Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2023-08-02 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, August 2, 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 – June 21, 2023 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS (2 minutes per person) see call in number above 6. NEW BUSINESS - None 7. OLD BUSINESS - None 8. DIRECTOR COMMENTS A. Responses to Board Questions from June Board Meeting B. Governor’s State Energy Secuirty Task Force Update (June and July meetings) C. Federal Funding Presentation (Karen Bell) D. Audit Update E. AEA Budget Update F. Power Cost Equalization Update (PCE) G. Denali Commission Update H. Rural Programs Update I. Grant Funding Pre-applictions: i. Eielson AFB Essential Upgrades Grant Proposal ii. Kipnuk and Chefornak Memo J. National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Plan Update K. Cook Inlet Gas Supply L. Community Outreach M. Articles of Interest N. Next Regularly Scheduled AEA Board Meeting Thursday, September 21, 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 BOARD MEETING MINUTES Wednesday, June 21, 2023 Anchorage, Alaska 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Pruhs called the meeting of the Alaska Energy Authority to order on June 21, 2023, at 8:31 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); Julie Sande (Commissioner DCCED) (arrived 9:20 am); Bill Vivlamore (Public Member); and Randy Eledge (Public Member). 3. AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Kendig to approve the agenda, as presented. Motion seconded by Mr. Fogle. The motion to approve the agenda passed without objection. 4. PRIOR MINUTES – May 19, 2023 MOTION: A motion was made by Vice-Chair Kendig to approve the prior minutes of May 19, 2023. Motion seconded by Mr. Fogle. The motion to approve the minutes of May 19, 2023, 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 – None 7. OLD BUSINESS - None 8. DIRECTOR COMMENTS A. Responses to Board Questions from May Board Meeting - Included in the packet B. Governor’s State Energy Security Task Force Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 8 Curtis Thayer, Executive Director and Secretary-Treasurer, discussed that the Alaska Energy Security Task Force has held two meetings. The next meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2023. Subcommittees will be determined at that meeting. Presentations on infrastructure funding, GRIP applications, and PCE will also be given. The Security Task Force will hold a series of 30-minute informational symposium presentations focusing on different aspects of rural and urban energy in Alaska. The series will provide a foundational level of understanding and will be available in a recorded webinar format for members and the public. Mr. Thayer informed that the report due in October will provide the beginnings of a roadmap of ideas and concepts for reaching the Governor’s moonshot goal of 10-cent power. The process will be ongoing for the next several years. Mr. Thayer discussed that the report would include suggested legislative changes to regulations and statutes. The focus on the Railbelt highlights resilience and reliability. The focus in rural Alaska highlights cost and renewables. Both short-term and long-term solutions will be considered. Mr. Thayer noted that nuclear possibilities are within the category of long-term solutions. Chair Pruhs asked if the deliverable report will contain more questions or more answers. Mr. Thayer believes the report will contain more questions describing how to achieve the 10-cent power goal, rather than solutions. Mr. Thayer discussed the constraints of financing. One of the subcommittees is focusing on the federal tax incentive opportunities, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and other federal funding programs. The report will include AEA’s updated information regarding the energy needs, costs, and options in rural Alaska communities, coastal communities, and urban communities. Mr. Thayer indicated that all options are on the table, including consolidation. He noted that the hope is to have Black & Veatch and Michael Baker International provide modeling support for the Task Force’s information. Chair Pruhs asked if the deliverable report will recommend specific permitting processes and regulations to be streamlined. Mr. Thayer hopes that the report will identify certain regulations and statutory changes. He gave the example that on State land leased for wind farms, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) charged a wind tax that was ultimately paid for by the ratepayer. Through work with the Governor’s Office and DNR, the wind tax was eliminated. It is important that the State regulatory and statutory processes are not an impediment to establishing lower cost energy solutions. C. FY24 Operating Budget and Capital Budget Update Mr. Thayer informed that the Legislature adjourned, and the FY24 Operating Budget remained as presented. The total authorized budget is about $58 million, of which approximately $48 million is Power Cost Equalization (PCE) funds. The Legislature made changes to the Capital Budget. The Legislature added $6 million for Bulk Fuel Upgrades. The Legislature increased the Renewable Energy Grant Round XV by $9.6 million, for a total of about $17 million. The Legislature added $5 million for the Whittier Port Electrification project. The $5 million is paid for from the cruise ship passenger head tax. Mr. Thayer noted that Princess and Holland America are providing $6 million Alaska Energy Authority Page 3 of 8 for the electrification project. Mr. Eledge requested additional information regarding the line item titled Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Home Energy Performance-Based Whole-House Rebate Allocations, High Efficiency Electric Homer Rebate Allocation. Mr. Thayer discussed that the total amount is $74 million and will be split between the two areas. AEA will partner with Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) and enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and reimbursable services contract for AHFC to administer the funds. AEA will maintain responsibility for the accounting and federal reporting of the funds. Mr. Thayer explained the program targets home energy rebates and energy efficiencies. The federal award is expected to be released any time after the budget goes into effect July 1, 2023. Mr. Thayer reviewed the information in the packet showing AEA’s funding sources comparison for the capital budget for the last four years. He noted that the Legislature provided AEA with five new positions to focus on the IIJA funding. Three of those positions have been filled. Mr. Thayer discussed AEA’s funding sources comparison for the operation budget for the last four years is basically flat. The five new positions are reflected in the increase in AEA receipts. Also reflected in the graph is the true-up of cost of living increases and insurance adjustments. D. AEA Infrastructure Awards Tracker: Mr. Thayer discussed that the weekly tracking spreadsheet now includes the color-coded key. The spreadsheet will be updated for the next meeting. i. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) III – Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project (application) ii. Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) III – rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation (application) iii. Energy Efficiency Revolving Fund Capitalization Grant Program (Sec 40502) Mr. Thayer informed that the GRIP III application for the Railbelt, the GRIP III application for rural Alaska, and the Energy Efficiency Revolving Fund Capitalization Grant Program information are linked to the agenda. He provided a general overview of each of the programs, including the funding amounts and the required match that could be provided by the State and other entities. The GRIP III application acceptance announcements are expected in the fall of 2023 or the winter of 2024. Out of the total 135 concept papers submitted, it is anticipated that Department of Energy (DOE) will award up to 40 submissions. Vice-Chair Kendig asked for information regarding GRIP I and GRIP II. Mr. Thayer discussed that the GRIP I application is for its maximum of $100 million for grid resilience and the Railbelt backbone reconstruction project. The GRIP II application for $16 million links the battery system with a coordinated control system for the four utilities and AEA. It requires a 50% match. Alaska Energy Authority Page 4 of 8 Vice-Chair Kendig asked if the GRIP I application is funded, if any of those funds will be used to reimburse AEA. Mr. Thayer disagreed. He noted that the funding will assist in the completion of the upgrades. The FY2023 estimated amount for the completion of the upgrades from Bradley Lake to Anchorage is over $400 million, and the upgrades from Anchorage to Fairbanks is over $600 million. Mr. Thayer discussed that the estimated amounts would change due to supply logistics. He noted that transformers now have a two-year lead time. A member commented that the long lead time is a result of the high demand for the steel used in the transformers. Chair Pruhs commented that long lead time items are now factored in the project viability assessment. Mr. Thayer noted that if the GRIP III applications are awarded, then up to 40 projects will be competing for transformers and other equipment. Mr. Thayer discussed that permitting is another challenge in the process. Regulatory changes have been included at the federal level, but the guidance on implementation has not been released. E. Owned Assets Update Mr. Thayer gave an overview of the Owned Assets Update included in the Board packet. The Alaska Intertie Management Committee approved the Intertie’s FY24 budget and includes upgrading and replacing the Snow Load Management System on the northern Intertie. At Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, the utilities have hired a contractor and crew to construct a kit house to fulfill housing needs. The kit house will be constructed at about a third of the cost of new construction. In 2022, the Battle Creek diversion was successful in diverting approximately 20% greater volume of water than was used for the application and the economics. Chugach Electric Association (CEA) was designated by the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee (BPMC) to perform design and procurement for the AEA owned Sterling-Quartz (SSQ) section upgrade. The proceeds of the required project work bonding are $166 million and will be allocated as 65% transmission and 35% battery energy storage system. Mr. Thayer discussed the three rural transmission lines recently discovered as AEA owned assets. AEA is working with the communities to upgrade the right-of-ways and to dispose and transfer ownership of those lines. Chair Pruhs requested information regarding insurance of AEA’s owned assets. Mr. Thayer explained that the Intertie and Bradley Lake obtain insurance through the market and the utilities reimburse the cost. Chair Pruhs asked for additional information regarding the insured amount and requirements related to a bonded project. Mr. Thayer noted he can provide that specific information to Chair Pruhs. Mr. Thayer discussed the recent field visit to Bradley Lake by Lieutenant Governor Dahlstrom, her Chief of Staff, Representative Schrage, and the Chair of the RCA. Mr. Thayer indicated that additional interest from legislators has prompted another field visit to Bradley Lake next week. Attendees include Representative Edgmon, Representative Rauscher, Senator Bishop, Senator Bjorkman, Senator Merrick, Commissioner Crum, and Randy Ruaro, AIDEA. Another field visit to Bradley Lake is scheduled in July to accommodate additional interest from legislators. The Legislature designated $5 million for the Dixon Diversion project and the field visits provide a Alaska Energy Authority Page 5 of 8 good opportunity to highlight the Bradley Lake project. Mr. Thayer discussed that the Dixon Diversion project studies are ongoing. The project is expected to increase Bradley Lake’s power by 50%. The utilities will maintain their water percentage amounts. Increased line transmission capability is necessary for the additional power. The total line upgrades will take approximately six to eight years to build out and will dramatically decrease the current line loss. Mr. Thayer noted that the same transmission line upgrades are also necessary if an additional generator is utilized to increase power. However, utilizing an additional generator will not provide the same level of power increase as the Dixon Diversion project. Mr. Thayer reiterated that the SSQ line upgrade processes are ongoing and are ahead of schedule. The old 69 kV poles have been removed. Chair Pruhs requested that members be provided information, separate from the Dixon Diversion, on the benefits of upgrading the transmission line from 115 kV to 230 kV. He asked for the cost and the timeline of a standalone transmission line upgrade. Chair Pruhs believes that a transmission line upgrade could begin even before the Dixon Diversion begins. Mr. Thayer agreed and explained that discussions are ongoing regarding the line upgrades. Mr. Eledge asked Mr. Thayer for the timeline for CEA’s upgrade. Mr. Thayer noted that the upgrades are phased over several years and staff can provide CEA’s schedule. F. AEA Library Demonstration Mr. Thayer invited Nathan Howes, AEA Project Manager for Documentation and Retention, to review the demonstration. Mr. Howes discussed the digital library for AEA. The software allows for keyword searches to find documents in the public library. The information will be accessible on the website through either the browse function or the search function. The naming convention has been simplified to assist the public in finding information. Mr. Howes highlighted that a contractor has begun the digitation of all the documents. Over 3,000 documents have been loaded into the digital library and over 10,000 documents remain to be loaded. Additionally, the in-house documents will also be loaded into the digital library. A soft launch of the digital library will occur in July. Mr. Thayer noted that AEA receives many requests for documents and fulfilling the requests takes staff time. He discussed that one of the goals of the digital library is making many documents easily accessible and forward-facing, thus reducing staff time used for document requests. Mr. Thayer explained that documents concerning cyber security, such as schematics and blueprints of powerhouses, will not be forward-facing. Commissioner Sande acknowledged and thanked Mr. Thayer and staff for fulfilling the Board’s request. She believes AEA and AIDEA do a remarkable job of being as transparent as possible in the processes. This library initiative will allow easy access to valuable public resources. She looks forward to the press release. G. State Energy Program (SEP) Update Alaska Energy Authority Page 6 of 8 Mr. Thayer discussed that the SEP is a federal program and funding is split between AEA and AHFC. Through the IIJA, AEA received $795,000 in additional funding last year and is expected to receive a lump sum amount of $3.6 million. The funds will be used for grid planning, the State Energy Plan, workforce development and training, outreach and education program development, and AHFC funding. The budget has been approved by DOE. H. Renewable Energy Grant Fund (REF) Update Mr. Thayer discussed that REF completed its Round 15. The recommendation to the Legislature was $25.25 million. The Legislature funding $17 million. The list of 18 funded projects is shown on page 107. The technologies include hydro, wind, geothermal, storage, biomass, solar, and heat recovery. Mr. Thayer indicated that Round 16 will begin next week. He noted that the applications that were not given funding in Round 15 have the option to move forward in Round 16 with their Round 15 score or to submit a different application. The recommendations for Round 16 will be provided to the Legislature by the January statutory deadline. Mr. Thayer explained that the Legislature and Governor recently signed legislation that removed the 10-year sunset window for the REF funding. I. Power Project Fund (PPF) Update Mr. Thayer noted that the Loan Dashboard Report is included in the packet. There are no delinquencies. The 15 outstanding loans total approximately $27 million. The uncommitted cash balance is about $7.2 million. The loan commitments total about $5.5 million. The most recent loan approval was for a solar farm in Soldotna for $540,000. He noted that the report highlights the loans by State region and by project type. J. Legislative Update Mr. Thayer discussed that the legislative requests are included on page 113 in the packet. The workload has been lighter since the Legislature adjourned in May. K. Cook Inlet Gas Supply Mr. Thayer stated that this section of the packet includes articles of interest pertaining to the gas supply. The Railbelt utilities, including Interior Gas and Enstar, developed a gas study outlining the options available in Cook Inlet, including costs and timeframe projections. Mr. Thayer informed that AEA provided some of the information for the study, but was not involved in its compilation. The study will become public and go before the Regulatory Commission on June 28th. Mr. Thayer noted that AEA Board members will receive a copy of the report, and if desired, AEA could request Enstar to give a presentation of the findings. Chair Pruhs asked Mr. Thayer if any entities are searching for gas supplies in other areas of Southcentral Alaska toward the Valley and Talkeetna. Mr. Thayer discussed that AEA was contacted by an interested party who believes there is a potential of 137 trillion cubic feet of natural gas near Willow. This potential amount is greater than the amount of gas on the North Alaska Energy Authority Page 7 of 8 Slope. The potential reserve has not been proven or quantified. No additional background information has been provided to AEA regarding the basis of the belief. The entity does not have leases for the State lands and is seeking approximately $700 million funding from the State to prove-up the reserves. Mr. Fogle inquired as to the option of tankers driving from the North Slope to provide natural gas. Mr. Thayer explained that the option is being reviewed to supply Fairbanks. He does not believe that tankers are a viable solution for the volume needed to supply MEA, Enstar, CEA, and HEA. Mr. Fogle asked if a natural gas pipeline could be utilized. Mr. Thayer noted that efforts regarding a natural gas pipeline have occurred over the last 40 years. There is a permitted project with an established right-of-way that requires approximately $150 million to proceed. The decision whether to move forward is nearing a critical juncture. If the natural gas pipeline does not move forward, then other plans will have to be made. L. Community Outreach Mr. Thayer discussed that the community outreach schedule is included in the packet. He noted that the National Electric Vehicle Plan is due for its required annual update. The public comment period has begun. Staff members are traveling and fulfilling the requirements for the program. Mr. Thayer advised that the Governor signed the Carbon Credit bill during the very successful Alaska Sustainability Conference. The Legislature included the amendment that 20% of the funds earned from the carbon credit will be directed to AEA’s Renewable Energy program. Mr. Thayer complimented Brandy Dixon, AEA, staff, and the Planning Committee for their efforts. The Conference had over 1,000 attendees and 150 speakers. AEA staff also participated as moderators and subject matter experts. Mr. Thayer discussed that during the Conference, the Governor hosted a dinner and a breakfast for investors, who represented over $3 trillion worth of investment capital looking for opportunities. Mr. Thayer noted that AEA’s pitch papers presented at the Conference are included in the Board packet. Mr. Thayer stated that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has begun their budgeting process, but has not yet provided a schedule for the deliverables. Mr. Thayer indicated that members will be informed when the schedule becomes available. He expects that the operating budget will remain the same, unless there is a need for additional personnel related to the federal infrastructure funds. The capital budget amount depends on the need for federal receipt authority. The members will be kept apprised of the process. Mr. Thayer advised that through his requests of the federal delegation and DOE, Alaska will now be included in the federal government’s national transmission needs study. Previously, Alaska and Hawaii were excluded since they are not connected to the continental United States. The study helps to identify areas for additional transmission resources. Mr. Thayer noted that the last time Alaska received federal funding for the Railbelt transmission system was in 1954. Mr. Thayer introduced new members of the staff who were present, Ryan McLaughlin, Owned Assets Project Manager, and Karen Bell, HR Director. Mr. Thayer expressed appreciation to the staff for their diligent efforts. Alaska Energy Authority Page 8 of 8 M. Articles of Interest – Included in the packet N. Next Regularly Scheduled AEA Board Meeting Wednesday, August 2, 2023 9. BOARD COMMENTS Commissioner Sande thanked Mr. Thayer and staff for their efforts and partnerships in the recent activities. She commented on the tremendous success of the Governor’s Sustainability Energy Conference. Commissioner Sande requested permission from Chair Pruhs that AEA Board members and staff prioritize and attend next year’s Conference. Mr. Thayer believes that next year’s conference is scheduled for the week before Memorial Day. Mr. Fogle inquired as to the status of AEA’s audit. Mr. Thayer discussed that the audit is on track to be presented to the Board in mid to late October, and is in progress to meet the State’s deadline. Mr. Thayer explained that AEA is dependent on certain State agencies closing their books before AEA can close its books. A coordination effort is ongoing. Mr. Fogle requested that the Board review the draft budget, perhaps in executive session, prior to the submission to the Governor’s Office. Mr. Thayer indicated that option is possible. He explained that it is a matter of timing and OMB has not provided a schedule for the system opening and closing. Mr. Thayer noted that the Governor has not yet provided the scenarios and expectations for the budget. Commissioner Sande asked if the Alaska Standard Report that was shared at the Sustainability Conference has been provided to AEA Board members. Mr. Thayer noted that the report was developed by the Governor’s Office, and he does not have additional information. Commissioner Sande noted that she will request that the Alaska Standard Report is provided to Board members. Mr. Eledge commented that the digital library is a benefit to the public, as well as considerable time-saving benefit to staff. Chair Pruhs thanked staff for their efforts and welcomed the new members to AEA. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business of the Board, the AEA meeting adjourned at 9:56 am. ___________________________________________________ Curtis Thayer, Executive Director / Secretary 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 Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Bryan Carey, P.E., Director Owned Assets DATE: July 14, 2023 RE: Alaska Energy Authority Board Questions The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) Board had several questions during the June Board meeting. Question: Chair Pruhs asked about Bradley Lake insurance amounts and types. AEA arranges for the property and liability policies. The property policies are the large cost items. Only the Probable Maximum Loss (PML) portion of the total property value is directly insured. The PML is calculated from earthquake or floods and currently is about $60 million dollars compared to the Project value of $36 million dollars. Below is a comparison of Project values and insurance premiums between last year and this year. FY2023 FY2024 Change Project Value $463 million $536 million 16% Premiums $997,000 $1,194,000 20% Project values increased by because of inflation and the insurance premium increased greater than project inflation because of losses in worldwide property markets and tightening in insurance market risk. Question: Chair Pruhs asked about benefits of upgrading the transmission line from 115kV to 230 kV (without Dixon Diversion Project). The current 115 kV line constrains Project output and substantially increases energy losses in transmission. Utilities use 75 MW as a transmission limit off the Kenai. Operating the line at 230 kV could allow three to four times more energy to be transmitted during peak times on completion of other system improvements. Capacity increase could allow additional renewable energy projects to be located on the Kenai Peninsula and transmit energy north. In addition, currently as energy transmission increases the energy lost from line losses quickly increases. As more generation is added on the Kenai Peninsula, losses will increase. A study by a utility several years ago determined the cost savings between the existing system and operating at 230 kV was tens of millions of dollars. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 Question: Mr. Eledge asked about Chugach Electric Association schedule of transmission upgrades. Upgrades of Chugach Electric Association transmission lines are integrated with upgrades of other transmission lines (AEA and other utilities) to keep the outage duration on the Southern intertie at approximately 80 days. Current schedule of major upgrades of the transmission lines south of Anchorage is: • 2024-2025, Girdwood to Indian (CEA), 12 miles. • 2025-2026, Project 1 Sterling substation to Three John’s Road (AEA), 8.7 miles. • 2025-2026, Project 4 Stetson Creek to Quartz Creek (AEA), 5 miles. • 2026-2027, Dave’s Creek to Summit (CEA), 10 miles. • 2027-2028, Project 2 KNWR (AEA), 13 miles. • 2028-2029, Project 3 Mystery Creek to Stetson Creek (AEA), 13 miles. Schedule of upgrades can substantially change because of availability of materials, labor, permitting, or scheduling conflicts. Alaska Energy Security Task Force Calendar July 2023 SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 2:00 pm - 4:30 pm Alaska Energy Security Task Force (H 11:00 am - 2:00 pm Alaska Energy Security Task Force en 1:30 pm - 4:30 pm Alaska Energy Security Task Force M 11:00 am - 1:00 pm Alaska Energy Security Task Force en 10:30 am - 11:30 am Statutes and Regulations Reform su 1:00 pm Rural Generation, Distributio 2:00 pm Incentives and Subsidies Su 3:00 pm Railbelt Transmission, Gener 11:00 am - 1:00 pm Alaska Energy Security Task Force en 11:00 am - 1:00 pm Alaska Energy Security Task Force en 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 Governor’s Alaska Energy Security Task Force For additional information related to the Alaska Energy Security Task Force, please visit the web page: https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-Do/Energy-Planning-Project- Development/Alaska-Energy-Security-Task-Force/Task-Force-Meeting-Schedule All Task Force documents can be found on the web page including: • Meeting Schedule • Notice • Agenda, Meeting Documents • Meeting Recordings • Meeting Minutes NANCY DAHLSTROM LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR www.ltgov.alaska.gov STATE OF ALASKA OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ANCHORAGE 550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 1700 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907.269.7460 907.269.0263 Fax lt.governor@alaska.gov Alaska Energy Security Task Force Tuesday, July 18, 2023 1:30 pm to 4:30 pm Teams Meeting: Click here to join the meeting Meeting ID: 231 562 039 319 Passcode: XAcFKS Presentation Agenda 1. Welcome and Introductions (Lt. Gov. Dahlstrom) 2. Roll Call 3. Prior Meeting Minutes – June 27, 2023 4. Subcommittees Check in 5. Brainstorming Session – “Art of the Possible” • Facilitated by Michael Baker International 6. Task Force Meeting Schedule 7. Next Meeting Date, Tuesday, August 8, 2023, 9:00 am 8. Adjourn Alaska Energy Security Task Force Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 01 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting July 18, 2023 1 1 Alaska Energy Security Task Force 1.Welcome and Introductions 2.Roll Call 3.Prior Meeting Minutes 4.Subcommittees Check in 5.Brainstorming Session –“Art of the Possible” 6.Next Meeting Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023, 9:00 am 7.Adjourn AESTF Meeting Welcome to the Alaska Energy Security Task Force (AESTF) Meeting. We’re looking forward to collaborating on policies, strategies, and tactics to assist in the State of Alaska's goal of reducing energy costs. July 18, 2023 Agenda 02 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 03 Member Email Address Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom, Chair lt.governor@alaska.gov Curtis W. Thayer,Alaska Energy Authority, Vice Chair cthayer@akenergyauthority.org Clay Koplin, Cordova Electric Cooperative, Vice Chair ckoplin@cordovaelectric.com Commissioner John Boyle, Department of Natural Resources john.boyle@alaska.gov Commissioner Jason Brune, Department of Environmental Conservation jason.brune@alaska.gov Nils Andreassen, Alaska Municipal League nils@akml.org Andrew Guy, Calista Corporation aguy@calistacorp.com Karl Hanneman, International Tower Hill Mines khanneman@ithmines.com Tony Izzo, Matanuska Electric Association tony.izzo@mea.coop Jenn Miller, Renewable Independent Power Producers jenn.miller@renewableipp.com Duff Mitchell, Juneau Hydropower duff.mitchell@juneauhydro.com John Sims, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company john.sims@enstarnaturalgas.com Isaac Vanderburg, Launch Alaska isaac@launchalaska.com Robert Venables, Southeast Conference robert@seconference.org Dan White, University of Alaska Fairbanks uaf.chancellor@alaska.edu Senator Click Bishop (Ex Officio)senator.click.bishop@akleg.gov Garrett Boyle, Denali Commission (Ex Officio)gboyle@denali.gov Commissioner Keith Kurber, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (Ex Officio)keith.kurber@alaska.gov Representative George Rauscher (Ex Officio)representative.george.rauscher@akleg.gov Erin Whitney, United States Department of Energy, Arctic Energy Office (Ex Officio)erin.whitney@hq.doe.gov *Andrew Jensen, Policy Advisor,Office of Governor Mike Dunleavy andrew.jensen@alaska.gov Organization Alaska Energy Security Task Force Subcommittee Check In Recent Subcommittee Coordination: State Energy Data: (Chair: Dan White) •Kick-off Meeting Scheduled: TBD Statutes and Regulations Reform: (Co-Chairs: Robert Venables & Karl Hanneman) •Kick-off Meeting Scheduled: Monday, July 24, 10:30 am Railbelt Transmission, Generation, and Storage: (Co-Chairs: Tony Izzo & Jenn Miller) •Kick-off Meeting Scheduled: Tuesday, July 25, 3 pm Rural Generation, Distribution, and Storage: (Co-Chairs: Clay Koplin & Andrew Guy) •Kick-off Meeting Scheduled: Tuesday, July 25, 1 pm Coastal Generation, Distribution, and Storage: (Co-Chairs: Duff Mitchell, & Robert Venables) •Kick-off Meeting Scheduled: Friday, July 28, 11 am Incentives and Subsidies: (Co-Chairs: Nils Andreassen & Isaac Vanderburg) •Kick-off Meeting Scheduled: Tuesday, July 25, 2 pm Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 04 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Key Milestones Completed By Regional Sub Status Reports Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Regional Sub Initial Reports Tuesday, August 8,2023 Regional Sub Final Reports and I/S/S/R* Data Sub Initial Reports Tuesday, August 29, 2023 I/S S/R* Data Sub Final Reports;Release S/R** report for 28-Day Public Comment Tuesday, September 10,2023 Receive Initial Report, Release for 28-day Public Comment; Take Public Comment on S/R** Report Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Discuss S/R** Final Report; Vote on Recommendations; Take Public Comment on Initial Report Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Discuss Final Report; Vote on Recommendations;Receive Final S/R** Report; send to GOA Tuesday, October 31, 2023 Task Force Receives Final Report Friday, November 10,2023 Vote to Approve Final Report Friday, November 17,2023 *Incentives and Subsidies and Statutes and Regulations Reform**Statutes and Regulations Reform JUNE 27 JULY 18 AUGUST 8 AUGUST 29 SEPTEMBER 10 OCTOBER 3 OCTOBER 17 NOVEMBER 10 OCTOBER 31 NOVEMBER 17 Proposed Work Schedule Subcommittee Work Release S/R** report for 28-Day Public Comment Alaska Energy Security Task Force | July 18, 2023 05 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Upcoming Energy Symposiums Occurred: •July 13 Cook Inlet Natural Gas Supply & Development Upcoming: •July 20 Alaska Rural Energy: Challenges and Opportunities for Reducing the Cost of Energy •July 27 Electrification* •August 3 Hydropower Development in Alaska* •August 10 Financing Projects & Funding Opportunities* •August 17 Transmission & Storage* •August 24 Current Research Efforts & Updates* *Subject to change Logistics: Weekly on Thursdays from 11a.m.-1 p.m. Format: •Zoom webinars: recordings will be made available. Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 06 Alaska Energy Security Task Force f Brainstorming Session The Art of the Possible Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 07 Facilitated by Michael Baker International Alaska Energy Security Task Force Administrative Order No. 345 PLEASE REFER TO THE HANDOUT PROVIDED ON A.O. NO. 345. Alaska Energy Security Task Force Alaska Energy Security Task ForceAlaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 08 Alaska Energy Security Task Force A.O. 345 –Background “Alaskans suffer from exorbitantly high energy costs, restricted energy supply, and limited opportunities to drive down energy costs to consumers. Consequently, energy security and affordability are critical to Alaska’s prosperity going forward. The AESTF will provide recommendations on overall energy policy for the State of Alaska, as well as strategies and tactics to achieve its goal of reducing the cost of energy to Alaska residents.” Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 09 Alaska Energy Security Task Force A.O. 345 –Purpose “The purpose of the AESTF is to develop a comprehensive statewide energy plan that will evaluate energy generation, distribution, transmission, and storage for the State of Alaska and its communities. The development of this plan will include collaboration with public and private stakeholders. The statewide energy plan, including proposed timelines and milestones, will be presented to the governor upon completion.” Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 10 Alaska Energy Security Task Force A.O. 345 –Duties & Responsibilities of AESTF AESTF’s comprehensive energy plan shall include the following: “Recommend a statewide energy goal, a plan to achieve it, and identify additional work that may be required to refine this vision.” Washington State Energy Strategy Goal:“Maintain competitive energy prices that are fair and reasonable for consumers and businesses and support our state's continued economic success.” Source: Washington 2021 State Energy Strategy Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 11 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Selection of Goals from other State Energy Master Plans Utah: “Committed to supporting rural communities through economic development and diversification efforts, infrastructure investment, and workforce training and development.” “Utah is committed to American energy independence, pursuing policies and actions that will enable more domestic energy development and enhance global energy security.” “Utah is committed to pragmatic, market-driven climate solutions that enable innovative energy production. This includes a focus on supporting Utah-based research and development, ensuring we stay good stewards of our environment for future generations of Utahns.” Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 12 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Trending Topics in Other State Energy Master Plans •Energy and the Economy •Innovation and Technology •Clean Energy and Greenhouse Gas Limits •Energy Efficiency •Energy Decarbonization Wyoming:Our mission is to advance Wyoming’s energy strategy by driving data, technology and infrastructure investments. Washington: Increasing competitiveness by fostering a clean energy economy and jobs through business and workforce development. Selection of Goals from other State Energy Master Plans Trending Topics •Energy and the Economy •Innovation and Technology •Clean Energy and Greenhouse Gas Limits •Energy Efficiency •Energy Decarbonization Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 13 Alaska Energy Security Task Force What Statewide Energy Goal(s) should be included in the Energy Master Plan? Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 14 Discussion Topic Alaska Energy Security Task Force Should Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure success of the Plan over time be included? KPIs can be identified in the implementation (Next Steps) section of the plan. NEXT STEPS Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 15 Discussion Topic Alaska Energy Security Task Force For actions identified in the plan, what timelines and milestones make sense? Example: 0–2 years, 2 -5 years, 5 -10 years; 10 years plus Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 16 Discussion Topic Alaska Energy Security Task Force A.O. No. 345 Requirements Comprehensive Energy Plan shall include the following: Identify Future Changes: •Identify solutions for meeting Alaska’s energy needs now and in the future with a focus on affordability, reliability, and security. •Identify policies, programs, regulatory changes, and funding that could accelerate adoption of these energy strategies. •Identify and evaluate potential future changes that could occur to energy supply and distribution in the state,the impacts of such changes, and the opportunity for mitigating impacts and leveraging opportunities associated with such change. Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 17 Alaska Energy Security Task Force What sources of energy do you feel will provide long term energy security for Alaska/Alaskans? Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 18 Discussion Topic Alaska Energy Security Task Force A.O. No. 345 Requirements Comprehensive Energy Plan shall include the following: Energy Data •Establish a baseline energy portfolio for the State of Alaska. •Develop and maintain a public database of taskforce information and recommend strategies for sharing energy data and information through an energy data portal. Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 19 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Discussion Topic What are the current barriers to obtaining energy data? Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 20 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Subcommittee Formation Subcommittees focused on developing actions by geography: •Railbelt Transmission, Generation, and Storage •Rural Generation, Distribution, and Storage •Coastal Generation, Distribution, and Storage Subcommittees focused on developing actions to support implementation: •State Energy Data Subcommittee •Statutes and Regulations Reform Subcommittee •Incentives and Subsidies Subcommittee Michael Baker International, Inc. will be assisting facilitate the coordination of common actions that may appear across multiple subcommittees. SubcommitteeCoordination Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 21 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Is their consensus on how the geographic areas of Railbelt, Rural, and Coastal are defined? Does this need to be mapped? Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 22 Discussion Topic Alaska Energy Security Task Force Planning Process for the Energy Master Plan Subcommittees:Organized by energy focus area or energy priorityPUBLIC & STAKEHOLDER INVOLEMENTAlaska Energy Security Task Force (AESTF): Primary decision-making body to produce Energy Master Plan Governor’s Office:Created A.O. 345 Develops energy actions, and implementation timetables to meet the goal(s) of the AESTF. Sets goal(s) and priorities of the Energy Master Plan and reviews and approves strategies/actions developed by the subcommittees.ENERGY SYMPOSIUM SERIESACADEMIA & CONSULTANT SUPPORT Approves Final Energy Master Plan Roles:Responsibilities: Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 23 I INTRODUCTION COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE ENERGY MASTER PLAN MAIN SECTIONS ENERGY IN ALASKA II ENERGY PRIORITIES III NEXT STEPS IV I. Introduction II. Energy In Alaska III. Energy Priorities IV. Next Steps FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY –DRAFT DELIBERATIVE State of AlaskaENERGY MASTER PLAN Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 24 Alaska Energy Security Task Force SUPPORT AND SHARE EQUITABLE ACCESS TO ENERGY DATA PROMOTE COORDINATED GOVERNANCE OF ENERGY POLICY AND REGULATIONS CONTINUE TO ADVANCE LOW-COST ENERGY SOLUTIONS IN THE RAILBELT PRIORITY 3. CONTINUE TO ADVANCE LOW-COST ENERGY SOLUTIONS IN THE RAILBELT 3 ENHANCE COASTAL ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIORITY 6. EXPAND ENERGY RESILIENCE FUNDING AND FINANCING 6 STRENGTHEN ENERGY RESILIENCE AND AFFORDABILITY IN RURAL ALASKA ALASKA ENERGY PRIORITIES 2 PRIORITY 2. PROMOTE COORDINATED GOVERNANCE OF ENERGY POLICY & REGULATIONS I INTRODUCTION II ENERGY IN ALASKA III ENERGY PRIORITIES IV NEXT STEPS EXPAND ENERGY RESILIENCE FUNDING AND FINANCING PRIORITY 5. ENHANCE COASTAL ENERGY SOLUTIONS 5 PRIORITY 4. STRENGTHEN ENERGY RESILIENCE AND AFFORDABILITY IN RURAL ALASKA 4 FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY –DRAFT DELIBERATIVE State of AlaskaENERGY MASTER PLAN 1 PRIORITY 1.SUPPORT AND SHARE EQUITABLE ACCESSS TO ENERGY DATA Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 25 Alaska Energy Security Task Force PRIORITY: Focus Area of Subcommittee STRATEGY: Solution(s) to meet Alaska’s energy needs now and in the future related to the priority/subcommittee focus area. ACTIONS: Identifies specific changes in policies, programs, regulations, or funding to advance strategy. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION: TBD, but may include 0–2 years, 2 -5 years, 5 -10 years; 10 years plus PRIORITY 4. STRENGTHEN ENERGY RESILIENCE AND AFFORDABILITY IN RURAL ALASKA STRATEGY 1.1:INCREASE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS ENERGY RESILIENCE IN RURAL ALASKA Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,consectetur adipiscing elit,sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et doloremagnaaliqua.Ut enim ad minim veniam,quis nostrudexercitationullamcolaborisnisiutaliquipexeacommodoconsequat.Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit involuptatevelitessecillumdoloreeufugiatnullapariatur.Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident,sunt inculpaquiofficiadeseruntmollitanimidestlaborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet,consectetur adipiscing elit,sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et doloremagnaaliqua.Ut enim ad minim veniam,quis nostrudexercitationullamcolaborisnisiutaliquipexeacommodoconsequat.Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit involuptatevelitessecillumdoloreeufugiatnullapariatur. 19 Strategy 1.1 State of Alaska Energy Master Plan FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY –DRAFT DELIBERATIVE ACTIONS 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur PRIORITY STRATEGY ACTIONS Sample Layout & Organization of Energy Master Plan PRIORITY 4. STRENGTHEN ENERGY RESILIENCE AND AFFORDABILITY IN RURAL ALASKA 4 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 26 Alaska Energy Security Task Force We welcome initial feedback on overall structure and layout of the Plan… Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 27 Discussion Topic Alaska Energy Security Task Force SUPPORT AND SHARE EQUITABLE ACCESS TO ENERGY DATA PROMOTE COORDINATED GOVERNANCE OF ENERGY POLICY AND REGULATIONS CONTINUE TO ADVANCE LOW-COST ENERGY SOLUTIONS IN THE RAILBELT PRIORITY 3. CONTINUE TO ADVANCE LOW-COST ENERGY SOLUTIONS IN THE RAILBELT 3 ENHANCE COASTAL ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIORITY 6. EXPAND ENERGY RESILIENCE FUNDING AND FINANCING 6 STRENGTHEN ENERGY RESILIENCE AND AFFORDABILITY IN RURAL ALASKA ALASKA ENERGY PRIORITIES 2 PRIORITY 2. PROMOTE COORDINATED GOVERNANCE OF ENERGY POLICY & REGULATIONS I INTRODUCTION II ENERGY IN ALASKA III ENERGY PRIORITIES IV NEXT STEPS EXPAND ENERGY RESILIENCE FUNDING AND FINANCING PRIORITY 5. ENHANCE COASTAL ENERGY SOLUTIONS 5 PRIORITY 4. STRENGTHEN ENERGY RESILIENCE AND AFFORDABILITY IN RURAL ALASKA 4 FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY –DRAFT DELIBERATIVE State of AlaskaENERGY MASTER PLAN 1 PRIORITY 1.SUPPORT AND SHARE EQUITABLE ACCESSS TO ENERGY DATA Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 28 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 29 Subcommittee: State Energy Data Chair: Dan White Support:Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) Purpose: •Establish a baseline energy portfolio for the State of Alaska •Develop and maintain a public database of task force information and recommend strategies for sharing energy data and information through an energy data portal PRIORITY 1. SUPPORT AND SHARE EQUITABLE ACCESS TO ENERGY DATA Alaska Energy Security Task Force Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 30 Example: New Datasets; Online Mapping Portals, etc. Discussion Topic What resources should this subcommittee know about? Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 31 PRIORITY 2. PROMOTE COORDINATED GOVERNANCE OF ENERGY POLICY AND REGULATIONS Subcommittee: Statutes and Regulations Reform Co-Chairs: Robert VenablesKarl Hanneman Purpose: •Streamlining permitting and reducing regulatory burden •Updating outdated provisions •Promoting renewable energy development •Encouraging energy efficiency •Supporting workforce development •Ensuring Alaska’s energy independence Subcommittee Support:Michael Baker International, Inc.Black & Veatch Alaska Energy Security Task Force Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 32 Discussion Topic What resources should this subcommittee know about? Example: Recent Legislation Tracking; Policy White Papers, etc. Subcommittee: Railbelt Transmission, Generation, and Storage Co-Chairs: Tony IzzoJenn Miller Purpose: •Promoting renewable energy •Evaluate multiple scenarios •Encouraging energy efficiency •Supporting workforce development •Lowering the retail cost of energy •Ensuring Alaska’s energy independence •Increasing reliability and resilience •Local economic development •Evaluating Renewable Portfolio Standards and Clean Energy Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 33 PRIORITY 3. CONTINUE TO ADVANCE LOW-COST ENERGY SOLUTIONS IN THE RAILBELT Subcommittee Support:Michael Baker International, Inc.Black & Veatch Alaska Energy Security Task Force Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 34 Discussion Topic What resources should this subcommittee know about? Example: Relationship to other planning initiatives such as Emergency Response Plans. Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 35 PRIORITY 4.STRENGTHEN ENERGY RESILIENCE AND AFFORDABILITY IN RURAL ALASKA Subcommittee: Rural Generation, Distribution, and Storage Co-Chairs: Clay KoplinAndrew Guy Purpose: •Promoting renewable energy •Evaluate multiple scenarios •Encouraging energy efficiency •Supporting workforce development •Lowering the retail cost of energy •Ensuring Alaska’s energy independence •Increasing reliability and resilience •Local economic development Subcommittee Support:Michael Baker International, Inc.Black & Veatch Alaska Energy Security Task Force Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 36 Discussion Topic What resources should this subcommittee know about? Example: Suggested stakeholders to engage or success stories to highlight. PRIORITY 5. ENHANCE COASTAL ENERGY SOLUTIONS Subcommittee: Coastal Generation, Distribution, and Storage Co-Chairs: Duff MitchellRobert Venables Purpose: •Promoting renewable energy •Evaluate multiple scenarios •Encouraging energy efficiency •Supporting workforce development •Lowering the retail cost of energy •Ensuring Alaska’s energy independence •Increasing reliability and resilience •Local economic development Subcommittee Support:Michael Baker International, Inc.Black & Veatch Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 37 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 38 Discussion Topic What resources should this subcommittee know about? Example: New coastal initiatives related to permitting or infrastructure improvements. PRIORITY 6: EXPAND ENERGY RESILIENCE FUNDING AND FINANCING Top Coastal Resilience Strategies participants want to see more of are: Subcommittee: Incentives and Subsidies Co-Chairs: Nils AndreassenIsaac Vanderburg Purpose: •Lowering the cost of energy in Alaska •Maximizing the use of federal incentives to increase the financial and economic impact of capital projects •Promoting renewable energy development •Encouraging energy efficiency •Supporting workforce development •Ensuring Alaska’s energy independence Subcommittee Support:Michael Baker International, Inc.Black & Veatch Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 39 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 40 Discussion Topic What resources should this subcommittee know about? Example: New Financing programs, New Public-Private Partnerships. Alaska Energy Security Task Force Next Steps •Meet with your Subcommittee(s): •State Energy Data: TBD •Statutes and Regulations Reform: Monday, July 24, 10:30 am •Railbelt Transmission, Generation, and Storage: Tuesday, July 25, 3 pm •Rural Generation, Distribution, and Storage: Tuesday, July 25, 1 pm •Coastal Generation, Distribution, and Storage: Friday, July 28, 11am •Incentives and Subsidies: Tuesday, July 25, 2 pm •Next Energy Symposium Presentation •Alaska Rural Energy: Challenges and Opportunities for Reducing the Cost of Energy: July 20, 2023, 11:00 am –1:00 pm •Next AESTF Meeting Date:Tuesday, August 8, 2023, 9:00 am Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 41 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Email and Website EmailAEA-hosted info email account created to capture correspondence relatedto the Task Force. info@akenergysecuritytaskforce.com WebsiteAEA-hosted external webpage houses the Task Force’s schedule, public notices, recordings, minutes, documents, and resources as they are created. http://akenergysecuritytaskforce.com Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | July 18, 2023 42 NANCY DAHLSTROM LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR www.ltgov.alaska.gov STATE OF ALASKA OFFICE OF THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR ANCHORAGE 550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 1700 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 907.269.7460 907.269.0263 Fax lt.governor@alaska.gov Alaska Energy Security Task Force Tuesday, June 27, 2023 2:00 pm to 4:30 pm Teams Meeting: Click here to join the meeting Meeting ID: 248 518 502 852 Passcode: jFvJtR Agenda 1. Welcome and Introductions (Vice Chair Thayer) 2. Roll Call 3. Prior Meeting Minutes – May 9, 2023 4. Presentations: a. Alaska Energy Authority IIJA and IRA Opportunities b. Railbelt IIJA GRIP Opportunities c. Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation IIJA GRIP Opportunity d. Regulatory Commission of Alaska / Alaska Energy Authority Power Post Equalization (PCE) e. Renewable Energy Fund – Round 16 Kickoff f. Cook Inlet Gas – Enstar - Verbal 5. July – September Meeting Schedule 6. Support a. Black & Veatch b. Michael Baker International 7. Subcommittee Formation a. Assignments of Chairs and Co-Chairs b. Tasking /scope of work c. Support 8. Discussion –Webinar Topics 9. Subcommittee formation 10. Adjourn Alaska Energy Security Task Force Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting June 27, 2023 Alaska Energy Security Task Force 02 AESTF Meeting Welcome to the Alaska Energy Security Task Force (AESTF) Meeting. We’re looking forward to collaborating on policies, strategies, and tactics to assist in the State of Alaska's goal of reducing energy costs. June 27, 2023 Agenda 1.Welcome and Introductions 2.Roll Call 3.Prior Meeting Minutes 4.Presentations: -Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) IIJA and IRA Opportunities -Railbelt IIJA GRIP Opportunities -Rural Microgrid Transformation IIJA GRIP Opportunity -Regulatory Commission of Alaska -AEA Power Cost Equalization -Renewable Energy Fund Round 16 -Cook Inlet Gas, Enstar (Verbal) 5.Contractor Support -Black & Veatch -Michael Baker International 6.July-September Meeting Schedule 7.Subcommittee Formation: -Chairs/Co-Chairs Assignments -Tasking/Scope of Work 8.Discussion —Webinar Topics 9.Housekeeping; Travel 10.Adjourn10. Alaska Energy Security Task Force The purpose of the AESTF is to develop a comprehensive statewide energy plan that will evaluate energy generation, distribution, transmission, and storage for the State of Alaska and its communities. Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 03 Purpose Alaska Energy Security Task Force Member Email Address Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dahlstrom, Chair lt.governor@alaska.gov Curtis W. Thayer,Alaska Energy Authority, Vice Chair cthayer@akenergyauthority.org Clay Koplin, Cordova Electric Cooperative, Vice Chair ckoplin@cordovaelectric.com Commissioner John Boyle, Department of Natural Resources john.boyle@alaska.gov Commissioner Jason Brune, Department of Environmental Conservation jason.brune@alaska.gov Nils Andreassen, Alaska Municipal League nils@akml.org Andrew Guy, Calista Corporation aguy@calistacorp.com Karl Hanneman, International Tower Hill Mines khanneman@ithmines.com Tony Izzo, Matanuska Electric Association tony.izzo@mea.coop Jenn Miller, Renewable Independent Power Producers jenn.miller@renewableipp.com Duff Mitchell, Juneau Hydropower duff.mitchell@juneauhydro.com John Sims, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company john.sims@enstarnaturalgas.com Isaac Vanderburg, Launch Alaska isaac@launchalaska.com Robert Venables, Southeast Conference robert@seconference.org Dan White, University of Alaska Fairbanks uaf.chancellor@alaska.edu Senator Click Bishop (Ex Officio)senator.click.bishop@akleg.gov Garrett Boyle, Denali Commission (Ex Officio)gboyle@denali.gov Commissioner Keith Kurber, Regulatory Commission of Alaska (Ex Officio)keith.kurber@alaska.gov Representative George Rauscher (Ex Officio)representative.george.rauscher@akleg.gov Erin Whitney, United States Department of Energy, Arctic Energy Office (Ex Officio)erin.whitney@hq.doe.gov *Andrew Jensen, Policy Advisor,Office of Governor Mike Dunleavy andrew.jensen@alaska.gov Organization Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 04 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Key Milestones Completed By Regional Sub Status Reports Tuesday, July 18, 2023 Regional Sub Initial Reports Tuesday, August 8,2023 Regional Sub Final Reports and I/S/S/R* Data Sub Initial Reports Tuesday, August 29, 2023 I/S S/R* Data Sub Final Reports;Release S/R** report for 28-Day Public Comment Tuesday, September 10,2023 Receive Initial Report, Release for 28-day Public Comment; Take Public Comment on S/R** Report Tuesday, October 3, 2023 Discuss S/R** Final Report; Vote on Recommendations; Take Public Comment on Initial Report Tuesday, October 17, 2023 Discuss Final Report; Vote on Recommendations;Receive Final S/R** Report; send to GOA Tuesday, October 31, 2023 Task Force Receives Final Report Friday, November 10,2023 Vote to Approve Final Report Friday, November 17,2023 *Incentives and Subsidies and Statutes and Regulations Reform **Statutes and Regulations Reform JUNE 27 JULY 18 AUGUST 8 AUGUST 29 SEPTEMBER 19 OCTOBER 3 OCTOBER 17 NOVEMBER 10 OCTOBER 31 NOVEMBER 17 Proposed Work Schedule Subcommittee Work Release S/R** report for 28-Day Public Comment 05 Alaska Energy Security Task Force State Energy Data Chair: Dan White John Boyle Conner Erickson, AEA Observer Support:Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) Statutes and Regulations Reform Co-Chair: Robert Venables Co-Chair: Karl Hanneman Keith Kurber Tony Izzo Isaac Vanderburg Click Bishop George Rauscher Karen Bell, AEA Observer Support:Michael Baker International Railbelt Transmission, Generation, and Storage Co-Chair: Tony Izzo Co-Chair: Jenn Miller John Sims Curtis Thayer Bryan Carey, AEA Observer Rural Generation, Distribution, and Storage Co-Chair: Clay Koplin Co-Chair: Andrew Guy Nils Andreassen Garrett Boyle Jason Brune Tim Sandstrom, AEA Observer Support:Michael Baker International Coastal Generation, Distribution, and Storage Co-Chair: Duff Mitchell Co-Chair: Robert Venables Clay Koplin Audrey Alstrom, AEA Observer Support:Michael Baker International Incentives and Subsidies Co-Chair : Nils Andreassen Co-Chair: Isaac Vanderburg John Sims Andrew Guy Karen Bell, AEA Observer Subcommittee Formation Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 06 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Purpose Recommendation to establish a Data Subcommittee to directly support the Alaska Energy Security Task Force’s duty to establish a plan for Alaska that includes: Establish a baseline energy portfolio for the State of Alaska Develop and maintain a public database of task force information and recommend strategies for sharing energy data and information through an energy data portal Responsibilities Identify valuable energy data resources, data ownership, and determine data availability Identify data systems, products, services, and platforms used for data collection, storage, documentation, preservation, and sharing Deliverables Inventory of available energy data, data ownership, and data availability Inventory data systems, products, services, and platforms used for data collection, analysis, and reporting SWOT analysis of data end users and their needs Recommendations for data schemas, frameworks, partners, and standardizations to improve interoperability and collaboration between data and service providers to establish, serve, and maintain data tools State Energy Data Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 07 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Purpose Propose recommendations that support the goals of the Alaska Energy Security Task Force to establish a plan that includes: Streamlining permitting and reducing regulatory burden Updating outdated provisions including reflecting changes in energy production and consumption -such as net metering regulations, micro-nuclear development, supporting green hydrogen development, renewable energy credits Promoting renewable energy development Encouraging energy efficiency Supporting workforce development Evaluating Renewable Portfolio Standards Ensuring Alaska’s energy independence Deliverables Recommended Legislative amendments Recommended changes to federal funding programs and regulations Policy recommendations with impact assessments, where possible Recommended implementation framework Responsibilities Identify relevant statutes and regulations –State and Federal Assess impacts of proposed changes Develop reasonable timeline with milestones Identify stakeholders for public outreach Statutes and Regulations Reform 08 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Purpose Propose recommendations that support the goals of the Alaska Energy Security Task Force to establish a plan that includes: Promoting renewable energy development Encouraging energy efficiency Supporting workforce development Lowering the retail cost of energy Ensuring Alaska’s energy independence Increasing reliability and resilience Local economic development Deliverables Prioritized list of recommended infrastructure upgrades and maintenance, with cost estimates Policy recommendations for Railbelt modernization initiatives and cost pooling or bulk purchase opportunities Evaluation of emergency response plans and recommend update Responsibilities System assessment and identification of vulnerabilities Assess impacts of proposed changes Develop reasonable timeline with milestones Identify stakeholders for public outreach Railbelt Transmission, Generation, and Storage Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 09 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Purpose Propose recommendations that support the goals of the Alaska Energy Security Task Force to establish a plan that includes: Promoting renewable energy development with a focus on Wind, Solar, and Hydro Encouraging energy efficiency Supporting workforce development Lowering the retail cost of energy Ensuring Alaska’s energy independence Increasing reliability and resilience Local economic development Deliverables Prioritized list of projects, with cost estimates Policy recommendations for rural initiatives Identification of potential project bundling opportunities Responsibilities Assessment and identification of vulnerabilities Assess impacts of proposed changes Develop reasonable timeline with milestones Identify stakeholders for public outreach Rural Generation, Distribution, and Storage Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 10 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Purpose Propose recommendations that support the goals of the Alaska Energy Security Task Force to establish a plan that includes: Promoting renewable energy development with a focus on Tidal, offshore wind, and hydrogen fuel cells Encouraging energy efficiency Supporting workforce development Lowering the retail cost of energy Ensuring Alaska’s energy independence Increasing reliability and resilience Local economic development Deliverables Prioritized list of demonstration projects, with cost estimates Policy recommendations for coastal initiatives Identification of potential permitting issues Responsibilities Evaluation of current technologies, including costs, and identification of opportunities and risks Assess impacts of proposed changes Develop reasonable timeline with milestones Identify stakeholders for public outreach Coastal Generation, Distribution, and Storage Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 11 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Purpose Propose recommendations that support the goals of the Alaska Energy Security Task Force to establish a plan that includes: Lowering the cost of energy in Alaska Maximizing the use of federal incentives to increase the financial and economic impact of capital projects Promoting renewable energy development Encouraging energy efficiency Supporting workforce development Ensuring Alaska’s energy independence Deliverables Identify opportunities for credits and incentives for current and future projects Policy recommendations for changes to state subsidies with impact assessments, where possible Public information and stakeholder engagement plan Develop recommendations to leverage incentives and subsidies to maximize public benefit Responsibilities Identify current incentive and subsidies available –Federal, State, Nationwide Develop reasonable timeline with milestones Identify stakeholders for public outreach Incentives and Subsidies Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 12 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Discussion —Webinar Topics Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 13 Q1 Symposium Topic: Energy in Alaska Alaska Energy Security Task Force Discussion —Webinar Topics Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 14 Q2 The Economics of Energy in Alaska Alaska Energy Security Task Force Discussion —Webinar Topics Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 15 Q3 Energy Policy and Programs Alaska Energy Security Task Force Discussion —Webinar Topics Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 16 Q4 The Changing Global Energy Landscape Alaska Energy Security Task Force Discussion —Webinar Topics Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 17 Q5 Technology Solutions Relevant to Alaska Alaska Energy Security Task Force Discussion —Webinar Topics Q6 What is your preferred format for the symposium? (check all that apply) Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 18 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Discussion —Webinar Topics Q9 If we were to conduct a scenarios or visioning workshop, which dates would work for you? Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 19 Alaska Energy Security Task Force Proposed Energy Symposiums Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 20 Purpose ACEP proposing holding a series of topic-specific symposiums each week for AESTF members and the public. These topics identified and prioritized from a survey of AESTF members, will inform members on issues relevant to developing a comprehensive statewide energy plan. ACEP will develop and coordinate the symposium series, including presenter coordination and costs associated with hosting the events. Logistics When:Weekly on Thursdays from 11a.m.-1 p.m. Format:Zoom webinars (recordings available for later) Symposium presentations will be presented virtually, with AESTF members participating as panelists and members of the public attending as participants. All symposiums will be recorded and posted on the AESTF project website hosted by AEA , along with presentation materials. AEA will ensure all open meeting requirements are met. Committee of the Whole Presentations ACEP recommends the following presentations occur as part of the regular AESTF committee of the whole meetings: Alaska Energy Statistics: Current Snapshot and 10-Year Trends -ACEP Alaska Energy Pathways Proposed Schedule July 13 –Cook Inlet Natural Gas Supply & Development July 20 –Energy & Economics July 27 –Electrification August 3 –Hydropower Development in Alaska August 10 –Financing Projects & Funding Opportunities August 17 –Transmission & Storage August 24 –Current Research Efforts & Updates Alaska Energy Security Task Force Email and Website Email AEA-hosted info email account created to capture correspondence related to the Task Force. info@akenergysecuritytaskforce.com Website AEA-hosted external webpage houses the Task Force’s schedule, public notices, recordings, minutes, documents, and resources as they are created. http://akenergysecuritytaskforce.com Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting | June 27, 2023 21 FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES Karen BellManager of Planning AEA Board of Directors MeetingAugust 2, 2023 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY ACRONYM MEANING BIL Bipartisan Infrastructure Law CCS Carbon Capture and Sequestration CFI Charging and Fueling Infrastructure DOE Department of Energy DOT Department of Transportation EA Energy Audits EEE Energy Efficient Equipment EECBG Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant EEI Energy Efficiency Improvements EERLF Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund EIRA Energy Improvements in Remote Areas EPA Environmental Protection Agency EV Electric Vehicle FHWA Federal Highway Administration Acronyms: IRA and IIJA AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 02 ACRONYM MEANING GDO Grid Deployment Office GHGRF Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund GRIP Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships IIJA Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act IRA Inflation Reduction Act ITC Investment Tax Credit NEVI National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure New ERA Empowering Rural America (USDA Program) PACE Powering Affordable Clean Energy (USDA Program) PTC Production Tax Credit RES Renewable Energy Systems RUS Rural Utilities Service USDA United States Department of Agriculture VTO Vehicle Technology Office INFRASTRUCTUREINVESTMENTAND JOBS ACT AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2,2023 03 Home Efficiency Rebates Rebates for energy efficiency retrofits range from $2,000-$4,000 for individual households and up to $400,000 for multifamily buildings. Grants to states to provide rebates for home retrofits. Up to $2,000 for retrofits reducing energy use by 20% or more, and up to $4,000 for retrofits saving 35% or more. Maximum rebates double retrofits of low-and moderate-income homes. Alaska’s Allocation is $37.4 million No State match is required Home Electrification and Appliance Rebates Develop a high efficiency electric home rebate program. Include means testing and will provide 50% of the cost for incomes 80 to 150% of area median income, and 100% of the cost for incomes 80% of area medium income and below and similar tiers for multifamily buildings. Includes a $14,000 cap per household, with an $8,000 cap for heat pump costs, $1,750 for a heat pump water heater, and $4,000 for panel/service upgrade. Other eligible rebates include electric stoves, clothes dryers, and insulation/air sealing measures. Alaska’s Allocation is $37.1 million No State match is required Home Energy and High Efficiency Rebate Allocations AEA collaborating with the Alaska Housing Financing Corporation to distribute Alaska’s allocation of $74 Million AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 04 These federal formula grant funds will provide $60 million to Alaska over five years, including $22.2 Million for the first two years allocation, to catalyze projects that increase grid resilience against disruptive events. Resilience measures include but are not limited to: -Relocating or reconductoring powerlines -Improvements to make the grid resistant to extreme weather -Increasing fire resistant components -Integrating distributed energy resources like microgrids and energy storage Formula-based funding requires a 15% state match and a 33% small utility match. Statewide Grid Resilience and Reliability IIJA Formula Grant Program, 40101(d) Per IIJA section 40101(a)(1),8 a disruptive event is defined as “an event in which operations of the electric grid are disrupted, preventively shut off, or cannot operate safely due to extreme weather, wildfire, or a natural disaster.” 05 State of Alaska Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Implementation Plan AEA and the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), submitted their State of Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan (The Plan) to the United States Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, as required by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act’s (IIJA) NEVI Formula Program. On September 27, 2022, The Plan was approved. The announcement unlocks $19 million to expand EV charging infrastructure in Alaska. Over the next five years, AEA anticipates receiving$52 million. Funds will be received by DOT&PF and administered by AEA. AEA sought public comment on its update to the NEVI plan, the deadline to submit public comments was July 17, 2023 AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 06 Black Rapids Training Site (BRTS) Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program AEA partnered with Golden Valley Electric Cooperative (GVEA) to apply for this grant from the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation under the Defense Community Infrastructure Pilot Program. Federal Receipt Authority of $12.7 Million. No State match is required. GVEA will use the funds to extend an transmission line 34 miles along the Richardson Highway to BTRS. Currently, BTRS is powered by three diesel generators that are nearing the end of their useful lives. This extension will improve long-term sustainability and reliability for BRTS by tying them into GVEA’s power grid. AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 07 Energy Efficiency RevolvingLoan Fund (EERLF) The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides funding for a new Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund Program (EERLF). This funding will be used to establish and capitalize a revolving loan fund, under which the State shall provide loans and grants for residential energy audits, upgrades, and retrofits to increase energy efficiency, physical conform and air quality of existing building infrastructure. In collaboration with the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, AEA will administer the EERLF commercial loans/grants program. Alaska’s Allocation is $4,569,780 AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 08 AEA is developing activities for deployment that include:-Statewide Energy Plan-State Energy Security Plan-Renewable Energy Fund and Village Energy Efficiency Program construction projects-IIJA Required Grid Planning-Training and Workforce Development In collaboration with Alaska Housing Finance Corporation:-Update AkWarm Energy Modeling Software to the requirements imposed by the Inflation Reduction Act.-Modernize Alaska Retrofit Information Systems database to accept the AkWarm modifications. Alaska’s Allocation is $2,865,930 State Energy Program (SEP) AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 09 EV Charging Equipment Competitive AEA was awarded funding in the amount of $1,670,00 through the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Vehicle Technologies Office, Area of Interest 9: Community-Driven Electric Vehicle Charging (EV) Deployment in Underserved Communities. The goals of this project are to:1.increase access to vehicle electrification in multiple rural and underserved communities across Alaska;2.demonstrate the benefits of EVs to key decision-makers and the broader public to accelerate clean transportation transition; and3.support the development of community charging equipment. A 20% match is required, shared by AEA and project partners. AEA is working with partners across Alaska to support vehicle electrification in rural, low-income, and Tribal communities to ensure an equitable and just transition to clean transportation. AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 10 Program designed to assist states, local governments, and tribes in implementing strategies to reduce energy use, to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and to improve energy efficiency. Formula Funding:-States-Local Governments -Tribes State Application Deadline was July 31, 2023 Local and Tribal Government Deadline is January 31, 2024 Alaska’s Allocation is $1,627,450 No Match Required Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 11 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. IIJA Competitive: Grid Resilience and Innovation Partnerships (GRIP) 1) RailbeltBackbone Reconstruction Project$100 Million*(Requested of DOE; submitted April 5, 2023) 2) Battery Energy Storage/HVDC Coordinated Control$16 Million*(Requested of DOE; submitted March 16, 2023) 3) Railbelt Innovation Resiliency Project) $411 Million*(Requested of DOE; submitted May 18, 2023) 3) Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation $250 Million*(Requested of DOE; submitted May 18, 2023) *All four GRIP programs are in application phase. AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 12 ERA will improve the resilience, reliability, and affordability of energy systems in communities across the country with 10,000 or fewer people. Competitive Grant Program DE-FOA-0003045 -10 –100 awards between $500,000 and $5 million -No match required Eligible Applicants: -Institutions of Higher Education -Non-Profit Organizations -For Profit Entities -Local Governmental Entities -Tribal Nations Pre-application deadline was July 13, 2023 AEA submitted pre-applications for projects in Chefornak and Kipnuk Full applications are due on October 12, 2023 Energy Improvements in Rural and Remote Areas (ERA) –Fixed Grant Award Program INFLATION REDUCTION ACT AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 14 IRA: Clean Energy National Funding Opportunities Rural Energy Assistance –$12 Billion managed by the Department of Agriculture Clean Energy Business Loans –$14 Billion managed by the Department of Energy Home Energy Rebates –$8.8 Billion managed by the Department of Energy Energy Grid –$9 Billion managed by the Department of Energy Energy Code Assistance –$1 Billion managed by the Department of Energy Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund –$27 Billion managed by the Environmental Protection Agency Climate Pollution Reduction Grants –$5 Billion managed by the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Heavy Duty Vehicles & Clean Ports –$4 Billion managed by the Environmental Protection Agency Environmental & Climate Justice Block Grants –$3 Billion managed by the Environmental Protection Agency Methane Emissions Reduction Program –$1.5 Billion managed by the Environmental Protection Agency Energy Tax Credits –estimated $270 Billion managed the Internal Revenue Service Other Programs –$20 Billion managed by various agencies including HUD and NOAA AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 15 PACE NEW ERA Eligible Activities Renewable power generation from:wind,solar,geothermal, hydropower,or biomass Storage for or with renewable energy The project must produce renewable energy for resale and serve at least 50 percent rural customers Purchase of clean energy systems,the construction of clean energy systems,or thepurchaseofcleanenergypower Renewable enabling technologies including storage and distributed clean energy generation as part of a clean energy generation project Zero-emission technologies,including carbon capture and storage (CCS), nuclear,as well as utility-controlled demand side management systems Transmission and renewable generation energy efficiency measures EligibleEntities Corporations; States and territories along with their subdivisions and agencies; Municipalities; Utility districts; Cooperatives; Nonprofits; Indian Tribes; Alaska Native, regional, or village corporations; Limited Liability Companies or other for-profit entities. One application from each eligible entity. Electric cooperatives that are current or former RUS or REA borrowers,electric cooperatives serving predominantly rural areas,or wholly or jointly owned subsidiaries Funding Loans at the municipal rate with partial forgiveness: -Up to 20 percent for eligible applicants -Up to 40 percent for energy dependent ordisadvantaged communities -Up to 60 percent for Tribal communities,Alaskanvillages, Alaska Native Corporations,Hawaiianhomelands,US territories,or compact states PACE program size:$1 billion Grants up to 25 percent of total project cost Loans to finance clean energy projects at the Treasury rate or interest rates as low as two percent Zero percent interest refinancing available for stranded assets to invest in eligible projects or for projects serving distressed,disadvantaged,or energydependent communities New ERA program size:$9.7 billion Deadlines Accepting Letters of Interest July 10-September 29, 2023 Not competitive and processed on a rolling basis Accepting Letters of Interest between July 31-August 31,2023 Competitive scoring based on the greatest reduction in greenhouse gasemissions IRA: New USDA Programs in Rural Utilities Service AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 16 IRA: Other Potential State Clean Energy Opportunities Assistance for Latest & Zero Building Energy Code Adoption (Competitive grant) $1 billion to assist states and local governments that have the authority to adopt building codes to adopt codes for residential buildings that meet or exceed the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code; and/or for commercial buildings to meet or exceed the ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Competitive grant) $27 billion to assist states, tribes, and municipalities to mobilize financing for clean energy and climate projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, emphasis on projects that benefit low-income and disadvantaged communities. Clean Heavy Duty Vehicles (Competitive grant) $1 billion to provide grants, rebates, and contract support to replace heavy duty vehicles with zero emission alternatives for states, local governments, tribes, and non-profit school associations. Climate Pollution Reduction Fund (Competitive grant) $5 billion to assist states, air pollution control agencies, tribes, and local governments in developing and implementing strong, local climate pollution reduction strategies. AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 17 Investment Tax Credit (48/48E) –6% base credit for qualifying renewable energy projects. Production Tax Credit (45/45Y) –0.3 cents/kW credit inflation adjusted for energy generated by renewable energy sources. Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings Deduction (179D) –$0.50 to $1.00 per square foot. Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit (25C) –up to 30% for improvements in residential homes. Residential Clean Energy Credit (25D) –credit of up to 30% of cost of clean energy equipment. Clean Vehicle Credit (30D/25E/45W) –up to $7,500 for purchasing new qualifying vehicles and up to $4,000 for used vehicle. Up to 30% credit of the cost of replacing diesel and gas powered commercial vehicles. Alternative Fuel Refueling Property Credit (30C) –credit for refueling and charging property in low income and rural areas. Eligible for direct pay option for tax exempt agencies. Carbon Oxide Sequestration (45Q) –$17/metric ton of carbon dioxide captured and sequestered; $12/metric ton for carbon dioxide that is injected for enhanced oil recovery or utilized. Clean Hydrogen Production Credit (45V) –$0.60/kg multiplied by the applicable percentage. For more tax incentives, visit AEA’s website at https://www.akenergyauthority.org/ira IRA: Clean Energy Tax Incentives AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 18 Prevailing Wage and Registered Apprenticeship -5 times base credit -1MW threshold Domestic Content -Up to 10 percentage points for ITC and 10 percent for PTC -Elective pay requirement for projects larger than 1 MW that begin construction in 2024 or later Energy Communities -Up to 10 percentage points for ITC and 10 percent for PTC -Updated map released for 2023 energy communities Low Income Communities (ITC for Solar and Wind Only) -10 percentage points for low income communities or on tribal land -20 percentage points for projects that are part of certain federally subsidized housing programs or that offer at least 50 percent of the financial benefits of the electricity produced to low-income households. -This bonus amount will require an application by the taxpayer, with a cumulative total of 1.8 GW of direct current capacity per year available for allocation. AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 19 IRA: Bonus Tax Credits Elective Pay Eligibility Exempt Organizations 501(a) and 115 State or political subdivision Territories and agencies Tribal governments and subdivisions Alaska Native Corporations Rural Electric Cooperatives Partnerships are excluded Eligible Tax Credits Energy Credit (48) Clean Electricity Investment Credit (48E) Renewable Electricity Production Credit (45) Clean Electricity Production Credit (45Y) Commercial Clean Vehicle Credit (45W) Zero-emission Nuclear Power Production (45U) Advanced Manufacturing Production (45X) Clean Hydrogen Production Credit (45V) Clean Fuel Production Credit (45Z) Carbon Oxide Sequestration Credit (45Q) Vehicle Refueling / Recharging Property (30C) Qualifying Advanced Energy Project (48C) Elective Pay What is Elective Pay?Elective pay allows applicable entities that would otherwise be unable to claim these credits because they do not owe federal income tax, to benefit from some clean energy tax credits by treating the amount of the credit as a payment of tax and refunding any resulting overpayment. AEA Federal Funding Opportunities | AEA Board of Directors Meeting | August 2, 2023 20 813 W Northern Lights Blvd. Anchorage, AK 99503 Main: (907) 771-3000 Fax: (907) 771-3044 info@akenergyauthority.org akenergyauthority.org @alaskaenergyauthority @alaskaenergyauthority Alaska Energy Authority AEA provides energy solutions to meet the unique needs of Alaska’s rural and urban communities. 21 6/2/2023 Annually FY2024 Travel Plan 6/14/2023 Annually INTERNAL - FY24 Set up AR Structure (coordinate with Controllers) 6/26/2023 Annually INTERNAL - FY24 Department Budget Planning - both AIDEA & AEA On-going INTERNAL - Modify/Develop Jet Reports for monthly budget to actual reporting 5/30/2023 Annually Capital Appropriations Term Year Extensions DCCED completed Annually FY2024 Operating AutoAB - Division Review 6/21/2023 Board Meeting 7/1/2023 Annually INTERNAL - FY24 Post budgets (once internal approval) to Navision 7/17/2023 Annually FY2023 Annual CSLFRF Performance Report to DCCED 7/20/2023 Annually FY2024 Management Plan: Personal Services Module (ABS) 7/20/2023 Annually FY2024 Management Plan: Change Records 7/20/2023 Annually FY2024 Management Plan: Position Approval Forms 7/20/2023 Quarterly Organization Charts - as of 6/30/23 due 7/15/23 7/20/2023 Quarterly FY2023 3rd QTR CSLFRF Performance Report 7/20/2023 Annually FY2023 Yeat-End Projections 7/20/2023 Annually FY2024 Projections 7/24/2023 Annually FY2025 Legislative Proposals 8/2/2023 Board Meeting 8/16/2023 Annually FY2023 Unbudgeted RSA - if applicable 8/16/2023 Annually FY2023 Revised Program - if applicable Monthly INTERNAL - Monthly meeting to report Operating budget to actual. 8/27/2023 Annually FY2025 Budget Development Technical Deliverables - 1) Federal Grant Inventory (Operating only), 2) GF Grant Programs, and 3) RSA Inventory. 8/31/2023 Annually FY2025 Budget Development (Operating & Capital budget proposals + Technical Deliverables) - includes Highlights and Challenges Document. Enter all budget proposals into ABS. 8/31/2023 Annually FY2025 Budget Development Deliverable - AEA Only- PCE projections for FY2024 & FY2025 8/31/2023 Annually BY2025 Budget Deliverable - Updated fund balances projected for all agency Funds. 8/31/2023 FY2025 Budget Development Technical Deliverable - Review of Space occupied by the Department 8/31/2023 FY2025 Budget Development Technical Deliverable - Review of Capital Appropriation Spending 8/31/2023 As Needed AEA FY2024 Budget Reduction Proposal 9/9/2023 Annually State benefit and loan program annual review AS 24.60.050 9/12/2023 Annually FY2023 Final Authorized & Actuals 9/19/2023 Annually FY2025 Budget Development Technical Deliverable - Supervisory Position Review and Span of Control for Positions Range 22 and Up. 9/21/2023 Board Meeting 9/30/2023 Annually AIDEA OMB Presentation due to DCCED - due date is flexible 9/30/2023 Annually AEA OMB Presentation due to DCCED - due date is flexible 10/7/2023 Annually FY2025 Budget Development Presentation with OMB- AIDEA 10/7/2023 Annually FY2025 Budget Development Presentation with OMB- AEA 10/6/2023 Annually FY2025 Governor Briefing (Executive Directors) 10/13/2023 Annually Fee Report 10/17/2023 Annually FY2025 Budget Narrative 10/24/2023 Annually FY2025 Performance Measures 10/24/2023 Annually FY2025 Governor Scenario - Personal Services Module (ABS) 10/25/2023 Board Meeting - Executive Session budget update 10/26/2023 Annually FY2025 Governor Scenario - Position Approval Forms 10/26/2023 Annually FY2025 Governor Scenario - Revenue & Expense Detail Review 10/26/2023 Annually FY2025 Change Record Final Edits 10/26/2023 Annually FY2025 Governor Scenario - Org Charts (tied to Personal Services Module) November Annually FY2025 Budget Development Deliverable - AIDEA Only - Anticipated date of Dividend Declaration. November Annually 12-month Vacancy Exceptions & position Deletions November Annually FY2025 Governor Excess Authorization Review 12/6/2023 Board Meeting 12/15/2023 Annually FY2025 Governor's Proposed Budget Officially Released 12/21/2023 Annually CY2024 Capital Appropriation Status Reports 1/XX/2024 Board Meeting - Formal Ratification of Governor's Budget 1/17/2024 Annually Legislative Session Begins 1/26/2024 Annually Governor's Presentation submittals/Legislative Updates Note: green highlights are updated from prior version of this report. *dates in red font are based on prior year. Current year due dates not yet provided by OMB. AIDEA and AEA ‐ State Budget Process The State's budget development process is a collaborative effort between Department staff and Agency level Administrative Services Director, Commissioner, Office of Management & Budget (OMB), and the Governor's office. OMB issues budget development instructions based on Governor's initiatives. Short turn around times and rapid response is a needed component of the budget process and changes to the proposed budgets may occur prior to the issuance of the Governor's budget with little or no agency input. **Budget Development is a Confidential & Deliberative Process until the Governor's Budget is Officially Released in December 2023 Estimated Due date *Frequency Deliverable Budget Deliverables and Timeline (DRAFT) C:\Users\jbertolini\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\EHDWSOC9\AIDEA AEA State Budget Process_Timeline FY25 Estimated Dates Department of Revenue TREASURY DIVISION Po Box 110405 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0405 Main: 907.465.2300 Fax: 907.465.4397 Date: To: July 5, 2023 Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development From: Adam Crum, Commissioner Subject: Power Cost Equalization Endowment Fund FY2025 Budget Information per AS 42.45.080(c) In accordance with AS 42.45.080(c), on July 1 of each year, the Commissioner of Revenue shall determine the monthly average market value of the fund for the previous three closed fiscal years and the earnings of the fund for the previous closed fiscal year. The amounts required to be identified by statute for the Power Cost Equalization Endowment Fund are as follows: Average monthly market value: $ 1,061,454,612 Earnings of the fund for the previous closed fiscal year: $ 88,405,767 Per AS 42.45.085(a), five percent of the average monthly market value calculated under AS 42.45.080(c)(1), or $53,072,731, may be appropriated to fund the power cost equalization and rural electric capitalization fund (AS 42.45.100), and to reimburse for costs to manage and administer the fund. Additional amounts may be appropriated under AS 42.45.085(d) when the earnings for the fund for the previous closed fiscal year exceed the five percent of the average monthly market value calculated under AS 42.45.080(c). cc: Randy Ruaro, Executive Director, Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority Julie Sande, Commissioner, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development Jenny McDowell, Finance Officer, Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development Ciara Meek, Department of Administration, Division of Finance Zachary Hanna, Chief Investment Officer, Department of Revenue Jesse Blackwell, Cash Manager, Department of Revenue Pamela Leary, Director, Treasury Division, Department of Revenue Ryan Kauzlarich, Assistant Comptroller, Treasury Division, Department of Revenue ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PCE Program Management Report July 20, 2023 PCE Program Management Report Page | 1 OPERATIONAL ACTIVITY Outstanding Utility Monthly Reports Aging (Note: Excludes AVEC): Note: As of 7/20/23 0 reports remained in the over 30 day category. Utility Monthly Reports Processed in Last 30 Days (Note: Excludes AVEC): Suspended Communities Perryville - 02/13/2023 Manokotak - 4/20/23 King Cove - 02/24/23 Birch Creek Tribal Council - 02/07/23 Tuluksak - 02/17/2023 Beaver - 02/07/2023 Communities more than 3 months behind in submitting their monthly reports: Vendor Name Community - Last Report Filed Comments LARSEN BAY UTILITY COMPANY Larsen Bay PCE - JULY 2020 NATIVE VILLAGE OF PERRYVILLE Perryville PCE - OCTOBER 2020 Suspended CHALKYITSIK VILLAGE COUNCIL Chalkyitsik PCE-February 2021 BEAVER JOINT UTILITIES Beaver PCE - February 2022 Suspended BIRCH CREEK ELECTRIC COMPANY Birch Creek PCE - December 2021 Suspended TWIN HILLS VILLAGE COUNCIL Twin Hills PCE - June 2022 LIME VILLAGE ELECTRIC UTILITY Lime Village PCE - August 2022 CITY OF EGEGIK Egegik PCE - September 2022 NAPASKIAK ELECTRIC UTILITY Napaskiak PCE - December 2022 NOME JOINT UTILITY SYSTEM Nome PCE - December 2022 CITY OF KOYUKUK Koyukuk PCE - January 2023 AKIAK CITY COUNCIL Akiak PCE - February 2023 MANOKOTAK POWER COMPANY Manokotak PCE - February 2023 TDX ADAK GENERATING LLC Adak PCE - March 2023 NEW KOLIGANEK VILLAGE COUNCIL Koliganek PCE - February 2023 PILOT POINT ELECTRIC UTILITY Pilot Point PCE - March 2023 TDX CORPORATION Sand Point PCE - March 2023 Training and Community Assistance Provided Meeting with Deerstone Consulting, Connie Fredenberg, Justin Toumi (AEA) to discuss impact of Excess Hydro (RE) kWhs to Heat on RCA calculated PCE Levels No PCE Training Classes were provided. ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PCE Program Management Report July 20, 2023 PCE Program Management Report Page | 2 Special Projects – Status Update Project Project Lead Status Remittance Letters/Advices Katherine Katherine is working on the draft letter of Portal Email Rollout. In the interim, she continues to send my communities their payment advices via email each week.; Michael said some of his get notices but he doesn’t do all; Web Portal Held Report Explanations Michael Unknown Community Facility Master Log Shelby In progress; Approximately 40% complete Community Facility Program-Wide Review TBD Not started Perryville FY22 Denied UMRs Katherine Perryville did not make the deadline set for them and will not be receiving FY22 funds FY23 PCE Quarterly Data Reviews / Annual Report Training Team No progress ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY PCE Program Management Report July 20, 2023 PCE Program Management Report Page | 3 FINANCIAL PCE Endowment Fund Comments: June’s ending balance has not been published by Treasury yet. AEA Appropriation Analysis Award No Project Name DC Funding Perf. Period Beg Perf. Period Thru Actions Since Last Report Estimated Jobs Created Permanent Jobs Created 01432-12 Tatitlek BFU 1,472,000 6/1/2013 6/30/2023 None 15 2 01474-09 Chalkytsik BFU (2)517,500 6/16/2015 6/30/2023 None 15 2 01485-06 START Communities Technical Assistance 375,000 11/1/2015 6/30/2024 Expand project scope & Extend Period of Performance and funding 2 0 01492-10 Beaver BFU 608,000 7/6/2016 9/30/2023 None 5 2 01500-08 Bulk Fuel Operator Training 1,610,000 9/1/2016 6/30/2023 None 3 0 01515-09 Circuit Rider Program 1,350,000 1/1/2017 12/31/2023 None 3 0 01516-08 RPSU - Maintenance & Improvement 748,776 10/1/2016 12/31/2024 None 20 0 01523-08 Miscellaneious Small M&I Projects 1,920,000 6/1/2017 12/31/2024 None 20 0 01525-07 Training - Advanced Power Plant Operators 872,514 8/15/2017 6/30/2023 None 3 0 01544-06 Training - Itinerant Electric Utility 500,000 3/1/2018 12/31/2023 None 3 0 01548-07 RPS Maintenance & Improvement Program-Statewide 3,090,000 5/1/2018 9/30/2023 None 20 0 01551-07 Venetie RPSU 2,250,000 5/1/2018 12/31/2025 None 5 2 01557-03 Barge Headers and Fill Lines 3,976,820 10/1/2018 12/31/2024 None 60 0 01571-02 Nunapitchuk BF 3,522,546 8/15/2019 12/31/2023 None 30 2 01574-03 Nikolai RPSU 1,733,740 8/1/2019 12/31/2023 Extend Period of Performance and Funding 5 2 01575-06 Nelson Lagoon - RPSU 1,585,455 8/1/2019 12/31/2025 None 5 2 01576-04 Rampart - RPSU 1,733,740 8/1/2019 12/31/2024 None 5 2 01577-05 Napaskiak - RPSU 335,455 8/1/2019 12/31/2024 None 26 2 01600-02 AEEE - Village Energy Efficiency Program - State 875,000 6/15/2020 12/31/2023 None 3 0 01611-02 AEA Data Library 100,000 9/1/2020 6/30/2023 None 1 0 01618-01 Fivemile Creek Hydroelectric Project R2,R4 2,880,000 9/1/2020 6/30/2024 None 65 2 01628-02 DC Craig High School Biomass Project 440,417 11/1/2020 12/31/2023 None 0 2 01645-01 O&M Manual Conversion & Training 75,000 4/1/2021 9/30/2023 None 4 0 01646-01 Bulk Fuel Inventory and Assessment 1,230,000 4/1/2021 12/31/2025 Increase funding & Extend Period of Performance and funding 20 0 01647-01 Port Heiden Phase 1 Distribution Upgrades 1,905,600 4/1/2021 12/31/2024 None 8 0 01666-01 Littoral Power Systems Hydrokinetic Project 80,642 11/15/2021 3/31/2023 None 1 0 01704-00 Chalkyitsik RPSU 200,000 10/1/2022 3/31/2024 None 5 2 01705-01 Red Devil RPSU/Tieline - Closed 200,000 10/1/2022 3/31/2024 None 5 2 01731-00 Shungnak BFU 3,296,032.04 1/1/2023 3/31/2024 None 60 3 01735-00 Ruby Powerhouse Leveling 200,000.00 1/15/2023 12/31/2024 Added to spreadsheet 5 0 01761-00 Tuluksak Bulk Fuel M&I 200,000.00 1/15/2023 12/31/2024 Added to spreadsheet 5 0 01767-00 AVTEC Powerplant Lab Upgrade 250,000.00 1/1/2023 9/30/2024 Added to spreadsheet 5 0 01771-00 Distribution System Inventory and Assessment - Statewide 267,051.64 4/1/2023 12/31/2025 Added to spreadsheet 7 0 Total Funding for Active DC Awards:40,401,289 Less Total Spending on Active DC Awards:(22,510,007) Total Funding Remaining on Active DC Awards:17,891,282 Active Denali Commission Awards As of 07/11/2023 C:\Users\rgarrett\Desktop\Board Meeting Budgets\7.11.23 Active DC Awards 1 OF 1 813 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 RGYAUTHORITY.ORG TO: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Rebecca Garrett, Rural Programs Manager DATE: July 17, 2023 SUBJECT: AEA Rural Programs & Projects Highlights Training Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), with funding from Denali Commission, provided training at Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) facility in Seward, Alaska for 227 power plant and bulk fuel operators, and person in charge (PIC) over the last five years. This training is a key component to the maintenance, operations, and extending the serviceable life of rural energy infrastructure and assets. Furthermore, this provides workforce development including well- paying local jobs in rural communities. AEA was awarded $250,000 from the Denali Commission to upgrade the power plant operator lab located at the AVTEC facility. This funding will update the switchgear and replace one of the existing diesel gensets used for training to replicate the equipment being installed in rural power plants. Construction will be completed in 2024. There are seven training programs for power plant operators, bulk fuel operators, utility management, the Circuit Rider program and emergency response, with a total budget of nearly $10M. Rural Power System Upgrades (RPSU) The newly-built powerhouse system in Nikolai is now operational. The Venetie powerhouse system upgrade resumed construction after a winter break. Progress being made is quicker than anticipated and completion is expected in September 2023. The submittals are being reviewed and materials are being purchased for the distribution project. Due to the long lead time on transformers, the distribution will not be completed until 2024. The community of Circle was greatly impacted by spring flooding on the Yukon River which ultimately destroyed their powerhouse. AEA responded during the emergency and installed two emergency gensets from the State Emergency Operations Center (SEOC). AEA continues to work with state and federal agencies in monitoring post-emergency response while exploring a viable long-term solution for Circle. Newly-constructed powerhouse modules for Napaskiak and Rampart are currently being assembled in Anchorage. The Nelson Lagoon steel module has been awarded and assembly is expected over the winter. All three modules are scheduled for installation in 2024. Local operators will be invited to Anchorage to participate in the testing of the module before Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 transporting the modules on site. Once the modules are delivered, extensive onsite training will be conducted with the local operators and utility managers before transferring the project over to the community. The Napaskiak, Rampart, and Nelson Lagoon projects collectively accrued an estimated total of $16 million. The projects experienced unprecedented cost increases at an approximate rate of 43% over the course of design for these powerhouse upgrades. These cost increments are consequences of inflation, logistics delays/unavailability, and workforce deficits. On those accounts, the RPSU Program is anticipating a shift towards maintenance and improvement projects instead of full replacement during the interim. The Distribution Inventory and Assessment (I&A) has been initiated. Six sites have been completed to date and about ten more locations are currently in the queue. From system replacement to maintenance and improvement to I&A, there are forty-four rural power system projects total with an overall budget of over $40M. Bulk Fuel Upgrades (BFU) Approximately 400 eligible bulk fuel facilities all over Alaska experience a growing difficulty with aging infrastructure and increased ocean and river erosion. The Bulk Fuel I&A has been completed in twenty locations. The goal is to have a majority of the targeted sites completed by the end of the calendar year 2023. The I&A will provide accurate information on the current condition of bulk fuel facilities consequentially producing the same benefits realized in the Powerhouse Systems I&A program. Similar to Circle, Russian Mission was also affected by the flood from the Yukon River. The tank farm was severely damaged and the dispenser is gone. A site visit was conducted and imagery of the current condition taken to get an accurate inventory of the damages. AEA is working with state and federal entities to identify funding for repairs needed to stabilize the tank farm while a new tank farm is designed. In today’s market, construction of new bulk fuel tank farms roughly cost between $5-8 million. With limited funding, the BFU program has transitioned heavily towards maintenance and improvement (M&I) type projects that require local matching funds to ensure project completion. Under this program, each community has a list of maintenance projects, estimated costs, and priority for each project. There are fourteen M&I projects in various stages. Currently, there are thirty-three active bulk fuel projects with a total budget of over $34M. Ekwok BFU project is still waiting for funding. 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 RGYAUTHORITY.ORG TO: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director Thru: Tim Sandstrom, Chief Operating Officer FROM: Rebecca Garrett, Rural Programs Manager DATE: July 11, 2023 SUBJECT: Eielson AFB Essential Upgrades Grant Proposal Background Department of Defense, Local Defense Community Cooperation announced their yearly funding opportunity in the spring. This is the same opportunity that Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) partnered with AEA to apply for the Black Rapids Training Site Line Extension. In June, GVEA asked AEA to partner again, this time for Eielson Air Force Base (EAFB) Essential Upgrades. The Proposal was submitted June 23, 2023. If successful, AEA will be invited to submit an application. Due to a 36 hour blackout in October 2021, EAFB has been operating “island mode” by opening the interconnection breaker in the EAFB power plant to disconnect GVEA from EAFB to isolate EAFB’s power plant from electrical grid disturbances. Current systems and configurations between EAFB and GVEA’s system can cause power surges and other harmful events to EAFB’s internal system, leaving the base with no backup power source. Island mode is a severe, protective response. Since the October 2021 blackout, EAFB only connects to GVEA for specific instances and needs. For example, so far, in 2023 out of a possible 4,104 hours through June 19, the base was tied to GVEA for 69 hours when backup power was needed for the base to complete maintenance or upgrade tasks. This is a significant operational concern. If the base’s coal-based plant or lines are damaged or if the coal supply is disrupted, most operations at the base will come to a standstill. Scope The proposed project, Eielson AFB Essential Upgrades, consists of three main components: A new 69 kilovolt (kV) switching substation. Upgrades to the existing distribution substation. Upgrades to the communications system to support transmission system protection and controls. Switching Station. The proposed 69 kilovolt switching station will sectionalize the existing transmission line into two pieces. They will be 12 and 16 miles long. Breaking the transmission line into two parts at EAFB allows redundant feeds that reduce the likelihood of simultaneous failure. Repairs can be completed on the faulted/failed portion while electric power is still delivered. Distribution Substation Upgrades. The existing distribution substation was built in 1997, more than 25 years ago. Control, communications, and protection systems in the substation are obsolete and require upgrades to operate efficiently. The existing 12.47 kilovolt breakers in the Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 substation must be replaced due to their age. The proposed upgrades will result in 20-30 years of reliable service from the substation. Communication System Upgrades. The existing distribution substation is served by a low-speed analog phone line rented from a local telephone company. The existing system is not adequate to manage system protection and security monitoring for the proposed switching substation. A microwave tower and radio system or fiber-optic cable added to the transmission line structures will provide the medium bandwidth and dedicated transmission channels required to support the switching speed and reliability needs for the 69-kilovolt switching station. Budget The affected area is identified by U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration as rural, so the partners request that matching funds be waived. GVEA will pay for soft costs (planning and design, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, permit applications and pre- construction engineering). Funding Sources Amount Total DCIP Grant Request (Federal) $10,106,603 GVEA Internal Funds (non-Federal) $110,000 Total Budget and Sources $10,216,603 Timeline Proposal was due June 23, 2023. Invitation to apply estimated August 4, 2023. Application due September 1, 2023. Funding awarded by September 30, 2023. Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 1 A. Cover Letter Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 2 B. Installation Need Installation Identity. Eielson Air Force Base (EAFB) is located 30 miles southeast of Fairbanks, Alaska and 110 miles south of the Arctic Circle. It is one of nine military bases in the state and one of three Air Force bases. EAFB is known for its recent acquisition of 54 permanently assigned, combat coded F-35A aircraft; and for working with Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC) to provide 77,000 square miles of premier, advanced arctic training for the U.S. military and its allies. It is a strategic base situated to help defend the region. The 354th Flight Wing is the host unit at EAFB and is assigned to the 11th Air Force, headquartered at Elmendorf Air Force Base near Anchorage. The 354th Operations Group provides combat-ready forces, global air operations support and realistic full-spectrum combat training for joint force and international partners. It includes the 355th Fighter Squadron, 356th Fighter Squadron, 18th Aggressor Squadron, 353rd Combat Training Squadron, and 354th Range Squadron. EAFB also houses the 354th Maintenance Group, Mission Support Group, Medical Group, and 1st Air Support Operations Group. Tenant Units at EAFB include the 168th Air Refueling Wing, Air National Guard, Air Force Technical Applications Center, Arctic Survival School, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, 210th Rescue Squadron and 372nd Training Squadron. There are more than 9,000 personnel, including active duty, family members, civilians, contractors, tenants, and retirees who work or live on base. EAFB covers 19,780 acres, most of which is forest, wetlands, lakes, and ponds. Most base activities are located on 3,650 acres. Regional Importance. A report from the inspector general of the Department of Defense (DOD) outlined the role of the U.S. military bases in the region, “The Arctic and sub-arctic are important to U.S. strategic aims in part because of rising tensions and competition with Russia and China, and in part because sharply rising temperatures are melting sea ice and opening up both shipping lanes and access to the region’s oil and other resources, increasing interest and traffic in the region. The Defense Department also sees the Arctic is a potential vector for an attack on the U.S. homeland, a region where Russia and China are operating more freely, and a strategic corridor for DOD forces between the Indo-Pacific and Europe.” (https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2022/04/17/climate-change-damaging- us-military-bases-in-the-arctic-report-warns/) Another factor that makes EAFB so important is its proximity to JPARC, a large area of restricted airspace that provides a realistic training environment and allows commanders to train for full spectrum engagements. EAFB and Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) are the home of RED FLAG-Alaska training. RED FLAG-Alaska is a Pacific Air Forces-sponsored, Joint National Training Capability accredited exercise. Because of its location and key military assets, EAFB has been called, “the U.S. military’s most strategically important installation.” Historic Power Problems. EAFB is normally powered by a coal-based power plant that produces up to 25 megawatts of power, owned and operated by the military. The base is connected to the distribution substation powered by Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) that has the potential to provide 12 megawatts to 20 megawatts of power for emergency backup or during Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 3 maintenance. Historically, it has also provided an additional round-the-clock 300 kilowatts or more of power to the entire base, but in 2021 EAFB decided to operate with the interconnection breaker open to minimize exposure to electrical disturbances on the grid. GVEA is a not-for-profit member-owned cooperative that has operated for 77 years providing power to rural interior Alaska. The existing GVEA distribution substation that can provide service to EAFB is adjacent to the base’s power plant. The distribution substation is at the mid-point of a 28-mile-long section of a 69-kilovolt transmission line that connects GVEA’s Highway Park substation to GVEA’s Carney substation. The transmission line is exposed to severe weather events that cause electrical faults due to lightning, falling trees, heavy snow or ice and high winds. An electrical fault at any point on the 28-mile transmission line results in rapid operation of breakers at the Highway Park and Carney substations. Within one-tenth to one-half of a second, the entire line is de-energized, leaving EAFB without access to GVEA power. It usually requires several hours for GVEA crews to repair the transmission line before it can be energized. If the EAFB internal power plant experiences a failure during this time, the mission and facilities may be compromised. In October 2021, the transmission line was disabled by a tree falling across the line. At the same time, EAFB’s power plant went down. EAFB needed power from GVEA to support the mission and to start up the EAFB power plant (because EAFB’s black start generator was out of service). Because GVEA power was out, the entire EAFB went dark for 36 hours. Had this occurred during a cold weather event, there would have been only a couple of hours to prepare Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 4 the base and all personnel to evacuate. If a 69-kilovolt transmission switching station is built to automatically sectionalize the transmission line near the existing EAFB power plant and existing distribution station, any single electrical fault will not leave EAFB without access to GVEA power, so reliability will be dramatically improved. Power quality will also be improved because the maximum time to interrupt fault current will decrease from about one-half of a second to less than a tenth of a second. After the October 2021 blackout, EAFB went into “island mode” by opening the interconnection breaker in the EAFB power plant to disconnect GVEA from EAFB to isolate EAFB’s power plant from electrical grid disturbances. Current systems and configurations between EAFB and GVEA’s system can cause power surges and other harmful events to EAFB’s internal system, leaving the base with no backup power source. Island mode is a severe, protective response. Since the October 2021 blackout, EAFB only connects to GVEA for specific instances and needs. For example, so far, in 2023 out of a possible 4,104 hours through June 19, the base was tied to GVEA for 69 hours when backup power was needed for the base to complete maintenance or upgrade tasks. This is a significant operational concern. If the base’s coal-based plant or lines are damaged or if the coal supply is disrupted, most operations at the base will come to a standstill. Climate change continually impacts conditions around EAFB. The personnel must continually adjust to rapidly changing conditions, which are made more threatening with the risk of power loss. There are wide temperature swings. “Cold is the defining element for much of the year. Two days after (an) unusually mild afternoon of camouflage training, the temperature plunged to -27 (degrees) F, a whiplash of 60 degrees or more. At such levels, bars on a thermometer lose meaning; your nose and toes offer a better gauge. The risk of frostbite or even hypothermia means reconsidering everyday details, from how to minimize sweating to taking apart your boots at night to let them dry out.” (Hiding an Army at the Top of the World, https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-opinion-arctic-geopolitics-resources/army- training.html. The dramatic weather fluctuations highlight the importance of safe, reliable power. Climate change, with its temperature changes and severe storms, is responsible for dramatic weather events such as windstorms and flooding that can quickly take down power lines on the base or GVEA’s power lines and distribution systems. Power redundancy will help protect the base from critical outages that may have severe consequences: • Training exercises such as RED FLAG-Alaska may be postponed or cancelled, causing problems for the base, for other U.S. military groups and for our allies who plan training activities for months, moving people and equipment to EAFB. The training events not only require millions in financial spending, but enormous investments of time and resources for the U.S. military and our allies. • EAFB tenants (Air Force Refueling Wing, 168th Air National Guard, Air Force Technical Applications Center, Arctic Survival School, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 5 210th Rescue Squadron and 372nd Training Squadron) may all be shutdown, lose information and/or be forced to cancel or reschedule events at great cost and inconvenience. • The EAFB may be forced to evacuate, moving planes more than 400 miles to JBER near Anchorage or Hickam in Hawaii. Other sensitive equipment and military personnel and their families also must be evacuated until power is restored. • Military families are immediately negatively impacted. The housing feeder lines are the first to go down when the power plant is affected. Not only are families inconvenienced, their health and well-being may be affected. Loss of power may impact food preparation, and the use of electric-powered health equipment, such as nebulizers or oxygen delivery systems. These challenges degrade EAFB’s military value. Table 1 below lists the current challenges and projected value of the proposed project. EAFB Resiliency. The upgrades proposed by GVEA align with EAFB’s priority to establish a reliable source of backup power for the base. Without a reliable backup power source, the base is under continual risk of losing operational power. Other Beneficiaries The upgraded distribution substation and switching substation will improve reliability for almost 5,000 GVEA members served by the Dawson Road (3,207 locations served) and Johnson Road (1,613 locations served) substations. Table 1 Current Challenges (Degradation) of Military Value Military Value Enhancement by Proposed Project Training events with JBER and JPARC are threatened with postponement or even cancellation in the event of a power outage at the base. Stable power with reliable backup sources will ensure that events are able to continue. EAFB military partners/tenants may be shutdown Tenants will experience fewer disruptions of operations. EAFB and tenants may be forced to evacuate to protect sensitive equipment (including the F-35s) from damage due to cold or loss of power. Redundant power means that evacuation becomes far less likely, saving time, money and resources needed for evacuation and rehousing assets at other bases. Needed military assets, such as the F-35s and F-16s, AF refueling wing, National Guard and EAFB personnel will be displaced and less able to respond quickly if needed. Military assets will remain in place and ready to deploy as needed. Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 6 C. Endorsement Letter Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 7 Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 8 Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 9 D. Project Description The proposed project consists of three main components: • A new 69 kilovolt (kV) switching substation. • Upgrades to the existing distribution substation. • Upgrades to the communications system to support transmission system protection and controls. Switching Station. The proposed 69 kilovolt switching station will sectionalize the existing transmission line into two pieces. They will be 12 and 16 miles long. Breaking the transmission line into two parts at EAFB allows redundant feeds that reduce the likelihood of simultaneous failure. Repairs can be completed on the faulted/failed portion while electric power is still delivered. The Eielson Switching Station (ESS) will consist of a fenced gravel pad that encloses the electrical apparatus, including three transmission line terminals, three 69 kilovolt circuit breakers, several 69 kilovolt manually operated isolation switches, a ground grid, 69 kilovolt electrical bus between the breakers and transmission line terminals, a communications tower, an electrical protection system (i.e., protective relays), a remote terminal unit control system and a security system. GVEA’s standard configuration is a ring-bus for ease of maintenance and reliability. Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 10 The modern protection systems in the substation, supported by the upgraded communication system, will improve the reaction time for clearing electrical faults from the existing speeds (up to half a second) to less than four 60 hertz electrical cycles (less than 70 milliseconds). This will minimize disruption to the EAFB power plant if an electrical fault on one of the transmission lines results in its isolation by circuit breakers at ESS or another GVEA substation. Distribution Substation Upgrades. The existing distribution substation was built in 1997, more than 25 years ago. Control, communications, and protection systems in the substation are obsolete and require upgrades to operate efficiently. The existing 12.47 kilovolt breakers in the substation must be replaced due to their age. The proposed upgrades will result in 20-30 years of reliable service from the substation. Communication System Upgrades. The existing distribution substation is served by a low-speed analog phone line rented from a local telephone company. The existing system is not adequate to manage system protection and security monitoring for the proposed switching substation. A microwave tower and radio system or fiber-optic cable added to the transmission line structures will provide the medium bandwidth and dedicated transmission channels required to support the switching speed and reliability needs for the 69-kilovolt switching station. E. Project Engineering Information Construction of this substation is a routine project for GVEA. While few companies are capable of building in Alaska’s terrain and climate conditions, GVEA was created for the purpose of providing power to rural Alaska. The utility company has more than 77 years of experience and the technical skill and experience to develop and lead projects like this. During the first three months after grant award, GVEA’s engineers will develop detailed specifications and bid documents for competitive procurement of the long-lead equipment required for the project (e.g., 69 kilovolt breakers, 69 kilovolt instrument transformers, 69 kilovolt isolations switches, etc.). They will also engage a qualified engineering firm to begin producing construction drawings. GVEA’s land management division will work with EAFB to ensure that a land use agreement is in place for the proposed transmission switching station. The design of the distribution line will be based on the standards established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Bulletin 1724E-300, the National Electric Safety Code, and prudent utility practice. The RUS Bulletin is available at https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/UEP_Bulletin_1724E-300.pdf. The National Electric Safety Code describes the requirements for strength, ground clearance, and other considerations. It is available at https://standards.ieee.org/products-programs/nesc/. The NESC identifies the design strength requirements of the area as “NESC Heavy.” GVEA will apply these strength requirements as a minimum and supplement them where experience has shown this to be prudent. GVEA and its engineering contractors use industry-standard computer design aids and surveying equipment to efficiently design power substations that can withstand the weather Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 11 extremes identified by the NESC and other sources, but also be built economically. These design aids include AutoCAD, Aspen One-Liner, PLS-CAD, LPILE and other specialty software tools. DCIP support is critical to making this project feasible in the near term. Project plans are in process and construction is prepared to launch within 12 months as demonstrated in the project schedule. Based on the completion of similar projects, GVEA confidently predicts completion within 36 months of the grant award. GVEA’s more than 77 years’ experience building power lines and delivering power through Interior Alaska ensures that the utility is experienced in implementing and managing projects like this. Originally tasked with delivering electricity to rural Alaska, GVEA has grown to serve over 100,000 interior residents who live in the communities of Delta Junction, Fairbanks, North Pole, Nenana, Healy, and Cantwell. It already provides service to Fort Greely, Fort Wainwright, Clear Space Force Station, Clear Air Force Station, and (when interconnection is possible) EAFB. GVEA is unique compared to other electric cooperatives. Most others are responsible for one element of power supply. GVEA is responsible for all three key elements: power generation, transmission, and distribution in some of the most challenging terrain and extreme weather. GVEA is responsible for over 3,000 miles of electric lines. Despite the challenges of extreme weather, remote locations, and rough terrain, GVEA had a 99.9% reliability rate in 2022. The project budget is founded on GVEA’s extensive experience in the field and reflects the actual costs recorded for similar projects. GVEA is currently in the design phase for a complete rebuild of a similar substation (Highway Park Substation) and has completed most of the equipment procurement for this substation, so this project clearly aligns with their expertise and resources. Examples of previous projects built to service DOD projects include Clear Switching Station and Fort Greely Switching Station. Previous grant funded projects include the Steese Highway distribution line extension, the North Nenana distribution line extensions, and the Delta Agriculture Project – all funded by the State of Alaska. GVEA also collaborated with the State of Alaska to build power lines to the communities of Cantwell and McKinley Village. GVEA has the experience and expertise to design, implement and manage this project from initial turning ground to power delivery. F. Project Parties The project applicant is the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), the state’s energy office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. The project will be designed, constructed, and maintained by GVEA, a not-for-profit, member-owned utility, acting as a sub-recipient for AEA. The proposed substation will be installed and maintained by GVEA. Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 12 G. Funding Sources The affected area is identified by U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration as rural, so the partners request that matching funds be waived. GVEA will pay for soft costs (planning and design, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation, permit applications and pre- construction engineering). They understand that any cost overruns will be their responsibility. General operating funds that would be used to cover any potential cost overruns are available and unencumbered. DCIP funds will not supplant other federal funds. GVEA requires contractors to provide a surety bond prior to beginning construction activities. The construction contractor will have their own bonding and insurance. GVEA has the capability to, and will, secure any required bonding before construction commencement. This capability is evidenced by historic projects GVEA has launched and successfully completed. The federal government’s Rural Utilities Service and its lending agency, the Federal Financing Bank (FFB), and the Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC) have entrusted GVEA with hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of loans used to build power lines and other infrastructure, and routinely monitor the efficacy of GVEA’s operations to ensure the security of their assets. A table explaining the sources and uses of funds is below. A detailed budget is provided in the next section. Funding Sources Amount Total DCIP Grant Request (Federal) $10,106,603 GVEA Internal Funds (non-Federal) $110,000 Total Budget and Sources $10,216,603 H. Project Budget (see following page) Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 13 Cost Estimate for Eielson Switching Substation, Communications, & Distribution Substation Upgrades Soft Costs GVEA engineering project management, design & planning 100,000$ GVEA permitting for NEPA process & property rights/easement 10,000$ Subtotal - soft costs 110,000$ Hard Costs Grant administration by AEA 150,500$ Executive $10,500 Direct Management $45,000 Grants/Accounting $70,500 AEA Audit $22,500 Travel $2,000 Consulting for NEPA Permitting 20,000$ Eielson Switching Substation Contract Project Management and Construction Engineering $300,000 Construction Contract 6,564,984$ Structures 1,376,379$ Switches (69kV )668,007$ Circuits & Buswork 471,096$ Circuit Breakers (69kV)369,000$ Foundations 359,310$ Instrumentation & station service transformers 416,712$ Conduit & Cable 703,123$ Site Work 494,650$ Fence & Signs 81,180$ Grounding 308,719$ Control Building, control & communications panels, etc.231,000$ Station Yard Lights 104,781$ Insurance 167,519$ Mobilization / Demobilization 279,198$ Project Management (contractor)167,519$ Contingency -$ P erformance Bond 366,791$ Contract Electrical, Civil, & Structural Engineering Design 467,000$ Geotechnical investigation 50,000$ Site survey 35,000$ Soil testing 20,000$ Protective Relay settings & Communications settings 27,000$ GVEA Testing & Commissioning 167,519$ Eielson Switching Substation Subtotal 7,631,503$ Communications System - (microwave/fiber)700,000$ Distribution Substation Upgrades Engineering 25,000$ Breakers (15kV)70,000$ Protective Relays & RTU 105,000$ Labor - Installation & Commissioning 72,000$ Distribution Substation Upgrade Subtotal 272,000$ Utilities N/A Subtotal - hard costs 8,774,003$ Subtotal 8,884,003$ Contingency 15%1,332,600$ Total 10,216,603$ Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 14 I. Project Development Schedule Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 15 Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 16 J. Environment Compliance (list and status of all environmental permits and approvals) In accordance with GVEA and industry best practices, environmental review and permitting will be performed, in partnership with EAFB, by an experienced environmental contractor when the project design process is initiated to ensure all applicable permits are identified, secured, and complied with during the project. As we finalize the design and location of the proposed switching substation, the consultant will guide the team to complete the appropriate NEPA permitting and review processes. K. Planning and Permitting Approvals EAFB will require the project manager to work with the 354th Civil Engineer Squadron (CES) Community Planner to submit the project to the Facilities Board. Per Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-1015, Integrated Installation Planning, the Facilities Board serves as the installation’s local decision-making body and requires the project to be presented, reviewed, and approved. This project will also need to work with the 354 CES Operations to submit an AF 103, Base Civil Engineering Work Clearance Request. No planning or permitting is needed outside of the base. There is no other impact. Outside the fence, GVEA will need permits for construction activities such as traffic control for road crossing if fiber optic cables are installed for the communication systems. If microwave communication systems are used, FCC microwave radio permits may be required. No other permits will be needed for this project. State and Local Planning: Review and approval by other entities: (if required) Nothing is required. L. Grants Management AEA, the applicant, is an independent and public corporation of the State of Alaska, established in 1976. AEA is governed by a board of directors with the mission to “reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.” AEA is the State Energy Office and lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. 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 has the experience, expertise, equipment, and staff ready to achieve the project objectives set out in this application. AEA has staff specifically designated for grants, compliance, procurement, contracting, and finance. Each of these teams has adequate resources to ensure the project is on budget and on schedule. AEA also manages the Renewable Energy Fund, the Emerging Energy Technology Fund, the Power Cost Equalization Program and various energy efficiency and conservation programs. Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 17 AEA provides grants and loans for qualified energy infrastructure projects and owns energy infrastructure for the benefit of Alaskans. They have successfully managed, completed, and closed well over 300 grants in the last decade from many different agencies, as well as private funds from the Volkswagen Settlement and Wells Fargo. AEA has over 30 active awards with the Denali Commission. These awards touch on every aspect of what the agency does. There are awards for design and construction of Rural Power System Upgrades (RPSU) and Bulk Fuel Upgrades (BFU), small renewable projects that will be integrated into a remote diesel power system, energy efficiency upgrades, Utility Clerk, Powerhouse Operator, and Bulk Fuel Operator training, small maintenance, and improvements for both power systems and tank farms, as well as circuit rider technical assistance and on-site training. M. Submitting Official Documentation The applicant, AEA, is a public corporation of the State of Alaska and the designated state energy office. The mission of AEA is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. The agency works Award Year Agency Award Amount Project Description Multiple Denali Commission 20,000,000$ Rural Infrastructure and Training AEA has partnered with Denali Commission from it's inseption working on Bulk Fuel, Rural Power System, Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency and Training Programs since 1999. Award amount reflects 30 current active awards. 2022 Department of Defense 12,752,540$ Black Rapids Line Extension AEA along with Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA) will extend an electric power line approximately thirty-four miles to the south, making electrical power available to Black Rapids Training Site. 2022 Federal Highway Administration 52,000,000$ National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Program AEA has parterned with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to administer the NEVI program, which will install electric vehicle direct current fast charging stations throughout Alaska on public roads and in other publicly accessible locations. 2021/2022 EPA 1,025,748$ Diesel Engine Replacement Replace Diesel Engines used for prime power in rural Alaskan communities. Match required under this program from AEA capital and VW Trust is $506,679. 2019/2020 EPA 964,479$ Diesel Engine Replacement Replace Diesel Engines used for prime power in rural Alaskan communities. Match required under this program from AEA capital and VW Trust is $964,479. 2020 US DOT 21,000,000$ Alaska Cargo and Cold Storage Project Highly efficiency climate controlled cargo facility at the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. 2021 USDA High Energy Cost Award 2,974,420$ Napaskiak Rural Power System Upgrade New power house module and small distribution upgrades. This project is currently estimated at $4.8 million. 2018 Volkswagen Settlement 8,125,000$ Multiple AEA has a public Benificiary Mitigation Plan that includes Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure, School Bus Replacement, Public Transit Bus Replacement, Replacement of Diesel Engines Used for Prime Power. Active Projects Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 18 toward that goal by administering a variety of statewide programs which include the Rural Power System Upgrade program (RPSU), the Bulk Fuel Upgrade program (BFU) and the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) which integrates renewable energy in generation facilities. AEA also administers end use efficiency grants, educational programs and technical assistance programs which train local operators to monitor their local diesel-based power plants and maintain efficient operations. Per the AEA Bylaws and Alaska Statute 44.83.080 subsection ten, AEA has the legal authority to apply for and receive these funds. Executive Director, Curtis Thayer, is authorized to sign legal documents and grant the funds to GVEA. N. National Security Waiver Attestation (if appropriate) N/A O. Attachments 1. Partnership Letter of Intent with AEA and GVEA 2. Letter of Support from Alaska’s Interior Congressional Delegation 3. Third-Party Cost Estimate from Electric Power Systems, Inc. 4. Unsigned SF-424 – Application for Federal Assistance Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 19 Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 20 Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 21 Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 22 Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 23 Alaska Energy Authority / Golden Valley Electric Association 24 813 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 RGYAUTHORITY.ORG TO: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director Thru: Tim Sandstrom, Chief Operating Officer FROM: Rebecca Garrett, Rural Programs Manager DATE: July 11, 2023 SUBJECT: Kipnuk and Chefornak Distribution Upgrades Background Department of Energy, Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations announced Energy Improvement in Rural or Remote Areas grant opportunity in May. This funding opportunity is for clean energy installation and distribution. Kipnuk and Chefornak both have wind turbines installed and operating, and have funding for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS). Pre-applications are due July 13, 2023. The maximum award is $5,000,000 and no match is required. If successful, AEA will be invited to submit an application. The communities of Kipnuk and Chefornak are in desperate need for distribution upgrades. The existing systems are both over 40 years old and have exceeded their intended design life. The community loads are not properly balanced between phases, critical spare parts are getting harder to procure, and many power poles are leaning, rotting, and jacking due to melting permafrost. Additionally, many of the transformers have severe corrosion, there is a secondary overhead clearance violation at the airport, and excessive span lengths do not meet NESC code requirements and subject the system to outages in high wind conditions. Scope The proposed distribution system will benefit the entire community and help distribute the existing and planned renewable energy at each site. Additionally, there will be a reduction in line loss (currently around 12%) from new systems that will decrease the amount of diesel burned by community generators, and updated infrastructure will reduce the frequency of power outages which often occur during the winter when the local population is most vulnerable. Both projects will start with design and move to construction. Design and construction will include replacement of all power poles, transformers, primary/secondary voltage lines, and all hardware. Upgrading the distribution system will set the stage for Kipnuk to move forward with their 500 kW/677 kWh BESS into the standalone community wind diesel grid (funded, DOE Tribal,, scheduled for 2023). Chefornak was the focus of a Mini-grid Business Case study by the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium in 2017. Since that time they have worked toward implementing it. They currently have funding to integrate a battery storage system into the wind diesel grid (funded, DOE Tribal, scheduled for 2024). Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 Budget AEA is requesting $5,000,000 from OCED to support this project. Total project cost is estimated at $9,000,000 with the remaining match funds expected to be supplied by AEA, Kipnuk, Chefornak, the Denali Commission, and other funding opportunities. Planning and design phases are estimated at $1,160,000 and construction costs estimated at $7,840,000. Timeline Pre-Application due July 13, 2023. Invitation to apply estimated September 2023. Application due October 12, 2023. Funding awarded spring 2024. 1 Rebecca Garrett From:OCED-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov Sent:Thursday, July 13, 2023 10:35 AM To:Rebecca Garrett Cc:Rebecca Garrett; Curtis W. Thayer; Wendy L. Sturdivant; Karin T. StClair Subject:DOE eXCHANGE - Pre-Application 3045-1744 successfully submitted CAUTION: This email originated from outside of AIDEA / AEA. Do not click Hyper Links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Dear Rebecca Garrett, This is notification that your Pre-Application has been successfully submitted. Control Number: 3045-1744 Announcement: DE-FOA-0003045: Bipartisan Infrastructure Law: Energy Improvement in Rural or Remote Areas (ERA) Fixed Award Grant Program Project Title: Kipnuk and Chefornak Distribution Upgrades Technical POC: Ms. Rebecca Garrett Submission Date: 7/13/2023 2:35 PM Thank you, DOE eXCHANGE Customer Support 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 TO: Curtis Thayer, Executive Director FROM: Josephine Hartley, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program Manager DATE: July 14, 2023 RE: National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Plan Update AEA is collaborating with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and numerous stakeholders across the state to update the Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Implementation Plan (The Plan), as required by the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program. Through the NEVI Program, Alaska expects to receive roughly $52 million in formula funding over five years to support the expansion of EV charging in the state. These formula funds will be used to build a statewide EV fast-charging network and community-based charging sites in rural and urban areas throughout Alaska. This funding will be administered by AEA to strategically deploy publicly accessible EV supply equipment. Alaska’s efforts are part of a national initiative to develop a network of 500,000 reliable chargers across the United States to accommodate the growing adoption of EVs. The Plan is intended to be a living document as AEA engages with communities, laws or policies change, adoption projects alter, and additional guidance from the federal government is published. To receive the allocated funds, AEA and DOT&PF must submit an updated EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan to the Federal Highway Administration on an annual basis. The Plan must depict how AEA will successfully deploy the NEVI Formula Program funds within Alaska. FHWA provided a template to states to guide the development of state plans. The template requires specific updates to each of the plan sections. Some of the major update items include: • Public Engagement: Updated to include engagements conducted since the submission of the last plan and includes the new Community Engagement Outcomes Report. • Contracting: Updated to refine selection criteria and document the Request for Applications (RFA) process and current status. • Existing and Future Conditions Analysis: updated to reflect newly constructed infrastructure. • Equity Considerations: Updated to outline how benefits for Justice40 communities will be identified and measured. Alaska Energy Authority Page 2 of 2 • Labor and Workforce Considerations: Updated to include plans to enhance the EVITP program and number of certified personnel in the state. • Discretionary Exceptions: Two additional Discretionary Exceptions were requested for a total of three based on the results of the recent solicitation. Important Dates: • The 65% Draft was posted on AEA’s website for Public Comment from June 16 – July 17. • The 80% Draft was provided to DOT&PF, the Joint Office of Energy and Transportation, and FHWA for their preliminary review. The deadline for comments from these entities was July 17. • Final Executive Review of the plan will occur from July 21 – July 27. • The FY24 Plan is due to FHWA on August 1. State of AlaskaElectric Vehicle InfrastructureImplementation Plan FY24 ii Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Plan Development This plan was developed by the Alaska Energy Authority, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, electric vehicle stakeholders, utilities, communities, and residents, with the assistance of Michael Baker International. Executive Oversight Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, AEA James Marks, Director of Planning & Program Development, DOT&PF Staff Audrey Alstrom, PE, Director of Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Programs, AEA Josi Hartley, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Manager, AEA Adam Moser, Program Development Chief, DOT&PF Rashaud Joseph, Civil Rights Office Manager & Compliance Officer, DOT&PF Randi Bailey, Transportation Planner, DOT&PF Support Jeff Kupko, PE, PTOE, Consultant Project Manager, Michael Baker International Karin McGillivray, Public Engagement Manager, Michael Baker International Jennifer Gross, GIT Supervisor, Michael Baker International Caitlin Frye, Communications Specialist, Michael Baker International Malia Walters, Communications Specialist, Michael Baker International Cover photo of an electric vehicle charging at the Dimond Center in Anchorage, courtesy of AEA iii Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Acronyms AATCA Alaska Apprenticeship Training Coordinators Association ABC Associated Builders and Contractors AEA Alaska Energy Authority AFC Alternative fuel corridor AFN Alaska Federation of Natives AGC Alaska General Contractors AJEATT Alaska Joint Electrical Apprenticeship and Training Trust AKEVA Alaska Electric Vehicle Association AKEVWG Alaska EV Working Group AMHS Alaska Marine Highway System API Application programming interface ATV All-terrain vehicles AUCP Alaska Unified Certification Program AWP Alaska Works Partnership BIL Bipartisan Infrastructure Law CCS Combined Charging System CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHAdeMO CHArge de MOve Protocol CISA Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency DAC Disadvantaged community DBE Disadvantaged business enterprise DCFC Direct current fast charging DEC Department of Environmental Conservation DNR Department of Natural Resources DOT&PF Department of Transportation & Public Facilities EEO Equal employment opportunity EV Electric vehicle EVSE Electric vehicle supply equipment EVITP Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS Geographic information systems GPS Global Positioning System IBEW International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ICE Internal combustion engine kW Kilowatt kWh Kilowatt-hour iv Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan MOA Memorandum of Agreement MP Mile post MOU Memorandum of Understanding MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MW Megawatt NACS North American Charging Standard NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NEVI National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure NHS National Highway System NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer PCI-DSS Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard PKI Public Key Infrastructure PII Personally identifiable information RCA Regulatory Commission of Alaska RFA Request for Applications RFI Request for Information RPS Renewable Portfolio Standard SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SEP State Energy Program SESP State Energy Security Plan STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program SUV Sport utility vehicle TIP Transportation Improvement Program USC United States Code USDOT United States Department of Transportation VW Volkswagen v Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Table of Contents Introduction ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������1 Dates of State Plan for Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Development and Adoption ........................2 Updates from Prior Plan (2022 Initial Plan Approval) ......................................................................................................4 State Agency Coordination �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������6 Public Engagement ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������9 Stakeholders Involved in Plan Development.....................................................................................................................10 Current Stakeholders ...........................................................................................................................................................10 Potential Future Stakeholders .............................................................................................................................................11 Tribal Engagement ...................................................................................................................................................................12 Utility Engagement ..................................................................................................................................................................13 Public Outreach ........................................................................................................................................................................13 Community Engagement Outcomes Report ....................................................................................................................14 Plan Outreach .......................................................................................................................................................................14 Targeted Workshops ............................................................................................................................................................14 Alaska EV Working Group ..................................................................................................................................................15 Alaska EV Working Group Technical Sessions ...............................................................................................................15 Monthly Newsletter ..............................................................................................................................................................17 Community Surveys .............................................................................................................................................................18 Site Specific Public Engagement ..........................................................................................................................................18 Plan Vision & Goals ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������19 Plan Vision .................................................................................................................................................................................19 High-Level Program Goals ....................................................................................................................................................21 Outlook for 5-year Program ................................................................................................................................................22 Phase One, Build Out Alaska’s Alternative Fuel Corridor ..........................................................................................22 Phase Two, Build Out Alaska’s Highway and Marine Highway System ..................................................................23 Phase Three, Install Charging Stations in Hub Communities, as funding allows .................................................23 Phase Four, Urban and “Destination” Locations, as funding allows .......................................................................23 Contracting �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������24 Status of Contracting Process ..............................................................................................................................................24 Alaska’s Request for Applications ....................................................................................................................................24 vi Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Awarded Contracts .................................................................................................................................................................27 Scoring Methodologies Utilized ..........................................................................................................................................28 Stage 1: Completeness and Eligibility (Pass/Fail) ..........................................................................................................28 Stage 2: Evaluation of Technical Application ................................................................................................................28 Stage 3: Evaluation of Pricing Application ....................................................................................................................30 Stage 4: Ranking and Prioritization of Projects .............................................................................................................31 Plan for Compliance with Federal Requirements .............................................................................................................31 Operations and Maintenance .............................................................................................................................................32 How Alaska Will Ensure Contractors Engage Communities .........................................................................................32 Opportunities for Small Businesses ....................................................................................................................................32 Civil Rights ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������33 Title VI ........................................................................................................................................................................................33 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ................................................................................................................................34 Diverse Business Participation ..............................................................................................................................................34 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������35 State Geography, Terrain, Climate and Land Use Patterns ...........................................................................................35 Alaska Climate Regions ......................................................................................................................................................36 State Travel Patterns, Public Transportation Needs, Freight and Other Supply Chain Needs .............................37 Future State of EV Adoption in Alaska .............................................................................................................................39 Continued Growth Scenario ............................................................................................................................................40 Aggressive Growth Scenario ...........................................................................................................................................40 Growth Monitoring .............................................................................................................................................................40 Grid Capacity .............................................................................................................................................................................41 AFC - Corridor Designation .................................................................................................................................................41 Corridor Pending Corridors ..............................................................................................................................................42 Corridor Ready Corridors ..................................................................................................................................................42 Existing Locations of Charging Infrastructure Along AFCs ...........................................................................................42 Known Risks and Challenges ................................................................................................................................................44 Lack of Development .........................................................................................................................................................44 Climate .......................................................................................................................................................................................45 Barriers to Consumer Adoption .......................................................................................................................................46 Energy Sources and Costs .................................................................................................................................................46 Private Investment ...............................................................................................................................................................48 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������49 Funding Sources ......................................................................................................................................................................49 Infrastructure Deployment Upgrades ................................................................................................................................50 Volkswagen Settlement: Homer to Healy Corridor .....................................................................................................50 AFC Corridor Pending Designation to Corridor Ready Designation ......................................................................50 Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program ........................................................................50 vii Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Vehicle Technologies Office Funding Opportunity Announcement ........................................................................51 Increases of Capacity/Redundancy along Existing AFC .............................................................................................51 Electric Vehicle Freight Considerations ..........................................................................................................................52 Public Transportation Considerations .............................................................................................................................53 FY23-26 Infrastructure Deployments .................................................................................................................................54 Planned Infrastructure Deployments ..............................................................................................................................56 Planning Toward a Fully Built-Out Determination .......................................................................................................56 State, Regional, and Local Policy .........................................................................................................................................56 Public Utility Definition .......................................................................................................................................................56 State Energy Policy ..............................................................................................................................................................57 State Motor Fuel Tax – Registration Fees.......................................................................................................................57 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Acquisition Requirement .......................................................................................................57 Regional Zoning ..................................................................................................................................................................57 Grassroots .............................................................................................................................................................................58 Implementation ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������60 Strategies for EVSE Operations & Maintenance .............................................................................................................60 Maintenance & Warranty Costs .......................................................................................................................................60 Fees ..........................................................................................................................................................................................61 Pricing Structures ..................................................................................................................................................................61 Strategies for Identifying Electric Vehicle Charger Service Providers and Station Owners ..................................61 Site Selection ........................................................................................................................................................................62 Strategies for EVSE Data Collection & Sharing ................................................................................................................64 Strategies to Address Resilience, Emergency Evacuation, Snow Removal/Seasonal Needs ................................65 Strategies to Promote Strong Labor, Safety, Training, and Installation Standards ..................................................65 Strategies to Address Compliance with Minimum Standards ......................................................................................67 Equity Considerations ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������68 Identification and Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) in the State .................................................69 Process to Identify, Quantify, and Measure Benefits to DACs ......................................................................................70 Benefits to DACs through this Plan ......................................................................................................................................71 Labor & Workforce Considerations �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������73 Physical Security & Cybersecurity ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������76 Physical Security ......................................................................................................................................................................76 Cybersecurity ...........................................................................................................................................................................76 Program Evaluation ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������78 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................................................................78 Reporting ..................................................................................................................................................................................78 Annual Updates .......................................................................................................................................................................78 Discretionary Exceptions �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������79 viii Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Summary of Requests ...........................................................................................................................................................79 Justification for Exception 1 ...................................................................................................................................................79 Map of Exception 1 .................................................................................................................................................................80 Justification for Exception 2 ...................................................................................................................................................81 Map of Exception 2 ..................................................................................................................................................................81 Justification for Exception 3 ...................................................................................................................................................81 Map of Exception 3 .................................................................................................................................................................82 Appendix A: Public Outreach and Education Plan �����������������������������������������������������������������������������A-1 Appendix B: Example Site Layouts ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������B-1 Appendix C: Summary of Public Comments ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������C-1 ix Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan List of Figures Figure 1. Example of AKEVWG Advertising Materials ..................................................................................................14 Figure 2. AKEVWG Technical Session and Quarterly Meeting Locations and Participant Locations. ..........16 Figure 3. Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group 2023 Email Newsletter Stats ......................................................17 Figure 4. Locations of Community Survey Respondents Combined With AML Outreach .........................18 Figure 5. Alaska’s Highway System ................................................................................................................................21 Figure 6. Number of Applications Received by Priority Site Location ....................................................................26 Figure 7. Site Applications by Applicant and Site Category ...................................................................................26 Figure 8. Priority Sites Recommended for Award. .................................................................................................27 Figure 9. Alaska’s Average Annual Daily Traffic ................................................................................................................37 Figure 10. Alaska’s Transportation Systems ................................................................................................................38 Figure 11. EV Registrations in Alaska by Manufacturer .................................................................................................39 Figure 12. Alaska EV Growth Scenarios ...............................................................................................................................40 Figure 13. Alternative Fuel Corridor ................................................................................................................................41 Figure 14. Alaska AFC Distance Between Fast Chargers .................................................................................................42 Figure 15. Existing EV Chargers Within One Mile and Along Alaska’s AFC .....................................................44 Figure 16. Utility Service Areas ..............................................................................................................................................45 Figure 17. Alaska’s Current and Future EV Charging Locations ....................................................................................51 Figure 18. Freight Moved by Mode (Within, Into, and Out of Alaska) ....................................................................52 Figure 19. Priority Sites for Phase 1 as Solicited in RFA .................................................................................................54 Figure 20. Priority Sites for Phase 1 as Recommended For Award ....................................................................55 Figure 20. RFI Response Word Cloud ................................................................................................................................61 Figure 21. Example Configuration to Accommodate EVs with Trailers ....................................................................63 Figure 22. Alaska’s Justice40 Tracts ...............................................................................................................................69 Figure 23. Discretionary Exception 1 ...............................................................................................................................80 Figure 24. Discretionary Exception 2 ................................................................................................................................81 Figure 25. Discretionary Exception 3 ...............................................................................................................................82 x Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan List of Tables Table 1: Current Plan Development Stakeholders ..................................................................................................10 Table 2: Current Plan Development Potential Future Stakeholders ......................................................................11 Table 3: Targeted Workshops ...............................................................................................................................................14 Table 4: Working Group Meetings ................................................................................................................................15 Table 5: AKEVWG Technical Sessions ................................................................................................................................16 Table 6: AEA Newsletters ...............................................................................................................................................17 Table 7: Community Surveys ...............................................................................................................................................18 Table 8: Technical Application Scoring Rubric ................................................................................................................29 Table 9: Site Proposal Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................................30 Table 10: Pricing Applications Scoring Rubric. ................................................................................................................30 Table 11: Summary of Future Grid Loads and Capacity ..................................................................................................41 Table 12: Existing Locations of EVSE Within One Mile and Along Alternative Fuel Corridor ........................43 Table 13: Proposed EV Charger Installations by Other Initiatives ...................................................................................50 Table 14: Stations Under Construction ...............................................................................................................................56 Table 15: Planned Stations ..............................................................................................................................................56 Table 16: Site Selection and Prioritization Criteria .................................................................................................62 Table 17: National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements .....................................................67 Table 18: Benefits Category and Strategy for Tracking Benefits ....................................................................................71 Table 19. Discretionary Exception Request ................................................................................................................79 1 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Introduction The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) offers a unique funding opportunity to advance a statewide electric vehicle (EV) fast charging network and community-based charging installations in urban and rural areas throughout the state. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) formula program will provide $5 billion over five years for states to build electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) charging stations along highway corridors. NEVI goals for the EVSE network include being reliable, affordable, equitable, and seamless between states and networks while reducing emissions and increasing clean air. Through the BIL NEVI Formula Program, Alaska will receive more than $50 million over five years. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires states to submit an implementation plan to be eligible for these funds. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA or The Authority) and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) have worked with partners and stakeholders to develop the state’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan (The Plan) and will continue to gather feedback and update The Plan over the coming years. NEVI program funds will be received by DOT&PF and administered by AEA for the duration of the program. The Plan outlines a strategy for using the NEVI formula funds to deliver EV charging infrastructure that will enable light-duty EV travel and provide confidence when commuting throughout the state for work, recreation, and tourism. The Plan was developed in coordination with DOT&PF, other State agencies, local governments, utilities, and other stakeholder groups in Alaska. This Plan supports the goals and objectives of the State’s long-range transportation plan. Programs and projects funded through the NEVI program will follow United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and The NEVI formula program will provide $5 billion over five years for states to build charging stations along highway corridors. Alaska will receive more than $50 million of those funds. 2 Introduction Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan FHWA regulatory requirements and will be included in DOT&PF’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan. The Authority will strategically manage the NEVI funds to deploy publicly accessible EVSE. The guidance requires designated alternative fuel corridors of the National Highway System to be fully “built out” and approved by FHWA with guidance coming from the USDOT/Department of Energy Joint Office of Energy and Transportation (Joint Office). Alaska currently has one pending Alternative Fuel Corridor (AFC), located between Anchorage and Fairbanks. Alaska will revisit nominating additional AFCs in subsequent years. After the AFC is built and accepted by FHWA, the Authority plans to install Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) and Level 2 charging stations throughout the rest of the state as funding allows. AEA and DOT&PF will also advocate for rural charging locations through the federal discretionary grant process to meet the needs in this plan. • 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, as funding allows • Phase 4: Develop charging sites in Urban and “Destination” Locations, as funding allows The expected dates of the phases identified above are as follows: • Phase 1: 2022-2024 • Phase 2: 2024-2026 • Phase 3: 2025-2026 • Phase 4: 2026 Dates of State Plan for Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Development and Adoption AEA has partnered with Michael Baker International, an engineering firm with expertise in EV Infrastructure Planning, to assist in developing The Plan. Following is a summary of activities conducted prior to and while developing The Plan: • 2020: AEA formalized the Alaska EV Working Group (AKEVWG) to conduct public education and outreach. The AKEVWG meets quarterly. • April 2022: AEA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Alaska Department of Motor Vehicles to receive EV registration data. An EV enthusiast stands next to his EV while it chargesPhoto courtesy of Mark Kelliher 3 Introduction Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan • April 2022: AEA created the AEA/DOT&PF interagency advisory group. • May 2022: Request for Information (RFI) released by AEA to gather public feedback on the NEVI program and to solicit information from potential site hosts. • May 2022: RFI and outreach events advertised at the Sustainable Energy Conference. • May-July 2022: RFI and outreach events advertised on the Online Public Notices (OPN) platform. • June 2022: Hosted four virtual informational sessions. • June 2022: In-person presentations: Southeast Conference, Fairbanks FAST Planning (x3), Bradley Lake • Project Management Committee. • July 2022: The Plan released for public comment. • July 12, 2022: Coordination meeting with utilities. • July 13, 2022: Two hybrid (in-person with virtual component) presentations/listening sessions to solicit • feedback on The Plan. • July 14, 2022: Presentation to Alaska Municipal League. • July 29, 2022: The Plan submitted to the Joint Office. • September 27, 2022: Year 1 FHWA approval. • October 2022: In-person presentations: Mat-Su Borough, Seward Chamber, Fairbanks City Council, Fairbanks Alliance, NASEO, Mat-Su Transportation Fair, Wasilla City Council, Alaska Federation of Natives Annual Convention. • November 2022: In-person presentations: Southeast Conference and Alaska Electric Light & Power, Juneau Working Session, Alaska Municipal Climate Network Meeting, National Women in Construction. • December 2022: In-person presentations: All Hazards Planning Committee, Alaska Municipal League Annual Local Government Conference. • January 2023: In-person presentations: Anchorage Transportation Fair, AKEVWG Quarterly Meeting. • February 2023: In-person presentations: Kenai NEVI Workshop, Alaska Forum on the Environment. • March 1, 2023: AEA released Request for Applications (RFA) for Site Hosts along the AFC (Phase 1) • March 2023: In-person presentations: DBE Conference for the Civil Rights Office, AEA EV RFA Pre-Application Meeting, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program (EVITP) Training (IBEW), Alaska EV Working Group (AKEVWG) Quarterly Meeting, Electrifying Alaska. • April 2023: In-person presentations: AKEVWG technical session, Mat-Su NEVI Workshop. • May 2023: In-person presentations: AKEVWG quarterly meeting, Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference. • May 15, 2023: RFA for Site Hosts along the AFC (Phase 1) closed. • June 12–15, 2023: NEVI Plan and Program Update Workshops in Anchorage, Mat-Su, Juneau, and Fairbanks. • June 16–July 16, 2023: Public comment period on draft plan. • June 22, 2023: Selection Committee meeting for Phase 1 AFC Projects. • July 31, 2023: Year 2 Plan submission to Joint Office. • September 30, 2023: Expected Year 2 Approval. 4 Introduction Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan This plan is intended to be a living document as AEA collaborates with communities, laws or policies change, adoption projects alter, and additional guidance from the federal government is published. This plan is not intended to impede other DOT&PF infrastructure improvements. The document will be updated annually, and prior year progress and changes will be documented. Updates from Prior Plan (2022 Initial Plan Approval) Key items updated in this Plan from the prior year’s Plan are: • AEA developed an RFA based on the preferred contracting method described in the FY23 Plan and closed the application period for Phase 1 funding on May 15, 2023. The applications are in the final review and approval stages as of the writing of this document. The expectation is that construction will begin in the spring of 2024 on the selected sites, due to the seasonality of Alaska’s construction season. The initial document included a draft method and criteria to solicit sites, but this Plan has been updated to detail the process, the requirements, and the refined selection criteria that were used for the RFA . The FY25 Plan will be updated with the selected sites and the status of those sites (planning/design, in construction, or commissioned). • The FHWA published the NEVI Standards and Requirements Final Rule on February 28, 2023. The final rule took effect on March 30, 2023. The draft rule was posted on June 22, 2022, during the initial plan development and AEA submitted comments for consideration in the drafting of the final rule. AEA waited until the final rule was published to finalize the RFA to solicit sites to complete the AFC. While there were no major impacts to the Plan based on the final rule, some requirements changed and were updated in the RFA and subsequently this Plan. • AEA did not stop engaging the public and stakeholders with the submission of the original Plan. Workshops, technical sessions, and working group meetings continued throughout the year and served as means to further educate, engage and solicit input, and provide updates on the status of implementing the NEVI funding. This document has been extensively updated to record the engagement that occurred and the communities that were reached as part of the efforts. • This Plan was updated to further consider the North American Charging Standard (NACS) as a potential long-term standard. The process started on November 11, 2022, when Tesla announced that it was opening its previously proprietary connector for general use and renaming it the NACS. On May 25, 2023, Ford announced it would fully adopt the NACS in 2025 models and on June 8, 2023, GM announced that it would do the same. On June 20, 2023 and June 27, 2023, Rivian And Volvo made similar announcements, respectively, and Polestar is expected to be tied to the Volvo transition. All manufacturers’ vehicles would gain access to the Tesla Supercharger Network in 2024 through the means of a provided adaptor before the NACS port becomes standard in new vehicles. This creates uncertainty for the long-term viability of the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Combined Charging System (CCS) ports that are required by the NEVI Final Rule, and also on June 27 2023, SAE announced that it would expedite the standardization process of NACS to provide certainty to manufacturers and suppliers. Many changing network providers have also announced their intentions to provide NACS as an option for customers. Section Updates: • State Agency Coordination – no major updates were made to this section • Public Engagement – this section was updated with all engagements completed since the submission of the last plan and includes the new Community Engagement Outcomes report • Plan Vision and Goals – no major updates were made to this section • Contracting – significant edits were made to this section to refine selection criteria and document the Request for Applications process and status • Civil Rights – no major changes were made to this section 5 Introduction Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan • Existing and Future Conditions Analysis – this section was updated to reflect newly constructed infrastructure • EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment – this section was updated to identify other funding sources sought and the plan to achieve build-out • Implementation – no major changes were made to this section • Equity Considerations – this section was updated to outline how benefits for Justice40 communities would be identified and measured • Labor and Workforce Considerations – this section was updated to include plans on enhancing the EVITP program and number of personnel in the state • Physical Security & Cybersecurity – this section was updated to outline physical security measures as well as expand upon cybersecurity measures recommended for the program • Program Evaluation – no changes were made to this section • Discretionary Exceptions – two additional discretionary exceptions are requested, for a total of three, based on the results of the solicitation Dedication of an AEA-funded EV Ultrafast Fast-Charger in Homer, AlaskaPhoto courtesy of AEA 6 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan State Agency Coordination AEA is the State Energy Office and the lead agency for statewide energy policy and program development. In 2018, Alaska became a beneficiary of the Volkswagen (VW) Environmental Mitigation Trust (Trust), and the Authority was designated by the Governor ’s Office as the State’s lead agency for EV planning and implementation. At that time, AEA adopted a secondary mission to reduce barriers to EV adoption. AEA has taken the leading role in developing and implementing the NEVI program. DOT&PF is the responsible recipient of FHWA Title 23 funds and plays a vital role in the implementation of FHWA’s AFC designations and the NEVI program. DOT&PF oversees the funding and management of state highways, bridges, airports, ferries, and state-owned buildings throughout the state. Since the designation of AEA as the State’s lead agency for EVs by the Governor ’s Office, AEA has conducted public outreach and education and has worked towards reducing range anxiety by strategically installing EV chargers. In 2020, AEA facilitated the development of the AKEVWG, comprised of representatives of utilities, state and local government, researchers, EV owners, and stakeholder industries. AEA’s experience administering the VW settlement grants for DCFC in Alaska provides the agency with the background and experience needed to implement the NEVI program. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed between Alaska DOT&PF and AEA to assign responsibilities for each agency and to define the financial and contracting processes required to implement the Plan. The purpose of the MOA is to provide a framework of collaboration between the two agencies to ensure EV charging infrastructure investments by the State are strategic, coordinated, efficient, and equitable. AEA’s experience administering the VW Settlement grants in Alaska provides the agency the background and experience needed to implement the NEVI program. 7 State Agency Coordination Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan The MOA was signed into effect by AEA and DOT&PF on October 20, 2022. This MOA describes the roles and responsibilities for the planning and development phase of work for the NEVI program, which includes work primarily related to the development of this Plan. Of note, the MOA places AEA as responsible for: • planning and designating AFCs • creating, managing, and maintaining a public, fair, equitable, and competitive process for project selection • developing and administering a public involvement plan that includes consultation and collaboration with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and other critical planning entities • holding public project evaluation and selection processes • awarding NEVI funds • identifying and verifying match requirements are met • ensuring alignment with the DOT&PF Transportation ‘Family of Plans’ by identifying that the goals, objectives, strategies, and actions from the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) are incorporated as well as evaluation of regional, area, modal and system plans to incorporate regional needs • providing oversight of all AEA-handled NEVI funds and being responsible for compliance with Title 23, • Title 49, and 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 200 requirements AEA and DOT&PF staff will meet regularly to coordinate efforts related to NEVI programs and funding. The Executive Director of AEA and the Commissioner of DOT&PF will meet at least twice a year to coordinate and plan for ongoing and new EV program initiatives. The MOA acknowledges DOT&PF as the responsible recipient of FHWA Title 23 funds. DOT&PF will oversee Title 23 funds and requirements under 23 CFR 200. DOT&PF will also provide geographic information systems (GIS) assistance as needed and coordinate with the MPOs to ensure NEVI projects are included in their transportation implementation plans. Of note, the MOA places DOT&PF as responsible for: • providing NEVI plan input and alignment with governor and State priorities • ensuring alignment with the DOT&PF Transportation ‘Family of Plans’ and working to incorporate NEVI as a system with overarching strategy into other transportation plans • sharing information on laws, AEA-funded EV charging stations in SewardPhoto courtesy of AEA 8 State Agency Coordination Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan regulations, rules, and guidelines that may come to bear on the process and connecting AEA with appropriate resources managing federal contractual agreements with FHWA • creating a DOT&PF NEVI planning support program that includes funding in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) • provide funding notices to AEA annually based on federal formula and MOA agreements • implementing NEVI as appropriate on state infrastructure in coordination with the Plan • ensuring NEVI aligns with the overall strategy of DOT&PF’s Sustainable Transportation Program Future roles and responsibilities for DOT&PF and AEA related to the design, construction, and operation and maintenance of the charging sites will be defined in individual project agreements after sites are selected. The site-specific project agreements are currently under development, and will receive input from AEA, DOT&PF, and the grantees. These project agreements are expected to go into effect in the fall of 2023. The current MOA for planning and development governs the planning work and will not govern the project-specific work. The Plan is a product of close coordination between DOT&PF and AEA. An internal advisory group composed of subject matter experts within DOT&PF, AEA, and FHWA was formed in April 2022 to coordinate implementation planning and development efforts. The purpose of the advisory group is to develop the state strategy for implementing the NEVI program and ensure the Plan adheres to FHWA requirements. The advisory group meets and provides updates to agency directors and commissioners every two weeks. AEA, DOT&PF, and FHWA have continued to meet on a biweekly, virtual basis throughout calendar years 2022 and 2023 to discuss NEVI program development, outreach and engagement, and other topics relevant to the delivery of the NEVI program objectives. In addition, AEA and DOT&PF meet in-person quarterly to develop process strategies for carrying out the NEVI program. AEA and DOT&PF have worked collaboratively to develop the state’s approach to the incorporation of NEVI projects into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) through development of AEA’s NEVI Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), environmental review and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance, federal project agreement negotiation and process, and project agreements with the State and selected project site hosts. AEA and DOT&PF will comply with the Buy America requirements issued for the NEVI program, and utilize US-produced parts, materials, and EVSE. The agencies recognize that the FHWA interprets and applies Buy America requirements on a 100% domestic content and assembly threshold for iron, steel, and protective coatings. AEA and DOT&PF are prepared to comply with FHWA Buy America requirements; however, the agencies ask for consideration of more flexible definitions of compliance, and a reasonable policy for the acceptance of waivers. The current interpretation of the FHWA Buy America requirements may cause significant project delays due to domestic supply chain constraints. If the equipment or materials are not available or do not meet quality standards, Alaska will seek a waiver from the Buy America requirements. 9 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Public Engagement AEA and DOT&PF will partner to deliver timely and continuous public involvement opportunities consistent with 23 CFR 450.210. As part of developing Alaska’s NEVI Plan, AEA and DOT&PF began conducting public outreach, which utilized various platforms and outreach tools. The public involvement objective is to increase Alaskans’ awareness of the NEVI formula funding and gather public input on the plan development and EVSE siting. Public involvement will provide transparency in implementation of the NEVI formula program and increase understanding of and ennthusiasm for EVs, as well as break down barriers to EV adoption. AEA hosts the AKEVWG, which meets quarterly and is composed of EV owners, researchers, utilities, municipalities, site hosts, EV vendors, charging station site hosts and many other stakeholders. This group helps inform AEA of Alaska-specific EV considerations, including EVSE needs and trends, and provides input on how to best identify sites for charging stations. The working group has AEA conducts public outreach at the Governor’s Sustaibable Energy Conference in 2023. Photo courtesy of AEA 10 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan several hundred email subscribers that are regularly engaged and provides an opportunity for Alaskans to stay up-to-date on the changing EV landscape and opportunities in the state. AEA maintains an EV subpage on the AEA domain that includes information about upcoming public outreach events, AKEVWG meeting minutes, and information regarding cost of EV ownership compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, as well as costs and potential benefits to owning a DCFC site.1 The website also links news articles and television clips in which AEA is featured. AEA’s outreach team is continuing to improve and direct traffic to the website. The vision of the website is to be the go-to source for Alaska’s EV enthusiasts. The website will include the latest iterations and updates of the Plan and provide opportunities for public comment. As the Plan is implemented, the website will include a map with site locations and construction progress. AEA published an RFI to collect feedback from stakeholders on the development of the Plan. AEA specifically requested input on potential charging station locations and considerations in developing the EV Plan. The effort received 99 responses which helped to inform Plan development. The comments received from the RFI and on the 65% draft Plan are summarized in Appendix C. Stakeholders Involved in Plan Development The list of organizations that have been engaged and future stakeholders are identified in Table 1 and 2, respectively. An asterisk identifies a stakeholder or community that is found within a Justice40 area identified by the USDOT2. Current Stakeholders Table 1: Current Plan Development Stakeholders Communities & Local Governments Akutan*City of Houston*Old Harbor* Municipality of Anchorage Hydaburg*Ouzinkie* City of Anderson City and Borough of Juneau City of Palmer* City of Angoon*Kachemak*Pelican Coffman Cove Kake*Petersburg Borough Cold Bay Kasaan*Port Lions* Cordova Kenai*Saxman* Craig*Kenai Peninsula Borough*Seldovia* Delta Junction City of Ketchikan*Seward Denali Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough City and Borough of Sitka* Eagle King Cove*Municipality of Skagway Borough* City of Fairbanks Klawok*Soldotna* Fairbanks North Star Borough City of Kodiak Tenakee Springs False Pass*Kodiak Island Borough*Unalaska* Gustavus Matanuska-Susitna Borough*City of Valdez Haines Borough City of Nenana*Wasilla* Homer*North Pole Whittier City of Hoonah*North Slope Borough Yakutat *Indicates stakeholder or community that is found within a Justice40 area identified by the USDOT 1 https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-Do/Alternative-Energy-and-Energy-Efficiency-Programs/Electric-Vehicles2 https://www.transportation.gov/equity-Justice40 11 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Native Organizations Ahtna, Inc.*Cook Inlet Regional Corp*Metlakatla Indian Community* Chickaloon Native Village*Doyon* Chugach Corp*Kodiak Area Native Association* Utilities Alaska Electric Light & Power Co.Cordova Electric Kotzebue Electric Association Alaska Power & Telephone Enstar Natural Gas Matanuska Electric Association Alaska Power Association Golden Valley Electric Association Southeast Alaska Power Agency, Ket-chikan Chugach Electric Homer Electric Association Copper Valley Electric Kodiak Electric Association Agencies Alaska DOT&PF Bureau of Land Management US Department of Energy Alaska Energy Authority Federal Highway Administration Alaska Housing Finance Corpora-tion Regulatory Commission of Alaska Businesses Adventure Denali Loopy Lupine Denali Chamber of Commerce ChargePoint Sheep Creek Lodge Willow Chamber of Commerce Dimond Center Chugiak Eagle River Chamber Three Bears Alaska Local Organizations Alaska Municipal League Easy Park Pacific Northwest Economic Region Alaska Center Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation Prince William Sound Economic Devel-opment District Alaska Electric Vehicle Association (AKEVA)FAST Planning Prince William Sound Science Center Alaska Public Interest Research Group Haines Economic Development Corporation ReCharge Alaska Alaska Trails Juneau EVA Renewable Energy Alaska Project Anchorage Economic Development Corporation Kenai Peninsula Economic Devel-opment District Sitka Conservation Society Bering Strait Development Council Launch Alaska Southeast Conference* Copper Valley Development Asso-ciation Norton Sound Health Corporation Southwest Alaska Municipal Confer-ence* Education University of Alaska Anchorage University of Alaska Fairbanks *Indicates stakeholder or community that is found within a Justice40 area identified by the USDOT Potential Future Stakeholders Table 2: Current Plan Development Potential Future Stakeholders Alaska Dept. of Environmental Con-servation, Air Quality Division Calista Corporation*Laborers’ Local 341 Alaska Federation of Natives*CCI Electrical Services, LLC Laborers’ Local 942 Alaska Inter-Tribal Council*Chugach Native Association*Maniilaq* 12 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Alaska Native Tribal Health Consor-tium*Cook Inlet Tribal Council*McKinley Private Investment Alcan Electrical & Engineering, Inc.Copper River Native Association*NANA Regional Corporation* Aleut Corporation*Fairbanks Native Association*National Park Service Aleutian Pribilof Island Association*Fullford Electric, Inc.Northern Alaska Environmental Center Alyeska Resort Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Sealaska Corporation* Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Kawerak Tanana Chiefs Conference* Association of Village Council Presidents Knik Tribe*Telecommunications/Internet Entities Bering Straights Native Corpora-tion* Kodiak Area Native Association*Tok Transportation Bristol Bay Native Corporation*Koniag, Incorporated*University of Alaska Fairbanks *Indicates stakeholder or community that is found within a Justice40 area identified by the USDOT Tribal Engagement AEA hosted a booth at the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) annual conference in Anchorage in October 2022. AFN is the largest statewide Native organization in Alaska and represents more than 140,000 Native peoples—about one out of every five Alaskans. Formed in 1966 to settle land claims, AFN continues to be the principal forum and voice of Alaska Natives in addressing critical issues of public policy and government. The booth at the AFN conference provided numerous resources related to the NEVI program and the state’s EV strategy. Project managers were available at the booth to discuss the program in greater detail with interested stakeholders. In addition to AEA’s involvement at the AFN event, staff attended and presented at the Alaska Municipal League (AML) annual conference in Anchorage. AML is a nonprofit statewide organization of 165 cities, boroughs, and unified municipalities. Attendees at the conference included organizations from across the state, specifically from rural Alaska. AEA presented on the NEVI program to five groups from the Arctic, Southeast, Interior, Southwestern, and Southcentral regions. The primary focus of the Alaska NEVI program has been on the buildout of the AFC, which is largely urbanized when compared with the rest of the state. The focus of the NEVI program will shift to rural and tribal infrastructure deployment after the buildout of the AFC is complete. However, engagement with tribal entities is a core tenant of AEA’s mission. As such, AEA’s primary focus for competitive funding opportunities has been on tribal and rural community EVSE deployment. AEA applied for a grant through DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office titled “Alaska EVSE Deployment and Best Practices in Rural and Underserved Communities” and was recommended for funding. This project will provide technical assistance and training resources; demonstrate EVSE in rural areas by installing up to 36 charging stations; and fund data collection and analysis in rural communities. This project includes a number of project partners, including AML and Ahtna. Ahtna is an Alaska Native Corporation established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Ahtna is based in Glennallen, Alaska, and is owned by more than 2,000 shareholders, the majority of whom are of Ahtna Athabascan descent. The City of Nenana is the home of the Nenana Native Association in the westernmost portion of the Tanana Athabascan territory and is designated as priority site #11 along the AFC. The Nenana Native Village Council’s mission is to maintain, improve, and protect the tribe; preserve its cultural heritage; create opportunities for its members to thrive and become economically and socially self-sufficient; and promote traditional values and beliefs to ensure a positive course of action for generations to come. Five applications were submitted 13 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan to the NEVI program to host charging infrastructure in Nenana. One of the applications was submitted by Tanana Chiefs Conference, which is an Alaska Native nonprofit corporation, charged with advancing tribal self-determination and enhancing regional Native unity. Utility Engagement The Railbelt Utilities, those that serve the AFC territory, regularly attend the AKEVWG meetings, both quarterly and technical sessions. During these meetings, the utilities identify upcoming initiatives they have as well as any concerns with provisioning electricity for EVs. AEA also engaged the utilities to develop a form for the solicitation of the EV charging stations along the AFC so that utilities were aware of potential installations and so applicants could determine if their site was feasible and how much it would cost to provide new or upgraded service. The involvement of the utilities has been crucial to the program moving forward expeditiously to reduce review times following site selection and avoid miscalculations in project cost estimates. Public Outreach AEA’s EV team hosted four virtual informational sessions to inform stakeholders on the plan and solicit feedback. AEA staff traveled to several communities to present in-person on the program. AEA utilized regularly recurring meetings in order to increase attendance and sent emails, flyers, and calendar events informing stakeholders on the presentations to the working group members, 166 municipal league members, and 242 people on our active NEVI stakeholder registry. AEA attended the Matanuska Electric Association’s Annual Meeting, Chugach Electric Association’s Member Appreciation Day (largest utility in Alaska), and the Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference where an EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan Flyer was distributed, and staff answered questions about the Plan. The DOT&PF Civil Rights Office staff posted flyers for public information sessions throughout the Anchorage, Wasilla, and Palmer public libraries, shopping centers, post offices, community centers, and bus stations. The DOT&PF Civil Rights Office also coordinated outreach with the Alaska Federation of Community Councils to solicit additional public involvement. AEA posted on Facebook and LinkedIn advertising for the RFI, virtual presentations, and Plan feedback. Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy shared a post about virtual presentation events. AEA also shared information on the NEVI Plan with the Alaska State Legislature and answered questions from legislative staff. AEA published Public Notices on the State of Alaska website regarding all outreach events. AEA has been monitoring the open and click-through rates for the digital mailings; the open rate is trending about 77% higher than industry average. AEA will continue to facilitate quarterly working group meetings, publish newsletters at least quarterly and as often as monthly, attend conferences to provide information on the program, and offer virtual presentations on program updates and progress on a bimonthly basis. Each annual update will receive a public comment period of 30 days as well as a virtual and several “listening post” sessions for public comment and input. AEA, in coordination Michael Baker, has also created an outreach and education plan outlining outreach goals, activities, and resources for the Plan. This outreach plan can be found in Appendix A. 14 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Community Engagement Outcomes Report Plan Outreach Prior to submission of the initial Plan, the Authority held several EV informational sessions in June 2022 via Microsoft Teams and two public meetings in July 2022. All outreach events were advertised through the Authority’s Listserv distribution, which contains 242 contacts. Event-specific graphics were created (see Figure 1) and advertised via AEA social media accounts on Facebook and LinkedIn. A NEVI Plan specific page was created on the Authority’s website to host the Plan, AKEVWG meeting information, information on the NEVI formula program, AFC map gallery, and FAQs as relating to the Plan. Targeted Workshops NEVI Plan workshops were held throughout the state by request or on an as-needed basis. AEA hosted in-person meetings with local stakeholders to discuss The Plan and continuously solicit feedback. NEVI Plan workshops were useful tools to implement in areas where the Plan had been met with doubt, hesitation, or concern, as AEA was able to meet directly with the affected parties and work to understand the local concerns as well as educate on the Plan. NEVI Plan workshops were also beneficial to hold in areas with strong EV support given that local stakeholders were already engaged and looking for more resources and guidance moving forward. Table 3: Targeted Workshops Location Date Topic Agencies Represented Fairbanks, Alaska September 20, 2022 NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Overview FAST Planning, DOT&PF Juneau, Alaska November 03, 2022 NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Overview City of Sitka, City of Ketchikan, City of Petersburg, City of Kodiak, UAF Kenai, Alaska February 09, 2022 NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Overview HEA, MTA, GVEA, City of Soldotna, City of Kenai Matanuska Susitna Valley, Alaska April 17, 2023 NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Overview City of Palmer, MEA Figure 1. Example AKEVWG Advertising Materials 15 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Alaska EV Working Group AKEVWG met quarterly to discuss EVs and charging infrastructure in Alaska. The mission of the Working Group is to minimize barriers to the adoption of electric transportation in Alaska and to create a vibrant and enduring ecosystem for EVs and other modes of electric transport through strong local and regional partnerships. The Working Group has members from across the state, including the Alaska Electric Vehicle Association (AKEVA), Alaska DOT&PF, electric utilities, EV owners, EVSE vendors, municipalities, prospective charging sites, site hosts, universities, other stakeholders, and interested members of the public. Working Group meetings provided an opportunity for the group to gather and hear any high-level updates from AEA as well as serving as a venue for group members to share updates about ongoing work throughout the state. All Working Group meetings were hybrid-style meetings to help facilitate attendance from people across the state, even if they were located outside of one of the urban hubs in which the in-person meetings were held. Meeting agendas, presentations, recordings, and transcribed Q&A were posted to the AEA website after the meetings. Table 4: Working Group Meetings Location Date Topic Agencies Represented Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska July 13, 2022 Morning Session NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infra-structure Implementation Plan Overview MEA, City of Soldotna, Chugach Electric, City of Petersburg, MOA, UAA Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska July 13, 2022 Morning Session NEVI Overview Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan Overview MOA, CIRI, Alaska Power Assoc., AGC Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska October 13, 3033 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Update Electrification Coalition Group Updates MEA, CEA, FAST Planning, GVEA, UAF, HEA, FNSB, DOT&PF Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska January 19, 2023 NEVI Program Site Host Request for Applications (RFA) Update on Existing EV Charging Stations in AK Chugach Electric, MEA, ReCharge AK, MOA, AHFC, MTA, City of Ju-neau, FAST Planning, UAA, GVEA, City of Valdez, UAF Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska May 22, 2023 Post-selection process for NEVI funding recipients USDOT, GVEA, Chugach Electric Alaska EV Working Group Technical Sessions Technical sessions were held as a subset of the AKEVWG and the topics were more targeted and focused as compared to the quarterly Working Group meetings. AEA invited experts to join panel discussions on various topics related to EVs and the deployment of EV chargers throughout the state. A meeting facilitator researched the session topic before each meeting and drafted questions to help guide the discussion. Invites were sent out to targeted groups that AEA believed would have special interest in the topic; however, the sessions were always open to anyone who wished to join. Meeting participants were encouraged to ask the panel members questions as well as interact with each other. Panel members and participants discussed challenges and brainstormed ideas on best practices to consider while moving forward. Technical sessions were held as hybrid-style meetings to ensure that participants and panel members could join from wherever they were located, even if they were close to the in-person meeting location. Meeting recordings and notes were posted to the AEA website after the Technical Session. Information showing the locations of the technical sessions and AKEVWG quarterly meetings as well as participant locations can be found in figure 2. 16 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Table 5: AKEVWG Technical Sessions Location Date Topic Agencies Represented Virtual via ZOOM September 27, 2022 Workforce panel discussion on construction and maintenance workforce, EVITP certification process and training UAA, AKEVA, Kotzebue Electric Association Virtual via ZOOM November 03, 2022 Electric utility panel discussion on challenges faced during EVSE deployment AVEC, REAP, MTA, City of Ket-chikan, GVEA, MEA, City of Petersburg, HEA, Chugach Electric Association, City of Sitka, MOA Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska January 19, 2023 NEVI Program Site Host Request for Applications (RFA) Update on Existing EV Charging Stations in AK Chugach Electric, MEA, ReCharge Ak, MOA, AHFC, MTA, City of Juneau, FAST Planning, UAA, GVEA, City of Valdez, UAF, Launch Alaska Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska March 10, 2023 NEVI Uptime Requirements City of Juneau, UAA, City of Wasilla, MEA, Chugach Electric Association, USDOT Virtual & in person: Anchorage, Alaska April 03, 2023 The Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program MEA, Chugach Electric Assoc., USDOT, UAF, GVEA Figure 2. AKEVWG technical session and quarterly meeting locations and participant locations. 17 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Monthly Newsletter AEA wrote a monthly newsletter that was distributed to the listserv and posted to the website. Newsletters typically contained an educational section, for example an explanation of EV tax credits, as well as updates on EV current events, like news on road rallies, either in Alaska or throughout the rest of the United States. The newsletters also served as an opportunity to advertise upcoming events, such as Technical Sessions, Working Group Meetings, or Workshops, and were a method to share links that readers could use to do further research on the topic at hand. Table 6: AEA Newsletters Date Topic August 04, 2022 AEA Submits The Plan to Joint Office August 11, 2022 Plan Spotlight: What is an AFC and why is the first round of funding going there? September 08, 2022 Arctic Road Rally Recap October 13, 2022 The Plan is approved! DE-FOA-0002611 Grant Concept Paper Accepted. Building Alaska’s EV Workforce November 09, 2022 Charging EVs with electricity harnessed from fossil fuels: Worth It? December 09, 2022 Updates on the electrification of fleets, buses, and airplanes in Alaska NEVI Site Host Appli-cation Update January 12, 2023 NEVI RFA Update and Timeline February 9, 2023 Clean Vehicle Tax Credit. Electric Buses in Metlakatla and Ketchikan March 9, 2023 NEVI Minimum Standards and Requirements. Build America, Buy America Act Waiver April 13, 2023 The Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program May 12, 2023 Updated EPA Vehicle Pollutant Standards. Updates on the Clean Vehicle Tax Credit. VW 1D.4 Alaska Tour. GVEA kWh Rate Change for DC Fast Chargers June 8, 2023 AEA Intent to Negotiate for DE-FOA-0002611. Ford Adopts NACS Figure 3. Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group 2023 Email Newsletter Stats 18 Public Engagement Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Community Surveys Community surveys were used to extend stakeholder outreach into rural areas of Alaska to ensure that disadvantaged communities were given opportunities to comment on the NEVI Plan. Paper and electronic surveys were distributed at the following events where AEA either held an informational booth or presented on the NEVI Plan. The survey locations of the survey respondents combined with the Alaska Municipal League outreach can be found in figure 4 overlaid with Justice40 boundaries. Table 7: Community Surveys Date Event Website December 2022 Alaska Municipal League Annual Local Government Conference https://amlannual.org/ January 2023 Anchorage Transportation Fair www.anchorage-transportation-fair.com February 2023 Alaska Forum on the Environment https://akforum.org/ Site Specific Public Engagement At this time, no site-specific public engagement activities have been scheduled. However, AEA did recommend that selected sites engage with the public and responders in the communities where the EV charging stations will be installed, so this section will be updated in the future as those activities occur. Figure 4. Locations of community survey respondents combined with AML outreach. 19 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Plan Vision & Goals Plan Vision Alaska’s NEVI Vision: Adapting Alaska’s unique infrastructure system to support reliable, equitable, and sustainable electric transportation while meeting community and economic needs.The primary mission of the AEA is to lower the cost of energy in Alaska, and its secondary mission is to reduce barriers to EV adoption. Alaska’s Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan is a framework for utilizing NEVI formula funds to deliver EV charging infrastructure and enable passenger EV travel throughout the state. The charging network will provide EV drivers with confidence when traveling for work, recreation, and tourism. The primary mission of the DOT&PF is to ‘Keep Alaska Moving through Service and Infrastructure’. The AEA mission and the Alaska NEVI Plan are a component to the DOT&PF ‘Family of Plans’ and will both inform other transportation plans, as well as be informed by the State’s LRTP. In this spirit of partnership, Alaska and the public at large will be able to realize the promise of the BIL in general, and the NEVI program in particular. Key strategic themes of the LRTP include safety, state of good repair, economic vitality, resiliency, sustainability, and mobility. Of particular relevance is DOT&PF’s Sustainable Transportation program, the goal of which is to help communities thrive through transportation investments that promote independence, efficiency, a healthy environment, and low-cost transportation. Implementation is supported through the formation of interdisciplinary and multiagency partnerships for cohesive and integrated deployment. NEVI is a core component of the Sustainable Transportation program’s portfolio. As required in the FHWA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to the use of the NEVI formula funds, charging stations will be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year, with a minimum 20 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan of 97% uptime. In addition, each site will be required to deliver ongoing operations and maintenance activities during and after the period of the award. This will necessitate contractual requirements for each charging location to facilitate measurable data collection and evaluation. Project partners will support this program goal with data collection to inform stakeholders of the performance of EVs and efficacy of vehicle electrification in Alaska. This program will increase access to EV charging stations for all Alaskans, including those historically underrepresented, specifically indigenous and disadvantaged populations. The Plan aims to ensure that community members are included and consulted in program decision-making and Plan development. Alaska will administer the NEVI funds in a way that supports the Justice40 initiative, where at least 40% of the benefits of the program investments will be distributed to disadvantaged communities. In addition to providing an EV fast-charging network along the state’s road and marine highway systems (AMHS), this program will serve locations comprising Alaska Natives, residents of multiunit housing, and low-income, rural, and disadvantaged communities to ensure equitable access to EV charging infrastructure. The implementation of transportation electrification will help to lower the cost of transportation energy for all Alaskans. Alaska suffers from some of the highest fuel costs in the nation, especially in rural Alaska. High energy burdens threaten some households’ abilities to pay for energy and transportation expenses. Consequently, this forces difficult choices between paying for electricity, transportation, heating oil, food, medicine, and other essential items. High energy burdens paired with the high cost of goods in communities create challenging living conditions and, in some cases, food justice issues. Making EV charging infrastructure more accessible and equitable will ensure that Alaskans can more comfortably transition to EVs, which typically have a lower total cost of ownership. Renewable energy generation in Alaska has been on the rise for several years, with support from state and local governments. In 2010, the Alaska Legislature enacted a goal for 50% of the state’s electricity to be generated from renewable energy sources by 2025. More recently, Governor Dunleavy introduced a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) bill for the Railbelt. A key element of the governor ’s RPS was a firm commitment to transitioning to 30% sustainable power by 2030 and 80% by 2040. The RPS package was ultimately unsuccessful in the Legislature; however, the development and introduction of this package illustrates Alaskans’ desire to transition to green energy. In 2020, Alaska generated about 28% of its electricity from renewable energy sources. Alaska’s Railbelt grid is currently composed of 15% renewable generation, and most of Kodiak and Southeast Alaska’s energy is generated by hydropower (95%–98%). NEVI charging stations will ensure renewable energy can power vehicles and reduce energy costs for families. Increasing access to charging stations and EVs will accelerate EV adoption throughout the state and improve air quality by reducing emissions associated with ICE vehicles. This is especially important in communities with poor air quality, like the portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough that has been designated as a nonattainment area by the US Environmental Protection Agency due to particulate pollution during strong temperature inversions in the winter. AEA will work closely with partners to maximize the public benefit by providing resources for EVSE site selection and development to partners. AEA will continue to work closely with DOT&PF to ensure site selection does not conflict with DOT&PF infrastructure improvement projects and long-term goals. Alaska suffers from some of the highest fuel costs in the nation, especially in rural Alaska. Making EV charging infrastructure more accessible and equitable will ensure that Alaskans can transition to EVs, which typically have a lower total cost of ownership. 21 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan High-Level Program Goals 1. Deploy EV charging stations that are reliable and accessible for work, recreation, and tourism to inspire driver confidence. Providing infrastructure that is visible on traveled routes can greatly reduce range anxiety. DCFC stations will be located approximately 50 miles apart along the AFC and along the road system and marine highways. The plan intends to provide EV drivers with multiple options for EV charging along their travel route. Each location will be situated conveniently, no more than one mile from the AFC. The sites will provide at least four units and give consideration to pull-through spaces for vehicles pulling trailers and recreational or passenger vehicles. Locations will be easily identifiable through third-party charging station locator applications. All charging stations shall be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. Program partners will be required to enter into a five-year operations and maintenance contract to ensure the station complies with the federal NEVI requirements. The Authority will monitor station uptime and other key metrics through vendor- reported usage data on a quarterly basis at minimum, with a goal of 97% uptime provided to drivers. 2. Ensure the benefits are distributed and applied equitably for all Alaskans. Alaska is planning for equitable EV charging capabilities throughout the state. At least 40% of the benefits of the program investments will be distributed to Justice40communities. Justice40 communities are shown in Figure 22, as defined by the FHWA. Phases 2 and 3 of the Implementation Plan will develop charging infrastructure in communities along the AMHS and in hub communities as funding allows. 3. Support the existing and future demand for electrified transportation. AEA aims to support the existing EVs on the road today and prepare the state for future scenarios with increased EV adoption as well as the potential for medium- and heavy-duty freight and transit electrification. 4. Implement an outreach and education program to train, retain, and diversify the workforce in support of the electric transportation system. AEA aims to increase knowledge and education about EVs, infrastructure, and the benefits to adoption. This program can help address frequently asked Figure 5. Alaska’s Highway System 22 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan questions and common misconceptions, and act as a resource. The program will evolve to support workforce development to enhance the skills of Alaskan workers for the mobility of tomorrow. 5. Collect data to measure program performance and make informed deployment decisions. Project partners will support this program goal with data collection and analysis to inform participants of the performance and usage of EVs and EVSE and changes in adoption, and publish charging usage and efficacy of vehicle electrification in Alaska. The data will be analyzed for the out-year deployments to aid in selecting optimal locations for EV charging deployment. 6. Invest strategically to make Alaska’s infrastructure more resilient and independent. The deployment of charging stations that are supported by renewable energy sources, where available, will be encouraged to reduce dependence on foreign oil and gas. Collaboration with the utility companies will occur in support of this effort. 7. Work with international partners to connect to the continental network. Recognizing that Alaska is removed from the lower 48 states, the movement of goods and people along the highway network crosses international borders. AEA will coordinate deployments with international partners to support logistics and mobility. Outlook for 5-year Program The Plan will deliver a reliable, grid-connected DCFC infrastructure network from the south end of the Alaska AFC in Anchorage and 355 miles north to Fairbanks within the first two years. During this same time frame, AEA will be conducting extensive EVSE and EV infrastructure public outreach, continuously gathering stakeholder feedback and lessons learned. Future iterations of the plan will incorporate these findings. Phase One, Build Out Alaska’s Alternative Fuel Corridor • Phase one will focus on building out Alaska’s AFC to meet FHWA guidance, where practically feasible, along the AFC from Anchorage to Fairbanks. • Plan activities will include site selection, public outreach, and meetings with Alaska boroughs, Alaska Native corporations and tribes, and other private landholders, city planners, small Alaskan communities, and all other key stakeholders identified in Section 3 – Public Engagement & Outreach. EV performance in cold weather is currently a barrier to EV adoption for many Alaskans.Photo courtesy of Mark Kelliher 23 Plan Vision & Goals Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan • Outreach and coordination will continue with DOT&PF, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), and electrical utilities that provide power to the communities to be served by the NEVI-funded stations. • Due to the seasonality of Alaska’s climate, public and private contracting for initial design and construction projects is expected to extend over two construction seasons. • Several 50 kW DCFC locations have been recently commissioned or are under construction along the AFC. These stations were funded with VW settlement grants in the summer of 2021. These stations do not meet the NEVI requirements as currently designed. Phase Two, Build Out Alaska’s Highway and Marine Highway System • AEA and DOT&PF will coordinate to develop DCFC infrastructure along Alaska’s non-AFC highways and the AMHS to enable passenger EV travel throughout the state. This phase of the program will focus on connecting small urban areas, rural communities on the road system, Alaska’s road system to Canada, and coastal communities located on the AMHS. • A review of communities and travel patterns along the Seward Highway, Glenn Highway, Sterling Highway, and Richardson Highway will be completed prior to completion of Phase 1 to determine potential locations for DCFC in support of long-distance mobility within the state in Phase 2. • The communities along the AMHS will be key stakeholders to identify where charging locations would suit mobility that is paired with the ferry system. Early coordination with communities such as Juneau, Cordova, Ketchikan, Sitka, Seward, and Valdez will indicate opportunities for community partnerships to deploy infrastructure. • This phase of the program will endeavor to meet NEVI requirements for DCFC where practically feasible. Engagement with stakeholders and communities along the AMHS will further refine the locations and phased deployment. • Some isolated communities may not require or have the generation infrastructure to support 150 kW charging or four charging ports. These circumstances will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and AEA is requesting input into reducing the requirements of DCFC sites located away from the AFC. Phase Three, Install Charging Stations in Hub Communities, as funding allows • Install community-based charging stations in EV-ready communities throughout regional hubs in rural Alaska. • Rural communities are generally not connected by road or transmission. Each community self-generates its power through a small local utility. Average loads in rural communities range from 100 kW to 1 MW. In many communities, NEVI-compliant DCFC equipment may not be feasible; therefore, Level 2 charging stations are preferred. This will be evaluated against community needs. • Early engagement has occurred with Nome and Kotzebue and site options for this phase of engagement have been compiled. • Beyond the NEVI formula funding, AEA intends to coordinate with DOT&PF to apply for competitive and discretionary grants for rural Alaska. Phase Four, Urban and “Destination” Locations, as funding allows • AEA and DOT&PF will identify and develop strategic charging sites in urban and “destination” locations. These charging sites will utilize a combination of DCFC and Level 2 charging infrastructure and will provide a reliable charging safety net for unexpected charging needs and provide “destination charging” for overnight trips. 24 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Contracting Status of Contracting Process Alaska’s Request for Applications AEA solicited competitive grant applications for the purpose of installing EVSE at up to 14 sites along Alaska’s AFC. The scope of the projects include design, construction, installation of software and hardware, operations, maintenance, and data reporting. The RFA set out the purpose, instructions, requirements, evaluative criteria, and other information for submitting an application to AEA for grant funding. AEA intends to enter into a separate project grant agreement for each site chosen to satisfy a priority area. AEA’s goal for this RFA was to build out Phase One, which includes the AFC from Anchorage to Fairbanks. This section of roadway includes the state roads with the highest traffic volumes, connects Alaska’s two largest cities, and provides access to many communities, parks, and other attractions. After the AFC is completely built out, AEA will move on to Phase Two, and conduct solicitations that include the remaining highway systems and AMHS. All funds associated with the NEVI formula program and the Alaska NEVI RFA shall be administered as if apportioned under Chapter 1 of Title 23, United States Code (USC), which encompasses requirements for states to receive federal-aid funding. The procurement and contractual requirements must comply with federal and Alaska state laws and additional program requirements. Applicants will be required to construct and maintain EVSE at the site, pursuant to federal program requirements defined in the NEVI Standards and Requirements. The equipment must also meet Buy America requirements as identified in the current and future Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers. 25 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Grant applications for the first round of applications for 14 locations along Alaska’s AFC were received and are being reviewed at the time of this document’s publishing. Awards are expected in the fall of 2023. The following solicitation steps are currently underway for Alaska’s NEVI program: 1. Advertise RFA: AEA advertises the grant opportunity throughout the state. EV charging companies or site host property owners who will self-manage or partner with other entities will prepare the grant application to apply for NEVI funding to install, own, and operate compliant EV chargers. 2. Prepare Applications: Applicants identify sites for EVSE installation within priority areas identified by AEA. Applicants prepare their application and coordinate with local utilities to understand site readiness for EVSE installation. Utilities provide infrastructure upgrade plans to the applicant, including cost estimates to be included in the final pricing application. 3. Review Applications: AEA and DOT&PF evaluate the administrative, technical, and pricing applications based on the evaluation criteria and process as defined in the RFA package. The ranking and prioritization of projects will be determined for each priority site. Individuals on the evaluation committee will receive a copy of each application along with the criteria that will be used to score and rank the applications. Each committee member will independently review the applications and provide written comments related to each application. The committee members will award competitive points to each application against the application criteria and weight outlined in the RFA. The committee will meet to review the applications as a group, discuss the merits of each application, and finalize their own scores based upon insights gained through the group discussion. The applicant with the highest overall score within each priority site group will be selected for award. AEA will develop a final prioritized list of projects, taking into consideration the amount of funding that is available and the distribution of projects along the AFC. 4. Develop AEA Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for incorporation into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP): After the selection committee has confirmed recommended projects, AEA will develop a TIP with the selected NEVI corridor projects. The TIP will include budget, scope, and schedule values for all incorporated projects. AEA’s TIP will likely be incorporated into the STIP by amendment after the STIP effective date of October 1, 2023. 5. Federal Project Agreements and Authorization to Proceed: AEA will provide project information to the FHWA for Authorization to Proceed. 6. State Project Agreements: AEA and DOT&PF will enter into project agreements with each site host. These project agreements will include information related to reimbursement and billing methods between parties, and program regulations and requirements related to the NEVI program. These include but are not limited to NEPA, Title 23, Chapter 1 of the CFR, Build America and Buy America Requirements, property interest agreements, Uniform Act, and the Clean Air Act. The project agreement will be executed upon agreement of the signing parties. 7. Design and Construction of EVSE: DOT&PF will conduct NEPA compliance work during the preliminary design phase. The grantee will perform the final design and permitting, site work, equipment installation, and connection to power service, and commission the EVSE. AEA and DOT&PF will oversee the project activities and review for compliance with Title 23 and other program requirements. Payments will be made to the grantee on a monthly or quarterly reimbursement schedule as associated with specific project milestones and deliverables. 8. Operation and Maintenance of EVSE: The project agreement will include operations and maintenance service for up to five years. The grantee will provide specific data from the RFA attachments for program monitoring and compliance. We are here! 26 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan The applications received were primarily from EVSE vendors who partnered with site hosts. Most site categories received were from hotels and convenience stores. Figure 7 summarizes the site applications by applicant and site category. Figure 6. Number of Applications Received by Priority Site Location. Figure 7. Site Applications by Applicant and Site Category. 27 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Awarded Contracts AEA is requesting acknowledgment of Corridor Ready status following commissioning of the selected Priority Sites. Two additional Discretionary Exceptions are included in this plan submission in addition to the first year’s plan Discretionary Exception. Three gaps along the corridor exceed the 50-mile maximum, but none of them exceed 80 miles, the distance granted an exception in the initial plan. It is AEA’s belief that the market response to the RFA was adequate and there will be no suitable responses to another RFA that seeks to solicit charging locations in Willow and Clear. The lack of development and potential sites in these two locations is limited, especially as identified in Clear with no applications submitted for the first round. The initially approved Discretionary Exception is requested again – albeit at 77 miles instead of 80 miles due to sites recommended for award – due to the lack of power grid within this gap on the AFC. Based on the market response to the RFA, the remaining gaps, and the desire to maximize station viability of the recommended awarded sites, AEA will be requesting two additional exceptions in FY24 to achieve Corridor Ready status. Figure 8. Priority Sites Recommended for Award. 28 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Scoring Methodologies Utilized Applications were reviewed in four stages by the application evaluation committee, which included AEA staff, DOT&PF staff, and the PM consultant from Michael Baker International. • Stage 1: Completeness and Eligibility (Pass/Fail) • Stage 2: Evaluation of Technical Application • Stage 3: Evaluation of Pricing Application • Stage 4: Ranking of Projects All applications were reviewed to determine if they were responsive. Applications determined to be responsive were evaluated using the criteria that is described below. If an application was rejected, the applicant was notified in writing or via email that their application had been rejected and the basis for rejection. Appeals for rejected applications will be handled following the procedures outlined in 3 Alaska Administrative Code 107.650. At any stage in the review process, AEA could request additional information and the applicant would have a specified amount of time to respond to the request for information. Failure to timely respond or timely provide adequate information would result in the application being rejected. An evaluation may not be based on discrimination due to the race, religion, color, national origin, sex, age, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, disability, or political affiliation of the applicant. Stage 1: Completeness and Eligibility (Pass/Fail) All applications received by the deadline were initially reviewed by AEA staff to assess application completeness. Stage 1 review included the following: Administrative Application Review • Applicant Information • Signature Page/Authorized Signers Overall Completeness of Entire Package • Application is complete and information is sufficiently responsive to the RFA to allow AEA to consider the application in the next stage of evaluation. Project and Applicant Eligibility • Application is submitted by an eligible applicant that demonstrates that they will take ownership of the project; own, lease, or otherwise control the site upon which the project is located; and upon completion of the project operate and maintain it for its economic life for the benefit of the public. • Included as documentation is a resolution or other formal authorization of the applicant that demonstrates the applicant’s commitment to the project and that any proposed matching funds are available and in the applicant’s control. Stage 2: Evaluation of Technical Application Each technical application was evaluated and scored as described in Table 8 (Technical Application Scoring Rubric). 29 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Table 8: Technical Application Scoring Rubric Technical Scoring Element Max Points Percent of Total Understanding of Program and Project Methodology 100 10% Management Plan, Schedule, Development and Operation 200 20% Experience and Qualifications 200 20% Site Proposal 300 30% Maximum Technical Application Score 800 80% Understanding of Program and Project Methodology (10%) Applicants will be evaluated against the following questions: • How well has the applicant demonstrated a thorough understanding of the purpose and scope of the project? • How well has the applicant identified pertinent issues and potential problems related to the project? • How well has the applicant proposed to manage and mitigate identified project risks? • Has the applicant demonstrated an approach that depicts a logical approach to fulfilling the requirements of the NEVI formula program? • Does the methodology interface with the schedule in the RFA? Management Plan, Schedule, Development and Operation (20%) Applicants will be evaluated against the following questions: • How well does the management plan support the project requirements and logically lead to successful project completion as required in the RFA? • How well is accountability defined? • Is the organization of the applicant team clear? • How well does the management plan illustrate the lines of authority and communication? • Does the application cover all required staffing to deliver the project through all phases of the program? • To what extent does the applicant already have the hardware, software, equipment, and licenses necessary to carry out the project? • Has the applicant provided a reasonable schedule for the project work? • Has the applicant provided a thorough plan for EVSE operations and maintenance that is consistent with the NEVI program requirements? • Does the applicant sufficiently address their approach to meeting Buy America requirements under current waiver rules? • Does the applicant present a sufficient approach to meeting the uptime requirements as described in the NEVI Standards and Requirements? Experience and Qualifications (20%) Applicants will be evaluated against the following questions: • Has the applicant team demonstrated experience in the deployment and operation of EVSE? • Are resumes complete and do they demonstrate capability of implementing EVSE? • How extensive is the applicable education and experience of the personnel designated to work on the project? • Does the proposed staff have applicable experience with Title 23 Federal-Aid projects? (Preferred) • How well has the applicant team demonstrated experience in completing similar projects on time and within budget? 30 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan • Has the proposal demonstrated the ability of subcontractors to implement EVSE at selected sites? • How successful is the general history of the applicant team regarding timely and successful completion of projects? Site Proposal (30%) Applicants will be evaluated against the following questions and criteria: • Has the applicant demonstrated a clear understanding regarding the infrastructure needs and utility improvement costs for the site? (Attachment 4, Utility Service Site Information Form) • Does the project schedule align with the demonstrated utility infrastructure and utility needs? Table 9: Site Proposal Evaluation Criteria Criterion Max Points Utility Service Site Information Form Evaluation Has the applicant demonstrated a clear understanding regarding the infrastructure needs and utility improvement costs for the site? Does the project schedule aling with the demonstrated infrastructure and utility needs? 80 Site is located within 1 mile of the highway Within 1 mile: 60 points 1-3 miles: 30 points 3-5 miles 15 points Over 5 miles: 0 points 60 Site provides adequate lighting for security around the EVSE.20 Site has ammenities for users to access while charging their vehicle.40 Site is located within a Justice40 boundary.40 Site match contribution: 20%: 20 points 25%: 40 points 30%: 60 points 60 Total available base points 300 Bonus Considerations Max Points Site offers pull through charging access.20 Site offers make-ready work for additional ports and increased speed (e.g. 350 kW in the future).20 Site offers additional plug standards to be inclusive of other drivers (e.g. NACS and CHAdeMO)10 Stage 3: Evaluation of Pricing Application The applicants completed Attachment 5 (Pricing Application Form) and included a one-page pricing narrative for each proposed site. The site pricing applications had two components as shown in Table 10 – Pricing Application Scoring Rubric. Overall, a minimum of 20% of the total evaluation points were assigned to these components. Table 10: Pricing Applications Scoring Rubric. Pricing Scoring Element Max Points Percent of Total Site Pricing Application Cost 100 10% Site Pricing Application Narrative 100 10% Maximum Site Pricing Application Score 200 20% 31 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Site Pricing Application Cost (10%) The applicant with the lowest site cost for each priority site was allocated the maximum points (100 points) for their pricing application. The remaining applicants for each site received a percentage of the points based upon the following formula: Site Pricing Application Score = (Lowest Cost Application / Candidate’s Cost Amount) X 100 Site Pricing Application Narrative (10%) Applicants will be evaluated against the following questions: • Has the pricing narrative demonstrated alignment with the technical application? • Does the applicant demonstrate a clear understanding of costs related to the project? • Does the applicant account for Alaska-specific cost considerations? • Has the applicant sufficiently defined the assumptions used in the development of their estimate? • Has the applicant provided an approach that supports successful EVSE implementation at the site? Stage 4: Ranking and Prioritization of Projects The ranking and prioritization of projects was determined for each priority site (1-14). The applicant with the highest overall score within the priority site group will be selected for award. For each site application, the applicant’s overall score will be calculated as follows: Applicant’s Overall Score = Technical Application Score + Pricing Application Score Individuals on the evaluation committee will receive a copy of each application along with the criteria that will be used to score and rank the applications. Each member of the committee will independently review the applications and provide written comments related to each application. The committee members will award competitive points to each application against the application criteria and weight outlined above. The evaluation committee will meet to review the applications as a group, discuss the merits of each application, and finalize their own scores based upon insights gained through the group discussion. The evaluation committee will outline justifications for each of their conclusions. AEA will develop a final prioritized list of all recommended projects, taking into consideration the amount of funding that is available and the distribution of projects along the AFC. If, after entering the award process, the first-ranked applicant is unable to move forward with the project as proposed in their application, AEA reserves the right to cancel the agreement and move on to the second-ranked applicant. Plan for Compliance with Federal Requirements AEA is working closely with partners at DOT&PF to ensure program and project compliance with Title 23 requirements. AEA and DOT&PF are currently drafting project agreements, which will be signed by AEA, DOT&PF, and selected site hosts. The project agreements will include specific requirements including but not limited to NEPA, Title 23, Chapter 1, Part 680 of the CFR, Build America and Buy America Requirements, property interest agreements, Uniform Act, and the Clean Air Act. The project agreement will be executed upon agreement of the signing parties. AEA is monitoring the rapid adoption of the NACS and requests the Joint Office to provide further guidance. If NACS is to become the ultimate standard, investments in infrastructure should consider the future viability of CCS. While there are numerous cars and trucks today equipped with CCS that can utilize the deployed infrastructure, consideration should be given to requiring NACS being included as well. 32 Contracting Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Operations and Maintenance There are no restrictions to include operations and maintenance plans with the above allowable procurement methodologies. Guaranteed operations and maintenance through the life of the NEVI deployment period can be included in the upfront construction cost so it is accounted for in the deployment. How Alaska Will Ensure Contractors Engage Communities Every contract for the installation and hosting of charging station infrastructure will include a requirement to prominently display at least one sign on site that is visible to drivers from the roadway. The sign will clearly state that the site is an EV charging station. This is to supplement areas where cell phone coverage may not exist, so using navigation and other apps may be affected. Charging company vendors may be asked to provide materials, such as flyers and social media graphics, to site hosts and government agencies to increase community awareness about the charging station. Each contractor and site host will also be supported by the public engagement plan included in this document, which includes earning media coverage across the state, social media outreach, and participating in community events. AEA and DOT&PF have a broad network of strong ties to the Alaska construction contracting community. DOT&PF’s work with industry organizations, like the Associated General Contractors of Alaska (AGC) and Alaska Builders and Contractors (ABC) Inc., will ensure that contractors building Alaska’s EV infrastructure engage in meaningful public involvement. Many of the large general contractors throughout the state have long working histories in Alaska and are already active participants in their respective regions and communities. AEA and DOT&PF will work with contractors and the trades unions to drive workforce participation and public investment in the development, construction, maintenance, and public use of the Alaska EV infrastructure. Opportunities for Small Businesses In accordance with Title 23 of USC 304, the Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan will provide contracting opportunities for small businesses in the implementation and deployment of EV infrastructure. In compliance with this code, Alaska NEVI planning efforts will consult with entities on small business contracting, including community-based organizations, environmental justice and environmental protection organizations, small business associations, chambers of commerce, labor organizations, and private entities. Throughout Alaska, and especially in rural and disadvantaged areas of the state, small businesses are a nexus for opportunity. DOT&PF and AEA will work with business partners and community leadership to ensure that these vital small business entities participate in the Alaska NEVI process. Additional specific initiatives for small businesses are included in the Civil Rights and Equity Considerations chapters. Many of the applications received were from local and small businesses. Further, applicants identified ways to engage Alaskan businesses and companies to be able to install and/or maintain the deployed equipment along the corridor. It is apparent that applicants understood AEA’s goals with this effort to support small businesses and reacted accordingly. 33 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Civil Rights The Alaska DOT&PF is a recipient of federal financial assistance. As a federal-aid recipient, DOT&PF will ensure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related federal statutes and reegulations in all DOT&PF programs and activities, including: • 49 CFR Part 21 (Department of Transportation Regulations for the Implementation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 [P.L. 100.259]) • 23 CFR Part 200 (Title VI Program and Related Statutes – Implementation and Review Procedures) • 23 CFR Part 680 (National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements) • Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 • Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 • Age Discrimination Act of 1975 • Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 • Executive Orders 12898 and 13166 Title VI DOT&PF Title VI Non-Discrimination Policy Statement: It is the policy of the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) that no one shall be subject to discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The Title VI Non-Discrimination policy is implemented by the Civil Rights Office Title VI program manager. Programs within Title VI are Environmental Justice, Limited English Proficiency, and Title VI (Non- Discrimination). To ensure DOT&PF is in compliance with these programs, the Title VI program manager conducts Title VI program reviews of each division within DOT&PF. If an area is found to be noncompliant, the program manager works with staff to bring the identified noncompliant area into compliance. The policy also applies to subrecipients, so by AEA entering into an MOA with DOT&PF and leading the procurement, AEA accepts responsibility to include the Non-Discrimination language in all procurement documentation and contract agreements. 34 Civil Rights Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) DOT&PF ADA Policy Statement: “It is the policy of the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (ADOT&PF) that no qualified individual with a disability shall, solely on the basis of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any of its programs, services, or activities as provided by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). ADOT&PF further assures that every effort will be made to provide nondiscrimination in all of its programs and activities regardless of the funding source, including FTA, FAA, FHWA, and state funds.” When addressing accessibility needs and requirements, DOT&PF is committed to making reasonable modifications to policies, practices, procedures, and programs that would otherwise deny equal access to individuals with disabilities unless a fundamental alteration in the program would result. Under chapter 5 of the U.S. Access Boards “Guide to the ADA Accessibility Standards” Electric Vehicle Charging Stations,1 it is recommended: “Provide access to a reasonable number of spaces serving EV charging stations” or use the scoping table in§208.2 to determine an appropriate number.2 (The number of accessible spaces serving EV charging stations must be determined separately from the required number of car and van parking spaces.)” AEA included Title VI language and required compliance with applicable civil rights regulations and accessibility standards in procurement documents and contracts with other entities such as consultants, contractors, and vendors. While the NEVI Standards and Requirements3 suggested adherence to the U.S. Access Board’s guide, AEA mandated adherence in the RFA requirements to ensure accessible design. AEA will also monitor for compliance and perform required reporting in accordance with USDOT regulations. Diverse Business Participation DOT&PF has strong civil rights programs that implement Title 49 Part 26 through the Alaska Unified Certification Program (AUCP). These programs ensure participation of Minority/Women/Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (M/W/DBE) small businesses. DOT&PF has a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Plan approved by the FHWA (2019). The DOT&PF Civil Rights Office administers all DOT&PF DBE and On-the- Job Training Supportive Services Programs.4 Firms certified as DBEs by the AUCP are also eligible for the DBE Business Development Program,5 which gives DBE firms the opportunity to further assist in small business growth within and outside of the market for traditional DBE areas of work. These programs have strong stakeholders and partners, including intergovernmental agencies, business, labor, and community groups. The Civil Rights Office has longstanding partnerships with the Small Business Administration, the Alaska Procurement Technical Assistance Center, Alaska Small Business Development Center, AGC, ABC, the Federation of Community Councils, the University of Alaska, Alaska Works Partnership (AWP), the Alaska Apprenticeship Training Coordinators Association (AATCA), various trades unions, and chambers of commerce throughout the state. 1 https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-5-parking/#electric-vehicle-charging-stations 2 https://www.access-board.gov/ada/guides/chapter-5-parking/#minimum-number-of-accessible-parking-spaces 3 23 CFR Part 680 4 23 USC 140(c) 23 CFR 230 Subpart B; 23 CFR § 230, Appendix A to Subpart A, 23 CFR § 230, Appendix B to Subpart B, 23 CFR § 230.111, 23 CFR § 230.113, and 23 USC 140(b) 5 23 CFR § 230, Appendix A to Subpart A, 23 CFR § 230, Appendix B to Subpart B, 23 CFR § 230.111, 23 CFR § 230.113, and 23 USC 140(b) 35 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Existing & Future Conditions Analysis To evaluate the statewide network and set a baseline for future evaluation, an inventory of traffic, EV registrations and adoption, existing infrastructure, and planned near-term installations must be inventoried. State Geography, Terrain, Climate and Land Use Patterns Spanning over 665,400 square miles, Alaska is the largest state in the country and represents about one-fifth the total size of the contiguous United States. In terms of size, Alaska stretches stretches 2,000 miles from east to west and 1,100 miles north to south. This includes hundreds of islands that make up the Aleutian Island chain. The sheer size of the state results in a wide range of temperatures and terrains. While Alaska is geographically large, the relatively small population of the state results in a low population density with clusters around the major urban areas of Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau. Alaska is bordered by 6,640 miles of coastline, including coasts of the Pacific and Arctic Oceans, and 1,538 miles of international border with Canada. With the least-dense population in the country, many Alaskans reside along the state’s road system and the remaining population resides in small, rural villages and towns accessible by water or air. The largest city, Anchorage, contains two-thirds of the state’s population at just under 300,000 residents, followed by Juneau and Fairbanks, each with a population of about 30,000 residents. Of the state’s 17,690 centerline miles of road, 82% are considered rural and 65% are unpaved. Less than 1% of the state’s land is under private ownership. 36 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Alaska’s transportation network is relatively undeveloped compared to its national peers. Of the state’s 17,690 centerline miles of road, 82% is considered rural and 65% is unpaved. Less than 1% of the state’s land is under private ownership. Of the public lands, 65% is owned by the federal government and 25% by the state. Despite its size, Alaska does not have any signed interstates. Alaska shares a border to the east with Canada and some travel routes across Alaska traverse Canada, adding complexity to supporting statewide EV movements that will require international coordination. Alaska’s terrain and ecosystem varies tremendously and includes the flat and treeless tundra of the North Slope, subarctic boreal forests, permafrost and marshlands, numerous mountain ranges including the highest peak in North America, and temperate coastal rainforest. Its climate is as diverse as its terrain with long, cold winters and cool summers in the far north and northwestern coast, extreme cold in winter and extreme heat in summer across the Interior, a warmer and snowier climate in Southcentral, and an even warmer and rainier climate in Southeast Alaska. The state is renowned for its cold winters where temperatures frequently drop to -50o F without a wind chill and will regularly climb into the 90s during the summer. Based on the temperature and precipitation averages, Alaska is divided into five climate regions. Alaska Climate Regions The Arctic region consists of the area north of the Brooks Range to the Arctic Ocean and is entirely north of the Arctic Circle. Average temperatures here are well below freezing with long, cold, and dark winters. Precipitation in this area is light, falling mostly in the summertime. This region is situated above the tree line and consists of predominantly tundra, and high winds are typical in this area for most of the year. The Interior region consists of the area between the Brooks Range to the north and the Alaska Range to the south. It comprises the largest area of the state and has high temperature variability. Summers are typically warm and sunny with an average temperature in the 60s, and winters are cold with average temperatures below zero. The north end of the AFC, Fairbanks, is located in the Interior region. The Western region spans a wide area including the Aleutian Islands. The climate in this area is heavily impacted by the Pacific Ocean and experiences frequent storms during the winter and fall. This area extends hundreds of miles into the Bering Sea and has a maritime climate that is typically above freezing with less variability. The Bristol Bay and Cook Inlet areas consist of Southcentral Alaska and are home to most of the state’s population. This area is buffeted by multiple mountain ranges, and the climate is not as extreme as the Aleutian chain. Southcentral has a more temperate climate with mild summers and winters relative to the climate zones to the north and west. Anchorage, the south end of the AFC, is located in this region. An EV sits under the Northern Lights. Photo courtesy of Mark Kelliher 37 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan The Southeast Alaska area borders the Gulf of Alaska and has a strong maritime influence. While the temperatures can be moderate, there is high annual precipitation in the form of snow and rain. The impact of the mountain terrain in the area contributes to weather conditions that can vary substantially. The AMHS is located in Southeast Alaska. State Travel Patterns, Public Transportation Needs, Freight and Other Supply Chain Needs The vast and diverse natural geography of Alaska makes it a challenging setting for transportation—natural barriers throughout the region create a unique environment for aviation and marine transportation. While most interstate travel can be achieved on the road network, Alaska has a unique set of challenges as many communities cannot be accessed by the road network. These communities are located off the road system and are only accessible by plane or through the AMHS. The AMHS extends across 3,500 miles of coastline and provides service to 35 communities. The DOT&PF maintains and operates 235 airports throughout Alaska to support 82% of communities that depend on aviation for year-round access. According to the Transportation Assessment for the Alaska Moves 2050 LRTP, 251 communities in Alaska are served exclusively by air, with distances between some airports comparable to the distance between Minneapolis and Orlando. Ferries also support an important section of transportation in the state, with the AMHS serving over 3,500 miles of coastline and 35 communities, many of which rely on ferry for travel and goods. Remoteness is the theme when discussing the travel patterns in Alaska. Not only is that reflected in the importance of the marine and aviation system, but on the connected road network as well. The two major cities on the road system are separated by over 300 miles of road. Smaller towns are dispersed along the road system, but many have reduced services. With few full-service locations spread out over a wide Figure 9. Alaska’s Average Annual Daily Traffic 38 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan geographic area, the structure of Alaskan highways presents a challenge to widespread EV usage as it relates to the ability to charge vehicles. This would increase the need for fast-charging stations throughout the state to enable users the ability to reach their destination. The State of Alaska has 17,690 total centerline miles. A vast section of the Alaska road network is unpaved; the breakdown of total miles by road surface type is 11,520 unpaved and 6,169 paved. All 1,080 miles of the functionally classified Interstate roads and 920 of the 939 miles of the Principal Arterial-Other roads are paved. Most vehicular travel occurs in the southcentral population centers along Interstates A-1 from Anchorage to the Canadian border, A-2 from Tok to Fairbanks, A-3 from Soldotna to Anchorage, and A-4 from Gateway to Fairbanks. The Alaska National Highway System is unlike most in the continental United States. It includes six-lane urban freeway segments with volumes of up to 68,000 a day (2019), and the Dalton Highway, which is 400 miles of mostly unpaved road with segments seeing as little traffic as 105 vehicles a day (2019). Based on travel pattern data, key locations for automotive transportation occur in more populated areas including Anchorage, Fairbanks, Knik-Fairview, and Wasilla in the central region, and Juneau, Ketchikan, and Sitka in southeast Alaska. Vehicular transportation is also limited in the State of Alaska by seasonal weather, with certain roads closed for a portion of the year due to snow cover and ice. In addition to more concentrated traffic and car ownership in these population corridors, transit plays a big role in connecting Alaskan businesses with their workforce across a range of industries. According to the American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample, approximately 5,600 workers in Alaska use transit to get to work, collectively earning $203 million in wages annually.1 Key cities with federally funded public transportation programs include: • Anchorage – People Mover and AnchorRIDES Figure 10. Alaska’s Transportation Systems 1 https://dot.alaska.gov/stwdplng/transit/pub/AKEconomicStudy_EBP_05262022_2.pdf 39 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan • Bethel Transit Bus System • Central Kenai Peninsula – Central Area Rural Transit (CARTS) • Fairbanks – Metropolitan Area Commuter System (MACS) and Van Tran • Girdwood – Glacier Valley Transit (GVT) • Gulkana – Soaring Eagle Transit (SET) • Hollis – The Inter-Island Ferry Authority (IFA) • Juneau – Capital Transit • Ketchikan – Ketchikan Gateway Borough Transit (The Bus) • Kodiak – Kodiak Area Transit System (KATS) • Wasilla – Valley Transit • Sitka – The Ride • Talkeetna – Sunshine Transit • Tok – Interior Alaska Bus Line (IABL) Access to more remote areas of the state occurs most frequently by aviation and ferries (along the southern coast). Approximately $1 billion of funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is dedicated to the AMHS to establish an essential ferry service supporting rural communities. Aviation is also a vital component of the regional transportation system, connecting all communities to the rest of the state and beyond. The aviation system in Alaska not only serves the transportation needs of residents, but also supports the movement of material goods and critical medical services as well as the regional economy. According to the Alaska DOT&PF, nearly 82% of Alaska communities are inaccessible by road, making airstrips and airports essential to Alaskan communities. Future State of EV Adoption in Alaska As of May 2023, there were 1,875 EVs registered in Alaska. The EV adoption in Alaska is trending upward as indicated by a 50% increase in registrations from the December 2021 number of 1,250. The EV penetration rate is 0.36%, which still lags behind the national average, but is also increasing. Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) and pickup trucks account for 80% of new vehicles purchased in Alaska.2 Due to this vehicle preference trend, it is expected that EV market share in Alaska will increase once battery electric pickups trucks are readily available to Alaska consumers. Electric SUVs make up approximately 11% of the EVs in the state and the pickup trucks are slightly under 2%, both increasing rapidly. While Tesla still has the majority of the market, its share slipped from 53% to 40% since 2022, with Chevrolet making the most gains in market share. Figure 11. EV Registrations in Alaska by Manufacturer 2 White Paper - Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure in Alaska: https://www.akenergyauthority.org/Portals/0/2020.12.09%20AEA%20 Board%20Meeting%20Documents/9B.%202020.12.09%20EV%20EVinfrastructure%20WhitePaper.pdf?ver=2020-12-03-164813- 090&ver=2020-12-03-164813-090 40 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan The future state of EVs in Alaska was evaluated to determine if the deployed capacity along the AFC related to the NEVI requirements would be satisfactory to the expected number of EVs on the road at the end of the program. To assist in the development of future EV registrations, two growth scenarios were developed. It is important to recognize that a variety of factors can affect EV adoption, including access to charging infrastructure, availability of models, price points and comparability to ICE models, and willingness to make the transition. Continued Growth Scenario The continued growth scenario projects that EV adoptions continue the 2020 to 2021 growth of 42.05% throughout the five-year period. The results are that the state would realize about 1,200 EV sales per year on average, adding about 6,000 new EV registrations in the five-year period. The penetration rate of EVs in Alaska in 2026 would be 1.01% of all registered vehicles in the state, up from the existing 0.20% in 2021 for light-duty vehicles. Aggressive Growth Scenario The aggressive growth scenario increases the 2020 to 2021 growth by a factor of 1.5, resulting in a 63% growth rate. This scenario addresses the expected increase in registration due to the new battery electric pickup truck models coming to market and expanded offerings for SUVs. The results are that the state would realize about 2,600 EV sales per year on average, adding 13,160 new EV registrations over the five-year period. The penetration rate for EVs in Alaska under this scenario would be 2.02%, up from the existing 0.20% in 2021 for light-duty vehicles. Growth Monitoring It is important to monitor the growth of EVs in the state to see how closely growth matches projections. The continued growth scenario projects that there should be 2,087 registered EVs through May 2023 and the actual number is 212 registrations shy. The overall projections appear to be high at this time, but reforecasting appears to be premature. There have been some supply chain disruptions and other challenges leading to shortages in vehicle availability, thus impacting registration data. This information will be continued to be monitored and if a reforecast becomes necessary, it will be completed. While not meeting the continued growth scenario, a 35% growth rate in EV adoption is certainly a significant trend. Figure 12. Alaska EV Growth Scenarios 41 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Grid Capacity A review of the peak loads combined with historical growth of the electrical loads on the Railbelt Utilities was performed to determine the impact of DCFC stations on the grid in the region. The future capacity projections factored in the decommission of the Healy #2 generation plant in 2024 but did not account for any additional added capacity from renewable sources as a conservative estimate. Based on the projected loads, there is more than adequate capacity for the proposed NEVI-compliant DCFC stations along the AFC detailed in this study. Table 11: Summary of Future Grid Loads and Capacity 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Firm Peak Load (MW)809.2 849.6 892.0 936.6 983.4 Total Capacity (MW)1569.8 1569.8 1519.8 1519.8 1519.8 Reserve Margin (MW)760.6 720.2 627.8 583.2 536.4 Reserve Margin (%)94%85%70%62%55% Additional reviews of the grid will be completed as locations outside of the AFC are identified for installations. AFC - Corridor Designation Alaska does not have any designated interstates due to its isolation from the contiguous United States. However, Alaska submitted and was approved Corridor Pending status for a single AFC in Round 4 of nominations. The nominated section of the highway is between Anchorage and Fairbanks, with a distance of 358 miles he corridor was submitted to FHWA as the entirety of the Parks and Glenn Highways from Anchorage to Fairbanks. As stated in the 2020, Round 4 application submitted by Alaska DOT&PF: “We propose the EV vehicle corridor to correspond to the National Freight Route along the [National Highway System] NHS from Anchorage to Fairbanks initially as a target for investment, with an eventual build out along the entire NHS.” There are no updates proposed to the AFC designations in Round 7, which ran concurrently to updating this plan for FY24. Figure 13 shows the existing AFC through Alaska Figure 13. Alternative Fuel Corridor 42 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Corridor Pending Corridors The route from Anchorage to Fairbanks is the only approved AFC through seven rounds of application. Corridor Ready Corridors Alaska currently does not have any ready corridors. This plan intends to upgrade the corridor from Anchorage to Fairbanks to ready by 2025. Existing Locations of Charging Infrastructure Along AFCs As of June 2023, there are five existing DCFC locations with 14 ports located within a mile of Alaska’s proposed AFC along the Parks and Glenn Highways. Of the existing DCFC locations, none have connectors and speed output (minimum 150 kW) that meet the NEVI standards. The average output is 50kw for the six existing DCFC stations that are not Tesla Superchargers. The Supercharger in Chugiak, which was commissioned following last year’s plan approval, is rated at 250 kW. Should the Joint Office and FHWA decide to modify the NEVI Standards and Requirements to consider a location with at least four NACS ports and no CCS ports as NEVI Creditable, this location would count towards completion of the corridor as there are eight ports at this location. Figure 14 displays the gaps in coverage for DCFC locations and highlights the longest gap, which spans 170 miles from Wasilla to Cantwell. Within that span there are three Level 2 stations, but only one is open year-round. Two locations are RV campgrounds and provide access to charging only during summer months. The second longest gap in charging access is from Healy to Fairbanks, a span of over 110 miles. This span also lacks Level 2 charging locations. Once into Fairbanks, the nearest DCFC location is approximately 4.5 miles from the AFC. Neither DCFC nor Level 2 stations have yet been installed along the Glenn Highway. Figure 14. Alaska AFC Distance Between Fast Chargers 43 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Table 12: Existing Locations of EVSE Within One Mile and Along Alternative Fuel Corridor State EV Charging Location Unique ID Charger Level (DCFC, L2) Charger Type Location # of Charging Ports EV Network (if known) Meets all relevant requirements in 23 CFR 680? Intent to count towards Fully Built Out determination? TBD DCFC, L2 NACS, CHAdeMO, CCS, J1172 22211 Birch-wood Loop Rd 12 Tesla, Siemens No No AK3_0.67 Level 2 NEMA 14-50 1790 S Woodworth Loop, Palm-er, AK 99645 4 Non-net-worked No No AK3_4.03 DCFC, Level 2 2 J1772, (240v 50 amp Wall), CCS/SAE 3700 E Parks Hwy, Wasilla, AK 99654 4 Non-net-worked No No AK3_4.89 Level 2 J1772 2701 Moun-tain Village Dr, Wasilla, AK 99654 1 Non-net-worked No No AK3_12.61 Level 2 NACS 281 S Con-quest Cir, Wasilla, AK 99654 2 Non-net-worked No No TBD Level 2 J1772 1032 E Steam Cmns Ave, Wasilla, AK 99654 2 ChargePoint No No AK3_60.94 Level 2 NEMA 14-50 49941 Parks Hwy, Willow, AK 99688 2 Non-net-worked No No AK3_99.46 Level 2 NEMA 14-50 Mile 135.4 Parks Hwy, Trapper Creek, AK 99683 2 Non-net-worked No No AK3_174.2 DCFC, Level 2 J1772, CHAdeMO, CCS/SAE Mile 209.9 Parks Hwy, Cantwell, AK 99729 3 FLO No No AK3__179 DCFC, Level 2 2 NACS Wall, 1 DCFC, NEMA 14-50 Mile 214.5 Parks Hwy, Cantwell, AK 99729 4 ReCharge Alaska No No AK3_203.06 Level 2 NEMA 14-50 Mile 238.6 Parks Hwy, Denali Nat’l Park & Preserve, AK 99755 2 Non-net-worked No No 44 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan State EV Charging Location Unique ID Charger Level (DCFC, L2) Charger Type Location # of Charging Ports EV Network (if known) Meets all relevant requirements in 23 CFR 680? Intent to count towards Fully Built Out determination? AK3_202.91 Level 2 NACS Mile 238.6 Parks Hwy, Denali Park, AK 99755 2 Non-net-worked No No AK3_212.99 DCFC CHAdeMO, CCS/SAE Mile 248.7 Parks Hwy, Healy, AK 2 Non-net-worked No No AK3_319.22 Level 2 NEMA 14-50 4140 Boat St, Fairbanks, AK 99709 1 Non-net-worked No No Known Risks and Challenges There are several risks and challenges worth noting, given the diverse and challenging terrain of Alaska paired with its size and low population density. Lack of Development Long distances with no development, including a 100-mile stretch along the AFC between Trapper Creek and Cantwell, pose logistical challenges for installing EV charging infrastructure and seeking hosts for sites. In these remote transportation corridors, there may be only electric transmission lines with no existing tie-in capability (along the Parks and Richardson Highways, for example) or, in some areas, no electricity infrastructure at all (along the Dalton Highway, for example). Until these logistical challenges are solved, it will be difficult to combat range anxiety among potential EV adopters. The lack of reliable internet or cell service in underdeveloped and undeveloped areas poses a Figure 15. Existing EV Chargers Within One Mile and Along Alaska’s AFC 45 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan challenge to keep remote stations connected to a network to provide accurate real- time reporting on energy pricing and downtime. The EV charging infrastructure may need to rely on hard-wired communication if the site has access. Additionally, an RFI was issued by AEA in April 2022 for public comment, and to elicit feedback regarding EVs and charging infrastructure needs in Alaska. Ninety- nine responses were received with new ideas for charging locations, risks that may affect the program, and other supporting information regarding the seasonal use of EVs that will continue to inform AEA’s NEVI program. Climate Along the Railbelt corridor, average low temperatures in the winter range between -20˚F and 5˚F, with much colder temperatures occurring frequently throughout the season. These cold temperatures can cause a range decrease of up to 50% for EVs, which will contribute to range anxiety. Colder temperatures can also increase the time required to charge the battery. The challenges with frequent snow and ice removal at charging stations could increase station downtime. Likewise, winter driving conditions and winter storms could make travel between charging stations hazardous or impossible for brief periods. Most major highways are maintained year-round by State of Alaska maintenance crews, but conditions along some corridors (the Richardson Highway, for example) require complete road closures due to high winds or avalanches more often than others. Several corridors like the Denali Highway and Taylor Highway are not maintained in the winter, effectively closing them to car and truck traffic.Figure 16. Utility Service Areas 46 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Some roadways may not be open year-round due to the lack of winter maintenance. According to the Alaska DOT&PF/511AK, the following highways are not maintained during the winter months (October – May): • Copper River Highway (MP 18 to Million Dollar Bridge, MP 49) • Denali Highway (Paxson, MP 0 to Cantwell, MP 130) • Denali Park Highway • Eureka-Rampart Road (MP 0 to MP 3) • Taylor Highway (Tetlin, MP 0 to Eagle, MP 160) • Top-of-the World Highway • McCarthy Road (Copper River Bridge, MP 0 to Kenicott River by McCarthy, MP 58) • Nome area: ◦Council Road (E. of Nome, MP 5 to Council, MP 73) ◦Kourgarok Road/Nome-Taylor Highway (N. of Nome, MP 13 to Kougarok River, MP 86) ◦Nome-Teller Highway (Snake River Bridge, MP 7 to S. of Teller, MP 68) ◦St. Mary’s/Mountain Village Road (St. Mary’s Airport, MP 5 to Mtn. Village Airport, MP Some of the DCFC stations in rural areas, such as the one in Healy, have been retrofitted with an enclosure that increases the temperature of the air around the station by about 30 degrees to ensure that it works in the harsh, cold climate. This could be a consideration for the charging stations installed based on the operating parameters of the available stations. Barriers to Consumer Adoption It will be difficult to overcome skepticism about whether EVs are appropriate for Alaska’s geography and climate. Many Alaskans live in small communities located a great distance from developed commercial infrastructure, many of which are off the road system and accessible only by water or air. The cost, logistics, and sustainability of low-usage sites will be a challenge in reaching these users. Further, the low existing EV penetration may impact the economic viability for the return on investment of the match funding provided by site hosts or charging vendors. There have also been supply chain constraints that have limited EV availability in all parts of the world, including Alaska, and particularly limiting preferred vehicle types that Alaskans typically purchase such as larger SUVs and trucks. Energy Sources and Costs Alaska’s electricity grid is isolated from the rest of North America—it is not connected to power grids in Canada or the contiguous United States. This could leave Alaska more vulnerable to reliability issues in its electric grid. There are two distinct grid categories in the State of Alaska: Railbelt and remote. The majority of the population (70%) resides in urban areas in the Southcentral region of the state and are serviced by the Railbelt Electric System. The remaining 30% of the population reside in isolated rural communities served by independent utilities. Petroleum and coal sources account for 70% of Alaska’s electricity production, which could negate some of the positive environmental benefits of electrical vehicle use in Alaska and be a barrier to adoption for environmentally focused consumers. Alaska’s Railbelt Electric System is serviced by five electric utilities (four cooperatives and one municipal utility): Chugach Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Homer Electric Association, Matanuska Petroleum and coal sources account for 70% of Alaska’s electricity production, which could negate some of the positive environmental benefits of EV use in Alaska and be a barrier to adoption for environmentally focused consumers. 47 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Electric Association, and Seward Electric. The “Railbelt” refers to the interconnected grid that loosely follows the route of the Alaska Railroad. The system stretches approximately 700 miles and services 70% of Alaska’s population. The State of Alaska, through the AEA, owns significant transmission and generation infrastructure on the Railbelt system. The residents and businesses along the Railbelt consume approximately 80% of the state’s electricity across a service area similar to the distance from West Virginia to Maine. On an annual basis, the Railbelt Electric System generates approximately 4800 GWh. Interconnection between regions is by single transmission lines. This relatively small interconnected electrical system is home to significant Department of Defense assets, tribal governments, highly diverse populations, and a remarkable variety of carbon and non-carbon energy resources. The Railbelt is subject to several different climate zones and seasonally harsh conditions, including a sub- Arctic climate with significant seismic activity. Disruptive natural events occur often; earthquakes, wildfires, extreme cold and winter storms are experienced annually. The reliability of the Railbelt is susceptible to the effects of these natural events. Depending on their scale, they can affect service to member-consumers and service communities. In the spring of 2022, the Regulatory Commission of Alaska approved electricity rates proposed by the regulated electric utilities that will be charged to the operators of high-speed commercial EV charging stations. The previous electric rate structures imposed a demand charge based on the peak amount of electricity drawn during any 15-minute period over a billing period, and an EV using a DCFC could impact the demand charge assessed to the site. The new rates have gone into effect over a 10-year inception period and the RCA will monitor the effect of EVSE usage on utilities and the progress of the deployment of EVSE in the state. The utilities recognize that high-speed EV charging stations with imposed demand charges would likely render the charging stations uneconomic. Under an agreement with the RCA, the utilities are using a formula which a per kWh rate will be charged for EV charging. The approved charging station rates are: • Golden Valley Electric Association: $0.14951/kWh • Homer Electric Association: $0.16441/kWh • Matanuska Electric Association: $0.30243/kWh • Chugach Electric Association (North District): $0.15274 • Chugach Electric Association (South District): $0.13508 • Juneau Utility, Alaska Electric Light and Power Company: $0.1383 to $0.2489/kWh depending on class of customer and time of year The state’s AFC is located within the Railbelt service territories of Chugach Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, and Golden Valley Electric Association. The RCA’s action does not address EV rates for unregulated utilities. Golden Valley Electric Association initially received approval for a DCFC tariff of $0.654801 but revised its load factor and submitted an alternative rate to the EV charging station at the IBEW office in Anchorage.Photo courtesy of AEA 48 Existing & Future Conditions Analysis Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan RCA of $0.14951/kWh to be more in line with the other utilities along the Railbelt and promote deployment of charging stations within its service area. The remaining 30% of the state’s population resides in remote and rural communities. Alaska’s 183 remote villages are primarily powered by small diesel engine generator sets. Alaska has very few roads despite being 665,000 square miles and more than twice the size of Texas—it is vastly more remote than even the most rural parts of the contiguous United States. There are no natural gas pipelines, electric transmission lines, or central generation plants serving multiple villages. Engines, generators, switchgear and supporting equipment vary significantly among the 183 powerhouses dispersed across Alaska’s remote communities. Each village is a stand-alone microgrid and many do not have the expected professionally trained utility and maintenance personnel. The cost of energy varies drastically depending on the cost of fuel. The non-subsidized cost of energy in rural Alaska ranges between $0.30/kWh and $1.20/kWh. The Southeast region consumes the least amount of fossil fuel for electric generation. Both Kodiak and Southeast have large, mature hydroelectric projects that provide the majority of power in their more populated communities, resulting in stable, low energy costs. Northwest Arctic regions. Some communities in The Aleutians, Bering Straits, Bristol Bay, Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim, and Yukon-Koyukuk/ Upper Tanana regions are almost entirely reliant on diesel for power generation. An increasing amount of wind power is generated in the Bering Straits, Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim, and the Bristol Bay and Aleutians regions have developed hydropower resources. The amount of hydroelectric and wind generation has been continually increasing in the last 15 years. Private Investment Given the current low penetration and expected usage of the DCFC stations, some small businesses that could be site hosts may find the 20% match to be a challenging proposition. AEA is investigating solutions to reduce the burden and identifying potential site hosts to determine if match funding can be fully supported. AEA estimates that each NEVI-compliant site will cost $1.0M - $1.2M to construct, requiring $200,000–$240,000 of private cost share. While AEA received many responses to the RFA, it is unclear at this time if any businesses chose not to respond due to the amount of match required to participate in the program. 49 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment The Alaska EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan identifies where and when EV charging infrastructure should be deployed with the NEVI formula funding. Considerations of consumer adoption, cost to install, return on investment, utility availability, roadway traffic, weather, and site host availability were taken into account to develop a proposed strategy to deploy infrastructure. Throughout the five-year NEVI program, the deployment plan is expected to evolve through lessons learned, data collection and analysis, and continued stakeholder engagement. This section has been updated for FY24 to reflect the previous edition’s planned EV charging stations that have been commissioned, additional grassroots efforts in the state to showcase EV capabilities, and a refined list of funding sources to support infrastructure deployment. Funding Sources No State funding or highway gas taxes have been allocated for the construction of the infrastructure. Match funding sources will come from one or a mix of the below options. Therefore, AEA is evaluating the matching funding sources available. • Site hosts: While the 20% match could be significant, some sites may be able to suppor t the entire match. Regardless of other match funding sources, it is expected that the site may provide match funding or support the operations and maintenance throughout the five-year period. • State EV Program Funds: AEA received $1.5 million of state funding to leverage as matching funds for discretionary grant funding opportunities. However, these funds are not expected to be used for the 50 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan NEVI formula program. • Utilities: Utilities are permitted to support line extensions that can count as part of the overall project costs and therefore count towards match requirements. Infrastructure Deployment Upgrades An inventory of EV charging stations currently being installed through other initiatives outside of NEVI was compiled for review to identify locations and determine if any of the sites would be NEVI compliant. Coordination with the other deployments could help maximize the formula funding and present opportunities to engage with potential site hosts that already support EV charging. Table 13: Proposed EV Charger Installations by Other Initiatives State EV Charging Location Unique ID Charger Level (DCFC, L2) Charger Type Location Number of EV Connec-tors EV Network (if known)Corridor Sterling_11.58 DCFC CHAdeMO 18280 Sterling Hwy, Cooper Landing, AK 99572 1 Unknown Outside Volkswagen Settlement: Homer to Healy Corridor In 2021, AEA spent $1 million from the VW settlement to fund a charging corridor from Homer and Seward on the Kenai Peninsula to Healy, south of Fairbanks. The corridor consists of nine charging stations separated by less than 100 miles, allowing drivers the ability to travel from the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks without fear of losing power. Sites in Anchorage, Homer, Seward, Soldotna, Cantwell, Chugiak, Healy and Trapper Creek are currently operational. The site in Cooper Landing is still under construction. Figure 17 identifies the corridor deployment. The proposed stations will not meet NEVI requirements as all the DCFC stations will be 50 kW and at most there will be two stations per site installed. AFC Corridor Pending Designation to Corridor Ready Designation AFC pending designation in Alaska as of Round 6 goes from Anchorage to Fairbanks. In order to receive the corridor-ready designation and comply with NEVI requirements, the corridor will require an entire buildout of new infrastructure, as none of the existing stations meet the requirements of the NEVI program. Some locations along the corridor are not within a utility service area. Because of the power utility gaps, some EV charging locations will not be within the 50-mile radius required by NEVI. The EV charging locations are optimized to be within the shortest distance of each other. This year’s plan proposed that the AFC be upgraded to Corridor Ready once the selected Priority Sites are commissioned. Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Discretionary Grant Program In addition to the NEVI Formula Funding, the BIL provides for $2.5B in discretionary funding which has taken the form of the Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) grant program. AEA and DOT&PF submitted a joint application to install EV charging infrastructure in coastal communities at AMHS facilities. The CFI grant submission intends to jumpstart the state’s activities in Phase 2 of the plan rather than wait until the AFC is certified complete. This will help give marine hub communities earlier access to charging infrastructure to support electrification. 51 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Vehicle Technologies Office Funding Opportunity Announcement AEA submitted an application for the Fiscal Year 2022 Vehicle Technologies Office (VT) Program Wide Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) and has received selection of application for negotiation status. The project title is Alaska Rural EVSE Deployment (ARED). AEA is currently working through the negotiation process and the funding is not guaranteed at this time. This application was submitted to support rural communities in alignment with Phase 3 of the plan. Increases of Capacity/Redundancy along Existing AFC AEA intends to build out the AFC to its maximum capability. It is not expected that any location will exceed the minimum number of charging stations prescribed in the NEVI guidance. Figure 17. Alaska’s Current and Future EV Charging Locations 52 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Electric Vehicle Freight Considerations Nearly half of Alaska’s freight by weight is transported by truck, another quarter by rail, and just under 15% by boat. The majority of trucked goods and materials are transported to the state by ship or barge, then trucked within the state to their destination. The highest volume of this truck traffic occurs between the urban centers of Anchorage and Fairbanks. According to the Alaska Trucking Association, the trucking industry in Alaska does not anticipate the electrification of fleets in the foreseeable future and is not aware of any sales of electric freight vehicles in the state. When fleet electrification does begin in the state, range and infrastructure will be two major considerations. Alaska’s freight routes are more defined than freight routes in the contiguous United States because there are fewer destinations and fewer alternative routes. For example, a driver traveling between Anchorage and Fairbanks will need to travel the entire distance (approximately 360 miles) and charge at the destination. A lengthy break for charging in the middle of the route would make the trip economically infeasible. AEA will continue to monitor fleet manufacturing roadmaps to determine if battery-electric trucks become the industry preference or if another alternative fuel or hybrid powertrain becomes prominent. A lack of electric infrastructure along some freight routes will also be a barrier to fleet electrification. For example, the oil and gas industry based on the North Slope depends on freight trucked year-round up the Elliott and Dalton Highways to Prudhoe Bay, a nearly 500-mile one-way trip, and there is no power grid available along the route. Figure 18. Freight Moved by Mode (Within, Into, and Out of Alaska)Source: Alaska Moves 2050 DRAFT Statewide Freight Plan 53 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Electrification of the state’s marine fleet may be more feasible in the near term. A research project is currently underway, funded by Alaska DOT&PF, that is studying the feasibility of low emission and electric ferries as an option as the state replaces its aging AMHS fleet.1 Public Transportation Considerations Two electric buses are currently in use in Alaska—one city transit bus in Juneau and one school bus in Tok. Tok Transportation operates the state’s only electric school bus, which is half-powered by solar panels and half by the local electric utility. The community of Tok is located in Interior Alaska, which experiences some of the coldest winter temperatures in the state. In the milder shoulder seasons, the bus runs between 1.4 and 1.7 kilowatts per mile. At -38˚F, the bus’s efficiency decreased to 3.46 kilowatts per mile. The extra energy costs are spent heating the inside of the bus to a minimum of 45 degrees. To increase efficiency, the battery is insulated, and the engine is covered. Juneau’s bus, operated by Capital Transit, has faced mechanical problems since its purchase in spring 2021, keeping it out of service for weeks at a time. Its range is also lower than expected in the summer and winter months. Although expected to have a 210-mile range (about 10 hours), in ideal conditions it can go for 170 miles (8 hours) and in colder winter months about 120 miles (5 hours). The decreased battery efficiency is primarily due to the energy needed to heat the inside of the bus. Despite the difficulties with its first bus, Capital Transit plans to purchase more electric buses for its fleet, citing improved EV technology. In 2018, the Municipality of Anchorage leased an electric bus to test its viability, but no electric buses were purchased after that initial test. In its 2019 Climate Action Plan, the municipality included a goal to “monitor the economic viability” of transitioning its public transit fleet to EVs, although progress on that goal was not discussed in the 2019/2020 follow-up report. According to a report on the Anchorage School District website,2 although the school district recognizes the future potential of electric buses, cost and performance of the buses on long routes, especially in the winter, make them not viable. Several smaller transit services provide transportation within rural communities (like Sunshine Transit serving communities in the upper Susitna Valley) and between rural communities and urban areas (like Soaring Eagle Transit, operated by the Gulkana Village Council, which runs between communities in the Copper River Basin The City and Borough of Juneau purchased an electric bus in 2021Photo courtesy of AEA 1. https://dot.alaska.gov/comm/pressbox/arch2022/PR22-0021.shtml 2. https://www.asdk12.org/Page/13936 54 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan and Anchorage). None of these services use EVs but could benefit from the buildout of EV infrastructure. The greatest barriers to adoption of EVs in public transit appear to be initial investment costs and cold weather performance. The Anchorage School District claims electric buses can cost three to four times as much up-front and requires a capital investment of $8 million to $10 million to convert the current diesel fueling infrastructure to electric charging stations. Performance in cold weather is also a concern, with much of the battery power being used to heat the interior of the bus. Currently Juneau’s electric bus cannot complete a full day’s worth of routes in the winter without having to be switched out to charge. AEA will continue to monitor electric bus technology improvements and agencies as they plan to purchase electric buses to determine if there are opportunities to collaborate on future infrastructure deployments outside of the designated AFC. FY23-26 Infrastructure Deployments During Phase 1, the AFC buildout, the focus will be on the priority charging sites located within the ‘Priority EV Charging Sites’ in figure 19. Applications were solicited to host the NEVI sites in each zone to maximize coverage of the corridor. With the deployment, there is an expected gap of 77 miles, greater than required 50-mile coverage in the NEVI program. This is due to the lack of utility service and host sites between Trapper Creek and Cantwell. AEA initially estimated that it would require approximately $14 million to $20 million to fully build out the AFC Figure 19. Priority Sites for Phase 1 as Solicited in RFA 55 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan to corridor-ready designation. This would leave approximately $30 million to $36 million to be used for the other phases of deployment. Following receipt and recommend awards under the RFA, AEA is proposing to construct nine EV charging sites that meet NEVI requirements. This selection of sites is expected to cost between $10 million to $12 million, leaving $40 million to $42 million remaining for other phases of the program. AEA is requesting that FHWA consider the AFC Corridor Ready, thus leading to Corridor Complete status under the NEVI program. With Corridor Complete status, AEA can move to Phase 2 and identify priorities along the AHS and AMHS to support other Alaskan communities. Figure 20 depicts what a Corridor Ready AFC would look like following commissioning of all recommended sites. Figure 20. Priority Sites for Phase 1 as Recommended For Award 56 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Planned Infrastructure Deployments Table 14: Stations Under Construction State EV Charging Location Unique ID Route (note if AFC) Number of Ports Estimated Year Opera-tional Estimated Cost NEVI Funding Sources (Choose one: No NEVI, FY22/23, FY24, FY25, FY26, FY27+) New Location or Upgrade? * *There are no sites currently under construction as of July 2023 since the solicitation process is ongoing. Table 15: Planned Stations State EV Charging Location Unique ID Route (note if AFC) Number of Ports Estimated Year Opera-tional Estimated Cost NEVI Funding Sources (Choose one: No NEVI, FY22/23, FY24, FY25, FY26, FY27+) New Location or Upgrade? * *There are no sites currently planned as of July 2023 since the solicitation process is ongoing and the projects have not been programmed into the STIP. With the solicitation process ongoing, sites have not progressed into the planned or construction phases at this time. The selection committee has completed its recommendations and the process has begun to move into the next phase of notifying applications and beginning the TIP update. Planning Toward a Fully Built-Out Determination As noted in the Awarded Contracts section of the Contracting chapter, AEA is requesting acknowledgment of Corridor Ready status following commissioning of the selected Priority Sites. Two additional Discretionary Exceptions are included in this plan submission in addition to the first year’s plan Discretionary Exception. Three gaps along the corridor exceed the 50-mile maximum, but none of them exceed 80 miles, the distance granted an exception in the initial plan. It is AEA’s belief that the market response to the RFA was adequate and there will be no suitable responses to another RFA that seeks to solicit charging locations in Willow and Clear. The lack of development and potential sites in these two locations is limited, especially as identified in Clear with no applications submitted for the first round. The initially approved Discretionary Exception is requested again – albeit at 77 miles instead of 80 miles due to sites recommended for award – due to the lack of power grid within this gap on the AFC. If Corridor Ready status is granted, this will complete the only AFC in the state and Alaska then requests Corridor Complete status for fully built-out determination. State, Regional, and Local Policy Policies at the state, regional, and local level affect how the infrastructure can be deployed, funds collected, adoption rates and willingness to adopt EVs from the public, and how the infrastructure may be used by the public and fleet vehicles. Public Utility Definition The RCA approved U-21-022 on October 25, 2021, which clarified that EV charging stations are not public 57 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan utilities or subject to restrictions on the resale of electric service, so vendors and owners of charging stations could assess a fee for the provision of electricity. Previously, site hosts had to charge customers based on the amount of time spent using the EV charger since only public utilities were allowed to charge multiple different customers for electricity.1 State Energy Policy The State Energy Policy (Alaska Statutes 44.99.115) recognizes the importance of promoting energy efficiency in the transportation sector.2 State Motor Fuel Tax – Registration Fees There was a proposed bill that implemented a biennial registration fee to supplement the highway fuel tax that is used for highway construction, maintenance, and operations. Electric and alternative fuel vehicles would have paid $100 and hybrid vehicles would pay $50 under the proposal.3 The bill passed the Alaska House of Representatives and was referred to the Finance Committee in the Senate, but the 2021-2022 session ended before the Senate passed the bill. It has not been reintroduced at the time of this publication. Alternative Fuel Vehicle Acquisition Requirement Per Alaska Statute 44.42.020, every five years the Alaska DOT&PF must evaluate alternative fuel cost, efficiency, and commercial availability for automotive purposes. When practical, vehicles using alternative fuels should be purchased or vehicles should be converted to alternative fuels. To ensure the availability of alternative fuels for consumers, the DOT&PF may work jointly with public or private partners.4 Regional Zoning Zoning ordinances are useful tools for state and local governments to indicate where EVSE is allowed or prohibited. Planners and other officials can utilize zoning to incentivize or require EVSE like chargers throughout a municipality’s zoning districts or in specific areas. Alaska can look to what other states and local municipalities have done to promote EV adoption. For example, in the case of Methuen, Massachusetts, an addendum to the existing zoning ordinance permitted the use of EVSE in single- and multi-family dwellings along with commercial and EV charging station in AnchoragePhoto courtesy of AEA 1 Poux, 20212 Alaska State Government, 20203 Josephson, 20214 U.S. Department of Energy, n.d 58 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan industrial zones. Even more radical measures include incentivizing EV supply equipment installation through parking requirement measures. In Georgia, a municipal ordinance includes an incentive program in which each designated EV space in a parking facility counts as three spaces toward meeting off-street parking requirements. The effects of this ordinance are twofold: EV use is incentivized, and traditional ICE vehicle use is constrained and disincentivized. Any changes in zoning ordinances must include clear definitions and provisions to avoid unintended limitations on EVSE deployment. New York City’s Department of City Planning demonstrated this best practice when it amended zoning language to define EVSE in conjunction with parking facilities as an accessory use. This action allowed EVSE to be located in any drive-in property in a commercial district, rather than only at existing fueling station locations.1 Further, state or local ordinances could restrict the parking of non-EVs or EVs not charging in parking spaces with fines and/or towing implications. Grassroots AKEVA plans to set up a temporary EV charging corridor from Fairbanks to Oliktok Point to bring attention to the challenges of electrifying all communities across Alaska. Demonstration, education, advocacy, and fundraising are pivotal as AKEVA builds its platform for EV drivers, activists, and stakeholders across the state to engage. These measures accelerate the adoption of EVs and improve EV infrastructure in Alaska. Education can also be utilized to dispel public misconceptions about range anxiety, EV performance in cold climates, and costs that prevent consumers from confidently making an EV their next vehicle purchase.2 ReCharge Alaska is a private project led by EV enthusiasts in Alaska. The group’s goal is to “open up Alaska and advance the EV transformation through the deployment of DC Fast Chargers.” ReCharge Alaska has deployed its own DCFC stations to support EV drivers in the state, written white papers on the subject, and researched and developed solutions to deploying infrastructure in the extreme cold temperatures of Alaska. The group has voiced satisfaction with AKEVA’s 2020 R-20-005 tariff. The RCA evaluated the current electrical tariffs for emerging EV market and concluded that the R-20-005 incentive for electric users to reduce their power loads from short bursts of loads to a levelized load would be easier for the electrical utilities to manage. Such cooperation between private entities and state organizations is a promising step towards popularizing EV use. In this A crowd gathers in the Golden Valley Electric Association parking lot in Fairbanks to send off the 10-vehicle Arctic Road Rally caravan on August 12, 2022. Photo courtesy AEA 1 U.S. Department of Energy, 20152 AKEVA, 2022 59 EV Charging Infrastructure Deployment Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan framework, passionate citizens take the initiative further than individual EV purchase, towards bolstering the public good.1 After departing from the Golden Valley Electric Association parking lot on August 12, 2022 the Arctic Road Rally caravan of 10 EVs successfully traversed a 1,096-mile round trip from Fairbanks to the Arctic Ocean and back, testing the limits of where EVs can go and negotiating the lack of infrastructure along the way. The biggest challenge on the Dalton Highway wasn’t the performance of the vehicles themselves, but the lack of infrastructure, underscoring the need for more charging stations across the state. With no power lines to provide a charge, the group used a combination of diesel and natural gas generators to electrify their trip. Renewable energy credits provided by Chugach Electric Association helped them achieve net-zero emissions. The event was meant to demonstrate and test the capabilities of EVs in some of the harshest environments—and the vehicles delivered. The group is planning another rally where they plan to bring in vehicles from more manufacturers and run some larger vehicles. Ten EVs assemble at the edge of the Arctic Ocean after driving north up the Dalton Highway during the 2022 Arctic Road Rally Demonstration event. Photo courtesy Tim Leach, Launch Alaska 1 Hall, 2022 60 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Implementation AEA has experience in supporting the deployment of EV charging stations, so past lessons learned and understandings can be applied to the NEVI program as AEA supports its deployment. The strategies in this section will support a successful deployment and lower risk to drivers, site hosts, network companies, the federal government, and AEA. Strategies for EVSE Operations & Maintenance Following the EV infrastructure installation process, there will be several operational considerations to be aware of, including electricity and maintenance costs and associated networking fees. Maintenance & Warranty Costs Charging infrastructure general maintenance includes storing charging cables, checking parts, keeping the equipment clean, and some intermittent repairs to chargers. Warranties vary by manufacturer and can be packaged as fixed-term, renewable, or included with equipment costs. However, while routine maintenance can be minimal, repairing broken chargers that are no longer under warranty can be costly. It is necessary to establish responsibility for maintenance costs (site host, charging network, or installer). Maintenance contracts should include response and repair times. The site hosts and charging vendors will be responsible for the warranty, maintenance, and operations of the sites. The five-year costs related to these activities are expected to be included in the total project cost to be factored in with the federal share and local match. Once the NEVI funds are expended, the costs will entirely transfer to the site host and vendor, where it is expected that the sites will continue to operate and will be supported by collection of charging fees. 61 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Fees Charging station site hosts who want to generate revenue or recover costs may assess a fee for use of the charging infrastructure. Many charging networks will facilitate the fee transaction at the charging unit, but fees can also be collected via app, credit card, over the phone, or at a nearby establishment. According to the final federal rulemaking, “all revenues received from operation of the EV charging facility are used only for: i. Debt service with respect to the EV charging station project, including funding of reasonable reserves and debt service on refinancing; ii. A reasonable return on investment of any private person financing the EV charging station project, as determined by the State or other direct recipient; iii. A reasonable return on investment of any private person financing the EV charging station project, as determined by the State or other direct recipient; iv. If the EV charging station is subject to a public-private partnership agreement, payments that the party holding the right to the revenues owes to the other party under the public-private partnership agreement; and v. Any other purpose for which Federal funds may be obligated under Title 23, United States Code.” Pricing Structures A report released by the University of California, Los Angeles Luskin Center for Innovation details important information about the factors that influence the financial viability of charging stations. Common pricing structures charge by kWh, session, length of time, or through a subscription. The RCA has enabled charging by the kWh—the preferred method for EV drivers—so AEA required that the recipients of the NEVI funding assess fees per kWh. Strategies for Identifying Electric Vehicle Charger Service Providers and Station Owners Through previous deployment programs, AEA has a list of nine approved program vendors. While the NEVI stations will need to be independently procured to meet the minimum requirements of the program and the federal contracting language, the engagement can begin with these vendors to generate interest in applying for proposed locations. On May 13, 2022, AEA publicly released a RFI directed at interested site hosts and businesses of all sizes. The RFI was directly shared with local and small businesses that expressed interest in the VW Mitigation DCFC deployment. The intent was to begin a list of entities to engage as the program unfolds, generate interest in the program, and compare interested parties with identified areas for infrastructure deployment. Participants were encouraged to submit ideal locations with Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates. This information can be used in initial outreach to gauge interest. Further, respondents were asked to provide suggestions and considerations for the plan. The Figure 20. RFI Response Word Cloud Source: www.wordclouds.com 62 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan word cloud in Figure 20 highlights the responses received, and the notable themes collected from the public during this phase are: • Equitable: In alignment with AEA’s goals and the Justice40 requirements, equity will be ensured throughout the program. • Community: The program should provide community charging. Alaskan’s transportation patterns do not commonly include corridor travel. • Efficient: Providing adequate speeds of charging will allow those using the charging stations to receive the charge needed and get back on the road. • Profitable: Host sites will need to support the installation and have a return on investment of the match funding provided. • Accessible: The stations need to be accommodating of all users and need to be placed in convenient locations for those traveling. All procurements will be conducted through a publicly competitive process but conducting engagement activities with suppliers and site owners in advance should help bolster the number of applications received. Site Selection Criteria were developed in the initial plan and updated for the RFA so help distinguish sites when multiple applications were received for each Priority Area. The criteria reflected desirable site characteristics such as distance from the AFC, lighting provided on the site, located within a Justice40 boundary, and access to amenities while charging. Table 16: Site Selection and Prioritization Criteria Criterion Max Points Utility Service Site Information Form Evaluation Has the applicant demonstrated a clear understanding regarding the infrastructure needs and utility improvement costs for the site? Does the project schedule aling with the demonstrated infrastructure and utility needs? 80 Site is located within 1 mile of the highway Within 1 mile: 60 points 1-3 miles: 30 points 3-5 miles 15 points Over 5 miles: 0 points 60 Site provides adequate lighting for security around the EVSE.20 Site has ammenities for users to access while charging their vehicle.40 Site is located within a Justice40 boundary.40 Site match contribution: 20%: 20 points 25%: 40 points 30%: 60 points 60 Total available base points 300 Bonus Considerations Max Points Site offers pull through charging access.20 Site offers make-ready work for additional ports and increased speed (e.g. 350 kW in the future).20 Site offers additional plug standards to be inclusive of other drivers (e.g. NACS and CHAdeMO)10 63 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan There are a variety of configurations for site layouts that a site host could pick based on expected usage and space or parking spaces available. Through the many public engagement actions to-date, accommodating vehicles towing trailers has been brought up several times and could be an important consideration for the success of EV charging in Alaska as pickup trucks gain market share. Figure 21 shows an example configuration that accommodates one EV with a trailer. Additional layout examples can be found in Appendix B. Figure 21. Example Configuration to Accommodate EVs with Trailers 64 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Strategies for EVSE Data Collection & Sharing AEA will collect data on the usage of the EV charging stations for performance measurement, planning for future deployments, and reporting to the Joint Office on the program’s metrics. To be compliant with the expected reporting requirements of the NEVI Standards and Requirements, the grantee shall provide a quarterly report in a form to be approved by AEA that includes the following: • EV charging station identifier • Charging port identifier • Charging session start time/end time • Charging session error codes • Energy (kWh) dispensed to EVs per session by port • Peak session power (kW) by port • Payment method associated with each charging session • Charging station uptime for each of the past three months as calculated by the methodology contained in 23 CFR 680.116(b) • Duration of each outage • Number of charging sessions per zip code for use by AEA in tracking Justice40 benefits The grantee shall produce an annual report (as dictated by the NEVI Standards and Requirements) which contains the following data: • Maintenance and repair cost per charging station for the previous year • Identification of and participation in any state or local business opportunity certification programs including but not limited to minority-owned businesses, veteran-owned businesses, woman-owned businesses, and businesses owned by economically disadvantaged individuals The grantee shall produce a one-time report per the NEVI requirements that contains the following data: • Name and address of the private entity(ies) involved in the operation and maintenance of the chargers • Distributed energy resource installed capacity, in kW or kWh as appropriate, of asset by type (e.g., stationary battery, solar) per charging station • Charging station real property acquisition cost, charging equipment acquisition and installation cost, distributed energy resource acquisition and installation cost, and grid connection and upgrade cost on the utility side of the electric meter • Aggregate grid connection and upgrade costs paid to the electric utility as part of the project, separated into: ◦Total distribution and system costs ◦Total service costs These requirements will be imposed through the project agreements executed between AEA, DOT&PF and the sitehost. Further, the charging vendor will be required and responsible for sharing information through its own applications and other third- party applications. To enable data sharing with third-party entities, the vendor will be required to provide an application programming interface (API) with specific static information (such as location and name) and dynamic information (such as pricing structure and availability status). The APIs will also be used to create a centralized dashboard for the public to view stats on the Alaska EV program. The chargers will be required to display and base the price for electricity in $/kWh. The price of charging will be displayed on the chargers and communicated via the charging network. Further, the pricing structure that is inclusive of maintenance and operation costs will be required to be explained via an application or a 65 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan website. In an effort to make EV charging station location information more accessible, AEA will coordinate with the Alaska DOT&PF to add a layer to 511AK. This website garners frequent views due to the dynamic and changing conditions of Alaska’s roadways. This will help inform the public of charging station locations and help ease range anxiety. Strategies to Address Resilience, Emergency Evacuation, Snow Removal/Seasonal Needs Alaska has significant risks related to earthquakes, mudslides, flooding, and avalanches. All of these—while serious and not entirely uncommon—are not as impactful as winter weather. Certain roads are not maintained during the winter season, and year-round availability and maintenance of the charging stations. Some local entities have designed enclosures for the DCFC stations to maintain an acceptable operating temperature during the winter. Site partners will be required to clear the parking spaces for the EV charging equipment, but it may take additional time to complete snow removal based on the weather conditions. These factors cannot be used against the vendor for station uptime, especially if the adjacent roadway is not traversable. Requirements for operating temperatures and conditions will be included in the project agreements, but modifications, such as enclosures, may need to be accepted if the available equipment does not meet the specifications of the surrounding environment. Strategies to Promote Strong Labor, Safety, Training, and Installation Standards To ensure Alaska’s workforce is prepared to install and maintain EV infrastructure, AEA will coordinate with and seek feedback from unions including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW Local 1547), the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA), and local Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA) affiliates like the Laborers’ Local 942 in Fairbanks and the Laborers’ Local 341 in Southcentral Alaska, and other vocational organizations. Coordination efforts will focus on identifying challenges and risks in training Alaska’s workforce to prepare for EV infrastructure and creating recommendations for certification requirements and state regulation changes, if needed Charging station at the Dimond Center, AnchoragePhoto courtesy of AEA 66 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Coordination efforts with unions will take place through the AKEVWG as outlined in the Public Outreach and Engagement Plan in Appendix A. The Working Group includes representatives from Alaska’s business community, including chambers of commerce, small businesses, and potential site hosts. All recommendations related to the labor issues surrounding EV infrastructure that are discussed in technical group sessions will be presented to the larger group for consideration. FHWA’s NPRM 4910-22-P identifies the EVITP as the proposed certification program for electricians to install, maintain, and operate EV infrastructure. The EVITP website currently lists four Alaska businesses (located in Anchorage and Fairbanks) as utilizing EVITP- certified installers. The Public Outreach and Engagement Plan lists each of these businesses as potential stakeholders to help inform future EV installation and maintenance standards due to their experience with the certification process. As the Working Group considers the best path to certification for Alaskans, it will consider the option to allow certification through a registered electrical apprenticeship program that includes EVSE-specific training, as outlined in the proposed NEVI program regulations. Bringing labor, business, and contracting groups into the EV conversation will have the added benefit of creating EV community advocates as workers learn more about EVs in Alaska and their economic development potential. An EV passes through the intersection of Fireweed Lane and Arctic Blvd in Anchorage. Photo courtesy of AEA Bringing labor, business, and contracting groups into the EV conversation will have the added benefit of creating EV community advocates as workers learn more about EVs in Alaska and their economic development potential. 67 Implementation Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Strategies to Address Compliance with Minimum Standards There were no significant plan changes from the initial plan document to adhere to the NEVI Standards and Requirements Final Rule that was posted on February 28, 2023, and became effective March 30, 2023. All requirements and associated final rule reference sections can be found in Table 17. Table 17: National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements Requirement Reference Procurement Process Transparency for the Operation of EV Charging Stations Section 680.106(a) Number and Type of Chargers Section 680.106(b) Connector Type Section 680.106(c) Power Levels Section 680.106(d) Availability Section 680.106(e) Payment Methods Section 680.106(f) Equipment Certification Section 680.106(g) Security Section 680.106(h) Long Term Stewardship Section 680.106(i) Qualified Technician Section 680.106(j) Customer Service Section 680.106(k) Customer Data Privacy Section 680.106(l) Use of Program Income Section 680.106(m) Interoperability of EV Charging Infrastructure Section 680.108 Traffic Control Devices or on-premises signs acquired, installed or operated Section 680.110 Data Submittal Section 680.112 Charging Network Connectivity of EV Charging Infrastructure Section 680.114 Communication of Price Section 680.116(a) Minimum Uptime Section 680.116(b) Third-Party Data Sharing Section 680.116(c) Other Federal Requirements Section 680.118(a) & Section 680.118(b) ADA Requirements Section 680.118(c) & Design Recommendations for Accessible Electric Vehicle Charging Stations Title VI of the Civil Rights Act Section 680.118(d) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Section 680.118(e) Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act Section 680.118(f) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)Section 680.118(g) 68 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Equity Considerations DOT&PF and AEA employees know and understand the varying demographic communities throughout the state of Alaska as well as the importance of reaching out to all of our communities. The State is committed to not only public input and public outreach from our rural, underserved, and disadvantaged communities, but continued communication throughout the life cycle of the process and project of delivering EV charging stations within the communities and proposed corridors. Alaska has extensive rural regions and communities that range from all around the borders of the state to the interior border with Canada. Rural communities face challenges related to location, terrain, resources, and communication capabilities. AEA will work with community leaders to provide opportunities to engage, comment, and participate in the development of the EV charging stations. AEA will use social media, community councils, radio ads, in-person meetings, virtual meetings, and partnerships with local governments/municipalities and tribes to collaborate with these groups to understand local needs. Within the urban areas, community leaders will have the opportunity to attend virtual meetings and in-person meetings to provide comments from the community as well as reviewing site selections and project rollout. In rural communities, social media, virtual meetings, and in-person meetings with the DOT&PF’s tribal liaison, tribes, and community elders will provide vital information as to sacred areas/burial grounds within their communities to avoid. The State understands the subsistence hunting/fishing lifestyle and times of year and will work with the tribes to avoid outreach/public participation within those time frames with the goal to re- engage with those communities at a later date. The Plan reflects that the concerns, questions, input, and ideas from the public comments/public outreach events will have a direct effect on the corridor and EV site selection. Continued communication with communities and stakeholders throughout the life cycle of the project will allow for modifications to the Plan 69 Equity Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan based on public feedback from individuals within disadvantaged communities. As contractors are selected for capabilities, DOT&PF and AEA will require the selected vendor to review and evaluate site locations within the EV study area using federal requirements and guidelines made available by the Joint Office. Identification and Outreach to Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) in the State Through Executive Order 14008, the Justice40 Initiative was signed by President Biden. The Justice40 Initiative sets a goal that 40% of the overall benefits in certain federal investments flow to DACs that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened. Through meaningful and consistent stakeholder engagement, Justice40 will allow stakeholders and community members the opportunity to engage and provide input on project and programs decisions. Through the use of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, which is the digital tool developed with the use of U.S. Census Bureau data, AEA will identify marginalized, underserved, and overburdened communities within the project area for outreach and DAC participation. The initial stakeholder list contains many government communities that fall within Justice40 boundaries as other DACs, including tribal councils. AEA commits to furthering outreach through promotion of efforts on social media and through newsletters so AEA can continue to foster engagement with all communities. 39.8% of Railbelt residents live in DACs or Alaska Native village statistical areas, so the benefits along the AFC should meet the Justice40 requirements. Large parts of the AFC lie within DACs, so initial outreach will occur in these communities for deployment, while outreach in other communities will be used to update and refine the Plan for the out-years. The investments beyond the AFC will focus on the AMHS, where many of the port communities fall within Figure 22. Alaska’s Justice40 TractsSource: https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/ 70 Equity Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Justice40 boundaries, and then community and destination charging where AEA can provide charging access in rural DACs to foster growth for EVs. The expected penetration in the early years in these communities is expected to be low, but the investment will ensure that the DACs are not left behind as the vehicle fleet shifts to electric power. To support equitable deployments, 30 of the 54 (56%) communities and local governments on the stakeholders list lie within Justice40 boundaries. By only having one AFC, AEA will have the flexibility to disseminate investments and benefits to more communities across the state. AEA and DOT&PF are also currently reviewing the Justice40 map for discrepancies between their own records of DACs, as it appears the two datasets are not in alignment. Should discrepancies be found, AEA will request credit for the benefits of DAC deployments not located on the Justice40 map. Process to Identify, Quantify, and Measure Benefits to DACs The initial measurement method to track the benefits to DACs will be quantifying the amount of funding invested into DACs. This process will involve identifying the infrastructure installed within Justice40 boundaries. For locations that are not within boundaries, an evaluation will be performed using GIS mapping to determine if the infrastructure is in close proximity to the boundary and along a roadway to the community. With Alaska’s roadway network, terrain, and rural nature, many communities only have one access point to the roadway network, so infrastructure placed along that access but outside the boundary may still benefit the DAC. Consultant and AEA labor will also be tracked for engagement activities that directly correlate to DACs, as education and outreach will be important to involve DACs, collect their input, and support them with the NEVI funding. Awareness of the project will also increase chances of small business participation in the communities as site hosts, recognizing the indirect benefit of site sales while travelers charge. AEA understands that community needs are dynamic. The current engagement plan recognizes this and will be updated accordingly throughout the NEVI program. The plan calls for meeting with DACs, engaging with their needs, providing transparency in the implementation process, and eventually gaining trust within the community. There is an additional opportunity to integrate DACs into the clean energy job pipeline as job training related to EV infrastructure installation and general clean energy infrastructure could be provided. Such training measures would not only increase community engagement related to the clean energy transition, but also provide additional income and job security that could provide upward mobility from DAC status. AEA will coordinate with the AWP, and the AATCA, AGC, and ABC to support women and minority participation in the apprenticeship programs. Electric vehicle charging station in Anchorage. Photo courtesy of AEA 71 Equity Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Benefits to DACs through this Plan AEA is in the early stages of identifying and setting performance targets for the benefits to DACs. Investment in communities ensures access to EV charging infrastructure. While adoption rates may be low initially, providing access will make the transition to EVs easier as more affordable and accessible vehicles are released by Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs). Context-sensitive approaches must be utilized in Alaska, especially as it pertains to alternative vehicles like All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and snowmachines. While electric versions of these vehicles are by no means low-cost capital, they are significantly more affordable than electric passenger vehicles. ATVs and snowmachines are used daily by some Alaskans, and their personal preferences must not be disregarded. Including these means of transportation in the EV transition may be a more financially viable variation for DACs in the transition to electric passenger vehicles. While total cost of ownership is typically lower over the life of the vehicle, financial barriers to entry into the EV market can be prohibitive. Therefore, an alternative to remedy these barriers could be the popularization of -transit and shared-ride vehicles for DACs. By alleviating the financial burdens of individual vehicle purchase and providing community support for transit, DACs can receive the same mobility benefits for a lower per capita price. These communally utilized modes also cut down on vehicle miles traveled in their entirety, decreasing the economic and environmental constraints of EV producers and EV users. These wholesale changes to travel habits would result in air quality improvements due to increased EV adoption. Air quality improvements are critical as DACs are oftentimes disproportionately affected by transportation emissions from ICE vehicles. A measure that AEA expects to monitor but may be more qualitative is resilience. For instance, if there are charging stations that are supported by a battery back-up system, a user could charge during a power outage. AEA plans to monitor these occurrences to determine other benefits of the program. Table 18: Benefits Category and Strategy for Tracking Benefits Benefits Category Strategy for Tracking Benefits (Metrics, Baseline, Goals, Data Collection & Analysis Approach, Community Validation) Improve clean transportation access through the location of chargers. Metric: Increase number of EV charging stations in Justice40 areas Baseline: The number of EV charging stations prior to RFA awards Goals: At least 40% of the cost of investment with new charging stations is within Justice40 boundaries Data/Analysis: AEA will track the expenditures of the program and identify the costs for locations within J40 boundaries to determine this benefit. Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. Decrease the transportation energy cost burden by enabling reliable access to affordable charging. Metric: Transportation Energy Cost Burden Baseline: 2020 US Census Data; 2021 EV registration data Goals: Reduce the transportation energy cost burden in J40 communities. Data/Analysis: Overlay EV registration data (from DMV data 2022-) to determine adoption in census tracks to calculate a revised transportation energy cost burden; price of gas; price of electricity by census tract, J40 overlay; Zip codes that are J40 Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. 72 Equity Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Benefits Category Strategy for Tracking Benefits (Metrics, Baseline, Goals, Data Collection & Analysis Approach, Community Validation) Reduce environmental exposures to transportation emissions Metric: Environmental Exposure Baseline: Emissions and air quality models from the state and regional planning agencies; 2021 EV registrations Goals: Reduce PM2.5 and CO2 emissions. Data/Analysis: Use model to determine the change and apply cost of impacts to determine benefit; new EV registrations by zip code Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. Increase the clean energy job pipeline, job training, and enterprise creation in disadvantaged communities. Metric: Number of new clean energy jobs, and jobs related to clean energy. Baseline: Number of EVITP contractors and personnel in 2022, Number of electricians, contractors, and engineers working on EV infrastructure in 2022. Goals: Increase the number of EVITP contractors and personnel by 5 in 5 years, Increase number of electricians, contractors, and engineers working on EV infrastructure by 5% in 5 years. Data/Analysis: EVITP registrations, Survey of contracted entities for NEVI program, Zip code of employees, Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. Economic impacts to business owners.Metric: Indirect impacts of retail/site sales while patrons charge Baseline: With no NEVI creditable sites, there is no existing indirect impact currently. Goals: Show a positive benefit at all sites commissioned through NEVI funding. Data/Analysis: Voluntary economic benefits by site hosts; survey results Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. Knowledge Sharing and Program Awareness. Metric: Community opportunities for engagement about the program. Baseline: Pre-2022 engagements Goals: Increase engagements with communities. Data/Analysis: Number of educational and listening sessions, Labor costs to produce Community Validation: Community engagement during July 11, 2023 technical session on J40 Benefits. Future outreach events and listening sessions in J40 communities. 73 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Labor & Workforce Considerations Alaska expects the capacity of the state’s EV workforce to increase with the implementation of NEVI funds.EV adoption in Alaska is an opportunity for the development of skilled workers and job creation. As EV penetration and charging infrastructure increase, the demand for an in-state EV workforce and associated training programs will increase as well. The State of Alaska has a current EV penetration level of approximately 0.362%, with minimal supporting EV charging infrastructure in place. A significant amount of EV installation, operations, and maintenance expertise currently resides out of state. The goal of the State’s NEVI Labor and Workforce plan is to develop and retain as many EV workforce opportunities as possible within the state. This can be accomplished, in part, by working with our partners at the Department of Labor, AWP, AATCA, AGC, ABC, IBEW, and other vocational schools and universities to promote in-state EV training programs and opportunities. To ensure a network of reliable and effective EV chargers, Alaska will need to implement strong labor, training, and installation standards. Electricians installing EVSE and charging equipment must understand the aspects of the market to adequately address customer questions, concerns, and satisfaction. Currently there are four EVITP certified contractors in Alaska—three in Anchorage and one in Fairbanks. This number has not changed between FY 23 and FY24. The planned EV infrastructure investment will bring a significant amount of EV employment opportunities to the state, which could overwhelm the current in-state EVITP certified workforce capacity. In March 2023, AEA joined the EVITP course at the IBEW Local 1547 to discuss the NEVI program and share the outlook for future EVSE work opportunities in Alaska. The IBEW in Alaska offers 2 EVITP courses per year; one of these courses is offered in Anchorage and one is offered in Fairbanks. The EVITP course is 20 hours 74 Labor & Workforce Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan with typical attendance of 10 electricians. Over time, the IBEW EVITP course registration numbers have been steadily increasing. AEA begun to discuss how the state can support Electric Vehicle Charging Vocational Training. The intent is to increase access and frequency of EVITP training to the local vocational workforce and expand on the existing 20-hour EVITP certification in a continuing education style course for journeyman electricians. The program would aim to develop a curriculum to support future EVSE deployment throughout Alaska by providing the following: • Classroom training for Level 2 and DCFC charging protocols and electrical requirements (Existing EVITP). • Hands-on experience with AC Level 2 and DCFC chargers; installation, maintenance, and troubleshooting (Existing EVITP). • Creation of an “Alaska-specific” EVSE training program to meet EVITP required coursework or supplement EVITP required coursework. • Support to obtain supplies to power and purchase EVSE for the “lab/hands on” portion of the training program. • Support for instructor certification and continuing education. • Develop program to facilitate charger manufacturer-specific installer/maintainer certifications. This component of the program would facilitate local electrician’s ability to receive “factory certification” to do service and warranty work on their equipment. Facilitate an in-state training where training can occur on-site. Dedication of an AEA-funded EV charging station at the Linny Pacillo Parking Garage in Anchorage. Photo courtesy of AEA 75 Labor & Workforce Considerations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan AEA plans to work with DOT&PF and FHWA to develop a funding mechanism for labor and workforce development activities, Workforce development activities for NEVI formula program projects are eligible so long as they are directly related to the charging of an EV. States are required to comply with the qualified technician requirements in 23 CFR 680.106(j). Workforce development activities funded by the NEVI formula program will contribute to the State’s compliance with these requirements. The State of Alaska has a Policy on Anti-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity to protect against illegal discrimination. Alaska is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse states in the nation and is committed to promoting a workforce that is representative of all Alaskans. As an employer and service provider, the State fully supports equal opportunity, equal employment opportunity (EEO), and affirmative action. The State does not condone, permit, or tolerate discrimination against its employees or applicants for State employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, changes in marital status, pregnancy or parenthood, or status as a veteran or veteran with a disability. In compliance with 49 CFR Part 26, and the Alaska DOT&PF’s EEO Policy Statement, Affirmative Action Plan, and its ongoing commitment to integrating diversity, equity, and inclusion, the Alaska NEVI Plan will establish procedure to incorporate certified DBEs as either prime contractors or subcontractors. Proposals for NEVI contracts will be required to submit a DBE Performance Plan as part of a responsive proposal. 76 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Physical Security & Cybersecurity Physical Security Providing a welcoming and secure environment for motorists looking to charge their vehicles will help ensure the success of the deployments. This is a challenge, due to the remoteness of some of the locations along the AFC and the lack of sunlight in the winter months. Adequate lighting is paramount and was included as a scoring criterion in the selection process for this reason. Other site amenities that could aid in security include cameras, security detail, a staffed facility that is open 24/7, and locating the stations on-site in areas with high visibility. AEA will work with the vendors through the selection and design process to ensure that physical safety is kept in mind. Cybersecurity AEA’s approach to deploying infrastructure through the NEVI program is to use third-party vendors to own, operate, and maintain the EV charging stations and the data that is stored and transmitted. The data that will be publicly available will be transmitted through an API, and the data will be limited to non-sensitive material. AEA does not intend to collect, nor does it want personally identifiable information (PII). The energy sector is uniquely critical as all other infrastructure sectors depend on power and/or fuel to operate. A threat on energy infrastructure can directly affect the security and resilience within and across other critical infrastructure sectors—threatening public safety, the economy, and national security. AEA is in the process of writing a State Energy Security Profile (SESP) as an essential part of energy security planning. These plans will describe the state’s energy landscape, people, processes, and risks, and will include 77 Cybersecurity Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan considerations and planning as they relate to EVSE. AEA will work with partners to develop and finalize a plan to ensure the infrastructure is safe against all physical and cybersecurity threats. As part of the contract with the site partner and/or charging providers, language surrounding cybersecurity requirements will be included. The vendor will be responsible for meeting the latest cybersecurity requirements around PII and Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS) security standards to protect customer payment information. The vendor will be responsible for alerting AEA and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency of any known or suspected network or system compromises. In addition to ensuring payment information is secured in compliance with PCI-DSS, AEA will work with partners to ensure all potential threat vectors are reviewed with respect to current standards and best practices for each. This will require design reviews and collaboration with charging providers to ensure EVSE cybersecurity is fully addressed. In the absence of any one specific EV charging cybersecurity standard, the following standards and guidelines will be used as part of these discussions. This is not an exhaustive list and is updated regularly as the industry evolves: NIST Interagency Report 8294; NREL Project 1.3.4.402, Consequence-Driven Cybersecurity for High Power Charging Infrastructure; SAE J1772 for EV plugs and adapters; IEC 68151-1 EV Charging Modes; IEC 62196 EV plugs and adapters and ISO 15118 where applicable. Design reviews will include discussions of Open Charge Point Protocol (OCPP) implementations; Public Key Infrastructure Architecture and Certificate Management methodologies; and other protocol reviews from a cybersecurity perspective to ensure that secure development lifecycle and operations best practices are used by all vendors. AEA will ensure best practices by vendors are followed to include but not be limited to: • A method to authenticate all software as part of the initialization phase • Secure configurations in all meter equipment, disabling any unused ports and protocols such as Bluetooth or Telnet • Encryption of all over-the-air transmissions where applicable • Transport Layer Security for all web-enabled devices • FedRAMP and/or SOC 2 certification for all cloud services • Continuous monitoring by the EV Charging Management System AEA will consider requesting cybersecurity scan results from the charging provider, ensuring all configurations and vulnerabilities have been addressed prior to operational service date. AEA has considerable cybersecurity resources available to assist in ensuring the entire EV ecosystem is securely implemented and maintained. 78 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Program Evaluation Monitoring AEA will work with Alaska DOT&PF to develop a public-facing dashboard that displays the data collected from the infrastructure deployed with NEVI formula funding. This dashboard will inform the community of the number of stations, their usage, and their uptime. The AEA program manager will be responsible for monitoring the deployment schedule and monitoring the progress of the installations. The dashboard will be updated as new stations come online. Reporting The dashboard developed to monitor the program will also assist AEA in reports that need to be developed for submittal to the Joint Office. These reports will assist in evaluating compliance for speed of charging provided as well as station uptime. Alaska will comply with the quarterly and annual reporting requirements identified in the NPRM. AEA will also provide an extract of the maps produced and provide them to DOT&PF for incorporation into the ‘Family of Plans’ and other transportation-related maps. Annual Updates This report is intended to be a living document and will be updated annually based on data collected throughout the year. Summaries will be included to inform Alaskans and the Joint Office on the progress of the program and its usage. This data will also aid in informing out-year decisions, such as if additional capacity at certain locations is required or the type of facility that benefits the most from infrastructure installation. While AEA has developed a roadmap for the five-year NEVI program, continued engagement with stakeholders will refine and alter the proposed method and locations for infrastructure outside the AFC. 79 Discretionary Exceptions Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan 79 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Discretionary Exceptions Summary of Requests AEA and DOT&PF, on behalf of Alaska, are currently requesting one discretionary exception to the NEVI requirements as identified in Table 19. Table 19. Discretionary Exception Request Exception #Type Distance of Deviation Included in Round 7 AFC Nomination Reason for Exception Request 1 50 miles apart1 mile from exit 27 miles__ miles Yes No Grid Capacity Geography Equity Extraordinary Cost 2 50 miles apart 27 miles Yes No Grid Capacity Geography Equity Extraordinary Cost 3 50 miles apart 16 miles Yes No Grid Capacity Geography Equity Extraordinary Cost Justification for Exception 1 The State of Alaska is requesting an exception to the requirement that EV chargers be placed no more than 50 miles apart due to the lack of electric service and infrastructure area along a 77-mile stretch of the AFC. There is currently no electric infrastructure between approximately Parks Highway mile 135 (north of Trapper Creek) and mile 210 (Cantwell). The recommended sites for award leave this gap at 77 miles. It was approved in the 80 Discretionary Exceptions Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan initial plan due to the lack of electric grid. The Matanuska Electric Association provides electric service to points south of mile 135. Its certified authority extends north to approximately mile 173, although no infrastructure is currently installed north of mile 135. Golden Valley Electric Association provides electric service to points north of mile 210 and its certified authority extends south to mile 199. This leaves a 26-mile gap where no electric utility has regulatory authority to install new service. Within the area where no electric infrastructure currently exists, there are few commercial establishments and none that operate year-round, leaving limited options for utilities to recoup the costs of extending power lines. Installing power lines to EV charging stations to meet the 50-mile distance requirement would be prohibitively expensive and logistically onerous, with few, if any, site stakeholders to engage to host the stations within the gap. The two utility companies on either side of this utility gap are active stakeholders in the AKEVWG, which will continue to work to overcome these challenges. AEA proposes to install charging stations as close as feasible to the edges of the utility gap to minimize the EV charging infrastructure gap along the AFC. AEA will work with businesses and property owners to find suitable sites to minimize the length of this gap to the greatest extent possible. One alternative solution considered was to install a charging station within the utility gap that utilizes diesel or solar power generation, or a combination of both. The environmental costs of diesel power generation, the feasibility of utilizing solar power during Alaska’s dark winter months, and the cost of constructing and operating a NEVI-compliant charging station with these alternative power sources rule out this option. Map of Exception 1 Figure 23. Discretionary Exception 1 81 Discretionary Exceptions Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Justification for Exception 2 The State of Alaska is requesting an exception to the requirement that EV chargers be placed no more than 50 miles apart between Wasilla and Trapper Creek. The were no acceptable submissions in Houston or Willow that would have reduced this gap, and it is not expected than there would be an acceptable sites submitted in another round of RFA due to the lack of development in these locations. Further, cutting this distance could harm the economic viability of the charging stations installed in Wasilla and Trapper Creek, as it is expected there will initially be low utilization of the four ports. Map of Exception 2 Justification for Exception 3 The State of Alaska is requesting an exception to the requirement that EV chargers be placed no more than 50 miles apart between the Healy assigned site and Nenana. The identified priority site identified between these two locations was Clear and it received no submissions during the RFA initial round. AEA does not expect to receive any applications in any future rounds due to the lack of development in this area of the AFC. Initially, AEA decided to attempt to solicit a site in this location but without any applications received, additional effort should not be expended to solicit a site in this area. Figure 24. Discretionary Exception 2 82 Discretionary Exceptions Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Map of Exception 3 Figure 25. Discretionary Exception 3 Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Appendix A: Public Outreach and Education Plan ALASKA ELECTRIC VEHICLE OUTREACH & EDUCATION PLAN UPDATE AUGUST 1, 2023 Prepared for: 813 W Northern Lights Blvd Anchorage, AK 99503 Prepared by: Michael Baker International 3900 C Street, Suite 900 Anchorage, AK 99503 907-273-1600 Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-3 This public outreach and education plan is a living document. It may be updated to add or remove objectives, stakeholders, strategies, or methods as needed to adapt to new and changing circumstances as project development progresses. Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-4 BACKGROUND & OVERVIEW The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) seeks to improve the United States’ nationwide network of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program by creating a network of 500,000 EV chargers by 2030. This will allow reliable, affordable, convenient, and equitable charging opportunities for all EV users. The NEVI Formula Program required each state to submit an initial EV Infrastructure Deployment Plan by August 1, 2022 outlining how each state intends to use its formula funds. Plan updates are required to be submitted annually throughout the life of the program. This document supplements the State of Alaska’s first plan update. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is the lead agency in Alaska charged with reducing barriers to the adoption of EVs across the state, disbursing federal grant and program funding related to EVs, and planning for and implementing the expansion of the state’s EV infrastructure. One component of this mission and a requirement of the federal funding program is to develop a public outreach and education campaign to support the expansion of EV infrastructure across the state. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES We will support the expansion of EV charging infrastructure across the state and break down barriers to EV adoption through the following objectives: 1. Create opportunities for stakeholders to work through and collaborate on EV issues statewide through the following objectives measured between July 2023 and June 2024: a. Host public meetings in at least five communities across the state b. Host four working group meetings that provide an opportunity for stakeholder updates and discussion c. Host nine technical sessions in a panel- or discussion-based format that address specific EV issues relevant to Alaska (e.g., workforce training, winter maintenance) 2. Keep the public informed about NEVI-related activities in Alaska as measured by the following objectives: a. Earn five Alaska-based media stories in print, radio, or television b. Distribute 12 monthly email newsletters, with content cross-posted on the AEA website and social media, covering a variety of topics of interest to Alaskans c. Attend at least five external community events (e.g., Alaska Federation of Natives conference, Alaska Municipal League conference, Transportation Fairs, Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference, and chamber of commerce events) to provide information about EVs in Alaska and the NEVI program 3. Conduct equitable and inclusive public outreach as measured by the following objectives: a. Receive engagement in the form of meeting attendance, comments, or survey results from communities in each region of the state, including remote communities that are not connected to the contiguous North American highway system b. Target one technical session to Justice40 communities along the Railbelt to ensure the communities’ needs are reflected in Phase 1 roll-out Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-5 c. Help facilitate the pursuit of additional grant funding to support EV charging infrastructure deployment in rural and remote communities This Public Information Plan will comply with best practices in public involvement and all applicable local, state, and federal regulations including 23 CFR 450.210. STRATEGY Meetings and events will be the primary avenue for engaging stakeholders and the public with EV-related information. Through quarterly working group meetings, technical sessions, and community workshops, we will ensure a wide variety of topics and targeted interests are represented in our outreach. We will alo engage directly with communities and the public by attending events, meeting Alaskans with EV-related information where they are. DATA COLLECTION To ensure our outreach is equitable and reaches multiple and disadvantaged communities, we will collect demographic data throughout the public involvement process. We will analyze this data to identify gaps and address them with new techniques or approaches (for example, offering different meeting times, advertising through different formats, or changing venues to increase ease of access). We will enact tasks to gather participant data to include but not limited to: • Hard copy sign in sheets • Required registration for virtual meetings • Demographic questions within each survey • Email sign up form on website TIMELINE This plan covers to period of July 2023 through June 2024. Outreach work, however, is ongoing and planned to continue throughout the life of the NEVI program OUTREACH TACTICS Our primary outreach tactics are: 2. Quarterly Working Group Meetings: AEA established this group in 2020 to solicit feedback and share information among EV stakeholders across the state. Working group meetings are generally held once per quarter and typically include about 60 attendees. 3. Technical Sessions and Community Workshops: AEA hosts targeted meetings based on specific topics related to EVs in Alaska (technical sessions) and individual community coordination (community workshops) to ensure AEA’s statewide efforts are aligned with local community efforts. Each technical session has an in-person and virtual attendance option and are held 8-10 times per year. Community Workshops are scheduled by request or are offered when staff are traveling for other business needs. Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-6 4. Email Newsletters and Announcements: AEA’s email listserv for EV-related news is robust with high open and click rates. This listserv is utilized for monthly newsletters, meeting announcements, funding opportunity announcements, and calls to action. 5. Community Events: AEA attends community events (such as the Arctic Road Rally in Fairbanks and the DOT&PF Transportation Fair in the Mat-Su Valley in 2022) to share information with the public about EVs in Alaska. Staff also give presentations by request to community groups like chambers of commerce. QUARTERLY WORKING GROUP MEETINGS This working group of EV stakeholders was established in 2020 after the State of Alaska received funding from the VW emissions settlement. The group’s quarterly meetings, which are open to the public, allow stakeholders to share information, discuss EV-related projects, and learn about EV-related topics on the national and statewide level. Over the life of this plan, we intend to host four quarterly Working Group meetings tentatively scheduled for August, November, February, and May. Each meeting will be open to the public and will include in-person and virtual attendance. The in-person component will typically be hosted in Anchorage. Meetings typically occur over the lunch hour between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. Meeting minutes are recorded and posted online within one week of each meeting. Providing updates on NEVI plan progress and implementation will be a standing agenda item at each meeting. We will also solicit presentations from stakeholders to update the group on other projects, new infrastructure and business partnerships, state agencies, and the electric vehicle market in Alaska. Due to feedback from the group, we will focus on Alaska-specific content over national content. MEETING NOTICES & DOCUMENTATION We will use the following tactics to advertise the meeting to our stakeholders and the public: • Email blast to working group, including all previous attendees who have provided their email addresses • Post content on Alaska Energy Authority social media pages • Create content for flyers to be posted at community locations like local businesses and post offices Each advertisement will include a link (and QR code on flyers) to the AEA website where all meeting information will be housed and archived including the date, time, and in-person meeting location; agenda (posted at least three days prior to each meeting); and the virtual meeting link. Sign-in sheets that collect demographic information will be distributed to in-person attendees. Virtual attendance will require registration. A recording and transcript of each meeting will be posted to the AEA website within one week of the event. TECHNICAL SESSIONS AND COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-7 Technical sessions and community workshops are targeted outreach intended to serve specific stakeholder groups. Technical sessions are held 8-10 times per year and focus on specific topics or issues. We typically solicit panelists from stakeholder groups and provide them with questions ahead of the meetings to prompt discussion. For example, a technical session held in 2022 focused on workforce development and training. We solicited panelists from the state’s primary electric workers’ union, small businesses with staff who had completed the EVITP certification process, and a professor who is training students on EV maintenance. The discussion revolved around Alaska’s current readiness to support EV infrastructure and strategies to develop training programs in-state. Community workshops similarly target outreach to local areas and issues. AEA solicits attendance from community leaders and the public, and typically will give a presentation on the NEVI program and potential future funding opportunities. Attendees always have the opportunity to discuss and comment on their own EV- related plans and how those fit into AEA’s work. MEETING NOTICES & DOCUMENTATION Technical sessions and community workshops will be noticed and documented using the same process as the quarterly working group meetings. EMAIL NEWSLETTERS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS We will create content for the monthly EV newsletter, which will be sent from the AEA communications team to the EV listserv hosted by AEA. Each newsletter will focus on a different topic related to EVs in Alaska. We will also include any meeting information or public comment opportunities in these monthly emails. Past topics for the newsletter include: • The latest options for off-road electric vehicles • Electric vehicles and electricity derived from fossil fuels • Electric vehicles in fleet, transit, and air travel in Alaska • Clean vehicle tax credit • Arctic Road Rally event in which a group of electric vehicles traveled the Dalton Highway • Electric vehicle workforce in Alaska In additional to the monthly newsletter schedule, the listserv will be utilized for meeting announcements, funding opportunity announcements, and calls to action. COMMUNITY EVENTS AEA staff will seek out opportunities to participate in various events throughout the state to share information to groups and the public about the NEVI program and EVs in Alaska. These events could take the form of attendance at a booth, as we did in 2022 at the Arctic Road Rally and DOT&PF Transportation Fair. It could also involve giving a presentation or hosting a workshop, as we did at the 2023 Alaska Municipal League conference where we distributed a survey to rural communities soliciting feedback about interest and needs related to EVs. STAKEHOLDERS Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-8 Current stakeholders are either involved in the working group or have signed up for the monthly newsletter. We will continue to review this list to define gaps and ensure we are reaching Alaskans equitably. Stakeholders with an asterisk indicate groups or communities that are found within a Justice40 area identified by the U.S. Department of Transportation. CURRENT STAKEHOLDERS The list below includes groups or communities that participate in our outreach activities or are included in the email listserv. Communities & Local Governments Akutan* City of Houston* Old Harbor* Municipality of Anchorage Hydaburg* Ouzinkie* City of Anderson City and Borough of Juneau City of Palmer* City of Angoon* Kachemak* Pelican Coffman Cove Kake* Petersburg Borough Cold Bay Kasaan* Port Lions* Cordova Kenai* Saxman* Craig* Kenai Peninsula Borough* Seldovia* Delta Junction City of Ketchikan* Seward Denali Borough Ketchikan Gateway Borough City and Borough of Sitka* Eagle King Cove* Municipality of Skagway Borough* City of Fairbanks Klawok* Soldotna* Fairbanks North Star Borough City of Kodiak Tenakee Springs False Pass* Kodiak Island Borough* Unalaska* Gustavus Matanuska-Susitna Borough* City of Valdez Haines Borough City of Nenana* Wasilla* Homer* North Pole Whittier City of Hoonah* North Slope Borough Yakutat Native Organizations Ahtna, Inc.* Cook Inlet Regional Corp* Metlakatla Indian Community* Chickaloon Native Village* Doyon* Chugach Corp* Kodiak Area Native Association* Utilities Alaska Electric Light & Power Co. Cordova Electric Kotzebue Electric Association Alaska Power & Telephone Enstar Natural Gas Matanuska Electric Association Alaska Power Association Golden Valley Electric Association Southeast Alaska Power Agency, Ketchikan Chugach Electric Homer Electric Association Copper Valley Electric Kodiak Electric Association Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-9 Agencies Alaska DOT&PF Bureau of Land Management US Department of Energy Alaska Energy Authority Federal Highway Administration Alaska Housing Finance Corporation Regulatory Commission of Alaska Businesses Adventure Denali Loopy Lupine Denali Chamber of Commerce ChargePoint Sheep Creek Lodge Willow Chamber of Commerce Dimond Center Chugiak Eagle River Chamber Three Bears Alaska Local Organizations Alaska Municipal League Easy Park Pacific Northwest Economic Region Alaska Center Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation Prince William Sound Economic Development District Alaska Electric Vehicle Association (AKEVA) FAST Planning Prince William Sound Science Center Alaska Public Interest Research Group Haines Economic Development Corporation ReCharge Alaska Alaska Trails IBEW Local 1547 Renewable Energy Alaska Project Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions (AMATS) Juneau EVA Anchorage Economic Development Corporation Kenai Peninsula Economic Development District Sitka Conservation Society Bering Strait Development Council Launch Alaska Southeast Conference* Copper Valley Development Association Norton Sound Health Corporation Southwest Alaska Municipal Conference* Education University of Alaska Anchorage University of Alaska, Fairbanks POTENTIAL FUTURE STAKEHOLDERS The list below includes groups or communities that we would like to engage with moving forward. Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Air Quality Division Calista Corporation* Laborers’ Local 341 Alaska Federation of Natives* CCI Electrical Services, LLC Laborers’ Local 942 Alaska Inter-Tribal Council* Chugach Native Association* Maniilaq* Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium* Cook Inlet Tribal Council* McKinley Private Investment Alcan Electrical & Engineering, Inc. Copper River Native Association* NANA Regional Corporation* Aleut Corporation* Fairbanks Native Association* National Park Service Appendix A: Public Outreach & Education Plan A-10 Aleutian Pribilof Island Association* Fullford Electric, Inc. Northern Alaska Environmental Center Alyeska Resort Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce Sealaska Corporation* Arctic Slope Regional Corporation Kawerak Tanana Chiefs Conference* Koniaq Incorporated* Telecommunications/Internet Entities Association of Village Council Presidents Knik Tribe* Tok Transportation Bering Staights Native Corporation* Kodiak Area Native Association* Bristol Bay Native Corporation* Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Appendix B: Example Site Layouts B-2 Appendix B: Example Site Layouts Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Example One: three stalls and one pull-through station B-3 Appendix B: Example Site Layouts Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Example Two: four stalls and no pull-through stations B-4 Appendix B: Example Site Layouts Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Example Three: two stalls and two pull-through stations B-5 Appendix B: Example Site Layouts Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Example Three: no stalls and four pull-through stations Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan Appendix C: Summary of Public Comments State of AlaskaElectric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation PlanJuly 2023 Find EV information at akenergyauthority.orgContact us at electricvehicles@akenergyauthority.org PUBLISHER: Tim Bradner / Mike Bradner (Emeritus) 907 440-6068 / 3037 South Circle Anchorage, AK 99507 / Fax: (907) 345-5683 Alaska Legislative DigestBradners’ July 15, 2023 No. 22/2023 Regulators, on renewable energy• The Regulatory Commission of Alaska will probe renewable energy projects this summer – Page 4 Our reports are protected by Copyright. Please do not forward to others without permission. © COPYRIGHT Email: timbradner@pobox.alaska.net Schools hit by governor’s vetoes push for restored funding Educators pin hopes on supplemental budget – Continued on page 2 It seems all but inevitable now that imports of liquefied natural gas, most likely from western Cana- da, will be needed to fill a looming gap in natural gas production from Cook Inlet expected to begin in 2027. After 2027 there won’t be enough gas from the Inlet to fuel all space heating and power genera- tion needs in Southcentral Alaska. There’s gas left in the Inlet, but not enough. There’s a lot of it on the North Slope, but a pipeline from there can’t be built in time. Imports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, seem the only option to meet the near-term need, the utilities say. A lot of Alaskans won’t like that, particularly since consumers will help pay for the facilities needed to import the LNG, which will be regasified for use in the region. There will be political blowback. It’s starting already State Sen. Bill Wielechowski wrote to state natural resource commissioner John Boyle and state Attorney General Treg Political backlash expected over imported LNG Educators are now pinning their hopes on the supplemental FY 2024 budget for some or all of the $87 million for school districts vetoed by Gov. Mike Dunleavy from the budget. There will be a sup- plemental appropriation request – there always is, to cover unexpected expenses – and some of the vetoed money could be included if the governor can be persuaded. Dunleavy’s thinking on schools is a black box. He gave no reason for any of his vetoes including for schools. The vetoes leave an estimat- ed $300 million surplus, and some believe the governor was simply being cautious, with oil revenues always uncertain. If prices firm up later this year (they haven’t so far) Dunleavy might feel confident enough to include something for schools in the supplemental, according to this thinking,. Or maybe not. We really don’t know what the governor’s thinking is. Some think Dunleavy is just buying into the conservative thinking that public schools don’t need more money and that funds should instead go to private schools. We just don’t know. – Continued on page 3 Page 3Legislative Digest No. 22/2023 Energy: Political blowback over LNG imports – Continued from bottom, page 1 Taylor charging that Hilcorp, the main gas producer, is not fulfilling commitments in state oil and gas leas- es to explore known but undeveloped pockets of gas. Also, on the state level, renewable energy advocates are energized to push alternative energy and the Renewable Energy Standards bills now pending in the state House and Senate. Alaska U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski is also no fan of imports. Last spring she told state legislators in Juneau that importing LNG is the easy way out of a complex problem. Once they begin, with infrastructure and commercial contracts in place, it will be a difficult habit to break, Murkowski said. Gas and electric utilities have regulatory responsibility to consumers, that energy will be available Despite the political optics, utilities have responsibilities. John Sims, President of Enstar Natural Gas, rec- ognized the difficulty of the problem: “The work we are doing (to assess different options) represents a gen- erational shift in the Railbelt’s energy landscape. The assessment confirms what we already know about Cook Inlet: For 60 years, we have benefited from relatively easy access to gas. But this is an aging basin and we need a solution.” Enstar’s contract with Hilcorp expires in 2033, but other regional utilities will see contracts expire sooner. For example, Homer Electric’s expires this year. Hilcorp has told utilities it cannot renew gas supply contracts because it cannot guarantee delivery of gas. It’s a big public relations problem for utilities The public will be skeptical on why Canadian gas must be imported, as LNG, when there are 35 trillion cubic feet of gas on the North Slope waiting for a pipeline. If it could be built, the pipeline, part of the Alaska LNG Project, could supply gas to Southcentral and Interior Alaska at stable low prices. But companies and the state have worked to tap North Slope gas for decades with no success because of huge costs – $43 billion is the latest estimate – and uncertainties in U.S. and world markets for gas and LNG. A backup plan for a smaller 36-inch gas pipeline, the so-called “bullet line,” faces even tougher problems because the only way its $8 billion estimated costs can be paid for is a massive state subsidy. Can renewable energy fill the gap? Consumers will also ask why more renewable energy can’t solve the problem, at least for electric utilities. There are indeed plans for more renewables. Chugach Electric Association and Golden Valley Electric Asso- ciation are looking at new wind and solar projects proposed by private developers, and Matanuska Electric Association will also be purchasing more solar power from a private developer. But these won’t be enough to take the place of natural gas, and there are questions as to how many could be done in time to meet the expected shortfall The long-proposed Susitna hydro project is large enough to make a big difference, howev- er. It could supply all the electric utilities’ needs and free up natural gas for Enstar’s space-heating customers. But while work on federal licensing for Susitna is advanced the project needs substantial funds to complete it. If it could be built it could be a source of long-term stable power. But Susitna is also politically controversial among some residents near where the dam would be built on the upper Susitna River. 7/19/23, 2:32 PM As Cook Inlet gas shortage looms, Alaska’s biggest utilities assess their options — and none are cheap https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/07/08/as-cook-inlet-gas-shortage-looms-alaskas-biggest-utilities-assess-their-options-and-non…1/11 Obituaries • Games • ADN Store • e-Edition • Sponsored Content • Real Estate/Open Houses Energy As Cook Inlet gas shortage looms, Alaska’s biggest utilities assess their options — and none are cheap By Sean Maguire Updated: July 8, 2023 Published: July 8, 2023 Alaska News • Politics • Opinions • Talk to us • LOG IN/LOG OUTSections 7/19/23, 2:32 PM As Cook Inlet gas shortage looms, Alaska’s biggest utilities assess their options — and none are cheap https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/07/08/as-cook-inlet-gas-shortage-looms-alaskas-biggest-utilities-assess-their-options-and-non…2/11 Electrical transmission lines connect the Beluga Power Plant in Tyonek with Anchorage, seen in Point MacKenzie on June 22, 2023. (Loren Holmes / ADN) A looming shortage of Cook Inlet natural gas means a majority of Alaska residents are likely to see a jump in costs in the coming years to heat and power their homes, according to a new report prepared by Railbelt utilities. Industry watchers and some utility representatives say importing liquefied natural gas to Southcentral Alaska is one of the most viable options to help fill the supply gap. Some policymakers have disputed that, suggesting that more Cook Inlet gas production is economically feasible. Others, while frustrated, say importing gas may be inevitable. “It’s so discordant for Alaskans to think about importing natural gas when we know there’s gas still left in Cook Inlet,” said Anchorage Republican Sen. Cathy Giessel, co- chair of the Senate Resources Committee. “And, of course, we have the massive stranded gas reserves up on the North Slope, but it’s stranded, again because of economic reasons.” Hilcorp, by far the largest producer of Cook Inlet gas, told utilities last May that their current contracts would not be extended. Homer Electric Association’s contract is ADVERTISEMENT 7/19/23, 2:32 PM As Cook Inlet gas shortage looms, Alaska’s biggest utilities assess their options — and none are cheap https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/07/08/as-cook-inlet-gas-shortage-looms-alaskas-biggest-utilities-assess-their-options-and-non…3/11 set to expire next year, followed by the other five Railbelt utilities and Enstar over the next decade. A small unmet demand for natural gas is expected to start in 2027, steadily ramping up as producers draw from Cook Inlet’s remaining reserves. The Alaska Utilities Working Group issued a 58-page report last week, ranking potential solutions, with one or multiple options set to be chosen by the end of the year for further development. [Anchorage electric utility wants to raise the base rate by nearly 6%] ADVERTISEMENT All of the options selected by the working group came with the warning of higher prices for the more than 550,000 Alaskans living in Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula, the Mat-Su and Fairbanks. Ranking solutions The first-phase assessment of potential solutions was presented on June 28 to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska — the state agency in charge of regulating public utilities. Ten options were considered, with the highest-ranked falling into three categories: ADVERTISEMENT 7/19/23, 2:32 PM As Cook Inlet gas shortage looms, Alaska’s biggest utilities assess their options — and none are cheap https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/07/08/as-cook-inlet-gas-shortage-looms-alaskas-biggest-utilities-assess-their-options-and-non…4/11 • Sourcing additional natural gas from Hilcorp and other producers. This was narrowly the highest-scoring option, but is said to be a short-term fix at best, according to the utilities, with shrinking economically recoverable reserves from the nearly 70-year-old basin. The cost of drawing more gas from the Cook Inlet basin was estimated to be one of the cheaper options, but it was projected to cost more to supply than under current contracts. • Importing natural gas, potentially from Canada and Mexico. The working group is considered retrofitting a former LNG export facility in Nikiski for import or using a floating facility to store and process natural gas. The cost of supplying imported gas was estimated at approximately 50% higher than current rates. • Constructing an 800-mile pipeline from the North Slope to Southcentral Alaska and Fairbanks. The working group said a $9 billion pipeline could be built to supply LNG to Alaska consumers, instead of a much-larger, long-sought $43 billion project for in-state use and export. Officials said a pipeline would likely be explored as a longer-term solution. In the past, state officials have said an in-state pipeline would likely not raise enough revenue to offset the project’s costs, but it was projected to be among the cheapest options to deliver gas. The working group suggested the pipeline could be subsidized by the state, which Giessel said the Alaska Legislature would be unlikely to support. Officials from the Railbelt utilities said the quoted supply costs in the paper are high- level and rough estimates, and that the working group will work to get more specific numbers in the next assessment phase. What about renewables? Threats of Cook Inlet natural gas shortages are not new. The most recent crisis, more than a decade ago, arrived due to a need for new producers to develop the basin’s resources. The utilities say this time, there may not be enough gas that is 7/19/23, 2:32 PM As Cook Inlet gas shortage looms, Alaska’s biggest utilities assess their options — and none are cheap https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/07/08/as-cook-inlet-gas-shortage-looms-alaskas-biggest-utilities-assess-their-options-and-non…5/11 economically viable to produce for a small market, and that any additional supplies would likely only provide a short- to medium-term fix. [Alaska Supreme Court hears arguments in city of Valdez’s effort to unlock Hilcorp financial secrets] The Alaska Department of Natural Resources reported earlier in the year that “there are significant gas volumes potentially available through additional investment and development in currently producing fields,” but that uncertainty remains about how much the rate of return would need to increase to induce additional production from the aging basin. Renewable energy currently supplies approximately 15% of the Railbelt’s power needs. Industry watchers said clean power is expected to have a substantial role in reducing gas demand. But a major challenge is supplying Enstar, the state’s largest natural gas utility, which has no easy alternatives to replace LNG for home heating. The utilities, in a frequently asked questions page posted online, said renewable power would likely take many years to meaningfully displace natural gas for the Railbelt. Chris Rose, executive director of Renewable Energy Alaska Project, disputes that timeline. He said that there could be delays with permitting and finding locations for projects, but that substantial wind and solar installations could be built in four or five years. Chugach Electric Association and Matanuska Electric Association installed a giant Tesla battery system in Anchorage last month that was expected to provide power more efficiently and reduce the utilities’ demand for gas. Rose said more projects like that are needed in Alaska, noting that in the next five years, renewable energy projects are set to count for more than 90% of global electricity expansion. “We can do that and we can certainly do it in a way that is economic for consumers, because our fuel prices keep going up,” he said. 7/19/23, 2:32 PM As Cook Inlet gas shortage looms, Alaska’s biggest utilities assess their options — and none are cheap https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/07/08/as-cook-inlet-gas-shortage-looms-alaskas-biggest-utilities-assess-their-options-and-non…6/11 An ‘extremely, extremely dif cult situation’ Larry Persily, former deputy commissioner of the Alaska Department of Revenue and former head of the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Projects, attended the utilities’ presentation late last month. “We’ve got two problems to solve: Short-term and longer-term,” he said in an interview. “In the short-term, everything points to importing LNG.” ADVERTISEMENT Chugach Electric and Enstar account for three-quarters of the Railbelt’s natural gas. Arthur Miller, CEO of Chugach Electric, said in a prepared statement that the working group had found “that importing liquified natural gas is likely the least cost, earliest option available for the near term.” However, there would be significant capital expenditures to importing gas, the working group said. A Nikiski LNG facility is operated by Marathon, which has its own gas importation plans, and 50-year-old tanks would likely need to be replaced. There were also some logistical questions how a floating LNG import facility would work in winter with shallower sections of Cook Inlet subject to freezing conditions. [‘Leap of faith’: Alaska pursues carbon offset market while embracing oil] The idea of importing natural gas to Southcentral Alaska has been anathema for frustrated policymakers, even as a temporary solution. Republican U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski raised the possibility in her address to the state Legislature in February and said, “In my view, it’s the definition of aiming low.” Anchorage Democratic state Sen. Bill Wielechowski, co-chair of the Senate Resources Committee, also bristled at the prospect of importing gas, with untapped reserves in Cook Inlet and the potential of higher prices for consumers. 7/19/23, 2:32 PM As Cook Inlet gas shortage looms, Alaska’s biggest utilities assess their options — and none are cheap https://www.adn.com/business-economy/energy/2023/07/08/as-cook-inlet-gas-shortage-looms-alaskas-biggest-utilities-assess-their-options-and-non…7/11 “It is going to put the people of Alaska in an extremely, extremely difficult situation in the coming years,” he said. ADVERTISEMENT Wielechowski said he was not surprised that the cheapest and fastest option flagged by the utilities was to produce more gas from Cook Inlet. He wrote to state officials on June 26, arguing that Hilcorp has failed to meet its lease obligations to explore and develop the basin, and suggesting that the Texas-based producer could be at risk of litigation. “The State is currently reviewing Senator Wielechowski’s concerns, and we do not have a response at this time,” a spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources and Law said Wednesday in a prepared statement. Luke Miller, a spokesperson for Hilcorp Alaska, did not address emailed questions about Wielechowki’s letter. Miller said the company has planned to make hundreds of millions of dollars of investments in new and existing wells over the next five years, and that Hilcorp has been working closely with the Railbelt utilities to devise solutions to the looming shortages. “These solutions include significant new capital investments, new commercial arrangements, new Cook Inlet platforms, advancing North Slope natural gas options, and exploring opportunities to repurpose existing infrastructure for renewable energy,” Miller said in a prepared statement. Do you have additional ideas for coverage on this topic? Do you have questions? Do you see an er ror? W hat's missing? 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 Mount Redoubt can be seen acoss Cook Inlet from North Kenai Beach on Thursday, July 2, 2022. (Photo by Erin Thompson/Peninsula Clarion) Utilities, state lawmaker call on state to investigate Hilcorp compliance with Cook Inlet leases By Ashlyn O'Hara Wednesday, July 5, 2023 6:06pm ❙NEWS LOCAL NEWS NEWS OIL AND GAS STATE NEWS News Sports Outdoors and Recreation Opinion Life Arts and Entertainment Jobs Obituaries Marketplace A state lawmaker and the leaders of four major electric utilities are calling for the State of Alaska to investigate whether or not Cook Inlet’s biggest gas producer is violating its state lease agreements and contributing to a looming shortfall of Cook Inlet natural gas. Hilcorp Alaska LLC is the subject of two separate letters sent to senior state o cials since early April, in which multiple groups call on the state to ensure the company is ful lling the obligations described by lease agreements it has with the State of Alaska. Both pieces of correspondence reference a looming shortfall of natural gas supply in the Cook Inlet basin. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources’ 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast found that demand for Cook Inlet gas could outpace supply as early as 2027 without additional development in the basin’s active elds. Hilcorp, the largest natural gas supplier in Alaska, told stakeholders in spring 2022 that while it has enough gas supply to ful ll its current contracts it has with utilities, it does not have enough gas reserves to enter into new contracts. Homer Electric Association, which covers more than 25,000 member owners on the Kenai Peninsula, gets about 86% of its energy from natural gas. HEA, whose current contract with Hilcorp expires in 2024, joined two other publicly regulated utilities serving communities in Alaska’s Railbelt and ENSTAR Natural Gas in calling for the state to ensure lease compliance by Hilcorp. The group in an April 3 letter addressed to Gov. Mike Dunleavy said that the least expensive way to o set looming energy shortfalls is by continuing to produce gas from wells under existing leases between Hilcorp and the State of Alaska. The letter stops short of making speci c accusations toward Hilcorp, but says the state should ensure the company, which has market dominance in Alaska’s oldest oil and gas producing basin, is in compliance. “We hope the State of Alaska is ensuring Hilcorp is acting consistent with its leases, in light of the Alaska Constitution’s requirement that the State of Alaska ‘encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest,’” the letter says. The letter is signed by Homer Electric Association General Manager Brad Janorschke, Matanuska Electric Association CEO Anthony Izzo, Golden Valley Electric Association CEO John Burns and ENSTAR Natural Gas Company President John Sims. Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage, sent his own letter June 26 to Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor and Department of Natural Resources Commissioner John Boyle calling for an inquiry into whether or not Hilcorp “neglected or evaded its Cook Inlet duties as a reasonably prudent operator” with respect to exploratory activities in Cook Inlet. Citing the letter sent to Dunleavy by ENSTAR and the three electric utilities, Wielechowski suggests that Hilcorp has violated its state leases by failing to explore new areas within its boundaries for undiscovered oil and gas deposits and not acting with “reasonable diligence” when it comes to development and production. Wielechowski points to Hilcorp’s 2019 acquisition of BP Alaska and the company’s “admitted inexperience with exploratory work” as potential contributing factors to what he says is Hilcop’s “neglect.” “The State must assess … whether Hilcorp neglected or evaded its Cook Inlet duties as a reasonably prudent operator and in furtherance of exploratory activities in Cook Inlet,” Wielechowski writes. “The State must seek appropriate legal recourse or demand other remedies for conduct contravening lease obligations, to compensate the State and the people of Alaska for consequential harms and to deter similar future conduct.” In a June 27 statement provided to the Peninsula Clarion by Hilcorp’s Alaska Government and Public A airs Manager Luke Miller, Hilcorp said it has invested more than $1 billion in new projects in Cook Inlet since 2012. This year, Hilcorp “plans to spend several hundred million dollars in the Cook Inlet,” and to operate four rigs and drill “nearly 20” wells, the statement says. “Hilcorp is working closely with the Railbelt Utilities to nd solutions to our natural gas supply challenges,” the statement says. “These solutions include signi cant new capital investments, new commercial arrangements, new Cook Inlet platforms, advancing North Slope natural gas options, and exploring opportunities to repurpose existing infrastructure for renewable energy.” ©2023 Peninsula Clarion + Sound Publishing, Inc. + Black Press Media + Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and Comments Policy Presentations on the status of Cook Inlet’s oil and gas future delivered earlier this year to state lawmakers can be located on the Alaska Legislature’s website at akleg.gov. Reach reporter Ashlyn O’Hara at ashlyn.ohara@peninsulaclarion.com. News Sports Outdoors and Recreation Opinion Life Arts and Entertainment Obituaries Search E-Edition Classi eds Weather Newsletters Media Solutions Subscribe About Us Contact Us Printer’s Ink Accessibility Subscribe Now Bringing you the news, and views, of the Kenai since 1970 Subscribe Now Tracking resource, business, industry & construction issues since 1974 Publishers: Mike & Tim Bradner (907) 440-60683037 South Circle, Anchorage, Ak. 99507 July 5, 2023No. 10/2023 Gas shortfall will raise energy costs Imported LNG only practical near-term option, utilities say 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’ Alaska regulators warned utilities that there is so much uncertainty, and a short timetable, on actions to offset declining Cook Inlet gas that the Regulatory Commission of Alaska may require A joint study by Alaska utilities has found that imports of liquefied natural gas, or LNG, ap- pears to be the only viable near-term option for offsetting expected declines in gas production in Southcentral Alaska projected to begin in 2027. This is important because gas fuels space heat- ing in the region, which holds the state’s largest communities, and also powers most generation of electricity. Results of phase one of the study that examines options were presented to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska June 28. A phase two, to examine costs, is expected by the end of the year. Decisions must be made quickly on plans to meet the shortfalls, the utility group, led by Enstar Nat- ural Gas Co., told the commission. A parallel study by Black and Veatch, done for Chugach Electric Association, reached similar conclusions. That will be made public this summer. Chugach also par- ticipated in the Enstar study, which was done by Berkeley Research Group. Cook Inlet natural gas will decline in increments as mature gas producing Alaska regulator: Natural gas service cuts, as contingency? Inside:Home energy rebates will be back p. 2 Conoco, Santos plan winter work p. 2 fields are depleted and new drilling is unable to replace reserves. Hilcorp Energy, the Inlet’s main gas producer, has warned utilities that it will be unable to renew gas supply contracts to utilities as they expire. Gas reserve additions can be expected but they will be costly and will not totally offset the declines. Importing LNG will also cost. What this means is that electricity and space heating costs prices could rise substantially over the next decade absent some breakthrough for the big Alaska LNG Project, which could bring gas from the North Slope at stable, and low, prices. The utility group said the North Slope options are unworkable for the near term because they cannot be built soon enough to offset the Cook Inlet decline. (More on costs expected, page 4) provisions for periodic mandatory cuts in gas supply to customers, as a contingency. Commissioner Bob Pickett made comments on this at the RCA’s June 28 meeting. Page 4 Alaska Economic Report No. 10/2023 The cost of additional gas supply, LNG imports If we’ll need more natural gas, what are the expected costs? Southcentral utilities as well as Golden Valley Electric Association in Fairbanks have concluded their initial analysis on options in meeting the expected shortfall in Cook Inlet natural gas, which will begin to step down in 2027. Imported LNG is the most feasible near-term option. Phase two of the analysis is now underway to further define options as well as costs, with this to be done by the end of the year, utilities told the Regulatory Commission of Alaska June 28. Enstar Natural Gas Co. led the study, with participation by Chugach Electric Associa- tion, Matanuska Electric Association, Homer Electric Association and Golden Valley Electric Associa- tion. While a deeper analysis of costs is yet to come, preliminary work in the initial phase now released provides some indications that we describe below. Additional Cook Inlet gas is likely, but it won’t be enough and it will cost more Additional Cook Inlet gas is likely in known undeveloped deposits near existing fields, but it won’t be enough to fill the gap and it will cost more. Prices for incremental gas to fill part of the deficit could cost up to $19 per thousand cubic feet (mcf) or more from 2028 to 2036. Present Cook Inlet prices average about $8 per mcf, for reference. To develop an additional 100 billion cubic feet, or bcf, of gas would require a price between $9.30 per mcf to $11 per mcf. To develop 120 bcf could require a price up to $15 per mcf, the study concluded. New, higher-cost gas will be included with the continuing, but declining, “legacy” gas from older fields, so the costs borne by consumers will be the average price for both. However, over time the older gas will decline further, so the average will increase. The prospects for large new gas discoveries in Cook Inlet are unlikely in the near term despite the potential for discoveries, the utilities’ study concluded. That there has been little interest from industry in recent state and federal Cook Inlet lease sales supports this. LNG imports will require higher prices, too The utility group assessed three options for imported LNG, and all three would require gas prices of $12 per mcf to $13 per mcf. One option is a retrofit of the existing, mothballed ConocoPhillips LNG plant now owned by Marathon Petroleum, which owns a nearby crude oil refinery. The study team assigned a capital cost of $768 million for converting this from this from an LNG export to an LNG import plant. Some observers say that figure appears high but Enstar, in presenting findings to the RCA June 28, said the facilities are aged and some components, like the LNG storage tanks, will eventually need replacement for long-term use. Marathon purchased the plant for possible use to supply natural gas for fuel to its refinery but an expanded purpose to supply regional utilities may require more modi- fications and possible relicensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. - Continued on next page - Continued on next page Alaska Economic Report No. 10/2023 North Slope gas: Assured supply, but can’t be tapped in time- Continued from previous page Page 5 A second option is constructing a new LNG terminal and regasification facility, which the study team estimated at $877 million. This option considered use of a terminal planned, and permitted, for the large AkLNG Project except that the terminal would be used for imports rather than exports. Yet a third option is a smaller terminal that would support a floating LNG regasification facility built on a barge. It would receive deliveries by smaller LNG tankers rather than larger vessels required by the first two options and might offer more flexibility if used in combination with other gas supply options. North Slope: Assured supply and stable pricing, but high capital costs and not available in time Three options were considered: Construction of the large AkLNG project; the smaller 36-inch “bullet” pipeline and trucking LNG from the North Slope. If it were built, the AkLNG project would deliver gas to Southcentral Alaska at a favorable price ($4.40 per mcf) that could be stable for the long term. However, this is a $40 billion-plus project where the gas for in-state use would take advantage of larger volumes headed into the export market and thus enjoy economies of scale. While the project is now fully licensed it lacks customers for the export gas, and thus, investors. A lot of work is under- way at this time and Gov. Mike Dunleavy and Alaska U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan say there could be new developments in a matter of weeks (the immediate goal is securing $150 million in private investment for final engineering). AkLNG is led by the state’s Alaska Gasline Development Corp, or AGDC. The second option, the 36-inch pipeline, was planned by the AGDC earlier as a way to alleviate Cook Inlet gas shortages seen in 2010 and 2011. It has an established right-of-way (the same as for Alaska LNG pipeline) and many of the needed permits that were secured before work shifted to the larger AkLNG. One variation is that a gas treatment plant to remove carbon dioxide from Prudhoe Bay field gas is estimated in this option and replaced with a 60-mile lateral pipeline to the Point Thomson field, which has a low CO2 content. Capital costs for this are estimated at $8.75 billion and the cost to the consumer for gas delivered is estimated at $9.11 per mcf, assuming the state heavily subsidizes this. It is considered unlikely that private parties would invest significantly in this project because of the small gas customer base, and the assumption is that a substantial state capital investment would be needed. The third North Slope gas option is to extend the LNG trucking project now planned from Prudhoe Bay to Fairbanks on to Southcentral Alaska and Anchorage. Harvest Alaska, an affiliate of Hilcorp Energy, has plans under way for a small LNG plant at Prudhoe Bay. Fairbanks Natural Gas, or FNG, the customer, is working on the plans for trucking on the Dalton Highway. FNG now trucks smaller volumes of LNG from Southcentral to Fairbanks on the Parks Highway, about the same distance, so the principles of this are well-established. However, the volumes and numbers of trucks would be larg- er. The delivered cost is estimated at $32 per mcf. - Continued on next page Alaska Economic Report No. 10/2023 Page 6 - Continued from previous page - Continued at top right Meeting the natural gas shortfall The big advantage of this that capital costs would be lower and there is flexibility for scaling down if other options are developed. The big disadvantage is that the delivered gas cost is high. Can renewable energy fill part of this gap? Expansions of renewable energy like hydro, wind, and solar can fill part of the energy gap created by declining Cook Inlet natural gas but it won’t completely offset power from natural gas. The new mi- cro-reactors developed by companies like Westinghouse could also play a part, but it would be 2027 or 2028 before the first of these could be deployed in an Alaska demonstration project and several years later before they can be available on a commercial basis. There are other promising technologies like geothermal and Cook Inlet tidal power but these are still in the exploration and feasibility phases. Renewable energy already meets a part of the “railbelt” power demand The 120-megawatt Bradley Lake hydro project has been in service for years and an expansion is now being considered. Chugach Electric Association is purchasing power from the Fire Island wind project operated by Cook Inlet Region, Inc., and an expansion is planned there. Chugach is also considering another large wind and a solar project proposed at about 120 megawatts each. Golden Valley Electric Association in Fairbanks operates its own Eva Creek wind project near Healy and is soliciting proposals for additional wind projects in the Interior. Matanuska Electric Association is purchasing solar power from a small project near Willow, in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and will also buy from a larger solar project now being built near Houston, also in Mat-Su. Significantly, the currently-operating wind and solar projects are producing power at or near the local cost of power produced from natural gas. Whether new projects can do that is uncertain but the expe- rience of existing operators is encouraging. There will be more informationon this: GVEA is soliciting proposals for a new 40 megawatt to 150 megawatt wind project and pricing terms must be included in the proposal. The challenge with expanded wind and solar, however, is that the utilities must plan for variations of the power produced when the wind dies or cloudy days impede solar. To offset that utilities must have power stored, with batteries, along with reserve power that can quickly be put into operation. Natural gas-fired generators appear the best way to do that. A roadmap for major expansion of renewable power? Meanwhile, there is a kind of preliminary roadmap for expanding Alaska renewable energy in a U.S. Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory, or NREL, report. It is at: https:// www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81698.pdf. The report outlines how 80 percent of Railbelt power could be supplied by combinations of new wind, solar, or hydro. Costs and feasibility were lightly touched on, however, and the NREL is now updating its study. With shortfall looming, report outlines ways to fill Alaska’s gas gaps https://alaskapublic.org/2023/07/03/with-shortfall-looming-report-outlines-ways-to-fill-alaskas-gas-gaps/ 1/4 With shortfall looming, report outlines ways to fill Alaska’s gas gaps By Sabine Poux, KDLL - Soldotna -July 3, 2023 The Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska facility was built the last time there were warnings about potential shortages. (Sabine Poux/KDLL) More than a year after Cook Inlet’s largest oil and gas producer warned of a looming natural gas shortfall, consultants released a report last week detailing possible ways to fill in the gas gap after 2027, from natural gas imports in the short term and a pipeline down from the North Slope in the longer term. Most of the options outlined in the report will come at a higher price tag than what utilities get for Cook Inlet gas today. But with the sun setting on the With shortfall looming, report outlines ways to fill Alaska’s gas gaps https://alaskapublic.org/2023/07/03/with-shortfall-looming-report-outlines-ways-to-fill-alaskas-gas-gaps/ 2/4 basin’s gas producing lifespan, they won’t have much choice as they look for new ways to meet demand. “The bottom line is, we’re at a point here in our state’s history [when] we have the opportunity to develop a long-term plan that sets up future generations for success,” said John Sims, president of natural gas utility Enstar, at a hearing Wednesday. “And there is no doubt that it’s going to take all of us working together to make that happen.” Enstar is part of a working group of Alaska utilities from Homer to Fairbanks that get the vast majority of their power supply from Cook Inlet natural gas. That available supply is running out. Last year, Cook Inlet’s primary producer, Hilcorp, said it couldn’t guarantee future gas contracts with utilities. And now, despite decades of warning and previous close calls, demand for gas could outstrip supply in as few as four years, according to the state. Homer Electric Association has the earliest expiring contract with Hilcorp, in 2024. After Hilcorp’s announcement, utilities started meeting to talk about possible steps forward and commissioned a report from Berkeley Research Group. Project Manager Lieza Wilcox presented the report to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska Wednesday, following hours of testimony from Aniak residents about spiking power prices there. Wilcox told regulators she’s not as concerned about the long–term picture for utilities, since she thinks Alaska could import liquified natural gas at a reasonable price from the world market. “But it’s the short to medium term that I think we’re all concerned about,” she said. Wilcox said utilities will need to find new sources of gas from a mix of places. She said the first option would be to attract more investment in Cook Inlet. But with little interest there from producers, that option won’t satisfy long -term needs. Another preferred alternative outlined in the report is to import natural gas from overseas, by turning the existing gas export facility in Kenai into an import facility. That could start as soon as 2028, the report said. Another would be to bring gas down from the North Slope with an in-state pipeline — which the With shortfall looming, report outlines ways to fill Alaska’s gas gaps https://alaskapublic.org/2023/07/03/with-shortfall-looming-report-outlines-ways-to-fill-alaskas-gas-gaps/ 3/4 report says would only be cost-effective with state subsidies. But that pipeline wouldn’t be ready until 2030 at the earliest. This table, included in BCG’s report, outlines possible options to fill the gas gap. “Kenai LNG” refers to a plan to use the LNG export facility in Kenai as an import facility, to ship LNG in for use on the Railbelt. In all cases, costs will go up for Alaska ratepayers, who already see some of the highest energy costs in the country. The Kenai LNG plan would cost about $12 per mcf of gas, versus the $8 gas utilties get in Cook Inlet, now. The in-state pipeline could more than double gas costs for consumers at $28 to $37 per mcf. “Unfortunately, in this case … the cost of transportation for this level of demand, on a privately owned project and privately modeled project, is very significant and higher than many of the other options,” Wilcox said. “And that’s just volume, is what it is.” At $4.4 per mcf, the cheapest gas option outlined in the report would come from the big Alaska Liquified Natural Gas export project — which would ship gas down from the North Slope for use in state and export overseas. AK LNG has been decades in the making and has long stalled due to high costs. (Wilcox, the consultant, was formerly a vice president of the company that is With shortfall looming, report outlines ways to fill Alaska’s gas gaps https://alaskapublic.org/2023/07/03/with-shortfall-looming-report-outlines-ways-to-fill-alaskas-gas-gaps/ 4/4 overseeing that project.) Consultants also say that the project wouldn’t start delivering gas until 2030, a few years after Cook Inlet gas demand is estimated to outstrip supply. Ben Boettger, with the Alaska Public Interest Research Group, said he worries about the state committing to big projects, like a pipeline. “And if the state is going to be subsidizing energy, I think it makes less sense to subsidize projects that prolong our dependence on gas instead of energy projects that make us less dependent on gas, more energy independent with a more diverse grid,” he said. The report accounts for alternative gas supply options, only. As a natural gas utility, Enstar doesn’t have many more options to diversify its portfolio. But renewables advocates say electric utilities need to start ramping up their renewable portfolios as solar and wind projects become cost competitive with natural gas. Boettger said he wants to see more analysis of how renewables can reduce Alaska’s demand for gas. “There are long-term solutions that would really double-down on our gas dependence, and others that would reduce it,” he said. The report was the first from the consulting group. Wilcox said the next report will hone in on a shorter list of local gas replacement options and cost estimates. She said a decision on at least one alternative could be made by the end of 2023. Page 4 Legislative Digest No. 21/2023 – Continued top right LNG imports seen likely for Southcentral Alaska Imported liquefied natural gas, or LNG, appears to be the best near-term option for averting a pending natural gas shortage in Southcentral Alaska, according to a group of electric utilities and Enstar Natural Gas, the state’s major gas utility. The utilities briefed the Regulatory Commission of Alaska Wednesday, June 28, on preliminary results of a study on averting the gas shortfall. The state Division of Oil and Gas says that gas produced in the Cook Inlet Basin of southern Alaska will begin falling short of annual de- mand by 2027. In 2022 Hilcorp Energy, the major Cook Inlet gas producer, told utilities it will not be able to renew current gas supply contracts as they expire because of declines in reserves. Concern for the short- fall is acute because natural gas produced from Cook Inlet fields is almost the sole source of fuel for space heating in the region as well as for most power generation. “Importing liquefied natural gas is likely the least cost, easiest option for the near term,” said Arthur Miller, CEO of Chugach Electric Association, the state’s largest electric utility. Although results of the joint utility study were presented to the state regulators Chugach had conducted its own assessment with Black & Veatch, a consulting group, and found its findings “in alignment” with the group study, which was facilitated by Berkeley Research Group. Other utilities participating include Matanuska Electric Associa- tion, Golden Valley Electric Association and Homer Electric Association. “Cook Inlet supplies begin to taper off as early as 2027, meaning ‘railbelt’ (Southcentral and Interior Alaska) gas users face little time to assess potential solutions and make decisions to meet the eventual gap,” the utilities said in a joint statement. Several options are considered in the utilities’ study, which is ongoing. One is an 800-mile natural gas pipeline built from the North Slope, where there are an estimated 35 tcf of gas discovered by oil produc- ers but stranded for lack of a pipeline. That option is affected by the huge expense of the pipeline and the several years it will take for construction. A second is increased exploration for gas in Cook Inlet, but although geologists say the region has potential for new discoveries there seems little interest by compa- nies in new drilling, most likely because of high costs. That leaves the third option of imports. But import- ing LNG, most likely from British Columbia, entails costs as well. Marathon Petroleum, which operates a crude oil refinery on the Kenai Peninsula, now owns the mothballed ConocoPhillips LNG export plant that served Japanese utilities for years until it was closed. LNG storage tanks and docks at the plant could be converted to an import facility with costs estimated at $768 million, according to the utilities’ study. A variation of this is to build a new import terminal, which could be done for $877 million. Yet another import option is an import facility using barge-mounted LNG regasification facilities served by smaller LNG carriers. This cost is estimated at $563 million. There is potential for expansion of hydro power from Bradley Lake, a state-owned hydro plant in southcentral Alaska. Existing wind projects can be expanded, too, such as one now operating on Fire Island near Anchorage. These won’t dent the estimated shortfall in gas for power generation and, in any event, they don’t help Enstar, the gas utility, for space heating fuel. Alaska senator urges state to investigate possible Hilcorp violations around Cook Inlet leases https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/06/27/alaska-senator-urges-state-investigate-possible-hilcorp-violations-around-cook-inlet-leases/ 1/3 JUNEAU, Alaska (KTUU) - An Alaska lawmaker from Anchorage is asking for an investigation of one of the state’s largest energy companies. Sen. Bill Wielechowski says he’s worried that Hilcorp Alaska, LLC, the dominant natural gas producer in Cook Inlet, will eventually fail to meet the natural gas needs for hundreds of thousands of Alaskans living along the Railbelt Corridor, stretching from the Kenai Peninsula north to Fa irbanks. Wielechowski urged the state in a letter to investigate whether Hilcorp is violating its Cook Inlet leases and if so, asks for action from the state. “Hilcorp has refused to extend the leases for any of the utilities up and down the Railbelt,” Wielechowski said. “They’ve refused to extend the leases for ENSTAR, and Alaska senator urges state to investigate possible Hilcorp violations around Cook Inlet leases https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/06/27/alaska-senator-urges-state-investigate-possible-hilcorp-violations-around-cook-inlet-leases/ 2/3 so those leases will start to expire next year, and every single year, there will be less and less gas that’s available.” Currently, Cook Inlet represents the vast share of all gas us ed by Alaskan communities and Hilcorp is the primary leaseholder there. In spring 2022, Hilcorp warned utility companies the reserves there are depleting. In a letter to Gov. Mike Dunleavy, Railbelt Utilities pleaded to enforce the lease obligations by H ilcorp to ensure a continued flow of natural gas and energy costs. “There is no doubt, however, that the least expensive way to ease our impending energy shortfall would be to continue to ensure the production of gas from wells ‘capable of producing ... g as’ under existing leases that Hilcorp has with the State of Alaska,” the letter said. In the letter dated April 3, 2023, top officials with the Homer Electric Association, Golden Valley Electric Association, Matanuska Electric Association, and ENSTAR Natural Gas Company said Hilcorp supplies over 80% of the Railbelt’s energy supply and brought in roughly $450 million in revenue in 2022 from its Cook Inlet production. Wielechowski’s letter is another effort to get the state to look into the matter, as he claims Hilcorp has violated a consent decree with the state. Wielechowski said he is worried that if Hilcorp does not follow the decree, it could put Alaskans in an energy and economic crisis with energy costs expected to skyrocket upwards of 30%. “The situation is growing pretty dire and there’s no other solution, really, that will not result in Alaskans paying extraordinarily higher natural gas prices to heat their homes, to pay for their electricity costs, for the business community,” Wielechowsk i said. “Every good and service in the state of Alaska will increase dramatically unless this situation is resolved.” Ideally, Wielechowski wants Hilcorp to follow the terms of the leases and consent decree, which would be to explore and produce the gas an d sell it to utilities. Luke Miller, a spokesperson for Hilcorp, said in an email that the company plans to invest more than $1 billion on capital project over the next five years, similar to what he said Hilcorp has put into Cook Inlet since taking over t he majority of assets in 2012. Alaska senator urges state to investigate possible Hilcorp violations around Cook Inlet leases https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/06/27/alaska-senator-urges-state-investigate-possible-hilcorp-violations-around-cook-inlet-leases/ 3/3 “Hilcorp is working closely with the Railbelt Utilities to find solutions to our natural gas supply challenges,” Hilcorp spokesperson Luke Miller said in an email. “These solutions include significant new capital investments, new commercial arrangements, new Cook Inlet platforms, advancing North Slope natural gas options, and exploring opportunities to repurpose existing infrastructure for renewable energy.” Kara Moriarty, the president and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Associ ation, pointed out that Hilcorp poured investment dollars into Alaska’s natural gas production in Cook Inlet at a time last decade when major companies were no longer investing in the area. Moriarty said that Hilcorp turned it around, but now it faces new challenges. “I know the utilities and the companies are working together to try to continue to meet the demands of energy consumers,” Moriarty said. “Natural gas is — and will be and will continue to be — the safest, most economical, source for power in Southcentral Alaska.” A spokesperson for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources said that it had received Wielechowski’s letter and is currently reviewing his concerns, but offered no additional comment. Copyright 2023 KTUU. All rights reserved. **EMBARGO IN EFFECT UNTIL 9 AM ON JUNE 28, 2023** June 28, 2023 Alaska Railbelt Utilities Release Phase 1 Results of a Cook Inlet Gas Supply Assessment Several options are being considered to meet the region’s long-term gas supply needs ANCHORAGE- Today, John Sims, President of ENSTAR Natural Gas Company along with Lieza Wilcox, of the Berkeley Research Group (BRG) presented the Phase 1 results of a recently conducted Cook Inlet Gas Supply Assessment. The assessment is part of a multi-phase project to identify and select near- and long-term gas supply solutions for Cook Inlet users. It is a result of the combined effort of the Utility Working Group, which formed in May 2022 after Hilcorp announced its current gas contracts would not be extended. Chugach Electric Association; Interior Gas Utility; Matanuska Electric Association; Golden Valley Electric Association; Homer Electric Association; and ENSTAR Natural Gas Company actively participated in the assessment. The assessment confirms the following: • Cook Inlet supplies begin to taper as early as 2027, meaning Railbelt gas users face little time to assess potential solutions and make decisions on those solutions to meet the eventual gap. • Timing is a critical component of any selected project to avoid a shortfall. The Working Group additionally focused on reliability as a key factor to ensure the project predictably meets area needs for several years. Phase I of the assessment explored ten various options to fill the anticipated natural gas supply gap. The study then narrowed the assessment to three categories of projects which could meet the expected gas shortfall in 2027 and beyond. Rather than pursuing a single project, the assessment further reveals that a combination of projects will likely be required to address Railbelt gas needs. The three project categories are: • Additional Cook Inlet gas production • Importing gas from outside Alaska • Bringing gas from North Slope Additional Cook Inlet gas production is viewed only as a very short-term fix, given the challenging market conditions limiting the economically recoverable volumes of gas remaining. Utilities continue to pursue further Cook Inlet development in confidential negotiations with producers. Imported LNG was identified as a leading project which could timely meet the utilities needs in 2027. The Utilities will continue to explore this through the next phase of the assessment, which has already begun and is expected to be completed by year-end 2023 North Slope gas options considered as part of the assessment included an in-state pipeline for in-state use and a larger diameter line for export. However, the permitting and construction process may not be compatible with the utilities’ timeline. These projects will continue to be explored as part of a longer-term gas supply solution for Alaska. Working Group weighs in on the Phase 1 Assessment: John Sims, President, ENSTAR Natural Gas: “The work we are doing now represents a generational shift in the Railbelt’s energy landscape. The Phase 1 Assessment confirms what we already know about Cook Inlet: for 60 years, we have benefited from relatively easy access to gas. But this is an aging basin and we need a solution now in order to continue to serve our customers when ENSTAR’s contracts with Hilcorp expire in 2033. This assessment is centered on accessing reliable and timely gas delivery, not just for ENSTAR’s 150,000 customers, but for electric utilities who rely on natural gas to generate electricity in Southcentral and the Interior. Our goal is to ensure customers never worry about a gas shortage, and that we have a plan in place to meet these needs into the next generation.” Arthur Miller, CEO, Chugach Electric: “We appreciate the efforts of the Working Group to evaluate short and long-term solutions for gas supply to ensure we are serving our members with affordable, reliable power,” said Arthur Miller, Chugach CEO. “At Chugach, we are focused on meeting our gas needs as we transition to a balanced generation portfolio that includes additional clean energy sources, including renewables. This report aligns with findings from a study Chugach commissioned with Black & Veatch earlier this year confirming that importing liquified natural gas is likely the least cost, earliest option available for the near term.” Curtis Thayer, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority: “The Phase 1 Assessment is an important first step to understanding the options that we have going forward. Alaska has some challenging decisions to make, as we transition from the past and look forward towards a carbon- neutral future,” said AEA Executive Director Curtis Thayer. “The only way that we are going to solve this problem is to continue working together.” Tony Izzo, CEO, Matanuska Electric Association: “MEA is appreciative of ENSTAR's leadership in investigating options for a continued gas supply,” said Tony Izzo, CEO of Matanuska Electric Association. “We expect natural gas to be a component of MEA's energy mix as we transition towards our diversification goals and the results of this study will be helpful in assessing options with our fellow utilities and other stakeholders.” Brad Janorschke, General Manager, Homer Electric Association: “Homer Electric has been pursuing opportunities to diversify its generation portfolio to create energy security for our members on the Kenai Peninsula. These efforts include identifying additional options for natural gas and incorporating clean energy generation options into the grid. Natural gas will continue to play a strategic part of Alaska’s utility landscape for the foreseeable future. We will continue to partner with Enstar and other Railbelt utilities on the Utility Working Group to expand access to natural gas for all Alaskans.” John Burns, CEO, Golden Valley Electric Association: “The availability of gas is vitally important to GVEA’s ability to lower the cost of electricity to our members, to reduce carbon emissions, and to integrate large scale renewables into our system. Specifically, GVEA’s ability to achieve the Strategic Generation Initiative we adopted in June of 2022, which includes the shut-down of the Healy Unit 2 coal plant and the integration of large-scale wind, is dependent on having gas available to assist in meeting our generation needs. GVEA appreciates the Working Group’s efforts in pursuing options that ensure the availability of gas for all Railbelt members.” # # # Media contacts: Lindsay Hobson ENSTAR Natural Gas Company Lindsay.Hobson@enstarnaturalgas.com 907-334-7810 Julie Hasquet Chugach Electric Association Julie_Hasquet@chugachelectric.com 907-762-4489 Elena Sudduth Interior Gas Utility esudduth@interiorgas.com 907-452-7111 Julie Estey Matanuska Electric Association Julie.Estey@mea.coop 907-355-4447 Meadow Bailey Golden Valley Electric Association MPBailey@gvea.com 907-451-5676 Lorraine Henry Department of Natural Resources Lorraine.Henry@alaska.gov 907-378-4926 Keriann Baker Brandy Dixon Homer Electric Association Alaska Energy Authority Kbaker@HomerElectric.com bdixon@akenergyauthority.org 907-235-3302 907-771-3078 i ALASKA UTILITIES WORKING GROUP PHASE I ASSESSMENT: COOK INLET GAS SUPPLY PROJECT June 28, 2023 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................................. iii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................... iv 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND AND SCOPE ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 BRG CREDENTIALS ........................................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.4 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 4 1.5 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT................................................................................................................................ 5 2 FORECAST OF UNMET GAS DEMAND NEED ......................................................................................................... 6 2.1 HISTORIC AND CURRENT DEMAND FOR NATURAL GAS BY THE WORKING GROUP UTILITIES............................................. 6 2.2 INCORPORATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY SCENARIOS INTO POWER GENERATION UTILITIES’ FORECASTS ........................... 6 2.3 2022 COOK INLET GAS SUPPLY STUDY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ................................................. 9 2.4 UNMET GAS DEMAND FORECAST ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.5 UNCERTAINTIES OF THE UNMET GAS DEMAND FORECAST. ..................................................................................... 15 3 NEW SUPPLY OPTIONS CONSIDERED ................................................................................................................. 18 3.1 PROJECT OPTIONS .......................................................................................................................................... 18 3.2 SUMMARY OF OPTION ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................... 19 4 OPTION SELECTION............................................................................................................................................. 39 4.1 OPTION SCORING METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 39 4.2 OPTION SCORING PROCESS .............................................................................................................................. 39 4.3 RESULTS OF OPTION SCORING EXERCISE ............................................................................................................. 42 5 MARKET, PRICE VOLATILITY, AND RISK ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 45 5.1 LNG MARKET ENVIRONMENT AND CURRENT OUTLOOK ........................................................................................ 45 5.2 HISTORIC GAS AND LNG PRICE VOLATILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................ 46 5.3 LNG MARKET SOURCING STRATEGY .................................................................................................................. 49 5.4 STATISTICAL RISK ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDED OPTIONS ...................................................................................... 50 6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................. 52 6.1 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS TO CONFIRM FEASIBILITY OF TOP SCORING OPTIONS .......................................................... 52 6.2 PROJECT MANAGEMENT NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................. 52 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Areas of Focus for Utility Clients ..................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: Alaska Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers .................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Alaska Net Electricity Generation by Source (December 2022) ..................................................................... 7 Figure 4. Power Generation: Demand Planning Assumptions vs. Potential Bounds of Gas Requirements .................. 8 Figure 5: ADNR's 2022 Mean Truncated Annual Gas Supply Forecast ........................................................................ 10 Figure 6. Utilities’ Contracted and Uncontracted Demand vs Cook Inlet Supply ........................................................ 12 Figure 7: ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated Natural Gas Supply and Utilities’ Demand Forecasts .................................. 13 Figure 8: Unmet Gas Demand for Low, Medium, and High Demand Scenarios .......................................................... 14 Figure 9: Hilcorp’s Cook Inlet Gas Storage and Production Capacity .......................................................................... 16 Figure 10: 2018 ADNR Cook Inlet Gas Availability Curve ............................................................................................. 21 Figure 11: Incremental Regional Gas Supply Estimate ................................................................................................ 22 Figure 12: Estimated Project Costs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 32 Figure 13: Option Score Summary ............................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 14: Historical LNG Import Movements since January 2020 .............................................................................. 45 Figure 15: Potential LNG Price Indices: Historical Trends ............................................................................................ 47 Figure 16: Expected Volatility & Average Price (FOB) of Potential Supply Options (2024‐34) .................................... 49 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Unmet Gas Demand by Year (BCF) ................................................................................................................ 14 Table 2: Project Options Considered ........................................................................................................................... 18 Table 3: Summary of Project Option Analysis ............................................................................................................. 20 Table 4: Peak Day Demand for Alaska Consumers (MMcfd) ....................................................................................... 24 Table 5: Basis of Cost of Supply Assumptions.............................................................................................................. 35 Table 6: Private Project Options .................................................................................................................................. 36 Table 7: State Participation Options ............................................................................................................................ 37 Table 8: Option Scoring Criteria Summary – Working Group Input and Final Results ................................................ 40 Table 9: Project Option Scores ‐ What Each Value Means .......................................................................................... 40 Table 10. Top Scoring Project Options in Phase I ........................................................................................................ 44 Table 11: Annualized Volatility of Potential LNG Price Indices .................................................................................... 48 Table 12: Average Historical Prices of Potential LNG Price Indices ............................................................................. 48 iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ADNR State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources AECO Alberta Energy Company; Alberta hub natural gas price. AGDC Alaska Gasline Development Corporation AEA Alaska Energy Authority BCF Billion cubic feet BRG Berkeley Research Group BV Black and Veatch CEA Chugach Electric Association CINGSA Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska DES Delivered ex‐ship EV Electric vehicle FEED Front‐end engineering design FID Final investment decision FOB Free on Board (loaded onto vessel) FSRU Floating storage and regasification unit GVEA Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc HEA Homer Electric Association HH Henry Hub IGU Interior Gas Utility JBER Joint Base Elmendorf‐Richardson JCC Japan Customs Cleared JKM Japan Korea Marker v KGFGS Kenai Gas Field Gas Storage KBPL Kenai Beluga Pipeline System LNGC LNG carrier m3 Cubic meter MEA Matanuska Electric Association MMcf Million cubic feet MMcf/d Million cubic feet per day MMgal/d Millions of gallons per day Mtpa Million tonnes per annum MW Megawatts PCGS Pretty Creek Gas Storage SRGS Swanson River Gas Storage USCG U.S. Coast Guard USDOT FHWA US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration WCSB Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin 1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Background and Scope 1. Southcentral Alaska, along with the Interior (the “Railbelt”), comprise the most densely populated areas of the State. These regions have relied on natural gas produced in Cook Inlet to various degrees to supply its heating and power generation needs since the 1950s. Gas production in Cook Inlet field peaked in the mid‐2000s at around 200 BCF per year,1 and has steadily declined to the current annual production of approximately 70 BCF per year.2 Formerly active export facilities of Agrium Kenai Nitrogen Plant and Kenai LNG stopped operating in 20073 and 2015,4 respectively, due to the shortage and cost of gas produced in the region. 2. Over the last decade, Hilcorp Alaska, LLC (“Hilcorp”) has become the largest operator and gas supplier in the state, maintaining and stabilizing Cook Inlet gas production after a period of threatened shortages.5 Hilcorp has invested over $750 million in Cook Inlet drilling and capital projects since 2012, and plans to continue the investment at around the same pace over the next decade.6 In April 2022, Hilcorp first warned of uncertainty of future Cook Inlet natural gas supplies, stating that “gas purchasers [were] not to rely on Hilcorp for gas beyond existing contracts.”7 3. In May 2022, ENSTAR Natural Gas (“ENSTAR”), Chugach Electric Association, Inc. (“CEA”), Interior Gas Utility (“IGU”), Matanuska Electric Association, Inc. (“MEA”), Homer Electric Association, Inc. (“HEA”), and Golden Valley Electric Association, Inc. (“GVEA”), along with the State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources (“ADNR”), and the Alaska Energy Authority (“AEA”)8 formed a working group to assess future gas supply needs and energy security in Cook Inlet (“Working Group”). The Working Group’s stated goal is to: “[w]ork together for long‐term solutions. This requires better understanding of each utility’s constraints and needs based on existing contracts and forecasting our 1 State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil & Gas, Cook Inlet Natural Gas Availability, March 2018, p. 19, available at https://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/ResourceEvaluation/CI_Natural_Gas_Availability_Study_2018.pdf. 2 State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast, January 2023, pp. 10 and 17, (“2022 Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study”). 3 Reuters, Agrium closes Alaska plant, blames gas shortage, September 26, 2007, https://www.reuters.com/article/agrium‐ alaska‐idUSWEN126820070925. 4 EIA, Natural Gas Weekly Update, Alaska is a major natural gas producer, but little of the natural gas reaches market, May 27, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/archivenew_ngwu/2021/05_27/. 5 Bradner, Tim. Study says Inlet gas discoveries won’t stop shortage, Alaska Journal of Commerce, March 22, 2012. 6 Saugier, Luke, Presentation to Alaska State Legislature, House Energy Committee, p. 5, January 2023. 7 DeMarban, Alex, Hilcorp Warms Alaska utilities about uncertain Cook Inlet natural gas supplies, Anchorage Daily News, May 17, 2022. 8 ADNR and AEA participated in advisory capacity in order to provide information to the utilities, as well as remain aware of the effort. These agencies did not fully participate in the deliberations or scoring of the options. 2 collective demand growth into the next decade as well as considering additional options to meet the unique energy needs of our region.”9 4. In furtherance of these goals, the Working Group, through ENSTAR, engaged Berkeley Research Group (“BRG”) to conduct a planning assessment to: (i) develop scalable options to fill the natural gas supply gap anticipated to occur as Cook Inlet production declines, including Alaska‐ based options; (ii) develop and assess high‐level project scope, cost estimates, and time to execute for each of the options; (iii) for options requiring LNG imports, analyze the available sources for the required annual volumes of gas, potential contract structure and price ranges; (iv) assess key risk and mitigations associated with each option; and (v) develop a ranking system, ranked assessment of options, and recommendations, all of which comprises the advisory engagement titled “Phase I Assessment.” 5. This report summarizes the outcomes and recommendations of the Phase I Assessment. 1.2 BRG Credentials 6. BRG’s expert Energy & Climate and Project Development Advisory practices combine gas and LNG market, commercial, contractual, and project financing expertise capabilities in technical project development and project management systems. Our advisory practice experts have deep experience in evaluation and development of LNG terminals and regasification facilities, utility infrastructure and major project management, market analysis and contracting. We also excel in providing strategic, market, commercial, economic, and financial advisory services in the global oil and natural gas industry. 7. The areas of focus for our utility clients are summarized in Figure 1. Figure 1: Areas of Focus for Utility Clients 9 Regulatory Commission of Alaska, Affidavit of John D. Sims, p. 3, November 9, 2022. 3 8. Appendix A.1. details BRG’s relevant engagements and experience in project analysis, management, and design within the global oil and natural gas industry. 1.2.1 Project Leadership 9. The following key experts from BRG and Cornerstone Energy Services, a subcontractor engaged by BRG, led the Phase I Assessment. Key Staff Position Key Role Steve Means Managing Director, Infrastructure Development Infrastructure Development subject matter expert, technical integration Lieza Wilcox Director, Project Manager Project Management, Commercial Assessment Lead Steve Sawyer Engineering Project Management PM, Pipeline Engineering, Construction Management 10. In addition, the team included BRG and Cornerstone staff with deep experience in LNG systems engineering, siting, and processing, pipeline engineering and materials, worldwide gas and LNG market analysis and contracting, energy macroeconomic, investment analysis, financial modeling, and market research. 1.3 Summary of Conclusions 11. Based on the results of this Phase I Assessment, we make the following conclusions: 12. Cook Inlet gas cannot fully meet demand forecast beyond 2026 with current proved reserves or beyond early/mid 2030s assuming incremental local supply development.10 13. While continuing to work on Cook Inlet options, other project(s) must be pursued due to lead time to implement. 14. It is vital for the Alaska utilities to have control of the pace of the option development due to the impending gas shortage. Therefore, options that can be approved and either sourced or executed by the utilities are preferrable. 15. Shifting away from local gas supply will require supply options of either scalable or temporary (“stopgap”) nature. Expanded underground gas storage will play a critical role in ensuring deliverability of seasonal gas supply with most alternatives.11 10 Demand projections are based on the utilities Working Group’s estimates, as described below in this report. 11 The cost, design, or potential location(s) of this storage expansion have not been taken into account in Phase I Assessment. 4 16. In order to meet the expected supply shortfall, one or more options need to be selected to progress to an active engineering effort by the end of 2023. In order to meet the expected gas shortfall in 2027‐2028, there is a limited set of options that can deliver, namely LNG imports in various forms, and all of them are still at a stage where uncertainties and risks related to design and feasibility need to be resolved before choosing a specific design configuration. Other options, such as a gas pipeline from the North Slope, can meet long‐term demand most economically, but are not expected to be online by 2027‐2028 or even reach a construction decision in the timeframe where alternatives would need to be sanctioned.12 This drives the potential need to make progress on multiple fronts. Several viable options to supplement Cook Inlet gas supply need to be progressed further in the next phase of this project (“Phase II”) to enable a sanction decision on at least one option by the end of 2023. 1.4 Recommendations 17. BRG recommend the following scope of work as part of “Phase II”, estimated to take 4‐6 months: a. Utilities individually continue to work with Cook Inlet producers and the State to promote and secure additional contracted supply and promote alternative development. b. The Working Group should continue to pursue top‐scoring options to further define scope, schedule, and commercial viability; specifically: 1) Modification of existing Kenai LNG facilities (via commercial discussions with owner); 2) Scope definition and planning for FSRU option; 3) Greenfield site selection and feasibility assessment for LNG imports if retrofit options become unavailable; 4) Market survey to further define availability and cost of LNG; and 5) Optimization and feasibility assessment of the In‐ State Pipeline option with AGDC and State of Alaska in areas of permitting critical path and financing structure. c. Complete permitting due diligence of all top‐scoring options and identify key bottlenecks and showstoppers. d. For all top‐scoring options, develop draft venture model, project finance structure and plan of engagement with capital markets. e. Refine cost of supply estimates for the top‐scoring options, including greenfield LNG import, if existing infrastructure in Nikiski becomes non‐feasible or excessively risky. f. Select one permanent solution or multiple short and long‐term options to pursue by the end of 2023 with target date for first delivery of gas in 2027‐2028. Phase II 12 The timeline of feasible start dates and cost of supply ranges for various options are presented in Appendix D, which was assembled by CEA as a collaborative work product between BRG and BV based on each company’s separate analyses, and illustrates a multitude of considered options with their feasible start dates. 5 refinement of scope and schedule will enable a more accurate estimate of feasible start dates for the options under consideration. 1.5 Structure of the Report 18. The remainder of this report is organized into five primary chapters, as follows: Chapter 2: Forecast of Unmet Gas Demand Need Chapter 3: New Supply Options Considered Chapter 4: Option Selection Chapter 5: Market, Price Volatility, and Risk Analysis Chapter 6: Recommendations and Next Steps 6 2 FORECAST OF UNMET GAS DEMAND NEED 2.1 Historic and Current Demand for Natural Gas by the Working Group Utilities 19. After the end of fertilizer production and export, Alaska natural gas consumption in the Railbelt area decreased to around 70 billion cubic feet per year (“BCF”) over the last decade, divided between residential and commercial heating, power generation, and the rest for small industrial users, such as Kenai Refinery owned by Marathon Petroleum Corporation (“Marathon”). The chart below breaks down the various consumer uses of natural gas. Figure 2: Alaska Natural Gas Delivered to Consumers 2.2 Incorporation of Renewable Energy Scenarios into Power Generation Utilities’ Forecasts 20. Renewable energy has been a part of Alaska’s power generation portfolio for decades, with hydropower supplying more than 20 percent of the state’s electrical energy in an average year. The integrated Railbelt system is powered by approximately 85% fossil fuels and 15% renewables.13 The largest renewable energy project supplying the Working Group of utilities is Bradley Lake, at 120 megawatts (“MW”) installed capacity. The project supplies about 10% of 13 Bettina Chastain (CEA Board President) and Arthur Miller (CEA CEO), Opinion: Anchorage’s electric utility is making progress on its clean‐energy goals, Anchorage Daily News (April 13, 2023). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021BCF Natural Gas Deliveries to Electric Power Consumers (BCF) Natural Gas Industrial Consumption (BCF) Natural Gas Deliveries to Commercial Consumers (BCF) Natural Gas Residential Consumption (BCF) Natural Gas Vehicle Fuel Consumption (BCF) - Negligible Quantity 7 the Railbelt’s electricity demand.14 Several new projects, some of them very large, are in various stages of development.15 21. Solar and wind generation has gained footing in the state as well, starting to supply a significant part of electric generation produced in the entire state, as shown in the chart below. 22. All electric utilities in the working group have incorporated plans for integration of renewables into their generation portfolio as part of their strategic and near‐term plans. For example, CEA is currently evaluating two proposed utility‐scale projects (one wind, one solar), that could provide up to 400,000 MWh, or 20% of their annual energy needs, provided that the ongoing feasibility studies can show no negative impact on electricity rates.16 GVEA’s plan to incorporate more natural gas generated electricity into its system would offset the decrease in natural gas demand from using more renewable power generation in the Railbelt. Also, Alaska’s currently 14 Kirong, N., Alaska utilities plan $200M Railbelt transmission system upgrades, S&P Global, May 30, 2022. 15 Corri A. Feige (ADNR Commissioner) and Lucinda Mahoney (Alaska Department of Revenue Commissioner), Investing in Alaska Beyond ESG, January 2022, available at https://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/ResourceEvaluation/Alaska_ESG_Jan_2022.pdf. 16 Bettina Chastain (CEA Board President) and Arthur Miller (CEA CEO), Opinion: Anchorage’s electric utility is making progress on its clean‐energy goals, Anchorage Daily News (April 13, 2023). Figure 3: Alaska Net Electricity Generation by Source (December 2022) 8 relatively low (0.2%) penetration of electric vehicles (“EV”), heat pumps, and induction cooking will likely grow over time and increase combined‐cycle natural gas power generation demand overall. 17 23. Figure 4 below provides a breakout of the projected electric utility18 natural gas requirements. These requirements (represented by dotted lines) are based on planning scenarios to provide a range for strategic planning. As can be seen, there is a substantial range of projected gas requirements for the electric utilities attributed to potential varying degrees of clean energy uptake along with beneficial electrification such as EVs and heat pumps. For the purposes of project requirements, the three demand lines between the Lower and Upper Bounds of Gas Requirements were utilized since they best represent reasonable expectations and timelines. Figure 4. Power Generation: Demand Planning Assumptions vs. Potential Bounds of Gas Requirements 17 Alaska Energy Authority, State of Alaska Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Implementation Plan (approved by USDOT FHWA on September 27, 2022), pp. 25‐26. 18 CEA, MEA, HEA, and GVEA. 9 2.3 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study by the Department of Natural Resources 24. In the 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast,19 ADNR evaluates 90 oil and gas pools in the Cook Inlet Basin within 38 different fields and developed probabilistic forecasts for proved developed and proved undeveloped dry and associated natural gas reserves for each pool.20 The study assesses reserves based on “present conditions and assumptions”21, and “does not estimate future natural gas prices”.22 Undeveloped reserves are assumed to be developed at a drilling pace of 15 wells per year from 2023 until 2030, with no additional drilling assumed thereafter.23 ADNR’s assumed annual gas demand is 70 BCF; it is a “steady demand profile” assumption24 and thus does not make judgments regarding any potential changes in future natural gas demand. 25. ADNR truncates forecasts of the technically recoverable gas to account for the economic limit of the various pools. The economic limit ensures that the production forecasts are limited to only economically feasible production. This is typically determined as the difference between revenues and variable costs borne by the producer.25 Since ADNR does not forecast future prices in this study, it is implied that production for various pools will be truncated based on the economic limits determined under the prevalent price conditions. ADNR estimates that under the mean truncated (“ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated”) production scenario there are currently 803 BCF of dry natural gas and 17 BCF of associated natural gas remaining in Cook Inlet.26 19 State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast, January 2023, (“2022 Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study”). 20 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study, p. 4. 21 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study, p. 3. 22 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study, p. 3. 23 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study, p. 4. “The forecast does not assess or assume how many wells may be drilled after 2030.” 24 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study, p. 17. 25 ADNR did not analyze the potential economic limit of the entire basin that would take into account ability to sustain a support industry and interactions between upstream and midstream, such as maintaining pipeline pressures. 26 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study, p. 15. 10 Figure 5: ADNR's 2022 Mean Truncated Annual Gas Supply Forecast 2.4 Unmet Gas Demand Forecast 26. The main gas consumers in Cook Inlet are ENSTAR and CEA and together account for more than 75% of gas demand in Cook Inlet. ENSTAR is the largest overall consumer of natural gas in the state and does not expect material shifts in its demand over the next 20 years. ENSTAR’s 2023 contracted demand is approximately 34 BCF. CEA has contracted approximately 8 BCF with an additional 8 BCF sourced from Chugach’s 66.7% working interest ownership in the Beluga River Unit. Other major gas consumers include MEA, HEA, GVEA as purchaser of economy energy sales from Cook Inlet basin, and Marathon as an industrial user for local refinery. In addition, IGU located in Fairbanks, currently supplies Cook Inlet sourced gas to Fairbanks via an LNG trucking operation. IGU has concluded a firm 20‐year contract with Harvest Midstream to supply LNG from the North Slope starting approximately in 2024, with two 5‐year extension options.27 IGU’s future demand outside of its current Cook Inlet gas contracts is thus excluded from the estimated demand profiles. However, should IGU choose to participate in the selected supply option, its demand could be easily incorporated into the design of the top‐ranked options under consideration. 27. Future “Unmet Gas Demand” can be defined in two ways: 27 IGU Board of Directors Special Board Meeting, January 17, 2023, IGU Board Memorandum 2023‐01, p. 8. IGU’s current gas contract with Hilcorp provides sufficient gas through 2032, however in the event of the gas supply source switching to Harvest, the Cook Inlet contract will end earlier, as shown in Figure 6. Total Proved Reserves 820 BCF 11 a. Lower‐risk uncontracted demand compares consumer demand forecasts to firm contract quantities committed to Alaskan utilities with access to the Cook Inlet gas market; or b. Higher‐risk uncontracted demand compares consumer demand forecasts with ADNR truncated production, which assumes that utilities are able extend or execute new agreements up to the proved reserves production profile provided by ADNR. 28. BRG used the second definition as the planning assumption in this assessment to determine Unmet Gas Demand, since ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated forecast is based on reserves of high degree of confidence (1P) that can be delivered at current prices. In other words, this assessment assumes that additional Cook Inlet gas will be contracted and re‐contracted up to ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated production profile. ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated production profile28 along with demand forecasts provided by utilities are depicted in Figure 6. 28 This is the Base Case for the gas supply forecast that is based on ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated Annual Gas Supply Forecast which BRG digitized with the values rounded and truncated after 2040. 12 Figure 6. Utilities’ Contracted and Uncontracted Demand vs Cook Inlet Supply 29. The difference between these assumed supply and demand forecasts is the Unmet Gas Demand assumed by BRG for the purposes of sizing a potential natural gas replacement project and calculating the costs of supply per Mcf, as depicted in Figure 7. The assumed demand stays relatively flat for each of the High, Medium, and Low scenarios after 2040 as a planning assumption for the purpose of sizing a project that is capable of delivering up to each respective demand assumption and for calculating 20‐year levelized costs of supply per Mcf. 13 Figure 7: ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated Natural Gas Supply and Utilities’ Demand Forecasts 30. Subject to the risks described below in Section 2.5, and in order to evaluate the project options on a comparable basis, the Working Group and BRG adopted the following range of Unmet Gas Demand as part of this assessment, presented graphically in Figure 8 and in Table 1 below. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 BCF/yearDNR Mean Truncated Production Medium Demand Low Demand High Demand Unmet Gas Demand Low: 355 BCF Medium: 435 BCF High: 485 BCF 14 Figure 8: Unmet Gas Demand for Low, Medium, and High Demand Scenarios Table 1: Unmet Gas Demand by Year (BCF) Low Demand Medium Demand High Demand 2023 0 0 0 2024 0 0 0 2025 0 0 0 2026 0 0 0 2027 0 0 3 2028 2 8 12 2029 9 14 18 2030 9 16 19 2031 17 23 26 2032 20 26 30 2033 24 30 34 2034 29 35 39 2035 35 42 45 2036 38 44 47 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 202320242025202620272028202920302031203220332034203520362037203820392040BCF/yearLow Demand Medium Demand High Demand 15 Low Demand Medium Demand High Demand 2037 40 46 50 2038 43 49 53 2039 44 50 54 2040 44 52 55 2.5 Uncertainties of the Unmet Gas Demand Forecast. 31. The main uncertainties associated with Unmet Gas Demand include: a. The actual quantity of remaining reserves and resources that could be developed to fill a portion of the Unmet Gas Demand. Proved developed and proved undeveloped reserves, used in the ADNR study, are generally considered to be reserves of high confidence and likelihood of commerciality.29 However, it is possible that the ultimately recoverable reserves will end up materially higher or lower than ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated estimate resulting in smaller or larger Unmet Gas Demand over the next thirty years. b. The pace of Cook Inlet development needs to be sufficient to bring resources online in time to satisfy the demand in a particular year. The ADNR study assumed a drilling rate of 15 development wells based on historic development drilling activity in Cook Inlet. Lower drilling activity would likely result in higher Unmet Gas Demand and a different production profile than what was anticipated by ADNR. c. Anticipation of additional supply entering the Cook Inlet market could influence the rate of development activity by Cook Inlet producers (i.e. slowing down drilling programs). This could potentially result in a steeper production decline for proved reserves than currently anticipated over the entire forecast window. d. The Unmet Gas Demand contains projections of household, commercial, and industrial consumer gas demand in the future, and thus is inherently uncertain. e. Finally, the adoption rate of renewable power generation by utilities can have significant impacts on the resulting overall demand for natural gas, particularly in the later portion of the demand forecast window of 2023‐2050. The upper and lower bounds of potential outcomes in utility gas demand impacted by levels of renewable power penetration are shown above in Figure 4. 32. The Cook Inlet market will have additional storage requirements to meet seasonal, daily, and hourly demand obligations. The Unmet Gas Demand presented in this study is quantified on an 29 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study, p. 7. 16 annual basis; however, adequate storage capacity and deliverability needs to be in place to ensure the demand is met on the coldest days of the year. The Cook Inlet Natural Gas Storage Alaska (“CINGSA”) facility has a current design capacity of 11 BCF. Additionally, Cook Inlet gas storage capacity held by Hilcorp is depicted in Figure 9 below as part of all storage and producing fields. Hilcorp‐owned storage fields are Swanson River Gas Storage (“SRGS”), Pretty Creek Gas Storage (“PCGS”), and Kenai Gas Field Gas Storage (“KGFGS”).30 Figure 9: Hilcorp’s Cook Inlet Gas Storage and Production Capacity31 33. The timing of when Cook Inlet will first require additional sources of gas and the Unmet Gas Demand profile have significant implications on the schedule and the cost of meeting this 30 All storage assets are depicted as white boxes with red borders and text on the map below. 31 Hilcorp Presentation to the House Energy Committee – Luke Saugier, Senior Vice President, Alaska, January 2023. 17 shortfall. Some of the long lead‐time options which are described in subsequent chapters have longer development timeframes than what is necessary to meet the Unmet Gas Demand in 2027 and 2028. Furthermore, the Unmet Gas Demand increases from less than 10 BCF in the medium demand case in 2028 to over 50 BCF in 2040. Large scale developments could be underutilized in early years leading to higher overall cost of supplying the gas. 34. Continued close coordination within the Working Group and with the project management team as project options are developed further is essential to ensure the most efficient timely implementation of solutions to fill the Unmet Gas Demand during this generational energy system transition. 18 3 NEW SUPPLY OPTIONS CONSIDERED 35. In this chapter, we review the scope of the project options considered by BRG to fill the Unmet Gas Demand need starting at first occurrence and continuing to 2050 and beyond. 3.1 Project Options 36. The main options for supplying Unmet Gas Demand considered in this Phase 1 Assessment are shown in the table below. These options were originally proposed by BRG as the most viable based on previous studies and market knowledge and were expanded and modified in cooperation with the Working Group from original six options to ten. Other options to fill the Unmet Gas Demand were evaluated by CEA and its consultant Black and Veatch (“BV”) as part of a separate study; the summary of all options evaluated is presented in Appendix C. Table 2: Project Options Considered # Project Option Short Title 1 Development of additional regional gas supply Cook Inlet Gas 2 Alaska in‐state pipeline In‐state Pipeline 3 LNG imports using existing Kenai LNG infrastructure Kenai LNG 4 LNG imports or spot or seasonal contracted cargos via a green‐field port and regas facility Greenfield Port and Regas 5 LNG imports via a Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (“FSRU”) FSRU 6 LNG imports via barge or small vessel Barge / Small LNG Carrier 7 North Slope natural gas supply via the Alaska LNG project Alaska LNG 8 North Slope natural gas supply via LNG trucking or combination of trucking and rail/pipe to CI LNG Truck and/or Rail 9 Options to supplement natural gas supply with renewable natural gas RNG 10 Hydrogen and hydrogen‐derived fuels Hydrogen 37. While not reflected in the order of the options listed above, the project options fall into several logical groups based on the source of supply that are frequently discussed together, and may include further variations or sub‐options that can be refined and developed in the next stage of implementation. They are: a. Cook Inlet and Southcentral gas supply (Option 1) b. Alaska North Slope gas supply (Options 2, 7, and 8) c. LNG imports (Options 3, 4, 5, and 6) d. Renewable and low‐carbon gas (Options 9 and 10) 19 3.2 Summary of Option Analysis 38. BRG and Cornerstone analyzed each project option at a sufficiently detailed screening level to enable the prioritization and scoring of the options. The summary of this analysis in the table below highlights the main outcomes of the analysis: 39. Year Available. The year that each option is estimated to deliver first gas, assuming that a decision is made in 2023 to progress the option to the next necessary development step. For most project options, the next step is preliminary engineering design, and in some cases Front End Engineering Design (“FEED”), which precedes a Final Investment Decision (“FID”). 40. Max Annual Supply and Demand Met Through [Year]. The Unmet Gas Demand assumed in Phase I Assessment (using High Demand case from the Working Group) begins in 2027 and increases to approximately 20 BCF annually by 2030, and to approximately 55 BCF by 2040. Assuming ADNR’s case of mean truncated supply, all Cook Inlet Gas is offline by 2041, necessitating the new supply project to provide up to approximately 70 BCF of gas annually. Some of the options, such as the North Slope gas pipeline projects, have plentiful capacity to meet this demand; LNG Import options are expandable beyond listed initial capacity. All other project options have unique capacity limitations that make them unsuitable for long‐term supply reliance, although it is our understanding that utilities with contracts expiring in the short term are considering other short‐term options, as detailed in Appendices C and D. 41. Total CAPEX, $MM. Total estimated capital investment made by utilities and/or third parties expressed in 2023 prices (“$2023”). 42. Direct Investment, $MM. Estimated portion of Total CAPEX shouldered by the utilities individually or as part of a joint venture. This figure is subject to change and commercial structure negotiations. The estimate reflects the industry standard or status‐quo assumption for each type of project, in $2023. 43. Indicative Cost of Supply, $2023/Mcf. For all options, the estimated indicative cost of supply carries an inherent uncertainty at this stage of evaluation, whether or not stated in the table below or further in this report. This is due to the early stage of development of all the options. For some options such as Cook Inlet Gas or North Slope Gas Supply, once in service, costs of supply are likely to stay relatively flat. For projects involving LNG Import, prevailing market will create ongoing volatility in the cost of supply during operations that could be smoothed out with hedging. BRG used the Working Group’s high demand case to estimate the cost of supply presented below. This indicative cost of supply compares to the current contract price of Cook Inlet Gas of about $8 per Mcf. Current estimates of the cost of supply do not include potential additional underground storage. 20 Table 3: Summary of Project Option Analysis Indicative Cost of Supply, $2023/Mcf # Title Year Available Max Annual In‐State Supply, BCF Demand Met Through Total CAPEX, $MM Direct Investment, $MM Gas Transport and Processing TOTAL 1 Cook Inlet Gas 2027 23 2032 $1,500 ‐ $2,000 NA $9.3 ‐ $25.5 Included $9.3 ‐ $25.5 2 (a) In‐state Pipeline (Privately owned) 2030 142 After 2050 $8,750 $10 $1.3 $26.8 $28.1 2(b), (c) In‐State Pipeline (Subsidized or State‐Owned) 2030 142 After 2050 $8,750 $10 $1.3 $7.8 $9.1 3 Kenai LNG 2028 55 2040 $768 $768 $8.6 $3.4 $12.0 4 Greenfield Port and Regas 2030 55 2040 $877 $877 $8.6 $4.0 $12.6 5 FSRU (Own/Lease) 2027‐2029 55 2040 $698 $607 / $201 $8.6 $3.6 $12.2 6 Barge / Small LNG Carrier 2027‐2029 25 NA $563 $158 $8.6 $13.3 $21.9 7 Alaska LNG 2030 182 After 2050 $43,000 $140 $1.3 $3.1 $4.4 8 LNG Truck and/or Rail 2026 10 2028 $796 $346 $2.5 $25.0 $32.0 9 RNG Unknown 1 NA NA NA $0.0 $25.0 $25.0 10 Hydrogen (green) 2035 or later Unknown NA NA NA $0.0 >$32 >$32 21 3.2.1 Scope Descriptions 44. In this section, we describe the high‐level scope of each of the project options considered in Phase I. BRG and Cornerstone provided corresponding supporting cost and high‐level project schedules (to be refined in Phase II) to ENSTAR in support of the summary assumptions. 3.2.1.1 Option 1 ‐ Cook Inlet Gas 45. The Cook Inlet Gas option is the estimated quantity of gas that may be available for future contracting in Cook Inlet above and beyond ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated case. 46. Information on available reserves is generally confidential, and thus we relied on the previous 2018 ADNR Cook Inlet Natural Gas Availability study (“2018 ADNR Study”) to estimate the quantifies of gas that may be available beyond the 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast mean truncated supply, and thus also likely above the level of current contract prices. Figure 10 below from the 2018 ADNR study32 shows total gas supply available at a 15% hurdle rate assumption, including proved reserves. The amount of gas incremental to the rough equivalent of ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated case is only the portion of the supply above the $8/Mcf price threshold in Figure 10, i.e. around 220 Bcf at the 50th percentile measurement. Figure 10: 2018 ADNR Cook Inlet Gas Availability Curve 32 2018 ADNR Study, p. 34. 22 47. Due to the vintage of the 2018 ADNR study and the intervening factors such as the stability of remaining proved reserves and prices between the two ADNR assessments, as well as the recent inflationary market signals, we perceive and acknowledge a significant amount of uncertainty in both the quantity of additional gas available, and its potential price. However, after review of the available public information and a consultation with ADNR’s technical staff, the estimate of 220 BCF available33 additional reserves beyond ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated forecast appears to be a reasonable working assumption using public data. 48. The chart below represents the estimated potential of incremental regional gas supply beyond the ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated case. Figure 11: Incremental Regional Gas Supply Estimate34 49. The gas supply estimate depicted in Figure 11 consists of reserves and resources with different degrees of commercial and technical confidence. Approximately 466 BCF of already contracted capacity is included as part of the Base profile that represents ADNR’s Mean Truncated case.35 Approximately 287 BCF of uncontracted capacity would also fall within the ADNR’s 2022 Mean Truncated case.36 33 Please see Appendix B.2. 34 Please see Appendix B.2 for production profile and price assumption methodology. 35 Sum of Base production below the green line. 36 Sum of Base production above the green line; equal to Sum of Uncontracted Available Cook Inlet from Figure 6. $9‐19/Mcf $15‐26/Mcf 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 BCFBase Incr. Cook Inlet 1 Incr. Cook Inlet 2 High Demand Contracted 23 50. Approximately 188 BCF of 220 BCF incremental production might be developed by 2040.37 Depending on location, investments by ENSTAR and Harvest Midstream in new pipeline connections may be necessary. 51. This additional supply could come online in Cook Inlet to fill in Unmet Gas Demand beyond proved reserves, starting around 2027. These reserves could be comprised of a mix of onshore, near‐shore developments, including installation of new platforms and longer economic life of existing fields. Regional gas supply is provided in the form of contracted agreements where the utility customers incur minimal direct investment. However, the new capital needed to invest in the development of these new reserves is difficult to secure for Cook Inlet operators for various reasons. Based on the interviews conducted by BRG and on public information presented by certain operators during the 2023 Alaska State Legislative session, these reasons include the high cost of securing an offshore or even a new land rig for only a few prospects, overall high operating costs and low availability of service providers, difficulty securing capital for Alaska oil and gas activities based on climate change concerns as well as past fiscal instability, and the overall concentration of the Alaska market under a large owner and operator in Hilcorp. The relatively small and closed gas market generally leads to the dilemma of operators being unmotivated to take substantial risks without a gas contract, utilities unwilling to sign firm gas contracts for unproven reserves, and both parties finding it difficult to land on mutually agreeable prices for new developments with significant cost uncertainty. Recent federal offshore lease sales attracted no new interested producers to Cook Inlet,38 accentuating the challenge of securing new capital for the region. 52. Working Group utility customers continue to be best positioned to gauge the availability and pricing of incremental Cook Inlet gas supply, as they have access to confidential producer information that is not available to this Phase I Assessment. However, based on the review of public information and in consultation with the Working Group, it is our opinion that it would be risky and unadvisable under current market conditions to count on sufficient Cook Inlet or other regional gas supply to fill the Unmet Gas Demand beyond 2026 without developing alternative supplies. 3.2.1.2 Option 2 ‐ In‐State Pipeline 53. The In‐State Pipeline option is a variant of the Alaskan Gasline Development Corporation’s (AGDC) proposed Alaska Standalone Pipeline (ASAP). The pipeline would run 733 miles to supply natural gas from Prudhoe Bay to ENSTAR’s system in Anchorage. AGDC has previously sized this pipeline with a 36‐inch diameter to meet a demand of 500 MMcfd to Anchorage and the 37 See Appendix B.2 for production profile and price assumption methodology. 38 Anchorage Daily News, Hotly debated federal Cook Inlet oil and gas lease sale draws only 1 bid, Dec. 30, 2022, https://www.adn.com/business‐economy/energy/2022/12/30/hotly‐debated‐federal‐cook‐inlet‐oil‐and‐gas‐lease‐sale‐draws‐ only‐1‐bid/. 24 surrounding utilities together with an industrial export customer. The design has a ~30 mile, lateral to supply the Fairbanks region.39 54. For the purposes of Phase I Assessment, BRG and its sub‐contractor, Cornerstone Energy Services, Inc., have assumed that the intent of this In‐State Pipeline is to meet only local utility and refinery natural gas needs with no initial intent to provide exporting capabilities like that of the Alaska LNG project. Operating under that assumption, BRG has determined that the current 36‐inch diameter ASAP pipeline is over‐designed and could be optimized to better fit the needs of the state of Alaska. Assumptions made in a preliminary sizing of the ASAP line are outlined in the following section. Mainline Size 55. The Gas Supply model developed by ENSTAR, in conjunction with the Working Group and Marathon, indicates projected peak‐day demand of around 404 MMcfd. Table 4: Peak Day Demand for Alaska Consumers (MMcfd)40 Year ENSTAR CEA MEA HEA GVEA Tesoro IGU Total 2023 290.9 43.9 24.4 14.5 2.7 12.1 6.0 394.5 2024 290.9 43.7 24.5 13.4 2.7 12.1 6.9 394.2 2025 290.9 43.5 24.6 13.9 6.8 12.1 8.0 399.8 2026 290.9 40.6 25.0 13.4 6.8 12.1 10.0 398.8 2027 290.9 40.3 25.2 13.4 6.8 12.1 11.8 400.5 2028 290.9 40.0 25.2 13.4 6.8 12.1 13.6 402.0 2029 290.9 39.7 25.4 13.4 6.8 12.1 15.1 403.4 2030 290.9 37.5 25.0 14.6 6.8 12.1 16.4 403.3 2031 290.9 37.5 25.1 14.6 6.8 12.1 17.4 404.4 2032 290.9 37.6 25.3 14.6 6.8 12.1 18.2 405.5 2033 290.9 33.5 25.4 14.6 6.8 12.1 18.7 402.0 2034 290.9 33.5 25.6 14.6 6.8 12.1 19.0 402.5 2035 290.9 33.5 25.8 14.6 6.8 12.1 19.2 402.9 2036 290.9 33.5 26.0 14.6 6.8 12.1 19.3 403.2 2037 290.9 33.5 26.1 14.6 6.8 12.1 19.3 403.3 2038 291.0 33.5 26.2 14.6 6.8 12.1 19.3 403.5 2039 291.0 33.5 26.6 14.6 6.8 12.1 19.3 403.9 2040 291.0 33.5 26.9 14.6 6.8 12.1 19.3 404.2 39 Davis, Carolyn, Natural Gas Intel, Alaska Gasline Secures Final EIS for Pipeline Project, June 22, 2018, https://www.naturalgasintel.com/alaska‐gasline‐secures‐final‐eis‐for‐pipeline‐project/. 40 Working Group input, November 2022. 25 56. Sized at 36 inches, the 733 miles ASAP pipeline can free‐flow 390 MMcfd from Prudhoe Bay to Anchorage while experiencing a pressure drop of < 300 psig. A 36‐inch pipeline can handle nearly 100% of Alaska natural gas needs on a peak demand day from first day of operation, and requires no compression or storage to do so. This design is the basis for the project cost estimate used in this report for the In‐State Pipeline option. BRG adapted the estimate from the 2014 AGDC FEED results by removing the gas processing plant on the North slope (which also included compression), adding a pipeline from Pt Thomson to Prudhoe Bay, and adjusting for inflation up to $2023. 57. A more economical solution would be to utilize a smaller diameter pipeline and add compression along the mainline as the gas demand increases. Cornerstone has performed some preliminary modeling using GasCalc 5.041 that indicates that a 24‐inch steel pipeline could accomplish this goal. The 24‐inch pipeline provides enough capacity to free‐flow gas from Prudhoe Bay to Anchorage at 105 MMcfd, thus supplying average annual Unmet Gas Demand until at least 2034. Compression 58. Adding compression at key points in the line would provide capacity for the 24‐inch ASAP pipeline to flow 390 MMcfd to Anchorage in addition to 60 MMcfd to Fairbanks.42 This volume, according to the gas supply model, would eliminate the need for any Cook Inlet supply, and thus would likely be subject to a phase‐in period of time as Cook Inlet declines. Infrastructure Requirements 59. The infrastructure requirements and supply sources and strategy are as follows: Approx. 800 miles 24‐inch steel pipeline from Pt Thomson to Anchorage Beluga Pipeline interconnect 30 miles 12‐inch steel pipeline to Fairbanks ~38 mainline valve sites (for both mainline and Fairbanks lateral) Up to 7 mainline compressor stations, as needed Supply Sources and Strategy 60. Gas to the pipeline would be supplied via a gas purchase agreement with Pt. Thomson gas owners, including potentially State of Alaska as a Royalty‐In‐Kind gas owner. Placing the pipeline origin at Pt. Thomson, rather than Prudhoe Bay, allows deliver of utility‐quality gas with minimal conditioning requirements, 43 thus avoiding a multi‐billion expenditure for this In‐State Pipeline project. 41 Copyright 1993‐2023 B3PE LLC Revision: 6.1.35 ‐ March 29,2023. 42 These volumes represent the scenario modeled to meet peak day demand; however, capacity could be increased further to provide 500 MMcfd and include other industrial customers. 43 AGDC Board Meeting, February 4, 2021, President’s Report, p. 32, available at https://agdc.us/wp‐ content/uploads/2021/02/02042021_Board‐Meeting‐Presidents‐Report.pdf 26 Financing and Ownership 61. Even the smaller 24‐inch pipeline dedicated solely to filling the Unmet Gas Demand for the Working Group is oversized and expensive compared to other feasible options, such as LNG imports. Current natural gas demand in Alaska simply does not support a pipeline project of about 800 mi in length, if compared strictly on cost to the LNG import option. However, the Working Group recognizes that such a project may still have significant generational benefits due to the ability of the In‐State Pipeline project to: Supply natural gas to areas of the state currently relying on coal, biomass, or diesel for power generation and heating, and thus experiencing the negative effects of pollution, intense carbon emitting generation, high and volatile costs, or both; Generate significant in‐state construction and operations jobs; Create the ability to supply natural gas to new industrial customers along and nearby the pipeline route, such as mine projects; Generate gas royalty revenue to the State of Alaska; Aid in extending the life of the North Slope oil and gas production base by creating a new revenue stream in large‐scale gas sales; and Provide a stable and reliable energy source for many years that will benefit economic development of the region. 62. In recognition of these unique characteristics of an In‐State Pipeline option, ENSTAR requested that BRG evaluate alternative ownership and financing structures of this pipeline option. BRG developed three example ownership structures: a. Option 2(a). Traditionally financed, privately owned pipeline. b. Option 2(b). Public‐Private Partnership structure, with a private pipeline owner and operator, and a percentage of the project construction costs shouldered by a government sponsor. This is effectively a subsidized structure that can be arranged so that upside economic gains go to the public partner. The level of public investment can vary; BRG modeled an 80% “subsidy” investment. c. Option 2(c). Fully state‐owned structure that substitutes a 2% annual return on investment back to the state for State of Alaska and does not carry Ad Valorem tax or a traditional return structure. 3.2.1.3 Option 3 ‐ Kenai LNG 63. Kenai LNG in the context of this study, refers to the concept of retrofitting the Kenai LNG export facility located in Nikiski (owned by Marathon) to be utilized as an LNG import and regasification facility for a broader group of customers than the Kenai refinery as currently proposed by 27 Marathon.44 The project would utilize as much of the existing infrastructure as possible, including the pier and the storage tanks, at project initiation. LNG would be imported via an LNG tanker,45 offloaded, stored in the existing storage tanks, and then vaporized and injected into the Kenai Beluga Pipeline system (“KBPL”). Infrastructure Requirements 64. When the Kenai LNG facility was in active operation, its storage capacity consisted of three tanks with total capacity around 2 BCF. The tanks would be modified as required to fit the new facility arrangement. Since the existing tanks are now more than 50 years old, we suggest that the long‐ term solution is to site a new storage tank on the facility to replace these aging vessels, with a target date of 2032. 65. Pier upgrades are not expected to be required, however top‐side mechanical work on the liquid and vapor lines would be required. 66. New vaporizers (capable of 150 MMcfd sendout capacity) would be installed in the Kenai facility to meet daily send out demands. The design of the plant would allow vaporization scalability. Initial vaporization sendout rates would be discussed and finalized with the Working Group during sequential design phases such that capital deployment is phased responsibly. 67. A custody transfer meter station equipped with gas measurement, and any necessary upgrades to the pipeline connecting the Kenai LNG terminal to KBPL. 68. We note that the infrastructure assumptions are not taking into account the maximum extent of potential investments necessary to bring the facilities to current FERC standards for long‐term use, should that be required. These assumptions need to be further examined and developed with participation of the facility owner. Supply Source and Contracting Strategy 69. Since the current facility owner has filed and gained FERC approval to import LNG for its own gas usage, the contracting strategy for this project has become more complicated than in years past when this project was considered. BRG sees four methods of executing this project: a. Joint venture with Marathon for joint investment and LNG sourcing. b. Contract with Marathon to provide dry gas supply to utilities. c. Purchase the Kenai LNG facility from Marathon with agreement to supply the volumes the Kenai refinery requires. 44 FERC Docket No. CP19‐118‐000. 45 Shipping cost estimates for this and other LNG import options assume average shipping distance equivalent to the distance between Nikiski and Vancouver, and include either seasonal or year‐round (depending on annual demand) charter cost assumptions for the requisite number of vessels (up to four ~140,000 cubic meter vessels), associated fuel and incidental expenses, and port fees. 28 d. Limited use of the facility with floating storage, as suggested by an independent study conducted by CEA and BV, thus only contracting with Marathon for the use of the dock and sufficient land area for regasification. 3.2.1.4 Option 4 ‐Greenfield Port and Regas 70. A greenfield LNG import terminal is another possible solution to meet the gas needs for the region. This import terminal would contain a pier capable of docking a 3.5‐4 BCF LNG tanker which would offload LNG year‐round. LNG would be offloaded, stored, and then vaporized when system demand calls for it. Since the Alaska LNG project has been able to site a pier and above ground storage for export purposes, the proposed site for this greenfield import terminal is the same site as that of the Alaska LNG project until further siting search and analysis is performed. Infrastructure Requirements 71. The proposed pier would be of similar size of the one proposed by the Alaska LNG project, designed to handle LNG cargo ships up to 180,000 m3 in capacity. The final vessel size will be determined in later phases as scope is narrowed. The chosen vessel will be designed to provide volumes on a year‐round basis to the port in the long term. Seasonal deliveries may be appropriate in the near term when shortages between Cook Inlet production and utility demands are not significant. 72. The terminal itself would require approximately 60 acres of land suitable to site a 3.5 BCF storage tank (size to be finalized in further siting and design efforts) along with the necessary spill containment and vaporization equipment. 73. Vaporization capacity for this facility will have capacity finalized in later phases of design efforts but is proposed to scale up to 150 MMcfd at full build out, as currently estimated. 74. A custody transfer meter station equipped with gas measurement, as well as an interconnecting pipeline will be required to deliver volumes from the LNG import terminal to KBPL. Supply Source and Contracting Strategy 75. The freedom to design the new pier and a new storage tank provides flexibility and opens up additional market possibilities based on acceptable LNG cargo vessel sizes. There are developing projects in British Columbia and Mexico which could provide the contracted LNG volumes for this project. Pricing structure on a $/Mcf basis assumes multi‐year contracts using a North American gas index, pipeline toll, liquefaction toll, and marketing premiums. 3.2.1.5 Option 5 – FSRU 76. A Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU) is a viable LNG import solution to meet gas needs for the region. This option would require the use of a new pier, or an existing dock (“Agrium Pier,” currently owned by Nutrien, or other) with modifications to support the year‐ round docking of large LNG vessels, 140,000 m3 or larger in size. This solution provides a scalable, but not totally permanent asset to be utilized to supply gas to the region. Infrastructure Requirements 29 77. A single large FSRU vessel would be required (3.5 – 4 BCF) for the long‐term needs of the region. The vessel would be designed and constructed to be moored permanently at a selected pier that could handle the docking of such a vessel. Onboard the vessel, it is proposed there be enough room to provide a scalable vaporizer arrangement, allowing the flexibility to add necessary equipment to meet increased sendout demands in later years. 78. The pier that is selected for this option must be designed to handle a moored vessel year‐round, as even the most efficient seasonal operation can only deliver up to about 37 BCF per year.46 Seasonal deliveries by an existing FSRU vessel in the market could meet demands in the near term, but would not be a permanent solution as Cook Inlet production continues to decline. Agrium Pier would require substantial work to upgrade the structure to not only handle larger vessels, but reach deeper water at lower risk of freezing. As a result, later stages of analysis should consider siting a new pier for this solution. 79. A high‐pressure gas pipeline is required to transport gas from the FSRU vessel, across the pier, and to a custody transfer meter station equipped with gas measurement. Once measured for volume and heat content, an interconnect to KBPL may be required to deliver the volumes to CINGSA or other gas storage. The length of this interconnecting pipeline will be a factor in siting a potential new pier for an FSRU solution. Supply Source and Contracting Strategy 80. Pending selected or newly installed pier, existing market vessels could be contracted in the near‐ term and have the potential to be utilized to provide seasonal deliveries, and leave port during the winter months. The new build of an FSRU vessel can be optimized for available supply source and demand profile, and provide the capability to be docked 365‐days a year as the demand for LNG volumes grows. British Columbia and Mexico are developing projects that could supply contracted volumes, in addition to spot market volumes. Pricing for this LNG would be based on the NA gas index, pipeline toll, liquefaction toll, and a marketing premium. 3.2.1.6 Option 6 ‐Barge/Small LNG Carrier 81. Small scale LNG has gained popularity in recent years with companies like Norgas out of Norway47 supplying single or fleet solutions for LNG transportation and regas needs. A small‐ scale FSRU would be moored at the end of a pier, take deliveries from vessels smaller than typical LNG carriers (“LNGC”), vaporize the gas on‐board, and inject it into a high‐pressure gas pipeline where it is transported to a meter station for odorization, gas quality and volume measurement, and then injected into the ENSTAR system. This LNG import option would have sendout scalability as sendout demand grows, but due to smaller on‐vessel liquid storage, would also involve increasing the frequency of LNG deliveries to the vessel as the LNG demand grows to cover Cook Inlet shortfalls. 46 With an LNGC of 145,000 cubic meters in size, delivering and off‐loading to a moored FSRU with re‐gas capacity of 300 MMcfd, a seasonal operation from Vancouver may supply the Unmet Gas Demand through 2034. 47 https://norgascarriers.com/ 30 Infrastructure Requirements 82. A single small scale FSRU vessel would be needed to be moored at the selected site to provide the storage and regas. LNG deliveries would be taken onto the FSRU, stored, and vaporized as needed. These deliveries would quickly scale up as the LNG demand is increased to counteract the Cook Inlet decline in production. 83. A pier, Agrium Pier with modifications or otherwise, will be required to permanently moor the small‐scale FSRU vessel. Because these vessels are not as large as a typical LNGC, there is more flexibility in selecting, or constructing, a pier to meet this project’s needs. 84. A high‐pressure gas pipeline is required to transport gas from the FSRU vessel, across the pier, and to a custody transfer meter station equipped with gas measurement. Once measured for volume and heat content, an interconnect to KBPL may be required to deliver the volumes to CINGSA or other gas storage. The length of this interconnecting pipeline will be a factor in siting a potential new pier for an FSRU solution. Supply Source and Contracting Strategy 85. British Columbia (Kitimat or Tilbury) are the likely source of this LNG supply and would be long‐ term contracts due to the limited number of suppliers. Spot market options are likely limited, and would involve re‐selling LNG delivered to Asia, or shipping long distances such as from an FSRU on the coast of Peru. 3.2.1.7 Option 7 ‐Alaska LNG 86. AGDC is advancing the 807 miles, 42‐inch pipeline project from the North Slope to Nikiski that is designed to transport about 3.5 BCF/D of natural gas, and export LNG from a new terminal sized at 20 Mtpa (together, the “Alaska LNG” project). This strategic project has reserved more than sufficient capacity for local gas demand and has included local offtakes in its design basis, however there is no lateral pipeline connecting the mainline to Fairbanks in its scope.48 Therefore, BRG has included a provision for this pipeline in the direct investment portion of the estimate (see Table 3). 87. Alaska LNG has been approved by FERC under Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act as an integrated gas processing, pipeline, and LNG export project. The Biden administration recently re‐affirmed its LNG export permit to non‐Free Trade Agreement nations.49 While in possession of significant government and local support, this large project nevertheless faces the challenge of marshalling a ~$43 billion investment and debt package that will require long‐term firm LNG supply agreements to secure. Currently in 2023, AGDC is working to secure an initial at‐risk FEED 48 Alaska LNG project map and description, available at https://alaska‐lng.com/ 49 Casey, Jessica, LNG Industry. Biden Administration authorizes LNG exports from Alaska LNG project, April 17, 2023, available at https://www.lngindustry.com/liquid‐natural‐gas/17042023/biden‐administration‐authorises‐lng‐exports‐from‐alaska‐lng‐ project/. 31 investment of around $150 million for a FEED study.50 Despite being the lowest‐cost alternative if sanctioned at full capacity, Alaska LNG Alaska LNG does not currently have a target FID date and requires multiple years to construct after FID, requiring progress on other alternatives from the Working Group. 3.2.1.8 Option 8 ‐ LNG Truck and/or Rail 88. As another source of LNG, Trucking and Rail transportation from the North Slope was analyzed. Due the lack of established technology, rules, and regulations, in addition to the added layer of logistical barriers, LNG transport by rail was disregarded early on in the evaluation process, and this option became purely trucking from the North Slope. LNG would be produced in Deadhorse, and then trucked by teams of drivers down to the Matanuska‐Susitna Valley area where it would be unloaded, stored, and vaporized as demand required. Infrastructure Requirements 89. Harvest Midstream, an LNG supplier on the North Slope, could expand its planned facility from 150,000 gal/day to 450,000 gal/day by adding two (2) additional trains of LNG production.51 This production could meet ~13 BCF/yr of total system demand, meaning there would need to be additional sources of gas to meet volume demands very quickly after 2029. As a result, trucking is best looked at as a bridge or partial solution and not a long‐term solution to address the declining Cook Inlet production. Understanding this, a virtual pipeline of LNG between the North Slope would involve the following major investments: Expanding Harvest Midstream’s LNG production facility from initial 150,000 gal/day to 450,000 gal/day.52 A fleet of LNG trucks/trailers to scale with trucking demand, ultimately requiring between 28 and 35 truck deliveries (depending on size of the trailer) on a daily basis to keep up with 450,000 gal/day production.53 A service garage near Fairbanks to act as both a depot to store and repair trucks, as well as a location to switch truck drivers heading north and south. 50 FY2024 Alaska Governor‐Amended Operating Budget Summary, p. 2; at https://omb.alaska.gov/ombfiles/24_budget/PDFs/Corrected_FY2024_Operating_Governor_Amend_Bill_Summary_Spreadshe et_4‐18‐2023.pdf 51 Interior Gas Utility, IGU Special Board Meeting Packet, January 17, 2023, pp. 14.19, available at https://www.interiorgas.com/wpdm‐package/1‐17‐2023‐igu‐special‐board‐meeting‐packet/ 52 Further expansion may be possible but has not been publicly scoped out by the supplier. 53 While there is sufficient gas on the North Slope to provide supply beyond the 450,000 gal/day, the logistics of having more than this number of trucks on the Dalton and Parks highways appear quite challenging. The operational risks and potential for supply interruptions also must be considered. BRG used 450,000 gal/day as the maximum potential due to these considerations, as well as the cost and contracting information available for this specific option from IGU and Harvest Midstream. 32 An LNG Trucking Depot with a 1 BCF storage tank, vaporizers, and gas measurement. Storage tank size and vaporization system sizing is to be finalized in later stages of design to accommodate ENSTAR sendout needs and functional capacity of the operation. Supply Source and Contracting Strategy 90. Due to the nature of this project requiring extensive investments both on the liquefaction side to produce the LNG, and the LNG trucking depot in Anchorage to store and regas, there would be long‐term ~20‐year volume commitments on the part of the utilities. Contracts for the volumes would be based on the cost of gas, cost of liquefaction, cost of transportation, and the capital costs associated with the necessary infrastructure investments. 3.2.1.9 Option 9 ‐ RNG 91. Renewable natural gas can be produced by upgrading biogas generated from landfills, wastewater sludge, animal manure, municipal solid waste and other sources. Cost of producing natural gas can vary significantly by source and project as depicted below in Figure 12.54 Figure 12: Estimated Project Costs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions 92. BRG identified Landfill and Wastewater biogas as the main potential sources of RNG that could be delivered to the Alaska utilities. The largest landfill55 in Alaska is the Anchorage Regional Landfill which already collects 4 MMcfd56 of non‐upgraded natural gas, about 2.3 MMcfd57 flows from Anchorage Landfill Gas to Energy Project that supplies power to Joint Base Elmendorf‐ 54 World Resources Institute, Renewable Natural Gas as a Climate Strategy: Guidance for State Policymakers, December 17, 2020, https://www.wri.org/research/renewable‐natural‐gas‐climate‐strategy‐guidance‐state‐policymakers. 55 US EPA, Project and Landfill Data by State‐ Alaska (March 2023), https://www.epa.gov/lmop/project‐and‐landfill‐data‐state. 56 US EPA, Project and Landfill Data by State‐ Alaska (March 2023), https://www.epa.gov/lmop/project‐and‐landfill‐data‐state. 57 US EPA, Project and Landfill Data by State‐ Alaska (March 2023), https://www.epa.gov/lmop/project‐and‐landfill‐data‐state. 33 Richardson (“JBER”),58 and about 2 MMcfd is flared. If the flared gas could be re‐used, or if an additional resource in a comparable amount is available at Anchorage Regional Landfill, 2 MMcfd could support production and upgrade to 0.3 BCF/year of pipeline quality natural gas, assuming 50% of the gas is methane and the processing facility runs with 90% efficiency. Palmer Central Landfill currently collects around 0.174 MMcfd59 of biogas and should also be considered as an additional source but for much smaller quantities. 93. John M. Asplund Wastewater Treatment facility is Alaska’s largest wastewater treatment plant with plant capacity of up to 58 million of gallons per day (“MMgal/d”). The process of extracting methane from wastewater requires construction of an anaerobic digestor.60 Assuming approximately 60 gallons of wastewater per cubic foot of natural gas,61 John M. Asplund Wastewater Treatment facility could produce up to 0.35 BCF/year of methane. The majority of the remaining treatment facilities in the region treat less than 2.5 MMgal/d of wastewater, making the economics of producing RNG from such facilities unfavorable. 94. It is likely that up to around 1 BCF/year of renewable natural gas could be produced in Alaska from various across Southcentral Alaska and the Railbelt. There is significant heterogeneity in the cost of supply across different projects and sources of renewable natural gas. Further detailed assessment is needed to quantify the cost of producing natural gas from specific source in Alaska. The higher end of the cost ranges provided in Figure 12 for wastewater and landfill derived RNG development are likely in Alaska due to the length of supply chain and generally higher construction costs. 3.2.1.10 Hydrogen 95. Hydrogen can be produced from multiple sources including natural gas, renewable power sources, nuclear power, coal, as well as biomass. Hydrogen produced from renewable power sources is generally referred to as green hydrogen. BRG assessed potential for wind based green hydrogen development in Cook Inlet. BRG did not estimate the cost of supplying hydrogen from natural gas because natural gas can be used directly in the ENSTAR natural gas system. Furthermore, production of natural gas‐based hydrogen would require sufficient and inexpensive gas supply which is unlikely to be available in Cook Inlet unless a viable alternative to Cook Inlet sourced gas is found. 96. Cost of power is the main cost input associated with green hydrogen production. On October 10, 2011 RCA approved a 25‐year PPA between Chugach Electric Association and CIRI to supply power from Fire Island Wind facility located in Cook Inlet. Under the supply agreement Chugach 58 Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Landfill Gas to Energy Project Details, https://www.muni.org/departments/sws/pages/anchlandfillgastoenergyprj.aspx. 59 US EPA, Project and Landfill Data by State‐ Alaska (March 2023), https://www.epa.gov/lmop/project‐and‐landfill‐data‐state. 60 Vutai, V., Cissy Ma, and M. Lu, The Role of Anaerobic Digestion in Wastewater Management, EM Magazine, Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA., 2016. 61 Lacey, Pamela A., Developments in Renewable Natural Gas: The Promise of RNG, American Gas Association, October 26, 2017, p. 8, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017‐11/documents/27.lacey_2017aiw.pdf. 34 electric pays a fixed price of $97 per megawatt hour.62 In 2023 electric power rates for large customers ranged between $90 to $137 per megawatt.63 However, future clean power rates for generation of hydrogen are expected to fall, as the costs of technology for both new solar and wind power generation have decreased globally by 88% and 68% respectively in the past decade.64 In Alaska, this is evidenced by a more recent small (6 MW) solar power contract held by MEA at $67/MWh,65 although the project is not anywhere near the size necessary for utility‐ scale hydrogen generation. 97. Other major cost items include capital expenditures to acquire an electrolyzer facility, cost of acquiring or leasing land parcel of sufficient size to accommodate electrolyzer infrastructure, access to and processing costs of fresh water required for hydrogen generation, operating and maintenance costs as well as onsite and offsite costs that include hydrogen distribution and storage costs, and potential upgrades to the ENSTAR system to accommodate hydrogen development. 98. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 introduced tax credits for qualified clean hydrogen facilities.66 Facilities that begin construction before January 1, 2033, produce less than 0.45 kilograms of CO2 equivalent lifecycle emissions, and meet prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements can qualify for a tax credit of up to $3/kg for a period of 10 years. The tax credit is viewed as a significant subsidy by industry participants.67 99. To assess the viability of hydrogen development in Southcentral Alaska, BRG assumed that the tax credit, if efficiently monetized, could be sufficient to cover both capital and operating costs of an electrolyzer facility and all associated infrastructure costs, other than the cost of power. Assuming power price in the range of $70‐80/MW, a high efficiency electrolyzer facility that requires 53 kWh68 per kg of hydrogen, and a lower heating value of 51,585 btu per pound of hydrogen the cost of delivered hydrogen would exceed $32/MMBtu. 62 Chugach Electric, Fire Island Wind‐ Power Purchase Agreement, https://www.chugachelectric.com/about‐us/regulatory‐ affairs/fire‐island‐wind. 63 Chugach Electric, South District Rate Information, April 1, 2023, https://www.chugachelectric.com/member‐services/billing‐ payments/rate‐information‐south‐district; Matanuska Electric Association, Schedule of Rates for Q2 2023, https://www.mea.coop/co‐op‐benefits/current‐rates; Golden Valley Electric Assn, Rates, March 1, 2023, https://www.gvea.com/services/rates/; Homer Electric Association, Rate Schedule, April 1, 2023, https://www.homerelectric.com/member‐services/my‐bill/rates/. 64 IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2021, p. 15, https://www.irena.org/‐ /media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2022/Jul/IRENA_Power_Generation_Costs_2021.pdf?rev=34c22a4b244d434da0accde 7de7c73d8 65 RCA, TA535‐18; summarized at https://aws.state.ak.us/OnlinePublicNotices/Notices/View.aspx?id=205057 66 26 U.S. Code §45V – Credit for production of clean hydrogen. See White House, Building a clean energy economy: A guidebook to the inflation reduction act’s investments in clean energy and climate action, p. 75, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp‐content/uploads/2022/12/Inflation‐Reduction‐Act‐Guidebook.pdf. 67 Bloomberg Tax, The New Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit, Explained, November 23, 2022, https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily‐tax‐report/the‐new‐clean‐hydrogen‐production‐tax‐credit‐explained. 68 US Department of Energy, HydroGen, High Efficiency PEM Water Electrolysis Enabled by Advanced Catalysts, Membranes and Processes, p. 3, April 30, 2019, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review19/p155_ayers_2019_o.pdf. 35 100. It is important to keep in mind that additional clean power generation capacity is more efficiently used first to replace thermal power generation, before expending additional resources to turn it into a gas in a market that is already experiencing a power fuel shortage. However, there may be synergistic systems of hydrogen production during times of low power demand, once sufficient renewable generation capacity exists. 3.2.2 Cost of Supply Assumptions 101. Due to the screening level of this Phase I Assessment, the costs of each project option were evaluated at a very preliminary level, frequently without the ability to examine physical characteristics of existing infrastructure. Where possible, available, and of a higher quality than would be reasonable to estimate for this assessment, third‐party estimates were used, such as those developed by specific project sponsors. However, the estimates were evaluated for reasonableness and completeness with similar projects, and brought to the same $2023 basis at a high level.69 Table 5 below summarizes the sources of each major cost assumption for the evaluated options. Table 5: Basis of Cost of Supply Assumptions # Option Cost of Gas CAPEX OPEX 1 Cook Inlet Gas BRG, based on 2018 and 2023 ADNR Cook Inlet Reserves studies BRG / Public Sources NA 2 In‐State Pipeline AGDC (Fixed w/escalator) AGDC, inflated at CPI, omitting GTP, adding pipeline from Pt Thomson to Deadhorse AGDC as % of Capex 3 Kenai LNG BRG (AECO+Fixed) Cornerstone/BRG Cornerstone/BRG 4 Greenfield Port and Regas BRG (AECO+Fixed) Cornerstone/BRG Cornerstone/BRG 5 FSRU BRG (AECO+Fixed) Cornerstone/BRG Cornerstone/BRG 6 Barge / Small LNG Carrier BRG (AECO+Fixed) Cornerstone/BRG Cornerstone/BRG 7 Alaska LNG AGDC (Fixed w/escalator) AGDC NA 8 LNG Truck and/or Rail IGU (Fixed w/escalator) Cornerstone/BRG IGU/Cornerstone/BRG 9 RNG BRG / Public sources BRG / Public sources BRG / Public sources 10 Hydrogen (green) BRG / Public sources BRG / Public sources BRG / Public sources 69 Without examining component‐specific inflation. 36 102. In order to develop consistent cost of supply assumptions for all options, we assumed that the costs of investing in each project would be amortized over consistent Unmet Gas Demand, levelized using common midstream capital structure and discount rate assumptions for a 20‐ year period, and then converted back to $2023 values using inflation assumptions. 103. The capital structure assumptions used for all midstream and shipping infrastructure investments were 60% debt, 40% equity, with 4.6% after‐tax cost of debt (BBB rating), and 12% cost of equity. We applied inflation using historic 10‐year CPI for All Urban Consumers, PPI for Oil and Gas Extraction, and PPI for Oil and Gas Field Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing indices, as appropriate, to adjust historical estimates. For long‐term inflation, we assumed 2% average.70 104. The resulting cost of supply estimate range, using High and Low Working Group demand forecast as a variable of the range for midstream costs are presented in Table 6 (for private project options) and Table 7 (for government participation options) below. Table 6: Private Project Options Cost of Supply Option Timeline from decision YE2023 Capital Investment Supply Volume Gas Midstream Total years $ mm BCF/year $/Mcf $/Mcf $/Mcf 1 Cook Inlet Gas 3 ‐ 4 up to $1500 ‐ $2000 up to ~23 $9.3 ‐ $25.5 Included $9.3 ‐ $25.5 2 (a) In‐State Pipeline (Private) 6 ‐ 7 ~ $8,790 up to 105 $1.3 – $2.6 $26.8 – $34.2 $28.1 ‐ $37.0 3 Kenai LNG 4 ‐ 5 $768 up to 55 $8.6 ‐ $8.9 $3.4 ‐ $4.7 $12.0 ‐ $13.6 4 Greenfield Port and Regas 6 ‐ 7 $876 up to 55 $8.6 ‐ $8.9 $4.0 ‐ $5.3 $12.6 ‐ $14.2 5 FSRU ‐ Own/Lease 4 ‐ 6 $698 up to 55 $8.6 ‐ $8.9 $3.6 ‐ $5.0 $12.2 ‐ $13.9 6 Barge / Small LNG Carrier 4 ‐ 5 $563 up to 25 $8.6 ‐ $8.9 $13 ‐ $14 $21.6 ‐ $23.0 7 Alaska LNG 7 ‐ 8 ~$43,000 up to 183 $1.3 – $2.6 $3.1 $4.4 ‐ $5.8 8 LNG Truck and/or Rail 3 ‐ 4 $321 ~9 $2.50 $22.5 ‐ $29.5 $25 ‐ $32 70 Long‐term inflation is used to estimate future annual capital and operating costs of each project, as well as for adjusting future expected tariffs and prices to $2023. Since the valuation period of all projects is about 27 years, the use of standard long‐term inflation factor is appropriate. All Capex and Cost of Supply estimates are expressed in $2023 for consistency, and actual project metrics such as capital investment at the time of expenditure, or contract gas prices, will be impacted by actual inflation to the extent it differs from this assumption. 37 Cost of Supply Option Timeline from decision YE2023 Capital Investment Supply Volume Gas Midstream Total years $ mm BCF/year $/Mcf $/Mcf $/Mcf 9 Renewable Natural Gas Unknown n/a ~1 ~$25 Included ~$25 10 Hydrogen (green) 12+ unknown n/a n/a n/a $>32 Table 7: State Participation Options Cost of Supply Option Timeline from decision YE2023 Capital Investment Supply Volume Gas Midstream Total years $ mm BCF/year $/Mcf $/Mcf $/Mcf 2 (b) In‐State Pipeline (Subsidized 80%) 6 ‐ 7 ~ $8,790 up to 105 $1.3 – $2.6 $7.8 ‐ $9.9 $9.2 ‐ $12.6 2 (c) In‐State Pipeline (State Owned) 6 ‐ 7 ~ $8,790 up to 105 $1.3 – $2.6 $5.9 – $7.4 $7.3 ‐ $10.0 4 (b) Greenfield Port and Regas (Subsidized 80%) 6 ‐ 7 $876 up to 55 $8.6 ‐ $8.9 $2.3 ‐ $3.3 $10.9 ‐ $12.2 4 (c) Greenfield Port and Regas (State Owned) 6 ‐ 7 $876 up to 55 $8.6 ‐ $8.9 $2.2 ‐ $3.1 $10.8 ‐ $12.0 3.2.3 LNGC Assumptions 105. Any LNGC or barge entering Alaska waters must obtain approval of the U.S. Coast Guard (“USCG”). USCG regulates LNGCs’ structural steel requirements via 46 CFR 154.176(b)(1)(iii), which requires that “longitudinal contiguous hull structure of a vessel having cargo containment systems with secondary barriers must be designed for Alaskan waters the ambient cold condition of ‐29 °C (‐20 °F).”71 This regulation applies to all Alaska waters from the North Slope to Ketchikan, without regard for local conditions. 71 46 CFR 154.176(b)(1)(iii)(A), Longitudinal contiguous hull structure, up to date as of May 19, 2023; 46 CFR 154.172(c), Contiguous steel hull structure, up to date as of May 19, 2023; 46 CFR 154.32(c), Equivalents, up to date as of May 19, 2023; US Department of Energy, LNG Annual Report 2015, Office of Fossil Energy; US Department of Energy, LNG Annual Report 2014, Office of Fossil Energy. 38 106. Among other requirements, this design temperature leads to the requirement for “low‐ temperature” carbon steel for vessels designed to temperature of ‐25 °C (‐ 13 °F). In order to comply with 46 CFR 154.172 (b), vessels need to be constructed using “type E” steel. 72 Given that the Coast Guard regulations do not apply in other commonly visited cold‐weather LNG ports, most vessel owners do not select to employ this type of steel in the manufacturing of their ships. There are only two bespoke 89,900 m3 carriers in the market that were built for ConocoPhillips in 1992‐1993. 73 These vessels, Seapeak Polar and Seapeak Arctic, are now owned by Seascape, with one of them offered for demolition sale earlier in 2023.74 107. A regular LNGC could be considered compliant with the regulation on an “equivalency argument,” as per 46 CFR 154.32 “equivalent or greater protection for the purpose of safety.”75 For example, ConocoPhillips brought LNGC Excel to the Kenai LNG plant in the past for summer cargo shipping between April and October.76 108. Based on these standards and history, we are making the assumption that a standard LNGC or FSRU in good condition could be approved to operate in Alaska approximately during the summer months, but a newbuild LNGC or FSRU would be required to operate year‐round, given the advanced age and scarcity of the two existing tankers that were constructed specifically for Alaska operations. 109. Even though chartering an LNGC or FSRU for seasonal use is a possible option, BRG has not evaluated availability of specific vessels. Based on BRG’s research, there are currently 17 active FSRUs which are under 150,000 m3.77 Charter rates for FSRUs and LNGCs have experienced significant recent volatility.78 This option needs to be approached with the FSRU owners and suppliers at the opportune time when the Working Group is ready to commit to this path. 72 46 CFR 154.172(b), up to date as of 5/19/2023. 73 ConocoPhillips, The History of Cook Inlet, https://www.conocophillipsalaska.com/ea/cookinlettimeline/. 74 Seapeak, Our fleet, https://www.seapeak.com/our‐capabilities/our‐fleet/. See also TradeWinds, Thirty‐year‐old Seapeak LNG carrier offered for demolition sale, January 11, 2023, https://www.tradewindsnews.com/gas/thirty‐year‐old‐seapeak‐lng‐carrier‐ offered‐for‐demolition‐sale/2‐1‐1385599. 75 46 CFR 154.32, up to date as of 5/19/2023. 76 US Department of Energy, Vessel‐Borne Export of Domestically Produced Liquefied Natural Gas, 2014 and 2015. 77 BRG internal research; Kpler Database. 78 Dempsey, H., Europe battles to secure specialized ships to boost LNG imports, Financial Times, March 27, 2022, https://www.ft.com/content/bc5f79a6‐729e‐47ff‐bf46‐cb23c460fa6f; Chambers, S., LNG carrier rates on a charge, Splash 247, September 14, 2022, https://splash247.com/lng‐carrier‐rates‐on‐a‐charge/; Miller, G., Price of LNG goes stratospheric. Will LNG shipping rates follow?, Freight Waves, August 24, 2022, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/price‐of‐natural‐gas‐goes‐ stratospheric‐will‐lng‐shipping‐rates‐be‐next. 39 4 OPTION SELECTION 110. In this chapter we review the process that BRG and Working Group undertook to select the most viable options among the alternatives that should progress through the next phase of the project. 4.1 Option Scoring Methodology 111. BRG and the Working Group collaboratively developed a scoring methodology that prioritized certain characteristics of each project option and assigned a scoring weight between 1 and 10 according to that priority.79 While not every member of the Working Group applied the same priority to each selection criteria, the overall results had significant consistency. BRG proposed a consistent priority ranking of selection criteria after review and discussion with the Working Group. 112. We converted the scoring weights to multiplier values, according to the Ratio Method.80 These multipliers are used to multiply the scores for each project option in each criteria, and then the resulting products are summed together to show a project score for each option up to five (5), the highest possible value. 4.2 Option Scoring Process 113. The table below shows the criteria prioritization results and the final Ratio Method score multipliers. 79 ADNR and AEA did not submit individual priority rankings, as they participated in an advisory and informational capacity and thus did not participate in the ranking or scoring. See Roszkowska, E., Rank Ordering Criteria Weighting Methods – A Comparative Overview, Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne, Nr 5 (65), 2013, available at https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f983/e8c4eb7d7c30694dd72c5849dd6fee8a5c79.pdf. 80 Roszkowska, Ewa, Rank Ordering Criteria Weighting Methods – A Comparative Overview, Optimum Studia Ekonomiczne, Issue 65, No. 5, p. 7, 2013, section 4.2. 40 114. For each Scoring Criteria, BRG in consultation with the Working Group developed a scale of one (1) or zero (0) to 5, and a description of what each score represented in valuing the options, to ensure consistent results. The summary of the scores is presented below in Table 9. Table 9: Project Option Scores ‐ What Each Value Means Priority Scoring Criteria Score 1 Schedule Risk 5 = Meets contract shortfall by 2026 and volume shortfall by 2029 4 = Meets contract shortfall by 2026 but provides no long-term solution 3 = Meets volume shortfall by 2029 with other options to supplement 2 = Meets volume shortfall by 2029 but precludes other options 1 = May not meet volume shortfall by 2029 and precludes other options 0 = Provides immaterial supply, or utility demand has no ability to affect the sanction of this option Priority Scoring Criteria ENSTAR Chugach MEA GVEA HEA IGU BRG Recommendation (10 = Highest Weight) Ratio Method Score Multiplier 1 Schedule Risk 10 9 10 6 10 9 10 0.18 2 Reliability of supply during operations 910910510 90.16 3 Delivered cost per Mcf/MMBtu 886998 80.14 4 Flexibility 757777 70.12 5 Project Complexity and Integration 548255 60.11 6 Permitting 634163 50.09 7 Environmental Impact 462362 40.07 8 Size of direct investment required by the utilities (CAPEX)325886 30.05 9 Local economic impact (jobs and revenues)211544 30.05 10 Carbon efficiency / Climate change impacts 173461 20.04 Table 8: Option Scoring Criteria Summary – Working Group Input and Final Results 41 Priority Scoring Criteria Score 2 Reliability of supply during operations 5 = Project uses proven technology, experienced providers, and is local to the service area 4 = Project uses proven technology but requires investment remote from service area 3 = Project uses mostly proven technology and relies on new market entrants 2 = Project uses novel technology deployed by experienced suppliers local to the area 1 = Project relies on new technology, providers, and geographic challenges 3 Delivered cost per Mcf/MMBtu 5 = < $10.50 per Mcf 4 = $10.50 - $14.00 per Mcf 3 = $14 - $20 per Mcf 2 = $20 - $30 per Mcf 1 = > $30 per Mcf 4 Flexibility 5 = Storage and gas supply can be increased yearly with no cost or efficiency penalties 4 = Storage and gas supply can be increased in multi-year phases 3 = Storage and gas supply can be ramped up according to a plan but requires substantial upfront investment 2 = Project can be implemented in two (2) phases 1 = Firm daily supply commitment, infrequently adjusted. 5 Project Complexity and Integration 5 = Pipeline system impacts only 4 = Pipeline and Utility Group system impacts including storage 3 = Third party participation required (producers or importers) 2 = Multiple third parties involved 1 = New large diameter pipeline 6 Permitting 5 = Municipal permitting only 4 = State agency permits required 3 = State/Federal permits with offshore impact 2 = FERC permit required 1 = FERC permit required with offshore impact 7 Environmental Impact 5 = Project has minimal or insignificant environmental impact and relies on previously developed infrastructure 4 = Project has modest onshore environmental impact that is easily mitigated 3 = Project has significant onshore environmental impact that will require significant expense to mitigate 2 = Project has modest onshore and offshore environmental impact 1 = Project has significant onshore and offshore environmental impact 42 Priority Scoring Criteria Score 8 Size of direct investment required by the utilities (CAPEX) 5 =< $300MM 4 = $301 - $600MM 3 = $601-$900MM 4 = $901MM - 1.2B 1 = > $1.2B 9 Local economic impact (jobs and revenues) 5 = > 80% jobs and revenues created are in Alaska 4 = >60 - 80% jobs and revenues created are in Alaska 3 = >40 - 60% jobs and revenues created are in Alaska 2 = >20 - 40% jobs and revenues created are in Alaska 1 = < 20% jobs and revenues created are in Alaska 10 Carbon efficiency / Climate change impacts 5 = Involves a low-carbon fuel or renewable power solution 4 = Local gas production 3 = Gas liquefaction and short-distance transportation 2 = Gas liquefaction and long-distance transportation 1 = Reliance on high-carbon fuels 4.3 Results of Option Scoring Exercise 115. BRG conducted an engineering and commercial evaluation to assign scores to each of the project options. The scores were based on a screening‐level evaluation of each option’s scope characteristics as described above in this report, including cost, permitting, and schedule constraints. BRG built a cost of supply model in order to evaluate the 20‐year levelized equivalent cost of service for each option. 116. The resulting score of all project options and sub‐options related to the financing and sponsorship of the In‐State Pipeline are presented in Figure 13. Figure 13: Option Score Summary 43 117. Based on the scoring results, the Working Group is further evaluating the following options in addition to Cook Inlet Gas Supply81: 118. In‐State Pipeline. In order to achieve the benefits of this option, a decision to subsidize this project needs to be made in an expeditious manner. Given the projected time required to construct a long‐distance pipeline across Alaska, it is likely that alternative supply is still necessary to bridge the time to when the pipeline gas becomes available. While an In‐State Pipeline project has many benefits, including development of North slope gas with many years of supply security, state royalties, and ability to provide gas to communities along the pipeline route, In‐State Pipeline carries prohibitive costs if developed solely for the Working Group utility demand. Reconfiguring the project so that state ownership or an investment decision can be made on the merits of the project for Alaska demand and its economic benefits, rather than depending on large export LNG buyer commitments, would be a change in the strategy of the project and its current owner, Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (“AGDC”). We recognize this as a policy decision outside the scope of this report. 119. Kenai LNG. Retrofitting the former Nikiski LNG export facility currently owned by Marathon presents an opportunity to use a brownfield facility with existing pipeline connections to the main ENSTAR system, existing dock, and potentially existing LNG storage tanks. This option provides important advantages of shortening the time to project start‐up and potentially lowering costs of LNG import. However, the old age of the facility and the size and condition of the dock and tanks (currently in warm status) present their own risks and challenges related to permitting and potential costs. In addition, Marathon’s stated goal to employ the site as a small import facility for Kenai Refinery’s own gas needs presents a potential regulatory and operational conflict. This option should not be discounted at this stage due to its timing advantages, provided that good‐faith negotiations with the facility owner begin expeditiously. 120. FSRU. Importing LNG using an FSRU as storage and regas provides a significant project schedule advantage. To the extent a suitable chartered FSRU vessel can be secured in the short term, this option has the shortest lead time and lowest risk of securing necessary supply of all options reviewed. The key risks to the schedule of this option are availability of cold climate appropriate FSRUs of the right capacity (i.e. small enough to utilize existing docks), and the availability and suitability of either the Agrium Pier (owned by Nutrien) or Marathon dock. 121. These top options, with scores by individual prioritized criteria, are presented in Table 10 below. 81 See recommendations on Cook Inlet Gas Supply option in Sections 1.3, 16, and 3.2.1.1. 44 Table 10. Top Scoring Project Options in Phase I PrioriScoring Criteria 2(B). In-State Pipeline (80/20 Subsidized) 2 (c). In-State Pipeline (State- Owned)(1) 3. Kenai LNG 5. FSRU 1 Schedule Risk 1133 2 Reliability of supply during operations 5544 3 Delivered cost per Mcf/MMBtu 5544 4 Flexibility 3323 5 Project Complexity and Integration 2223 6 Permitting 4421 7 Environmental Impact 3342 8 Size of direct investment required by the utilities (CAPEX)5534 9 Local economic impact (jobs and revenues)4421 10 Carbon efficiency / Climate change impacts 4422 TOTAL WEIGHTED SCORE (Scale 0 to 5) 3.42 3.42 2.96 2.96 1 = Low Score, 5 = High Score 45 5 MARKET, PRICE VOLATILITY, AND RISK ANALYSIS 122. In this chapter, we review the current LNG market conditions and outlook, including the global and North American liquefaction capacities. We also analyze the volatility of energy commodity markets to which new LNG supply to Alaska could be indexed. 5.1 LNG Market Environment and Current Outlook 5.1.1 LNG Market Developments 123. LNG market conditions have experienced major changes in the past few years, moving from low prices during the oversupply period in the mid‐2020s to extreme high prices in 2021 and 2022. 124. Recent history has indicated a dynamic LNG flow pattern. Global LNG demand dropped sharply in 2020 and as a result, suppliers and importers offloaded their mounting surplus into Europe. Amid economic recovery from the pandemic and demand growth in China, global markets tightened, and LNG supplies shifted towards higher‐priced Asian markets starting in mid‐2020, as seen in Figure 14. 125. Thereafter, from 2Q 2021, Russia materially reduced its pipeline exports to Europe, and subsequently European nations sought to replace Russian pipeline gas in large part with LNG imports. This resulted in a sharp rise in European demand and correspondingly, higher regional prices pulled LNG supplies away from Asia and into Europe. Figure 14: Historical LNG Import Movements since January 202082 82 BRG Analysis of Kpler data. 46 5.1.2 LNG Market Demand and Supply Outlook 126. The Global LNG market is expected to remain tight in the next few years. Europe is continuing to shift its reliance from Russian gas to LNG following the energy crisis in the second half of 2021 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Global LNG demand could reach up to 444 million tonnes83 in 2026, an increase of 18% from 2021.84 127. The favorable market conditions of 2022 did not translate into FIDs on LNG liquefaction projects, with just under 5 trillion cubic feet per year of new capacity globally (excluding North America) that is under construction. 128. Based on BNEF LNG outlook, China, South Asia and Southeast Asia could see LNG imports climb, especially as coal‐to‐gas switching initiatives continue in China, but growth may be restricted by increased spot LNG prices. Northwest Europe and Italy are slated to see the largest jump in LNG imports, as their LNG demand increases by 36 million tonnes by 2026 compared to 2021. Japan, Korea, Taiwan (JKT) region is the only major market forecast to see a dip in LNG demand due to higher nuclear, renewables and coal generation in Japan and a lower gas demand for power in South Korea.85 129. New supply projects are expected to ramp up in the coming years, particularly in the US. Global supply is forecasted to increase to 460 million tonnes in 2026,86 an almost 20% rise from 2021.87 130. With the tight supply expected until 2026, prices are expected to maintain at elevated levels compared to their pre‐Covid levels.88 5.2 Historic Gas and LNG Price Volatility Analysis 131. Global gas and LNG markets have been characterized by extreme volatility since second half of 2021, largely due to restrained capital expenditure since 2016, buoyant post‐pandemic economic conditions, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, which fostered intense global competition for LNG supply to replace Russian pipeline imports. The volatility of energy 83 21.3 trillion cubic feet, using a conversion factor of 1 million tonnes of LNG to 48.028 billion cubic feet of gas from BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Approximate conversion factors, July 2021, p. 2. 84 Bloomberg, Global LNG market outlook 2022‐26, June 29, 2022, Global LNG balance‐ slide 3, https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/global‐lng‐outlook‐overview‐tight‐supply‐expected‐until‐2026/. 85 Bloomberg, Global LNG market outlook 2022‐26, June 29, 2022, Global LNG balance‐ slides 3‐4, https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/global‐lng‐outlook‐overview‐tight‐supply‐expected‐until‐2026/. 86 22.1 trillion cubic feet, using a conversion factor of 1 million tonnes of LNG to 48.028 billion cubic feet of gas from BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Approximate conversion factors, July 2021, p. 2. 87 Bloomberg, Global LNG market outlook 2022‐26, June 29, 2022, Outlook overview‐ slide 1, https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/global‐lng‐outlook‐overview‐tight‐supply‐expected‐until‐2026/. Note that supply generally exceeds demand due to average utilization of less than 100% of installed capacity. 88 Bloomberg, Global LNG market outlook 2022‐26, June 29, 2022, Outlook overview‐ slide 1, https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/global‐lng‐outlook‐overview‐tight‐supply‐expected‐until‐2026/. 47 commodity markets to which LNG supply to the Alaskan project could feasibly be indexed is illustrated in Figure 15 below.89 Figure 15: Potential LNG Price Indices: Historical Trends90 132. Prices at North American hubs also increased – albeit to a lesser extent – partly due to surging LNG export demand. Average monthly prices at Henry Hub, Waha, and AECO reached their highest levels in over a decade last year. However, prices at North American hubs have since moderated substantially, and there is little to suggest that the multi‐year highs of 2022 are likely to recur with any frequency. 133. Nevertheless, LNG and gas price volatility remains elevated by historical standards. This is demonstrated in Table 11, which presents annualized volatility, a measure of how LNG prices fluctuate over a given period, in each of the markets in Figure 15 since 2013. Uncertainty in market conditions or events that affect natural gas supply and demand tend to result in higher price volatility. 89 Unlike AECO, Henry Hub (“HH”), and Brent crude oil prices, Platts’ JKM does not represent a traded market or hub. Rather, it is a price assessment, which is compiled daily on the basis of voluntary reporting of transactions by market participants 90 Price data from Platts’ and S&P Global Capital IQ. 48 Table 11: Annualized Volatility of Potential LNG Price Indices91 Index/Hub Annualized Volatility 2013-2016 Annualized Volatility 2017-2020 Annualized Volatility 2021-2023 Brent Crude Oil 24% 27% 37% Henry Hub 50% 58% 106% Waha Hub 73% 513% 362% JKM 11% 26% 116% AECO 62% 473% 277% 134. JKM price volatility has spiked since late 2021 due to disruption to and then full cessation of Russian supply to Europe, prompting intense global competition for spot LNG cargoes. Competition has moderated in recent months, and JKM prices have stabilized, but volatility remains high. In contrast to JKM, volatility at AECO and Waha is in large part a function of low prices in recent years – resulting from constraints on takeaway capacity and local pipeline bottlenecks – rather than demand spikes and reduced global gas availability. The average price of each indexation option since 2013 is presented in Table 12. 92 Table 12: Average Historical Prices of Potential LNG Price Indices Index/Hub Average Price ($/MMBtu) 2013-2016 Average Price ($/MMBtu) 2017-2020 Average Price ($/MMBtu) 2021-2023 Brent Crude Oil 14.55 10.90 14.76 JKM 12.29 7.38 26.14 Henry Hub 3.55 2.88 5.09 Waha Hub 3.43 1.77 5.45 AECO 3.05 1.42 3.51 5.2.1 Potential LNG Price Indices: Price‐Volatility Trade‐Off 135. Current price projections indicate a modest trade‐off between price and volatility with respect to the potential LNG price indices. To evaluate the scale of this trade‐off, we use numerical optimization software to solve for the index – or combination of indices – that yields the lowest‐ cost LNG import portfolio (displayed on the secondary y‐axis) available for each 5% increase in 91 BRG analysis of Platts’ and S&P Global Capital IQ price data. Annualized volatility is calculated by taking the standard deviation of the daily price changes over the course of each year and multiplying the result by the square root of the number of trading days in each year. 92 Note that Waha, HH, and AECO represent only a portion of LNG FOB contract price, as those indices are paired with additional gas transportation and liquefaction fees before shipping, on the order of $4‐6 per MMBtu in addition to the index price. JKM Spot Price generally includes full LNG price including shipping to the market hub, and Brent‐based LNG prices may or may not include shipping, depending on contract. 49 annualized volatility (displayed on the x‐axis) between 2024–2034. The least volatile potential price index considered is Brent crude oil, with an annualized volatility of 35% since 2013. The results of this analysis are displayed in Figure 16. Figure 16: Expected Volatility & Average Price (FOB) of Potential Supply Options (2024‐34)93 136. Assuming a slope of 14% (expressed as a percentage of crude oil prices in $/bbl), an LNG import portfolio fully indexed to Brent crude – the least volatile potential index – is expected to cost just under $9.80/MMBtu over the 2024‐2034 time period. This is approximately $1/MMBtu higher than an equivalent portfolio indexed entirely to AECO hub (after accounting for estimated liquefaction costs and marketing fees). Perhaps unsurprisingly, JKM is likely to present the highest potential risks by both metrics, and does not feature in the optimal indexation mix. 5.3 LNG Market Sourcing Strategy 137. The high level of uncertainty that still exists in the design and schedule of any LNG import project makes it too early to engage in LNG contracting other than as part of very early‐stage discussions with potential suppliers. Additionally, the annual growth in Unmet Gas Demand and the overall low volumes on the scale of the global LNG market make it a challenge to create the right shape of a multi‐year contract. However, ability to plan and use in‐ground gas storage can mitigate the issue of instability of demand by allowing to store gas in early low‐demand years of shortage. 93 BRG analysis using price projections developed for the Cook Inlet Gas Supply Project options analysis. Historical annualized volatility calculated based on price data from Platts’ and S&P Global Capital IQ. Projected prices include assumed liquefaction & marketing costs. 50 138. As we reviewed above, Alaska’s best matches in the LNG market for suppliers are the projects on West Coast of Mexico and Canada that are currently under construction or in pre‐FID stages. Capacity associated with those projects has largely been sold through 2026, however there is some still potentially available in 2026‐2028 FID projects. Additionally, spot cargos will likely be available from these projects while in operation in the late 2020s. A global LNG supplier may offer a contract for a number of cargos annually that are supplied from one of the North American West Coast projects or other sources in the Pacific, provided both the vessel and LNG specifications are appropriate for Alaska. Those spot cargos will most likely be priced using JKM indexation. Once this project reaches a stage where an FID commitment is imminent, it would be appropriate to seek a multi‐year contract for FOB or DES LNG supply from several of the developing projects and worldwide LNG suppliers, using a structured expression of interest and bidding process. 139. However, even at this early stage, and given the bespoke characteristics of the Alaska regulatory and market environment, we advise conducting an informal outreach to suppliers as early as Phase II of this project, even as non‐LNG import options are still under consideration. Confidential discussions with willing suppliers would provide valuable information on the need for this project to procure its own vessels or shipping arrangements, exact LNG chemical composition available from each suppliers, potential indexation and price structures available, and flexibility of seasonal and annual contract volumes. This information would greatly inform technical and commercial planning of the project. 5.4 Statistical Risk Analysis of Recommended Options 5.4.1 Risk Factors of Different Recommended Options 140. The market price risk volatility addressed above is only a part of the potential cost and schedule risk that needs to be evaluated and mitigated for the selected option. For options with large capital investments, additional risk will lie in the ultimate cost of the infrastructure and the date commercial operations can be achieved. The current level of certainty in the cost estimates of the options does not lend itself to a productive risk analysis due to the immaturity of the project scope and estimates; however, in the next phase with fewer options under consideration, it is highly recommended. 5.4.2 Future Risk Analysis Recommendation 141. A Monte Carlo simulation is a common technique used to assess the impact of uncertainty on the economic output such as the NPV of cash flows or the levelized cost of supply. The simulation involves selecting key inputs which typically include capital costs, operating costs, and LNG prices and assigning a probabilistic distribution to those inputs using computer software such as 51 @Risk94 or Crystal Ball95. These inputs are then used in a cash flow model that combines these inputs by sampling the input distributions to calculate a median economic output and a confidence range indicating the likelihood that the economic parameter would be lower or higher than a certain value. For example, a Monte Carlo could quantify a mean cost of alternative gas supply of $15/mmbtu with a 95% chance that the ultimate cost of supply will not exceed $20/mmbtu and a 5% chance that the ultimate cost of supply will be less than $12/mmbtu. 94 Palisade, @Risk Probabilistic Risk Analysis in Excel, https://www.palisade.com/risk/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxYOiBhC9ARIsANiEIfbbQoh42P7VupRbwECl9ONAdSoR5is5PmHL08PQFvztrsfD dzod7fAaAuKVEALw_wcB. 95 Oracle, Crystal Ball, https://www.oracle.com/applications/crystalball/. 52 6 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS 6.1 Recommended Actions to Confirm Feasibility of Top Scoring Options 142. BRG recommend the following scope of work as part of Phase II, estimated to take 4‐6 months: a. Utilities individually continue to work with Cook Inlet producers and the State to promote and secure additional contracted supply and promote alternative development. b. The utilities’ Working Group should pursue several top‐scoring options in order to further define scope, schedule and commercial viability, specifically, 1) Modification of existing Kenai LNG facility (via commercial discussions with owner); 2) Scope definition and planning for FSRU option; 3) Greenfield Port and Regas site selection and feasibility assessment for LNG imports if retrofit options become unavailable; 4) Market survey to further define availability and cost of LNG; and 5) Optimization and feasibility assessment of the In‐State Pipeline option with AGDC and State of Alaska in areas of permitting critical path and financing structure. c. Complete permitting due diligence of all top‐scoring options and identify key bottlenecks and showstoppers. d. For all top‐scoring options, develop draft venture model, project finance structure and plan of engagement with capital markets. e. Refine cost of supply estimates for the top‐scoring options, including Greenfield Port and Regas, if existing infrastructure in Nikiski becomes non‐feasible or excessively risky. f. Select one permanent solution or multiple short‐term and long‐term options to pursue by the end of 2023. 6.2 Project Management Next Steps 143. The following are recommended next steps in Phase II in order to prepare to commence preliminary engineering on a major project, if executed by the Working Group or an affiliated joint venture: a. Assess Working Group’s project delivery capabilities and provide recommendations. b. Confirm current operating environment, and available resources, processes and enabling technologies. c. Measure the as‐is maturity level of key capability areas required to deliver a large complex project. d. Define an ideal to‐be maturity level based on the complexity of the selected option. e. Perform a gap analysis and develop recommendations for improvement. 53 f. Develop an implementation roadmap. g. Conduct an alternates analysis. h. Provide a recommendation for contract/procurement strategy. i. Assist the Working Group in establishing a project management office. 1 ALASKA UTILITIES WORKING GROUP PHASE I ASSESSMENT: COOK INLET GAS SUPPLY PROJECT APPENDICES June 28, 2023 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 A1. BRG PRACTICE QUALIFICATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 3 A2. CORNERSTONE ENERGY SERVICES CREDENTIALS ..................................................................................................... 4 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................................................................... 7 B1. LIST OF DOCUMENTS CITED ................................................................................................................................ 7 B2. COOK INLET INCREMENTAL DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS ..................................................................................... 11 Appendix C ................................................................................................................................................................... 12 C1. OPTIONS INVENTORY ...................................................................................................................................... 12 C2. OPTIONS EVALUATED BY B&V .......................................................................................................................... 13 Appendix D .................................................................................................................................................................. 17 3 Appendix A A1. BRG Practice Qualifications A.1.1 Our Credentials In this section, we provide a selection of our most relevant engagements related to gas supply assessment, infrastructure development and investment, market supply, and economic analysis. Natural gas/LNG market study in Asia. Assessed potential demand for natural gas and LNG for conversion of diesel and/or other liquid fuels, including current and planned diesel and/or liquid fueled power plants that potentially can be converted. Considered proximity to the coast, access to infrastructure, government regulations and policy. Assessed the cost components and economics of small/mid‐scale LNG supply to potential customers. Assessed typical cost of conversion from diesel and/or liquid type fuel to gas for different sectors. Gas market study for the Europe, Middle East, and Africa (“EMA”) region. Prepared a gas market study including gas supply & infrastructure review, energy policy and regulatory overview, gas demand outlook assessment, gas contracts, pricing and market insights, and strategic market assessment. Advisory for mid‐scale LNG liquefaction project in Louisiana. Conducted project feasibility analysis for the Calcasieu River LNG export project in the areas of technology and plant configuration, timeline of regulatory approvals and risks, assessment of the overall natural gas supply and transportation infrastructure, shipping logistics, competitivity analysis and risk assessment. Market analysis for LNG supplies in Mexico and U.S. Provided a detailed analysis of NW Mexico and US Southwest markets for new LNG supplies to be delivered into Puerto Libertad, Sonora. Included detailed analysis of future demand, competing LNG and basin gas supply, LNG impacts on liquid trading hub prices, basis differentials, and inter‐regional and international gas flows. Colombia gas supply evaluation. Evaluated gas supply terms and conditions and developed fuel nomination procedures included in the operations manual for a significant gas‐fired IPP project jointly owned and operated by an international investor and a local regional utility in Colombia. Commercial feasibility analysis of an LNG floating terminal for a European petroleum company. Provided market and commercial analysis to assess the economic viability of developing an FSRU import terminal in the eastern Mediterranean. Conducted a techno‐ commercial evaluation for importing LNG into the Greek market. The work included the development of monthly long‐term (20 year) natural gas supply and demand model of gas market fundamentals in the country, accounting for government policies impacting the future primary energy mix, technological evolution in the power and maritime sectors, and carbon regulations. The study included an evaluation of technological parameters including site evaluation, a metocean conditions assessment, and technology selection to evaluate 4 technical feasibility of a floating LNG terminal. Detailed CAPEX and OPEX analyses were developed and evaluated for LNG import, regasification, and distribution in country. Existing gas pipeline constraints and competition for gas were also evaluated and highlighted. Utility gas supply portfolio study. Evaluated adequacy and selection of a gas supply portfolio by the utility. Provided expert testimony before the Georgia Public Service Commission. A2. Cornerstone Energy Services Credentials A.2.1 Our Credentials In this section, we provide a selection of our most relevant engagements related to our LNG project management, engineering and design services. LNG Projects Led the engineering and design effort for this turnkey project. Complete design, material specification, procurement support, permitting support, and construction support for the installation of a two‐bay truck unloading/loading station, with operator kiosk, boil‐off handling, control system and integration into the existing LNG facility in Brooklyn, NY. Provided Project Management and lead Engineering in support of New LNG import terminal in New England. Efforts included designs associated with storage, vaporization, trucking, interconnector pipelines, remote berth with sub‐sea LNG transfer lines. Led the engineering and design effort for this turnkey project. Complete design, material specification, procurement support, and permitting support for upgrading the existing sendout system including LNG pumps, vaporizers, boil‐off gas handling, truck unloading, odorize, gas chromatograph as well as a new modern control system for the LNG facility in southern New England. Provided project management and engineering services for a proposed 70,000 gallons per day liquefaction plant in Canada. The project will support the local township, local mining association, and five surrounding municipalities, as the proposed LNG facility will provide gas to the proposed local gas distribution system within the communities. Project–project and engineering design services associated with proposed LNG import terminal in northern New England. This project included an approximate 35‐mile connector pipeline. Services included routing, field survey, right of way efforts and design associated with FERC filing package. Supported efforts associated with expansion of an existing LNG import terminal in southern New England. These services included project management for design and construction of 375 MMSCF/d high‐pressure send out, new ship berth, new high‐volume boil‐off compressor system, administration building expansion, electric service 5 modernization (dual‐feed, 34kV). Provided lead engineering in support of New LNG import terminal in Tarbert, Co. Kerry, Ireland. Efforts included designs associated with storage, vaporization, interconnector pipeline, EU procurement regulations. Pipeline and Above Ground Facility Efforts Project management, design, permitting, construction/commissioning support as well as as‐builts/job books in support of new pipeline company in New England. This new system consisted of approximately 70‐miles of steel transmission pipe, 150‐miles of HDPE distribution pipe as well as 2 interconnection facilities, 9 main line valve sites, 6 pressure regulator sites and 1 pig farm. Design and construction support of a power plant addition in NJ. This project included new interconnection with gas transmission company, new 16” pipeline with three HDD sections, new gas compressors (4), gas blending skid, cooling skid and ADC building. Project also included commissioning, purge support, procurement, and materials tracking. Design of a CNG trailer offloading facility. Project required decompression of 1100 MSCFH of natural gas from 4,250 psig to 80 psig prior to injection into a local distribution system for use on zero‐degree days. Design responsibilities included offload stations from sixteen CNG trailers, gas pre‐heat, pressure regulation, fuel gas service, and metering. Conceptual design, CAPEX and OPEX estimates for a new gas transmission and distribution system in the southern Ontario, Canada. Our Team also developed a GasWorks model of the proposed system and performed the system analysis of the proposed design including developing peak estimates and system performance under various conditions. Provided project management as well as engineering design on numerous natural gas pipelines being routed, engineered, permitted, and installed in various locations throughout the mid‐Atlantic region. To date, Cornerstone’s project team has provided right‐of‐way acquisition, routing, field engineering, field survey, mapping, drafting as well as as‐built services on over 200‐miles of natural gas midstream pipelines being developed in this area. Field and engineering services required to identify High Consequence Areas and Class Locations for over 300‐miles of pipelines in Texas. Our GIS team incorporated the resulting data into the client’s GIS database and developed corresponding alignment sheets for presenting class data. Provided project management as well as engineering design on numerous natural gas 6 pipelines being routed, engineered, permitted, and installed in various locations throughout Colorado and Wyoming. To date, Cornerstone’s project team has provided right‐of‐way acquisition, routing, field engineering, field survey, mapping, drafting as well as as‐built services on over 150‐miles of natural gas midstream pipelines being developed in this area. Provided project management, procurement, design, construction support and as‐ built services as part of a major build out of assets in west Texas, of multiple projects totaling over 300‐miles of transmission and midstream pipelines and associated above ground facilities. Included all standard and trenchless design as well as interconnect, valve, and meter/regulation sites. Provided project management and associated services associated with all mapping, field survey, design and drafting associated with approximately 200‐miles of new natural gas pipeline facilities in northern New England. Provided project management and associated services associated with all mapping, field survey, design and drafting associated with approximately 400‐miles of new natural gas pipeline facilities. Throughout Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. 7 Appendix B B1. List of Documents Cited No. Document Title 1. 26 U.S. Code §45V – Credit for production of clean hydrogen. See White House, Building a clean energy economy: A guidebook to the inflation reduction act’s investments in clean energy and climate action, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp‐ content/uploads/2022/12/Inflation‐Reduction‐Act‐Guidebook.pdf. 2. 46 CFR 154.176(b)(1)(iii)(A), Longitudinal contiguous hull structure, up to date as of May 19, 2023; 3. 46 CFR 154.172(c), Contiguous steel hull structure, up to date as of May 19, 2023; 4. 46 CFR 154.32(c), Equivalents, up to date as of May 19, 2023; 5. Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, public Alaska LNG and ASAP project information, at https://agdc.us/. 6. Anchorage Daily News, Hotly debated federal Cook Inlet oil and gas lease sale draws only 1 bid, Dec. 30, 2022, https://www.adn.com/business‐ economy/energy/2022/12/30/hotly‐debated‐federal‐cook‐inlet‐oil‐and‐gas‐lease‐sale‐ draws‐only‐1‐bid/. 7. Baker, A., Calgary’s Pembina Pipeline Eyeing Cedar LNG FID by Third Quarter, Natural Gas Intelligence, February 28, 2023, https://www.naturalgasintel.com/calgarys‐pembina‐ pipeline‐eyeing‐cedar‐lng‐fid‐by‐third‐quarter/. 8. Bettina Chastain (CEA Board President) and Arthur Miller (CEA CEO), Opinion: Anchorage’s electric utility is making progress on its clean‐energy goals, Anchorage Daily News (April 13, 2023). 9. Bloomberg, Global LNG market outlook 2022‐26, June 29, 2022, https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/blog/global‐lng‐outlook‐overview‐tight‐ supply‐expected‐until‐2026/. 10. Bloomberg Tax, The New Clean Hydrogen Production Tax Credit, Explained, November 23, 2022, https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily‐tax‐report/the‐new‐clean‐hydrogen‐ production‐tax‐credit‐explained. 11. BNEF LNG export and import projects – 4Q 2022. 12. Bradner, Tim. Study says Inlet gas discoveries won’t stop shortage, Alaska Journal of Commerce, March 22, 2012. 13. Chambers, S., LNG carrier rates on a charge, Splash 247, September 14, 2022, https://splash247.com/lng‐carrier‐rates‐on‐a‐charge/. 14. Chugach Electric, Fire Island Wind‐ Power Purchase Agreement, https://www.chugachelectric.com/about‐us/regulatory‐affairs/fire‐island‐wind. 8 15. Chugach Electric, South District Rate Information, April 1, 2023, https://www.chugachelectric.com/member‐services/billing‐payments/rate‐information‐ south‐district. 16. ConocoPhillips, The History of Cook Inlet, https://www.conocophillipsalaska.com/ea/cookinlettimeline/. 17. Corri A. Feige (ADNR Commissioner) and Lucinda Mahoney (Alaska Department of Revenue Commissioner), Investing in Alaska Beyond ESG, January 2022, available at https://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/ResourceEvaluation/Alaska_ESG_Jan_2022.pdf. 18. Davis, Carolyn, Natural Gas Intel, Alaska Gasline Secures Final EIS for Pipeline Project, June 22, 2018, https://www.naturalgasintel.com/alaska‐gasline‐secures‐final‐eis‐for‐ pipeline‐project/. 19. DeMarban, Alex, Hilcorp Warms Alaska utilities about uncertain Cook Inlet natural gas supplies, Anchorage Daily News, May 17, 2022. 20. Dempsey, H., Europe battles to secure specialized ships to boost LNG imports, Financial Times, March 27, 2022, https://www.ft.com/content/bc5f79a6‐729e‐47ff‐bf46‐ cb23c460fa6f. 21. EIA, Natural Gas Weekly Update, Alaska is a major natural gas producer, but little of the natural gas reaches market, May 27, 2021, https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/archivenew_ngwu/2021/05_27/. 22. IEA, Gas Market Report Q1 2023, https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/c6ca64dc‐ 240d‐4a7c‐b327‐e1799201b98f/GasMarketReportQ12023.pdf. 23. IRENA, Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2021, p. 15, https://www.irena.org/‐ /media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2022/Jul/IRENA_Power_Generation_Costs_202 1.pdf?rev=34c22a4b244d434da0accde7de7c73d8 24. Kirong, N., Alaska utilities plan $200M Railbelt transmission system upgrades, S&P Global, May 30, 2022. 25. Lacey, Pamela A., Developments in Renewable Natural Gas: The Promise of RNG, American Gas Association, October 26, 2017, p. 8, available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017‐11/documents/27.lacey_2017aiw.pdf. 26. LNG Prime, LNG Canada pipeline more than 85 percent complete, March 31, 2023, https://lngprime.com/americas/lng‐canada‐pipeline‐more‐than‐85‐percent‐ complete/77690/. 27. Matanuska Electric Association, Schedule of Rates for Q2 2023, https://www.mea.coop/co‐op‐benefits/current‐rates. 28. Miller, G., Price of LNG goes stratospheric. Will LNG shipping rates follow?, Freight Waves, August 24, 2022, https://www.freightwaves.com/news/price‐of‐natural‐gas‐ goes‐stratospheric‐will‐lng‐shipping‐rates‐be‐next. 29. Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Landfill Gas to Energy Project Details, https://www.muni.org/departments/sws/pages/anchlandfillgastoenergyprj.aspx 30. Offshore Technology, Pembina Pipeline’s $2.4bn Cedar LNG project secures environmental approval, March 15, 2023, https://www.offshore‐ technology.com/news/pembina‐cedar‐environmental‐nod/. 9 31. Oracle, Crystal Ball, https://www.oracle.com/applications/crystalball/. 32. Palisade, @Risk Probabilistic Risk Analysis in Excel, https://www.palisade.com/risk/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwxYOiBhC9ARIsANiEIfbbQoh42P7VupRb wECl9ONAdSoR5is5PmHL08PQFvztrsfDdzod7fAaAuKVEALw_wcB. 33. Poten & Partners, Chinese Buyers Line Up Deals, LNG In World Markets, August 2021. 34. Poten & Partners, Portfolio Players Underpin Sole 2020 FID, LNG In World Markets, November 2020. 35. Poten & Partners, US Export Projects in Pole Position for FIDs, LNG In World Markets, January 2023. 36. Poten & Partners, US Projects Rank High on FID List, LNG In World Markets, January 2022. 37. Regulatory Commission of Alaska, Affidavit of John D. Sims, p. 3, November 9, 2022, Docket U‐22‐090. 38. Reuters, Agrium closes Alaska plant, blames gas shortage, September 26, 2007, https://www.reuters.com/article/agrium‐alaska‐idUSWEN126820070925. 39. Roser, M., Why did renewables become so cheap so fast?, Our World in Data, December 1, 2020, https://ourworldindata.org/cheap‐renewables‐growth. 40. Roszkowska, Ewa, Rank Ordering Criteria Weighting Methods – A Comparative Overview, Optimum Studia Ekonomiczne, Issue 65, No. 5, 2013. 41. Saugier, Luke, Presentation to Alaska State Legislature, House Energy Committee, p. 5, January 2023. 42. Seapeak, Our fleet, https://www.seapeak.com/our‐capabilities/our‐fleet/. 43. Sempra, Sempra Infrastructure Receives Export Licenses for Two LNG Projects, December 22, 2022, https://www.sempra.com/sempra‐infrastructure‐receives‐export‐licenses‐ two‐lng‐projects. 44. S&P Global, Platts JKM (Japan Korea Marker) LNG Price Assessment, https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/our‐methodology/price‐ assessments/lng/jkm‐japan‐korea‐marker‐gas‐price‐assessments. 45. State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil & Gas, Cook Inlet Natural Gas Availability, March 2018, available at https://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/ResourceEvaluation/CI_Natural_Gas_Availability _Study_2018.pdf. 46. State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas, 2022 Cook Inlet Gas Forecast, January 2023, available at https://dog.dnr.alaska.gov/Documents/ResourceEvaluation/Cook_Inlet_Gas_Forecast_R eport_2022.pdf. 47. TradeWinds, Thirty‐year‐old Seapeak LNG carrier offered for demolition sale, January 11, 2023, https://www.tradewindsnews.com/gas/thirty‐year‐old‐seapeak‐lng‐carrier‐ offered‐for‐demolition‐sale/2‐1‐1385599. 10 48. US Department of Energy, HydroGen, High Efficiency PEM Water Electrolysis Enabled by Advanced Catalysts, Membranes and Processes, p. 3, April 30, 2019, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review19/p155_ayers_2019_o.pdf. 49. US Department of Energy, LNG Annual Report 2014, Office of Fossil Energy. 50. US Department of Energy, LNG Annual Report 2015, Office of Fossil Energy. 51. US EPA, Project and Landfill Data by State‐ Alaska (March 2023), https://www.epa.gov/lmop/project‐and‐landfill‐data‐state. 52. World Resources Institute, Renewable Natural Gas as a Climate Strategy: Guidance for State Policymakers, December 17, 2020, https://www.wri.org/research/renewable‐ natural‐gas‐climate‐strategy‐guidance‐state‐policymakers. 11 B2. Cook Inlet Incremental Development Assumptions Incremental Cook Inlet Supply was calculated using 50th percentile. This supply curve was calculated using a 15% real hurdle rate in the March 2018 ADNR Study.1 Figure 1: Augmented Cumulative Supply from ADNR Natural Gas Availability Study, March 2018 The augmented cumulative supply in Figure 1 includes volumes of gas that would have been economic to produce in the range of prevailing Cook Inlet gas prices over the past 5 years. Resources developed in the past 5 years would be included in the proved developed production forecast provided by DNR in 2022. Various economic and technical factors likely impact the expected resource size and expected recovery in this period. Furthermore, the 2018 ADNR Study assessed reserves and resources based on probability of recovery, expressed in the form of percentiles, and hurdle rate scenarios resulting in significant variability in the estimated amounts of expected recovery. To estimate the remaining incremental supply, we limited incremental volumes to those in excess of of 700 BCF. The augmented cumulative supply curve indicates that incremental gas volumes in the amount of 100 BCF could be recovered in the price range from approximately $9.3/mcf to $11/mcf in ($2016). An additional 120 BCF could be recovered in the range from $9.3/mcf to $15.1/mcf. To arrive at the upper end of the range of $25.5 we adjusted $15.1/mcf using PPI inflation between 2016 and December 2022 (factor of 1.69). Incremental volumes were applied to meet the unmet demand while retaining decline profiles that would ensure expected ultimate recovery less than 100 BCF and 120 BCF for the two supply tranches. 1 2018 ADNR Study, p. 34. 12 Appendix C C1. Options Inventory Options - Private or Utility Consortium BRG BV Remaining Cook Inlet Natural Gas (beyond current contract volumes) A Proved 1 Onshore Conventional Developed and Undeveloped Probable 2 Offshore Conventional Undeveloped 3 Onshore Conventional Undeveloped Prospective 4 Onshore and Offshore Conventional Undeveloped Other 5 Coalbed Methane Other Thermal Fuels B Gas 6 Blue Hydrogen (natural gas feed stock) 7 Green Hydrogen (clean energy electrolysis) 8 Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) 9 Renewable Natural Gas (RNG Biogas) Liquid 10 Blue Ammonia (natural gas feed stock) 11 Diesel Solid 12 Coal North Slope Gas C AK LNG Project 13 42' North Slope to Nikiski 14 Pipeline Acceleration Variant 15 LNG Terminal Acceleration Variant In-State Pipeline 16 36" Size variant 17 24" Size variant Other 18 Arctic Fox 12" pipeline to Fairbanks 19 Arctic LNG (Qilak) 20 LNG Trucking or Truck/Rail Cook Inlet LNG Imports D Land Based LNG Facilities 21 Greenfield Terminal, Storage, and Regas 22 Retrofit existing Nikiski facilities for Import Floating Storage and Regas Units (FSRU) 23 Chartered FSRU 24 Retrofit FRSU 25 New Build FSRU Options - State participation BRG BV 24" In-State Pipeline E 80% subsidy 26 Sized for in-state demand with expansion opportunity; 80% of capital contributed by government entity. 13 100% State Owned 27 Sized for in-state demand with expansion opportunity; state-owned with 2% annual return on investment. LNG Import to Land Based Grass Roots Terminal, Storage, and Regas Facilities F 80% subsidy 28 Land based LNG facilities; 80% of capital contributed by government entity. 100% State Owned 29 Land based LNG facilities, state-owned with 2% annual return on investment. options independently investigated by both consultants with similar results (cost, schedule, risks) options independently investigated by Black &Veatch ("BV") options independently investigated by BRG C2. Options Evaluated by B&V # Options Project Cost Cost of Supply Schedule to Place into Service Risks Status i. Additional Regional Natural Gas Supply Cook Inlet Onshore Conv Gas $10’s million Cook Inlet parity 1 to 5 years Resource constraint; Outside of utility control Active Cook Inlet Offshore Conv Gas $10’s million Cook Inlet parity 1 to 5 years Lower Cook Inlet Offshore Conv Gas $100’s million Not specified 3 to 10 years Lack of investors; offshore permitting issue Seeking investors Coal Bed Methane $10’s million Diesel parity2 5 to 10 years No proven economic production in Alaska Inactive ii. Other Alternatives Blue Hydrogen3 $1,150 million $39 to $62/Mcf 5 to 7 years High initial investment; Requires pipeline transportation Limited commercial deployment; Research undergoing on 2 Anchorage Daily News, interview with Bob Fowler, CEO Fowler Oil and Gas concerning Susitna Gas exploration area license applications, February 20, 2022. 3 Project cost is based on assumed project size to meet annual demand of 15.3 Bcf/year. 14 # Options Project Cost Cost of Supply Schedule to Place into Service Risks Status project economics iii. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) $150 to $200 million $7/Mcf + 18 to 24 months Difficult to scale Commercially available iv. Blue Ammonia4 $1,400 million $26/Mcf 5 to 7 years High initial investment; Relatively high cost for production and transportation Limited commercial deployment; Research undergoing on project economics v.Diesel5 Not applicable $17 to $20/Mcf Not applicable For peaking only; environmental risk Commercially available vi. North Slope Natural Gas Alaska LNG Project (42” pipeline from North Slope to Nikiski) $39 billion6 $6.7/Mcf 8 to 10 years Uncertainties in project development; Outside of Chugach control; additional processing required from higher BTU content Seeking anchor customers Alaska LNG Project (Terminal Accelerated) $1.5 to $2.0 billion7 Not specified 5 to 6 years Outside of Chugach control Seeking investors Alaska in-state Pipeline (Bullet line, 24’ to 36’ pipeline) $13 billion8 $11.5 to $14.5/Mcf 8 years Outside of Chugach control Inactive 4 Project cost is based on assumed project size to meet annual demand of 15.3 Bcf/year. 5 Assuming shipping from Lower 48. 6 Alaska Gasline Development Corp, Alaska LNG Project Update, October 27, 2022. Assuming project developed by third parties. Costs represent total project costs $2012. 7 Assuming project developed by third parties. Costs represent total project costs $2012. 8 Assuming project developed by third parties. Costs represent total project costs $2012. 15 # Options Project Cost Cost of Supply Schedule to Place into Service Risks Status Arctic Fox Pipeline, 12” pipeline from North Slope to Fairbanks $716 to $1,002 million9 $9.7/Mcf 2 to 3 years Insufficient market Inactive LNG Trucking or Truck/Rail/Pipe $55 million $25 to $30/Mcf 2 to 5 years Transportatio n logistics Inactive C.2.1 B&V Assumptions # Options Assumptions ii. Blue Hydrogen o North Slope conversion Steam methane reforming (SMR) technology + carbon capture utilization and storage (CCSU) Export via pipeline for blue hydrogen: 800 miles from North Slope o Facility technical characteristics H2 production capacity: ~460 tonnes/day (for demand of 15.3 Bcf/year at 70% capacity factor) Capacity factor: 70% for H2 production SMR on-line: 2031 o Fuel cost: $3.0/mmbtu o Alaska cost adder: 25% for project capital cost o Levelized hydrogen pipeline cost: assuming 18” pipeline, $3.5 to $6.0/kg of H2 iv. Blue Ammonia o North Slope conversion SMR technology + CCSU Export via railway/trucking for blue ammonia: 800 miles from North Slope o Facility technical characteristics Ammonia production capacity: 2,857 tonnes per day (for demand of 15.3 Bcf/year at 70% capacity factor for H2 production and 97% for ammonia facility) SMR on-line: 2031 9 Assuming project developed by third parties. Costs represent total project costs $2012. 16 # Options Assumptions o Fuel cost: $3.0/mmbtu o Alaska cost adder: 25% for project capital cost o Transportation: Trucking miles: $0.5/mile-short ton Rail miles: $0.2/mile-short ton vi. Coal o Remaining coal fired power plants in Alaska are interior based locations served by a single coal producer and are either scheduled to retired or being investigated to be retired and replaced with natural gas and/or imported electricity from the Railbelt grid. o Permitting for new coal fired power plants and regulations for siting, emissions, and ash disposal has become more time consuming and uncertain. o Clean Coal (emissions scrubbing and carbon sequestration) has proven technically difficult and expensive. o There is currently only one major producer of coal in Alaska so little competition on fuel price, permitting and funding for new Alaskan coal mines would be time consuming and uncertain. o As of September 2021, developers have not reported plans to install any new utility-scale coal-fired power plants in the United States. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration December 15, 2021 o Not competitive with other energy options for Cook Inlet. vii. Arctic LNG (Qilak) o Arctic offshore liquified natural gas export terminal with ice breaking LNG tankers o To compete with PAO Novatek Yamal facility in Russia for Asian demand o Developer is Dubai based Lloyds Energy o Heads of Agreement signed 2019 with ExxonMobil affiliate for Pt. Thomson supply o 250 Bcf/yr project capacity increments o $25/mscf capital expenditures o $5Bn (2023) CAPEX phase 1 o Source: NaturalGasIntel March 22, 2023 o Cook Inlet not targeted market, not competitive with other global sources of LNG available to Cook Inlet. 17 Appendix D BRG and B&V Consensus Options Dashboard 18 Cost of Supply vs. Start Date Analysis 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 1 Cook Inlet Conventional Gas* In‐state pipline from NS Coalbed Methane AK LNG Truck/rail Blue Hydrogen Blue Amonia Diesel * insufficient reserves$/McfGreen Hydrogen RNG AK LNG* CI Offshore * requires anchor contract Start Date FSRU moored BRG BV BRG+BV LEGEND Kenai LNG LNG Import greenfield FSRU own/lease 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 23456789101112131415 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 1 Cook Inlet Conventional Gas* AK LNG Truck/rail * insufficient reserves$/McfGreen Hydrogen RNG AK LNG* CI Offshore * requires anchor contract Start Date FSRU moored Kenai LNG 24" In‐state pipeline Private Project Subsidized 80% State Owned LNG Import greenfield FSRU own/lease 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 1 Cook Inlet Conventional Gas* In‐state pipline from NS AK LNG Truck/rail * insufficient reserves$/McfGreen Hydrogen RNG AK LNG* CI Offshore * requires anchor contract Start Date FSRU moored Kenai LNG FSRU own/lease LNG Import Greenfield Private Project Subsidized 80% State Owned 19 24” In‐State pipeline LNG Import Greenfield Impact of State Participation on Key Options 20 Cook Inlet LNG Import Options Configurations and indicative metrics BRG size 55 Bcf/y (top row of each option table) BV size 15.3 Bcf/y (bottom row of each option table) New kit required Feedstock Midstream Total Chartered 55 201 4 ‐ 68.6 ‐ 8.9 3.6 ‐ 5.0 12.2 ‐ 13.9 FSRU 15.3 60 ‐ 80 3 ‐58.04.6 ‐ 4.7 12.6 ‐ 12.7 Owned 55 607 4 ‐ 68.6 ‐ 8.9 3.6 ‐ 5.0 12.2 ‐ 13.9 FSRU 15.3 345 ‐ 365 4 ‐ 6 8.0 4.0 12.0 Kenai 55 768 4 ‐ 58.6 ‐ 8.9 3.4 ‐ 4.7 12.0 ‐ 13.6 Retrofit 15.3 150 4‐6 8.0 4.0 12.0 Kenai 55 876 6 ‐ 78.6 ‐ 8.9 4.0 ‐ 5.3 12.6 ‐ 14.2 Grassroots 15.3 350 ‐ 450 5 ‐ 78.04.0 ‐ 5.0 12.0 ‐ 13.0 Size Bcf/y Years Cost of Gas $/mcfCapital $MM new dock to storage existing grid existing dock new pipe Chartered FSRU existing grid existing or new dock new pipe Owned/Leased FSRU Small/Large existing grid existing dock existing grid new pipe LNG Tanker LNG Tanker retrofit regas new pipe new regas LNG Tanker to storage to storage to storage 21 INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSTHINKBRG.COMINTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSCook Inlet Gas Supply ProjectPhase I Assessment Regulatory Commission of AlaskaJune 28, 2023Presenters: John Sims (ENSTAR)Lieza Wilcox (BRG) INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSWorking Group ParticipantsDemand Group2State Agencies INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSKey ConclusionsCook Inlet gas cannot fully meet demand forecast beyond 2026 with current proved reserves or beyond early/mid 2030s assuming incremental local supply developmentWhile continuing to work on Cook Inlet options, other project(s) must be pursued due to lead time to implementIt is vital for the Alaska utilities to have control of the pace of option development due to the impending gas shortageSeveral viable options to supplement and Cook Inlet gas supply need to be progressed further in the next phase of this project (“Phase II”) to enable a sanction decision on one option by the end of 20233 INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSSupply and Demand Assumptions1. Long-term natural gas demand for interconnected Alaska utilities• Forecast supplied by the utilities, and provides basis for capacity planning assumptions• ENSTAR’s stable gas demand for heating, GVEA’s planned coal to gas conversions, and potential range of outcomes for renewable power generation and beneficial electrification all impact potential demand outcomes• High, Medium, and Low natural gas demand forecast represents reasonable expectations and timelines for clean energy uptake and a range of winter temperatures2. Cook Inlet Supply• Used DNR’s 2022 Cook Inlet Mean Truncated supply forecast as the base case assumption for future gas coming from Cook Inlet• Uncontracted Cook Inlet reserves are ~290 BCF in 2027-2040• DNR anticipates gas supply gap to develop in 2027• Used DNR’s 2018 gas availability study to estimate incremental Cook Inlet supply and price levels beyond base case 4 INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSSupply and Demand Assumptions (Cont.)5Contracted and Potential Cook Inlet Supply vs. Demand Forecast010203040506070802023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040BCFDNR Truncated Mean Case SupplyIncr. Cook Inlet 1Incr. Cook Inlet 2DemandLow DemandContracted SupplyTotal CI Volume: 950 BCF 753 BCF90 BCF105 BCF INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSRange of Potential Gas Requirements Associated with Renewable Power Adoption6Electric Utility Gas Demand INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSScope and Assessment of Options71. Option scope development and screening-level evaluation• Created or adopted (from project developers) conceptual scope and cost estimates for ten most viable options • Developed estimated cost of supply in $2023 (today’s dollars) using consistent volumes up to each option’s ability to supply gas INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSScope and Assessment of Options (Cont.)82. Created a prioritized system of scoring different options with guidance from the utilities’ Working Group on prioritization. Options were scored based on ten criteria. Uniformly, the top three criteria received the highest priority scores.1) Schedule risk2) Reliability of supply during operations3) Delivered cost of supply per Mcf4) Flexibility / Scalability5) Project complexity and integration into current system6) Permitting7) Environmental impact8) Size of direct investment by utilities9) Local economic impact10)Carbon efficiency INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSKey Project Option Metrics9Gas Supply Options (Private Ownership)Cost of SupplyTotalMidstreamGasSupply VolumeCapital InvestmentTimeline from decision YE2023Option$/Mcf$/Mcf$/McfBcf/year$ mmyears$9.3 - $25.5Included$9.3 - $25.5up to ~23up to $1500 -$20003 - 4Cook Inlet Gas1$28.1 - $37.0$26.8 – $34.2$1.3 – $2.6up to 105~ $8,7906 - 7In-State Pipeline (Private)2 (a)$12.0 - $13.6$3.4 - $4.7$8.6 - $8.9up to 55$768 4 - 5Kenai LNG3$12.6 - $14.2$4.0 - $5.3$8.6 - $8.9up to 55$876 6 - 7Greenfield Port and Regas4$12.2 - $13.9$3.6 - $5.0$8.6 - $8.9up to 55$698 4 - 6FSRU - Own/Lease5$21.6 - $23.0$13 - $14$8.6 - $8.9up to 25$5634 - 5Barge / Small LNG Carrier6$4.4 - $5.8$3.1 $1.3 – $2.6up to 183~$43,0007 - 8Alaska LNG7$25 - $32$22.5 - $29.5$2.50~9$321 3 - 4LNG Truck and/or Rail8~$25Included~$25~1n/aUnknownRenewable Natural Gas9$>32n/an/an/aunknown12+Hydrogen (green)10 INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSKey Project Option Metrics (Cont.)10Gas Supply Options (State Participation)The assessment also considered how cost of supply of certain options with long-term benefits to the State of Alaska can be impacted by alternative financing with State participationCost of SupplyTotalMidstreamGasSupply VolumeCapital InvestmentTimeline from decision YE2023Option$/Mcf$/Mcf$/McfBcf/year$ mmyears$9.2 - $12.6$7.8 - $9.9$1.3 – $2.6up to 105~ $8,7906 - 7In-State Pipeline (Subsidized 80%)2 (b)$7.3 - $10.0$5.9 – $7.4$1.3 – $2.6up to 105~ $8,7906 - 7In-State Pipeline (State Owned)2 (c)$10.9 - $12.2$2.3 - $3.3$8.6 - $8.9up to 55$876 6 - 7Greenfield Port and Regas (Subsidized 80%)4 (b)$10.8 - $12.0$2.2 - $3.1$8.6 - $8.9up to 55$876 6 - 7Greenfield Port and Regas (State Owned)4 (c) INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSTop Scoring Options for Meeting Future Demand11A. In-State Pipeline• Construct a 24-inch pipeline that can meet local demand and provide opportunity for future industrial customer supply• Only viable with state participation / subsidy due to relatively small utility demand• Provides broad benefits across the state• Current forecast indicates that this is a long-term option, and would not meet schedule for near-term shortfallB. Kenai LNG• In cooperation with owner, modify existing export facility to utilize dock and potentially storage tanks in the short term, accelerating project timeline to meet shortfallC. Floating Storage and Regasification Unit (FSRU)• Pursue options to utilize FSRU at existing or modified dock facilities in Nikiski, accelerating project timeline to meet shortfallD. Cook Inlet Gas Supply• Remains a preferred top-scoring option but is not sufficient to meet long-term demand forecast INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSResults of Options Scoring12Option Scoring Results (Max Score of 5)3.462.753.42 3.422.962.602.962.392.672.882.701.350.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.001. CI GasSupply2(a). In-StatePipeline(Private)2(b). In-StatePipeline(80/20Subsidized)2 (c). In-StatePipeline(State-Owned)3. KenaiLNG4. GF PortRe-Gas5. FSRU 6. Small LNGCarrier7. AlaskaLNG(w/export)8. LNGTrucking9. RNG 10. HydrogenScore INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSRecommendations and Next Steps13A. Utilities individually continue to work with Cook Inlet producers and the State to secure additional contracted supply and promote alternative developmentB. As the utilities’ Working Group, pursue several top-scoring options in order to further define scope, schedule and commercial viability, specifically: • Modification of existing Kenai LNG facility (via commercial discussions with owner)• Scope definition and planning for FSRU option• Greenfield site selection and feasibility assessment for LNG imports if retrofit options become unavailable• Market survey to further define availability and cost of LNG• Optimization and feasibility assessment of the In-State Pipeline option with AGDC and State of Alaska in areas of permitting critical path and financing structure INTELLIGENCE THAT WORKSRecommendations and Next Steps (Cont.)14C. Refine cost of supply estimates for the three top-scoring options (FRSU, Kenai LNG, In-State Pipeline), develop procurement strategyD. Complete permitting due diligence of all top-scoring options and identify key bottlenecks and showstoppersE. For top-scoring options, develop draft venture model, project finance structure and plan of engagement with capital marketsF. Identify one permanent solution or multiple short and long-term options to pursue by 1Q 2024 in order to meet the supply shortfall projected in 2027-2028 1. Do I need to worry about losing heat and electricity this winter? No. The Working Group u2li2es have gas needs contracted un2l 2027 and beyond. There is no immediate concern of a shorAall in the near term. 2. Didn’t we just go through this in 2009? The Alaska State Legislature made significant efforts to address poten2al gas shortages in the late 2000s. The Cook Inlet Recovery Act, passed in 2010, was successful in aLrac2ng Hilcorp and other, smaller producers to the Inlet aNer the major companies sold off their assets. However, the fact remains that Cook Inlet is an aging basin that Southcentral Alaskans have relied on to meet all of Cook Inlet user needs for nearly seven decades. 3. So, what is different now from the last @me we faced a natural gas shortage? The poten2al shortage we faced in 2009 was a maLer of aLrac2ng new investment aimed at accessing addi2onal volumes of gas within Cook Inlet. At this point, the economically recoverable natural gas reserves may not be sufficient to aLract addi2onal investment and development in Cook Inlet. And even if there was a sufficient incen2ve, this could be a very short-term and costly fix, only providing a few years of addi2onal supply. 4. OK, we have a problem. What is the solu@on? The Working Group has been working on this issue for months and is looking at a variety of op2ons. Poten2al solu2ons include contrac2ng for gas with remaining Cook Inlet producers, impor2ng gas from outside of Alaska, and, in the longer term, u2lizing North Slope gas. 5. What are the u@li@es doing to prepare for a worst-case scenario? At this point, we are working to avoid even an outside chance of a gas shortage. This is why we must be proac2ve and open to all solu2ons that meet our customers’ needs. 6. What can I do to prepare my family and/or business for poten@al shortages? Stay informed on the topic and look for opportuni2es to engage with your community and elected officials as this issue is discussed. Plus, it is always smart to iden2fy ways to save energy within your household to lower your electricity and hea2ng costs. 7. Sounds like the perfect @me to wean ourselves off natural gas and go all-in on renewable energy. Can we do that? Renewables are absolutely going to be a part of our energy mix in the future. However, given the infrastructure and technology required, renewables cannot meaningfully displace natural gas demand for electric genera2on in Alaska for many years to come. 8. Why are we in this predicament? Seems like we should have seen this coming a long @me ago and done more to prepare. This genera2onal shiN in Cook Inlet’s energy landscape has loomed for years. Our team is working on solu2ons that will be ready in 2me to meet poten2al shorAall in 2027. Cook Inlet has sufficient gas to meet Railbelt needs in the near term. 9. Can’t we just get that Alaska LNG project going and use that gas instead? Given our current constraints, even if all permi^ng and financing was in place, construc2on would not be completed in 2me to have pipe-ready gas in 2027. 10. Could legisla@ve or regulatory fixes turn this situa@on around? Laws and regula2ons can’t change the geophysical reality of Cook Inlet. But support from all stakeholders, including elected and appointed officials, will be cri2cal to ensure a smooth and 2mely transi2on to a new natural gas source. 11. What will it cost us consumers to keep the lights and heat on if we can no longer use Cook Inlet gas? This will be assessed in more detail in the second phase of the study that should be completed by the end of this year. Costs will vary widely depending on the project and the availability of state or federal financial support. It is important to remember we will not experience an across-the-board rate increase because the rates consumers pay will be a mix of exis2ng Cook Inlet gas prices and the newly sourced gas costs. 12. I’ve lived here for 50 years and always used natural gas. Are those days really over? No. Natural gas will con2nue to be an integral component of the Railbelt’s energy mix for the foreseeable future. We have relied on gas sourced from a single basin since 1961. Cook Inlet’s successful legacy paved the way for tremendous progress in our state. And because of our climate, Alaska is the most energy-intensive state in the na2on, so we need reliable energy; that’s not changing any 2me soon. We are now at a 2me where we need to pivot toward new natural gas sources for Alaska. 13. How do I keep track of what is going on with this issue? Who will keep Alaskans updated on the latest developments? Keep an eye out for news coverage and follow along at www.enstarnaturalgas.com. 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 AUDIENCE LOCATION TEAM MEMBER July 19, 2023 Host South Fork Hydroelectric Project Tour with Lieutenant Governor Nancy Dalstrom In-Person Curtis W. Thayer July 18, 2023 Host Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting In-Person/Virtual Curtis W. Thayer July 17, 2023 Media Inquiry Follow Up: Special Section on Rural Energy, Tim Bradner, Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman Email Brandy M. Dixon July 14, 2023 Media Inquiry Special Section on Rural Energy, Tim Bradner, Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman Email Brandy M. Dixon July 12, 2023 Presenter Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Technical Session: NEVI Justice40 Benefits In-Person/Virtual Josi Hartley June 23, 2023 Media Inquiry AEA Update, Tim Bradner, Alaska Economic Report Phone Curtis W. Thayer June 27, 2023 Host Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting In-Person/Virtual Curtis W. Thayer June 23, 2023 Media Inquiry AEA Update, Tim Bradner, Alaska Economic Report Phone Brandy M. Dixon June 16, 2023 Attendee Alaska Utilities Working Group: Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study Presentation Preview In-Person/Virtual Brandy M. Dixon June 16, 2023 Attendee National Hydropower Association: 2023 Alaska Regional Meeting Steering Committee Call 4 Phone Brandy M. Dixon June 15, 2023 Media Interview 2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference, Amy Demboski, 650 KENI Phone Curtis W. Thayer June 14, 2023 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan and Program Update Juneau Workshop In-Person/Virtual Josi Hartley June 13, 2023 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan and Program Update Mat-Su Workshop In-Person/Virtual Josi Hartley June 13, 2023 Host Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project Day Trip In-Person Curtis W. Thayer June 12, 2023 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan and Program Update Anchorage Workshop In-Person/Virtual Josi Hartley June 12, 2023 Attendee Alaska Utilities Working Group: Cook Inlet Gas Supply Study Press Release Discussion In-Person/Virtual Brandy M. Dixon June 5-8, 2023 Attendee Alaska Power Association (APA) Federal Legislative Conference: Joined APA and the Railbelt Utility CEOs in several meetings with Alaska's Congressional Delegation and the United States Department of Energy Washington, DC Curtis W. Thayer June 2, 2023 Attendee National Hydropower Association: 2023 Alaska Regional Meeting Steering Committee Call 3 Phone Curtis W. Thayer Brandy M. Dixon May 25, 2023 Media Interview 2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference, Amy Demboski, 650 KENI Phone Curtis W. Thayer May 22-25, 2023 Moderator/Panelist/Speaker 2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference Dena'ina Center, Anchorage, AK Audrey Alstrom, Justin Tuomi, Rebecca Cameron Dean, Tim Sandstrom, Curtis W. Thayer AEA COMMUNITY OUTREACH Last Updated on July 20, 2023 (6-Month Look Back) AEA Community Outreach Page 2 of 3 DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCE LOCATION TEAM MEMBER May 22-25, 2023 Exhibitor Booth 2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference Dena'ina Center, Anchorage, AK Brandy Dixon, Taylor Asher, Katherine Aubry, Jennifer Bertolini, Karen Bell, Bryan Carey, Cameron Dean, Conner Erickson, Rebecca Garrett, Josi Hartley, Khae Pasao, Daniela Patterson, Bill Price May 22, 2023 Host/Presenter Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Meeting In-Person/Virtual Josi Hartley May 22, 2023 Attendee National Hydropower Association: 2023 Alaska Regional Meeting Steering Committee Call 2 Phone Bryan Carey, PE Brandy M. Dixon May 18, 2023 Media Inquiry Alaska National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Request for Applications, Madeleine Ngo, The New York Times Email Audrey Alstrom, PE Josi Hartley May 11, 2023 Attendee National Hydropower Association: 2023 Alaska Regional Meeting Steering Committee Call 1 Phone Bryan Carey, PE Brandy M. Dixon May 9, 2023 Host with Lt. Governor Alaska Energy Security Task Force Meeting In-Person/Virtual Curtis W. Thayer May 4, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA PCE Overview Presentation to House Energy Committee Virtual Curtis W. Thayer April 25, 2023 Host with Lt. Governor Alaska Energy Security Task Force Kickoff Meeting In-Person/Virtual Curtis W. Thayer April 21, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA Capital Budget Presentation to House Finance Committee Virtual Curtis W. Thayer April 17, 2023 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan Workshop in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley In-Person/Virtual Josi Hartley April 10, 2023 Media Interview Renewable Energy Fund Round 15, Tim Ellis, KUAC Phone Curtis W. Thayer April 7, 2023 Presentation AEA Renewable Energy Fund Round 15 Status Report to 33rd Alaska State Legislature Email Curtis W. Thayer April 7, 2023 Media Inquiry Dixon Diversion, Tim Bradner, Alaska Economic Digest/Alaska Legislative Report Email Bryan Carey, PE April 6, 2023 Media Inquiry Dixon Diversion, Tim Bradner, Alaska Economic Digest/Alaska Legislative Report Email Bryan Carey, PE April 5, 2023 Media Inquiry Dixon Diversion, Tim Bradner, Alaska Economic Digest/Alaska Legislative Report Email Bryan Carey, PE April 5, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA Modernizing Alaska's Largest Electric System Presentation to Senate Resources Committee Virtual Curtis W. Thayer Bryan Carey, PE April 3, 2023 Host/Presenter AEA Charging and Fueling Infrastructure Program Presentation to AKEVWG Technical Session In-Person/Virtual Josi Hartley April 3, 2023 Media Interview Diomede Power Outage, Megan Gannon, The Nome Nugget Phone Curtis W. Thayer March 31, 2023 Media Interview EV Infrastructure in Alaska, Sophie Applin, Alaska Beacon Phone Curtis W. Thayer Audrey Alstrom, PE March 22, 2023 Host/Presenter Alaska Rural Power Plant Operator Working Group Quarterly Meeting Virtual Justin Tuomi AEA Community Outreach Page 3 of 3 DATE DESCRIPTION TOPIC AND AUDIENCE LOCATION TEAM MEMBER March 21, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA Overview Presentation to House Energy Committee Virtual Curtis W. Thayer March 16, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA Overview Presentation to House Finance Committee Virtual Curtis W. Thayer March 15, 2023 Media Interview GRIP Grant Timeline, Brian Kassof, Alaska Energy Transparency Project Phone Curtis W. Thayer March 15, 2023 Host/Presenter Alaska NEVI Pre-Application Presentation to Public In-Person/Virtual Josi Hartley March 15, 2023 Host/Presenter Bulk Fuel Working Group with Multiple statewide Agencies In-Person/Virtual Bill Price Khae Pasao March 10, 2023 Host/Presenter Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Technical Session: Uptime Requirements Presentation In-Person/Virtual Josi Hartley March 9, 2023 Host/Presenter Alaska Wind Working Group Quarterly Meeting In-Person/Virtual Josi Hartley March 8, 2023 Presenter AEA Hydropower Opportunities with Change to Alaska Section of the American Water Resources Association In-Person Bryan Carey, PE March 7, 2023 Host/Presenter State Energy Security Plan Advisory Group Meeting In-Person/Virtual Rebecca Garrett March 7, 2023 Brief Remarks 2023 Alaska Sustainable Energy Conference: Pre-Event Workshop 1: Low Carbon Energy Transitions Workshop Virtual Curtis W. Thayer March 3, 2023 Media Interview Solar Projects in Alaska, Alex Kay, Alaska Business Phone Curtis W. Thayer March 3, 2023 Media Interview Opportunities in the Latest Energy Infrastructure Bill, Sabine Poux, KDLL Phone Curtis W. Thayer February 21, 2023 Presenter AEA Hydropower Opportunities Presentation to Alaska Dam Owners In-Person Bryan Carey, PE February 9, 2023 Panelist Inflation Reduction Act to Alaska Forum on the Environment In-Person Conner Erickson February 9, 2023 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan Workshop on the Kenai Peninsula In-Person Taylor Asher February 7-10, 2023 Attendee NASEO Energy Policy Outlook Conference In-Person Curtis W. Thayer February 4-10, 2023 Meetings AEA Overview to Alaska Congressional Delegation, Washington, DC In-Person Curtis W. Thayer February 1, 2023 Presenter AEA Update Alaska Power Association State Legislative Conference In-Person Curtis W. Thayer February 1, 2023 Panelist Energy Committee Panel to Southeast Conference Mid-Session Summit and Transportation Symposium In-Person Curtis W. Thayer January 27, 2023 Media Interview AEA update, Tim Bradner, Alaska Economic Report Phone Curtis W. Thayer January 26, 2023 Legislative Hearing AEA Susitna-Watana Presentation to House Energy Committee Virtual Curtis W. Thayer Bryan Carey, PE January 24, 2023 Attendee Idaho National Laboratory Alaska Visit In-Person Curtis W. Thayer January 24, 2023 Presenter AEA State Energy Security Plan Presentation to SESP Committee Virtual Audrey Alstrom, PE January 19, 2023 Presenter Alaska NEVI Plan Overview to Alaska EV Working Group In-Person/Virtual Josi Hartley 7/19/23, 1:45 PM tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 https://www.tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 1/10 DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES ENERGY STORAGE EV Batter y Strategies For Sub-Freezing Weather With electric vehicles on the rise in Alaska, the University of Alaska Fairbanks investigates research questions on EVs in extreme cold temperatures. Michelle Wilber Climate change typically means warmer weather, but grid operators also are experiencing more extreme cold spells. These colder temperatures are a common hesitancy for wider adoption of electrification — whether that be electric vehicles (EVs), drones or other field operations equipment. Despite the colder temperatures, interest in EVs is increasing rapidly in Alaska. Because EVs interact directly with electrical generation systems — distributed and community — and have the potential to act as dispatchable loads or storage to support electric grid stability, the Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) is investigating research questions pertinent to EVs in Alaska. Cold Region Research As early as 2009, a research team at the UAF Transportation Center began studying EVs in Alaska. Although the technology was in a very different state at that time (vehicles were either self-built or conversions), the research team’s 7/19/23, 1:45 PM tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 https://www.tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 2/10 Feasibility Study of Electric Cars in Cold Regions report noted: “Electric vehicles can be a viable option for certain users in the subarctic and arctic communities.” Since then, the state has had a large uptake of plug-in EVs in Southeast Alaska, where hydroelectric power enables low costs, the limited size of road systems largely negates driving range anxiety, the climate is relatively temperate and consumers can directly access used EVs from the Lower 48 by ferry. Every six months, the member-owned Chugach Electric Association (CEA) conducts a count of EVs registered in Alaska. The number of registered EVs in Alaska, and the municipality of Anchorage in particular, has risen steadily in recent years. CEA’s report tallies two types of EVs that charge from the electric grid: battery electric vehicles (BEVs) that run solely on electricity stored in batteries, commonly with a range of 200 miles to 300 miles or more (322 km to 483 km), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that typically have a more limited all-electric range, often 25 miles to 40 miles (40 km to 64 km), before switching over to an internal combustion drivetrain. However, cold-weather concerns are not limited to Alaska. As a region with a high uptake of EVs and ambitious goals for transitioning to EVs, Norway is a leader in operating EVs in cold climates. Despite overall progress in Norway, driving-range anxiety in cold temperatures remains a challenge to widespread EV 7/19/23, 1:45 PM tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 https://www.tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 3/10 adoption. A report on electromobility in Norway, published in the August 2015 issue of Research in Transportation Economics, addresses concerns related to driving anxiety in cold environments, such as operational performance and battery degradation. Interactive EV Temperature Map In 2020, ACEP worked with the University of Washington’s Data Intensive Research Enabling Clean Technologies (DIRECT) program to gather EV and temperature data into a set of metrics. This work led to the publication of an online EV temperature map that shows three metrics related to temperature effects on performance. Users of the interactive global map can see how EVs may perform in their locale, which helps to address temperature uncertainties. Alaska has had a large uptake of plug-in EVs in the Southeast. 7/19/23, 1:45 PM tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 https://www.tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 4/10 One metric is a normalized EV score based on the average daily range loss for any location on land, calculated from a fit of driving range loss vs. temperature, using 10 years of NASA temperature data. The second metric is the maximum expected range loss, based on the coldest temperature reached in the last 10 years. The third metric is must plug-in days (MPID), which is the maximum number of consecutive days in the 10-year temperature record that the average temperature did not exceed –20°C (–4°F) — the approximate temperature at which an unplugged EV may be permanently damaged. These metrics can be used to help predict performance and efficiency or inform EV strategies in different regions of the world. Looking at the EV scores, much of China, Russia, Europe, Iceland, Greenland, Canada, the northern U.S. and mountainous regions of the world have scores overlapping with those of Alaska. Cold-Weather Effects Broadly speaking, cold temperatures can have two negative consequences on EVs: reductions in operational performance and battery degradation. Operational performance issues include a diminished driving range caused by the battery, cabin and other heating loads as well as lower energy and power available from cold batteries. In addition to cold-weather issues that are unique to EVs, reductions in operational performance can be caused by traction and other environmental conditions that affect all vehicles. On the other hand, battery degradation occurs when cold temperatures damage an EV battery, which can shorten a vehicle’s life span. The cold-weather performance of different EV models may vary because battery technologies, battery heating and management systems, and cabin heating technologies sometimes differ. However, many of the proprietary details for commercially available models are not public knowledge. 7/19/23, 1:45 PM tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 https://www.tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 5/10 Of the publicly available knowledge, operational performance information is generally documented in the form of driving range and data reports from brief driving tests on a limited number of EVs by researchers and others as well as anecdotal information shared by owners. Meanwhile, battery degradation has been investigated by researchers using battery models, theory and lab testing. Managing The Effects To manage cold-weather effects on batteries, an operational strategy such as a battery thermal management system (BTMS) is used that allows battery heating to maintain an optimal temperature range. When EVs are not plugged in to an external power source, they must power the BTMS from the battery itself, although some vehicles do not power the BTMS unless it is plugged in. Any solution must balance the cost and other trade-offs between reduced battery health (and thus life) and the cost of the system to heat the battery. BTMS costs accrue from the complexity and extra weight of components, the cost of electricity and reduced battery cycle life. One study, Thermal Management of a Hybrid Electric Vehicle in Cold Weather, concluded parking outside at work or overnight without plugging in are issues with the actual BTMS strategies of common EVs and hybrid EVs — mainly because aging (incremental degradation 7/19/23, 1:45 PM tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 https://www.tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 6/10 of the energy capacity of the battery) as a result of cold temperatures is not considered in the development of the BTMS. A study on “Battery Warm-Up Methodologies at Subzero Temperatures for Automotive Applications,” published in the March 2020 issue of Progress in Energy and Combustion Science, provided a review of literature published about battery heating research, finding there are two primary battery heating strategies: In the first strategy, an external source transfers heat to the battery convectively or conductively. Convective options include air, liquid and heat- pump heating, whereas conductive options include resistance, Peltier-effect, heat pipe, phase change materials and burner heating. In the second strategy, internal resistance is generated from a current applied to the battery itself, thereby heating the battery from the inside. The 7/19/23, 1:45 PM tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 https://www.tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 7/10 self-heating Lithium-ion battery (SHLB) is one recent example of this technology. Both strategies have their weaknesses. On the one hand, external heat sources result in longer warm-up times, less temperature uniformity (which affects battery performance and health) and more energy consumption. On the other hand, internal heating must be designed carefully to use current levels and durations that do not cause excessive damage and, therefore, are harder to implement. The SHLB attempts to minimize the trade-offs between pre-heating performance, energy consumption and degradation. This battery was developed to self-heat to avoid power drain at temperatures below 0°C (32°F) and has been upgraded to allow fast charging down to at least –43°C (–45°F). Two aspects of the SHLB — nickel foil inside the battery cell (attached to the negative terminal on one end and forming a third external terminal on the other end) and a temperature sensor attached to a switch — allow current to flow through and heat the foil. Once the battery is internally heated above room temperature, the switch automatically opens to allow charging. Research indicates the SHLB can perform 4500 cycles of fast charging at 0°C (32°F) before it reaches 20% capacity loss, where a standard 7/19/23, 1:45 PM tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 https://www.tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 8/10 Li-ion battery would only perform 50 cycles to the same capacity loss. This gives EVs with SHLBs approximately 280,000 miles (450,616 km) of driving with a lifetime of 12.5 years, which is longer than most automotive warranties. Battery Heating Energy Costs According to lab testing, an external heating source for an EV BTMS generally requires less energy than an engine block heater for an internal combustion engine (ICE). Of the lab-tested external heating options reviewed in the Battery Warm-Up Methodologies at Subzero Temperatures for Automotive Applications study, most options required no more than 40 W in 35 minutes to heat the batteries by 20°C to 40°C (68°F to 104°F) in temperatures as low as –25°C (–13°F). EV batteries must be maintained above –20°C (–4°F) to prevent permanent degradation, and consumer acceptance may be greater for a vehicle that is always ready to drive without having to wait to warm the battery. This expectation may necessitate continual heating throughout the day, instead of a single heating event before driving. In a real-world setting, energy use data logged by CEA for its Chevrolet Bolt while plugged in outdoors overnight in Anchorage, Alaska, indicated the car drew an average of about 500 W at –18°C (0°F). The energy consumption of a BTMS is expected to be even greater in colder temperatures. By comparison, most ICE block heaters require 400 W to 750 W and are recommended to be plugged in for 2 hours at –7°C (20°F) and 4 hours when temperatures are below –20°C (–4°F), as summarized by Manitoba Hydro in an overview on its Power Smart residential program. Despite these recommendations, many people plug in car block heaters (often in conjunction with battery blankets and oil pan heaters) at home and at work continuously during extremely low temperatures. ICEs generally do not suffer permanent 7/19/23, 1:45 PM tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 https://www.tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 9/10 damage if stored unheated in extreme cold, except perhaps to the starter battery, which can be brought indoors. Energy costs for battery heating strategies can be extrapolated from real-world data. In Anchorage, Alaska, energy use for CEA’s Chevrolet Bolt was logged when fully charged and plugged in outdoors overnight. In looking at the data, heating energy use is approximately linear with temperature, at least between about – 18°C (0°F) and 13°C (55°F). Parking this EV outdoors in Anchorage for 11 hours at about –7°C (20°F) costs roughly $0.75, with electricity priced at $0.20/kWh. For comparison, it is estimated the cost of cold-starting a gas engine is $0.30/day. A 400-W engine block heater plugged in at –7°C (20°F) for 2 hours would cost $0.16. This is about an extra $0.60 for the EV overnight. If the trend stays linear, this means about $0.87 to $1.01 kWh/hr average use while parked fully charged at –40°C (–40°F). For a full 24 hours, this is about 24 kWh, or $4.80 total to keep warm. A block heater plugged in for 24 hours would have to draw more than 1000 W of power to be more expensive. This impacts the economics of fueling an EV in extremely cold climates. The data currently available for energy used while parked and driving are incorporated into an online calculator for Alaskans to investigate the cost and emissions of an EV vs. an ICE. Future Research Given the performance of today’s commercially available EVs in extreme cold temperatures, there is a need for better battery thermal management or cabin heating strategies for cold regions. Opportunities for further research include the following: Test self-heating batteries. 7/19/23, 1:45 PM tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 https://www.tdworld.com/print/content/21266912 10/10 Collect and analyze data on power draw vs. temperature for different EV models while charging and while fully charged. Test levels one, two and three nominal charging speeds vs. temperature. Collect and analyze data on maximum range and energy use per mile vs. temperature for different EV models. Evaluate the change in maximum range over time (years) for several EV models parked outside in ambient air temperatures. Investigate the effects of extreme cold on EVs parked in ambient air temperatures but not plugged in (for example, minimum starting temperature, loss in battery state of charge with time and battery recovery when brought back into a warm environment). Testing to the point of significant damage or failure (that is, partial or total loss of battery capacity) would provide useful information yet would also incur substantial expenses. Develop a workable electric all-terrain vehicle and snow machine for rural Alaska using Lithium-titanate batteries for their cold performance. Investigate secondary, external and portable cabin heat sources that could alleviate the draw on the main battery for heating (for example, heat packs). Michelle Wilber is a research engineer at Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP), University of Alaska Fairbanks, where she works on projects ranging from investigating solar energy potential in Alaska to analyzing electric vehicle energy use in the state.Wilber has a bachelor’s degree in astronomy from the California Institute of Technology and a MSME degree from the University of Alaska Anchorage. She has worked as an engineering geologist, as an organic gardening coordinator, in energy-efficiency outreach, and as a park ranger in Katmai National Park and Preserve. Base F-150 Lightning electric pickup will cost less than $50,000 as Ford slashes prices across line https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/07/17/base-f-150-lightning-electric-pickup-will-cost-less-than-50000-ford-slashes-prices-across-line/ 1/2 (AP) - The sticker prices for Ford’s F-150 Lightning electric pickup trucks are being lowered by thousands of dollars across the board, the company said Monday, due to increased plant capacity, falling costs for battery raw materials and internal efforts to scale production by the Detroit automaker. The price cuts across the Lightning line, some as deep as $10,000, appeared to be seen on Wall Street as more evidence of a coming price war among electrical vehicle makers, however, sending shares of Ford Motor Co. down 5% Monday. The lower prices were announced two days after Tesla said its first production Cybertruck electric pickup had rolled off the assembly line, though nearly two years behind the original schedule and with little information about how much they may cost. Base F-150 Lightning electric pickup will cost less than $50,000 as Ford slashes prices across line https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2023/07/17/base-f-150-lightning-electric-pickup-will-cost-less-than-50000-ford-slashes-prices-across-line/ 2/2 Rivian, another electric pickup maker, recently announced that its second quarter deliveries nearly tripled and its shares have been on a tear, rising more than 41% this month. “Ford hears footsteps of Cybertruck and Rivian,” said Wedbush Analyst Dan Ives on Twitter. Ford said this month that sales of its F-150 Lightning more than doubled in the second quarter, and rose 4.1% from the first three months of the year. Ford Motor Co. said Monday that final upgrades at its Rouge Electric Vehicle Center in Michigan being completed now will lead to greater availability of a built-to-order truck as early as October. The updated MSRP for the Pro model, its lowest priced electric pickup, will be $49,995, down about $10,000. The price for the high-end Platinum Extended Range version of the Lightning was cut from $98,074, to $91,995, a drop of more than $6,000. “Shortly after launching the F-150 Lightning, rapidly rising material costs, supply constraints and other factors drove up the cost of the EV truck for Ford and our customers,” said Marin Gjaja, chief customer officer, Ford Model e. “We’ve continued to work in the background to improve accessibility and affordability to help to lower prices for our customers and shorten the wait times for their new F-150 Lightning.” Tesla has made aggressive price cuts across its portfolio in recent months as competition heats up and major automobile producers shift production toward electric vehicles. Ford reacted to price cuts at Tesla in January, slashing the price of its Mustang Mach-E electric SUV by as much as $6,000. Tesla originally said it would make three versions of its Cybertruck, ranging from about $40,000 to $70,000. The company later removed prices from the page where customers can decide whether to plunk down $100 and place an order. Ford CEO Jim Farley and Tesla CEO Elon Musk announced in March that all of Ford Motor Co.’s current and future electric vehicles will have access to about 12,000 Tesla Supercharger stations in the U.S. and Canada starting next spring. Commercial customers can also access Ford Pro Charging solutions to keep their F-150 Lightning powered up whether charging at home or onsite at work. Copyright 2023 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. By ALAN BAILEY for Petroleum News O cean Renewable Power Co. is con- tinuing with its plans to develop a tidal power generation system in the waters of the Cook Inlet, offshore the East Foreland area of the Kenai Peninsula, according to the company’s latest annual report on the project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. In July 2021 FERC issued a prelimi- nary permit to the company for a feasibil- ity study for the project. ORPC proposes to install at the site some of its proprietary turbine water cur- rent generators, with a combined capacity of no more than 5 megawatts. A subma- rine cable 1 to 5 miles in length would connect the generation site to a short above ground transmission line connect- ing to Homer Electric’s transmission sys- tem on the Kenai Peninsula. Several years ago the company suc- cessfully installed a hydrokinetic power system in the Kvichak River for the sup- ply of electricity to the village of Iguigig, near the western end of Lake Iliamna. The technology uses helical shaped rotor blades. Plans for testing The annual report for the proposed East Foreland system says that this year the company is carrying out one month of testing a single-turbine TidGen device in Cobscook Bay, Maine — once that test- ing has been completed ORPC plans to transfer the device to a location within or near the East Foreland site, for testing there. “The results of testing will inform both final design, deployment and retrieval techniques for the full-scale TidGen device, as well inform future commercial development potential at the proposed East Foreland project site,” the annual report says. The company plans to test a larger four-turbine TidGen device at the Cobscook Bay test site in 2024 and 2025. Successful testing will be followed by commercial deployment. To bring the East Foreland project up to its envisaged 5 megawatt capacity, ORPC anticipates using a larger tidal generation device that the company is developing in Europe, with funding from the Strategic Energy Authority of Ireland. The company says that it is currently preparing for a tank test of the device, to be conducted in Rome later this year. Potential environmental impacts While high levels of tidal energy in the Cook Inlet offer the possibility of obtain- ing renewable energy from the inlet, there are also potential environmental impacts of in-current power generators. In 2022 ORPC conducted a study into available scientific information about Cook Inlet beluga whales, to inform per- mit and FERC license applications, and to enable the development of any required field studies or site monitoring plans. Cook Inlet beluga whales are listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act. ORPC personnel are also participating in the Cook Inlet Tidal Energy Working Group, a working group that was initiated in 2022 and involves a partnership between the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Alaska Center for Energy and Power at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. The purpose of the working group is to create a roadmap for the future develop- ment of Cook Inlet tidal resources. The roadmap will identify tidal energy project proposals; relevant environmental and regulatory processes; and anticipated challenges. It will also involve an assess- ment of existing resource information, and a review of Cook Inlet data needs and information gaps, ORPC says. Funding support For potential funding support, ORPC is applying for a grant under the Department of Energy’s $45-million funding opportunity for large-scale tidal and water current energy research, the company says. The DOE funding comes from the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was passed by Congress last year. ORPC also said that been conducting presentations on “economic concepts intended to accelerate tidal energy uptake in Alaska” to the Alaska Governor’s Office, the Alaska Energy Authority, and the House Energy Committee of the Alaska Legislature. l 4 PETROLEUM NEWS • WEEK OF JULY 16, 2023 ADDRESS P.O. Box 231647 Anchorage, AK 99523-1647 NEWS 907.522.9469 publisher@petroleumnews.com CIRCULATION 281.978.2771 circulation@petroleumnews.com ADVERTISING Susan Crane • 907-250-9769 scrane@petroleumnews.com OWNER: Petroleum Newspapers of Alaska LLC (PNA) Petroleum News (ISSN 1544-3612) • Vol. 28, No. 29 • Week of July 16, 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 CORRECTION Date wrong in ‘Judge rules confidential’ In the July 9 issue of Petroleum News, a date was incorrect in a page 1 story titled “Judge rules confidential.” Jan. 26 should have been June 28. In the June 28 court order, Judge Sharon Gleason of the federal District Court in Alaska upheld an appeal by ConocoPhillips against an intent by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to release to the public the data for the wells that the company drilled in conjunction with its major North Slope Willow proj- ect. The online archive version of the story has been corrected. Unfortunately, the July 9 issue had already gone to press, so the print version remains incorrect. —PETROLEUM NEWS l ALTERNATIVE ENERGY ORPC continues Cook Inlet tidal project Turbine generator site offshore East Foreland may deliver up to 5 megawatts of power to Kenai Peninsula transmission system 7/19/23, 1:34 PM In this issue: EV Charging Ports, NEVI Plan Comments Due Monday, and What We're Reading https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=84079e78e9 1/6 View this email in your browser Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Newsletter, July 13, 2023 EV Charging Ports: What's Next? Just like electric vehicles (EVs) themselves, events in the EV world move quickly. Tesla announced in November 2022 the decision to make their charging port open source and rename it the North American Charging Standard (NACS). Prior to that, the design was proprietary and used exclusively by Tesla via Tesla’s Supercharger Network throughout the United States. Apart from Tesla’s NACS, the other major charging port is the Society of Automatize Engineers (SAE) Combined Charging System (CCS). In last month’s newsletter, we included information on the recent news that Ford would 7/19/23, 1:34 PM In this issue: EV Charging Ports, NEVI Plan Comments Due Monday, and What We're Reading https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=84079e78e9 2/6 be adopting NACS as their charging port for future vehicles. Shortly after the newsletter was sent out, news broke that General Motors is following suit and have also decided to adopt NACS. Since then, the NACS news has been steady! To date, the list of vehicle manufacturers that have opted to move to NACS includes: Ford General Motors Rivian Polestar/Volvo Aptera Numerous EVSE manufacturers and charging networks, such as ChargePoint and Electrify America, have also confirmed that they will incorporate NACS moving forward. The list of companies that have indicated they will adopt NACS keeps growing. It can be tough to find the most up-to-date list, but EVstation.com keeps a NACS Adoption Tracker. SAE International also announced that they will begin the process to standardize NACS. They plan to standardize the new SAE NACS connector on an expedited timeframe — within six months! This large-scale shift to NACS has raised numerous questions within the industry. Many are asking, “What’s going to happen with all the charging stations that are about to be built with National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) funding?” The NEVI Minimum Standards and Requirements, published Subscribe 7/19/23, 1:34 PM In this issue: EV Charging Ports, NEVI Plan Comments Due Monday, and What We're Reading https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=84079e78e9 3/6 earlier this year, set out the rules and standards that charging sites must adhere to if using NEVI funding. One of the requirements is that each NEVI direct-current fast charger (DCFC) must have a CCS type 1 port installed. Chargers could also have other non-propriety charging ports (like NACS), but unlike the inclusion of a CCS port, installing NACS isn’t required by federal law. The question for many remains; should NACS ports be required now that there is an industry shift to adopt them? The first state to officially tackle this question was Texas. They are building off the NEVI Minimum Standards and Requirements and imposing their own supplemental requirements. The Texas Department of Transportation announced that they plan to require all DCFC installed with NEVI funds to not only include a CCS type 1 port, but also one NACS connector. At the time of writing this newsletter, Kentucky has announced similar plans, and there are reports that Washington State might also be considering requiring NACS. So, what is Alaska going to do? Potential site host applicants earned bonus points for their applications if they included NACS connectors at their charging sites during the first round of the Request for Applications (RFA). The RFA was released and closed prior to this NACS adoption acceleration. However, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is monitoring the situation and announcements and will determine our plan of action soon. Without a change in federal requirements, CCS will continue to be required at all stations, and since there are plenty of vehicles using CCS now and in the near future, its inclusion continues to make sense. AEA will evaluate if NACS should also be included at some or all stations moving forward. It’s worthwhile to note that while NACS is growing in popularity throughout the United States, there are larger hurdles to overcome if it is to penetrate the European market. Europe has adopted CCS as a true standard. Even Teslas sold in Europe must have CCS ports to meet the standard requirements. 7/19/23, 1:34 PM In this issue: EV Charging Ports, NEVI Plan Comments Due Monday, and What We're Reading https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=84079e78e9 4/6 Have ideas for Alaska's NEVI plan? AEA is collaborating with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and numerous stakeholders across the state to update the Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Implementation Plan (The Plan), as required by the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program. Through the NEVI program, Alaska expects to receive roughly $52 million in formula funding over five years to support the expansion of EV charging in the state. These formula funds will be used to build a statewide EV fast-charging network and community-based charging sites in rural and urban areas throughout Alaska. This funding will be administered by AEA to strategically deploy publicly accessible EV supply equipment. Alaska's efforts are part of a national initiative to develop a network of 500,000 reliable chargers across the United States to accommodate the growing adoption of EVs. This Plan is intended to be a living document as AEA engages with communities, laws or policies change, adoption projects alter, and additional 7/19/23, 1:34 PM In this issue: EV Charging Ports, NEVI Plan Comments Due Monday, and What We're Reading https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=84079e78e9 5/6 guidance from the federal government is published. This Plan is not intended to impede other DOT&PF infrastructure improvements. To receive the allocated funds, AEA must submit an updated EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan to the Federal Highway Administration on an annual basis. The Plan must depict how AEA will successfully deploy the NEVI Formula Program funds within Alaska. The draft plan for the fiscal year 2024 can be found here. Comments on The Plan may be sent to electricvehicles@akenergyauthority.org or submitted online here. The comment period closes on Monday, July 17, 2023, at 5 p.m. What We're Reading Tesla NACS Charger Adoption Tracker - EVStation Washington state plans to mandate Tesla's charging plug | Reuters Kentucky mandates Tesla's charging plug for state-backed charging stations | Reuters Exclusive: Tesla wins as Texas requires state-backed charging stations to include its plug | Reuters Tesla NACS Charger: Upcoming Compatible EVs and Charging Networks (caranddriver.com) 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. 7/19/23, 1:34 PM In this issue: EV Charging Ports, NEVI Plan Comments Due Monday, and What We're Reading https://us10.campaign-archive.com/?u=7bde743be4d525a5f52d948ed&id=84079e78e9 6/6 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. 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 RGYAUTHORITY.ORG PRESS RELEASE Brandy M. Dixon Communications Director (907) 771-3078 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 11, 2023 AEA Announces $17 Million in Renewable Energy Grants for 18 Statewide Projects Funding supports Alaska’s continued diversification of its energy portfolio (Anchorage) — The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) announces that $17 million has been appropriated to the Renewable Energy Fund (REF) program for 18 REF grants, which marks the program’s largest capitalization in a decade. The funding is part of its Round 15 application cycle, in which AEA received applications for a variety of renewable technologies. This funding is effective July 1, 2023, for inclusion in Fiscal Year 2024 budget. “This funding decision is the result of a collaborative effort between the Alaska State Legislature and the Governor who are unified in their support for advancing energy security for Alaskans,” said AEA Executive Director Curtis W. Thayer. “Since its inception, the REF has proven to be a powerful catalyst for renewable energy deployment in Alaska and diversifying the state’s energy portfolio.” The REF is a competitive grant program established by the Alaska State Legislature in 2008 to provide critical financial assistance for renewable energy projects in Alaska. Fifteen years later, the REF grant fund program has secured over $317 million in state funds, leveraging over $300 million in federal and local funds benefiting rural and urban communities alike. The program funds cost-effective renewable energy projects that help communities reduce their dependence on fossil fuels to stabilize their costs of both heat and electricity. The REF also creates jobs, utilizes local energy resources, promotes statewide technology transfer, keeps money in local economies, and fosters economic development. AEA administers the REF program in consultation with a nine-member REF Advisory Committee. Five members are appointed by the Governor and four members are appointed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President. REF Advisory Committee members offer valuable guidance and policy suggestions regarding the application and evaluation process and final funding recommendations for submission to the Legislature. ### About the Alaska Energy Authority The Alaska Energy Authority is a public corporation of the state. Its mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. To achieve this mission, AEA strives to diversify Alaska's energy portfolio increasing resiliency, reliability, and redundancy. To learn more, visit akenergyauthority.org. July 11, 2023 akenergyauthority.org AEA REF Round 15 Approved Projects Community Applicant Project Name Approved Funding Adak TDX Adak Generating, LLC Hydroelectric Power Adak - Feasibility and Conceptual Design $ 497,650 Beluga Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI) Energy, LLC Beluga Renewable Resource Assessment $ 298,000 Chefornak Naterkaq Light Plant Chefornak Battery Installation, Integration, and Commissioning $ 437,000 Healy Cook Inlet Region Inc. (CIRI) Energy, LLC Healy Renewable Resource Assessment $ 298,000 Hoonah Inside Passage Electric Cooperative Water Supply Creek Hydro Construction $ 3,538,526 Huslia Tanana Chiefs Conference Huslia Community-Scale Solar PV and Battery Project $ 2,082,00 Kalskag Alaska Village Electric Cooperative Kalskag Wind Feasibility and Conceptual Design $ 267,300 Kipnuk Kipnuk Light Plant Kipnuk Battery Installation, Integration and Commissioning $ 434,000 Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon Naknek Electric Association Inc Naknek Electric Battery Energy Storage System $ 2,172,984 Native Village of Kluti-Kaah (Copper Center) Native Village of Kluti-Kaah Woodchip Heating Project $ 500,000 Railbelt Alaska Renewables LLC Utility-Scale Railbelt Wind – Alaska Renewables $ 2,000,000 Railbelt / GVEA Serving Area Golden Valley Electric Association LIDAR Improvement to Interior Wind Energy Assessments $ 250,000 Railbelt / HEA Serving Area Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. Cook Inlet Oil Platform Wind Project $ 214,400 Railbelt / HEA Serving Area Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. Augustine Island Geothermal $ 68,000 Railbelt / HEA Serving Area Alaska Electric & Energy Cooperative, Inc. Mount Spurr Geothermal $ 45,500 Railbelt / MEA Serving Area Matanuska Electric Association Railbelt Wind Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design $ 1,833,333 Selawik Northwest Arctic Borough Selawik Solar PV $ 1,134,500 Yakutat Yakutat Community Health Center Yakutat Community Health Center Heat Recovery Project $ 1,000,000 Total (18 Projects) $ 17,071,193 The Department of Law discusses potential loss of AM radio in vehicles https://www.webcenterfairbanks.com/2023/07/02/department-law-discusses-potential-loss-am-radio-vehicles/ 1/3 FAIRBANKS, Alaska (KTVF) - As the rise of electric vehicles surfaces, a crucial source of information for drivers may be in danger. AM radio which is an important way to get information to many Alaskans may be eliminated from n ew electric cars in the future. According to a press release from the Department of Law, some car manufacture rs around the country are considering the removal of AM radio in electric cars. They cite electrical interference with the audio systems, making am radio signals sound buzzy and unpleasant. This comes as the Biden administration has discussed its goal of having 50 percent of new vehicle sales be electric by 2030. The Department of Law discusses potential loss of AM radio in vehicles https://www.webcenterfairbanks.com/2023/07/02/department-law-discusses-potential-loss-am-radio-vehicles/ 2/3 Alaska Attorney General Treg Taylor has joined 15 other states in an effort to keep AM radio receivers installed in new cars. According to Taylor, “Alaska ranks 7th in the nation for AM radio reac h. In some communities am radio is the only radio station available. We’ve got to impress upon trade groups and electric vehicle carmakers how important AM is and why keeping it in vehicles is critical.” Cathy Hiebert, Executive Director of the Alaska Bro adcasters Association said, “Removing free, over the air AM radio would clearly hinder the business operations of Alaska am stations and more importantly, critically injure broadcasters’ ability to reach Alaska citizens in times of emergency. When the inte rnet and power are out, radio and particularly AM radio is a lifeline to us all.” Hiebert also added, “Alaska farmers and ranchers are extremely reliant on AM radio for weather, market reports and more, which is especially critical in our most rural areas where reliable broadband is yet to be deployed. Urban residents across the state rely on AM radio for news, weather, sports and more. AM radio also plays a vital role in connecting Alaska Native communities with stations that serve, in some cases, in -language programming.” Many Alaskan communities rely on AM radio only. These places include Dillingham, Fort Yukon, Houston, and McGrath. Important organizations rely on the source as well which are the University of Alaska Anchorage, Alaska Aerospace, Alaska Aerospace Corporation Aurora Launch Services and Kodiak Island. Bryan Fisher, Director of the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, said, “Alaska is vast and AM radio is the only broadcast media that reaches some Alaskans. AM radio is a tried and true system that we have used for generations to send out emergency messages, such as tsunami warnings. DHS&EM [Division of Homeland The Department of Law discusses potential loss of AM radio in vehicles https://www.webcenterfairbanks.com/2023/07/02/department-law-discusses-potential-loss-am-radio-vehicles/ 3/3 Security and Emergency Management} cannot support any effort to reduce our ability to communicate these critical life -saving messages.” Copyright 2023 KTVF. All rights re served. 7/17/23, 1:20 PM Alaska Permanently Extends State’s Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program | NASEO https://www.naseo.org/news-article?NewsID=3893 1/2 Home Contact Search Login COMMITTEES PUBLICATIONS NASEO Newsroom Home > Home > Article July 1, 2023 By Cassie Powers Renewables Solar Source: NASEO Alaska Permanently Extends State’s Renewable Energy Fund Grant Program On May 25, 2023, Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy signed House Bill 62 which permanently establishes the state’s Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grant program. This legislation recognizes the REF’s efficacy and positive impact in providing financial assistance for studying, developing, and integrating proven and nascent renewable energy technologies across the state. The REF is a competitive grant program that funds biomass, energy storage, heat recovery, hydroelectric, solar, and wind. The REF has been instrumental in advancing Alaska's energy portfolio diversification. “The Renewable Energy Fund has a successful track record of increasing energy security for Alaskans, and I look forward to continued innovation benefiting Alaskans by providing more reliable and affordable energy,” said Governor Mike Dunleavy. The REF was established in 2008 and periodically funded by the state Legislature, distributing over $317 million over 15 years. Since its inception, over 100 operating projects have been built with REF contributions, collectively saving more than 30 million gallons of diesel each year. Importantly, REF dollars are not the only source of funds to build these renewable energy projects; they have attracted $229 million in matching funds from other sources. Additional information on the REF program can be found here. TweetShare Contact Information National Association of State Energy Officials 1300 North 17th Street, Suite 1275 Arlington, Virginia 22209 (703) 299-8800 fax: (703) 299-6208 Subscribe Subscribe to our email newsletter to receive our news and updates. your@email.com Subscribe Join NASEO NASEO's Affiliate membership provides businesses, trade associations, nonprofits, and other organizations a unique alliance opportunity with each and every State Energy Office. Join Now EVENTSPOLICYISSUESMEMBERSABOUT 7/19/23, 2:14 PM AG coalition asks EV manufacturers to continue installing AM radios | Alaska | thecentersquare.com https://www.thecentersquare.com/alaska/article_4a83a856-16aa-11ee-950b-07f27a3c56d2.html 1/2 https://www.thecentersquare.com/alaska/article_4a83a856-16aa-11ee-950b-07f27a3c56d2.html AG coalition asks EV manufacturers to continue installing AM radios By Jon Styf | The Center Square Jun 30, 2023 Shutterstock (The Center Square) – Sixteen states attorneys have asked members of two manufacturers groups to continue to include AM radios in new electric vehicles. In a letter led by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and signed by 15 other attorneys general, Moody asked the Electric Drive Transpor tation Association and the Zero Emission Transportation Association to continue including AM radios despite repor ted interference caused by electrical equipment, which hasn’t prevented some manufacturers from continuing AM radio production. 7/19/23, 2:14 PM AG coalition asks EV manufacturers to continue installing AM radios | Alaska | thecentersquare.com https://www.thecentersquare.com/alaska/article_4a83a856-16aa-11ee-950b-07f27a3c56d2.html 2/2 Jon Styf Staff Reporter “These decisions suggest that the real problem is not signal interference but a failure of certain automobile manufacturers to appreciate the importance of AM radio,” Moody wrote. Shop Up to 30% Off Pe rigol d Moody’s letter pointed out the importance of AM radio transmissions during public safety emergencies such as hurricanes, tornadoes, ooding, earthquakes and other times when federal, state and local o cials use AM radio to deliver emergency warnings. “The decision to eliminate AM radios is even more problematic in light of the Biden Administration’s goal of ‘having 50% of all new vehicle sales be electric by 2030,’ “ Moody wrote. “While we oppose the Biden Administration’s efforts, they underscore that removing AM radios from electric cars threatens the entire AM radio industry.” The letter was signed by the attorneys general from Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and West Virginia. “This is absurd, to say the least,” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said. “The public warning system relies on AM stations to warn people of an impending emergency—as we all know, when nearly everything else quits working, you can rely on AM radio to function when it’s needed the most.” The group also noted that AM radio has free local news, weather, political and sports broadcasts available to those in rural areas where broadband and cellular access is limited and unreliable. PUBLISHER: Tim Bradner / Mike Bradner (Emeritus) 907 440-6068 / 3037 South Circle Anchorage, AK 99507 / Fax: (907) 345-5683 Alaska Legislative DigestBradners’ June 29 2023 No. 21/2023 In this Issue:• Utilities on Railbelt see imports of liquefied natural gas. Watch for politi-cal blowback - Page 4 Our reports are protected by Copyright. Please do not forward to others without permission. © COPYRIGHT Email: timbradner@pobox.alaska.net Going after big federal infrastructure money Legislature, governor bulk up energy programs – Continued on page 2 Over half of the governor’s $201 million in vetoes from the enacted FY 2024 budget were in K-12 and university funds and the reductions left a $300 million surplus, so there was plenty of money to fund these and still leave a balanced budget. Why does the governor seem to have it in for the state’s education system? He doesn’t explain any of his vetoes so people are left guessing. One theory is that the governor thinks public schools really don’t need the money. Last spring House Republicans pointed to fund balances schools are required to maintain as evidence that more money was not needed. The governor may have bought into this despite recent data to the contrary. Another theory is that the governor buys into the national conservative push for shifting public school funds to correspondence programs as well as private and religious schools. This idea was promoted among some House Republi- cans in the 2023 legislative session. What’s with governor’s education vetoes? Taking cues from right wing? Gov. Mike Dunleavy and state legislators are smiling on state energy programs. Funding for a variety of programs and new projects was bulked up last spring in the Legislature’s budgeting and the gover- nor left those intact, with no vetoes, as he approved the Fiscal Year 2024 budget on June 16. This isn’t big money, to be sure, but it’s encouraging after several lean years for some of these programs. Over- all, the governor budget request for the Alaska Energy Authority last spring was $37.5 million in state funds. The Legislature added money. At the legislative adjournment in May the agency’s budget was $49.6 million. Lawmakers also increased AEA’s federal “receipt authority,” or authorization to receive money under the new federal energy infrastructure programs. This went from $140.3 million originally requested to $143.7 million, the addition made by the Legislature. One is the state’s Renewable Energy Fund, or REF, which provides grants for small to medium-size alternative energy projects in rural com- munities. Early in the budget cycle the governor requested $7.5 million and the Legislature added $9.5 million, bringing the total for FY 2024 to $17 million, up $2 million from the current year. Page 2Legislative Digest No. 21/2023 . . . Renewable energy . . . HB 144, SB 120: Education tax credit bills active in House and Senate - Continued from top, page 1 - Continued from top, page 1 These are Undesignated General Fund dollars, and it surprised many that Dunleavy chose not to veto or reduce any of this. The money provides for 18 new renewable energy projects in FY 2024. Twenty seven projects are being done in the current year with 11 done last year. Renewable Energy Fund The Legislature also provided a new funding source for the REF grants, a 20 percent share of revenues paid to state from sales of carbon offset credits on state lands. The Legislature provided this in SB 48, the carbon credit bill, as it passed the Legislature on May 16. Watch for a similar provision to be tacked onto SB 49 or HB 50, the underground carbon dioxide storage bill, in the 2024 legislative session. Legislators also eliminated the periodic “sunset” renewals of the REF making it a permanent program, though still sub- ject to annual funding. Rural bulk fuel tank upgrades After several years of relatively static funding the Legislature upped funding for tank repairs and up- grades on rural fuel terminals for communities and power plants. This program is managed by the AEA. The governor’s original request was $5.5 million (state funds). The Legislature increased this to $8 million at adjournment. This is up from $5.5 million in FY 2023. AEA also receives federal funds to support this, and the Legislature increased the agency’s receipt authority from $7.5 million requested for bulk fuel tank upgrades to $11 million. Rural power plant upgrades Legislators approved $7.5 million in state funds and $25 million in federal receipt authority for upgrades of small community power plants. Both amounts were included in the governor’s FY 2024 budget and ap- proved by the Legislature. The FY 2024 state appropriation is up from $5 million in FY 2023. Electrification at Whittier cruise ship terminal AEA was also given $5 million to jump-start a project to electrify a new cruise ship terminal planned for Whittier so that cruise ships can shut off their engines while in port, reducing costs as well as air pollution. Cruise companies will share in the overall project costs but what’s significant is that the state portion will be paid from state cruise passenger taxes, the first use of these for a port electrification project. This could pave the way for similar projects in other Alaska cruise ship ports. Planning funds for Bradley Lake hydro expansion, Dixon Diversion project A $5 million appropriation was also made for studies related to the proposed Dixon Diversion project at the Bradley Lake hydro facility near Homer, almost half the estimated $15 million needed to complete the required studies. Sen Lisa Murkowski may be able provide federal funds for the remainder in a Congres- – Continued on next page Page 3Legislative Digest No. 21/2023 . . . Upgrading railbelt transmission . . . sionally Designated Appropriation. If built, the Dixon Diversion would expand Bradley’s output of hydro power by about 50 percent. Extension of power to U.S. Army Black Rapids training site, Richardson Highway Legislators approved AEA’s receipt of $12.75 million in federal funds to extend electric power from Delta to the U.S. Army’s Black Rapids training site. Golden Valley Electric Association is contributing $272,300 to this project, bringing total funding to $13.02 million. The big money: Upgrading railbelt power transmission The big money – yet to come – will be spent to upgrade the “railbelt” (Homer to Fairbanks) power trans- mission systems. These are now capacity constrained, which limits the ability to move additional power from new wind power projects, a Bradley Lake hydro expansion or a possible large Susitna hydro project built someday. The system is now limited to moving about 75 megawatts, and the upgrades, if funded, would increase this to 200 megawatts to 300 megawatts. Railbelt Innovation and Reliability Project The AEA has submitted two big applications on May 18 for funding under the new federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs and Inflation Reduction act. The bigger of these, The Railbelt Innovation and Reliabil- ity Project for the Railbelt, requests $411.4 million (of $822.7 million total project cost) for the upgrades, which includes new transmission lines built parallel to existing lines, a new submarine cable from the Kenai Peninsula on Cook Inlet’s east side to the Beluga power station on the Inlet’s west side to provide new transmission to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and to Anchorage. Anchorage and Mat-Su are now served mainly through a corridor from the Kenai to Anchorage and Mat-Su, and from the Beluga power station in the west. The cross-inlet submarine cable would create a “loop” for new power moved to the state’s major population areas. An additional $166 million in projects funded by AEA revenue bonds being paid for by Railbelt utilities would go toward the total project cost. This is AEA’s Railbelt Innovative Reliability Proj- ect. These projects would be done over eight years under AEA’s proposal. Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation The second application submitted by AEA, for $250 million in federal funds, is for the Rural Alaska Microgrid Transformation. The total project cost of $500 million, and is modeled on the existing Renewable Energy Fund projects that have been underway by AEA since 2008. The application contemplates 20 small to medium-size projects – small hydro, wind, solar and batteries to expand electrical supply and storage projects in rural communities. If the funding is approved the work would be done over five years. AEA envi- sions a process similar to that used now for the REF program where there would be a Request for Proposals, and a vetting of applications by a qualified review team. – Continued from previous page 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 RGYAUTHORITY.ORG PRESS RELEASE Brandy M. Dixon Communications Director (907) 771-3078 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 29, 2023 AEA Opens Application Period for Renewable Energy Fund Round 16 Grants provide financial assistance for renewable energy projects across the state (Anchorage) — The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is accepting applications for Round 16 of its Renewable Energy Fund (REF) grants to support renewable energy projects and diversify Alaska’s energy portfolio. For Round 16, the maximum grant request is $2 million and $4 million for communities depending on their energy costs. Applications are due by 4 p.m. on Tuesday, August 29, 2023. Following the deadline, AEA will evaluate all applications received and consult with the REF Advisory Committee before making final recommendations to the Legislature. AEA will submit a report summarizing each application and make recommendations for Fiscal Year 2025 funding. All funding decisions are made at the discretion of the Governor and the Legislature. REF was established in 2008 by the Alaska State Legislature to provide grant funding for qualifying and competitively selected renewable energy projects. To date, 289 REF grants totaling $317 million have been awarded. With REF contributions, more than 100 operating projects have been developed. In recognition of the REF’s efficacy and positive impact in deploying viable renewable energy projects across Alaska’s broader energy portfolio, the REF’s sunset date provision was repealed through the passage of House Bill 62, signed into law by Governor Dunleavy on May 25, 2023. The REF is available to the following eligible applicants: electric utilities with a valid CPCN, independent power producers, local governments, other governmental utilities, tribal councils, and housing authorities. 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. For more information on REF and to apply for a Round 16 grant, visit 2023 REF Application. If you need assistance, please contact the AEA Grants Coordinator by email at grants@akenergyauthority.org or by phone at (907) 771-3081. ### About the Alaska Energy Authority The Alaska Energy Authority is a public corporation of the state. Its mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. To achieve this mission, AEA strives to diversify Alaska's energy portfolio increasing resiliency, reliability, and redundancy. To learn more, visit akenergyauthority.org. 7/19/23, 2:16 PM Alaska And Arkansas Are Switching To EVs And Hybrids Faster Than California | Carscoops https://www.carscoops.com/2023/06/alaska-and-arkansas-are-switching-to-evs-and-hybrids-faster-than-california/1/7 The Most Comfortable Sandals WalkingCo -31%-29% Alaska And Arkansas Are Switching To EVs And Hybrids Faster Than California Study reveals which states show the biggest green growth, and it’s not who you’d think by Chris Chilton June 28, 2023 at 11:30 21 American drivers are turning on to EV and hybrid power, but the switch isn’t happening at the same rate all over the country. A new study has revealed which states are wasting no time in making the change to greener cars, and which are clinging on to the combustion power they know and still love. And the results might surprise you. STUDY LATEST NEW CARS SCOOPS ELECTRIC FUTURE CARS OFFBEAT REVIEWS QOTD 7/19/23, 2:16 PM Alaska And Arkansas Are Switching To EVs And Hybrids Faster Than California | Carscoops https://www.carscoops.com/2023/06/alaska-and-arkansas-are-switching-to-evs-and-hybrids-faster-than-california/2/7 The data crunched by iSeeCars shows that the market share for electric and hybrid vehicles in the U.S. grew by 85.3 percent between 2018 and 2023, which is almost three times the growth experienced between 2017 and 2022, illustrating just how fast things have moved even in the last year. But some states have witnessed growth levels many times greater than the average, and others as little as half the average rate. Let’s look at the pro-electric states f irst. The f irst thing that may surprise you is that not only does California fail to top the table, it doesn’t even make it into the top 10. First place goes to Alaska, which has experienced a 272.1 percent change in alternative fuel share in the past f ive years, followed by West Virginia with 200.9 percent and Colorado on 184.9 percent. New Jersey (169.4 percent) and Louisiana (152.9 percent) round out the top f ive. advertisement scroll to continue Fragrance for Home & Body Archipelago Related: Global Electric Vehicle Sales To Soar By 35% To Over 14 Million This Year Predicts New Study 7/19/23, 2:16 PM Alaska And Arkansas Are Switching To EVs And Hybrids Faster Than California | Carscoops https://www.carscoops.com/2023/06/alaska-and-arkansas-are-switching-to-evs-and-hybrids-faster-than-california/3/7 When it comes to alternative fuel share in the car market it’s Colorado that comes up trumps at 6.1 percent, comfortably more than the national average of 4.1 percent, though still making it clear how far EVs and hybrids are still behind plain old combustion vehicles when it comes to sales. Shifting our attention to the other end of the spectrum we can see that Hawaii has experienced the slowest growth in EV and hybrid takeup in the last five years, recording only a 43.7 percent change. That’s followed by Oregon on 47.8 percent, New Mexico with 53.1 percent, then Vermont (also with 53.1 percent) and California (63.5 percent). Louisiana stands out because alternative fuel vehicles account for a tiny 1.5 percent of sales, the lowest of any state. 7/19/23, 2:16 PM Alaska And Arkansas Are Switching To EVs And Hybrids Faster Than California | Carscoops https://www.carscoops.com/2023/06/alaska-and-arkansas-are-switching-to-evs-and-hybrids-faster-than-california/4/7 #CALIFORNIA #ECOLOGY #ELECTRIC VEHICLES #FUEL #HYBRIDS #PHEV #STUDY #USA Previous Post Next Post But it’s interesting to note that Oregon, California and Washington are ranked in the bottom six for growth, yet are the three biggest states for overall alternative fuel share. ISeeCars analyst Karl Brauer suggests that “there may be a market threshold for alternative fuel vehicle share, above which it gets much more dif f icult to grow.” Source: iSeeCars chicsew.com Brought to you by TAGS# Ferrari Teases Harder-Hitting SF90 LM, But Someone Has Already Leaked Better Photos Hyundai And Toyota EV Ads Banned In UK And Ireland Over Misleading Charge-Time Claims Best Com WalkingCo -31% -28% -25% Gov. Dunleavy signs bill aligning power cost equalization with Permanent Fund https://knom.org/2023/06/26/gov-dunleavy-signs-bill-aligning-power-cost-equalization-with-permanent-fund/ 1/2 Gov. Dunleavy signs bill aligning power cost equalization with Permanent Fund By Greg Knight | June 26, 2023 | 0 Gov. Mike Dunleavy signs Senate Bill 98 on Friday, June 23, as Reps. Delena Johnson, Bryce Edgmon, Neal Foster, and Sens. Lyman Hoffman and Donny Olson watch. Photo by Greg Knight/KNOM GOVERNOR MIKE DUNLEAVY MET WITH LEGISLATORS AND LOCAL OFFICIALS IN NOME on Friday, June 23 to sign Senate Bill 98 into law. The bill will transfer management of the Power Cost Equalization endowment fund, which is currently worth about $1 billion, to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. It will also mandate regular reporting to the legislature regarding asset value and income. The bill also calls for the endowment fund to be managed “using the same investment objective and asset allocation as the corporation uses in managing the Alaska Permanent Fund.” According to the Alaska Energy Authority, a state agency, the PCE program provides economic assistance to communities and residents that use a rural electric utility, where the cost of electricity can be “three to five times higher” than for customers in more urban areas of the state. Gov. Dunleavy signs bill aligning power cost equalization with Permanent Fund https://knom.org/2023/06/26/gov-dunleavy-signs-bill-aligning-power-cost-equalization-with-permanent-fund/ 2/2 The bill was referred to the legislature by the Senate Finance Committee. House Finance co-chair Rep. Neal Foster says the bill will protect the corpus of the endowment from legislators that might want to tap into it for other projects. “It’s good for Alaska because the power cost equalization program, of course, helps to subsidize electricity in rural Alaska,” Foster said. “Every single household receives anywhere from $700 to $2,000 annually. And what this bill is going to do is going to help to protect it. It will do two things … it will maximize the returns that it receives and it also will help to protect it, because some years we get legislators who want to maybe take some of the billion dollars that’s currently sitting there for rural Alaska and use it for other purposes.” Rep. Bryce Edgmon, also a co-chair of House Finance, says the bill will allow the endowment to grow year-over-year, the way the Permanent Fund does. “I’d say this is historic bill because it takes the Permanent Fund Corporation and allows the power cost equalization program to be managed alongside it,” Edgmon said. “The Permanent Fund Corporation is one of the best managed funds in the entire globe. So, this takes a billion dollar endowment fund and allows it to be managed in a way that gets more reward along with maybe a little more risk, but it grows the fund over a period of time, and then hopefully along the way to grow the PCE endowment.” Sen. Donny Olson is one of the three co-chairs of Senate Finance. He says keeping power rates low in rural Alaska can be a matter of grave importance if people have to leave small towns or villages and move to urban areas. “When you have such expensive costs for electricity out in rural Alaska, like we have down there in Golovin, it’s one of those things that takes the edge off,” Olson said. “What we’ve seen in other communities is that people that cannot afford to live in rural Alaska, they are the ones that go down to Anchorage and become part of the homeless population. And so that’s why I think it’s such an important issue for people in rural Alaska, especially those that are having such a hard time making ends meet out there.” After signing the bill, the governor remarked about how, without people being able to afford to live in rural Alaska, there isn’t much of an Alaska. “When people say this is a subsidy, no way, it’s not, it’s really converting oil money into a usable method by which people especially rural Alaska, where the costs are high because of small-scale transportation, et cetera, enables the people in rural Alaska to at least be able to afford to live in rural Alaska. And you don’t have much of Alaska unless you have a rural Alaska.” Additionally, House Finance co-chair Delena Johnson and Sen. Lyman Hoffman attended the bill signing event. 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 RGYAUTHORITY.ORG PRESS RELEASE Brandy M. Dixon Communications Director (907) 771-3078 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 19, 2023 AEA Seeks Public Input to Update Alaska’s NEVI Plan (Anchorage) — The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) is working with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) and diverse stakeholders across the state to update the Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Implementation Plan (The Plan), as required by the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program. Through the NEVI program, Alaska will receive more than $52 million over five years to support the expansion of EV charging in the state. These formula funds will be used to build a statewide EV fast-charging network and community- based charging sites in rural and urban areas throughout Alaska. This funding will be administered by AEA to strategically deploy publicly accessible EV supply equipment. Alaska's efforts are part of a national initiative to develop a network of 500,000 reliable chargers across the United States to accommodate the growing adoption of EVs. This Plan is intended to be a living document as AEA engages with communities, laws or policies change, adoption projects alter, and additional guidance from the federal government is published. This Plan is not intended to impede other DOT&PF infrastructure improvements. To receive the allocated funds, AEA must submit an updated EV Infrastructure Implementation Plan to the Federal Highway Administration on an annual basis. The Plan must depict how AEA will successfully deploy the NEVI Formula Program funds within Alaska. The draft plan for the fiscal year 2024 can be found here. Comments on the NEVI plan can be emailed to electricvehicles@akenergyauthority.org or complete the online form here. The comment period is open until Monday, July 17, 2023, at 5 p.m. ### About the Alaska Energy Authority The Alaska Energy Authority is a public corporation of the state. Its mission is to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. To achieve this mission, AEA strives to diversify Alaska's energy portfolio increasing resiliency, reliability, and redundancy. To learn more, visit akenergyauthority.org. View this email in your browser Alaska Electric Vehicle Working Group Newsletter, June 8, 2023 AEA Negotiates Future Funding In July 2022, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), which is under the Department of Energy, released a funding opportunity announcement DE-FOA-0002611, “Fiscal Year 2022 Vehicle Technologies Office Program Wide Funding Opportunity Announcement.” This opportunity sought to fund research projects that addressed the following topics: Cost-effective deployment of electric vehicle (EV) charging for people who don’t have access to home charging, Subscribe Past Issues Translate Innovative solutions to improve mobility options for underserved communities, Community engagement to accelerate clean transportation opportunities in underserved communities, Batteries and electrification, Materials technologies, Energy-efficient commercial off-road vehicle technologies, Medium/heavy duty vehicle corridor charging, and Advanced engine and fuel technologies to improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), together with its partners Alaska Center for Energy and Power, Ahtna, Incorporated, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska Municipal League, Launch Alaska, and Yellowstone-Teton Clean Cities Coalition, developed an application for a project titled, “Alaska EVSE Deployment and Best Practices in Rural and Underserved Communities.” In May 2023, AEA received notice from EERE of an intent to negotiate a financial award for AEA’s submitted project. This intent to negotiate does not guarantee any funding at this point. Negotiations can take up to three months, but it is the first step in obtaining funding for this project. If negotiations are successful, AEA and partners will receive $1,669,983 with 20 percent cost- share required. If funding is received, AEA and partners will work to electrify areas throughout Alaska, with an emphasis on rural and disadvantaged communities. Nine out of the 11 energy regions in the state will be targeted (the Railbelt and Southeast will not be targeted since they are supported during the first two phases of the Alaska National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Deployment Plan). AEA will specifically work with the following nine energy regions: Aleutians Bering straits Bristol Bay Copper River Kodiak Borough Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim North Slope Northwest Arctic Yukon Koyukuk Subscribe Past Issues Translate Project work would include engaging with communities to see if they have the support, capacity, and infrastructure for charging stations, educating areas on electric transportation benefits, and working with communities to develop, manage, and maintain charging station sites. Throughout the project, the team will collect, analyze, and publish data that can be used to help inform future EV charging investments in cold climates. We’ll keep you updated as this project progresses! EV Charging News Ford Motor Company and Tesla Motors recently worked out a deal that will provide Ford EV owners access to Tesla’s Superchargers across the United States and Canada. This will enable access to Tesla’s network of over 12,000 Superchargers. Starting next year, Mustang Mach-E, F-150 Lightning, and E- Transit drivers will be able to charge at the Superchargers using an adapter that allows the existing Combined Charging System (CCS) to work with Tesla’s North American Charging Standard (NACS) system. In 2025, all Ford EVs will have a NACS connector built in, allowing access to the Superchargers without an adapter. This announcement has caused quite a stir in the EV community. Many are wondering how the existing CCS standard will be impacted now that two of the major EV manufacturers in the US have adopted NACS. With Ford’s integration of NACS into their future vehicles, at least one EVSE manufacturer, Freewire Technologies, has announced that they plan to add NACS ports to future chargers. However, on the flip side, CharIN, a non-profit organization that Subscribe Past Issues Translate promotes interoperability and CCS as a global standard, issued a statement stating they don’t believe the EV industry can thrive with multiple competing charging systems. They encouraged the further use of CCS as a global standard. June Workshop Series Join the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) for a National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Plan and Program Update Workshop Series. Get to know Alaska's Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Deployment Plan (The Plan) and provide your feedback, as we prepare to submit an updated version later this year. The Plan details how the state will utilize the approximately $52 million AEA will receive over the next five years through the NEVI Formula Program. In June, we will host four hybrid workshops in Anchorage, MatSu, Juneau, and Fairbanks. We welcome feedback on The Plan even if you’re unable to attend one of these workshops. Comments and questions can be emailed to electricvehicles@akenergyauthority.org. AEA NEVI Plan and Program Update Workshop Schedule Subscribe Past Issues Translate Anchorage Workshop – Monday, June 12, 4-5:30 p.m. In person: AEA Board Room, 813 W Northern Lights Blvd, Anchorage, AK 99503 Zoom meeting: Click this link, or use the information below: Meeting ID: 857 3358 2599 Passcode: 691665 833 548 0282 US Toll-free 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 833 548 0276 US Toll-free MatSu Workshop – Tuesday, June 13, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m. In person: Wasilla Museum, 391 N Main Street, Wasilla, AK 99654 Zoom meeting: Click this link, or use the information below: Meeting ID: 814 6184 5526 Passcode: 856250 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 833 548 0276 US Toll-free 833 548 0282 US Toll-free Juneau Workshop – Wednesday, June 14, Noon–1:30 p.m. In person: Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development Green Conference Room, 233 Willoughby Ave, 9th Floor, State Office Building, Juneau, AK 99801 Zoom meeting: Click this link, or use the information below: Meeting ID: 854 2056 1243 Passcode: 137379 833 548 0282 US Toll-free 877 853 5257 US Toll-free 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 833 548 0276 US Toll-free Fairbanks Workshop – Thursday, June 15, 11:30 a.m.-1 p.m. In Person: Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center, 3605 Cartwright Ct., Fairbanks, AK 99709 Zoom: Click this link, or use the information below: Meeting ID: 835 5949 0506 Passcode: 852821 877 853 5257 US Toll-free Subscribe Past Issues Translate 888 475 4499 US Toll-free 833 548 0276 US Toll-free 833 548 0282 US Toll-free 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. Subscribe Past Issues Translate