Intertie is governed by the Alaska Intertie Agreement signed in 1985 and amended thereafter. The parties to the agreement are AEA, Chugach Electric Association, GVEA, and Matanuska Electric Association. Each of these entities has a seat on the Intertie Management Committee (IMC), which has responsibility for managing the Intertie. Through AEA’s leadership as an IMC member and with its step-in rights on financial decisions regarding the Intertie, AEA is uniquely positioned to ensure that ratepayers across the electrically interconnected Railbelt region benefit as intended under the current Alaska Intertie Agreement. In Fiscal Year 2021, the IMC created an Asset Management Plan for the Alaska Intertie. The plan includes a preventive maintenance program, multi-year projections of maintenance and repair funding, climate change considerations, and analysis of factors affecting future use. The plan incorporates and facilitates some of the major changes anticipated on the Railbelt, such as increasing renewable power generation, reduced greenhouse gas production, and participation by Independent Power Producers. The Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project was energized in September 1991. The project, located near Homer, Alaska, has been a low- cost source of electricity for the Railbelt for more than 30 years. The 120-megawatt (MW) facility generates about 10 percent of the total annual power used by Railbelt electric utilities at some of the lowest-cost power to more than 550,000 Alaskans. The power generation potential of Bradley Lake was first studied in 1955 by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. AEA, then the Alaska Power Authority, assumed responsibility for the project in 1982. To date, the total project cost is approximately $400 million. The project was funded through legislative appropriations and AEA revenue bonds that are being repaid by the participating utilities. The Bradley Lake Project Management Committee manages the project, subject to AEA’s non-delegable rights, duties, and responsibilities. In 2020, Bradley Lake was expanded to increase energy generation through the West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion Project. In late 2020, AEA purchased a component of the interconnected transmission system (Sterling- Quartz) located on the Kenai Peninsula to upgrade, reduce losses and increase reliability. In December 2022, AEA and the Railbelt utilities closed on $166 million in bond financing to improve the efficiency and deliverable capacity of power from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. The bond proceeds will be used solely to pay for transmission line upgrades and battery energy storage systems that will reduce the constraints on the Railbelt grid by improving the Kenai Peninsula’s transmission capacity to export power from Bradley Lake, while also allowing for the integration of additional renewable energy generation. Funding for the projects is coming from payments by the five Railbelt utilities above those required to retire the Bradley Lake project bonds, and will come at no additional cost to ratepayers or added burden on the State treasury. These projects include: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project AEA, in partnership with the Railbelt utilities, is studying a new project to optimize the energy potential of Bradley Lake. Similar to Battle Creek, the Dixon Diversion Project would divert water from Dixon Glacier increasing the annual energy production of Bradley Lake by 50 percent, or the equivalent of 24,000- 30,000 homes. It would be the largest renewable project in Alaska in the last 30 years. Additional studies are funded by the State and Railbelt utilities. Read more at https://www. akenergyauthority.org/pressreleases Upgrade transmission line between Bradley Lake and Soldotna Substation; Upgrade transmission line between Soldotna Substation and Sterling Substation; Upgrade transmission line between Sterling Substation and Quartz Creek Substation; and Battery Energy Storage Systems for Grid Stabilization. AEA, Railbelt utilities pursue Alaska’s largest hydropower project in 30 years 10% Bradley Lake generates about 10 percent of the total annual electrical energy used by Railbelt electric utilities. ENERGY $0.04 From 1995 through 2020, the project averaged 392,000 MWh of energy production annually at $0.04 per kWh. GENERATION COST PER KWH 120MW Bradley Lake generators are rated to produce up to 120 MW of power. CAPACITY 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 09 PCE helps to lower the cost of electrical power borne by rural residents and community facilities to a level comparable to that paid by residents of Alaska’s larger cities. The PCE program makes payments to eligible rural electric utility companies and those companies credit their residential and community facility customers with payments made from the program up to a level of consumption. Those payments result in a reduction of the unit cost of power to residential and community customers. The pre-PCE cost of electricity in rural communities is almost always significantly more than the electricity costs borne by customers in Alaska’s urban areas. Residential and community facility buildings and assets in 193 communities see the benefits of PCE credits. AEA calculates the amount an eligible electric utility is due based on a filing made by the utility and issues monthly payments. The PCE program staff also provides technical assistance to utility clerks who need help preparing and filing PCE reports. The PCE disbursements are funded from the PCE Endowment Fund. Alaska Statute (AS) 42.45.085 provides that five percent of the PCE Endowment Fund’s three-year monthly average market value may be appropriated to the PCE program. In recent years, the five- percent draw on the endowment has been sufficient to fully fund PCE disbursements. Fiscal year 2018 saw the enactment of statutory changes that addresses how excess PCE Endowment Fund earnings are to be The Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE) was established in 1984 to lower the cost of electrical power borne by rural residents and community facilities to a level comparable to that paid by residents of Alaska’s larger cities. AEA, along with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), administers the program that serves 82,000 Alaskans in 193 communities that are primarily reliant on diesel fuel for power generation. 10 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT used. These changes allowed the endowment fund earnings to pay for PCE program administration costs fully and the earnings could also contribute $30 million to the Community Assistance Program and up to another $25 million for the Renewable Energy Fund Program, Rural Power System Upgrade projects, and the Bulk Fuel Revolving Loan fund. During the 32nd Legislative Session, the Governor and the Legislature approved a 50 percent increase to PCE payments from 500 to 750 kilowatt-hours (kWh) helping rural Alaskans to lower their cost of energy. 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 11 The cost of electricity for Alaska’s rural residents is notably higher than for urban residents. PCE lowers the cost of electric service paid by rural residents. Ultimately ensuring the viability of rural utilities and the availability of reliable, centralized power. Power Cost Equalization 750 kWh RESIDENTIAL Residential customers are eligible for PCE credit up to 750 kWhs per month. PCE highlights $27.4M FUNDS DISTRIBUTED In Fiscal Year 2023, AEA disbursed $27.4 million for payment of PCE to rural electric utilities for the benefit of rural communities. The PCE program reduces the electric rates paid by rural consumers to levels comparable to those paid by consumers in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. The program reimburses the utility for credits it has extended to its customers. This happens after the utility reports its sales and provides a customer ledger to AEA. AEA reviews the utility monthly report and pays the utility based on rates calculated by the state’s utility overseer, the RCA. The RCA determines if a utility is eligible to participate in the program and calculates the rate that the PCE program reimburses each eligible utility. AEA determines the eligibility of community facilities and residential customers and provides reimbursement to the electric utility for the PCE credits extended to customers. As per AS 44.83.940, AEA produces an annual PCE Statistical Report. Community and utility data are based on information submitted by utilities. To view the report online, visit www.akenergyauthority.org/pce PCE Statistical Report Golovin, Alaska 70 kWh PUBLIC FACILITIES Community facilities can receive PCE credit for up to 70 kWhs per month multiplied by the number of residents in a community. In rural Alaska, AEA constructs bulk fuel tank farms, diesel powerhouses, and electrical distribution grids. Through circuit rider, emergency response, and training for operators and utility managers, AEA provides the resources necessary to support the operation of these facilities. Rural Energy Rural Power Systems Upgrade AEA’s Rural Power Systems Upgrade (RPSU) program seeks to improve power generation in small Alaska villages that are located off the electrical-grid system. Upgrades range from complete powerhouse replacement to minor maintenance and improvements. A project may include efficiency improvements, powerhouse upgrades or replacements, line assessments, demand-side enhancements, heat recovery, and repairs to generation and distribution systems. The Denali Commission is AEA’s major federal funding partner, which requires a state match of 50 percent for non-distressed communities or 20 percent for distressed communities. RPSU also manages the State’s allocation through the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA). Pending yearly funding from Congress, states can apply for DERA funds based on population. In addition to the state program, EPA also has a tribal DERA program that awards funds competitively nationwide. AEA uses DERA funds exclusively to replace prime power diesel engines in rural Alaska. AEA selects communities for engine replacement through the DERA program based on current engine condition, redundancy, efficiency, and engine eligibility. In Calendar Year 2022, AEA was in construction of three RPSU powerhouse replacement projects in Napaskiak, Nikolai, and Venetie. Additional RPSU design work was completed for Rampart and Nelson Lagoon. Engine replacement with DERA funds, was completed in Chenega (two engines) and design started in Grayling (two engines) and Akiachak (four engines). AEA has switched emphasis from full facility replacement to improving operations and maintenance to maximize the benefit to rural power systems. There are currently 20 active Maintenance and Improvement (M&I) projects, which target high, return investment in eligible community power systems. Typical projects include replacing old switchgear and control systems, maximizing heat recovery, and updating engine controls to improve efficiency and sometimes replacing diesel gensets. 12 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT The BFU program repairs or upgrades fuel storage facilities in communities with less than 2,000 residents. These facilities help decrease the per-unit cost of fuel by allowing the community to purchase fuel in bulk quantities. Upgrading bulk fuel facilities reduces the unit cost of energy by replacing leaking tanks and reducing the risk of future tank and equipment failure.Nunapitchuk, Alaska, Photo by STG Incorporated 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 13 Bulk fuel Upgrade In rural Alaska, diesel fuel is largely used for power generation and heating, while gasoline is used for transportation. Most rural villages are located along rivers or on the coast and get their goods via barge, including heating fuel and fuel for diesel-fired electrical generators. Delivery is often limited by the season or the weather. Barge fuel is delivered once or twice a year to most communities. Many of rural Alaska’s bulk fuel facilities were built in the mid-1900s and are not compliant with modern regulations. Yet they remain in service until updated or replaced, posing risks to personal safety and the environment. AEA’s Bulk Fuel Upgrade (BFU) program repairs or upgrades fuel storage facilities that help lower the cost of fuel per unit by allowing the community to buy fuel in bulk quantities. In Calendar Year 2022, there were six full BFU projects underway. In recent years, AEA has switched its emphasis from bulk fuel facility replacement to Maintenance and Improvement (M&I) projects. Currently, 20 M&I projects are planned or underway, which target high-return investment in eligible community power systems. The RPSU program builds and retrofits facilities in communities with less than 2,000 people. Powerhouse upgrade projects replace outdated, inefficient mechanical systems with new electronically controlled generator sets, providing stable and reliable power. The typical efficiency improvement in diesel generation is between 10 and 20 percent. Chignik Lake, Alaska AEA provides soup to nuts technical assistance to rural utilities to ensure that infrastructure lasts its full economic life, preventing catastrophic electrical emergencies, and building community self-sufficiency. This helps assure safe, reliable, operation of rural Alaska electric generation equipment in which millions of dollars are invested. Rural Training AEA’s Rural Training program develops operators with the skills necessary to operate their energy infrastructure and keep operators compliant with current industry standards. In Calendar Year 2022, 36 operators from 33 communities trained in Bulk Fuel, Person in Charge, and Power Plant Operations at the Alaska Vocational Technical Center. AEA is pioneering the use of 3D imaging coupled with data from every rural powerhouse to create new ways for operators to learn about their site’s specific needs. AEA has converted some operation and maintenance manuals into an electronic form that has been digitized into the 3D imagery of the powerhouse. Training videos are also linked to the imagery. This allows an operator to easily find, diagnose, and fix equipment in the powerhouse. Circuit Rider and Technical Assistance The Circuit Rider and Technical Assistance programs provide essential assistance to reduce the number of emergency responses needed when there are power outages in rural communities with a population between 20 and 2,000. Rural utility operators and managers are instructed by AEA staff on the proper operations and maintenance of their generation and distribution infrastructure. In Calendar Year 2022, Circuit Riders assisted eligible utilities over 390 times in providing remote monitoring, training, technical consultation. On site assistance and minor repairs to power systems were performed in 50 communities. Electrical Emergency Assistance AEA assists rural communities during extended power outages to reduce the likelihood of death and property damage. In an electrical emergency, AEA assists the utility in responding and restoring electricity transmission and generation. Financial or technical assistance, including emergency repairs, may be provided. AEA responds to a real or potential emergency situation before it becomes a disaster or major loss. Engines, generators, and transformers may need to be purchased and/or installed as part of an emergency response. In Calendar Year 2022, five emergencies were declared. 14 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT TRAINING VIDEOS ARE ON OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL https://www.youtube.com/@alaskaenergyauthority7923/videos AEA provides soup to nuts technical assistance to rural utilities to ensure that infrastructure lasts its full economic life, preventing catastrophic electrical emergencies, and building community self-sufficiency. This helps assure safe, reliable, operation of rural Alaska electric generation equipment in which millions of dollars are invested. AEA pioneers 3D imaging to understand rural powerhouse needs Circuit Riders continues to update the Matterport 3D imaging of the rural powerhouse plants after completing the inventory and assessment project. This assists them when speaking with local operators. The above image shows several icons. These are Matter tags which when clicked on provide additional information on the specific component, e.g. engine manual, procedure on how to change the fuel filter, etc. The addition of Matter tags is a separate project aimed at converting the operations and maintenance manuals into a digital interface. 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 15 Rural Training AEA’s Rural Training program develops operators with the skills necessary to operate their energy infrastructure and keep operators compliant with current industry standards. In Calendar Year 2022, 36 operators from 33 communities trained in Bulk Fuel, Person in Charge, and Power Plant Operations at the Alaska Vocational Technical Center. AEA is pioneering the use of 3D imaging coupled with data from every rural powerhouse to create new ways for operators to learn about their site’s specific needs. AEA has converted some operation and maintenance manuals into an electronic form that has been digitized into the 3D imagery of the powerhouse. Training videos are also linked to the imagery. This allows an operator to easily find, diagnose, and fix equipment in the powerhouse. Circuit Rider and Technical Assistance The Circuit Rider and Technical Assistance programs provide essential assistance to reduce the number of emergency responses needed when there are power outages in rural communities. In Calendar Year 2022, Circuit Riders assisted eligible utilities over 390 times in providing remote monitoring, training, technical consultation. Onsite assistance and minor repairs to power systems were performed in 50 communities. Electrical Emergency Assistance AEA provides power-related electrical emergency assistance to rural communities. Electrical emergency assistance encompasses risk to life or property due to power failure. In Calendar Year 2022, five emergencies were declared. Biomass Biomass heat reduces diesel fuel use, keeps the money spent on fuel (wood) within the community, and creates local jobs. AEA’s biomass program has funded over 20 biomass woody heating systems for schools and public buildings and provided technical support for more than 50 systems. Along with the United States Forest Service, the program has funded over 170 preliminary studies to evaluate a community’s biomass potential. In 2022, AEA hired a consultant to conduct additional feasibility studies to get projects in the pipeline for development. This year the team focused on developing a much needed pellet mill project in Ketchikan to supply pellets for the region. Hydroelectric Alaska’s biggest source of renewable energy, hydroelectricity, supplies more than 27 percent of the state’s electrical energy in an average water year. About 51 utility-scale hydroelectric projects are supported by AEA. The majority of Alaska’s existing hydro projects are located in the Southeast and Southcentral regions. Projects range from concepts to operational facilities. AEA’s hydroelectric program improves efficiency and quality in development, lowering the cost of construction, and coordinating with state, federal, municipalities, tribal entities, and private investors in analyzing, planning, and generally assisting hydroelectric project development. Hydroelectric power is Alaska’s largest source of renewable energy, supplying about 27 percent of the state’s electrical energy in an average water year. 16 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT Solar Solar photovoltaic (PV) systems continue to gain popularity in Alaska. These systems range from on and off-grid residential to utility-scale PV. Northern latitudes often have impressive solar generation in spring and fall due to clear skies, cool temperatures, dry air, and bright, reflective snow. Solar PV systems can actually exceed their rated output at these times. In 2022, AEA’s Power Project Fund financed an 8.5-megawatt Houston Solar Farm PV project on the Railbelt, and seven solar projects were funded in Round 14 of the REF. AEA has also joined the National Community Solar Partnership, which shares best practices between states. Wind Alaska’s wind energy capacity has increased 400 percent since 2012. Today, wind energy contributes to 2.4 percent of the state’s electrical production, and it is growing. This growth is supported by AEA’s REF program and information shared among wind energy producers and stakeholders. As of right now, REF funding is being used to develop 18 wind projects in rural and urban Alaska. AEA’s Alaska Wind Working Group meets quarterly to discuss policy issues and funding needs to advance wind energy. Additionally, AEA facilitates educational events, including the wind-diesel and energy storage workshop, and assists communities with evaluation and decision-making. 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 17 Run-Of-River Intake at South Fork Hydroelectric Plant, Eagle River, Alaska Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency AEA’s renewable energy programs are central to Alaska’s clean energy economy. The programs work with local governments, non-profits, and tribal organizations to implement new energy solutions. They also provide technical assistance, funding, and training to increase knowledge about cost-saving energy technologies. An integral part of AEA’s energy efficiency and conservation outreach is the Alaska Energy Efficiency Partnership (AEEP), a group of over 50 public, private, and nonprofit organizations that meet quarterly to discuss energy efficiency and conservation efforts in Alaska. Using information sharing and integrated planning, the group seeks to improve the coordination of efforts to promote more energy efficiency and energy conservation behaviors in Alaska. In 2022, Partnership meetings focused on post-pandemic activities and revamping efficiency. At quarterly meetings, members discussed school efficiency, community weatherization, and outreach and education. AEA partnered in the annual Power Pledge Challenge, an initiative from AK EnergySmart aimed at helping youth better understand energy use. The program educates elementary and middle school students in rural and urban Alaska on the basics of energy and the benefits of energy efficiency and conservation at home and school. Schools participate in monthly challenges such as developing community energy profiles, creating energy saving public service announcements, or calculating energy savings by switching to LEDs. This year the program championed energy literacy and educated 1,124 students from 51 classrooms in 20 schools. Alaska Energy Efficiency Partnership Power Pledge Challenge Energy Efficiency and Conservation Efficient production and consumption of energy saves costs, reduces demand, and are often the lowest hanging fruit for energy solutions. It is available in every community in Alaska. AEA focuses its energy efficiency program activities on commercial buildings, public buildings, industrial facilities, and electrical efficiency. In 2022, AEA updated the Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy handbook to reflect the changes made to the program from House Bill 227. Additionally, AEA organizes the collaborative multi-stakeholder group called the Alaska Energy Efficiency Partnership. 18 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT The Alaska Legislature established the Village Energy Efficiency Program (VEEP) in 2010 to reduce per capita energy consumption. For the last several years, AEA leveraged federal State Energy Program funds to meet this mission. In 2022, AEA released a VEEP Request for Applications to fund efficiency programs. Grants totaling $600,000 were awarded to Gakona, Galena, Nenana, and Saint George with $236,363 in community match. Since 2019, 41 VEEP projects have been completed, 1,212 lights have been replaced, and 556,938 kilowatts (kWh) per year will be saved, for a 65 percent reduction in energy consumption. Cost per kWh in these communities ranges between $0.19–$1.00. Village Energy Efficiency Program Metlakatla Indian Community, Alaska 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 19 SIGN UP FOR VEEP PROGRAM NOTICES AND ANNOUNCEMENTS AT https://list.state.ak.us/mailman/listinfo/aea-veep-notices Through VEEP, AEA supported the Metlakatla Indian Community in replacing outdoor lights with efficient light- emitting diode (LED) models, which prevented a planned shutdown of the lights due to reduced hydroelectric generation capacity and resulted in annual energy savings of about 25 percent. Additionally, the project supported the training and development of the local workforce. In 2018, due to prolonged drought conditions that reduced hydroelectric energy generation capacity, the local utility shut off about half of its streetlights to conserve energy and reduce costs. In the wake of this decision, Metlakatla was selected through VEEP’s competitive application process in 2019 to receive $50,000 in combined grant funds from Wells Fargo and AEA to replace 61 high- pressure sodium outdoor lights with LED models. Metlakatla matched the grant with $12,165 of its funds to complete the lighting retrofits. The retrofit has benefited the community substantially. The new LED lights saved $16,613, or about 25 percent, annual energy savings that will offset retrofit costs within a few years. Further, the retrofit saved essential outdoor lighting from being shut down and improved the quality of light for Metlakatla residents during perpetual winter darkness. The retrofit also boosted local energy jobs. VEEP Success Story:Keeping the Lights On VIEW ALASKA’S ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ONLINE AT https://www.akenergyauthority.org/alaskaneviplan Electric Vehicles 20 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT Through its Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group (AKEVWG), AEA made significant progress over the year in leading Alaska’s effort to minimize barriers to EV adoption. AEA leads the AKEVWG, which is comprised of members from across the state including the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, the Alaska Electric Vehicle Association, electric utilities, EV owners, EV vendors, municipalities, prospective charging sites, site hosts, universities, and other stakeholders. The AKEVWG met quarterly and discussed topics such as siting charging stations, climate considerations, power requirements, etc. for publicly accessible charging locations. With Volkswagen Settlement funds and State Energy Program funds, AEA continued its progress to develop an EV fast-charging corridor connecting Healy to Homer and Seward in 2022. Direct current fast chargers (DCFC) were commissioned in Anchorage, Cantwell, and Seward. DCFC sites in Chugiak, Cooper Landing, Healy, Soldotna, and Trapper Creek will be commissioned in the summer of 2023 and will lessen range anxiety. AEA also continues to pursue competitive funding opportunities to expand Alaska’s EV fast-charging infrastructure and community-based chargers throughout the state. AEA is the lead agency for electric vehicle (EV) infrastructure deployment in Alaska. Following the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), also known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, AEA has been conducting public outreach with a variety of stakeholders including local agencies, utilities, and other interested parties to inform Alaska’s plan for deploying EV infrastructure. Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Volkswagen Settlement Fund EV Project Updates NEVI Phases Phase 1 Build out Alaska’s Alternative Fuel Corridor Phase 2 Build out Alaska’s Highway and Marine Highway Systems Phase 3 Install Charging Stations in Rural Hub Communities Phase 4 Urban and “Destination” Locations 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 21 As part of the BIL, the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program distributes $5 billion over the next five years (Fiscal Years 2022-2026) to state departments of transportation to build EV chargers along highway corridors to create a convenient, reliable, and affordable EV charging network nationwide. This infrastructure will serve long distance EV travel along alternative fuel corridors (AFCs). Through NEVI, Alaska will receive more than $52 million over five years to advance a statewide EV fast-charging network. This program will adapt Alaska’s infrastructure system to support reliable, equitable, and sustainable electric transportation. To receive the NEVI funds, Alaska was required to submit a plan by August 1, 2022, demonstrating how the network will be completed to meet requirements set by the United States Department of Energy and U.S. Department of Transportation’s Joint Office for EV Infrastructure Deployment. Alaska’s EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan (The Plan) was developed by AEA and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) with support from various stakeholders. DOT&PF is the responsible recipient of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Title 23 funds. The NEVI program funds will be received by DOT&PF and administered by AEA. Together, AEA and DOT&PF are working to make sure NEVI program funds are used strategically, effectively, and efficiently. The Plan, which was approved by the FHWA in September of 2022, addresses charging infrastructure deployment, existing and future conditions, contracting, implementation, and program evaluation, as well as documentation of state agency coordination, stakeholder outreach, and public engagement. EV charging placement across the state will be implemented in phases to establish statewide connectivity. In early 2023, AEA will release a Request for Applications to competitively select site hosts for the first phase of NEVI program implementation. This round of funding will be utilized to build NEVI compliant charging stations along AFCs from Anchorage to Fairbanks. National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program $52M Through the BIL NEVI Formula Program, Alaska will receive more than $52 million over five years. DCFC stations will be located approximately 50 miles apart along the Alternative Fuel Corridor and along the road system and marine highways. Justice40 directs at least 40 percent of the benefits of the program investments will be distributed to disadvantaged communities. 50MI 40% AEA contributes to the energy sector by administering several funding programs. In addition, AEA monitors funding opportunities through Tribal and Indian Energy loan programs and the United States Department of Energy (USDOE). AEA’s strong relationship with the USDOE, awareness of funding, and technical assistance available from National Laboratories is of benefit to all Alaskans. Grants and loans Houston Solar Farm, Alaska, Photo by Matanuska Electric Association Power Project Fund AEA oversees Power Project Fund (PPF) loan requests from qualified applicants seeking low-interest loans. PPF enables local utilities, local governments, or independent power producers to seek low-cost financing for the development, expansion, or upgrade of electric power facilities, including distribution, transmission, efficiency and conservation, bulk fuel storage, and waste energy. PPF provides a unique offering as a financing program that provides affordable loan funds for small-scale energy projects, across all project phases, including reconnaissance and feasibility studies. Loan terms are generally set in correlation to a project’s useful life. Interest rates on PPF loans are formula-driven and related to the 30-year taxable municipal bond yield index, with a prevailing rate of 4.63 percent as of January 23, 2023. AEA Board Approves $4.9 Million Loan for Alaska’s Largest Solar Project AEA Board of Directors approved a $4.9 million PPF loan to Energy 49 LLC to convert 45 acres in Houston, Alaska into an 8.5-megawatt (MW)-rated photovoltaic (PV) solar array making it the largest utility-scale PV solar installation in the state. The project, developed by Energy 49 LLC, a former subsidiary of Renewable IPP, LLC, the owner and operator of the Willow solar farm, will be an 8.5 MW ballasted bi-facial PV solar array providing an amount of energy equivalent to that needed to power approximately 1,400 homes. The purpose of the project is to expand renewable energy production and augment further diversification of energy resources in Southcentral Alaska. The clean energy produced by the project will reduce air quality emissions related to power generation while simultaneously conserving those natural gas reserves in the Cook Inlet. VIEW THE PRESS RELEASE AT https://www.akenergyauthority.org/pressreleases 22 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT SIGN UP FOR REF EMAIL UPDATES AT https://list.state.ak.us/mailman/listinfo/aea.renewable.energy.fund 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 23 The Renewable Energy Fund (REF) was established in 2008 to help Alaskans reduce and stabilize their cost of energy through the development of viable renewable energy projects. The program is designed to produce cost-effective renewable energy for heat and power, accelerating the diversification of community generation sources, which in turn can increases resiliency, and mitigate those negative externalities incurred by those communities whose heat and power is almost exclusively powered via diesel fuel. To date, REF has made 271 grants to develop or construct renewable energy projects statewide. There are now over 100 operating projects built with contributions from REF, collectively saving more than 30 million gallons of diesel each year. Annual renewable energy generation increases each year as more REF-funded projects become operational. State funding has been matched with hundreds of millions of dollars from other sources to develop these renewable energy projects. In Fiscal Year 2022, AEA solicited applications for REF Round 14. In consultation with the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC), AEA recommended 27 projects for funding. In June 2022, the Legislature approved AEA’s recommendation and appropriated $15 million for awards to the recommended projects. AEA is currently evaluating 31 funding applications submitted for consideration during REF Round 15. AEA’s consultation with the REFAC is planned for early March with a subsequent submission to the Legislature of projects recommended for funding in Fiscal Year 2023 planned for late March. The REF grant program sunsets on June 30, 2023. An extension of its sunset date is being sought. Renewable Energy Fund Pillar Wind Farm, Kodiak, Alaska $300M STATEWIDE INVESTMENT A total of $300 million has been invested in renewable energy projects statewide since the REF program was established in 2008. The REF program promotes the statewide integration of renewable energy within Alaska’s energy portfolio. All projects submitted for REF funding are assessed according to a robust, four- stage evaluation process that assesses applicant and project eligibility, applicant qualifications and experience, economic feasibility, technical feasibility, financial feasibility, and matching funds and local support. The REF is available to the following eligible applicants: Electric Utilities with valid CPCN Independent Power Producers Local Governments Other Governmental Utilities Tribal Councils Housing Authorities REF Highlights p p p p p p BALANCE SHEETS June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 Assets and deferred outflows of resources: Restricted Investments securities and cash 1,048,505 1,243,953 Loans, net 27,058 26,011 Capital assets, net 385,307 396,079 Receivables and other assets 5,634 6,457 Total Assets 1,466,504 1,672,500 Liabilities and net position: Liabilities Bonds payable 45,925 69,199 Other bond liabilities 56 569 Payables and other liabilities 46,646 33,053 Total liabilities 92,627 102,821 Net Position 1,373,877 1,569,679 Total liabilities and net position 1,466,504 1,672,500 REVENUES, EXPENSES, & CHANGES IN NET POSITION June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 Operating revenues: Federal grants 10,211 8,575 Revenue from operating plants 13,507 22,657 State operating and capital revenues 4,461 3,922 Interest on loans 346 339 Other operating revenues 2,645 5,008 Total operating revenues 31,170 40,501 FY2022 FINANCIAL Highlights 24 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT REVENUES, EXPENSES, & CHANGES IN NET POSITION (CONT)June 30, 2022 June 30, 2021 Operating Expenses: Grants and projects 18,238 20,370 Power cost equalization grants 24,222 25,557 Plant operating 7,834 7,797 General and administrative 6,319 20,605 Provision for loan recovery (17) (33) Loss on disposal of asset – – Depreciation 12,305 12,356 State of Alaska appropriations and transfers –– Other project expenses –– Total operating expense 68,901 86,652 Operating loss (37,731) (46,151) Investment Income, net (144,109) 151,983 Interest expense (1,568) (1,159) State of Alaska reappropriations and transfers (12,395) 1,017,213 Capital contributions –– Increase (decrease) in net position (195,803)* 1,121,886** * * NOTES REGARDING INCREASE (DECREASE) IN NET POSITION *Net position decreased primarily due to unrealized investment losses in the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Endowment fund of ($143,842) and other funds ($267). Other contributing factors to the overall decrease was net operating losses ($39,299) and ($12,395) of net contributions made to the State of Alaska. **In the Fiscal Year 2021 beginning net position/fund balance was restated to record revised amounts related to PCE sweep activity due to the State of Alaska ($7,388) and revised amounts related to the general activity due to funds managed by Treasury ($2,239). 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 25 Board of Directors J. DANA PRUHS Chair, Public Member ADAM CRUM Commissioner, Alaska Department of Revenue BILL KENDIG Vice Chair, Public Member BILL VIVLAMORE Public Member RANDY ELEDGE Public Member JULIE SANDE Commissioner, Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development ALBERT FOGLE Public Member 26 | 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT Executive Team CURTIS W. THAYER Executive Director AUDREY ALSTROM, PE Director of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs AMY ADLER Acting Chief Financial Officer TIM SANDSTROM Chief Operating Officer BYRAN CAREY, PE Director of Owned Assets BRANDY M. DIXON Communications Director ROBERT HAWKINS Information Technology Director MEGAN SCHMIDT Human Resources Director 2022 AEA ANNUAL REPORT | 27 AEA provides energy solutions that meet the unique needs of Alaskans, now and in the future. Alaska Energy Authority 813 W Northern Lights Blvd. Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3300 E-mail: info@akenergyauthority.org www.akenergyauthority.org @alaskaenergyauthority @alaskaenergyauthority POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM STATISTICAL REPORT FY2022 Safe, Reliable, and Affordable Energy Solutions 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 • Phone: (907) 771-3000 • Fax: (907) 771-3044 • Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG March 1, 2023 Dear Fellow Alaskans, Per Alaska Statute 44.83.940, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) produces an annual Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Statistical Report detailing the operations of the program. The attached report covers the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022. Alaska’s PCE program was established in 1984 to provide economic assistance to rural residents and rural electric utilities. AEA, along with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), administers the program that serves 82,000 Alaskans in 193 communities that are primarily reliant on diesel fuel for power generation. PCE reduces the electric rates paid by rural consumers to levels comparable to those paid by consumers in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. The program reimburses the utility for credits it extends to its customers. This happens after the utility reports its sales and provides a customer ledger to AEA. AEA reviews the utility monthly report and pays the utility based on rates calculated by the RCA. Residential and community facility buildings are eligible for the reduced rate. In fiscal year 2022, residential customers were eligible for PCE credit up to 500 kilowatt- hours (kWhs) per month. Community facilities can receive PCE credit for up to 70 kWhs per month multiplied by the number of residents in a community. As of July 2022, the Governor and the Legislature increased the allowance to 750 kWhs for the current fiscal year and going forward. Ultimately, PCE ensures the viability of rural utilities as well as the availability of reliable, centralized power. In fiscal year 2022, AEA invested $27.4 million for payment of PCE to rural electric utilities for the benefit of our rural communities. For more than 46 years, AEA has worked to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. In rural Alaska, AEA is an essential partner. Its policies emphasize community-based project management. Through innovation and collaboration, AEA provides the tools and the guidance necessary for every rural community to aim towards a bright energy future. A digital copy of this report is available online at www.akenergyauthority.org/pce. For additional hard copies, please contact (907) 771-3000. Sincerely, Curtis W. Thayer Executive Director POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM Statistical Data by Community Reporting Period: 07/01/21 - 06/30/22 TABLE OF CONTENTS Program Highlights ........................................................................................................................................................ 8 Fiscal Year 2021 vs. 2022 .............................................................................................................................................. 9 Historical Trends, Fiscal Years 2013 – 2022 ......................................................................................................... 10 List of Participating Utilities/Communities .......................................................................................................... 11 Map of Participating Utilities/Communities ........................................................................................................ 12 Adak ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Akhiok ................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Akiachak............................................................................................................................................................................ 15 Akutan ............................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Alakanuk ........................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Allakaket; Alatna ............................................................................................................................................................ 18 Ambler ............................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Anaktuvuk Pass .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 Angoon ............................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Aniak .................................................................................................................................................................................. 22 Anvik .................................................................................................................................................................................. 23 Arctic Village ................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Atka .................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Atmautluak ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Atqasuk ............................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Beaver ................................................................................................................................................................................ 28 Bethel; Oscarville ........................................................................................................................................................... 29 Bettles; Evansville .......................................................................................................................................................... 30 Birch Creek ....................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Brevig Mission ................................................................................................................................................................ 32 Buckland ........................................................................................................................................................................... 33 Central ............................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Chefornak ......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 Chenega Bay ................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Chevak ............................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Chignik Lagoon .............................................................................................................................................................. 38 Chignik Lake .................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Chignik .............................................................................................................................................................................. 40 Chilkat Valley .................................................................................................................................................................. 41 Chistochina ...................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Chitina ............................................................................................................................................................................... 43 Chuathbaluk .................................................................................................................................................................... 44 POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM Statistical Data by Community Reporting Period: 07/01/21 - 06/30/22 TABLE OF CONTENTS Circle .................................................................................................................................................................................. 45 Clark's Point ..................................................................................................................................................................... 46 Coffman Cove ................................................................................................................................................................. 47 Cold Bay ............................................................................................................................................................................ 48 Cordova ............................................................................................................................................................................ 49 Craig ................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Crooked Creek ................................................................................................................................................................ 51 Deering.............................................................................................................................................................................. 52 Dillingham; Aleknagik .................................................................................................................................................. 53 Diomede ........................................................................................................................................................................... 54 Dot Lake; Dot Lake Village ......................................................................................................................................... 55 Eagle; Eagle Village ....................................................................................................................................................... 56 Eek....................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 Egegik ................................................................................................................................................................................ 58 Ekwok ................................................................................................................................................................................. 59 Elfin Cove .......................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Elim ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Emmonak ......................................................................................................................................................................... 62 False Pass ......................................................................................................................................................................... 63 Fort Yukon........................................................................................................................................................................ 64 Galena ................................................................................................................................................................................ 65 Gambell ............................................................................................................................................................................. 66 Golovin .............................................................................................................................................................................. 67 Goodnews Bay ................................................................................................................................................................ 68 Grayling ............................................................................................................................................................................. 69 Gustavus ........................................................................................................................................................................... 70 Haines; Covenant Life .................................................................................................................................................. 71 Healy Lake ........................................................................................................................................................................ 72 Hollis .................................................................................................................................................................................. 73 Holy Cross ........................................................................................................................................................................ 74 Hoonah ............................................................................................................................................................................. 75 Hooper Bay ...................................................................................................................................................................... 76 Hughes .............................................................................................................................................................................. 77 Huslia ................................................................................................................................................................................. 78 Hydaburg ......................................................................................................................................................................... 79 Igiugig ............................................................................................................................................................................... 80 Iliamna; Newhalen; Nondalton................................................................................................................................. 81 Kake .................................................................................................................................................................................... 82 POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM Statistical Data by Community Reporting Period: 07/01/21 - 06/30/22 TABLE OF CONTENTS Kaktovik ............................................................................................................................................................................ 83 Kaltag ................................................................................................................................................................................. 84 Karluk ................................................................................................................................................................................. 85 Kasigluk ............................................................................................................................................................................. 86 Kiana .................................................................................................................................................................................. 87 Kipnuk ................................................................................................................................................................................ 88 Kivalina .............................................................................................................................................................................. 89 Klawock ............................................................................................................................................................................. 90 Klukwan ............................................................................................................................................................................. 91 Kobuk ................................................................................................................................................................................. 92 Kokhanok ......................................................................................................................................................................... 93 Koliganek .......................................................................................................................................................................... 94 Kongiganak...................................................................................................................................................................... 95 Kotlik .................................................................................................................................................................................. 96 Kotzebue .......................................................................................................................................................................... 97 Koyuk ................................................................................................................................................................................. 98 Koyukuk ............................................................................................................................................................................ 99 Kwethluk ........................................................................................................................................................................ 100 Kwigillingok .................................................................................................................................................................. 101 Levelock ......................................................................................................................................................................... 102 Lime Village .................................................................................................................................................................. 103 Lower Kalskag .............................................................................................................................................................. 104 Manley Hot Springs ................................................................................................................................................... 105 Manokotak .................................................................................................................................................................... 106 Marshall ......................................................................................................................................................................... 107 McGrath ......................................................................................................................................................................... 108 Mekoryuk ...................................................................................................................................................................... 109 Mentasta ........................................................................................................................................................................ 110 Minto .............................................................................................................................................................................. 111 Mt. Village ..................................................................................................................................................................... 112 Naknek;S.Naknek;Kng Slmn ................................................................................................................................... 113 Napakiak ........................................................................................................................................................................ 114 Napaskiak ...................................................................................................................................................................... 115 Naukati ........................................................................................................................................................................... 116 Nelson Lagoon ............................................................................................................................................................ 117 New Stuyahok ............................................................................................................................................................. 118 Newtok ........................................................................................................................................................................... 119 POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM Statistical Data by Community Reporting Period: 07/01/21 - 06/30/22 TABLE OF CONTENTS Nightmute ..................................................................................................................................................................... 120 Nikolai ............................................................................................................................................................................ 121 Nikolski ........................................................................................................................................................................... 122 Noatak ............................................................................................................................................................................ 123 Nome .............................................................................................................................................................................. 124 Noorvik........................................................................................................................................................................... 125 Northway; Northway Village .................................................................................................................................. 126 Nuiqsut ........................................................................................................................................................................... 127 Nulato ............................................................................................................................................................................. 128 Nunam Iqua.................................................................................................................................................................. 129 Nunapitchuk ................................................................................................................................................................. 130 Old Harbor .................................................................................................................................................................... 131 Ouzinkie ......................................................................................................................................................................... 132 Pedro Bay ...................................................................................................................................................................... 133 Pelican ............................................................................................................................................................................ 134 Pilot Point ...................................................................................................................................................................... 135 Pilot Station .................................................................................................................................................................. 136 Pitkas Point ................................................................................................................................................................... 137 Point Hope .................................................................................................................................................................... 138 Point Lay ........................................................................................................................................................................ 139 Port Alsworth ............................................................................................................................................................... 140 Port Heiden .................................................................................................................................................................. 141 Quinhagak..................................................................................................................................................................... 142 Rampart ......................................................................................................................................................................... 143 Red Devil ....................................................................................................................................................................... 144 Ruby ................................................................................................................................................................................ 145 Russian Mission........................................................................................................................................................... 146 Sand Point ..................................................................................................................................................................... 147 Savoonga ....................................................................................................................................................................... 148 Scammon Bay .............................................................................................................................................................. 149 Selawik............................................................................................................................................................................ 150 Shageluk ........................................................................................................................................................................ 151 Shaktoolik ..................................................................................................................................................................... 152 Shishmaref .................................................................................................................................................................... 153 Shungnak ...................................................................................................................................................................... 154 Skagway ......................................................................................................................................................................... 155 Slana ................................................................................................................................................................................ 156 POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM Statistical Data by Community Reporting Period: 07/01/21 - 06/30/22 TABLE OF CONTENTS Sleetmute ...................................................................................................................................................................... 157 St. George ..................................................................................................................................................................... 158 St. Mary's; Andreafsky .............................................................................................................................................. 159 St. Michael..................................................................................................................................................................... 160 St. Paul ............................................................................................................................................................................ 161 Stebbins ......................................................................................................................................................................... 162 Stony River .................................................................................................................................................................... 163 Takotna .......................................................................................................................................................................... 164 Tanana ............................................................................................................................................................................ 165 Tatitlek ............................................................................................................................................................................ 166 Teller................................................................................................................................................................................ 167 Tenakee Springs ......................................................................................................................................................... 168 Tetlin ............................................................................................................................................................................... 169 Thorne Bay; Kasaan ................................................................................................................................................... 170 Togiak ............................................................................................................................................................................. 171 Tok; Tanacross ............................................................................................................................................................. 172 Toksook Bay ................................................................................................................................................................. 173 Tuntutuliak .................................................................................................................................................................... 174 Tununak ......................................................................................................................................................................... 175 Twin Hills ....................................................................................................................................................................... 176 Unalakleet ..................................................................................................................................................................... 177 Unalaska ........................................................................................................................................................................ 178 Upper Kalskag ............................................................................................................................................................. 179 Venetie ........................................................................................................................................................................... 180 Wainwright ................................................................................................................................................................... 181 Wales .............................................................................................................................................................................. 182 Whale Pass .................................................................................................................................................................... 183 White Mountain .......................................................................................................................................................... 184 Yakutat ........................................................................................................................................................................... 185 Data for prior fiscal years may differ from prior year reports due to data adjustments made after the publication went to print. Data for this fiscal year reflects monthly PCE reports that have been processed prior to publication This publication reporting on the statistics and operations of the PCE program as administered by the Alaska Energy Authority is submitted in accordance with Alaska Statute (AS) 44.83.940. AEA printed 40 copies of this report in Anchorage, Alaska for $23.20 per copy. Design and production by AEA. Printing and binding completed by Service Business Printing. HIGHLIGHTS OF THE POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM Eligibility Utility An electric utility participating in the Power Cost Equalization Program (PCE) must: a) provide electric service to the public for compensation; b) during calendar year 1983, had less than 7,500 megawatt hours of residential consumption or less than 15,000 megawatt hours if two or more communities were served; and c) during calendar year 1984, the utility has used diesel-fired generators to produce more than 75% of its electrical consumption. Customers Customer eligibility is based on actual power purchased. State and federal offices/facilities, commercial customers and public schools are excluded from PCE. Residential customers are eligible for PCE credit up to 500 kilowatt-hours (kWh/s) per month. Community facilities, as a group, can receive PCE credit for up to 70 kilowatt-hours per month multiplied by the number of residents in a community. Formula Used to determine PCE level/kWh for a utility: Formula: 95% of the eligible costs per kWh between 20.03 cents/kWh, “the base rate” and $1.00/kWh, “the ceiling”. Costs below 20.03 cents/kWh and above $1.00/kWh are not eligible for PCE. If the eligible costs are $1.00/kWh or more, the maximum PCE level is 75.97 cents/kWh. ($1.00 – 20.03 cents = 79.97 cents x 95% = 75.97 cents). A participating utility must meet generation efficiency and line loss standards; otherwise the PCE level is reduced to reflect those standards. Process The Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) RCA determines the PCE level per kWh for each utility. Two categories of costs are used in determining the PCE level: a) fuel expenses: the cost of fuel, including transportation of fuel; and b) non-fuel expenses: salaries, insurance, taxes, power plant parts and supplies, interest and other reasonable costs. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Eligible utilities submit monthly reports to AEA that document the eligible power sold and PCE credits applied to eligible customers’ bills. AEA calculates the amount of PCE on a monthly basis and issues payment to the utility. AEA verifies the eligibility of customers and of community facilities. In addition, AEA calculates the required pro-rated PCE levels based on available funds. Authority PCE is governed by Alaska Statutes 42.45.110-170, and by the Alaska Administrative Code 3 AAC 107.200-270 and 3 AAC 52.600-690. 8 POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM STATISTICS FISCAL YEAR 2021 See (8) FISCAL YEAR 2022 % Change 2021-2022% See (5) PARTICIPATION STATISTICS Population Served 81,160 79,808 -1.7% Communities Served 191 188 -1.6% Participating Utilities 86 83 -3.5% Total Residential Customers (2)27,923 27,961 0.1% Total Community Facility Customers (2)1,969 1,939 -1.5% Total Customer (Residential & Community Facilities) (1) (2)29,892 29,900 0.0% PRODUCTION STATISTICS Total Diesel Generation (kWh)381,191,931 393,558,620 3.2% Total "Other" (Hydro/Wind/Solar/Natural Gas) Generation (kWh)46,291,084 55,181,730 19.2% Total Purchased Power (kWh)51,289,815 57,351,798 11.8% Total kWh Sold (All Customers) (7)440,606,887 460,571,858 4.5% PCE Eligible Residential kWh 97,509,713 97,416,581 -0.1% PCE Eligible Community kWh 34,553,676 35,544,014 2.9% Total PCE Eligible - Community Facilities & Residential 132,063,389 132,960,595 0.7% Total PCE Eligible kWh Shown as Percent of Total kWh Sold 30.0%28.9%-3.7% Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers (3)41,905 41,808 -0.2% Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facilities (3)1,462 1,528 4.5% Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facilities / Per Resident (3)35 37 4.6% FINANCIAL STATISTICS Average Price of Fuel Oil ($/gallon)2.6311 3.0208 14.8% Total Fuel Oil Consumed (gallons)27,783,263 28,682,394 3.2% Total Cost of Fuel Oil Purchased by the Utilities ($)73,101,431 86,644,095 18.5% Total Non-Fuel Expenses ($) (5)81,592,866 93,982,810 15.2% Non-Fuel Expenses per Total kWh Sold ($) (5)0.1852 0.2041 10.2% Total Operating Costs per kWh ($) Sold (4)0.3511 0.3922 11.7% PCE Legislative Funding Appropriations for Utility Payments 29,500,000 32,000,000 8.5% Total Monthly Reports/PCE Reimbursements to Utilities Processed (6)23,625,029 27,361,377 15.8% (1) Assumes all customers were eligible to receive PCE credit. (2) Total Customers represents the number of customers reported by the utility for the last reported month. (3) Calculation assumes all residential and community facility customers were eligible to receive twelve (12) months of PCE credit. (4) "Operating" costs include both fuel and non-fuel expenses. (5) Net change between years is partially attributable to incomplete reporting by utilties. (6) During FY22 and FY21 PCE payments were made at a 100% level for all 12 months (7) Value reduced by $2,265,339 in FY22 and $1,984,396 in FY21 to eliminate double counting of kWh's where power is sold/purchased between utilities participating in the PCE Program. (8) Data restated. Changes from prior published data due to updated data after report production. 9 Akhiok / Kaguyak Electric Birch Creek Electric Napaskiak Electric Utility Akiachak Native Community Buckland, City of Naterkaq Light Plant Akutan Electric Utility Chenega IRA Village Council Chefornak Alaska Power Company Chignik, City of Nelson Lagoon Electrical Cooperative Allakaket / Alatna Hydaburg Chignik Lagoon Power Utility New Koliganek Village Council Bettles / Evansville Klawock Chignik Lake Electric Koliganek Chistochina Mentasta Chitina Electric Inc.Nikolai, City of Coffman Cove Naukati Circle Electric Utility Nome Joint Utility System Craig Northway / Northway Village Clarks Point Village Council North Slope Borough Dot Lake / Dot Lake Village Skagway Cordova Electric Co-op Anaktuvuk Pass Point Hope Eagle / Eagle Village Slana Cordova Atqasuk Point Lay Gustavus Tetlin Diomede Joint Utilities Kaktovik Wainwright Haines / Covenant Life Thorne Bay / Kassan Egegik Light and Power Nuiqsut Healy Tok / Tanacross Elfin Cove Utility Commission Nunam Iqua Electric Company Hollis Whale Pass False Pass, City of Nushagak Electric Cooperative Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Galena, City of Aleknagik / Dillingham Alakanuk Nightmute G & K Inc.Ouzinkie, City of Ambler Noatak Cold Bay Pedro Bay Village Council Anvik Noorvik Gold Country Energy Pelican, City of Bethel / Oscarville Nulato Central Pilot Point Electrical Brevig Mission Nunapitchuk Golovin Power Utilities Port Heiden Utilities Chevak Old Harbor Gwitchyaa Zhee Utilities Puvurnaq Power Company Eek Pilot Station Fort Yukon Kongiganak Ekwok Pitka's Point Hughes Power & Light Rampart Village Council Electric Elim Quinhagak Igiugig Electric Company Ruby, City of Emmonak Russian Mission I-N-N Electric Cooperative St. George, City of Gambell Savoonga Iliamna / Newhalen / Nondalton St. Paul Municipal Electric Goodnews Bay Scammon Bay Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Takotna Community Assoc. Inc. Grayling Selawik Angoon Kake Tanalian Electric Cooperative Holy Cross Shageluk Chilkat Valley Klukwan Port Alsworth Hooper Bay Shaktoolik Hoonah Tanana Power Company Inc. Huslia Shishmaref Ipnatchiaq Electric Company Tatitlek Village IRA Council Kaltag Shungnak Deering TDX Adak Generating LLC Kasigluk St. Mary's / Andreafsky Kipnuk Light Plant Adak Kiana St. Michael Kokhanok Village Council TDX Corporation Kivalina Stebbins Kotzebue Electric Association Sand Point Kobuk Teller Koyukuk, City of TDX Manley Generating LLC Kotlik Togiak Kwethluk Incorporated Manley Hot Springs Koyuk Toksook Bay Kwigillingok IRA Council Tenakee Springs, City of Lower Kalskag Tununak Levelock Electrical Coop Tuntutuliak Community Service Assoc. Marshall Upper Kalskag Lime Village Electric Utility Twin Hills Village Council Mekoryuk Wales Manokotak Power Company Umnak Power Company Minto Yakutat McGrath Light & Power Nikolski Mt. Village Middle Kuskokwim Electric Unalakleet Valley Electrical Cooperative New Stuyahok Chuathbaluk Sleetmute Unalaska, City of Alutiiq Power Company Crooked Creek Stony River Ungusrag Power Company Karluk Red Devil Newtok Aniak Light & Power Company Naknek Electric Venetie Village Electric Arctic Village Council King Salmon White Mountain, City of Atka, City of Naknek / South Naknek Atmautluak Joint Utilities Napakiak Ircinraq Beaver Joint Utilities FY22 PCE Program Participating Utilities 10 11 2013*2014*2015*2016*2017*2018*2019*2020*2021*2022 PARTICIPATION Participating Utilities 88 87 86 88 89 89 88 86 86 83 Communities Served 190 190 190 191 194 194 193 191 191 188 Population Served 81,693 82,427 81,969 82,986 83,850 83,400 81,997 81,694 81,160 79,808 PCE ELIGIBLE CUSTOMERS Residential 27,795 27,716 27,893 28,035 27,857 28,365 28,338 28,158 27,923 27,961 Community Facilities 1,900 1,889 1,850 2,056 2,067 2,090 2,069 1,984 1,969 1,939 Total PCE Eligible Customers 29,695 29,605 29,743 30,091 29,924 30,455 30,407 30,142 29,892 29,900 FUNDING Appropriations for Utility Payments($)$40,100,000 $41,006,000 $41,000,000 $41,000,000 $40,000,000 $32,000,000 $32,000,000 $32,000,000 $29,500,000 $32,000,000 Disbursements to Utilities ($)$39,705,223 $39,574,138 $37,379,742 $31,042,569 $26,099,807 $26,182,235 $28,357,347 $29,006,012 $23,625,029 $27,361,377 Disbursements/Customer ($)$1,337 $1,337 $1,257 $1,032 $872 $860 $933 $962 $790 $915 Funding Level 100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100%100% CONSUMPTION Total MWh Sold (MWh)462,795 452,119 450,232 446,735 462,081 458,092 453,598 455,730 440,607 460,572 PCE Eligible MWh Residential 97,102 95,990 96,453 94,816 97,751 96,597 95,606 96,544 97,510 97,417 Avg. PCE Eligible kWh/Month/Residential Customer 291 289 288 282 292 284 281 286 291 290 PCE Eligible MWh Community Facilities 34,743 33,429 32,795 34,357 35,747 34,929 34,191 34,946 34,554 35,544 Elig. kWh/Month/Capita, Community Facilities 35.4 33.8 33.3 34.5 35.5 34.9 34.7 35.6 35.5 37.1 Total PCE Eligible MWh 131,845 129,419 129,248 129,173 133,498 131,526 129,797 131,490 132,063 132,961 Eligible kWh/Month/Cust, Total Customers 370 364 362 358 372 360 356 364 368 371 COSTS Average Price of Fuel Oil ($/gallon)$4.20 $4.21 $3.97 $3.24 $2.66 $2.67 $3.06 $3.07 $2.63 $3.02 Total Gallons of Fuel Oil Consumed 28,957,490 27,919,599 27,191,149 26,865,206 28,838,704 28,446,814 28,425,146 28,199,707 27,783,263 28,682,394 Total Cost of Fuel Oil ($)$121,707,897 $117,483,188 $107,842,372 $87,102,302 $76,759,457 $76,057,479 $86,989,310 $86,638,172 $73,101,431 $86,644,095 Total Non-Fuel Costs ($)$79,772,882 $73,336,386 $76,036,533 $82,964,017 $85,141,895 $92,077,547 $85,813,619 $87,853,342 $81,592,866 $93,982,810 FINANCIAL RATIOS Non-Fuel Costs Per Total kWh Sold $0.1724 $0.1622 $0.1689 $0.1857 $0.1843 $0.2010 $0.1892 $0.1928 $0.1852 $0.2041 Total Operating Costs Per Total kWh Sold $0.4354 $0.4221 $0.4084 $0.3807 $0.3504 $0.3670 $0.3810 $0.3829 $0.3511 $0.3922 RATES Avg. PCE per Eligible kWh Res. & Comm Facility ($/kWh)$0.3012 $0.3058 $0.2892 $0.2403 $0.1955 $0.1991 $0.2185 $0.2206 $0.1789 $0.2058 Weighted Avg. Residential Rate (Before PCE Paid)$0.4973 $0.4983 $0.4915 $0.4541 $0.4270 $0.4378 $0.4628 $0.4633 $0.4412 $0.4674 Weighted Avg. Residential PCE Rate (Amount PCE pays)$0.3064 $0.3108 $0.2919 $0.2432 $0.1983 $0.2010 $0.2191 $0.2226 $0.1821 $0.2101 Weighted Avg. Residential Effective Rate (1)$0.1909 $0.1876 $0.1996 $0.2108 $0.2288 $0.2368 $0.2437 $0.2407 $0.2591 $0.2572 *Data maybe different from prior reports due to updated data after publishing those reports (1) Amount customers pay for first 500kWh/month POWER COST EQUALIZATION PROGRAM HISTORICAL TRENDS Fiscal Years 2013 - 2022 12 Adak PCE Utility: TDX ADAK GENERATING LLC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 290 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 11 Residential Customers 71 Community Facility Customers 13 Other Customers (Non-PCE)101 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $183,732 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 131,224 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,187 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 110,624 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.76 Total PCE Eligible kWh 241,848 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 168 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.76 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 774 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.51 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 35 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 21.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,887,633 Fuel Used (Gallons)164,462 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $689,888 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $4.19 Total Purchased & Generated 1,887,633 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.60 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $719,039 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.62 Total Expense per kWh Sold $1.22 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 156,344 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 61.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 187,939 Line Loss (%)17.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)809,273 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.48 Total kWh Sold 1,153,556 PH Consumption as % of Generation 21.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 411,568 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,565,124 Comments Only 11 reports filed *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 13 Akhiok PCE Utility: AKHIOK/KAGUYAK ELECTRIC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 63 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 27 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)6 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $29,197 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 68,134 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $789 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 15,686 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.35 Total PCE Eligible kWh 83,820 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.80 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 210 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 131 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.48 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 21 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 32.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 301,245 Fuel Used (Gallons)26,424 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $96,934 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.67 Total Purchased & Generated 301,245 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.38 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $10,500 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.04 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.42 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 91,309 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 84.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 17,305 Line Loss (%)8.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)146,025 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.40 Total kWh Sold 254,639 PH Consumption as % of Generation 6.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 20,447 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 275,086 Comments Reported non-fuel = 4 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 14 Akiachak PCE Utility: AKIACHAK NATIVE COMMUNITY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 724 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 190 Community Facility Customers 11 Other Customers (Non-PCE)47 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $160,290 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 665,145 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $797 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 56,612 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.22 Total PCE Eligible kWh 721,757 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.60 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 292 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 429 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.33 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 7 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 38.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,795,737 Fuel Used (Gallons)146,670 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $464,206 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.16 Total Purchased & Generated 1,795,737 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.25 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $627,775 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.34 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.58 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 779,530 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 71,664 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,020,596 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.24 Total kWh Sold 1,871,790 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 41,834 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,913,624 Comments Reported diesel kWh generated = 10 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 15 Akutan PCE Utility: CITY OF AKUTAN Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 995 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 50 Community Facility Customers 11 Other Customers (Non-PCE)29 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $213,718 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 164,696 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $3,504 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 120,375 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.75 Total PCE Eligible kWh 285,071 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.95 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 274 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.75 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 912 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 10 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 56.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 538,102 Fuel Used (Gallons)43,901 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 126,049 Fuel Cost $103,049 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.35 Total Purchased & Generated 664,151 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.20 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $249,298 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.49 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.69 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 189,593 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 76.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 120,375 Line Loss (%)7.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)199,145 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.26 Total kWh Sold 509,113 PH Consumption as % of Generation 16.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 106,213 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 615,326 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 16 Alakanuk PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 747 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 153 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)34 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $227,433 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 676,931 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,404 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 322,651 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.23 Total PCE Eligible kWh 999,582 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.51 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 369 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,988 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 36 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 48.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $411,911 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 856,673 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 425,703 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)789,102 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 2,071,478 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,071,478 Comments Receives power from Emmonak via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 17 Allakaket; Alatna PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 173 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 62 Community Facility Customers 18 Other Customers (Non-PCE)16 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $202,413 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 203,170 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,530 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 135,930 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.60 Total PCE Eligible kWh 339,100 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.02 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 273 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.68 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 629 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.33 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 65 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 58.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 648,000 Fuel Used (Gallons)53,364 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $281,323 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $5.27 Total Purchased & Generated 648,000 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.48 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $134,140 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.23 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.71 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 222,813 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 90.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 167,796 Line Loss (%)5.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)193,209 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.14 Total kWh Sold 583,818 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.9% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 32,048 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 615,866 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 18 Ambler PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 255 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 76 Community Facility Customers 13 Other Customers (Non-PCE)22 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $191,458 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 336,170 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,151 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 196,808 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.36 Total PCE Eligible kWh 532,978 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.84 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 369 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.57 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,262 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 64 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 41.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,377,921 Fuel Used (Gallons)104,324 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $425,711 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $4.08 Total Purchased & Generated 1,377,921 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.33 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $257,980 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.53 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 526,676 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.2% Community Facility kWh Sold 298,184 Line Loss (%)2.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)472,507 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.21 Total kWh Sold 1,297,367 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 41,929 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,339,296 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 19 Anaktuvuk Pass PCE Utility: NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 363 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 101 Community Facility Customers 2 Other Customers (Non-PCE)61 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $2,477 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 279,356 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $24 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 46,521 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.01 Total PCE Eligible kWh 325,877 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 230 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.00 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,938 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 11 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 8.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 4,323,391 Fuel Used (Gallons)325,602 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $1,538,553 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $4.73 Total Purchased & Generated 4,323,391 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.41 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,015,595 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.27 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.69 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 810,308 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 85.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 46,521 Line Loss (%)6.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)2,853,606 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.28 Total kWh Sold 3,710,435 PH Consumption as % of Generation 8.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 344,145 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 4,054,580 Comments Residential PCE Level = Zero *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 20 Angoon PCE Utility: INSIDE PASSAGE ELECTRIC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 382 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 192 Community Facility Customers 8 Other Customers (Non-PCE)34 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $293,955 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 600,869 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,470 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 195,184 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 796,053 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.68 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 261 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.40 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,033 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 43 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 48.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,831,447 Fuel Used (Gallons)125,627 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $353,407 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.81 Total Purchased & Generated 1,831,447 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $618,135 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.38 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.60 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 796,834 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 89.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 195,268 Line Loss (%)7.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)640,209 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.58 Total kWh Sold 1,632,311 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 64,203 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,696,514 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 21 Aniak PCE Utility: ANIAK LIGHT & POWER Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 460 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 169 Community Facility Customers 2 Other Customers (Non-PCE)28 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $256,943 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 704,352 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,503 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 62,953 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.33 Total PCE Eligible kWh 767,305 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 347 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.17 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,623 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.34 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 11 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 33.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 2,669,200 Fuel Used (Gallons)201,912 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $545,233 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.70 Total Purchased & Generated 2,669,200 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.24 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $709,930 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.31 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.55 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 944,803 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 84.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 62,953 Line Loss (%)14.6% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,258,060 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.22 Total kWh Sold 2,265,816 PH Consumption as % of Generation 0.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 14,679 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,280,495 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 22 Anvik PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 79 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 34 Community Facility Customers 11 Other Customers (Non-PCE)20 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $55,836 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 120,369 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,241 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 49,389 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.33 Total PCE Eligible kWh 169,758 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.61 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 295 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.36 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 374 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 52 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 49.5% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 393,815 Fuel Used (Gallons)36,214 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $101,456 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.80 Total Purchased & Generated 393,815 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.30 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $68,160 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.49 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 134,607 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 87.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 138,237 Line Loss (%)8.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)69,928 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)10.87 Total kWh Sold 342,772 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 17,435 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 360,207 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 23 Arctic Village PCE Utility: ARCTIC VILLAGE COUNCIL Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 189 Last Reported Month May No. of Monthly Payments Made 7 Residential Customers 84 Community Facility Customers 6 Other Customers (Non-PCE)19 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $139,944 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 143,258 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,555 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 64,418 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.67 Total PCE Eligible kWh 207,676 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.00 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 244 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.74 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,534 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 49 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 48.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 154,287 Fuel Used (Gallons)45,618 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $318,738 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $6.99 Total Purchased & Generated 154,287 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.75 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $16,500 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.04 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.78 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 213,990 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 64,593 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)148,510 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)3.38 Total kWh Sold 427,093 PH Consumption as % of Generation 0.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 427,093 Comments Only 7 reports filed; Reported diesel kWh=2 mo; fuel used & non fuel=4 mo *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 24 Atka PCE Utility: CITY OF ATKA Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 47 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 31 Community Facility Customers 18 Other Customers (Non-PCE)15 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $25,971 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 89,092 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $530 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 35,110 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.21 Total PCE Eligible kWh 124,202 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.63 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 239 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.22 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 163 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.40 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 62 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 36.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 60,836 Fuel Used (Gallons)6,144 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 381,700 Fuel Cost $29,368 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $4.78 Total Purchased & Generated 442,536 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.09 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $31,200 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.09 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.18 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 103,672 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 77.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 53,938 Line Loss (%)12.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)186,905 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)9.90 Total kWh Sold 344,515 PH Consumption as % of Generation 9.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 42,884 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 387,399 Comments Non-fuel costs estimated by utility *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 25 Atmautluak PCE Utility: ATMAUTLUAK TRIBAL UTILITIES Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 353 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 75 Community Facility Customers 8 Other Customers (Non-PCE)19 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $198,275 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 347,966 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,389 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 94,348 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.45 Total PCE Eligible kWh 442,314 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.66 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 387 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.46 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 983 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 22 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 47.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,085,367 Fuel Used (Gallons)82,326 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 61,843 Fuel Cost $422,592 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $5.13 Total Purchased & Generated 1,147,210 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.46 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.46 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 435,191 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 80.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 103,219 Line Loss (%)14.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)389,187 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.18 Total kWh Sold 927,597 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 53,474 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 981,071 Comments Non-fuel Cost Not Reported *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 26 Atqasuk PCE Utility: NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 260 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 63 Community Facility Customers 2 Other Customers (Non-PCE)65 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $3,670 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 157,746 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $56 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 58,052 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.02 Total PCE Eligible kWh 215,798 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 209 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.00 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,419 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 19 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 7.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 910,491 Fuel Used (Gallons)269,534 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $1,347,807 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $5.00 Total Purchased & Generated 910,491 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.44 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,127,590 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.37 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.81 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 640,075 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 58,052 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)2,370,488 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)3.38 Total kWh Sold 3,068,615 PH Consumption as % of Generation 37.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 341,340 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 3,409,955 Comments Residential PCE Level = Zero; Reported diesel kWh's Gen'd=4 Mo; Pwrhse Cons=8 Mo *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 27 Beaver PCE Utility: BEAVER JOINT UTILITIES Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 56 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 35 Community Facility Customers 3 Other Customers (Non-PCE)12 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $71,884 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 98,190 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,892 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 46,090 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.50 Total PCE Eligible kWh 144,280 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.90 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 234 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.63 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,280 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 69 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 43.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 194,272 Fuel Used (Gallons)23,045 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $87,315 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.79 Total Purchased & Generated 194,272 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.27 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $105,616 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.32 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.59 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 109,099 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 72,218 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)147,911 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)8.43 Total kWh Sold 329,228 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 5,013 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 334,241 Comments Reported kWh generated=5 months, fuel gallons used & fuel cost = 7 months. *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 28 Bethel; Oscarville PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 6,253 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 1,719 Community Facility Customers 43 Other Customers (Non-PCE)1,106 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $1,063,286 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 7,759,597 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $603 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 2,548,213 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.10 Total PCE Eligible kWh 10,307,810 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.38 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 376 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.13 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 4,938 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 34 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 24.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 41,698,300 Fuel Used (Gallons)3,061,616 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 1,586,218 Fuel Cost $10,813,696 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.53 Total Purchased & Generated 43,284,518 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.26 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $8,228,285 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.46 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 10,365,284 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 95.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 9,687,026 Line Loss (%)2.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)21,327,304 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.62 Total kWh Sold 41,379,614 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 858,024 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 42,237,638 Comments Sells power to Napakiak Ircinraq Power Co for resale *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 29 Bettles; Evansville PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 19 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 34 Community Facility Customers 7 Other Customers (Non-PCE)29 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $38,108 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 82,862 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $929 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 15,960 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.39 Total PCE Eligible kWh 98,822 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.75 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 203 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.43 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 190 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 70 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 20.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 526,800 Fuel Used (Gallons)43,948 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $142,580 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.24 Total Purchased & Generated 526,800 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.30 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $139,543 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.29 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.59 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 107,953 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 91.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 34,116 Line Loss (%)6.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)337,984 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.99 Total kWh Sold 480,053 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 13,534 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 493,587 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 30 Birch Creek PCE Utility: BIRCH CREEK ELECTRIC COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 22 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 23 Community Facility Customers 3 Other Customers (Non-PCE)5 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $38,578 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 35,299 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,484 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 15,481 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.76 Total PCE Eligible kWh 50,780 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 128 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.76 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 430 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.39 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 59 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 53.2% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 99,312 Fuel Used (Gallons)14,644 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $57,782 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.95 Total Purchased & Generated 99,312 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.60 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $14,910 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.16 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.76 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 45,015 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 96.2% Community Facility kWh Sold 22,490 Line Loss (%)1.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)28,019 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)6.78 Total kWh Sold 95,524 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 2,582 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 98,106 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 31 Brevig Mission PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 434 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 88 Community Facility Customers 8 Other Customers (Non-PCE)32 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $159,887 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 431,466 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,665 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 183,245 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 614,711 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.54 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 409 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.28 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,909 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 35 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 49.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,326,727 Fuel Used (Gallons)92,629 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $254,726 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.75 Total Purchased & Generated 1,326,727 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.21 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $244,892 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.41 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 565,695 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 92.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 292,523 Line Loss (%)2.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)373,330 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.32 Total kWh Sold 1,231,548 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 64,055 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,295,603 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 32 Buckland PCE Utility: CITY OF BUCKLAND Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 465 Last Reported Month April No. of Monthly Payments Made 10 Residential Customers 107 Community Facility Customers 12 Other Customers (Non-PCE)27 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $88,978 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 456,009 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $748 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 131,754 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.15 Total PCE Eligible kWh 587,763 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.49 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 426 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.21 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,098 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.28 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 28 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 36.5% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,547,104 Fuel Used (Gallons)128,898 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 182,362 Fuel Cost $389,938 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.03 Total Purchased & Generated 1,729,466 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.24 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $72,789 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.05 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.29 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 747,204 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 93.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 131,754 Line Loss (%)4.6% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)729,438 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.00 Total kWh Sold 1,608,396 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 41,348 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,649,744 Comments Only 10 reports filed; Reported pwrhse kWh = 6 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 33 Central PCE Utility: GOLD COUNTRY ENERGY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 90 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 116 Community Facility Customers 1 Other Customers (Non-PCE)19 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $86,033 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 180,030 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $735 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 3,681 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.47 Total PCE Eligible kWh 183,711 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.99 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 129 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.64 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 307 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 3 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 56.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 425,531 Fuel Used (Gallons)40,352 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $122,761 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.04 Total Purchased & Generated 425,531 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.38 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $132,111 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.41 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.78 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 211,983 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 76.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 3,681 Line Loss (%)19.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)110,436 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)10.55 Total kWh Sold 326,100 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 15,698 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 341,798 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 34 Chefornak PCE Utility: NATERKAQ LIGHT PLANT Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 433 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 102 Community Facility Customers 20 Other Customers (Non-PCE)28 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $137,533 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 474,223 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,127 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 38,298 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.27 Total PCE Eligible kWh 512,521 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.55 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 387 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 160 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 7 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 37.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,313,185 Fuel Used (Gallons)103,584 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 46,356 Fuel Cost $392,861 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.79 Total Purchased & Generated 1,359,541 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.28 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $88,339 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.06 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.35 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 583,139 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 38,298 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)759,425 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.68 Total kWh Sold 1,380,862 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 36,891 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,417,753 Comments Reported diesel kWh gen, fuel used, fuel cost=11 months; Non-fuel exp=9 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 35 Chenega Bay PCE Utility: NATIVE VILLAGE OF CHENEGA Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 66 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 20 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)23 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $39,222 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 54,382 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,352 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 48,135 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.38 Total PCE Eligible kWh 102,517 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.68 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 227 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.48 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 446 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 61 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 47.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 171,882 Fuel Used (Gallons)22,168 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $91,974 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $4.15 Total Purchased & Generated 171,882 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.43 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $70,759 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.33 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.75 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 69,385 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 60,749 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)85,968 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)7.75 Total kWh Sold 216,102 PH Consumption as % of Generation 8.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 14,972 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 231,074 Comments Reported diesel kWh generated = 8 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 36 Chevak PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 994 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 209 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)44 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $260,756 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 901,273 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,196 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 321,106 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.21 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,222,379 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 359 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,973 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.28 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 27 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 48.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,975,603 Fuel Used (Gallons)188,258 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 680,099 Fuel Cost $499,588 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.65 Total Purchased & Generated 2,655,702 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.20 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $506,201 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.40 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,099,198 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 95.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 532,723 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)913,737 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)10.49 Total kWh Sold 2,545,658 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 115,543 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,661,201 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 37 Chignik Lagoon PCE Utility: CHIGNIK LAGOON POWER UTILITY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 86 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 68 Community Facility Customers 7 Other Customers (Non-PCE)14 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $47,917 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 133,697 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $639 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 39,361 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.28 Total PCE Eligible kWh 173,058 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.58 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 164 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.38 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 469 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 38 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.2% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 448,563 Fuel Used (Gallons)35,695 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 58,421 Fuel Cost $109,049 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.06 Total Purchased & Generated 506,984 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.27 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $100,986 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.25 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.51 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 220,507 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 80.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 39,361 Line Loss (%)12.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)150,328 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.57 Total kWh Sold 410,196 PH Consumption as % of Generation 7.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 35,617 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 445,813 Comments Jun bill rendered 7/1 - FY23 base rate applied *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 38 Chignik Lake PCE Utility: CHIGNIK LAKE ELECTRIC UTILITY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 49 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 10 Residential Customers 43 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)6 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $28,396 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 61,537 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $546 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 23,547 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.33 Total PCE Eligible kWh 85,084 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.70 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 143 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.43 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 262 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 48 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 34.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 231,109 Fuel Used (Gallons)27,996 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $90,817 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.24 Total Purchased & Generated 231,109 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.36 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $11,500 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.05 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.41 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 100,211 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 34,171 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)114,772 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)8.26 Total kWh Sold 249,154 PH Consumption as % of Generation 7.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 17,499 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 266,653 Comments Only 10 reports filed; Reported diesel kWh & fuel used=9 mo; Non-fuel=4 mo *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 39 Chignik PCE Utility: CITY OF CHIGNIK Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 92 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 47 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)49 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $20,077 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 108,284 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $352 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 77,280 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.11 Total PCE Eligible kWh 185,564 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.42 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 192 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.04 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 644 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.38 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 70 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 30.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 664,734 Fuel Used (Gallons)58,701 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $70,846 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $1.21 Total Purchased & Generated 664,734 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.12 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $127,469 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.21 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.33 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 125,758 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 91.2% Community Facility kWh Sold 120,997 Line Loss (%)4.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)359,197 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.32 Total kWh Sold 605,952 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 30,549 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 636,501 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 40 Chilkat Valley PCE Utility: INSIDE PASSAGE ELECTRIC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 585 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 219 Community Facility Customers 2 Other Customers (Non-PCE)39 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $234,857 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 616,643 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,063 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 19,600 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 636,243 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.68 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 235 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.40 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 817 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 3 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 52.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 432,600 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 1,488,480 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 1,921,080 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $679,620 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.56 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.56 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 751,673 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 62.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 19,600 Line Loss (%)34.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)436,668 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 1,207,941 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 57,890 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,265,831 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 41 Chistochina PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 85 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 50 Community Facility Customers 2 Other Customers (Non-PCE)18 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $62,271 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 141,541 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,198 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 25,670 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 167,211 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.82 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 236 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,070 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 25 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 49.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 161,120 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 25,670 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)153,962 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 340,752 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 1,419 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 342,171 Comments See Slana for power generation *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 42 Chitina PCE Utility: CHITINA ELECTRIC INC. Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 97 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 49 Community Facility Customers 2 Other Customers (Non-PCE)40 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $40,161 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 85,660 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $787 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 10,532 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.42 Total PCE Eligible kWh 96,192 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.10 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 146 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.61 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 439 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.49 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 9 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 25.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 447,043 Fuel Used (Gallons)37,837 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $138,976 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.67 Total Purchased & Generated 447,043 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.37 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $390,135 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $1.03 Total Expense per kWh Sold $1.40 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 98,173 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 84.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 10,532 Line Loss (%)9.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)269,972 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.81 Total kWh Sold 378,677 PH Consumption as % of Generation 6.1% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 27,165 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 405,842 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 43 Chuathbaluk PCE Utility: MIDDLE KUSKOKWIM ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 107 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 34 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)6 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $106,369 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 84,946 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,417 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 55,132 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.76 Total PCE Eligible kWh 140,078 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 208 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.76 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 459 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.74 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 43 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 59.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 270,173 Fuel Used (Gallons)24,799 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $61,272 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.47 Total Purchased & Generated 270,173 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.26 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $156,938 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.67 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.93 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 89,892 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 86.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 55,275 Line Loss (%)8.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)88,770 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)10.89 Total kWh Sold 233,937 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 14,089 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 248,026 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 44 Circle PCE Utility: CIRCLE ELECTRIC LLC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 83 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 46 Community Facility Customers 7 Other Customers (Non-PCE)9 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $95,406 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 96,597 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,800 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 66,156 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.59 Total PCE Eligible kWh 162,753 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.98 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 175 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.68 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 788 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.30 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 66 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 423,092 Fuel Used (Gallons)35,023 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $123,034 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.51 Total Purchased & Generated 423,092 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.32 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $148,198 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.39 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.71 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 121,167 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 90.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 94,408 Line Loss (%)7.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)165,166 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.08 Total kWh Sold 380,741 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.9% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 12,191 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 392,932 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 45 Clark's Point PCE Utility: CLARKS POINT VILLAGE COUNCIL Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 59 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 51 Community Facility Customers 2 Other Customers (Non-PCE)18 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $63,435 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 116,005 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,197 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 10,701 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.50 Total PCE Eligible kWh 126,706 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.80 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 190 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.59 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 446 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.21 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 15 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 44.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 410,188 Fuel Used (Gallons)35,611 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $80,076 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.25 Total Purchased & Generated 410,188 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.28 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $12,000 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.04 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.32 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 148,911 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 69.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 10,701 Line Loss (%)25.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)124,797 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.52 Total kWh Sold 284,409 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 20,338 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 304,747 Comments Reported non-fuel = 4 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 46 Coffman Cove PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 183 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 191 Community Facility Customers 14 Other Customers (Non-PCE)56 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $20,199 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 569,337 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $99 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 85,271 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.03 Total PCE Eligible kWh 654,608 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 248 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.08 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 508 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 39 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 50.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 890,805 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 85,271 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)315,003 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 1,291,079 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 44,364 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,335,443 Comments See Craig for power generation *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 47 Cold Bay PCE Utility: G & K INC. Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 76 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 40 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)80 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $57,575 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 49,935 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,309 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 60,248 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.52 Total PCE Eligible kWh 110,183 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.90 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 104 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.57 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,255 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.33 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 66 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 5.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 2,492,520 Fuel Used (Gallons)190,622 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $952,998 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $5.00 Total Purchased & Generated 2,492,520 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.46 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $493,652 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.24 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.70 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 174,016 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 83.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 69,650 Line Loss (%)9.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,833,631 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.08 Total kWh Sold 2,077,297 PH Consumption as % of Generation 7.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 188,284 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,265,581 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 48 Cordova PCE Utility: CORDOVA ELECTRIC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 2,501 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 982 Community Facility Customers 49 Other Customers (Non-PCE)706 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $414,302 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 3,165,786 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $402 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 1,925,230 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.08 Total PCE Eligible kWh 5,091,016 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.43 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 269 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.11 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 3,274 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.33 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 64 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 20.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 8,346,662 Fuel Used (Gallons)616,125 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 19,430,512 Fuel Cost $2,011,597 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.26 Total Purchased & Generated 27,777,174 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.08 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $5,303,039 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.21 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.29 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 4,855,890 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 90.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 1,940,385 Line Loss (%)7.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)18,244,068 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.55 Total kWh Sold 25,040,343 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 699,276 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 25,739,619 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 49 Craig PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 1,065 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 657 Community Facility Customers 43 Other Customers (Non-PCE)344 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $103,008 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 2,437,112 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $147 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 894,600 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.03 Total PCE Eligible kWh 3,331,712 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 309 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.08 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,734 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 70 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 31.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,426,082 Fuel Used (Gallons)111,797 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $348,738 Purchased kWh 31,280,183 Average Price of Fuel $3.12 Total Purchased & Generated 32,706,265 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.03 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $2,707,161 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.25 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.28 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 3,595,050 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 32.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 1,255,496 Line Loss (%)66.5%** Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)5,873,782 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.76 Total kWh Sold 10,724,328 PH Consumption as % of Generation 0.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 217,831 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 10,942,159 Comments **Alaska Power Company distributes power to Coffman Cove, Hollis, Hydaburg, Klawock, and ThorneBay/Kasaan from their power plant in Craig. Since a utility cannot “sell” power to itself, the kWh that the other communities use show up as line loss. *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 50 Crooked Creek PCE Utility: MIDDLE KUSKOKWIM ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 75 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 29 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)20 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $78,930 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 84,857 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,392 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 19,096 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.76 Total PCE Eligible kWh 103,953 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 244 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.76 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 398 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.74 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 21 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 38.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 313,390 Fuel Used (Gallons)26,832 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $66,440 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.48 Total Purchased & Generated 313,390 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.25 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $193,335 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.72 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.97 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 91,130 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 85.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 29,096 Line Loss (%)10.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)148,562 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.68 Total kWh Sold 268,788 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 12,496 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 281,284 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 51 Deering PCE Utility: IPNATCHIAQ ELECTRIC COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 162 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 51 Community Facility Customers 5 Other Customers (Non-PCE)16 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $102,582 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 222,803 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,832 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 104,755 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.31 Total PCE Eligible kWh 327,558 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.67 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 364 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,746 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.36 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 54 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 41.5% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 680,946 Fuel Used (Gallons)56,366 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 148,459 Fuel Cost $151,414 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.69 Total Purchased & Generated 829,405 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.19 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $279,367 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.35 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.55 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 275,741 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 95.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 111,918 Line Loss (%)1.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)402,385 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.08 Total kWh Sold 790,044 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 24,558 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 814,602 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 52 Dillingham; Aleknagik PCE Utility: NUSHAGAK ELECTRIC AND Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 2,463 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 991 Community Facility Customers 50 Other Customers (Non-PCE)466 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $727,072 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 3,849,860 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $698 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 729,665 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.16 Total PCE Eligible kWh 4,579,525 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.45 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 324 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.16 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,216 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 25 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 24.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 19,745,362 Fuel Used (Gallons)1,324,448 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $2,532,197 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $1.91 Total Purchased & Generated 19,745,362 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.14 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $4,398,063 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.24 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.38 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 5,148,031 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 93.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 892,734 Line Loss (%)4.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)12,329,138 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.91 Total kWh Sold 18,369,903 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 536,509 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 18,906,412 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 53 Diomede PCE Utility: DIOMEDE JOINT UTLITIES Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 84 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 33 Community Facility Customers 2 Other Customers (Non-PCE)13 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $19,787 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 87,477 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $565 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 15,018 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.19 Total PCE Eligible kWh 102,495 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.65 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 221 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.22 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 626 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.43 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 15 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 27.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 433,594 Fuel Used (Gallons)33,256 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $83,782 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.52 Total Purchased & Generated 433,594 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $318,568 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.84 Total Expense per kWh Sold $1.06 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 114,353 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 87.2% Community Facility kWh Sold 15,018 Line Loss (%)3.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)248,848 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.04 Total kWh Sold 378,219 PH Consumption as % of Generation 9.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 40,606 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 418,825 Comments Reported fuel costs = 9 Months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 54 Dot Lake; Dot Lake Village PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 61 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 24 Community Facility Customers 6 Other Customers (Non-PCE)15 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $34,361 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 71,268 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,145 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 47,497 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.29 Total PCE Eligible kWh 118,765 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.57 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 247 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.37 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 660 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 65 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 28.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 91,012 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 58,561 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)261,760 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 411,333 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 411,333 Comments See Tok for power generation *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 55 Eagle; Eagle Village PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 132 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 140 Community Facility Customers 12 Other Customers (Non-PCE)35 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $140,360 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 264,840 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $923 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 73,826 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.41 Total PCE Eligible kWh 338,666 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.87 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 158 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.54 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 513 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.33 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 47 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 46.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 874,008 Fuel Used (Gallons)70,142 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 8,734 Fuel Cost $212,241 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.03 Total Purchased & Generated 882,742 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.29 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $297,912 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.41 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.71 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 300,091 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 81.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 74,190 Line Loss (%)11.6% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)348,494 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.46 Total kWh Sold 722,775 PH Consumption as % of Generation 6.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 57,365 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 780,140 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 56 Eek PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 356 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 109 Community Facility Customers 7 Other Customers (Non-PCE)37 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $134,064 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 483,110 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,156 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 41,943 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 525,053 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 369 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 499 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 10 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 41.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,327,964 Fuel Used (Gallons)99,907 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $275,849 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.76 Total Purchased & Generated 1,327,964 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $252,843 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.42 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 554,265 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 95.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 420,293 Line Loss (%)2.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)296,974 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.29 Total kWh Sold 1,271,532 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 20,388 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,291,920 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 57 Egegik PCE Utility: CITY OF EGEGIK Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 78 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 85 Community Facility Customers 18 Other Customers (Non-PCE)27 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $86,319 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 139,792 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $838 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 65,520 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.42 Total PCE Eligible kWh 205,312 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.65 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 137 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.45 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 303 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 70 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 33.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 697,206 Fuel Used (Gallons)58,662 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $177,617 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.03 Total Purchased & Generated 697,206 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.29 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $153,194 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.25 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.54 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 173,653 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 88.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 134,025 Line Loss (%)7.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)307,946 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.89 Total kWh Sold 615,624 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 30,929 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 646,553 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 58 Ekwok PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 107 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 50 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)21 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $62,048 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 186,042 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,052 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 28,319 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.29 Total PCE Eligible kWh 214,361 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.56 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 310 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.30 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 262 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 22 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 47.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $89,838 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 233,554 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 123,079 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)95,160 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 451,793 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 451,793 Comments Receives power from New Stuyahok Bay via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 59 Elfin Cove PCE Utility: ELFIN COVE UTILITY COMMISSION Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 9 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 38 Community Facility Customers 6 Other Customers (Non-PCE)30 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $20,071 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 47,292 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $456 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 7,009 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 54,301 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.73 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 104 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.46 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 97 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 65 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 17.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 398,167 Fuel Used (Gallons)31,697 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $120,289 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.79 Total Purchased & Generated 398,167 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.38 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $58,314 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.18 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.56 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 86,859 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 79.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 7,959 Line Loss (%)14.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)223,490 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.56 Total kWh Sold 318,308 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 20,927 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 339,235 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 60 Elim PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 365 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 89 Community Facility Customers 12 Other Customers (Non-PCE)40 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $150,945 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 425,485 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,495 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 148,091 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 573,576 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.53 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 398 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.28 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,028 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 34 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,426,074 Fuel Used (Gallons)109,038 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $293,088 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.69 Total Purchased & Generated 1,426,074 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $269,067 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.42 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 561,689 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 292,031 Line Loss (%)3.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)499,404 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.08 Total kWh Sold 1,353,124 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 18,509 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,371,633 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 61 Emmonak PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 858 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 212 Community Facility Customers 20 Other Customers (Non-PCE)65 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $341,006 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 943,194 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,470 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 580,198 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.22 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,523,392 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.51 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 371 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,417 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 56 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.2% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 5,391,112 Fuel Used (Gallons)384,685 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 514,319 Fuel Cost $1,015,913 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.64 Total Purchased & Generated 5,905,431 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.28 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $716,984 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.48 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,184,805 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 61.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 861,043 Line Loss (%)36.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,559,827 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.01 Total kWh Sold 3,605,675 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.1% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 123,636 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 3,729,311 Comments Provides power to Alakanuk via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 62 False Pass PCE Utility: CITY OF FALSE PASS Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 40 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 30 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)23 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $27,675 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 61,805 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $710 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 33,600 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.29 Total PCE Eligible kWh 95,405 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.62 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 172 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 311 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 70 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 17.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 628,671 Fuel Used (Gallons)26,544 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $59,544 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.24 Total Purchased & Generated 628,671 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.11 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $98,946 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.18 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.29 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 112,104 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 86.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 76,463 Line Loss (%)8.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)353,832 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)23.68 Total kWh Sold 542,399 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.9% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 30,953 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 573,352 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 63 Fort Yukon PCE Utility: GWITCHYAA ZHEE UTILITY COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 514 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 272 Community Facility Customers 17 Other Customers (Non-PCE)89 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $371,157 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 861,616 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,284 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 401,173 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.29 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,262,789 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.64 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 264 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,967 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 65 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 47.2% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,234,644 Fuel Used (Gallons)225,458 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $1,322,086 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $5.86 Total Purchased & Generated 3,234,644 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.49 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $552,915 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.21 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.70 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,041,859 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 82.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 458,606 Line Loss (%)14.6% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,175,262 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.35 Total kWh Sold 2,675,727 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 87,029 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,762,756 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 64 Galena PCE Utility: CITY OF GALENA Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 440 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 11 Residential Customers 207 Community Facility Customers 14 Other Customers (Non-PCE)172 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $197,865 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 575,423 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $895 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 311,950 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.22 Total PCE Eligible kWh 887,373 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.60 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 253 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,026 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.34 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 64 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 20.5% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 5,033,573 Fuel Used (Gallons)392,347 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $899,570 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.29 Total Purchased & Generated 5,033,573 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.21 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $907,574 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.21 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.42 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 763,713 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 86.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 391,169 Line Loss (%)12.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)3,179,357 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.83 Total kWh Sold 4,334,239 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 85,989 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 4,420,228 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 65 Gambell PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 684 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 167 Community Facility Customers 15 Other Customers (Non-PCE)34 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $263,139 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 705,979 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,446 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 280,868 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.27 Total PCE Eligible kWh 986,847 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.53 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 352 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,560 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 34 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 45.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 2,200,277 Fuel Used (Gallons)166,602 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 93,829 Fuel Cost $450,581 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.70 Total Purchased & Generated 2,294,106 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.21 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $432,486 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.41 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 951,659 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 496,127 Line Loss (%)2.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)727,161 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.21 Total kWh Sold 2,174,947 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 73,974 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,248,921 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 66 Golovin PCE Utility: GOLOVIN POWER UTILITIES Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 151 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 51 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)46 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $37,625 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 232,991 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $617 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 122,981 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.11 Total PCE Eligible kWh 355,972 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.33 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 381 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.12 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,025 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.21 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 68 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 38.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 974,342 Fuel Used (Gallons)102,897 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $222,455 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.16 Total Purchased & Generated 974,342 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.24 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $183,304 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.44 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 290,766 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 93.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 151,094 Line Loss (%)2.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)472,865 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)9.47 Total kWh Sold 914,725 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 39,076 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 953,801 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 67 Goodnews Bay PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 277 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 79 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)9 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $120,074 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 358,395 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,349 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 94,749 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 453,144 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 378 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 790 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 29 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 58.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 812,811 Fuel Used (Gallons)52,431 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $139,584 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.66 Total Purchased & Generated 812,811 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.18 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $153,381 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.38 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 456,687 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 145,072 Line Loss (%)2.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)169,584 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)15.50 Total kWh Sold 771,343 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 18,608 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 789,951 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 68 Grayling PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 189 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 67 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)28 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $98,376 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 240,399 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,278 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 101,584 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.29 Total PCE Eligible kWh 341,983 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.59 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 299 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.33 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 847 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 45 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 60.2% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 612,867 Fuel Used (Gallons)49,469 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $142,023 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.87 Total Purchased & Generated 612,867 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.25 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $112,945 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.45 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 271,690 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 92.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 173,564 Line Loss (%)3.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)122,741 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.39 Total kWh Sold 567,995 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 23,503 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 591,498 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 69 Gustavus PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 551 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 501 Community Facility Customers 5 Other Customers (Non-PCE)113 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $148,447 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 1,077,502 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $293 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 39,411 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.13 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,116,913 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 179 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.19 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 657 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.31 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 6 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 51.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 228,069 Fuel Used (Gallons)16,871 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 2,471,742 Fuel Cost $64,305 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.81 Total Purchased & Generated 2,699,811 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.03 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $566,023 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.26 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.29 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,379,326 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 79.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 39,411 Line Loss (%)14.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)737,029 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.52 Total kWh Sold 2,155,766 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 143,207 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,298,973 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 70 Haines; Covenant Life PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 2,598 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 1,163 Community Facility Customers 39 Other Customers (Non-PCE)387 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $152,116 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 3,854,564 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $127 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 1,075,686 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.03 Total PCE Eligible kWh 4,930,250 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 276 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.06 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,298 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 35 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 34.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,700,830 Fuel Used (Gallons)121,880 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $367,254 Purchased kWh 14,416,355 Average Price of Fuel $3.01 Total Purchased & Generated 16,117,185 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.03 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,660,475 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.12 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.14 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 5,637,257 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 87.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 1,075,686 Line Loss (%)10.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)7,396,506 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.95 Total kWh Sold 14,109,449 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 347,827 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 14,457,276 Comments Sells power to Inside Passage Electric Cooperative (Chilkat Valley) for resale *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 71 Healy Lake PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 20 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 10 Community Facility Customers 3 Other Customers (Non-PCE)2 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $17,433 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 23,285 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,341 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 16,800 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.43 Total PCE Eligible kWh 40,085 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.89 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 194 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.57 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 467 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.33 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 70 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 41.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 103,619 Fuel Used (Gallons)11,571 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $35,927 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.10 Total Purchased & Generated 103,619 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.37 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $93,207 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.96 Total Expense per kWh Sold $1.34 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 24,788 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 93.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 54,888 Line Loss (%)2.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)17,033 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)8.96 Total kWh Sold 96,709 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 4,159 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 100,868 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 72 Hollis PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 131 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 135 Community Facility Customers 1 Other Customers (Non-PCE)36 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $13,399 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 436,286 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $99 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 2,479 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.03 Total PCE Eligible kWh 438,765 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 269 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.08 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 207 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 2 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 11.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 740,069 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 2,479 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)3,016,043 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 3,758,591 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 23,878 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 3,782,469 Comments See Craig for power generation *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 73 Holy Cross PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 167 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 68 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)21 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $82,606 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 235,230 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,073 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 67,392 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.27 Total PCE Eligible kWh 302,622 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.55 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 288 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 624 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 34 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 55.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 560,424 Fuel Used (Gallons)42,865 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $119,042 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.78 Total Purchased & Generated 560,424 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $107,751 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.42 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 271,774 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 96.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 196,128 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)73,973 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.07 Total kWh Sold 541,875 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 23,283 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 565,158 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 74 Hoonah PCE Utility: INSIDE PASSAGE ELECTRIC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 769 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 413 Community Facility Customers 27 Other Customers (Non-PCE)78 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $754,338 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 1,409,881 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,714 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 629,133 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 2,039,014 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.68 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 284 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.40 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,942 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 68 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,777,321 Fuel Used (Gallons)260,420 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 1,456,735 Fuel Cost $733,129 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.82 Total Purchased & Generated 5,234,056 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.15 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,345,199 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.28 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.43 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,933,133 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 92.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 755,394 Line Loss (%)6.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)2,126,355 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.50 Total kWh Sold 4,814,882 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 85,061 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 4,899,943 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 75 Hooper Bay PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 1,193 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 264 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)63 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $406,926 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 1,141,230 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,491 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 660,596 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.23 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,801,826 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.49 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 360 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.23 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 6,117 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 46 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 49.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,346,993 Fuel Used (Gallons)230,799 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 363,434 Fuel Cost $602,460 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.61 Total Purchased & Generated 3,710,427 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.17 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $718,612 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.37 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,446,208 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 97.4% Community Facility kWh Sold 940,049 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,227,606 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.50 Total kWh Sold 3,613,863 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 110,626 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 3,724,489 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 76 Hughes PCE Utility: HUGHES POWER & LIGHT Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 81 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 49 Community Facility Customers 3 Other Customers (Non-PCE)17 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $111,186 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 151,984 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,138 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 67,324 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.51 Total PCE Eligible kWh 219,308 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.71 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 258 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.51 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,870 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 69 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 51.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 500,443 Fuel Used (Gallons)42,726 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 8,769 Fuel Cost $206,635 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $4.84 Total Purchased & Generated 509,212 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.48 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $116,300 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.27 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.76 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 196,567 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 83.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 82,294 Line Loss (%)7.9% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)148,309 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.71 Total kWh Sold 427,170 PH Consumption as % of Generation 8.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 42,008 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 469,178 Comments Jun bill rendered 7/2 - FY23 base rate applied *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 77 Huslia PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 293 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 101 Community Facility Customers 15 Other Customers (Non-PCE)40 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $166,629 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 434,102 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,436 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 171,542 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.28 Total PCE Eligible kWh 605,644 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.56 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 358 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.31 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 953 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 49 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 56.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,132,732 Fuel Used (Gallons)86,443 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $266,109 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.08 Total Purchased & Generated 1,132,732 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.25 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $211,551 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.45 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 564,821 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 93.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 247,608 Line Loss (%)2.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)251,450 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.10 Total kWh Sold 1,063,879 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 37,790 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,101,669 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 78 Hydaburg PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 380 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 114 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)60 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $18,722 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 482,880 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $151 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 129,474 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.03 Total PCE Eligible kWh 612,354 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 353 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.08 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,079 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 28 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 38.5% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 663,575 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 141,603 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)785,097 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 1,590,275 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 35,241 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,625,516 Comments See Craig for power generation *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 79 Igiugig PCE Utility: IGIUGIG ELECTRIC COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 53 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 31 Community Facility Customers 11 Other Customers (Non-PCE)15 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $89,141 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 83,289 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,122 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 43,889 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.70 Total PCE Eligible kWh 127,178 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.92 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 224 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.72 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 332 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 69 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 47.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 338,073 Fuel Used (Gallons)25,905 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $197,585 Purchased kWh 13,023 Average Price of Fuel $7.63 Total Purchased & Generated 351,096 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.74 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $79,094 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.29 Total Expense per kWh Sold $1.03 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 92,422 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 76.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 69,744 Line Loss (%)18.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)106,565 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.05 Total kWh Sold 268,731 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 16,425 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 285,156 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 80 Iliamna; Newhalen; Nondalton PCE Utility: ILIAMNA NEWHALEN NONDALTON Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 429 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 182 Community Facility Customers 14 Other Customers (Non-PCE)93 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $314,223 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 609,513 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,603 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 237,442 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 846,955 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.64 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 279 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.37 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,413 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.28 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 46 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 27.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 143,740 Fuel Used (Gallons)11,234 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 3,755,090 Fuel Cost $41,079 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.66 Total Purchased & Generated 3,898,830 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.01 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,284,654 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.42 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.43 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 812,154 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 79.4% Community Facility kWh Sold 258,451 Line Loss (%)8.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)2,023,909 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.80 Total kWh Sold 3,094,514 PH Consumption as % of Generation 11.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 460,532 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 3,555,046 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 81 Kake PCE Utility: INSIDE PASSAGE ELECTRIC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 578 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 232 Community Facility Customers 14 Other Customers (Non-PCE)59 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $365,643 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 786,380 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,486 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 204,239 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 990,619 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.68 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 282 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.40 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,216 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 29 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 49.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,539,552 Fuel Used (Gallons)102,312 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 825,924 Fuel Cost $286,962 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.80 Total Purchased & Generated 2,365,476 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.14 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $806,571 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.40 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.54 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 940,007 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 85.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 204,239 Line Loss (%)8.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)878,815 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)15.05 Total kWh Sold 2,023,061 PH Consumption as % of Generation 6.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 150,750 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,173,811 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 82 Kaktovik PCE Utility: NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 230 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 79 Community Facility Customers 3 Other Customers (Non-PCE)55 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $6,125 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 189,963 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $75 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 84,865 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.02 Total PCE Eligible kWh 274,828 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 200 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.00 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,357 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 31 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 7.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 5,309,327 Fuel Used (Gallons)394,490 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $1,340,418 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.40 Total Purchased & Generated 5,309,327 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.35 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,104,739 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.29 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.63 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 723,388 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 72.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 84,865 Line Loss (%)22.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)3,046,987 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.46 Total kWh Sold 3,855,240 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.9% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 258,662 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 4,113,902 Comments Residential PCE Level = Zero *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 83 Kaltag PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 155 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 63 Community Facility Customers 11 Other Customers (Non-PCE)23 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $95,917 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 240,824 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,296 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 93,122 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.29 Total PCE Eligible kWh 333,946 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.56 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 319 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.31 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 705 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 50 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 50.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 705,547 Fuel Used (Gallons)56,271 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 4,212 Fuel Cost $160,968 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.86 Total Purchased & Generated 709,759 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.24 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $131,260 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.44 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 274,318 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 93.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 184,285 Line Loss (%)4.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)201,499 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.54 Total kWh Sold 660,102 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 18,768 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 678,870 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 84 Karluk PCE Utility: KARLUK IRA TRIBAL COUNCIL Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 26 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 12 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)11 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $27,410 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 55,126 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,713 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 21,188 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.36 Total PCE Eligible kWh 76,314 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.70 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 383 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.37 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 441 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.33 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 68 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 204,388 Fuel Used (Gallons)19,284 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $58,075 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.01 Total Purchased & Generated 204,388 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.32 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $44,513 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.25 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.57 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 70,834 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 88.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 29,780 Line Loss (%)10.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)79,823 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)10.60 Total kWh Sold 180,437 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 2,689 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 183,126 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 85 Kasigluk PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 589 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 116 Community Facility Customers 12 Other Customers (Non-PCE)26 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $192,406 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 588,701 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,503 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 198,592 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.24 Total PCE Eligible kWh 787,293 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 423 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.24 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,379 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 28 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 52.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 2,468,033 Fuel Used (Gallons)185,949 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 369,469 Fuel Cost $478,895 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.58 Total Purchased & Generated 2,837,502 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.32 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $297,533 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.52 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 767,600 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 52.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 299,119 Line Loss (%)43.6% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)429,561 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.27 Total kWh Sold 1,496,280 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 105,147 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,601,427 Comments Provides power to Nunapitchuk via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 86 Kiana PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 399 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 113 Community Facility Customers 11 Other Customers (Non-PCE)34 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $189,159 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 505,618 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,525 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 197,368 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.27 Total PCE Eligible kWh 702,986 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.53 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 373 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.28 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,495 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 41 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 41.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,794,635 Fuel Used (Gallons)143,699 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $413,028 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.87 Total Purchased & Generated 1,794,635 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.24 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $336,236 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.44 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 788,625 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.2% Community Facility kWh Sold 331,014 Line Loss (%)3.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)571,275 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.49 Total kWh Sold 1,690,914 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 47,320 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,738,234 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 87 Kipnuk PCE Utility: KIPNUK LIGHT PLANT Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 701 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 200 Community Facility Customers 7 Other Customers (Non-PCE)38 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $430,524 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 805,178 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,080 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 84,100 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.48 Total PCE Eligible kWh 889,278 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.69 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 335 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.49 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,001 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 10 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 52.2% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,330,610 Fuel Used (Gallons)99,026 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 679,367 Fuel Cost $255,685 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.58 Total Purchased & Generated 2,009,977 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.15 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,579,525 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.93 Total Expense per kWh Sold $1.08 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 908,008 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 84.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 84,100 Line Loss (%)12.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)712,186 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.44 Total kWh Sold 1,704,294 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.1% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 63,146 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,767,440 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 88 Kivalina PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 423 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 89 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)27 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $140,558 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 412,864 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,434 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 112,849 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.27 Total PCE Eligible kWh 525,713 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.53 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 387 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,045 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 22 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 28.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,941,488 Fuel Used (Gallons)137,666 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $462,559 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.36 Total Purchased & Generated 1,941,488 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.25 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $363,336 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.45 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 631,222 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 309,556 Line Loss (%)3.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)886,422 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.10 Total kWh Sold 1,827,200 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 52,238 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,879,438 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 89 Klawock PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 761 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 393 Community Facility Customers 22 Other Customers (Non-PCE)158 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $64,323 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 1,547,248 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $155 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 551,726 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.03 Total PCE Eligible kWh 2,098,974 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 328 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.08 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,090 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 60 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 25.5% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 2,301,992 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 553,227 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)5,387,328 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 8,242,547 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 113,597 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 8,356,144 Comments See Craig for power generation *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 90 Klukwan PCE Utility: INSIDE PASSAGE ELECTRIC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 86 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 50 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)8 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $91,916 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 176,486 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,558 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 72,240 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 248,726 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.68 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 294 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.40 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 669 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 70 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 57.2% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $175,134 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.40 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.40 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 208,190 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 139,295 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)87,332 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 434,817 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 434,817 Comments kWh's Generated For Power Sales Received From Chilkat Valley *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 91 Kobuk PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 159 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 36 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)15 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $139,197 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 161,540 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $3,480 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 104,682 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.52 Total PCE Eligible kWh 266,222 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.90 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 374 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.63 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,181 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 55 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 40.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $132,221 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 242,715 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 170,954 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)251,262 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 664,931 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 664,931 Comments Receives power from Shungnak Bay via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 92 Kokhanok PCE Utility: KOKHANOK VILLAGE COUNCIL Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 159 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 56 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)20 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $134,392 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 190,380 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,068 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 77,917 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.50 Total PCE Eligible kWh 268,297 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.90 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 283 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.59 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 721 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.31 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 41 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 62.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 529,360 Fuel Used (Gallons)46,370 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 19,724 Fuel Cost $170,816 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.68 Total Purchased & Generated 549,084 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.40 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $16,989 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.04 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.44 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 217,815 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 78.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 77,917 Line Loss (%)13.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)135,211 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.42 Total kWh Sold 430,943 PH Consumption as % of Generation 7.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 42,259 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 473,202 Comments Reported non-fuel = 5 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 93 Koliganek PCE Utility: NEW KOLIGANEK VILLAGE COUNCIL Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 194 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 75 Community Facility Customers 11 Other Customers (Non-PCE)14 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $67,416 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 202,269 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $784 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 81,835 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.24 Total PCE Eligible kWh 284,104 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 225 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 620 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.23 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 35 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 45.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 695,440 Fuel Used (Gallons)55,358 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $173,950 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.14 Total Purchased & Generated 695,440 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.28 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $48,000 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.08 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.36 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 257,804 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 89.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 81,835 Line Loss (%)7.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)282,764 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.56 Total kWh Sold 622,403 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 18,754 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 641,157 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 94 Kongiganak PCE Utility: PUVURNAQ POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 503 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 156 Community Facility Customers 5 Other Customers (Non-PCE)26 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $166,755 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 498,515 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,036 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 83,617 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.29 Total PCE Eligible kWh 582,132 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.67 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 266 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,394 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.41 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 14 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 55.5% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 844,980 Fuel Used (Gallons)69,754 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 614,577 Fuel Cost $196,412 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.82 Total Purchased & Generated 1,459,557 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.19 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $333,513 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.32 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.51 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 690,183 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 71.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 86,777 Line Loss (%)21.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)271,538 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.11 Total kWh Sold 1,048,498 PH Consumption as % of Generation 7.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 102,887 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,151,385 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 95 Kotlik PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 633 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 125 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)42 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $202,672 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 586,773 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,512 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 187,651 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 774,424 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 391 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,738 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 25 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 37.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 2,195,216 Fuel Used (Gallons)154,801 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $415,759 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.69 Total Purchased & Generated 2,195,216 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.20 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $408,081 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.40 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 772,103 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 93.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 279,019 Line Loss (%)4.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,001,098 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.18 Total kWh Sold 2,052,220 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 43,414 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,095,634 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 96 Kotzebue PCE Utility: KOTZEBUE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 3,064 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 1,145 Community Facility Customers 28 Other Customers (Non-PCE)124 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $769,996 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 3,608,385 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $656 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 1,729,942 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.14 Total PCE Eligible kWh 5,338,327 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.37 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 263 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 5,149 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.22 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 47 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 26.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 17,250,772 Fuel Used (Gallons)1,143,667 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 4,533,820 Fuel Cost $2,491,095 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.18 Total Purchased & Generated 21,784,592 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.13 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $3,517,133 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.18 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.30 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 7,028,591 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 91.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 1,787,322 Line Loss (%)6.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)11,080,166 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)15.08 Total kWh Sold 19,896,079 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 507,993 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 20,404,072 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 97 Koyuk PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 312 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 82 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)38 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $128,613 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 377,404 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,398 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 151,110 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.24 Total PCE Eligible kWh 528,514 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 384 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,259 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 40 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,300,703 Fuel Used (Gallons)94,379 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $249,152 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.64 Total Purchased & Generated 1,300,703 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.20 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $245,546 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.40 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 510,438 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 271,025 Line Loss (%)3.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)453,375 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.78 Total kWh Sold 1,234,838 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 20,406 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,255,244 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 98 Koyukuk PCE Utility: CITY OF KOYUKUK Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 96 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 5 Residential Customers 58 Community Facility Customers 6 Other Customers (Non-PCE)7 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $25,876 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 56,748 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $404 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 17,888 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.35 Total PCE Eligible kWh 74,636 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.95 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 196 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 596 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.60 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 37 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 31.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 357,924 Fuel Used (Gallons)36,585 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $122,472 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.35 Total Purchased & Generated 357,924 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.52 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.52 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 121,645 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 65.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 38,105 Line Loss (%)28.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)75,654 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)9.78 Total kWh Sold 235,404 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 19,292 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 254,696 Comments Only 5 months filed. Non-Fuel Exp not reported *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 99 Kwethluk PCE Utility: KWETHLUK INCORPORATED Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 772 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 187 Community Facility Customers 1 Other Customers (Non-PCE)34 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $161,194 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 784,923 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $857 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 616 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.21 Total PCE Eligible kWh 785,539 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 350 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.21 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 51 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.31 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 0 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 49.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,854,018 Fuel Used (Gallons)190,853 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $603,332 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.16 Total Purchased & Generated 1,854,018 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.38 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $377,833 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.24 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.62 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,014,735 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 85.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 616 Line Loss (%)11.9% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)575,890 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)9.71 Total kWh Sold 1,591,241 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 41,717 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,632,958 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 100 Kwigillingok PCE Utility: KWIGILLINGOK IRA COUNCIL Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 354 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 113 Community Facility Customers 3 Other Customers (Non-PCE)23 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $161,198 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 448,589 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,390 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 45,127 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.33 Total PCE Eligible kWh 493,716 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.67 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 331 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,254 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 11 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 43.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,254,040 Fuel Used (Gallons)142,830 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 87,435 Fuel Cost $459,590 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.22 Total Purchased & Generated 1,341,475 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.40 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $398,836 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.35 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.75 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 563,860 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 85.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 45,127 Line Loss (%)11.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)540,145 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)8.78 Total kWh Sold 1,149,132 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 45,341 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,194,473 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 101 Levelock PCE Utility: LEVELOCK ELECTRICAL COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 60 Last Reported Month January No. of Monthly Payments Made 7 Residential Customers 38 Community Facility Customers 6 Other Customers (Non-PCE)34 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $9,636 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 56,537 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $219 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 20,704 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.12 Total PCE Eligible kWh 77,241 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.85 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 213 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.48 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 493 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.37 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 49 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 34.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 296,841 Fuel Used (Gallons)23,142 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $73,727 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.19 Total Purchased & Generated 296,841 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.33 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $63,500 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.28 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.61 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 70,116 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 76.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 21,612 Line Loss (%)21.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)133,735 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.83 Total kWh Sold 225,463 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 7,730 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 233,193 Comments Reports filed=7 months; Payments=3 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 102 Lime Village PCE Utility: LIME VILLAGE ELECTRIC UTILITY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 14 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 3 Residential Customers 12 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)4 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $2,129 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 1,027 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $133 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 1,775 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.76 Total PCE Eligible kWh 2,802 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.77 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 29 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.76 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 148 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$1.01 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 42 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 8,844 Fuel Used (Gallons)1,323 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $9,631 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $7.28 Total Purchased & Generated 8,844 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $1.47 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $9,000 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $1.37 Total Expense per kWh Sold $2.85 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,711 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 74.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 2,118 Line Loss (%)22.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)2,718 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)6.68 Total kWh Sold 6,547 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 279 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 6,826 Comments Only 3 reports filed *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 103 Lower Kalskag PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 297 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 82 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)15 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $89,370 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 316,259 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,039 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 23,827 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 340,086 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.53 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 321 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.28 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 496 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 7 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 53.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $127,535 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 384,632 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 122,780 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)133,953 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 641,365 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 641,365 Comments Receives power from Upper Kalskag via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 104 Manley Hot Springs PCE Utility: TDX MANLEY GENERATING LLC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 106 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 76 Community Facility Customers 12 Other Customers (Non-PCE)23 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $133,912 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 147,396 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,522 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 29,870 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.76 Total PCE Eligible kWh 177,266 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 162 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.76 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 207 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.44 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 23 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 35.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 593,078 Fuel Used (Gallons)46,820 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $130,558 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.79 Total Purchased & Generated 593,078 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.26 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $318,870 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.65 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.91 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 166,519 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 83.2% Community Facility kWh Sold 50,223 Line Loss (%)12.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)276,557 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.67 Total kWh Sold 493,299 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 28,313 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 521,612 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 105 Manokotak PCE Utility: MANOKOTAK POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 490 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 127 Community Facility Customers 5 Other Customers (Non-PCE)35 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $127,457 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 509,045 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $966 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 46,147 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.23 Total PCE Eligible kWh 555,192 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.60 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 334 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.17 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 769 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.43 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 8 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 45.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 343,298 Fuel Used (Gallons)87,596 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $232,845 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.66 Total Purchased & Generated 343,298 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.19 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $319,597 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.26 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.45 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 633,655 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 46,147 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)545,220 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)3.92 Total kWh Sold 1,225,022 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 16,105 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,241,127 Comments Reported diesel kWh gen = 3 months, Reported pwrhse kWh = 4 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 106 Marshall PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 447 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 104 Community Facility Customers 18 Other Customers (Non-PCE)25 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $169,077 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 489,406 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,386 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 200,184 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.25 Total PCE Eligible kWh 689,590 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 392 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 927 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 37 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 46.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,574,330 Fuel Used (Gallons)108,908 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $295,423 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.71 Total Purchased & Generated 1,574,330 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.20 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $295,771 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.40 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 636,499 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 347,028 Line Loss (%)3.9% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)503,888 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.46 Total kWh Sold 1,487,415 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 25,660 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,513,075 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 107 McGrath PCE Utility: MCGRATH LIGHT & POWER Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 307 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 186 Community Facility Customers 14 Other Customers (Non-PCE)91 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $232,163 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 453,996 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,161 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 174,173 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 628,169 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.71 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 203 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.37 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,037 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.34 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 47 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 32.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 2,214,682 Fuel Used (Gallons)155,909 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $538,442 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.45 Total Purchased & Generated 2,214,682 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.28 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.28 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 520,644 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 87.4% Community Facility kWh Sold 174,173 Line Loss (%)8.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,241,116 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.20 Total kWh Sold 1,935,933 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.1% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 89,835 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,025,768 Comments Non-Fuel Costs Not Reported *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 108 Mekoryuk PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 194 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 89 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)31 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $101,761 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 281,053 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,028 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 122,922 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.25 Total PCE Eligible kWh 403,975 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 263 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,024 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 53 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 47.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 918,460 Fuel Used (Gallons)59,483 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 40,691 Fuel Cost $155,119 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.61 Total Purchased & Generated 959,151 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.18 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $169,804 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.38 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 299,929 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 89.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 223,985 Line Loss (%)5.9% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)330,019 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)15.44 Total kWh Sold 853,933 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.1% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 48,925 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 902,858 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 109 Mentasta PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 122 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 51 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)24 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $59,880 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 143,997 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,089 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 18,368 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 162,365 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.82 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 235 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 383 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 13 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 31.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 160,591 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 18,368 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)342,469 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 521,428 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 521,428 Comments See Slana for power generation *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 110 Minto PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 155 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 76 Community Facility Customers 7 Other Customers (Non-PCE)18 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $95,953 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 267,821 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,156 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 130,200 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.24 Total PCE Eligible kWh 398,021 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.58 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 294 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,550 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 70 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 51.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 810,145 Fuel Used (Gallons)65,454 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $169,332 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.59 Total Purchased & Generated 810,145 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $154,239 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.42 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 346,797 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 95.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 343,947 Line Loss (%)3.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)84,915 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.38 Total kWh Sold 775,659 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 9,786 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 785,445 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 111 Mt. Village PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 753 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 167 Community Facility Customers 17 Other Customers (Non-PCE)52 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $221,001 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 726,384 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,201 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 274,149 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.22 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,000,533 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.47 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 362 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.22 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,344 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 30 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 39.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $509,998 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 891,544 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 478,817 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,194,394 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 2,564,755 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,564,755 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 112 Naknek;S.Naknek;Kng Slmn PCE Utility: NAKNEK ELECTRIC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 868 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 779 Community Facility Customers 38 Other Customers (Non-PCE)412 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $644,867 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 1,806,616 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $789 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 729,119 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.25 Total PCE Eligible kWh 2,535,735 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.58 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 193 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,599 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.30 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 70 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 11.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 24,489,126 Fuel Used (Gallons)1,648,054 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $3,271,326 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $1.98 Total Purchased & Generated 24,489,126 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.15 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $7,321,175 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.34 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.49 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 3,123,265 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 87.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 1,143,094 Line Loss (%)9.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)17,270,441 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.86 Total kWh Sold 21,536,800 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 568,604 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 22,105,404 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 113 Napakiak PCE Utility: NAPAKIAK IRCINRAQ Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 370 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 107 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)20 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $103,008 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 360,273 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $928 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 38,937 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 399,210 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.77 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 281 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 811 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.51 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 9 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 54.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 776,859 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 776,859 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $118,789 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.16 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.16 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 373,650 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 38,937 Line Loss (%)5.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)323,024 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 735,611 PH Consumption as % of Generation 0.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 735,611 Comments Purchases power from AVEC *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 114 Napaskiak PCE Utility: NAPASKIAK ELECTRIC UTILITY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 434 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 111 Community Facility Customers 8 Other Customers (Non-PCE)38 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $71,451 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 388,348 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $600 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 40,566 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.17 Total PCE Eligible kWh 428,914 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.70 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 292 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 423 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.44 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 8 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 62.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 958,942 Fuel Used (Gallons)87,611 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $255,270 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.91 Total Purchased & Generated 958,942 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.37 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $55,251 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.08 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.45 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 404,292 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 72.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 40,566 Line Loss (%)22.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)247,002 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)10.95 Total kWh Sold 691,860 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 49,722 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 741,582 Comments Reported diesel kWh gen=10 Months, Reported non fuel expenses = 8 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 115 Naukati PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 137 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 89 Community Facility Customers 0 Other Customers (Non-PCE)19 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $9,039 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 289,602 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $102 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 0 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.03 Total PCE Eligible kWh 289,602 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 271 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.08 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 0 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 0 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 46.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $25,947 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.04 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.04 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 444,660 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 0 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)180,185 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 624,845 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 14,904 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 639,749 Comments See Craig for power generation *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 116 Nelson Lagoon PCE Utility: NELSON LAGOON ELECTRICAL COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 34 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 30 Community Facility Customers 7 Other Customers (Non-PCE)22 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $44,595 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 96,263 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,205 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 23,552 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 119,815 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.84 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 267 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.43 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 280 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.41 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 58 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 49.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 291,837 Fuel Used (Gallons)33,298 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $109,217 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.28 Total Purchased & Generated 291,837 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.45 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $28,895 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.12 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.57 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 118,112 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 83.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 24,585 Line Loss (%)9.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)99,949 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)8.76 Total kWh Sold 242,646 PH Consumption as % of Generation 7.1% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 20,802 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 263,448 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 117 New Stuyahok PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 491 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 102 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)38 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $170,123 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 486,054 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,533 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 111,455 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.28 Total PCE Eligible kWh 597,509 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.56 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 397 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.30 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,032 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 19 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 43.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,926,243 Fuel Used (Gallons)145,709 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $458,240 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.14 Total Purchased & Generated 1,926,243 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.34 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $270,964 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.54 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 583,242 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 70.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 274,769 Line Loss (%)27.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)504,651 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.22 Total kWh Sold 1,362,662 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 42,021 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,404,683 Comments Provides power to Ekwok via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 118 Newtok PCE Utility: UNGUSRAQ POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 335 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 83 Community Facility Customers 6 Other Customers (Non-PCE)22 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $97,780 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 249,006 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,099 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 26,114 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.36 Total PCE Eligible kWh 275,120 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.80 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 250 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.36 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 363 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.44 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 6 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 49.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 216,303 Fuel Used (Gallons)67,262 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $165,646 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.46 Total Purchased & Generated 216,303 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.30 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $12,000 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.02 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.32 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 305,987 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 26,114 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)219,981 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)3.22 Total kWh Sold 552,082 PH Consumption as % of Generation 7.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 16,155 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 568,237 Comments Reported diesel kwh generated=4 months; Fuel=11 months; Non-fuel=4 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 119 Nightmute PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 304 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 54 Community Facility Customers 7 Other Customers (Non-PCE)21 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $73,521 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 252,275 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,205 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 50,690 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.24 Total PCE Eligible kWh 302,965 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.51 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 389 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.24 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 603 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 14 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 35.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $171,783 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 309,325 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 116,834 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)437,729 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 863,888 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 863,888 Comments Receives power from Toksook Bay via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 120 Nikolai PCE Utility: CITY OF NIKOLAI Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 81 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 11 Residential Customers 40 Community Facility Customers 8 Other Customers (Non-PCE)11 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $79,664 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 117,946 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,660 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 44,596 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.49 Total PCE Eligible kWh 162,542 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.90 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 268 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.51 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 507 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.39 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 50 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 40.2% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 532,152 Fuel Used (Gallons)55,378 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $267,558 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $4.83 Total Purchased & Generated 532,152 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.66 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $12,000 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.03 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.69 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 168,127 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 76.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 47,590 Line Loss (%)19.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)188,536 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)9.61 Total kWh Sold 404,253 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 24,521 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 428,774 Comments Only 11 months filed; Reported non-fuel expense = 4 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 121 Nikolski PCE Utility: UMNAK POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 20 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 14 Community Facility Customers 5 Other Customers (Non-PCE)10 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $27,627 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 42,621 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,454 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 14,399 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.48 Total PCE Eligible kWh 57,020 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.75 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 254 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.55 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 240 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 60 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 38.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 146,672 Fuel Used (Gallons)17,174 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $105,761 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $6.16 Total Purchased & Generated 146,672 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.72 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $68,325 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.47 Total Expense per kWh Sold $1.19 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 48,347 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 99.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 18,403 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)79,778 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)8.54 Total kWh Sold 146,528 PH Consumption as % of Generation 13.9% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 20,322 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 166,850 Comments Reported diesel kWh Gen=10 mo; Fuel used & Pwrhse cons=11 mo; *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 122 Noatak PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 555 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 120 Community Facility Customers 6 Other Customers (Non-PCE)29 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $517,683 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 627,460 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $4,109 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 209,481 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.62 Total PCE Eligible kWh 836,941 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.93 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 436 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.66 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,909 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 31 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 47.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,882,034 Fuel Used (Gallons)144,955 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $1,285,321 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $8.87 Total Purchased & Generated 1,882,034 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.73 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $349,355 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.93 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 870,195 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 93.4% Community Facility kWh Sold 322,161 Line Loss (%)3.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)564,531 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.98 Total kWh Sold 1,756,887 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 67,082 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,823,969 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 123 Nome PCE Utility: NOME JOINT UTILITY SYSTEM Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 3,712 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 1,769 Community Facility Customers 81 Other Customers (Non-PCE)379 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $710,629 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 5,568,972 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $384 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 2,151,671 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.09 Total PCE Eligible kWh 7,720,643 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.36 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 262 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.10 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,214 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 48 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 25.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 30,470,786 Fuel Used (Gallons)1,934,942 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 2,162,811 Fuel Cost $4,052,112 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.09 Total Purchased & Generated 32,633,597 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.14 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $6,133,154 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.34 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 8,833,247 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 91.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 2,258,046 Line Loss (%)4.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)18,839,099 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)15.75 Total kWh Sold 29,930,392 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 1,245,708 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 31,176,100 Comments Only 11 Reports Filed *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 124 Noorvik PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 652 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 131 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)38 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $284,243 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 634,268 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,016 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 404,543 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.27 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,038,811 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.55 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 403 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.30 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 3,371 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 52 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 53.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 2,055,194 Fuel Used (Gallons)167,539 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 13,360 Fuel Cost $498,769 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.98 Total Purchased & Generated 2,068,554 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.25 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $390,109 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.45 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 955,966 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 514,548 Line Loss (%)3.6% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)491,323 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.27 Total kWh Sold 1,961,837 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 32,884 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,994,721 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 125 Northway; Northway Village PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 251 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 92 Community Facility Customers 6 Other Customers (Non-PCE)38 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $142,633 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 288,675 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,455 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 77,935 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.39 Total PCE Eligible kWh 366,610 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.83 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 261 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.51 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,082 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 26 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 36.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,091,200 Fuel Used (Gallons)86,661 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $261,133 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.01 Total Purchased & Generated 1,091,200 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.26 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $193,512 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.19 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.46 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 344,466 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 90.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 77,935 Line Loss (%)7.9% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)570,026 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.59 Total kWh Sold 992,427 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 12,672 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,005,099 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 126 Nuiqsut PCE Utility: NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 492 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 112 Community Facility Customers 3 Other Customers (Non-PCE)84 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $8,381 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 482,220 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $73 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 108,612 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.01 Total PCE Eligible kWh 590,832 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.08 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 359 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.00 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 3,017 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.08 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 18 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 9.5% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,263,582 Fuel Used (Gallons)102,675 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 6,008,494 Fuel Cost $337,050 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.28 Total Purchased & Generated 7,272,076 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.05 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $963,200 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.15 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.21 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 985,477 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 85.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 108,612 Line Loss (%)9.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)5,136,374 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.31 Total kWh Sold 6,230,463 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 334,471 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 6,564,934 Comments Residential PCE Level = Zero; Reported kWh's Gen'd & Pwrhse Cons=11 Months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 127 Nulato PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 233 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 105 Community Facility Customers 15 Other Customers (Non-PCE)21 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $165,644 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 382,640 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,380 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 191,852 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.29 Total PCE Eligible kWh 574,492 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.58 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 304 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.33 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,066 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 69 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 57.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,074,094 Fuel Used (Gallons)90,274 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $271,898 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.01 Total Purchased & Generated 1,074,094 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.27 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $197,470 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.47 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 462,099 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 92.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 319,736 Line Loss (%)5.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)211,232 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.90 Total kWh Sold 993,067 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 19,315 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,012,382 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 128 Nunam Iqua PCE Utility: NUNAM IQUA ELECTRIC COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 222 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 48 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)13 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $72,827 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 213,420 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,401 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 160,860 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.19 Total PCE Eligible kWh 374,280 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.44 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 371 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 3,351 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.24 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 60 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 935,618 Fuel Used (Gallons)72,644 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $194,048 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.67 Total Purchased & Generated 935,618 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $123,590 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.14 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.36 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 270,459 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 93.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 185,753 Line Loss (%)2.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)416,930 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.88 Total kWh Sold 873,142 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 42,796 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 915,938 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 129 Nunapitchuk PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 569 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 122 Community Facility Customers 12 Other Customers (Non-PCE)25 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $166,383 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 559,314 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,242 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 107,305 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.25 Total PCE Eligible kWh 666,619 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 382 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.24 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 745 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 16 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 54.5% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $243,048 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 673,380 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 164,460 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)384,434 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 1,222,274 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,222,274 Comments Receives power from Kasigluk via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 130 Old Harbor PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 176 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 86 Community Facility Customers 11 Other Customers (Non-PCE)29 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $133,941 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 296,671 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,381 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 147,839 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.30 Total PCE Eligible kWh 444,510 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.66 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 287 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.41 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,120 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 70 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 58.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 828,178 Fuel Used (Gallons)59,423 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $202,478 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.41 Total Purchased & Generated 828,178 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.27 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $150,509 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.47 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 354,585 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 91.4% Community Facility kWh Sold 274,413 Line Loss (%)4.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)127,903 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.94 Total kWh Sold 756,901 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 35,131 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 792,032 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 131 Ouzinkie PCE Utility: CITY OF OUZINKIE Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 124 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 78 Community Facility Customers 12 Other Customers (Non-PCE)25 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $63,500 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 223,795 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $706 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 96,951 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.20 Total PCE Eligible kWh 320,746 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.40 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 239 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 673 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 65 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 51.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 690,924 Fuel Used (Gallons)53,801 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $193,428 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.60 Total Purchased & Generated 690,924 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.31 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $144,539 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.23 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.54 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 261,025 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 90.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 130,616 Line Loss (%)7.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)233,992 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.84 Total kWh Sold 625,633 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 16,218 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 641,851 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 132 Pedro Bay PCE Utility: PEDRO BAY VILLAGE COUNCIL Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 34 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 42 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)16 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $14,820 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 27,895 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $322 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 19,869 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.31 Total PCE Eligible kWh 47,764 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.82 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 55 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.41 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 414 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.41 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 49 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 26.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 217,320 Fuel Used (Gallons)20,262 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $74,581 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.68 Total Purchased & Generated 217,320 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.41 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $25,211 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.14 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.54 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 51,428 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 84.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 21,304 Line Loss (%)8.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)111,116 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)10.73 Total kWh Sold 183,848 PH Consumption as % of Generation 6.9% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 14,993 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 198,841 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 133 Pelican PCE Utility: PELICAN UTILITY DISTRICT Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 69 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 72 Community Facility Customers 16 Other Customers (Non-PCE)33 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $20,397 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 214,373 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $232 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 43,470 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.08 Total PCE Eligible kWh 257,843 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 248 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.06 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 226 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 53 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 18.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 140,110 Fuel Used (Gallons)10,657 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 1,426,897 Fuel Cost $33,415 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.14 Total Purchased & Generated 1,567,007 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.02 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $182,862 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.13 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.16 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 347,798 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 87.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 283,868 Line Loss (%)8.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)745,091 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.15 Total kWh Sold 1,376,757 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.1% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 64,659 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,441,416 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 134 Pilot Point PCE Utility: PILOT POINT ELECTRIC UTILITY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 73 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 44 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)22 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $63,262 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 116,390 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,172 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 49,491 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.38 Total PCE Eligible kWh 165,881 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.60 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 220 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.40 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 412 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 56 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 44.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 482,891 Fuel Used (Gallons)45,934 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $133,851 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.91 Total Purchased & Generated 482,891 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.36 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $107,647 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.29 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.64 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 147,632 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 77.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 50,691 Line Loss (%)17.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)176,470 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)10.51 Total kWh Sold 374,793 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.1% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 24,677 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 399,470 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 135 Pilot Station PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 604 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 132 Community Facility Customers 12 Other Customers (Non-PCE)28 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $206,330 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 572,170 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,433 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 222,102 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 794,272 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.56 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 361 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.31 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,542 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 31 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 41.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,984,651 Fuel Used (Gallons)172,719 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $477,591 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.77 Total Purchased & Generated 1,984,651 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.25 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $378,477 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.45 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 695,900 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 95.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 262,794 Line Loss (%)2.9% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)944,648 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.49 Total kWh Sold 1,903,342 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 24,222 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,927,564 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 136 Pitkas Point PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 117 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 26 Community Facility Customers 6 Other Customers (Non-PCE)5 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $48,406 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 130,183 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,513 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 92,769 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.22 Total PCE Eligible kWh 222,952 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.47 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 417 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.22 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,288 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 66 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 65.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $68,237 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 161,639 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 181,520 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)0 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 343,159 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 343,159 Comments Receives power from St. Mary's/Andreafsky via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 137 Point Hope PCE Utility: NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 815 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 201 Community Facility Customers 2 Other Customers (Non-PCE)85 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $4,797 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 587,277 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $24 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 68,640 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.01 Total PCE Eligible kWh 655,917 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 243 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.00 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,860 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 7 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 11.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 6,692,222 Fuel Used (Gallons)512,480 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $1,728,689 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.37 Total Purchased & Generated 6,692,222 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.31 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,292,136 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.23 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.55 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,821,643 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 82.4% Community Facility kWh Sold 68,640 Line Loss (%)13.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)3,620,788 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.06 Total kWh Sold 5,511,071 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 281,807 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 5,792,878 Comments Residential PCE Level = Zero *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 138 Point Lay PCE Utility: NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 309 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 66 Community Facility Customers 1 Other Customers (Non-PCE)43 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $2,525 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 146,292 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $38 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 35,329 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.01 Total PCE Eligible kWh 181,621 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 185 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.00 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,944 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 10 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 5.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,661,809 Fuel Used (Gallons)295,716 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $1,016,976 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.44 Total Purchased & Generated 3,661,809 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.31 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,019,365 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.31 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.63 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 606,180 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 88.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 35,329 Line Loss (%)10.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)2,604,768 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.38 Total kWh Sold 3,246,277 PH Consumption as % of Generation 0.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 23,945 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 3,270,222 Comments Residential PCE Level = Zero *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 139 Port Alsworth PCE Utility: TANALIAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 216 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 84 Community Facility Customers 0 Other Customers (Non-PCE)68 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $102,243 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 267,790 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,217 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 0 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.38 Total PCE Eligible kWh 267,790 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.68 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 266 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.47 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 0 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.22 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 0 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 31.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 932,993 Fuel Used (Gallons)70,418 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $247,711 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.52 Total Purchased & Generated 932,993 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.29 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $179,918 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.21 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.50 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 329,526 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 92.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 0 Line Loss (%)5.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)531,772 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.25 Total kWh Sold 861,298 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 23,490 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 884,788 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 140 Port Heiden PCE Utility: PORT HEIDEN UTILITIES Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 106 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 50 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)37 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $66,932 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 149,087 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,239 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 54,230 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.33 Total PCE Eligible kWh 203,317 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.65 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 248 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.36 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,130 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 43 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 618,080 Fuel Used (Gallons)51,032 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $155,328 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.04 Total Purchased & Generated 618,080 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.32 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $12,000 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.02 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.35 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 174,965 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 78.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 54,277 Line Loss (%)18.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)253,222 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.11 Total kWh Sold 482,464 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 21,997 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 504,461 Comments Reported non-fuel costs = 4 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 141 Quinhagak PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 713 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 181 Community Facility Customers 14 Other Customers (Non-PCE)31 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $251,227 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 855,959 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,288 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 348,123 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.21 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,204,082 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 394 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.22 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,072 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.28 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 41 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 52.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,764,053 Fuel Used (Gallons)128,167 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 589,218 Fuel Cost $353,593 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.76 Total Purchased & Generated 2,353,271 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.15 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $454,027 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.35 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,128,320 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 97.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 493,939 Line Loss (%)0.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)661,017 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.76 Total kWh Sold 2,283,276 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 62,002 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,345,278 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 142 Rampart PCE Utility: RAMPART VILLAGE COUNCIL Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 92 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 31 Community Facility Customers 5 Other Customers (Non-PCE)10 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $66,298 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 65,625 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,842 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 71,950 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.48 Total PCE Eligible kWh 137,575 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.81 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 176 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.49 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,199 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.33 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 65 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 63.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 263,770 Fuel Used (Gallons)25,134 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $84,013 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.34 Total Purchased & Generated 263,770 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.39 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $48,010 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.22 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.61 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 75,661 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 82.4% Community Facility kWh Sold 91,757 Line Loss (%)6.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)49,867 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)10.49 Total kWh Sold 217,285 PH Consumption as % of Generation 10.9% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 28,825 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 246,110 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 143 Red Devil PCE Utility: MIDDLE KUSKOKWIM ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 16 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 12 Community Facility Customers 0 Other Customers (Non-PCE)6 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $25,103 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 33,066 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,092 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 0 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.76 Total PCE Eligible kWh 33,066 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 230 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.76 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 0 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.74 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 0 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 51.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 82,020 Fuel Used (Gallons)11,041 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $27,241 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.47 Total Purchased & Generated 82,020 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.42 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $107,616 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $1.67 Total Expense per kWh Sold $2.10 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 40,072 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 78.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 0 Line Loss (%)19.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)24,292 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)7.43 Total kWh Sold 64,364 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 2,101 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 66,465 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 144 Ruby PCE Utility: CITY OF RUBY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 145 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 114 Community Facility Customers 16 Other Customers (Non-PCE)27 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $133,429 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 231,231 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,026 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 100,876 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.40 Total PCE Eligible kWh 332,107 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.75 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 169 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.46 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 525 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 58 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 49.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 724,043 Fuel Used (Gallons)96,933 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $466,350 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $4.81 Total Purchased & Generated 724,043 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.70 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $199,376 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.30 Total Expense per kWh Sold $1.00 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 259,288 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 92.2% Community Facility kWh Sold 111,190 Line Loss (%)4.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)297,016 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)7.47 Total kWh Sold 667,494 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 25,257 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 692,751 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 145 Russian Mission PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 330 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 77 Community Facility Customers 8 Other Customers (Non-PCE)15 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $106,336 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 341,972 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,251 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 61,362 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 403,334 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.55 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 370 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.30 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 639 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 15 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 44.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 973,923 Fuel Used (Gallons)77,188 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $211,720 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.74 Total Purchased & Generated 973,923 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.23 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $181,221 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.43 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 406,547 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 93.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 98,565 Line Loss (%)3.6% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)406,238 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.62 Total kWh Sold 911,350 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.9% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 27,991 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 939,341 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 146 Sand Point PCE Utility: TDX CORPORATION Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 880 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 243 Community Facility Customers 27 Other Customers (Non-PCE)114 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $410,621 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 932,366 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,521 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 691,378 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.25 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,623,744 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.41 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 320 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.16 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,134 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 65 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 48.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,255,095 Fuel Used (Gallons)235,774 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $684,110 Purchased kWh 475,640 Average Price of Fuel $2.90 Total Purchased & Generated 3,730,735 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.20 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $864,642 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.26 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.46 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,192,081 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 90.4% Community Facility kWh Sold 728,954 Line Loss (%)7.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,451,857 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.81 Total kWh Sold 3,372,892 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 92,185 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 3,465,077 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 147 Savoonga PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 712 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 162 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)56 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $245,995 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 759,846 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,439 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 240,552 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.25 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,000,398 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 391 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,227 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 28 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 41.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 2,474,382 Fuel Used (Gallons)167,847 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 21,785 Fuel Cost $443,577 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.64 Total Purchased & Generated 2,496,167 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.19 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $475,821 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.38 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,049,474 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 95.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 652,065 Line Loss (%)2.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)691,339 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.74 Total kWh Sold 2,392,878 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 33,900 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,426,778 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 148 Scammon Bay PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 595 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 124 Community Facility Customers 8 Other Customers (Non-PCE)41 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $198,752 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 551,916 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,506 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 203,948 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 755,864 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 371 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,124 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 29 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 45.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,806,774 Fuel Used (Gallons)136,693 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $366,724 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.68 Total Purchased & Generated 1,806,774 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $329,744 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.42 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 656,651 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 91.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 327,976 Line Loss (%)5.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)673,636 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.22 Total kWh Sold 1,658,263 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 44,308 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,702,571 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 149 Selawik PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 819 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 168 Community Facility Customers 14 Other Customers (Non-PCE)43 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $362,826 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 790,949 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,994 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 570,425 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.27 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,361,374 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.53 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 392 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 3,395 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 58 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 46.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,040,117 Fuel Used (Gallons)219,788 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $630,931 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.87 Total Purchased & Generated 3,040,117 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $578,339 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.42 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,287,611 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 95.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 813,884 Line Loss (%)3.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)806,940 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.83 Total kWh Sold 2,908,435 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.1% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 32,163 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,940,598 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 150 Shageluk PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 85 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 36 Community Facility Customers 8 Other Customers (Non-PCE)17 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $48,773 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 113,579 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,108 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 56,945 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.29 Total PCE Eligible kWh 170,524 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.54 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 263 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 593 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 56 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 434,034 Fuel Used (Gallons)34,047 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $96,123 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.82 Total Purchased & Generated 434,034 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.24 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $78,982 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.44 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 134,612 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 91.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 85,928 Line Loss (%)5.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)176,655 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.75 Total kWh Sold 397,195 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 12,254 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 409,449 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 151 Shaktoolik PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 269 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 63 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)35 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $85,324 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 326,934 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,273 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 64,346 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.22 Total PCE Eligible kWh 391,280 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.54 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 432 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,341 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.29 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 20 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 37.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 958,964 Fuel Used (Gallons)71,163 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 130,093 Fuel Cost $188,774 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.65 Total Purchased & Generated 1,089,057 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.18 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $205,068 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.38 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 465,902 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 176,753 Line Loss (%)1.9% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)388,621 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.48 Total kWh Sold 1,031,276 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 36,834 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,068,110 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 152 Shishmaref PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 589 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 150 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)46 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $209,188 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 665,617 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,307 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 105,982 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.27 Total PCE Eligible kWh 771,599 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.53 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 370 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.28 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 883 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 15 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 41.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,911,331 Fuel Used (Gallons)139,750 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $405,487 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.90 Total Purchased & Generated 1,911,331 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $369,153 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.42 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 800,700 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 97.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 383,716 Line Loss (%)0.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)672,034 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.68 Total kWh Sold 1,856,450 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.9% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 54,568 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,911,018 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 153 Shungnak PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 263 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 61 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)18 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $225,040 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 288,657 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $3,215 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 137,557 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.53 Total PCE Eligible kWh 426,214 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.90 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 394 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.63 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,274 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 44 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 46.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,555,854 Fuel Used (Gallons)137,255 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 142,433 Fuel Cost $724,559 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $5.28 Total Purchased & Generated 1,698,287 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.78 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $184,283 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.98 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 432,408 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 54.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 196,643 Line Loss (%)41.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)297,699 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.34 Total kWh Sold 926,750 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 68,251 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 995,001 Comments Provides power to Kobuk via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 154 Skagway PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 1,147 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 607 Community Facility Customers 41 Other Customers (Non-PCE)649 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $80,209 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 1,831,001 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $124 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 718,543 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.03 Total PCE Eligible kWh 2,549,544 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 251 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.06 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,460 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 52 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 23.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,132,081 Fuel Used (Gallons)79,711 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 2,243,653 Fuel Cost $269,114 Purchased kWh 8,560,075 Average Price of Fuel $3.38 Total Purchased & Generated 11,935,809 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.02 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,450,754 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.13 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.16 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 2,982,133 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 91.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 763,972 Line Loss (%)7.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)7,177,928 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.20 Total kWh Sold 10,924,033 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 177,479 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 11,101,512 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 155 Slana PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 112 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 73 Community Facility Customers 1 Other Customers (Non-PCE)17 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $84,221 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 225,780 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,138 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 1,376 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 227,156 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.82 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 258 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 115 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 1 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 51.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,463,899 Fuel Used (Gallons)108,109 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $319,795 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.96 Total Purchased & Generated 1,463,899 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.72 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $283,669 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.64 Total Expense per kWh Sold $1.36 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 268,574 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 30.4% Community Facility kWh Sold 1,376 Line Loss (%)68.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)175,245 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.54 Total kWh Sold 445,195 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 19,290 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 464,485 Comments Provides power to Chistochina & Mentasta *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 156 Sleetmute PCE Utility: MIDDLE KUSKOKWIM ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 89 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 33 Community Facility Customers 6 Other Customers (Non-PCE)9 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $114,215 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 90,332 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $2,929 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 60,103 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.76 Total PCE Eligible kWh 150,435 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 228 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.76 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 835 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.74 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 56 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 53.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 301,241 Fuel Used (Gallons)26,306 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $64,904 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.47 Total Purchased & Generated 301,241 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.23 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $169,232 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.60 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.83 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 111,522 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 93.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 64,106 Line Loss (%)1.6% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)106,351 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.45 Total kWh Sold 281,979 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 14,578 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 296,557 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 157 St. George PCE Utility: CITY OF ST. GEORGE Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 61 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 10 Residential Customers 40 Community Facility Customers 5 Other Customers (Non-PCE)33 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $75,465 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 67,245 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,677 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 40,596 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.70 Total PCE Eligible kWh 107,841 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.00 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 168 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.73 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 812 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 67 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 32.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 432,867 Fuel Used (Gallons)36,582 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $257,572 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $7.04 Total Purchased & Generated 432,867 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.77 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $24,587 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.07 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.84 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 100,089 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 77.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 51,914 Line Loss (%)15.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)184,404 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.83 Total kWh Sold 336,407 PH Consumption as % of Generation 7.1% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 30,860 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 367,267 Comments Only 10 months filed; Reported non fuel expense = 9 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 158 St. Mary's; Andreafsky PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 569 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 174 Community Facility Customers 17 Other Customers (Non-PCE)62 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $247,603 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 727,436 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,296 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 420,403 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.22 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,147,839 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.47 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 348 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.22 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,061 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 62 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 43.2% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,579,044 Fuel Used (Gallons)189,563 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 2,311,815 Fuel Cost $503,252 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.65 Total Purchased & Generated 5,890,859 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.19 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $528,804 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.39 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 886,332 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 45.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 727,322 Line Loss (%)53.1% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,045,674 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)18.88 Total kWh Sold 2,659,328 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.7% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 102,733 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 2,762,061 Comments Provides power to Pitkas Point via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 159 St. Michael PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 383 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 85 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)42 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $166,601 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 415,178 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,754 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 276,709 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.24 Total PCE Eligible kWh 691,887 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 407 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,306 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 60 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 38.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $359,163 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 613,788 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 563,148 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)629,274 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 1,806,210 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,806,210 Comments Receives power from Stebbins via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 160 St. Paul PCE Utility: ST. PAUL MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 387 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 127 Community Facility Customers 24 Other Customers (Non-PCE)78 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $221,878 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 576,017 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,469 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 313,968 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.25 Total PCE Eligible kWh 889,985 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.44 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 378 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.24 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,090 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 68 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 30.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,392,383 Fuel Used (Gallons)246,897 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $895,950 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.63 Total Purchased & Generated 3,392,383 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.30 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $557,962 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.19 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.49 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 678,707 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 87.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 367,842 Line Loss (%)8.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,908,713 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.74 Total kWh Sold 2,955,262 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 147,786 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 3,103,048 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 161 Stebbins PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 612 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 142 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)43 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $181,761 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 604,772 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,196 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 98,889 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 703,661 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 355 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 824 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 13 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 42.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,659,090 Fuel Used (Gallons)254,004 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $694,221 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.73 Total Purchased & Generated 3,659,090 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.42 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $326,925 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.62 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 797,794 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 44.9% Community Facility kWh Sold 319,222 Line Loss (%)52.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)527,072 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.41 Total kWh Sold 1,644,088 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 101,736 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,745,824 Comments Provides power to St. Michael via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 162 Stony River PCE Utility: MIDDLE KUSKOKWIM ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE INC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 38 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 18 Community Facility Customers 5 Other Customers (Non-PCE)5 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $44,834 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 37,928 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,949 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 21,117 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.76 Total PCE Eligible kWh 59,045 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 176 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.76 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 352 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.74 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 46 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 51.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 136,082 Fuel Used (Gallons)17,173 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $42,283 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.46 Total Purchased & Generated 136,082 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.37 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $142,077 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $1.24 Total Expense per kWh Sold $1.61 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 42,771 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 84.2% Community Facility kWh Sold 21,287 Line Loss (%)7.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)50,464 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)7.92 Total kWh Sold 114,522 PH Consumption as % of Generation 8.9% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 12,050 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 126,572 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 163 Takotna PCE Utility: TAKOTNA COMMUNITY ASSOC INC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 67 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 8 Residential Customers 28 Community Facility Customers 4 Other Customers (Non-PCE)12 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $26,507 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 46,442 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $828 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 14,121 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.44 Total PCE Eligible kWh 60,563 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $1.02 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 207 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.46 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 441 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.56 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 26 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 45.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 162,857 Fuel Used (Gallons)17,534 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $67,310 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.84 Total Purchased & Generated 162,857 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.51 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.51 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 55,516 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 81.4% Community Facility kWh Sold 14,121 Line Loss (%)6.6% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)63,002 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)9.29 Total kWh Sold 132,639 PH Consumption as % of Generation 12.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 19,507 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 152,146 Comments Only 8 months filed; Non-fuel exp not reported *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 164 Tanana PCE Utility: TANANA POWER COMPANY INC. Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 190 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 105 Community Facility Customers 7 Other Customers (Non-PCE)46 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $130,573 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 288,550 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,166 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 141,086 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.30 Total PCE Eligible kWh 429,636 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.65 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 229 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.30 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,680 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 62 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 37.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,325,712 Fuel Used (Gallons)92,283 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $259,857 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.82 Total Purchased & Generated 1,325,712 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $443,333 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.38 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.60 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 310,794 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 87.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 151,617 Line Loss (%)10.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)700,210 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.37 Total kWh Sold 1,162,621 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 26,177 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,188,798 Comments Provides Power To Klukwan Facility For Sales To Its Customers *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 165 Tatitlek PCE Utility: TATITLEK VILLAGE IRA COUNCIL Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 95 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 41 Community Facility Customers 5 Other Customers (Non-PCE)21 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $83,736 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 112,894 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,820 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 49,495 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.52 Total PCE Eligible kWh 162,389 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.92 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 229 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.62 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 825 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.30 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 43 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 50.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 433,450 Fuel Used (Gallons)37,423 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $161,722 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $4.32 Total Purchased & Generated 433,450 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.50 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $12,000 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.04 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.54 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 127,237 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 74.4% Community Facility kWh Sold 49,665 Line Loss (%)17.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)145,614 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.58 Total kWh Sold 322,516 PH Consumption as % of Generation 8.6% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 37,085 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 359,601 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 166 Teller PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 238 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 72 Community Facility Customers 7 Other Customers (Non-PCE)35 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $89,368 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 275,558 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,131 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 53,884 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.27 Total PCE Eligible kWh 329,442 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 319 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 641 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 19 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 41.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 874,346 Fuel Used (Gallons)60,205 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $161,732 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.69 Total Purchased & Generated 874,346 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.20 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $159,942 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.40 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 312,604 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 92.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 192,372 Line Loss (%)2.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)299,362 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.52 Total kWh Sold 804,338 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 45,351 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 849,689 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 167 Tenakee Springs PCE Utility: CITY OF TENAKEE SPRINGS Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 118 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 128 Community Facility Customers 15 Other Customers (Non-PCE)30 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $83,934 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 195,146 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $587 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 29,003 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.37 Total PCE Eligible kWh 224,149 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.77 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 127 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.49 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 161 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.28 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 20 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 62.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 416,907 Fuel Used (Gallons)36,085 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $143,310 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.97 Total Purchased & Generated 416,907 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.40 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $68,795 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.19 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.59 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 265,850 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 86.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 29,003 Line Loss (%)7.2% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)65,855 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)11.55 Total kWh Sold 360,708 PH Consumption as % of Generation 6.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 26,118 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 386,826 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 168 Tetlin PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 106 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 50 Community Facility Customers 5 Other Customers (Non-PCE)10 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $62,161 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 147,152 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,130 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 67,875 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.29 Total PCE Eligible kWh 215,027 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.57 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 245 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.37 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,131 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 53 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 51.5% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 195,221 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 68,026 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)154,536 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 417,783 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 417,783 Comments See Tok for power generation *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 169 Thorne Bay; Kasaan PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 615 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 327 Community Facility Customers 30 Other Customers (Non-PCE)152 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $42,581 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 1,046,601 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $119 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 355,957 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.03 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,402,558 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 267 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.08 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 989 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 48 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 40.9% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $0 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold See Comments Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,653,535 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 356,576 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,418,922 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 3,429,033 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 70,904 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 3,499,937 Comments See Craig for power generation *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 170 Togiak PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 858 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 210 Community Facility Customers 19 Other Customers (Non-PCE)80 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $302,738 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 903,321 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,322 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 253,272 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,156,593 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 358 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,111 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 25 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 36.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,288,032 Fuel Used (Gallons)229,740 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $648,972 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.82 Total Purchased & Generated 3,288,032 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.21 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $624,769 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.41 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,148,452 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 95.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 556,718 Line Loss (%)3.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)1,436,761 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.31 Total kWh Sold 3,141,931 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.4% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 47,333 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 3,189,264 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 171 Tok; Tanacross PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 1,304 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 787 Community Facility Customers 33 Other Customers (Non-PCE)191 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $918,793 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 2,900,574 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,120 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 276,571 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.29 Total PCE Eligible kWh 3,177,145 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.57 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 307 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.37 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 698 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 18 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 36.6% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 10,513,000 Fuel Used (Gallons)724,329 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $2,166,028 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.99 Total Purchased & Generated 10,513,000 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.25 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,890,212 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.22 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.47 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 4,098,899 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 82.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 276,571 Line Loss (%)15.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)4,295,939 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.51 Total kWh Sold 8,671,409 PH Consumption as % of Generation 1.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 189,308 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 8,860,717 Comments Provides power to Dot Lake/Dot Lake Village & Tetlin *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 172 Toksook Bay PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 682 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 135 Community Facility Customers 13 Other Customers (Non-PCE)41 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $219,749 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 630,937 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,485 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 310,664 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.23 Total PCE Eligible kWh 941,601 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.51 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 389 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.24 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,991 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 38 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 53.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,339,301 Fuel Used (Gallons)251,608 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 468,876 Fuel Cost $682,943 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.71 Total Purchased & Generated 3,808,177 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.39 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $350,518 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.59 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 819,737 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 46.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 566,537 Line Loss (%)50.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)376,465 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.27 Total kWh Sold 1,762,739 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 122,056 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,884,795 Comments Provides power to Nightmute & Tununnak via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 173 Tuntutuliak PCE Utility: TUNTUTULIAK COMMUNITY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 468 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 139 Community Facility Customers 10 Other Customers (Non-PCE)37 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $211,452 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 523,946 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,419 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 38,557 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.38 Total PCE Eligible kWh 562,503 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.65 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 314 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.38 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 321 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 7 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 48.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,209,410 Fuel Used (Gallons)94,877 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 69,975 Fuel Cost $270,801 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.85 Total Purchased & Generated 1,279,385 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.23 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $403,211 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.35 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.58 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 626,014 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 90.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 43,536 Line Loss (%)7.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)486,089 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.75 Total kWh Sold 1,155,639 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 28,169 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,183,808 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 174 Tununak PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 368 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 92 Community Facility Customers 8 Other Customers (Non-PCE)27 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $102,193 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 368,468 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,022 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 51,452 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.24 Total PCE Eligible kWh 419,920 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.51 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 334 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.24 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 536 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 12 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 40.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 0 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $205,254 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 434,810 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) See Comments Community Facility kWh Sold 231,421 Line Loss (%)See Comments Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)365,981 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 1,032,212 PH Consumption as % of Generation N/A Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 1,032,212 Comments Receives power from Toksook Bay via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 175 Twin Hills PCE Utility: TWIN HILLS VILLAGE COUNCIL Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 96 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 35 Community Facility Customers 6 Other Customers (Non-PCE)7 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $36,630 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 109,099 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $893 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 36,200 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.25 Total PCE Eligible kWh 145,299 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.50 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 260 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 503 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 31 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 45.3% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Used (Gallons)0 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $0 Purchased kWh 341,183 Average Price of Fuel $0.00 Total Purchased & Generated 341,183 Fuel Cost per kWh sold See Comments Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $263 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 156,350 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 36,816 Line Loss (%)6.0% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)127,647 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)N/A Total kWh Sold 320,813 PH Consumption as % of Generation 0.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 0 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 320,813 Comments Purchases power from AVEC; Reported non-fuel expense = 7 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 176 Unalakleet PCE Utility: UNALAKLEET VALLEY ELECTRIC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 706 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 276 Community Facility Customers 16 Other Customers (Non-PCE)96 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $245,310 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 991,327 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $840 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 308,398 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.19 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,299,725 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.44 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 299 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.19 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,606 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.26 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 36 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 34.1% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 3,600,636 Fuel Used (Gallons)236,246 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 604,998 Fuel Cost $616,831 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.61 Total Purchased & Generated 4,205,634 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.16 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.00 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.16 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,358,505 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 90.6% Community Facility kWh Sold 308,398 Line Loss (%)5.4% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)2,144,742 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)15.24 Total kWh Sold 3,811,645 PH Consumption as % of Generation 4.0% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 166,538 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 3,978,183 Comments Non-Fuel Costs Not Reported. *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 177 Unalaska PCE Utility: CITY OF UNALASKA Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 4,561 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 791 Community Facility Customers 58 Other Customers (Non-PCE)196 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $781,173 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 1,919,463 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $920 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 3,089,199 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.16 Total PCE Eligible kWh 5,008,662 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.59 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 202 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 4,439 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 56 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 11.5% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 45,984,338 Fuel Used (Gallons)2,957,114 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 4,832 Fuel Cost $9,116,564 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.08 Total Purchased & Generated 45,989,170 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.21 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $5,331,715 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.12 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.33 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 3,916,230 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 94.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 3,181,658 Line Loss (%)3.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)36,382,854 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)15.55 Total kWh Sold 43,480,742 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 995,324 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 44,476,066 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 178 Upper Kalskag PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 200 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 69 Community Facility Customers 3 Other Customers (Non-PCE)26 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $80,404 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 272,538 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,117 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 37,458 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.26 Total PCE Eligible kWh 309,996 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.53 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 329 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.28 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,041 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 16 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 40.7% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 1,533,433 Fuel Used (Gallons)109,272 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $282,924 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.59 Total Purchased & Generated 1,533,433 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.37 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $151,517 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.57 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 355,234 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 49.7% Community Facility kWh Sold 137,579 Line Loss (%)47.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)269,157 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.03 Total kWh Sold 761,970 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.8% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 42,482 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 804,452 Comments Provides power to Lower Kalskag via intertie *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 179 Venetie PCE Utility: VENETIE VILLAGE ELECTRIC Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 160 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 96 Community Facility Customers 9 Other Customers (Non-PCE)14 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $154,876 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 199,928 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,475 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 117,763 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.49 Total PCE Eligible kWh 317,691 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.90 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 174 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.70 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,090 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 61 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 57.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 602,000 Fuel Used (Gallons)69,205 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $329,619 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $4.76 Total Purchased & Generated 602,000 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.60 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $43,125 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.08 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.68 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 245,240 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 91.3% Community Facility kWh Sold 170,834 Line Loss (%)5.5% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)133,313 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)8.70 Total kWh Sold 549,387 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 19,368 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 568,755 Comments Reported diesel kWh gen, fuel, pwrhse cons=11 months; Non-fuel expense=7 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 180 Wainwright PCE Utility: NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 569 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 151 Community Facility Customers 3 Other Customers (Non-PCE)73 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $5,664 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 451,830 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $37 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 85,385 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.01 Total PCE Eligible kWh 537,215 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 249 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.00 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 2,372 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.15 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 13 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 8.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 7,325,238 Fuel Used (Gallons)557,705 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $1,875,606 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.36 Total Purchased & Generated 7,325,238 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.31 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,095,187 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.18 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.49 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,421,125 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 83.0% Community Facility kWh Sold 85,385 Line Loss (%)11.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)4,571,220 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)13.13 Total kWh Sold 6,077,730 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 381,670 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 6,459,400 Comments Residential PCE Level = Zero *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 181 Wales PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 156 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 35 Community Facility Customers 5 Other Customers (Non-PCE)26 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $60,297 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 149,271 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,507 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 49,741 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.30 Total PCE Eligible kWh 199,012 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.56 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 355 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.31 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 829 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.25 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 27 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 31.4% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 692,612 Fuel Used (Gallons)57,718 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $168,219 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.91 Total Purchased & Generated 692,612 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.27 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $125,994 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.46 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 200,325 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 91.5% Community Facility kWh Sold 153,374 Line Loss (%)3.3% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)279,917 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.00 Total kWh Sold 633,616 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.3% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 36,432 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 670,048 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 182 Whale Pass PCE Utility: ALASKA POWER COMPANY Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 52 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 87 Community Facility Customers 2 Other Customers (Non-PCE)19 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $6,692 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 208,972 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $75 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 8,124 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.03 Total PCE Eligible kWh 217,096 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.35 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 200 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.08 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 339 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.27 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 13 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 48.8% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 501,583 Fuel Used (Gallons)47,204 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $145,968 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.09 Total Purchased & Generated 501,583 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.33 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $49,375 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.11 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.44 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 304,179 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 88.8% Community Facility kWh Sold 8,124 Line Loss (%)7.8% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)132,998 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)10.63 Total kWh Sold 445,301 PH Consumption as % of Generation 3.5% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 17,406 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 462,707 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 183 White Mountain PCE Utility: CITY OF WHITE MOUNTAIN Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 187 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 69 Community Facility Customers 8 Other Customers (Non-PCE)29 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $79,864 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 234,509 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,037 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 103,077 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.24 Total PCE Eligible kWh 337,586 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.55 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 283 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.24 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,074 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.31 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 46 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 47.0% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 864,138 Fuel Used (Gallons)66,539 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $159,599 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $2.40 Total Purchased & Generated 864,138 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.22 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $30,826 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.04 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.27 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 270,687 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 83.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 104,479 Line Loss (%)11.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)343,143 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)12.99 Total kWh Sold 718,309 PH Consumption as % of Generation 5.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 44,748 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 763,057 Comments Reported non-fuel expenses = 4 months *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 184 Yakutat PCE Utility: ALASKA VILLAGE ELECTRIC COOP Reporting Period: 07/01/21 to 06/30/22 Community Population 574 Last Reported Month June No. of Monthly Payments Made 12 Residential Customers 277 Community Facility Customers 26 Other Customers (Non-PCE)179 Fiscal Year PCE Payments $377,929 PCE Statistical Data PCE Eligible kWh - Residential Customers 1,100,655 Average Annual PCE Payment per Eligible Customer $1,247 PCE Eligible kWh - Community Facility Customers 437,252 Average PCE Payment per Eligible kWh $0.25 Total PCE Eligible kWh 1,537,907 Last Reported Residential Rate Charged (based on 500 kWh) $0.52 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Residential Customer 331 Last Reported PCE Level (per kWh)$0.32 Average Monthly PCE Eligible kWh per Community Facility Customer 1,401 Effective Residential Rate (per kWh)$0.20 Average Monthly PCE Eligible Community Facility kWh per Person 63 PCE Eligible kWh vs Total kWh Sold 26.2% Additional Statistical Data Reported by Community* Generated and Purchased kWh Generation Costs Diesel kWh Generated 6,598,302 Fuel Used (Gallons)442,670 Non-Diesel kWh Generated 0 Fuel Cost $1,557,065 Purchased kWh 0 Average Price of Fuel $3.52 Total Purchased & Generated 6,598,302 Fuel Cost per kWh sold $0.26 Annual Non-Fuel Expenses $1,168,748 Non-Fuel Expense per kWh Sold $0.20 Total Expense per kWh Sold $0.46 Consumed and Sold kWh Efficiency and Line Loss Residential kWh Sold 1,401,363 Consumed vs Generated (kWh Sold vs Generated-Purchased) 89.1% Community Facility kWh Sold 1,365,867 Line Loss (%)8.7% Other kWh Sold (Non-PCE)3,110,344 Fuel Efficiency (kWh per Gallon of Diesel)14.91 Total kWh Sold 5,877,574 PH Consumption as % of Generation 2.2% Powerhouse (PH) Consumption kWh 146,307 Total kWh Sold & PH Consumption 6,023,881 Comments *The data contained in this report is primarily based on information submitted by the utility with their monthly PCE reports. Changes to the reported data and/or significant anomalies have been noted in the comments. 185 Safe,Reliable, and AffordableEnergySolutions Alaska Energy Authority 813 W Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 Toll Free: (888) 300-8534 akenergyauthority.org 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG MEMORANDUM TO: Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Bryan Carey, P.E., Director of Owned Assets DATE: March 1, 2023 RE: Railbelt Owned Asset Update Below is an update on the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Owned Assets. Alaska Intertie • Vegetation Management & Preventative Maintenance plan is anticipated to be approved in March. Pending approval, the 7 year plan will be implemented this season. • Drafting Wildfire Mitigation Plan for both northern and southern interties. • State Var Compensator (SVC) service contract extended. • Working on the budget and justification for a Railbelt Syncrophaser system which will provide real-time measurement and collection of data from Homer to Fairbanks, and bring our data collection system closer lower 48 utility standards. • Replacing the communications system between Anchorage and Fairbanks. Currently, communications are piggybacking on other systems, as such utility communication are a second priority. • Upgrading the Snow Load Management System on the northern Intertie. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project • Normal operations at Bradley Lake hydroelectric as new hires learn the plant. • 2022 generation was lower than normal but stormy fall weather caused lake to fill up for winter. • Battle Creek diversion diverted approximately 20% greater volume than used for application and economics. • Chugach Electric Association (CEA), designated by the BPMC to perform design and procurement for the AEA owned Sterling-Quartz (SSQ) section upgrade, competitively selected engineering and environmental contractors. Design is proceeding. • Removal of 69 kV Sterling to Quartz line was bid out. Lineworks LLC won bid and is currently in field removing line and poles. Bid was within budget. • Concept papers for transmission and storage upgrades were submitted to Department of Energy (DOE). DOE has requested full application for competitive XX for several concepts and AEA is waiting on word for other concepts. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 • Dixon Diversion Project submitted draft Study Plans to agencies in October and held a joint agency public meeting in early November. Agency comments on draft plans received and being evaluated. • AEA bonded Required Project Work in December. Proceeds $166 million. BPMC has decided to spend proceeds on 65% transmission and 35% battery energy storage system. 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG MEMORANDUM TO: Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Bryan Carey, P.E., Director of Owned Assets DATE: March 1, 2023 RE: Railbelt Reliability Council Update Below is a update on the Railbelt Reliability Council (RRC). • RRC has been certified by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska as the electric reliability organization (ERO) for the Railbelt region of Alaska. • RRC has a 15 member Board representing utilities, consumer & environmental advocates, independent power producers, unaffiliated representatives, and Alaska Energy Authority. • Planned 2023 activities are RCA approval of an initial tariff and operating rules, hiring a Chief Executive Officer, and acquisition of office space. • RRC transitioning from organizational development to mission work. 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG MEMORANDUM TO: Alaska Energy Authority Board THRU: Curtis. W. Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Conner Erickson, AEA Planning Manager DATE: February 14, 2023 RE: Renewable Energy Fund (REF) Update REF Round 14 (FY2023) The Governor approved and signed, under HB281, the REF Budget of $15 million to fund the 27 Round 14 REF projects as recommended by AEA. For Round 14, all 27 projects have been assigned project managers, with 26 grant agreements in place, the one sole remaining grant pending with Chugach Electric Association (CEA). CEA applied on behalf of the Bradley Lake Project Management Commitee’s (BPMC) for preliminary phase work on the Dixon Diversion project. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is currently with CEA for their signature structuring the current REF grant in a similar fashion as was done with the REF grant for the Bradley Lake Battle Creek project. Contractors submitting invoices for work pertinent and relevant to Dixon Diversion , as reviewed by the project manager, will be paid utilizing an equal split from specially designated accounts holding the $1 million in REF funds and the matching $1 million as contributed by those utilites party to the BPMC. REF Round 15 (FY2024) Update AEA has been informed that the REF, within the Governor’s FY2024 amended budget, is proposed to receive $15 million to be set-aside for the funding of Round 15 projects, although this amount could be more or less subject to the discretion of the Legislature and the finalization of the FY2024 budget. Owing to the increase in eligible power consumption for the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program, and general poor market performance, funding for Round 15 (FY2024) projects was not requested be appropriated from the PCE endownment fund, as was done in Round 14 (FY2023). REF funding for Round 15, would be an appropriation from the General Fund. On Tuesday October 4th AEA issued its Request for Applications for Round 15 of the REF. The deadline for applications was set for Monday, December 5th, 2022. As of the deadline for applications, AEA received 31 applications for a total grant request of $33 million. To date, 3 applications have been rejected as part of the stage 1 review for project eligibility, applicant eligibility, and project completeness. Two rejections were issued so on the basis of the applicant’s inability to provide a properly signed and authorized application, after having been requested to and given ample time to do so. The third rejection was issued owing to the Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 7 applicant having already exceeded the grant award amount for preliminary phase activities. The project, which was awarded $1 million in both Round 13 and Round 14, is no longer eligible for further REF funding until the project has progressed onto the final design and/or construction phase, at which point a potential additional $2 million may be awarded for latter phase activities. Stage 2 economic and technical feasibility reviews of the remaining 28 applications are currently ongoing with economic analysis being peformed by Northern Economics, Inc. under a competitive solicitation, and potential impacts to state-owned land and other assets being assessed by the DNR, under a Reimbursale Service Agreement (RSA). Application scoring reviews are scheduled to begin on February 16 with Stage 3 review and scoring occurring concurrently, as applicable, for those applications which pass Stage 2 evaluations. Once all scoring meetings have concluded, AEA will draft its recommended list of projects and meeting with the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory Council to solicit their counsel on such recommended projects, and at the conclusion of such conference with the REFAC, submit AEA’s final round 15 recommendations to the Legislature for consideration of Round 15 funding. The tentative timeline for Round 15 is as follows: • October 4, 2022 – RFA Issued • December 5, 2022 – Deadline for Submission of Applications • Early March 2023 – AEA's Evaluation of Applications Complete • Mid March 2023 – REFAC Meeting and Submission of Recommendations to Legislature • June – July 2023 - Capital funds appropriated by Legislature • July – August 2023 – Execution of Grant Agreements REF Program Extension Update The current sunset date for the REF program is set for June 30, 2023. Last Session (32nd Legislature): House Bill (HB) 358 was introduced to the 32nd Legislature for the extension of the REF for another ten years to 2033; the second such extension since the REF’s inception in 2008. The bill was successful in its passage through the House with 38 - 2 yays to nays. The bill was then referred to the Senate. The bill died in the Senate Finance Committee as the clock ran out.The delay in passage of HB 358 was due to Covid-induced delays suffered by the Legislature in the beginning months of the Legislative session. Current Session (33rd Legislature): Two bills, Senate Bill 33 (SB 33) and House Bill 62 (HB 62) have been introduced this 33rd Legislative session, by Senator Kaufman and Representative Edgmon respectively. Since their introduction both bills have garnered additional support with Senator Dunbar sponsoring SB 33 and Represenatives Schrage, Hannan, and Armstrong sponsoring HB 62. Both bills propose a simple 10 year extension for the REF program, which if either pass, would be the second 10-year Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 7 extension of the program. As required and upon request, all supporting information including needed fiscal notes and bill analyses have been provided to the DCCED legislative office in support of such proposed legislation. Attachments • Attachment A: Summary of received Round 15 applications • Attachment B: Summary of Round 15 applications by technology and energy region • Attachment C: Copy of bill text for SB 33 • Attachment D: Copy of bill text for HB 62 Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 7 Attachment A: Summary of Received REF Round 15 Applications AEA Round 15 Received Applications SummaryApplication NumberApplicantApplication NameTechnologyPhaseCommunityGrant Funds RequestedMatching FundsEnergy RegionElection District (2022)15001Native Village of Kluti-KaahWoodchip Heating ProjectBiomassConstructionNative Village of Kluti-Kaah (Copper Center)500,000$ 403,400$ Copper River Chugach36-R15002Nushagak Electric & Telephone CooperativeNuyakuk Hydroelectric ProjectHydroFeasibility and Conceptual DesignDillingham1,000,000$ 200,000$ Bristol Bay37-S15003Northwest Arctic BoroughSelawik Solar PVSolarConstructionSelawik1,134,500$ 251,500$ Northwest Arctic40-T15004Cook Inlet Region Inc (CIRI) Energy, LLCHealy Renewable Resource AssessmentWindFeasibility and Conceptual DesignHealy298,000$ 54,000$ Railbelt30-O15005Cook Inlet Region Inc (CIRI) Energy, LLCBeluga Renewable Resource AssessmentWindFeasibility and Conceptual DesignBeluga298,000$ 54,000$ Railbelt37-S15006Tanana Chiefs ConferenceHuslia Community-Scale Solar PV and Battery ProjectSolarFinal Design and PermittingHuslia2,082,000$ 110,000$ Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana36-R15007TDX Adak Generating, LLCHydroelectric Power Adak - Feasibility and Conceptual DesignHydroFeasibility and Conceptual DesignAdak497,650$ 247,075$ Aleutians37-S15008Turnagain Arm Tidal Energy CorpTurnagain Arm Tidal Electricity Generation Project (TATEG)HydroReconnaissanceRailbelt1,400,000$ 280,000$ Railbelt16-H; 15-H; 8-D15009Matanuska Electric AssociationRailbelt Wind Feasbility Study and Conceptual DesignWindFeasibility and Conceptual DesignRailbelt1,833,333$ 550,000$ RailbeltVarious15010City of NapaskiakNapaskiak Reconnaissance and Wind Assessment ProjectWindReconnaissanceNapaskiak446,500$ 3,000$ Lower Yukon Kuskokwim38-S15011Naterkaq Light PlantChefornak Battery Installation, Integration, and CommissioningWindConstructionChefornak437,000$ 859,000$ Lower Yukon Kuskokwim38-S15012Atmautluak Tribal UtilitiesAtmautluak Battery and Thermal Stove Installation, Integration and CommissioningWindConstructionAtmautluak577,000$ 81,000$ Lower Yukon Kuskokwim38-S15013Kipnuk Light PlantKipnuk Battery Installation, Integration and CommissioningWindConstructionKipnuk434,000$ 859,000$ Lower Yukon Kuskokwim38-S15014City of ChignikChignik Hydroelectric Power SystemHydroFinal Design and PermittingChignik802,394$ 43,767$ Bristol Bay37-S15015Beric Alaska Energy (Mark K. Johnson)Beric Alaska Energy Solar OneSolarReconnaissanceRailbelt52,500$ 17,500$ Railbelt30-O15016Alaska Village Electric CooperativeKalskag Wind Feasibility and Conceptual DesignWindFeasibility and Conceptual DesignKalskag267,300$ 29,700$ Lower Yukon Kuskokwim37-S15017Alaska Village Electric CooperativeNew Stuyahok Solar Energy and Battery Storage ProjectSolarFinal Design and PermittingNew Stuyahok, Ekwok2,520,000$ 280,000$ Bristol Bay37-S15018Golden Valley Electric AssociationLIDAR Improvement to Interior Wind Energy AssessmentsWindFeasibility and Conceptual DesignRailbelt250,000$ 125,000$ Railbelt36-R15019City of AkiakAkiak Reconnaissance and Wind Assessment ProjectWindReconnaissanceAkiak446,500$ 3,000$ Lower Yukon Kuskokwim38-S15020Levelock Village CouncilLevelock Feasibility and Conceptual DesignWindFeasibility and Conceptual DesignLevelock197,000$ 9,000$ Bristol Bay37-S15021Alaska Renewables LLCUtility-Scale Railbelt Wind – Alaska RenewablesWindFinal Design and PermittingRailbelt2,000,000$ 3,546,500$ Railbelt30-O; 36-R15022Naknek Electirc Association IncNaknek Electric Battery Energy Storage SystemStorageFinal Design and PermittingNaknek, South Naknek, King Salmon2,172,984$ 1,950,000$ Bristol Bay37-S15023Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC)Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind ProjectWindReconnaissanceHEA Serving Area214,400$ 97,448$ Railbelt8-D15024Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC)Augustine Island GeothermalGeothermalFeasibility and Conceptual DesignRailbelt68,000$ 42,140$ Railbelt37-S15025Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. (AEEC)Mount Spurr GeothermalGeothermalFeasibility and Conceptual DesignRailbelt45,500$ 30,940$ Railbelt37-S15026Yakutat Community Health CenterYakutat Community Health Center Heat Recovery ProjectHeat RecoveryFinal Design and PermittingYakutat1,000,000$ 273,000$ Southeast2-A15027Tuntutuliak Community Services AssociationTuntutuliak Community Services Association Solar Energy ProjectSolarFinal Design and PermittingTuntutuliak1,197,768$ 14,000$ Lower Yukon Kuskokwim38-S15028Inside Passage Electric CooperativeWater Supply Creek Hydro ConstructionHydroConstructionHoonah3,538,526$ 6,853,474$ Southeast2-A15029Chugach Electric AssociationGodwin Creek Hydroelectric ProjectHydroFeasibility and Conceptual DesignCEA Serving Area1,729,000$ 306,117$ Railbelt5-C15030City of FairbanksPublic Works Solar Panel ArraySolarFinal Design and PermittingFairbanks1,600,000$ -$ Railbelt31-P15031City of UnalaskaCity of Unalaska Wind Power Design/ConstructionWindFinal Design and PermittingUnalaska4,000,000$ 8,790,000$ Aleutians37-STOTAL33,039,855$ Alaska Energy Authority Page 5 of 7 Attachment B: Summary of Round 15 applications by technology and energy region Round 15 Summary of Received Applications - by Technology Technology No. of Applications REF Funding Requested ($) Biomass 1 500,000$ Geothermal 2 113,500$ Heat Recovery 1 1,000,000$ Hydro 6 8,967,570$ Solar 6 8,586,768$ Storage 1 2,172,984$ Wind 14 11,699,033$ Total 31 33,039,855$ Round 15 Summary of Received Applications - by Energy Region Energy Region No. of Applications REF Funding Requested ($) Aleutians 2 4,497,650$ Bristol Bay 5 6,692,378$ Copper River Chugach 1 500,000$ Lower Yukon Kuskokwim 7 3,806,068$ Northwest Arctic 1 1,134,500$ Railbelt 12 9,788,733$ Southeast 2 4,538,526$ Yukon-Koyukuk Upper Tanana 1 2,082,000$ Total 31 33,039,855$ Alaska Energy Authority Page 6 of 7 Attachment C: Copy of bill text for SB 33 Alaska Energy Authority Page 7 of 7 Attachment D: Copy of bill text for HB 62 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG MEMORANDUM DATE: February 13, 2023 TO: Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director THROUGH: Audrey Alstrom, Director - Alternative Energy & Energy Efficiency FROM: Taylor Asher, Project Manager SUBJECT: Quarter 3, Electric Vehicle Update IIJA NEVI Program The federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Program will provide Alaska with more than $50 million over the next five years. The NEVI formula funds will help Alaska complete the statewide EV fast-charging network and community-based charging installations in urban and rural areas throughout the state. Alaska’s NEVI funds will be routed through the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and managed by the Authority. AEA and DOT&PF have identified roles and responsibilities and meet biweekly to discuss progress and ensure deadlines are being met. A formal Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed in October 2022 and a Reimbursable Services Agreement was signed in January 2023. The NEVI Program requires states to develop an annual Implementation Plan (The Plan) that addresses how states will “build out” their Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFC) and deploy NEVI funds. AEA hired Michael Baker International to assist in the development and implementation of the Plan. The Plan was developed with the support of DOT&PF and stakeholder input throughout Alaska. AEA gathered public input via a request for information, presentations, workshops, and social media campaigns. AEA will continue to gather feedback for future iterations of the Plan. The Plan was officially approved by the Federal Highway Administration on September 27, 2022. The Plan can be accessed on the AEA website 1. AEA is now in the beginning steps of implementing the Plan, which will include a Request for Applications for projects along the Alternative Fuel Corridor between Anchorage and Fairbanks. The RFA planned to be published on March 1, 2023. Grant agreements are expected to be in place by June 2023 and will inform the 2023 Implementation Plan. 1https://www.akenergyauthority.org/Portals/0/Electric%20Vehicles/2022.07.29%20State%20of%20Alask a%20NEVI%20Plan%20(Final).pdf?ver=2022-06-29-152835-320 Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 In addition to the NEVI Formula Funds (above), the IIJA Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program appropriates $2.5 billion nationwide in competitive grants to fund publicly accessible EVSE or transportation electrification. The Governor included $1.5 million in the FY23 budget to support AEA application efforts for competitive EV grant funding. AEA submitted a concept paper for installing charging stations in rural Alaska and was encouraged to submit a full application. AEA and project partners submitted the application to DOE and anticipate hearing back in March 2023. Grant partners include DOT&PF, a clean cities coalition (required), Ahtna Corporation, Launch Alaska, Alaska Municipal League, and the Alaska Center for Energy and Power. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Governor's Proposed Capital Budget ‐ FY2024 & FY2023 Supplemental Updated February 15, 2023 Project Name State Funding Request Federal Receipt Authority Total Fund Code Brief Summary Electrical Emergency Response $ 200,000 $ - $ 200,000 1004 - General Fund Critical to rural communities - provides technical support when an electrical utility has lost, or will lose the ability to generate or transmit power. AS42.45.900 Rural Power Systems Upgrades (state dollars are matching funds) $ 7,500,000 $ 25,000,000 $ 32,500,000 1002 - Fed Receipts /1003 G/F Match Electric utility systems are part of the basic infrastructure of rural communities. New power systems are designed to meet accepted utility standards for safety, reliability, and environmental protections. Bulk Fuel Upgrades (state dollars are matching funds) $ 5,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 13,000,000 1002 - Fed Receipts / 1003 G/F Match Bulk fuel tank farm upgrades. Replaces aging tanks that may be leaking. Adds capacity to meet community needs. Meets code compliance standards improving life, health, and safety of community. Hydroelectric Development $ 5,000,000 $ - $ 5,000,000 1004 - UGF Review and study of 2 major hydroelectric sites: 1) Dixon Diversion and 2) Godwin Creek. Renewable Energy & Efficiency Programs (AEEE) $ 5,000,000 $ - $ 5,000,000 1004 - UGF Program support and federal match for AEA's renewable energy & efficiency programs (biomass, efficiency, EV, energy storage, geothermal, heat recovery, hydroelectric, solar, wind and nuclear). Grants to Named Recipient (AS 37.05.316) Three‐Phase Power Extensions and Upgrades to Delta Farm Region and Co‐op $ 3,000,000 $ - $ 3,000,000 1004 - UGF Provides $3 million to GVEA for the purpose of extending three-phase power throughout the Delta region to enhance production, incentivize expansion, and lower input costs for producers as well as customers. IIJA ‐ Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability $ 1,816,579 $ 12,110,523 $ 13,927,102 1002 - Fed Receipts / 1003 G/F Match IIJA - Section 40101 (d) - formula grant program to strengthen and modernize America's power grid against wildfire, extreme weather, and other natural disasters. Improve resilience of the electric grid against disruptive events. Funding over five years to total over $60M. IIJA ‐ Electric Vehicle Charging Equipment Deployment ‐ Competitive $ - $ 1,670,000 $ 1,670,000 1002 Fed Receipts IIJA - Competitive application submitted November 2022. Goals of the project are to increase access to vehicle electrification in multiple rural and underserved communities across Alaska; demonstrate the value of EV; and support development of community charging equipment. 20% match is required - to be shared by Project Partners and AEA as needed. IIJA ‐ New Energy Auditor Training ‐ Formula $ - $ 63,600 $ 63,600 1002 Fed Receipts Training for energy audits of commercial and residential buildings. AEA will RSA with AHFC. TOTALS $ 28,016,579 $ 46,344,123 $ 74,360,702 Project Name State Funding Request Federal Receipt Authority Total Fund Code Brief Summary IIJA State Energy Program ‐ Formula ‐ 40109 IIJA $ - $ 2,865,930 $ 2,865,930 1002 Fed Receipts USDOE SEP formula funds to develop and implement clean energy programs and projects. Lump sum of $3,661,930 for AEA less $796,000 federal receipt authorization received in FY23 = balance requested in FY24. Application submitted December 2022. Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program ‐ Black Rapids Training Site in Delta Junction $ - $ 12,752,540 $ 12,752,540 1002 Fed Receipts Extension of an electric power line to the Black Rapids Training Site. AEA partnership with GVEA. No state match is required. GVEA has committed funds to complete the project. TOTALS $ ‐ $ 15,618,470 $ 15,618,470 Project Name State Funding Request Federal Receipt Authority Total Fund Code Brief Summary Renewable Energy Grant Fund ‐ Round 15 $ 7,500,000 $ - $ 7,500,000 1004 - UGF Request for fund capitalization to REF program for Round 15 of REF projects. Competitive solicitation for grants now closed (Dec 2022). Initial list of potential projects in January 2023, final recommendations by end of February. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Home Energy Performance‐ Based Whole‐House Rebate Allocations; High Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Allocations $ - $ 74,519,420 $ 74,519,420 1002 - Fed Receipts USDOE IRA funds for consumer home energy rebate programs. AEA will partner with AHFC through and RSA. $37.4 million for Homer Rebate (Alaska Hope for Homes) and $37.2 million for HEHERA. Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund Capitalization $ - $ 3,773,780 $ 3,773,780 1002 - Fed Receipts Section 40502 (IIJA) This funding will be used to establish and capitalize a revolving loan fund, under which the state shall provide loans and grants for commercial and residential energy audits, upgrades, and retrofits to increase the energy efficiency, physical comfort, and air quality of existing building infrastructure. Up to 25% of the funds may be used to provide grants or technical assistance to eligible recipients for energy audits, upgrades, and retrofits and up to 10% of the funds may be used for administrative expenses. TOTALS $ 7,500,000 $ 78,293,200 $ 85,793,200 TOTALS $ 35,516,579 $ 140,255,793 $ 175,772,372 Governor's Proposed FY2024 Capital Budget ‐ December 15, 2022 FY2023 Supplemental Bill ‐ January 31, 2023 FY2024 Governor's Amended Budget ‐ February 15, 2023 Overview of Presentation 2 The Railbelt Vision and Alignment Why it Matters The Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP) Grid Resiliency and Innovation Partnership (GRIP) Community Benefit Alaska Railbelt and the Copper Valley 3 •The area originally served by the Alaska Railroad •75% of Alaska’s population •80% of the electricity generated in Alaska •Three regions, 700 miles end-to-end, roughly the distance from Washington DC to Atlanta, Georgia •Virtually no federal investment in transmission to date •Single transmission lines between the three Railbelt regions (Southern Central and Northern) •Interregional power transfer capability is less than 10% of combined peak load •Currently not electrically interconnected with the Copper Valley region Area served by Copper Valley Electric Association Area served by the Railbelt grid Historic Railbelt Alignment The State and Federal governments have long encouraged teaming arrangements, and the Railbelt alignment on this transformational infrastructure project is historic. There is unprecedented alignment among this diverse team consisting of all Railbelt electric utilities, transmission owners, and operators and their regulator: •The Alaska Energy Authority •The Regulatory Commission Of Alaska •Chugach Electric Association Inc. •Golden Valley Electric Association Inc. •Homer Electric Association Inc. •Matanuska Electric Association Inc. •Seward Electric Systems (City of Seward) •We are seeking State legislative leadership and support for this transmission infrastructure upgrade 4 The Railbelt Vision – A “once in a generation” opportunity 5 A 12-to-15-year plan consisting of a transformational series of transmission infrastructure improvements estimated to cost approximately $2.9B Phase One will require $250M per year for five years Is essential to the Railbelt grid for a clean and fuel-diverse future Can serve as a model for the rest of the United States and the world The five Railbelt Electric Utilities, and the Alaska Energy Authority, are pursuing funding from the State of Alaska, supplemented by Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), other Federal programs, and traditional utility funding sources Why it matters •Significant gains in reliability and resiliency for the Railbelt •Prepares the Railbelt for a fuel diverse, low-carbon future •Increases effective integration of renewables and low-carbon generation across the Railbelt •Gains in efficiency will lower the cost of energy, helping to attract industry and drive the economy •Lower Railbelt energy costs contribute to lower energy costs for all Alaskan rural communities through the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program 6 Why it matters •Small scale operating grid to serve as a model that can provide cost-effective grid modernization and decarbonization lessons to the US and world •Serves many tribes as well as diverse and disadvantaged communities •Strategic location in the new geopolitical climate •Decarbonizing the 4th largest air cargo airport in the world •5 critical Military bases •Mining rare earth minerals •Federally Designated Strategic Seaport 7 Background 8 In September of 2022, the Governor challenged us to articulate a vison and plan that would transform the Railbelt transmission system and prepare it for a fuel diverse clean energy future Building on the Bipartisan Infrastructure law (BIL), shortly after, the US DOE issued the Grid Resiliency and Innovation Partnership Funding Opportunity Announcement We developed the GMRP a plan to provide a transmission system with adequate transfer capability and resiliency to facilitate and fuel diverse clean energy future The GMRP allows electric utilities from Fairbanks to Homer and Valdez to participate in fuel diverse inter regional clean energy projects irrespective of geographic location Drive down costs with economies of scale–the Grid Modernization and Resiliency Plan (GMRP) Includes energy storage to stabilize grid increase resiliency and integrate renewables Grid Resiliency and Modernization plan 9 Legend RIR Transmission RBR Transmission Battery Energy Storage System Battery Energy Storage system /HVDC Interregional Control Scheme C Federal Opportunities for Modernizing the Railbelt Grid 10 The Railbelt Backbone Reconstruction project (RBR) will reconstruct the backbone transmission lines and stations from Bradley Lake to Delta Junction to harden these lines to resist natural disasters, and to increase transfer capability and resiliency. The BESS/HVDC Coordinated Control System. This system will develop a Railbelt-wide control system that controls the three BESS systems and the HVDC submarine cable in an integrated fashion to maximize transfer capability and minimize spinning reserve requirements increasing resilience and lowering carbon emissions. The Railbelt Innovative Resiliency project (RIR) will construct the regional BESS systems in the central and northern regions and interregional interties; one from Soldotna to Healy, and the second from Wasilla to Glenallen and Fort Greely, integrating Copper Valley into the Railbelt Grid. This project provides increased transfer capability, resilience and access to renewables. Topic 1 concept paper –Grid resilience Topic 2 concept paper –Smart Grid Topic 3 concept paper –Grid Innovation The GMRP was broken down into three projects to meet the requirements of the Funding Opportunity Announcement The Railbelt Plan must be the State’s Plan 11 Building out the Railbelt grid will benefit all Alaskan’s and must be a State priority PCE shares the benefit of lower Railbelt electric rates throughout the State Economies of scale are necessary to hold down projects costs and minimize the impact of diversification and decarbonization on the State’s economy Access to federal funding is contingent on the catalyzation and deployment of additional capital Transmission upgrades are required to maintain and advance reliability, resiliency, fuel diversification, and carbon reduction… irrespective of the generation solutions Federal Opportunities for Modernizing the Railbelt Grid Topic 3 concept paper –Grid Innovation 12 Grants Are Competitive Over 700 Concept Papers were submitted over the three topic areas On Topic 1 Grid Resiliency •289 Concept papers were submitted •144 proposers were encouraged to submit full applications •DOE anticipates awarding 10 grants in this category On Topic 2 Smart Grid •326 Concept papers were submitted •157 proposers were encouraged to submit full applications •DOE anticipated 25 to 40 awards in this category On Topic 3 Grid Innovation •135 Concept papers were submitted •We are waiting an NTP with the full application •DOE anticipated 4 to 40 awards in this category GRIP Topic Concept Papers 1,2,& 3 Current Funding Cycle RBR, BESS/HVDC Control, and RIR 13 C Legend RIR Transmission RBR Transmission Battery Energy Storage System Battery Energy Storage system /HVDC Interregional Control Scheme Community Benefit and Justice 40 The Railbelt is essential to the broader state economy. •The Port of Alaska, a federally designated Strategic Seaport in Anchorage, serves as the primary point of entry for virtually all cargo, building material, fuel, and food for most of the state’s population •The Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport is the fourth largest international airport in the world for cargo (approximately 50% of the air cargo between North America and Asia), making its decarbonization of global importance •Alaska is home to significant mining operations including for rare earth metals critical to national security and other strategic imperatives With this socially and economically diverse makeup, the Railbelt is the ideal area for the federal government to demonstrate how the benefits of the IIJA can be maximized, These assets are vital to the economy and security of both Alaska and the nation. Importantly, by statute and formula, Alaska’s unique PCE energy subsidy program ensures that the benefits of lower Railbelt energy costs are shared with all rural village within the state. 14 Community Benefit and Justice 40 The Railbelt serves five military base each with a vital strategic importance to U.S. national security. These critical bases contribute to the national defense through •Airborne infantry, military intelligence, northern warfare training•Mid-course missile defense•Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR)•F-16, F-22, and F-35 high-speed intercept capability•Coast Guard The Railbelt region is home to numerous federally recognized tribes and disadvantaged and underserved communities. •There are over 200 federally recognized tribes in Alaska, many in the Railbelt region •Based on the 2010 census Anchorage was home to the three most culturally diverse census tracts in the U.S. (followed closely by Queens, New York) •Over 110 languages are spoken in the Anchorage School District 15 GRIP Longer Term Grant Selection Process and Timing 16 •Topic 1 & 2 due 12/16/22 -complete •Topic 3 due 01/13/23 -complete Submit Concept Paper for each Topic Area- •Topic 1 due 04/06/23-We have been selected to apply, application in process •Topic 2 due 03/17/23-We have been selected to apply, application in process •Topic 3 due 5/19/23-We are waiting on selection decision If DOE selects one or more concept papers, submit full application(s) •Topic 1 -Summer 2023 •Topic 2 -Summer 2023 •Topic 3 -Fall 2023 Selection notification •Topic 1 Award negotiations -Fall 2023 •Topic 2 Award negotiations -Fall 2023 •Topic 3 Award negotiations -Winter 2023 If DOE selects our application Questions 17 SUSITNA -WATANA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director Bryan Carey, PE, Director of Owned Assets House Energy Committee January 26, 2023 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Who We Are Created in 1976 by the Alaska Legislature, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the state's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Our Mission Reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project | House Energy Committee | January 26, 2023 02 What We Do Railbelt Energy –AEA owns the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, the Alaska Intertie, and the Sterling to Quartz Creek Transmission Line —all of which benefit Railbelt consumers by reducing the cost of power. Power Cost Equalization (PCE) –PCE reduces the cost of electricity in rural Alaska for residential customers and community facilities, which helps ensure the sustainability of centralized power. Rural Energy –AEA constructs bulk fuel tank farms, diesel powerhouses, and electrical distribution grids in rural villages. AEA supports the operation of these facilities through circuit rider and emergency response programs. Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency –AEA provides funding, technical assistance, and analysis on alternative energy technologies to benefit Alaskans. These include biomass, hydro, solar, wind, and others. Grants and Loans –AEA provides loans to local utilities, local governments, and independent power producers for the construction or upgrade of power generation and other energy facilities. Energy Planning –In collaboration with local and regional partners, AEA provides economic and engineering analysis to plan the development of cost-effective energy infrastructure. AEA’s mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. To achieve this mission, AEA works to diversify Alaska's energy portfolio. AEA Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project | House Energy Committee | January 26, 2023 03 Active Projects and Services AEA Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project | House Energy Committee | January 26, 2023 04 05 In 2014, Administrative Order (AO) 271 placed the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project into abeyance In 2019, through AO 309 the Governor rescinded AO 271 In Fiscal Year 2022, no state funds were spent 2014 2019 2022 Project Status 06 Project Funding History $1,528 $9,645 $65,700 $95,200 $20,000 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 $100,000 2009 2011 2012 2014 2015State of Alaska Appropriations ($ in thousands)Fiscal Year Project Funding as of January 23, 2023 Total Authorized Funds:$192,072.8 Expenditures to Date: ($190,179.5) Estimated Balance of Authorized Funds:$1,893.3 AEA Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project | House Energy Committee | January 26, 2023 07 Alaska Statute 44.83.080 Powers of Authority 08 (18) to acquire a Susitna River power project, whether by construction, purchase, gift, or lease, including the acquisition of property rights and interests by eminent domain under AS 09 ; (19) to perform feasibility studies and engineering and design with respect to power projects. percent estimated supply of current Railbelt energy demand 50 100+ years is the project life providing long- term, stable rates billion estimated energy cost savings ($2014) over first 50 years $11.2 CO The reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from displaced coal and natural gas-fired generation would amount to 1.3 million tons a year, which equates to removing approximately 250,000 cars from the road.2 Why Susitna-Watana? 09 FERC Licensing Status Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Integrated Licensing Process 2/3 of the way done 58 FERC-approved studies: -Implemented 2012-2017 -19 studies completed -39 significant progress made Initial Study Report filed with FERC AEA Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project | House Energy Committee | January 26, 2023 10 FERC Study Plan Determination Outcome 11 Confirmed adequacy of environmental studies Validated quality of work completed to date Rejected nearly all study modification requests Rejected requests for additional years of study Confirmed data gathered thus far is representative of baselines Rejected requests for additional studies Licensing activity currently in abeyance 2019 Abeyance Rescinded 2017 Licensing Abeyance Project History AEA Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project | House Energy Committee | January 26, 2023 12 13 Project At-A -Glance AEA Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project | House Energy Committee | January 26, 2023 14 Dam Height –705 feet Dam Elevation –2,065 Feet Reservoir Length –~42 miles Reservoir Width –~1.25 miles Installed Capacity –618 MW Annual Energy –2,800,000 MWh Cost –~$5.6 billion (2014$) Engineering Size and generation optimized Design reviewed by International Board of Consultants Designed to withstand: -10,000-year flood -Maximum credible earthquake of a magnitude 8.0 2014 Engineering Feasibility Report AEA Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project | House Energy Committee | January 26, 2023 15 Economics Benefit-Cost and Economic Impact Analyses completed in 2015 -Based on 2014 projection of natural gas prices: Benefit-cost ratio of 2.39 from energy savings alone $11.2 billion (2014$) in energy savings over first 50 years Energy savings and retirement of older generation facilities 16 Employment Opportunities Pre-Construction Employment ~5,000 direct jobs ~3,870 indirect jobs Construction Employment ~12,000 direct jobs ~11,305 indirect jobs Operations Employment (Life of Project) ~24-28 direct jobs ~105 indirect jobs AEA Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project | House Energy Committee | January 26, 2023 17 32,308 Total Jobs 17,028 Direct jobs 15,280 Indirect jobs Project Timeline AEA Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project | House Energy Committee | January 26, 2023 18 If greenlighted… Determine licensing status Update cost estimate to obtain license Update benefit-cost and economic impact analyses Review data to assure it remains reflective of current conditions Consult with FERC, landowners, and other stakeholders Governor and Legislature Decide Next Steps 19 AEA Community Funding Sources | 31st Annual BIA Tribal Providers Conference | April 7, 2022 20 813 W Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Main: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 akenergyauthority.org @alaskaenergyauthority @alaskaenergyauthority Alaska Energy Authority AEA provides energy solutions to meet the unique needs of Alaska’s rural and urban communities. January 30, 2023 The Honorable Gary Stevens Senate President Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Room 111 Juneau, Alaska 99801 The Honorable Cathy Tilton Speaker of the House Alaska State Legislature State Capitol Room 206 Juneau, Alaska 99801 RE: Alaska Energy Authority Annual Capital Project Status Report Dear President Stevens and Speaker Tilton, ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY As required by AS 44.83.950(b), the project status reports for the following Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) capital projects are attached: •Alaska lntertie Project •Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project If you have questions, please contact me at (907)-771-3000. Sincerely, it-� Curtis Thayer Executive Director REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 • Phone: (907) 771-3000 • Fax: (907) 771-3044 • Email: info@akenergyauthority.org 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ANNUAL CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT January 26, 2023 PROJECT: Alaska Intertie Project PROJECT LOCATION: Willow to Healy, Alaska CURRENT ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS: Construction Expenditures-Original Construction $124,245,687 Construction Expenditures-Upgrades/Improvements through 12/31/22 15,422,704 Projection to Complete Upgrades/Improvements: 8,877,296 Total Estimated Project Costs $148,545,687 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Appropriated Funds: Original Construction SLA1980 CH 50 $ 3,000,000 SLA1981 CH 92 $ 36,000,000 SLA1981 CH 92 $ 40,000,000 SLA1983 CH107 $ 25,000,000 SLA1984 CH171 $ 18,600,000 SLA1987 CH127 $ 5,896,400 FY87 Administrative Lapse $ (33,281) Source of Funds-Original Construction $128,463,119 Improvements/Upgrades SLA2002 CH 1 $ 20,300,000 SLA2008 CH 29 $ (10,000,000) SLA2008 CH 29 $ 10,000,000 SLA2011 CH 5 $ 5,000,000 SLA2012 CH 5 $ (9,160,564) SLA2012 CH 5 $ 8,160,564 Source of Funds-Upgrades/Improvements $ 24,300,000 Total Source of Funds: $152,763,119 Alaska Intertie Project Status Report Page 2 of 3 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Alaska Intertie (“AKI”) transmission line is a 170-mile long, 345 kilovolt (kV) transmission line between Willow and Healy. It is owned by the Alaska Energy Authority (“AEA”) and operated at 138kV. The AKI was built in the mid 1980’s with State of Alaska appropriations of approximately $124 million. The AKI is one of a number of transmission segments that, when connected together, move power throughout the Railbelt Grid from Delta through Fairbanks to Anchorage down to the southernmost limit at Nanwalek. The project includes transmission towers, conductors, the Cantwell substation, transformers at the Healy and Teeland substations (Knik Road), and Railbelt system stability devices (Static VAR Compensators) at three locations that are necessary to allow the utilities to remain interconnected and for power to flow between utilities. The project is owned outright by AEA, and carries no debt. PROJECT STATUS AT 12/31/22 The AKI continues normal operations carrying Bradley Lake and economy power north into the Golden Valley Electric Association (“GVEA”) system. The economy power is generated by Chugach Electric Association (“CEA”), Homer Electric Association (“HEA”) and Matanuska Electric Association (“MEA”). Although power generally flows north, the line is available for GVEA to transfer energy south if an emergency situation finds the Cook Inlet region short of electric power. AEA has signed a service agreement with GE Solutions LLC for maintenance, repair, training, parts, and telephonic support of the Static VAR Compensators, which were installed in 2015. This service agreement ensures this critical infrastructure can be reliably and economically maintained. The Second Amended and Restated Alaska Intertie Agreement (“ARAIA”) was signed by AEA and the Railbelt utility participants (participants) in March 2014. The participants include GVEA, CEA, and MEA. Originally, the Municipality of Anchorage’s Municipal Light & Power (“ML&P”) was a purchaser under the ARAIA. CEA acquired ML&P on October 30, 2020, and its rights under the ARAIA. The participants and AEA each have a seat on the Intertie Management Committee (“IMC”). The IMC has responsibility to operate and maintain the AKI. The IMC adopted bylaws to govern their operation, and retained contracts and operating procedures to maintain an easy transition to the amended agreement. The longstanding Intertie Operating Committee (“IOC”) continues to recommend operating policies, procedures, and standard practices to the IMC for consideration. Additional Background: Agreements were developed over a span of 30 years to govern the cooperative management and operation of the connected network at large. AEA has agreements with participating utilities to ensure the AKI operates with prudent maintenance and operation by utilities. CEA is the southern region operator and GVEA is the northern region operator. MEA provides maintenance of the AKI in the southern region. GVEA provides maintenance in the northern region. Alaska Intertie Project Status Report Page 3 of 3 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG Potential extension of the AKI to the Point MacKenzie area – In 2002, AEA, working collaboratively with the intertie participants, explored extending the AKI to connect with the southcentral transmission system at a location determined to be most reliable to the bulk-electric system. In analyzing this potential project, it was determined that the Point MacKenzie area was the optimal location for the terminus, strengthening the transmission inter-connection and ultimately assisting in the movement of energy from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project to Fairbanks, ensuring increased capacity and reliability of power transmission in southcentral Alaska and providing greater flexibility for dispatching generation resources for region-wide ratepayer benefit. Currently the Authority, in consultation with the intertie participants, is discussing how to move forward with the Intertie extension project. 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ANNUAL CAPITAL PROJECT STATUS REPORT January 26, 2023 PROJECT: Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project PROJECT LOCATION: Homer, Alaska ORIGINAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS1: $ 355,900,000 ORIGINAL ESTIMATED COSTS OF BATTLE CREEK DIVERSION IMPROVEMENT2: 47,200,000 ORIGINAL ESTIMATED COSTS OF SSQ LINE ACQUISITION3: 16,508,569 ORIGINAL ESTIMATED COSTS OF BRADLEY LAKE REQUIRED PROJECT WORK4: 165,855,884 $ 585,464,453 CURRENT ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS: Construction Expenditures-Original Construction $ 316,902,894 Construction Expenditures-Battle Creek Diversion 46,422,179 Construction & Acquisition Cost – SSQ Transmission Line 16,508,569 Construction Expenditures-Bradley Lake Required Project Work 165,855,884 Total Construction & Acquisition Costs $ 545,689,526 Financing Costs-Original Construction 11,316,424 Financing Costs-Battle Creek Diversion Improvement 173,045 Financing Costs –SSQ 115-Kv Transmission Line 491,431 Financing Costs-Bradley Lake Required Project Work 157,250 Total Financing Costs 12,138,150 Total Estimated Project Costs $ 557,827,676 SOURCE OF FUNDS: Appropriated Funds: SLA1979 CH 80 $ 80,000 SLA1981 CH 92 $ 5,000,000 SLA1981 CH 92 $ 10,000,000 SLA1982 CH 141 $ 3,000,000 SLA1984 CH 171 $ 50,000,000 SLA1985 CH 96 $ 50,000,000 SLA1986 CH 41 $(50,000,000) SLA1986 CH 41 $ 50,000,000 SLA1986 CH 128 $ 50,000,000 SLA1987 CH 96 $(50,000,000) 1 Excludes project financing costs. Also excludes major maintenance and repair costs and preconstruction costs associated with Battle Creek diversion. Excludes costs associated with the SSQ Line acquisition and remediation. Excludes costs associated with Bradley Lake Required Project Work. 2 Excludes project financing costs. Battle Creek diversion construction costs are included in this estimate. 3 Excludes project financing costs. SSQ Line acquisition and remediation costs are included in this estimate. 4 Excludes project financing costs. Bradley Lake Require Project Work costs are included in this estimate. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Status Report Page 2 of 4 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG SLA1987 CH 96 $ 50,000,000 SLA1988 CH 172 $ 7,000,000 SLA1993 CH 19 $(12,082,500) $162,997,500 Other: Power Revenue Bonds, includes interest earnings $165,221,818 Battle Creek Diversion Power Revenue Bonds, includes interest earnings 42,105,633 Participating Utility Cash Contributions 4,489,591 SSQ 115-kV Transmission Line Bonds 17,000,000 Bradley Lake Required Project Work Bonds 166,013,134 Total Source of Funds: $557,827,676 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Bradley Lake is a hydroelectric project located near Homer, Alaska with an installed capacity of 120 megawatts. Construction of the Bradley Lake Project was substantially completed in 1991, with the date of commercial operation declared to be September 1, 1991. The project continues to provide electric power to the Railbelt utilities from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks. The project is operated and maintained by Homer Electric Association. PROJECT STATUS AT 12/31/22: The Bradley Lake Project Management Committee (“BPMC”) has responsibility to operate and maintain the Bradley Lake hydroelectric project. The BPMC was established pursuant to Section 13 of the Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Electric Power (“Power Sales Agreement”) dated December 8, 1987. The members of the BPMC include the Alaska Energy Authority (“AEA”) and the five purchasers under the Power Sales Agreement - Chugach Electric Association, Inc (“CEA”).; Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc (“GVEA”).; the City of Seward (“Seward Electric System”); Alaska Electric and Energy Cooperative, Inc. (“AE&EC”); and Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (“MEA”). Originally, the Alaska Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative, Inc. (“AEG&T”) was a purchaser under the Power Sales Agreement for the benefit of HEA and MEA. AEG&T assigned its rights under the Power Sales Agreement pertaining to MEA to MEA in 2015, and its rights pertaining to HEA to AE&EC in 2003. HEA is an additional party to the Power Sales Agreement, and is the entity represented on the BPMC while AE&EC has no direct vote as a consequence of the individual representation of HEA. Originally, the Municipality of Anchorage’s Municipal Light & Power (“ML&P”) was a purchaser under the Power Sales Agreement. CEA acquired ML&P on October 30, 2020, and its rights under the Power Sales Agreement. Originally, the Project encompassed 5,498 acres of federal lands. All of these lands were conveyed to the State of Alaska, pursuant to the Alaska Statehood Act, through five separate Tentative Approvals (TAs) and a Patent from the United States that became effective Spring 2018. AEA is Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Status Report Page 3 of 4 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG no longer required to pay annual charges for the use and occupancy of lands that were owned by the United States. Bradley Lake hydroelectric project generation for the year was 346,000 megawatt hours (MWh). The 2022 generation was lower than the long term annual mean generation of 390,000 MWh. The projects ongoing maintenance and repairs are funded by the purchasers and not by state appropriation. 2022 was the second full year in operation for the new West Fork Upper Battle Creek Diversion project (“Battle Creek”). The project was completed in 2020 and was expected to increase the Bradley Lake Hydropower Project’s annual energy by approximately 37,000 MWh. In 2022 the energy equivalent of the Battle Creek water was greater than 45,000 MWh. During this year, the non-participating Railbelt utility bought into the Battle Creek project so that all five of the Railbelt utilities are participating. Preconstruction activities for the Battle Creek diversion project were partially funded by a $3 million allocation of an ARCTEC Energy Project appropriation (FSSLA11 CH 5). Additional funding sources include a $500,000 Renewable Energy Grant, a $500,000 contribution by the participating utilities to match the Renewable Energy Grant, and an additional $1.2 million contribution by the participating utilities. In December 2017, the Authority issued, as a private placement, $47 million of Power Revenue Bonds for the long-term financing of the construction costs of the Battle Creek Diversion Project. The Power Revenue Bonds consist of $40 million New Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (“NCREB”); $1.2 million Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds (“QECB”); and $5.8 million Taxable Draw-Down Bonds. The tax subsidies associated with the NCREB and QECBs significantly reduce the net interest costs of financing the WFUBC construction project. The draw period on the $5.8 million Alaska Energy Authority Power Revenue, Ninth Series Taxable Draw- Down Bonds expired in December 2020 with no draws made on this Series. The participating utilities will provide cash contributions of $4.5 million. 2022 was the second full year in operation for the purchased Sterling Substation to Quartz Creek Substation (“SSQ Line”), and certain related rights, rights of way, and permits as part of the Bradley Lake Project. The SSQ Line is approximately 39.3 miles of 115 kV and 69 kV transmission line. The transmission line delivers Bradley Lake hydroelectric generated power from HEA’s grid to transmission lines linked to all the other Railbelt utilities. In the summer of 2019, the SSQ Line was out-of-service for an extended time after receiving damage during the Swan Lake Fire. It took four months to bring the line back into service costing an estimated $12 million to Railbelt Utility ratepayers. The addition of the SSQ Line to the Bradley Lake Project is a benefit to Alaska ratepayers through better cost alignment, increased reliability, and future prospects for upgrades to the line, decreasing line losses and allowing increased transmission north of Bradley Lake Power. Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Status Report Page 4 of 4 813 West Northern Lights Boulevard, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 | P 907.771.3000 | Toll Free 888.300.8534 | F 907.771.3044 | WWW.AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG In December 2020, the Authority issued, as a private placement, $17 million of Power Revenue Bonds for the long-term financing of the acquisition costs of the SSQ Line. The line was purchased from HEA for $13.3 million. Additional costs include remediation of the 69kV line, Inspection/Repair outside of the Fire Zone, Right of Way (“ROW”) transfer and upgrade costs, funding of the Capital Reserve account, and bond issuance closing costs. In December 2022, AEA and the Railbelt utilities closed on $166 million in bond financing to improve the efficiency and deliverable capacity of power from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project. The bond proceeds will be used solely to pay for transmission line upgrades and battery energy storage systems that will reduce the constraints on the Railbelt grid by improving the Kenai Peninsula’s transmission capacity to export power from Bradley Lake, while also allowing for the integration of additional renewable energy generation. Funding for the projects is coming from payments by the five Railbelt utilities above those required to retire Bradley Lake project bonds, and will come at no additional cost to ratepayers or added burden on the State treasury. These projects include: • Upgrade transmission line between Bradley Lake and Soldotna Substation • Upgrade transmission line between Soldotna Substation and Sterling Substation • Upgrade transmission line between Sterling Substation and Quartz Creek Substation • Battery Energy Storage Systems for Grid Stabilization 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503  Phone: (907) 771-3000  Fax: (907) 771-3044  Email: info@akenergyauthority.org REDUCING THE COST OF ENERGY IN ALASKA AKENERGYAUTHORITY.ORG December 29, 2022 The Honorable Michael J, Dunleavy, Governor of the State of Alaska The Honorable Gary Stevens, Senate President Speaker of the House, c/o Crystaline Jones, House Chief Clerk SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF CAPITAL RESERVE FUND REQUIREMENT The Alaska Energy Authority maintains one capital reserve fund subject to the certification requirements of AS 44.83.110(f), with respect to the following Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project bond issues: •$40,000,000 Alaska Energy Authority Power Revenue Bonds, Seventh Series (Battle CreekDiversion Project) •$1,239,000 Alaska Energy Authority Power Revenue Bonds, Eighth Series (Battle Creek Diversion Project) •$17,000,000 Alaska Energy Authority Power Revenue Bonds, Tenth Series (Transmission Line Projects) •$166,013,134 Alaska Energy Authority Power Revenue Bonds, Eleventh Series (Required Project Work) Under AS 44.83.110(f), the Authority is to report to you any amount required to restore any capital reserve fund to its capital reserve fund requirement. This certifies that the capital reserve fund is adequately maintained and that no amounts are needed to replenish it or to restore it to its capital reserve fund requirements. Sincerely, J. Dana Pruhs, ChairAEA Board of Directors Cc: Curtis W. Thayer, Executive Director Legislative Requests Date Request Who Assigned to Date answered 1/25/2023 PCE Electrical data by Community Senator Bert Stedman office (Rose Foley) Conner/Tim 2/1/2023 (email) 1/25/2023 DOR on PCE re: Senate Finance Committee questions Senate Finance Committee through DOR Curtis 1/26/2023 (email) 1/26/2023 Su-Wa Historical Funding (2009 forward) House Energy Committee Pam Ellis 2/3/2023 (email) 1/27/2023 Community of Pelican – power challenges Thatcher Brown – Representative Himschoot’s office Tim 1/27/2023 (email) 2/6/2023 PCE Electrical Data - follow up Senator Bert Stedman office (Rose Foley) Tim 2/6/2023 (email) 2/6/2023 SB33 – Renewable Energy Grant Fund – REF Projects by Region and REF Fact Sheet Emma Torkelson – Senator Kaufman’s Office Conner 2/8/2023 (email) 2/13/22023 SB33 – Renewable Energy Grant Fund – follow up questions Emma Torkelson – Senator Kaufman’s Office Conner 2/13/2023 (email) Curtis W. Thayer Executive Director Alaska Congressional Delegation February 2023 GRIP 3: RURAL ALASKA MICROGRID TRANSFORMATION ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY Who We Are Created in 1976 by the Alaska Legislature, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is a public corporation of the State of Alaska governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the state's energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. Our Mission Reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. AEA GRIP 3: Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation | February 2023 02 Railbelt Energy –AEA owns the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, the Alaska Intertie, and the Sterling to Quartz Creek Transmission Line —all of which benefit Railbelt consumers by reducing the cost of power. Power Cost Equalization (PCE) –PCE reduces the cost of electricity in rural Alaska for residential customers and community facilities, which helps ensure the sustainability of centralized power. Rural Energy –AEA constructs bulk fuel tank farms, diesel powerhouses, and electrical distribution grids in rural villages. AEA supports the operation of these facilities through circuit rider and emergency response programs. Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency –AEA provides funding, technical assistance, and analysis on alternative energy technologies to benefit Alaskans. These include biomass, hydro, solar, wind, and others. Grants and Loans –AEA provides loans to local utilities, local governments, and independent power producers for the construction or upgrade of power generation and other energy facilities. Energy Planning –In collaboration with local and regional partners, AEA provides economic and engineering analysis to plan the development of cost-effective energy infrastructure. What We Do AEA’s mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. To achieve this mission, AEA works to diversify Alaska's energy portfolio. AEA GRIP 3: Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation | February 2023 03 To enhance the power system's resilience to extreme weather and climate change, the Grid Deployment Office is administering a $10.5 billion GRIP program under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) 1) Railbelt Backbone Reconstruction Project – $615 Million 2) Battery Energy Storage/HVDC Coordinated Control – $29.3 Million 3) Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project) – $298.6 Million 3) Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation –$250 Million AEA GRIP 3: Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation | February 2023 04 Alaska Native Villages are considered for this concept, which would provide a resilient power system for underserved communities. Microgrid transformation projects will help local communities become resilient, while also supporting state resilience. Transformation to clean and reliable energy would benefit communities by: -Less diesel fuel being brought into the community -Local job creation -Reduce cost of power Due to Alaska's remoteness, project costs are high. Department of Energy (DOE) funding would make possible many community projects awaiting procurement and construction. DOE funding could be used to complete several projects that will improve the quality of life in rural Alaska. Why Pursue GRIP 3: Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation? 05 Rural Alaskan communities on islanded microgrids. Rural Alaska is primarily Alaska Native and has been underserved, overburdened, disadvantaged, and has environmental justice concerns. Due to a lack of funding and technological resources, these smaller areas are often at a disadvantage. Rural Alaska also has electricity rates as high as $1.77/kWh, which is much higher than that of the Lower 48. Who Will Benefit? AEA GRIP 3: Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation | February 2023 06 Through a competitive opportunity, AEA would look for projects that support baseload power generation replacement of diesel with renewables. Projects that already have funding in place for the purposes of project cost matching would be noted and ranked. The amount of people affected, the project viability, and the community need would all be factored into the project selection. What Projects Will Be Funded? Additionally, AEA would recommend that community renewable microgrids include: Renewable power generation creation and system integration (hydro, wind, or solar) Modern distribution systems and controls Battery Energy Storage Systems Modern and emission efficient diesel back-up powerhouse systems SCADA controls between renewables and diesel back-ups AEA GRIP 3: Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation | February 2023 07 Existing and Potentially Viable Projects Project Technology Cost of Energy $/kWh Anticipated Annual Gallons of Diesel Fuel Offset by Proposed Project Project Status Village Hydro $ 0.61 115,000 Ready for Construction Village Hydro $ 0.61 20,000 Feasibility Study Complete Connects Multiple Villages Hydro $ 0.45 1,558,033 Concept Design, and FERC Permitting Village Hydro $ 0.80 40,000 Partially Constructed Village Hydro $ 0.68 130,000 Ready for Construction Village Hydro $ 0.70 37,000 Ready for Construction Village Wind/Solar/Battery $ 0.38 2,448,293 Concept Multiple Individual Villages Solar/Battery $ 0.75 80,000 Concept on per village basis (10 total) Multiple Individual Villages Wind/Battery $ 0.75 80,000 Concept on per village basis (10 total) Village Hydro $ 0.65 20,138 Ready for Construction Connects 2 Villages Hydro $ 0.66 16,014 Concept Village Wind Expansion Wind/Battery $ 0.37 400,000 Ready for Construction Connects 2 Villages Wind & Electric Boiler $ 0.52 165,000 Design and Permitting Connects 2 Villages Wind/Battery $ 0.60 270,000 Ready for Construction Listed below are examples of existing and potentially viable projects with construction costs that are well within this funding opportunity's parameters. The combined impact of these projects is estimated to offset 6,799,300 gallons of diesel fuel annually. AEA GRIP 3: Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation | February 2023 08 On January 12, 2023, AEA submitted a concept paper for this opportunity. Recommendation to submit a full application is expected in March 2023. Timeline Full Application May 19, 2023 Project Selection Fall 2023 Project Award Winter 2023/24 AEA GRIP 3: Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation | February 2023 09 813 W Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Main: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 akenergyauthority.org @alaskaenergyauthority @alaskaenergyauthority Alaska Energy Authority AEA provides energy solutions to meet the unique needs of Alaska’s rural and urban communities. 10 DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCELOCATION TEAM MEMBERFebruary 9, 2023 Panelist Inflation Reduction Act to Alaska Forum on the Environment In-Person Conner EricksonFebruary 9, 2023 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan Overview to Kenai Peninsula Workshop In-Person Taylor AsherFebruary 7-10, 2023 Attendee NASEO Energy Policy Outlook Conference In-Person Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 4-10, 2023 Meetings AEA Overview to Alaska Congressional Delegation, Washington, DC In-Person Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 1, 2023 Presenter AEA Update Alaska Power Association State Legislative Conference In-Person Curtis W. ThayerFebruary 1, 2023 Panelist Energy Committee Panel to Southeast Conference Mid-Session Summit and Transportation Symposium In-PersonCurtis W. ThayerJanuary 27, 2023 Media Interview AEA update, Tim Bradner, Alaska Ecoomic Report Phone Curtis W. ThayerJanuary 26, 2023 Presenter AEA Susitna-Watana Presentation to House Energy Committee VirtualCurtis W. Thayer Bryan CareyJanuary 24, 2023 Attendee Idaho National Laboratory Alaska Visit In-Person Curtis W. ThayerJanuary 24, 2023 Presenter AEA State Energy Security Plan Presentation to SESP Committee Virtual Audrey Alstrom, PEJanuary 19, 2023 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan Overview to Alaska EV Working Group In-Person/Virtual Josi HartleyJanuary 12, 2023 Exhibitor Alaska NEVI Plan to Anchorage Transportation Fair In-Person Taylor AsherJanuary 12, 2023 Presenter Alaska Draft Preventing Outages and Enhancing the Resilience of the Electric Grid In-Person/VirtualConner Erickson Daniel MillerDecember 15, 2022 Presenter Bulk Fuel Working Group to Multiple statewide Agencies In-Person/VirtualBill Price Khae PasaoDecember 13, 2022 Presenter Grid Resiliency Program Presentation Public Meeting #3 In-Person/Virtual Conner EricksonDecember 12, 2022 Roundtable Northwest Arctic Leadership Team's Winter Summit In-Person Curtis W. ThayerDecember 9, 2022 Presenter State Energy Security Plan Presentation to the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee In-Person Rebecca GarrettDecember 8, 2022 Media Interview Alaska Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Plan, Jenny Willoughby, KTNA Virtual Curtis W. ThayerDecember 8, 2022 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan Presentation to the Alaska Municipal League Annual Local Government Conference In-Person Josi HartleyDecember 7, 2022 Presenter Alaska EV Infrastructure Plan Presentation to All Hazards Planning Committee Virtual Dan AicherAEA COMMUNITY OUTREACHLast Updated on February 15, 2023 (6-Month Look Back) 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 • Phone: (907) 771‐3000 Fax: (907) 771‐3044 • Email: info@akenergyauthority.org • Website: akenergyauthority.org DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCELOCATION TEAM MEMBERDecember 7, 2022 Panelist AEA Update to Alaska Municipal League Annual Local Government Conference In-Person Curtis W. ThayerDecember 7, 2022 Presentation AEA Update Presentation to Alaska Power Association Board of Directors Meeting In-Person Curtis W. ThayerDecember 6, 2022 Presentation AEA Overview Presentation to the General Consulate of Canada In-Person Curtis W. ThayerNovember 28, 2022 Presentation Alaska EV Infrastructure Plan Presentation to National Association of Women in Construction In-Person Josi HartleyNovember 23, 2022 Media Interview Renewable Energy Fund Round 15, Matt Wilson, KSRM Radio Kenai Phone Curtis W. ThayerNovember 17, 2022 Presentation Bradley Lake and Dixon Study Plan Presentation to Public Agencies In-Person/Virtual Bryan Carey, PENovember 15, 2022 Attendee/Presenter Financing Food Security in Alaska Presentation to Governor's Food Security Workshop In-PersonCurtis W. Thayer Tim SandstromNovember 9, 2022 Presenter Alaska EV Infrastructure Plan Presentation to Alaska Municipal Climate Network Virtual Taylor AsherNovember 3, 2022 Presenter Alaska EV Infrastructure Plan Presentation to Juneau Decision Makers In-Person Audrey Alstrom, PENovember 2, 2022 Meeting Alaska EV Infrastructure Plan Presentation Discussion with AELP & SE Conference In-Person Audrey Alstrom, PEOctober 27, 2022 Media Interview Approved Bonding for Transmission Upgrades and Battery Storage, Sabine Poux, KDLL Phone Curtis W. ThayerOctober 20-21, 2022 Table Alaska EV Infrastructure Plan Presentation to Alaska Federation of Natives Annual Convention In-Person Taylor AsherOctober 24, 2022 Presenter Alaska EV Infrastructure Plan Presentation to Wasilla City Council In-Person Taylor AsherOctober 20, 2022 Table Alaska EV Infrastructure Plan Presentation to Mat-Su Transportation Fair In-Person Dan AicherOctober 14, 2022 Media Interview Alaska’s EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan, Alex Bengel, KTVF 11 Phone Curtis W. ThayerOctober 11-14, 2022 Attendee National Association of State Energy Officials Annual Meeting In-Person Curtis W. ThayerOctober 13, 2022 Presenter Alaska EV Infrastructure Plan Presentation to The Alliance In Person Taylor AsherOctober 10, 2022 Public Comment Alaska EV Infrastructure Plan Presentation to Fairbanks City Council Phone Taylor AsherOctober 6, 2022 Presenter Energy and Infrastructure in Alaska Presentation to Seward Chamber of Commerce In Person Curtis W. ThayerSeptember 30, 2022 Press Conference Governor's Signs Administrative Order No. 340 Press Conference In Person Curtis W. ThayerSeptember 29, 2022 Media Interview Alaska’s EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan, Dan Bross, KUAC Radio Phone Curtis W. ThayerSeptember 28, 2022 Media Interview Alaska’s EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan, Anthony Moore, KSRM Radio Phone Curtis W. ThayerSeptember 27, 2022 Presenter Alaska EV Working Group Technical Session Virtual AEA EV TeamSeptember 26, 2022 Presenter FY24 AEA Budget Development Presentation to Office of Management and Budget Virtual Curtis W. ThayerSeptember 26, 2022 Attendees 2022 Clean Transportation Leadership Roundtable In Person AEA EV TeamSeptember 20, 2022 Presenter Alaska EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan Workshop Presentation to Fairbanks Stakeholders In PersonCurtis W. Thayer Audrey AlstromAEA Community OutreachPage 2 of 3 DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCELOCATION TEAM MEMBERSeptember 20, 2022 Presenter AEA Overview Presentation to Golden Valley Electric Association In Person Curtis W. ThayerSeptember 14-16, 2022 Participant National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Executive Energy Leadership Program In Person Curtis W. ThayerSeptember 14, 2022 Attendee Houston Solar Farm Groundbreaking Ceremony In PersonConner Erickson Karen BellSeptember 7, 2022 Presenter Grid Resiliency Program Presentation Public Meeting #2 In-Person/Virtual Conner EricksonSeptember 7, 2022 Presenter Grid Resiliency Program Presentation Public Meeting #1 In-Person/Virtual Conner EricksonSeptember 7, 2022 Attendees/Exhibitor Infrastructure Grant Symposium Hosted by Senator Lisa Murkowski In Person AEA TeamAugust 24, 2022 PresenterTransmission Upgrades Presentation to Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Energy, Environment & Natural Resources CommitteeVirtual Curtis W. ThayerAugust 24, 2022 Media Interview Hydropower in Alaska, Rachael Kvapil, Alaska Business Phone Curtis W. ThayerAugust 23, 2022 Presenter Alaska EV Infrastructure Plan Presentation to FEDC Energy for All Alaska Task Force Virtual Curtis W. ThayerAugust 19, 2022 Exhibitor 2022 Alaska State Fair Energy Day In Person AEA TeamAEA Community OutreachPage 3 of 3 20 years ago this month: Pioneer wants ‘independent’ model on Slope page 4 l EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION l UTILITIES see WOTUS RULE page 7 see ALKAID 2 WELL page 5 Pantheon: Alkaid well cleaned, preparing to resume flow testing As of Feb. 9, the Nordic Calista Rig-2, contracted by oper- ator Great Bear Pantheon for the Alkaid 2 well clean out oper- ation on Alaska’s North Slope, had successfully pulled the tubing and packer and moved off the well head. An SLB (formerly known as Schlumberger) coiled tubing unit was subsequently moved onto the well head to clean-out the sand blockage. It was scheduled for the weekend of Feb. 11-12. Pantheon’s Feb. 9 press release said that “commencement of these operations was delayed due to poor weather and a number of electrical and hydraulic issues with the rig which are now all resolved.” On Feb. 14 a spokesman for Pantheon Resources respond- ed to a question from Petroleum News on the current status of GOP governors ask Biden admin to pause on broader clean water rule As reported by The Center Square on Jan. 31, 25 Republican governors, including Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, oppose a revised federal rule regulating U.S. waterways, citing uncertainty from an undecided U.S. Supreme Court case related to the rule. According to the article by Derek Draplin, regional editor, the governors sent a letter to the Biden administration on Jan. 30 asking it to delay the imple- mentation of the revised Waters of the United States rule since the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering Sackett v. EPA. The revised WOTUS rule, released on Dec. 30, rein- states pre-2015 water protections under the federal Clean Water Act. The rule was scaled back under the Trump admin- istration, which triggered lawsuits from environmental Vol. 28, No. 8 • www.PetroleumNews.com A weekly oil & gas newspaper based in Anchorage, Alaska Week of February 19, 2023 • $2.50 GOV. MIKE DUNLEAVY l EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION Please listen to us Alaska’s Iñupiat leaders see the Willow Project as critical to their future By KAY CASHMAN Petroleum News U.S. Senators Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski (both R-Alaska) convened a group of promi- nent North Slope Iñupiat leaders for a virtual media roundtable on Feb. 14 to dis- cuss the Willow Project, ConocoPhillips Alaska’s proposed oil and gas development on the North Slope in the eastern National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The latest environmental analysis (final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statemen) released Feb. 1 by the U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management recom- mended the Biden adminis- tration approve the project with three drill sites, though Outside environmental activist groups and main- stream media are ignoring the report’s findings and the opinions of North Slope Iñupiat leaders, Sullivan said. “Anything less than a three-pad authorization would essentially be a project denial,” Transmission future Utilities and state planning Railbelt upgrades to support electricity needs By ALAN BAILEY For Petroleum News The Alaska Railbelt electric utilities are working with the state on a plan for major upgrades to the Alaska Railbelt electricity transmission system, to improve the reliability of the system while also enabling the implementation of a more diverse portfolio of power genera- tion resources, including renewable ener- gy, Brian Hickey, executive director Railbelt region- al coordination, told Petroleum News in a Feb. 10 interview. For an initiative that represents a major step in utility cooperation, Hickey is being funded by all five of the Railbelt utilities to lead the pro- gram. He reports to the utilities through the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee, a committee that has mem- bers from each of the utilities and the Alaska Energy Authority. The Regulatory Commission of Alaska is also involved in the initiative. The transmission system is owned and operated by the five utilities and AEA. And the upgrade plan is referred to as the Grid Modernization and Resilience Plan, or GMRP. Essentially, the transmission system has three major regions: a southern region focused on the CCUS gets 1st hearing Governor’s proposal for revenue from carbon storage heard in House Resources By KRISTEN NELSON Petroleum News Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavey’s proposal for the state to generate revenue from carbon cap- ture, utilization and storage, CCUS, got its first hearing in the House Resources Committee Feb. 10. House Bill 50 also has a referral to House Finance. The Senate version, Senate Bill 49, has the same committee referrals in that body, but had not yet been scheduled for its first Senate hearing when this issue of Petroleum News went to press. Among its provisions, the bill would allow the Department of Natural Resources to lease pore space for the storage of carbon dioxide, CO2, and allow the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to apply for primacy in permitting CO2 injection wells, classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as Class VI wells. AOGCC already has primary for Class II wells, used for injection for enhanced oil recovery. see WILLOW DISCUSSION page 3 see RAILBELT UPGRADES page 6 see CCUS HEARING page 8 Nordic Calista Rig-2 on the Alkaid 2 well.PANTHEONSEN. DAN SULLIVAN NAGRUK HARCHAREK BRIAN HICKEY The bill provides that the state would use an exploration license process, which requires a best interest finding. A carbon facility storage permit would be required from AOGCC. Both processes would have to be established by regulations. Editor’s note: This story appeared in the Feb. 16, 2003, issue of Petroleum News Alaska. By KAY CASHMAN Petroleum News Chris Cheatwood, Pioneer Natural Resources Co.’s executive vice pres- ident of worldwide exploration, was in Alaska for the first time in early February 2003, looking over his company’s opera- tions and meeting with state officials, including the new commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources, Tom Irwin. Pioneer officials are hoping the company’s first investment in Alaska, the Northwest Kuparuk prospect, will contain enough oil to justi- fy a standalone processing facility. The prospect consists of 10 North Slope leases located in the shal- low waters of the Beaufort Sea between Thetis Island and the Kuparuk River unit. Cheatwood said if Northwest Kuparuk proves commercial, Pioneer will open an office in Anchorage and Ken Sheffield, currently presi- dent of Pioneer’s Canadian subsidiary in Calgary and responsible for North Slope exploration, will move to Anchorage and open an office for the company’s Alaska sub- sidiary, Pioneer Natural Resources Alaska Inc. The 10th largest independent oil and gas company in the United States, Pioneer entered Alaska in October 2002 when it signed an agreement with Armstrong Resources LLC for a 70% working interest in, and operatorship of, the Kuparuk Northwest prospect. The company plans to drill three exploration wells there this winter. When asked for an update on the proj- ect on Feb. 7, Cheatwood said, “We’re building ice roads now. We anticipate spudding our first well around Feb. 15. … Right now our people think we can drill three wells this winter. … “We have two backup plans in case we start running short on time,” he finished, referring to drilling rigs that could be uti- lized to help complete drilling before the narrow window for off-road North Slope winter exploration closes. Believes Irwin committed to shaking things up Cheatwood met with DNR Commissioner Tom Irwin and Division of Oil and Gas Director Mark Myers while in Anchorage. His prearranged 15 minute meeting landed up running 45 minutes. “They’re both wonderful gentlemen. … They have a very positive outlook. … They left me with the impression that they’re behind us all the way. I was very encouraged by our meeting. … I can defi- nitely tell you that Tom Irwin is committed to shaking things up,” Cheatwood said. One of the things that Pioneer would like to see “shook up” in Alaska is the per- mitting process. “I’m still overwhelmed by all the processes involved in getting a well drilled. We’re fortunate to have had Stu Gustafson involved. He knows how things work on Alaska,” Cheatwood said. Currently under contract as vice presi- dent of operations for Armstrong Resources, the company that developed the Kuparuk Northwest prospect and owns 30% of it, Gustafson is serving as a senior adviser to Pioneer in Alaska. He was with l THIS MONTH IN HISTORY Pioneer wants an ‘independent model’ 20 years ago this month: Cheatwood visits Alaska, says Sheffield will head local office if oil found at Northwest Kuparuk prospect 4 PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF FEBRUARY 19, 2023 ADDRESS P.O. Box 231647 Anchorage, AK 99523-1647 NEWS 907.522.9469 publisher@petroleumnews.com CIRCULATION 907.522.9469 circulation@petroleumnews.com ADVERTISING Susan Crane • 907.770.5592 scrane@petroleumnews.com OWNER: Petroleum Newspapers of Alaska LLC (PNA) Petroleum News (ISSN 1544-3612) • Vol. 28, No. 8 • Week of February 19, 2023 Published weekly. Address: P.O. Box 231647 Anchorage, AK 99523-1647 Subscription prices in U.S. — $118.00 1 year, $216.00 2 years Canada — $206.00 1 year, $375.00 2 years Overseas (sent air mail) — $240.00 1 year, $436.00 2 years “Periodicals postage paid at Anchorage, AK 99502-9986.” POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Petroleum News, P.O. Box 231647 Anchorage, AK 99523-1647. www.PetroleumNews.com Petroleum News and its supplement, Petroleum Directory, are owned by Petroleum Newspapers of Alaska LLC. The newspaper is published weekly. Several of the individuals listed above work for independent companies that contract services to Petroleum Newspapers of Alaska LLC or are freelance writers. Kay Cashman PUBLISHER & FOUNDER Mary Mack CEO & GENERAL MANAGER Kristen Nelson EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Susan Crane ADVERTISING DIRECTOR Heather Yates BOOKKEEPER Marti Reeve SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS DIRECTOR Steven Merritt PRODUCTION DIRECTOR Alan Bailey CONTRIBUTING WRITER Eric Lidji CONTRIBUTING WRITER Gary Park CONTRIBUTING WRITER (CANADA) Steve Sutherlin CONTRIBUTING WRITER Allen Baker CONTRIBUTING WRITER Judy Patrick Photography CONTRACT PHOTOGRAPHER Forrest Crane CONTRACT PHOTOGRAPHER Renee Garbutt CIRCULATION MANAGER Bombay Deluxe The Spice of Life... Serving the finest Indian Cuisine in Alaska Traditional chicken, lamb, seafood dishes & Indian naan bread cooked in our Tandoor (clay oven). Vegetarian Specialties Delicious Appetizers — Samosas, Pakoras MIDTOWN ANCHORAGE 555 W. Northern Lights (Valhalla Center) Monday through Friday: 11 a.m.-9 p.m. Saturday & Sunday: 12-9 907-277-1200 Order on-line for pick-up or delivery at www.FoodOnTheWay.com www.BombayDeluxe.com SOUTH ANCHORAGE 1120 Huffman Road, Suite 5 Open seven days a week: 3-9 p.m. 907-644-4521 l EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION US rotary drill rig count up by 2 to 761 By KRISTEN NELSON Petroleum News The Baker Hughes’ U.S. rotary drilling rig count was up by two rigs the week ending Feb. 10 to 761, after a precipitous drop of 12 the previous week, the largest single-week drop the count had seen since June 5, 2020. That week saw a 17-rig drop, which occurred toward the end of the dramatic decline caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting oil price crash. The Feb. 10 count was up 126 from 635 year over year. When the count dropped to 244 in mid-August 2020, it was the lowest the domestic rotary rig count had been since the Houston based oilfield services company began issuing weekly U.S. numbers in 1944. Prior to 2020, the low was 404 rigs in May 2016. The count peaked at 4,530 in 1981. The count was in the low 790s at the beginning of 2020 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, where it remained through mid-March, when it began to fall, drop- ping below what had been the historic low in early May with a count of 374 and continuing to drop through the third week of August 2020 when it gained back 10 rigs. The Feb. 10 count includes 609 rigs targeting oil, up 10 from the previous week and up 93 from 516 a year ago, with 150 rigs targeting natural gas, down eight from the previous week and up 32 from 118 a year ago, and two miscellaneous rigs, unchanged from the previous week and up by one from a year ago. Forty-three of the rigs reported Feb. 10 were drilling directional wells, 700 were drilling horizontal wells and 18 were drilling vertical wells. Alaska rig count unchanged Louisiana (66) was up six rigs from the previous week, New Mexico (109) was up by four rigs week over week and California (4) was up by one. Texas (370) was down seven rigs week over week, while Oklahoma (63) and West Virginia (15) were each down by a single rig. Rig counts in other states were unchanged from the previous week: Alaska (7), Colorado (19), North Dakota (41), Ohio (14), Pennsylvania (22), Utah (11) and Wyoming (17). Baker Hughes shows Alaska with seven rotary rigs active Feb. 10, unchanged from the previous week and down by one from a year ago, when the state’s rig count stood at eight. All seven of the Alaska rigs were onshore, unchanged from the previous week. There were no off- shore rigs active in the state. The rig count in the Permian, the most active basin in the country, was down by two from the previous week at 352 and up by 61 from 301 a year ago. l see HISTORY page 5 20 years ago this month 2/16/23, 3:39 PM House Energy Committee hears update on Railbelt transmission | Alaska News | newsminer.com https://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/house-energy-committee-hears-update-on-railbelt-transmission/article_c3ab3db6-acb5-11ed-abec-e3…1/5 https://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/house-energy-committee-hears-update-on-railbelt- transmission/article_c3ab3db6-acb5-11ed-abec-e3847f911913.html TOP STORY House Energy Committee hears update on Railbelt transmission Jack Barnwell Feb 16, 2023 GVEA Golden Valley Electric Association is retiring Healy No. 2, Alaska’s largest coal plant. GVEA 2/16/23, 3:39 PM House Energy Committee hears update on Railbelt transmission | Alaska News | newsminer.com https://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/house-energy-committee-hears-update-on-railbelt-transmission/article_c3ab3db6-acb5-11ed-abec-e3…2/5 The Alaska Energy Authority and the Railbelt Regional Coordination (or RRC) have been encouraged to submit grant applications for federal funding requests to overhaul the Railbelt’s electrical grid resiliency. But it will need state support, according to Brian Hickey, the Railbelt Regional Coordination executive director. Hickey provided an update to the Alaska House energy committee Tuesday, stressing the need to overhaul the transmission network that provides electricity for 75% of Alaska. The 700-mile Railbelt runs from Homer to Fairbanks and out to Delta Junction. Hickey said in September Gov. Mike Dunleavy challenged the five Railbelt utility companies, along with the Alaska Energy Authority and Regulatory Commission of Alaska, with ways to modernize the grid and incorporate alternative sources. The utilities include Chugach Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association and Seward Electric Systems. “Never have we seen the utilities as aligned as they are now,” Hickey said. “This has brought us all together and moving in one direction.” A proposed first step would cost about $1.26 billion and would overhaul the electrical grid from Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Plant near Homer to Lorraine Lake south of Point MacKenzie. The first phase would take five years and cost about $250 million per year. The overall process, a 12- to 15-year endeavor, would cost as much as $2.9 billion to build additional transmission lines in the Railbelt’s three regions and diversify the state’s energy portfolio. The three Railbelt regions include the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna Valley and the Fairbanks area. Hickey said the proposal includes tying the Copper Valley Electric Association into the Railbelt. Hickey said the regions currently have a single transmission line, all of which draw power from Bradley Lake. When one line goes down for maintenance, it lowers efficiency. 2/16/23, 3:39 PM House Energy Committee hears update on Railbelt transmission | Alaska News | newsminer.com https://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/house-energy-committee-hears-update-on-railbelt-transmission/article_c3ab3db6-acb5-11ed-abec-e3…3/5 “Irrespective of whatever energy source we use, we will have to build out the transmission line,” Hickey said. Hickey said the RRC developed a grid resiliency plan that develops a transmission line system that benefits from both traditional and renewable energy sources. The resiliency plan includes rebuilding or overhauling the current Railbelt transmission lines, building the secondary lines and building out energy storage projects, including ones in Anchorage, Homer and Fairbanks. GVEA has already committed to replacing its 20-year-old battery energy storage system as part of its strategic generation plan. The RRC has submitted two concepts to the Department of Energy for federal funding possibilities afforded under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. One includes grid resilience, or reconstructing the transmission lines and stations from Bradley Lake to Delta Junction. The largest benefits include more energy sources, a reliable system, lower carbon emissions over the long term and would positively affect the state’s Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program. The PCE subsidizes energy costs for rural Alaska communities and utilities but bases the subsidy on power costs for Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau. The second includes incorporating the battery energy storage systems into the grid. Hickey said a third opportunity on grid innovation is pending. “The grants are competitive,” Hickey said. Of 615 combined concepts submitted for the first two categories, 301 were encouraged to apply. The DOE anticipates funding only 10 grid resiliency grants and up to 40 smart grid/battery storage grants. Hickey said federal funding will require the state to provide matching funds. “This has to be a state plan,” Hickey said. “It is beyond the Railbelt utilities alone to construct without impacts to ratepayers.” Hickey added that Railbelt’s small size compared to other states provides an advantage. “We are a win-win for the Department of Energy,” Hickey said. “We are a very small grid and a perfect testbed of how to decarbonize a grid.” 2/16/23, 3:39 PM House Energy Committee hears update on Railbelt transmission | Alaska News | newsminer.com https://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/house-energy-committee-hears-update-on-railbelt-transmission/article_c3ab3db6-acb5-11ed-abec-e3…4/5 Members of the House energy committee had concerns about costs and logistics. Rep. Mike Prax, R-North Pole, asked about taking advantage of a possible natural gas line. Hickey reiterated transmission lines still need to be built, regardless of power generation sources. Prax also asked about other available resources. “There are some questions about the resource availability to accomplish the grand goal of decarbonizing the economy,” Prax said. “We are transferring reliance on carbon fuels to something else. I’m not sure if there has been enough consideration to that and if we haven’t considered that, then it becomes impractical.” Rep. George Rauscher, R-South Anchorage, the committee chair, asked a hypothetical question about whether it would be more affordable to provide smaller communities with advanced nuclear microreactors instead of building out a grid. Hickey said a project like that requires economies of scale to make it affordable. “You need to have every utility participate and all of them have access to that source,” Hickey said. “A transmission grid needs to be critical, or as an alternative, you need to have two of those [microreactors], including one for back up.” Prax also asked about the possibility of committing to just one project at the risk of not doing others. He added there’s always the risk of transferring costs from ratepayers to the state and federal government, which could backfire in the way of higher taxes. “We need to understand the consequences of doing it part way and not doing something,” Prax said. Rep. Ashley Carrick, D-Fairbanks, asked whether RCC has a list of priorities in case the state partially funds the effort. Hickey said the RCC is compiling the list from numerous studies state agencies have conducted over the past 40 years. “We took those studies and amalgamated them into a larger plan,” Hickey said. “Engineers understand where the problems are.” 2/16/23, 3:39 PM House Energy Committee hears update on Railbelt transmission | Alaska News | newsminer.com https://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/house-energy-committee-hears-update-on-railbelt-transmission/article_c3ab3db6-acb5-11ed-abec-e3…5/5 jbarnwell Rep. Calvin Schrage, NP-Anchorage, said he appreciated the RCC’s efforts to develop a plan and potential solutions. But he asked if it was subject to a certain amount, adding the state budget fluctuates year-to-year. “This underscores the issue that we don’t know what the state revenues will look like in the next few years,” Schrage said. “It makes it really challenging when evaluating these three-or-four year plans.” Hickey said the state hasn’t bound itself to a financial commitment, adding the state has merely been invited to submit a full grant application. “Our process so far has been to be invited to the dance, and then see if [the Department of Energy] wants to dance, then we decide if we want to dance,” Hickey said. Contact reporter Jack Barnwell at 907-459-7587 or jbarnwell@newsminer.com. 2/16/23, 5:56 PM Governor Dunleavy’s Budget Amendments Strengthen the Public Defender Agency, the Office of Public Advocacy, and the Ferry S… https://gov.alaska.gov/governor-dunleavys-budget-amendments-strengthen-the-public-defender-agency-the-office-of-public-advocacy-and-the-ferry-sy…1/2 Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy introduced $117 million in total Undesignated General Fund (UGF) Amendments as part of a package of budget amendments introduced to the Legislature today. “Today ’s amended budget proposal reflects that we are listening and responding to Alaskans in real-time,” said Governor Dunleavy. “This budget will fortify that effort by adding resources to the Office of Public Advocacy, the Public Defender Agency, the Department of Health Division of Public Assistance, and the Alaska Marine Highway System match. We are also adding resources for public safety, renewable energy grants, 404 Primacy, Medicaid rates, and more to better the lives of Alaskans.” Office of Public Advocacy (OPA) and the Public Defender Agency (PDA) The Governor ’s amended budget includes $8.3 million across two fiscal years to increase the hourly pay and case caps for contract attorneys to become competitive in the current job market. This provides the same 20 percent raise to contract attorneys as given to state attorneys. Department of Health, Division of Public Assistance The Administration is amending $9 million for the Division of Public Assistance in the Operating Budget to increase capacity for eligibility determinations to help address the backlog. Additionally, $54 million is included in the Capital Budget to fully finish migrating the Division’s eligibility system from the outdated legacy system and into AIRES, a database, for full implementation into one, more modern system. Alaska Marine Highway System Match (AMHS) The Administration is using three sources to match the AMHS federal funding: matching the federal grants related to building new vessels with money in the vessel replacement fund, matching the operating costs with existing revenues, and matching capital projects with a toll credit system in federal law. Other Notable Amendments $7.5 million for a Department of Public Safety patrol vessel replacement $10 million ($5 million each) to Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) and Alaska Travel Industry Association (ATIA) $7.5 million for Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Renewable Energy Grants $8 million for wildfire suppression Governor Dunleavy ’s Budget Amendments Strengthen the Public Defender Agency, the Office of Public Advocacy, and the Ferry System Feb 15, 2023 2/16/23, 5:56 PM Governor Dunleavy’s Budget Amendments Strengthen the Public Defender Agency, the Office of Public Advocacy, and the Ferry S… https://gov.alaska.gov/governor-dunleavys-budget-amendments-strengthen-the-public-defender-agency-the-office-of-public-advocacy-and-the-ferry-sy…2/2 $24.4 million for Medicaid rates and match $5 million for State assumption of Section 404 Permitting Primacy $2.8 million for 10 more VPSOs and housing allowances $250,000 to assign a dedicated Alaska State Trooper to investigate in-custody inmate deaths and reported felony and misdemeanant criminal cases within the correctional facilities. View the Fiscal Year 2024 Amended Budget page here. View the FY24 budget page here. 2/16/23, 5:51 PM Railbelt utilities again scramble to fill expected Cook Inlet gas shortages https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/02/12/railbelt-utilities-again-scramble-to-fill-expected-cook-inlet-gas-shortages/1/11 Obituaries • Games • ADN Store • e-Edition • Sponsored Content • Real Estate/Open Houses Energy Railbelt utilities again scramble to ll expected Cook Inlet gas shortages By Sean Maguire Updated: February 13, 2023 Published: February 12, 2023 2022 Election • Alaska News • Politics • Opinions • Talk to us LOG IN SUBSCRIBESections 2/16/23, 5:51 PM Railbelt utilities again scramble to fill expected Cook Inlet gas shortages https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/02/12/railbelt-utilities-again-scramble-to-fill-expected-cook-inlet-gas-shortages/2/11 Hilcorp's Platform A on Sunday, April 2, 2017. (Bill Roth / ADN) JUNEAU — The Alaska Department of Natural Resources has forecast that under current conditions, there will be supply shortfalls of Cook Inlet gas starting around 2027. Railbelt utilities are increasingly looking at alternative options to bridge supply gaps, such as importing gas from outside Alaska. As of 2018, more than 70% of power generated across the Railbelt came from Cook Inlet natural gas; it was also used to heat over 140,000 homes and businesses. But production from 60-year-old fields has steadily declined. The largest Cook Inlet gas producer is Hilcorp. The Texas-based operator has indicated to the state that it would not automatically extend contracts to provide gas to Railbelt utilities as it has done in the past. In recent years, there has been little incentive for producers to increase their output. Alaska has not exported LNG from Cook Inlet since 2015, meaning the market has been effectively fixed. Increased production means depressed prices. Veteran Alaska state legislators have heard concerns about shortfalls of Cook Inlet gas before. More than a decade ago, there were warnings of “crippling” shortages unless production increased, but the Legislature’s ability and willingness to incentivize more output may be limited. The state has largely phased out tax credits, and it is still paying down a now-defunct scheme which ended in 2017. ADVERTISEMENT 2/16/23, 5:51 PM Railbelt utilities again scramble to fill expected Cook Inlet gas shortages https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/02/12/railbelt-utilities-again-scramble-to-fill-expected-cook-inlet-gas-shortages/3/11 [Could oil-rich Alaska be forced to import natural gas? Two utilities are looking into it.] Furie Operating LLC., a small Homer-based gas producer, has pushed for legislation to reduce its tax burden, arguing that current rates are stifling increased production. The bill was introduced last week in the state Senate, and then quickly withdrawn when oil-producing municipalities said those changes would significantly diminish their revenue. ADVERTISEMENT Enstar and the electric utilities are studying ways to bridge the supply shortfall but they don’t have recommendations or requests for the Legislature yet — those are expected to be ready in the summer. There are plans for longer-term fixes, which include infrastructure improvements to reduce a high dependency on a single source of fuel. Prices may need to rise for consumers in the meantime, the utility managers said. “There’s no question that additional discoveries in the Cook Inlet will help, but we are on the downward trend. Additional discoveries, so to speak, kick the can down the road,” said Arthur Miller, CEO of Chugach Electric Association. “But at the end of the day, there is a finite supply of natural gas in Cook Inlet.” Like ‘farmed salmon’ ADVERTISEMENT 2/16/23, 5:51 PM Railbelt utilities again scramble to fill expected Cook Inlet gas shortages https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/02/12/railbelt-utilities-again-scramble-to-fill-expected-cook-inlet-gas-shortages/4/11 Importing oil and gas is like convincing Alaskans that farmed salmon is good for you, said Brad Janorschke, general manager of Homer Electric Association. But the managers of the Railbelt utilities told the Senate Resource Committee that it could — unfortunately — be the best alternative. A long sought-after natural gas pipeline from the North Slope is being touted as an option to supply Southcentral Alaska, but the utilities say they cannot rely on that project until it’s built. Importing gas could be a transition option until longer-term solutions are implemented, the utility managers said. A lingering question is how natural gas would be imported. Options are being evaluated, but a spokesperson for Chugach Electric said LNG would most likely be brought to Alaska by tankers and delivered somewhere in the Nikiski area. Marathon Petroleum Corp. owns and manages the Kenai LNG refinery, which had been used to export natural gas for almost 50 years. The plant has been mothballed since 2017. Marathon has permits to convert the export terminal into an importation facility. The Ohio-based company has been granted an extension to finish the conversion by 2025. With shortfalls looming, decisions about securing supply need to be made in the next year or so, Miller said. “Every month that passes, our options start getting narrower,” he said. ‘Shift the paradigm’ Railbelt utilities provide power from Homer to Delta Junction, serving roughly 75% of population. Each of them have a different level of reliance on Cook Inlet gas for generating power. For Matanuska Electric Association, natural gas provides just under 85% of its power needs. 2/16/23, 5:51 PM Railbelt utilities again scramble to fill expected Cook Inlet gas shortages https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/02/12/railbelt-utilities-again-scramble-to-fill-expected-cook-inlet-gas-shortages/5/11 The utility has a contract to get 100% of its gas needs until the end of March of 2028, said Tony Izzo, general manager of MEA. But after that, it has no assurance of supply. Chugach Electric is in a “vastly different situation” to the other Railbelt cooperatives, Miller said. It owns two-thirds of a working interest in the Beluga River Unit gas field, which provides 50% of its gas requirements. But its supply contracts are also set to expire in 2028. For Homer Electric Association, which sources 90% of its power from Cook Inlet gas, the deadline to secure more gas is coming sooner. Janorschke said the cooperative’s current contracts expire next April — but he is optimistic producers won’t leave the Kenai Peninsula without a source of power. “Our first priority is to keep the lights on,” he said. “Secondly, is to keep the upward pressure off of rates.” Izzo said Southcentral needed to “shift the paradigm” of power generation. The utilities are looking at longer-term plans to modernize the Railbelt’s electrical transmission system and add redundancies. “We have one of the most fragile systems in the United States,” Izzo said. “I don’t refer to the Alaska Railbelt as first-world, because it’s not.” ADVERTISEMENT The utilities are seeking federal funding to improve the electrical grid, which could take longer than a decade to be completed. A modern transmission system could better integrate other sources of power, such as from renewables. But alternative sources of energy can only do so much for now, the utility managers said. “It’s not a panacea,” Miller said. The electric cooperative, which serves 90,000 Anchorage-area residents, is studying the viability of one solar and one wind project as it moves to reduce its carbon footprint by 50% by 2040. 2/16/23, 5:51 PM Railbelt utilities again scramble to fill expected Cook Inlet gas shortages https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/02/12/railbelt-utilities-again-scramble-to-fill-expected-cook-inlet-gas-shortages/6/11 Miller said those projects would only make “a small dent” on its reliance on natural gas as the utilities try to diversify their sources of energy. They are agreed on working together to avoid a cycle of looming Cook Inlet gas shortages every few years. “We want a long-term, permanent solution that benefits Alaskans,” Miller said. We want your feedback. Do you have additional ideas for coverage on this topic? Do you have questions? Do you see an er ror? Are you involved in the stor y or affected by it and have additional thoughts about it? Let us know here. Do you have additional ideas for coverage on this topic? Do you have questions? Do you see an error? Are you involved in the story or affected by it and have additional thoughts about it? Let us know here. 0/1000 Your contact info: Thank you for reaching out. A reporter may be in touch to talk with you about your experiences. We won't publish any information about you without checking with you first. Name Email address Phone Number Yes, I want to sign up for the ADN’s daily newsletter to get the latest updates on local news, politics, and other topics in Alaska. Please don't publish my name I am over 16 years old I accept the Terms of Service Submit Powered by Hearken | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy Sean Maguire Sean Maguire is a politics and general assignment reporter for the Anchorage Daily News based in Juneau. He previously reported from Juneau for Alaska's News Source. Contact him at smaguire@adn.com. 2/16/23, 5:58 PM In this AKEVWG newsletter issue: EV tax credits demystified https://mailchi.mp/45d1e0f96544/aea-submits-ev-infrastructure-plan-to-joint-office-13509015?e=[UNIQID]1/6 View this email in your browser Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Newsletter, February 9, 2023 Alaska's EV scene: what's new? The bus fleets in Ketchikan and Metlakatla are getting an upgrade! The Metlakatla Indian Community received a $400,000 Federal Transit Administration grant that they will be able to use to purchase an electric bus. They plan on having the bus on a dedicated route to the terminal. This will be a big step for the community — they have never had a dedicated bus to the terminal, and many people have either had to walk or find alternate modes of transportation. Metlakatla is still in the process of claiming the grant money, so it is unsure when the bus will be put into service. Ketchikan received a $4.2 million grant that they will use to purchase three electric buses. They plan to 2/16/23, 5:58 PM In this AKEVWG newsletter issue: EV tax credits demystified https://mailchi.mp/45d1e0f96544/aea-submits-ev-infrastructure-plan-to-joint-office-13509015?e=[UNIQID]2/6 purchase GILLIG buses, the same brand as their current diesel fleet. There is an 80 percent overlap in parts between the old buses and the new electric ones, which will help make upkeep easier and maintenance costs low. The new electric buses could be cruising around Ketchikan as soon as 2024. Clean Vehicle Tax Credit Considering purchasing an electric vehicle (EV) soon? Tax credits are changing, which could affect whether or not you’re eligible to receive benefits. The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022, created changes to the Clean Vehicle Tax Credit for buyers interested in plug-in EVs or fuel cell vehicles (FCV), both of which are considered “clean vehicles.” Buyers purchasing a qualified clean vehicle in 2023 and beyond may be eligible for a tax credit of up to $7,500. If you’re planning on cashing in that tax credit, however, be sure to read the fine print, because it gets a little complicated. First things first, buyers themselves must make sure they meet eligibility requirements. The credit is available to people who are buying a new clean vehicle for their own use (not resale), plan on primarily using the vehicle in the United States, and fall under the modified adjusted gross income (AGI) limit of $300,000 for married couples filing jointly $250,000 for heads of households, and $150,000 for all other filers. Buyers can use their AGI from the year they obtain the vehicle or the year before, so long as they fall below the AGI for at least one of the two years. 2/16/23, 5:58 PM In this AKEVWG newsletter issue: EV tax credits demystified https://mailchi.mp/45d1e0f96544/aea-submits-ev-infrastructure-plan-to-joint-office-13509015?e=[UNIQID]3/6 So, you’re interested in buying a clean vehicle and you meet all the criteria listed above. Great! Now you need to make sure the vehicle you want to purchase also meets the necessary requirements. For new vehicles, the manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) can’t be over $80,000 for vans, SUVs, and pickup trucks or $55,000 for all other vehicles. How do you know if the vehicle you’re interested in is classified as a van, SUV, truck, or “other vehicle”? Good question, and that’s something that was recently updated! On February 3, the US Treasury Department changed the vehicle classifications to follow the EPA Fuel Economy Labeling standard. This change will align standards so vehicles with similar features are classified in a consistent manner. This recent update is just one example of how the rules and regulations surrounding this tax credit are continuing to evolve. In addition to the MSRP caps, the vehicles must also have a battery capacity of at least 7- kilowatt hours, have a gross vehicle weight of fewer than 14,000 pounds, be made by a qualified manufacturer, and undergo final assembly in North America. To view the applicable MSRP limit for a vehicle and see whether or not it was made by a qualified manufacturer, buyers can visit the IRS website. Buyers can also use the U.S. Department of Energy Alternative Fuels Data Center’s VIN decoder tool to verify that the specific vehicle they’re interested in underwent final assembly in the U.S. The locations of final assembly can vary by location even within the same make and model of vehicle, so it is important to verify with the VIN. So how is it different than the previous tax credit? Prior to the IRA, some vehicles were not eligible for tax credits because their manufacturers had reached a production cap of 200,000 vehicles. The IRA removed this cap and extended eligibility back to manufacturers who had previously hit the cap. For example, Tesla and General Motors, which had previously met the cap, may now be eligible again granted the specific vehicle meets the rest of the requirements. Also new this year is the possibility for a tax credit if purchasing a previously owned clean vehicle. Eligible buyers who purchase a qualified used vehicle from a licensed dealer may be eligible for a credit of 30 percent of the vehicle sale price for a maximum credit not to exceed $4,000. Buyers must not be buying the vehicle for resale, not be the original owner, not be claimed as a dependent on another person’s tax return, and not have claimed another used 2/16/23, 5:58 PM In this AKEVWG newsletter issue: EV tax credits demystified https://mailchi.mp/45d1e0f96544/aea-submits-ev-infrastructure-plan-to-joint-office-13509015?e=[UNIQID]4/6 vehicle tax credit in the previous three years. Similar to buying a new clean vehicle, there is also an income cap for buyers, with their AGI not to exceed $150,000 for married people filing jointly, $112,000 for heads of households, or $75,000 for all other filers. The used clean vehicle also must meet certain requirements, such as having a sale price less than $25,000, be at least two years old, have a gross vehicle weight of less than 14,000 pounds, have a battery capacity of at least 7 kilowatt hours, and be purchased for primary use in the U.S. be purchased for primary use in the U.S. Here are some important caveats: These tax credits are non-refundable. This means that unless you owe money on your taxes, the credit will not be applied to your tax bill. To check if you can collect the full amount, look at Line 16 on your 1040. If it is greater than $7,500, you can claim the full amount. If it is less, the maximum you can claim is the amount you owe on Line 16. This process will become easier in 2024 when the credit gets changed to a point-of- sale rebate. Starting then, up to $7,500 could be taken off the vehicle price at the time of sale. Vehicle eligibility is subject to major change in March 2023. New regulations about batteries and critical minerals sourcing are expected to go into effect in March. These new rules will most likely cause some previously eligible vehicles to become ineligible for the tax credit. The full $7,500 credit is broken into two parts. First, the $3,750 critical minerals portion of the tax credit requires the percentage of the value of the battery’s critical minerals that are extracted or processed in the U.S. or a U.S. free-trade agreement partner or recycled in North America starting at 40 percent and increasing 10 percent annually. Second, the $3,750 battery components portion of the tax credit requires the percentage of the value of the battery’s components that are manufactured or assembled in North America to start at 50 percent and increase by 10 percent annually. The tax credit applies to the vehicle at the time of acquisition by the owner — this is not necessarily the same as the date of purchase. This means if someone purchases an eligible vehicle but doesn’t take possession of it until many months down the road, they will have to follow the eligibility guidelines at the time they physically obtain the vehicle. For example, if someone purchased an eligible vehicle in February 2023, but the vehicle wasn’t delivered until May 2023, and in the meantime, new 2/16/23, 5:58 PM In this AKEVWG newsletter issue: EV tax credits demystified https://mailchi.mp/45d1e0f96544/aea-submits-ev-infrastructure-plan-to-joint-office-13509015?e=[UNIQID]5/6 battery sourcing requirements were released making the vehicle ineligible, the vehicle would no longer be eligible for the tax credit even though it qualified at the time of purchase. This is something buyers should keep in mind during the next few months as regulations continue to evolve. With all that in mind, if buyers want to pursue claiming the tax credit, they will need to fill out form 8936 and submit it with their taxes. If you still have questions or concerns after reading all this information — don’t worry! Lots of consumers are in the same situation. The IRS released a request for comments on these regulations in December. Although the comment period has closed, you can view others’ comments here. The public is still able to provide comments on tax form 8936 used to file for the credit. You can read about steps taken to engage the public here. Important Dates March 1, 2023 - Request for Applications (RFA) Tentative Release 14 Days Post-RFA Release - Pre-Bid Meeting 21 Days Post-RFA Release - Pre-Bid Questions Due 45 Days Post-RFA Release - Applications Due! Resources Frequently asked questions related to new, previously-owned and qualified commercial clean vehicle credits (irs.gov) Credits for New Clean Vehicles Purchased in 2023 or After (irs.gov) What to know about the $7,500 IRS EV tax credit for electric cars in 2023 (NPR) Electric buses are in the works for Ketchikan and Metlakatla (ktoo.org) Facebook LinkedIn Website 2/16/23, 5:58 PM In this AKEVWG newsletter issue: EV tax credits demystified https://mailchi.mp/45d1e0f96544/aea-submits-ev-infrastructure-plan-to-joint-office-13509015?e=[UNIQID]6/6 The Alaska Energy Authority’s Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group involves collaborative stakeholders focused on promoting the use of electric vehicles (EVs) in Alaska by removing barriers to EV adoption and increasing access to charging infrastructure. Stay up to date on AEA's EV efforts at our website here. Copyright © 2023 Alaska Energy Authority, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Tracking resource, business, industry & construction issues since 1974 Publishers: Mike & Tim Bradner (907) 440-60683037 South Circle, Anchorage, Ak. 99507 Feb. 6, 2023No. 3/2023 $280 million Unalaska geothermal development underway Drilling, construction starting in 2024; production in 2027 Alaska Economic Report (c) ISSN: 1072-8139 Bradners’ ALASKA ECONOMIC REPORT: Published by Alaska Information and Research Services 3037 South Circle, Anchorage, Alaska 99507 TEL: (907) 440-6068 FAX: (907) 345-5683 Email: timbradner@pobox.alaska.net Bradners’ The near-final approval for ConocoPhillips’ $8 billion Willow oil project by the U.S. Interior Department is a huge morale boost for the state’s petroleum industry. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management must still issue its Record of Deci- sion, but that is expected in 30 days. If BLM okays recommendations in the FEIS ConocoPhillips will make its Final Investment Decision on Willow. Ounalashka Corporation, the Native village corporation of Unalaska, and Fairbanks, Alas- ka–based Chena Power, LLC are well along in a $280 million geothermal power project to supply electricity to the nearby city of Unalaska. Ormat Technologies, an experienced geothermal compa- ny, has been retained as the engineering, procure- ment and execution contractor, and the joint-ven- ture partners are now negotiating financing. The renewable energy tax credit in the federal Inflation Reduction Act passed in Congress is a big boost, allowing 30 percent of expenses to be credited to tax obligations once the project begins production, but even if that is not approved by the government the financing can still be put together, project man- agers told us. Geothermal power would come from Willow oil project decision a big boost for industry Inside:Fire Island wind project Pg. 2 Gas shortage in Cook Inlet? Pg. 3New projects, North Slope Pg. 6 hot water, at 390 degrees F at Makushin Volcano near Unalaska. The partners have a 30-year con- tract to supply 100 million kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity per year to the City of Unalska at 16.3 cents/kWh. The city actually needs only half of the 100 million kWh but the large seafood processing plants are expected to sign on as customers, which could expand the power supply to 150 million kWh per year. First power production is expected in late 2027. – Continued on page 2 Major procurement and contract awards await the final decision but the company will begin con- struction immediately of gravel access roads to the Willow site, the company said. Willow is expected to produce 180,000 barrels per day at its peak, with first production in 2028. BLM’s approval came despite heavy lobbying of the Biden administration by U.S. conservation groups. – Continued on page 6 Alaska Economic Report No. 3/2023 Page 2 Page 2 Energy: Gas shortage? Why not Susitna? CIRI looks to expand Fire Island With a looming gas shortage in Southcentral Alaska there’s interest in the state Legislature again on the big Susitna hydro project as a way to take pressure off gas reserves for power generation. This project, as planned now, would have a 618 megawatt capacity that would more than supply Southcentral and Interior “raibelt” needs and move Alaska to 67 percent renewable in its energy supply for electrici- ty. The state is currently at 28 percent renewable. This is a big project, at $5.6 billion estimated in 2014, but Gov. Bill Walker put it on the shelf in 2015 due to ongoing costs of the federal licensing and the collapse of state oil revenues at the time. The new concern over natural gas puts it in a different light now. About $100 million is needed to finish the FERC licensing and there are now equity investors interested in Susitna as a large renewable energy project, we’re told. The project would eliminate about 1.3 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions yearly. It would also create about 5,000 construction jobs in the state. The first step, the state’s Alaska Energy Authority says, is to invest $5 million to $10 million to update and validate past work, on which $200 million was spent. If the current work is still valid, the $100 mil- lion to complete the licensing could be decided on. The 2014 estimates were that Susitna could deliver power for a long-term cost of 6 cents/kilowatt hour. That would have to be updated. *** Oil and gas employment reached 7,200 in Decem- ber, up 400 from December 2021 but still 2,900 down from pre-pandemic December, 2019, accord- ing to state labor data. *** Cook Inlet Region Inc. hopes to begin a Phase 2 expansion of its Fire Island Wind Project in 2024 but there are challenges finding suitable sites for addi- tional towers on the island, CIRI told the Resource Development Council in Anchorage in January. The problem is the island’s proximity to Ted Stevens International Airport three miles away, which brings height restrictions on things near the airport. Existing turbine tower on the island are medium size for the wind industry and the trend among manufacturers now is to build bigger, taller units. This challenges CIRI in finding locations that fit the turbines and Federal Aviation Agency restrictions. With expan- sion, up to 120,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of elec- tricity per year could be produced. The project has been generating about 50,000 MWh/year. Fire Island was a gamble for CIRI 10 years ago because of the uncertainty of how much power could really be generated in the state’s first major wind project. There were also challenges of building on an island in Cook Inlet, with its high tides. Performance has been excellent, however, with 514,000 MWh generated over 10 years in line with CIRI’s projec- tions. The project has also had available power 98.5 percent of the time. *** Project to expand Bradley Lake Funding for studies of an expansion of the Bradley Lake hydro project, through the Dixon Diversion, is before the Legislature. This would effectively increase Bradley Lake generation by 50 percent.An advantage with this: Dixon Diversion can be tagged onto Bradley’s existing FERC license. That could save a lot of time and money *** Alaska Economic Report No. 3/2023 Page 2 Page 2 Energy: Gas shortage? Why not Susitna? CIRI looks to expand Fire Island With a looming gas shortage in Southcentral Alaska there’s interest in the state Legislature again on the big Susitna hydro project as a way to take pressure off gas reserves for power generation. This project, as planned now, would have a 618 megawatt capacity that would more than supply Southcentral and Interior “raibelt” needs and move Alaska to 67 percent renewable in its energy supply for electrici- ty. The state is currently at 28 percent renewable. This is a big project, at $5.6 billion estimated in 2014, but Gov. Bill Walker put it on the shelf in 2015 due to ongoing costs of the federal licensing and the collapse of state oil revenues at the time. The new concern over natural gas puts it in a different light now. About $100 million is needed to finish the FERC licensing and there are now equity investors interested in Susitna as a large renewable energy project, we’re told. The project would eliminate about 1.3 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions yearly. It would also create about 5,000 construction jobs in the state. The first step, the state’s Alaska Energy Authority says, is to invest $5 million to $10 million to update and validate past work, on which $200 million was spent. If the current work is still valid, the $100 mil- lion to complete the licensing could be decided on. The 2014 estimates were that Susitna could deliver power for a long-term cost of 6 cents/kilowatt hour. That would have to be updated. *** Oil and gas employment reached 7,200 in Decem- ber, up 400 from December 2021 but still 2,900 down from pre-pandemic December, 2019, accord- ing to state labor data. *** Cook Inlet Region Inc. hopes to begin a Phase 2 expansion of its Fire Island Wind Project in 2024 but there are challenges finding suitable sites for addi- tional towers on the island, CIRI told the Resource Development Council in Anchorage in January. The problem is the island’s proximity to Ted Stevens International Airport three miles away, which brings height restrictions on things near the airport. Existing turbine tower on the island are medium size for the wind industry and the trend among manufacturers now is to build bigger, taller units. This challenges CIRI in finding locations that fit the turbines and Federal Aviation Agency restrictions. With expan- sion, up to 120,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of elec- tricity per year could be produced. The project has been generating about 50,000 MWh/year. Fire Island was a gamble for CIRI 10 years ago because of the uncertainty of how much power could really be generated in the state’s first major wind project. There were also challenges of building on an island in Cook Inlet, with its high tides. Performance has been excellent, however, with 514,000 MWh generated over 10 years in line with CIRI’s projec- tions. The project has also had available power 98.5 percent of the time. *** Project to expand Bradley Lake Funding for studies of an expansion of the Bradley Lake hydro project, through the Dixon Diversion, is before the Legislature. This would effectively increase Bradley Lake generation by 50 percent.An advantage with this: Dixon Diversion can be tagged onto Bradley’s existing FERC license. That could save a lot of time and money *** PUBLISHERS: Mike Bradner, Tim Bradner / Business Office: (907) 440-6068 / 3037 South Circle Anchorage, AK 99507 / Fax: (907) 345-5683 Alaska Legislative Digest - Commentary on Alaska issues and policy Bradners’ January 30, 2023 No. 3/2023 Gov. Mike Dunleavy is pretty bullish about his proposal for the state to make money selling carbon offset credits on undeveloped state lands, mainly forests. “We’ve been told by some that we could generate as much as $30 billion or more over 20 years just from our forest lands,” the governor said in his State of the State address to the Legislature last week. Sounds too good to be true, but we’ll see. There’s a second part of the plan to sell space in depleted Cook Inlet gas reservoirs for carbon diox- ide storage. The customers would be industries who want to permanently sequester, or store, CO2 to demonstrate “net zero” in carbon emissions. This will help developers attract investment in an environment where financiers are wary of fossil fuels climate impacts. Bills to do this were introduced last Friday. In this Issue:• Education Pg. 2• Status of bills Pgs. 4-5• Professional licensing Pg. 5• Energy/resources Pg. 7 Our reports are protected by Copyright. Please do not forward to others without permission. © COPYRIGHT Email: timbradner@pobox.alaska.net Tough problems for rural schools: Fuel costs, deteriorating facilities – Continued on bottom, page 8 Governor bullish on carbon credits$1 billion-plus possible from forests? Some say unrealistic – Continued on page 6 This is not a pretty picture: Rising costs are hammering school districts. Some nuggets from hear- ings last week in Senate Education Committee: One district experienced a 20 percent increase in pupil transportation (school buses) over the last year. Other districts are experiencing similar problems with bus operations. This means money must be shifted from other programs, Lisa Parady of the Council of School Administrators, told the committee. The state hasn’t increased transportation support since 2016. For all districts, total fuel costs, mostly space heating, rose 46 percent from FY 2022 to FY 2023, Sarah Sledge, of the Coalition for Education Equity, told senators. Utilities costs rose 38 per- cent; new construction was up about 20 percent; travel was up 40 percent; supply costs rose 10 percent to 20 percent; while insurance rose 26 percent, she said. This week: • Supplemental appropriation requests for the FY 2023 (current year) budget will be submitted to legisa-tors Tuesday, Jan. 31. Typically these increase appropriation amounts • The Senate Resources Committee will get an update on the latest Cook Inlet natural gas reserve esti-mates today, Monday, Jan. 30 (see more, page 7) . . . Energy / Resources . . . Page 7 Susitna hydro project may get a new look With gas reserves declining in Southcentral Alaska the big Susitna hydroelectric project shelved in 2015 by former Gov. Bill Walker is getting increased interest from legislators. In its first meeting last week the House Energy Committee, chaired by Rep. George Rauscher, R-Palmer, was briefed by the Alaska Energy Authority, or AEA, on the project status. Susitna would have about 610 Megawatts of generation capacity and would essentially provide all power needs for the Southcentral/Interior “raibelt” region. In 2014 its cost was estimated at about $5.6 billion. Basically, about $100 million is needed to complete studies for the Federal Energy Regulatory Com- mission license. About $200 million was spent on these before Walker stopped the work. AEA director Curtis Thayer said FERC appears favorable toward the project because no issues have been raised with studies to date and the commission so far has rejected requests for extensions of deadlines. Gov. Dun- leavy is a renewable energy fan but he hasn’t yet signed on to spending money to complete the licensing because he wants to see indications of legislative support. The first step is securing about $5 million to $10 million to validate the work that has been done to date, most importantly the project economics done earlier that show a favorable cost-benefit analysis. An updated cost estimate would no doubt rise with inflation, Thayer said, but new technologies in build- ing large dams are likely to also lower costs. Susitna’s long-term cost of power was estimated earlier at 6 cents/kilowatt hour, or kWh, which compares favorably with the current average of 8 to 9 cents/kWh for natur al gas-fired power in the Southcentral region. For reference, Bradley Lake hydro near, Homer, generates power for 4 cents/kWh. The Fire Island wind project, in Cook Inlet near Anchorage, generates power for about 9 cents/kWh. Enough natural gas in Cook Inlet until 2027, senators told The Senate Resources Committee will be briefed on the Cook Inlet natural gas outlook today, Jan. 30. The state Department of Natural Resources has completed an update of confirmed Inlet gas now con- sidered economic to produce. It is 820 billion cubic feet, or enough to supply the Southcentral market for space heating, power and industrial use until 2027, senators will be told. The study assumes ongoing demand of about 70 billion cu. ft./year, the average in recent years. Assumptions include proven gas in reservoirs and that producers, mainly Hillcorp Energy, will continue to invest in new producing wells in the existing fields. Known discoveries not yet developed are not included. This is mainly at BlueCrest Energy’s Cosmopolitan field where there is an undeveloped gas “cap” overlying an oil reservoir. It’s been no secret that the Inlet’s gas reserves are running down – Hilcorp itself has warned about that – but this is the first estimate of possible timing. New exploration will add reserves but what’s concerning is the lack of exploration and industry interest, given results of recent state lease sales. Alaska Legislative Digest No. 3/2023 Page 8 Alaska Legislative Digest No. 3/2023 Subscription - Alaska Legislative Digest and Supplements 3037 South Circle Ph: (907) 440-6068 - Fax: (907) 345-5683 Anchorage, Ak. 99507 email: timbradner@pobox.alaska.net Cost: $575.00/year - Email online edition/print edition! Name___________________________Title_______ Company____________________Ph.______________ Address____________________________Fax________________________ City______________________State_________ Zip______ Email - for online edition___________________________ Credit card pay: Type______ Number____________________________ Exp:________ Among problems for rural schools: Applying to state for help – Continued from page 6 The state will also offer a vehicle for private parties to participate in the state program, the gover- nor said, by leasing state land and then selling offset credits. There are challenges: The CO2 storage is relatively simple – underground gas storage is common – but among several issues the state must also deal with is liability for CO2 leakage from underground. On forest land offsets, scientists have to deter- mine what kinds of trees absorb more C02 and which less. Mature, old growth spruce forests in coastal regions may absorb more of the greenhouse gas than the black and white spruce forests of the Interior. Also, buyers will likely seek discounts for timber damaged by spruce bark beetle. A probability of future wildfire losses must be considered. Also, there will be competition from others, including in Alaska. The University of Alaska is studying the idea for its lands, for example. Over time prices for the credits may drop. The bottom line is that it’s an interesting idea and the governor is being credited by legislators for thinking “outside the box.” There are a lot of unknowns, and the Legislature must also approve this. Governor bullish about carbon credit revenues (Cont.) – Continued from top, page 1 ital Improvement Project) to the state). Getting design teams to rural village schools for these assess- ments and to prepare cost estimates can be especially expensive,” Sledge said. “Many school districts use outside assistance to help them put their grant application packets together, which can range from $2,500 to $10,000, depending on the number of projects. In addition to this initial cost, there is an ongoing cost to reapply when projects are not funded. The application must be updated and the cost to resubmit can run around $8,000 every two years,” she said. Hearings will continue this week. We’ll be reporting on issues raised by school districts and results of recent University of Alaska research. 2/16/23, 3:49 PM Alaska House Energy Committee Hears Susitna-Watana Update - KTNA 88.9 FM https://ktna.org/2023/01/alaska-house-energy-committee-hears-susitna-watana-update/1/10 Donate Listen Community Radio for the Susitna Valley Alaska House Energy Committee Hears Susitna-Watana Update January 27, 2023 | Jenny Willoughby Updated January 31, 2023 At its January 26 meeting, the Alaska House Energy Committee heard from Curtis Thayer and Bryan Carey of the Alaska Energy Authority about the Susitna-Watana Dam project. Shelved in 2014 and unshelved in 2019, the project continues to be discussed as an alternative to help meet the state’s goal of 50 percent renewable energy. To date, the project has cost Alaskans $200 million and will cost another $100 million to get it through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, licensing process. Thayer noted that if the project were built today, it would be producing more than 50 percent of the electricity for customers along the rail belt. But to get the project to the licensing phase, it will take not only $100 million, but also at least another four to five years. Before that can happen, there would need to be a reevaluation of all the 58 FERC-approved studies, 19 of which are completed, to be sure the project is still viable. Though the project is estimated to reduce carbon emissions at about 1.5 million tons per year, equivalent to removing about 250,000 cars from the road, construction would take nine to eleven years after approvals and cost 5.6 billion in 2014 dollars. The project timeline is about 20 years to complete at this point. In the end, it would produce about 23,000 direct and indirect jobs during construction, with 135 permanent operations jobs when complete. Representative Tom McKay asked about salmon moving upstream through the dam. The AEA’B C i di t th t hi k l th t bl t k it b D il’ 2/16/23, 3:49 PM Alaska House Energy Committee Hears Susitna-Watana Update - KTNA 88.9 FM https://ktna.org/2023/01/alaska-house-energy-committee-hears-susitna-watana-update/2/10 AEA’s Bryan Carey indicates that chinook salmon that were able to make it above Devil’s Canyon were few and many used smaller tributaries for spawning rather than the Talkeetna River proper. Carey also indicates that fish passage through the dam may be challenging. Representative McKay also asked about river flows. Carey explains how the water flows would be altered during each season, but is unsure how ice dams might be affected downstream. This indicates a significant change in flows from season to season, with higher-than-normal flows in winter and lower-than-normal flows in summer, which could impact fisheries and habitat. Susitna River Coalition Board President Mike Wood says, “There’s a million reasons it shouldn’t happen and most of them relate to economics. That doesn’t even include the environmental impact.” There continue to be a variety of renewable energy projects built in the Susitna Valley, including two major solar fields, with more proposed in the coming years. Wood says “They’re putting all their eggs in one basket with the Susitna Dam. It’s not diversifying the portfolio as they would with wind and solar.” Correction: The original version of this article misspelled Bryan Carey’s name. It was corrected January 30, 2023. Leave a Comment 0:000:00 / 0:25/ 0:25 0:000:00 / 1:02/ 1:02 Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Comment Name * 2/16/23, 7:10 PM Affordable, reliable and sustainable: report compares utility performance - Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/2023/01/23/affordable-reliable-and-sustainable-report-compares-utility-performance/1/5 ECONOMY & ENVIRONMENT Affordable, reliable and sustainable: report compares utility performance Alaska ranks next to last, but report notes the state’s high costs are due to its isolation BY: ROBERT ZULLO - JANUARY 23, 2023 5:00 AM        With three hurricanes in 2020, Louisiana had the worst performance among states for getting the power back on after a major event, according to a new report that compared how utilities ranked in three areas: reliability, affordability and environmental responsibility. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) A nationwide comparison of electric utility performance by an Illinois consumer advocacy group found that customers in states that are heavily reliant on fuel oil and natural gas, as in  2/16/23, 7:10 PM Affordable, reliable and sustainable: report compares utility performance - Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/2023/01/23/affordable-reliable-and-sustainable-report-compares-utility-performance/2/5 the Northeast and South, tend to pay more than those with larger amounts of carbon-free generation, among other ndings. The report by the Illinois-based Citizens Utility Board ranked all 50 states and the District of Columbia for utility reliability, aordability and environmental responsibility using 2020 public data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Census Bureau. For overall performance across those categories, the top 10 were, starting with the highest ranked, Washington, Nevada, the District of Columbia, South Dakota, Illinois, Colorado, Arizona, Minnesota, Oregon and Nebraska. The bottom 10, starting with the lowest ranked, were West Virginia, Alaska, Mississippi, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Michigan, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana and Connecticut. The report said that Alaska’s low ranking in one of the factors — aordability — was due to its isolation. It’s the second year in a row the group has compiled the report, which started as a way to measure how Illinois compared to other states and morphed into a project it hopes will be useful for utility regulators, electric ratepayers and state policymakers across the country, said David Kolata, the board’s executive director. “What we’ve tried to do here is provide as full a picture as we possibly can,” he said. “We view this as a conversation starter not a conversation ender. We do think it provides a convenient and accessible way to get at this data. … Our hope is every state will improve in these categories.” Affordability Given the wide state-by-state variance in regulatory regimes, the dierence in rates between customer classes and how their bills are put together, it can be dicult to compare electric prices across state lines. Also, climate and heating and cooling dierences can make apples-to- apples bill comparisons tough. Electric customers in the South, for example, tend to rely on electricity for heating in the winter and face hotter summers that require more air conditioning than in the North, where gas is more common for home heating. “Whereas households in warmer climates may consume more electricity on an annual basis to run air conditioning units than households in colder climates, those same households will not spend as much on natural gas, propane or other heating fuels during the winter,” the report says. Other states, like Alaska and Hawaii, are expensive by virtue of their geographic isolation from the larger U.S. electric grid. The top 10 for overall aordability — as measured by average household energy expenditures, total household electric costs as a percentage of income, electric cost per kilowatt hour, total cost electricity expenditures and cost of energy eciency savings — were Utah, Washington, Idaho, the District of Columbia, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska and Illinois. 2/16/23, 7:10 PM Affordable, reliable and sustainable: report compares utility performance - Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/2023/01/23/affordable-reliable-and-sustainable-report-compares-utility-performance/3/5 The bottom 10 states were Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Alaska, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. Though the study used 2020 numbers, those aordability problems in states that rely on gas will likely have gotten worse, Kolata said, given the huge spike in gas prices triggered in part by Russia’s war in Ukraine. In November, the National Energy Assistance Directors’ Association said more than 20 million American families (roughly 1 in 6) are behind on utility bills and in total owed more than $16 billion as of August, up from $8.1 billion at the end of 2019, a problem expected to exacerbated by natural gas prices hitting a 16-year high. Power plants that burn natural gas provide about 38% of U.S. electricity generation. “There’s every reason to believe that those states that are dependent on natural gas and fossil fuel are going to do even worse on aordability going forward,” Kolata said. He noted that the study found that states with signicant amounts of “rm” carbon free generation, such as Washington and Oregon’s huge hydroelectric resources, and Illinois, which has more nuclear reactors than any other state, generally fare well on aordability measures. Reliability Though outages caused by power plants tripping oine, as in Winter Storm Elliott, get a lot of headlines, only about 1% of outage minutes nationally are caused by generation or transmission problems. Much more common are outages that hit the delivery system, such as storms downing power lines, equipment failures and other problems, the report says. Using three reliability performance indices created by the electric power industry, the report ranked states based on how well utilities performed during “major events” such as ice storms, hurricanes and wildres, as well as under normal circumstances. The top 10 for reliability were Arizona, Nevada, the District of Columbia, South Dakota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Maryland, Kansas, Minnesota and Florida. The bottom 10 were Louisiana, West Virginia, Maine, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama, Alaska, Michigan and Tennessee. For 2020, Hurricane-prone Louisiana had far and away the longest average duration of power outages due to major events, at 3,624 minutes per customer, while Arizona, the best state, only averaged 72 minutes. In the U.S., 2020 set a record for the number of named storms (11) that made landfall, per the Weather Channel. Three hurricanes hit Louisiana that year. Without major events, Nevada was the top state (behind only the District of Columbia) with an average outage duration of 55 minutes per customer. The worst was West Virginia at 468 minutes. Environment 2/16/23, 7:10 PM Affordable, reliable and sustainable: report compares utility performance - Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/2023/01/23/affordable-reliable-and-sustainable-report-compares-utility-performance/4/5 The report also ranked states by their sources of electricity and emissions data, giving consumers, policymakers and others a “bird’s-eye view of each state’s renewable, clean energy and fossil fuel mix” as well as data on how aggressively utilities are deploying energy eciency programs. The overall environmental ranking includes a combination of carbon and other emissions, renewable electricity (including biomass) generation, clean energy (dened as all renewables, plus nuclear and excluding biomass) and residential energy eciency program savings as a percentage of residential electric sales. The top 10 were Washington, South Dakota, Oregon, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, California, Idaho, Maine and Oklahoma. The bottom 10 were West Virginia, Kentucky, Indiana, Louisiana, Ohio, Missouri, Mississippi, Wyoming, Utah and Alaska. There were some interesting contradictions. For example, Texas led in both clean electricity generation and CO2 emissions. “Texas is big everywhere,” Kolata said, adding that he hopes the report will be a tool for politicians, utility regulators, customers and others to begin exploring the dierence in performance between states. “You can’t improve what you can’t measure.” R E P U B L I S H Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics. R O B E R T Z U LLO Robert Zullo is the energy transition reporter for States Newsroom. He has spent 13 years as a reporter and editor at weekly and daily newspapers, beginning at Worrall Community Newspapers in Union, N.J., where he was a staff writer and managing editor. He spent ve years in south Louisiana covering hurricanes, oil spills and Good Friday crawsh boils as a reporter and city editor for the The Courier and the Daily Comet newspapers in Houma and Thibodaux. He covered Richmond city hall for the Richmond Times-Dispatch from 2012 to 2013 and worked as a general assignment and city hall reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette from 2013 to 2016. He returned to Richmond to cover energy, environment and transportation for the Richmond Times-Dispatch. He grew up in Miami, Fla., and central New Jersey. A former armored car guard and a graduate of the College of William and Mary, he has received numerous rst-place awards for editorial, feature and column writing as well as breaking news coverage and investigative reporting. M O R E F R O M A U T H O R REL AT E D N E WS 2/16/23, 7:10 PM Affordable, reliable and sustainable: report compares utility performance - Alaska Beacon https://alaskabeacon.com/2023/01/23/affordable-reliable-and-sustainable-report-compares-utility-performance/5/5 Alaska activist describes decades dedicated to anti- abortion… BY LISA PHU December 2, 2022 Alaska doctor, once the focus of outrage, reflects on past… BY LISA PHU November 16, 2022 I N D E P E N D E N T A N D I L L U M I N AT I N G J O U R N A L I S M DEMOCRACY TOOLKIT The Alaska Beacon is an independent, nonpartisan news organization focused on connecting Alaskans to their state government. Our journalists fairly and fearlessly report on the people and interests that determine state policy. DEIJ Policy | Ethics Policy | Privacy Policy Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site.  © Alaska Beacon, 2023 2/16/23, 6:07 PM Attention EV site hosts: Alaska's NEVI funds are on the way! https://mailchi.mp/ada7c7d01646/aea-submits-ev-infrastructure-plan-to-joint-office-13506183?e=[UNIQID]1/5 View this email in your browser Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Newsletter, January 12, 2023 We're taking a big step toward distributing Alaska's NEVI funds! The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is drafting a request for applications (RFA) and plans to release it as soon as possible. Interested parties will be able to compete for a share of Alaska's NEVI program funding. In this process, applicants will have ample opportunity to provide feedback and ask questions to AEA. Draft site host requirements and scoring criteria were published in Alaska’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan, with a finalized and updated version of these to be released in conjunction with the RFA. We welcome all feedback, so if you have any thoughts or ideas, please feel free to contact us here or attend the January 19 working group meeting on these topics. Are you curious about the rules tied to NEVI program funding that the federal government is expected to release? We are too! The Federal Highway Administration and the United States Department of Transportation released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the fall of 2022, but have not yet released the final regulations. We hope that these regulations will be released soon, and in the meantime, we are continuing to work on the RFA process. 2/16/23, 6:07 PM Attention EV site hosts: Alaska's NEVI funds are on the way! https://mailchi.mp/ada7c7d01646/aea-submits-ev-infrastructure-plan-to-joint-office-13506183?e=[UNIQID]2/5 Below is a timeline of RFA-related events. Thursday, January 19, 2023, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m.: Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Meeting at AEA Anchorage Office AEA will host a meeting on the RFA and application process and answer questions from potential applicants. This will be a hybrid meeting, with an in-person option at the AEA office, 813 W Northern Lights Blvd in Anchorage, and a virtual option on Zoom, link here. To Be Determined: RFA Release Date After the RFA is officially released applicants can begin working on their application packages. Information on the RFA will be available on the AEA website or by checking the State of Alaska’s Online Public Notice system. 14 Days Post-RFA Release: Pre-Bid Meeting This pre-bid meeting is an opportunity for applicants to seek clarification from AEA on any aspects of the RFA. Applicants are not required to attend this meeting. This meeting will be virtual with a Zoom link to be sent at a later date. 21 Days Post-RFA Release: Pre-Bid Questions Due This will be the final opportunity to have questions answered. There is no meeting associated with this deadline. Information on how to submit questions will be included in the RFA. 45 Days Post-RFA Release: Applications Due! Applicants are welcome to submit application packages before this date, however, applications received more than 45 days after the RFA is released will not be accepted. Information on how to submit application packages will be included in the RFA. 2/16/23, 6:07 PM Attention EV site hosts: Alaska's NEVI funds are on the way! https://mailchi.mp/ada7c7d01646/aea-submits-ev-infrastructure-plan-to-joint-office-13506183?e=[UNIQID]3/5 What else is new with EVs? Recently, one of our colleagues ordered an Uber and was pleasantly surprised when a Tesla came to pick them up — for them, it was an exciting opportunity to ride in an electric vehicle (EV) for the first time! Rideshare drivers using EVs is not uncommon and is being promoted by platforms. For example, Lyft, a rideshare company, is committed to achieving a 100 percent electric fleet by 2030. They currently have a rental program that can help people without vehicles rent cars to become Lyft drivers. To help meet their 2030 goal, they plan on expanding this program to include the possibility to rent EVs. Additionally, they offer other perks such as charging discounts and extra monetary incentives for drivers in some states. Uber, another major rideshare platform, also has a goal of operating as a zero- emissions mobility platform in Canada, Europe, and the United States by 2030. They have incentives to help promote drivers switching to EVs. For example, for a limited time, they are paying drivers an extra dollar per trip if they’re driving an EV. 2/16/23, 6:07 PM Attention EV site hosts: Alaska's NEVI funds are on the way! https://mailchi.mp/ada7c7d01646/aea-submits-ev-infrastructure-plan-to-joint-office-13506183?e=[UNIQID]4/5 Visit us at the fair today! Come talk about EVs with AEA’s Taylor Asher at the Anchorage Transportation Fair today, Thursday, January 12, 2023! This family-friendly event is being held at the Alaska Airlines Center from 3-7 p.m. AKEVWG Quarterly Meeting Mark your calendar for the first Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group quarterly meeting of 2023! Join us on Thursday, January 19, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m. in person or via Zoom. Click here to view the agenda and information about in-person and virtual attendance. 2/16/23, 6:07 PM Attention EV site hosts: Alaska's NEVI funds are on the way! https://mailchi.mp/ada7c7d01646/aea-submits-ev-infrastructure-plan-to-joint-office-13506183?e=[UNIQID]5/5 Upcoming Events Thursday, February 9, 2023, Noon-1 p.m. - Alaska NEVI Plan Workshop in Kenai Resources Electric Vehicles on the Lyft Platform (Lyft) Lyft Helping Drivers Switch to Electric Vehicles (Lyft Blog) The Road to Zero Emissions (Uber) 2023 Anchorage Transportation Fair Facebook LinkedIn Website The Alaska Energy Authority’s Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group involves collaborative stakeholders focused on promoting the use of electric vehicles (EVs) in Alaska by removing barriers to EV adoption and increasing access to charging infrastructure. Stay up to date on AEA's EV efforts at our website here. Copyright © 2023 Alaska Energy Authority, All rights reserved. Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.