Community Questionnaire #3

April 10, 2026

During the campaign, many community advocacy groups and NGOs submit questionnaires to the candidates. Many of the questionnaires are kept internal for the purpose of endorsement or campaign support. Because there are many important questions for rate payers to consider when making their choice on who to vote for, I've received permission to repost my answers to these questionnaires. The group names have been removed so only the questions so you can see my answers.

1. Why do you want to serve on the CEA Board?

I am running for the Chugach Board of Directors to utilize my skills in engineering, project management, risk, and operations to lead the utility down a path of energy dominance.

2. What do you think are the biggest challenges facing CEA over the next 5-10 years? What can be done to prepare to meet them?

The biggest challenges for CEA over the next 5-10 years will be to create a predictable rate structure, partnering with other utilities to build redundant base load power for seasonal security, and positioning the utility to be the premiere power center to support national security objectives of energy security and AI. Another challenge will be to reverse course on decarbonization. Decarbonization as a policy has distracted the organization to focus on tax incentives and emissions reductions over gas supply and generation improvements.

3. Reliance on a single fuel source (Cook Inlet natural gas) has created significant challenges for CEA in recent years as it has searched for new sources of gas for 2028 and beyond. Should CEA work to reduce its reliance on any single fuel source in the future? If so, what are some steps it could take?

I believe Chugach should work to diversify fuel sources that provide base load power infrastructure. I don’t believe the Cook Inlet gas will fall short of demand next year because in November 2025, the DOG provided data that indicates new gas brought online has covered the demand gap and provided more than enough gas for use and for storage. Knowing this, Chugach should be looking for ways to incentives the producers as well as expanding operations at Beluga to increase capacity to ensure that the gas portfolio is fulfilled. Well integrity, both production and injection, should be of the highest concern in the Beluga and CINGSA areas. Since the energy security and AI rely on the same strategy, new fuel sources like coal, hydro, and nuclear deserve a hard look when considering the reliability and uptime needed to support AI. It will become necessary for energy sources that can withstand the seasonality impacts of Alaska to be switched between primary and secondary as way to maintain redundant reliability for datacenter operations, AI computing power, manufacturing, and reducing residential rates. This creates an opportunity to plan reserves and schedule coal and hydro for large industrial sectors and stabilize power generation risk to residential customers through peak demand periods. Renewable technologies will continue to improve and provide grid stabilizing mechanisms to manage the power swaps but ultimately the economy of scale will come from sources like gas, coal, hydro, and nuclear.

4. The Railbelt cooperatives are engaged in a number of joint projects (the new Railbelt Transmission Organization, the Dixon Diversion expansion at Bradley Lake). Should CEA and the other Railbelt cooperatives be taking additional steps toward greater integration in the future? If you believe they should, do you see any impediments toward greater cooperation and what role does the Board have in addressing these?

I maintain the belief the utility cooperatives were set up to be independent and would look after the generation and transmission between the interties before looking to others. That being said, the Railbelt Transmission Organization exists now and is being funded by the rate payers. Chugach needs to participate to make sure the interests of the rate payers in the CEA service district are met. I don’t see a need for any integration beyond what has been established now for the future. Projects like the Dixon Diversion will require partnership and this forum provides a window into the planning necessary to fully maximize the power projections. The biggest impediment will be ideological and policy as more utility boards opt to move to higher percentages of renewable energy over traditional sources. PPA and wheeling agreements between the utilities will become important to ensure one utility doesn’t end up overcommitting power leading to load shedding events or improper reserves scheduling that may cause spikes in imported or last-minute gas contracts that the rate payer would bear the burden of paying. Utility boards must be clear on how these policies will impact the system over the planning period.

5. Legislators give considerable weight to input provided by utilities on legislation that affects them. What role should board members play in developing their cooperative’s stance on bills before the Legislature? How should the Board interact with staff on these issues?

The board must fundamentally understand how legislation will impact the family and impact business development. You cannot have one without the other and this must be reflective of the policies being considered as well as how a board will support or argue against the policy. The board must be clear on the policy objective and understand the risks. The staff should be directed to seek expert opinion on both sides of the policy issue and vet the background of the experts so as not to find a similar outcome being pursued under the guise of advocacy. This should be made clear in strategic plans where the risks can be understood and communicated in a way that all 90,000+ members know why the utility is taking a particular stance on the issue.

6. CEA is considering a number of hydro projects along the Railbelt. Does CEA have an obligation to consult with local Indigenous councils and leadership to ensure that their perspectives are given full consideration as these projects are advanced? What steps would you take to ensure that CEA takes a more proactive approach to collaboration with Indigenous communities on local energy projects?

CEA has an obligation to look objectively at the project impact on the long-term reduction of rates for the rate payers. Many of the indigenous councils are rate payers so they would not get any special treatment other than being a landowner/partner under review for development. The same steps for engagement should be taken with any project regardless of indigenous communities or not. The proactive step should be agreeing on the potential of a projects ability to improve the affordability of power in the service district that supports families and grows business and industry.

7. Although CEA is a member-owned cooperative, levels of member engagement and involvement are low—only 12 percent of members voted in the last election and relatively few members attend board meetings. Do you believe that the Board should try to increase member engagement? If so, what can the Board do to encourage greater member engagement and involvement in helping to guide the cooperative’s policies?

Yes, the board should work to increase engagement. If there is a need for more members to vote in utility board elections then there must be a similar public campaign by the cooperative to get the message out. That being said, one way to increase the chances of getting more people to vote is to align voting with other municipal or statewide elections. It’s not perfect because even those elections have low turnout. I think low turnout has more to do with people not seeing results and are demoralized, feeling like they are voting for more of the same. The best thing the board can do is be humble, not chase the current fads, and have policies that support the family and business.

8. In 2025, CEA’s Board spent 42.6% of its regular board meetings in executive session, down slightly from 2024 (when the figure was 45.6%) While executive session is sometimes necessary, do cooperative boards have an obligation to their member-owners to maximize the openness and transparency of their decision making? If so, what steps could be taken to achieve this goal? 

Yes, cooperative boards have an obligation to their member-owners. Openness and transparency are two-way streets and the members and partners cannot expect for this level of access if they are not willing maintain the same standard. Big decisions must address clearly the assumptions and risks and as long as a confidence or personnel privacy are not violated prudence would indicate it would have a net benefit on the organization. The steps to help bridge a gap would be to identify the decisions to be made, the assumptions that need to be tested, the cost/benefit being assessed, and the organization’s ability to deliver on its commitments. These are high level steps that I’ve seen work in different experiences of my professional career, sometimes, simplicity is the best motivator of action.

9. Beyond the issues discussed above, are there any other policies or issues facing the CEA Board you would like to address?

In my opinion, the CEA Board is at a crossroads. There are new massive infrastructure projects that have the potential to be once in a generation opportunities to set the utility on a path of independence and dominance. The heavy focus on wind and solar has taken time and resources away from the rate payers that put the base energy portfolio at risk. My observation was more time was spent trying to maximize tax credits than scrutinizing the project economics and helping these projects move forward if they were as good as were being told. If the bottleneck was due to internal process efficiencies, then it was within Chugach’s power to restructure to ensure that the project/opportunity hopper had clear gates and cost benchmarks to ensure decisions could capitalize on the opportunity. The future must consider the economy of scale and what fuel mix provides the greatest long term secure power sources. Renewable energy technologies have a place but the investment must match the scale where acreage is a limiting factor on any project.

Affordability will be the single biggest factor the utility board must prioritize. If families cannot afford to pay for high energy costs, they will leave. If families leave, businesses leave. All the infrastructure projects on the horizon like the Alaska Gasline, the Terra Energy Coal project, various hydro projects, along with increased production of gas in the Cook Inlet come with jobs and fuel diversity for decades. Those fuel mixes provide a security backbone for investment in manufacturing, logistics, defense, and data processing that can bolt on additional smaller scale IBR and battery storage systems for their needs.

The crossroads will be whether the current strategic plan will meet the desired future state. Currently the plan is highly dependent on regulation to force integration of renewable energy tech into the generation portfolio. I do not believe this is the right strategy when trying to reduce costs. Each project should provide a net benefit to the rate payer and the portfolio diversity is an output of company strategy versus regulation. The CEA Board must see this future clearly and put the pieces together that bring families and businesses to Alaska because we have the cheapest, most affordable, and the most secure sources of power.