Community Questionnaire #2

April 8, 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.

Background Questions

Why are you running for the Chugach Electric Association Board of Directors?

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.

What prior experience do you have serving on boards, reviewing board packets, synthesizing detailed analyses into actionable directions for staff, and ensuring staff accountability & transparency?

I have served on small local advocacy group boards and am experienced in reading and preparing board packets. In my professional career, I’ve had many roles in engineering and operations that require taking large amounts of data and presenting a case either to asses risk or make investment decisions. I’ve also had roles in leadership that require setting expectations and clarifying assumptions which is important for transparency and accountability, without this an organization will not achieve any of it’s goals.

Pushing for change on utility boards can be difficult and protracted. What are some strategies that you think you might use to make the positive change you seek at the speed needed?    

Data should be the center of the conversation. This eliminates some bias and helps focus on the solution that will best serve the interest of the rate payers. I intend to be very data focused to ensure that any projects or policy presented provide sufficient data, assumptions, and expected results that decisions cycle time is reduced and the board can respond to the needs of the future.

Issue Questions

Cook Inlet Natural Gas / Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Imports

According to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Oil & Gas, Cook Inlet natural gas supplies will fall short of demand starting next year. Railbelt utilities will need to import LNG to make up for this shortage. The utilities’ own consultants are projecting that LNG imports will be at least 50 percent more expensive than current Cook Inlet gas prices.

How would you propose using natural gas for meeting both the short-term and long-term energy needs in the Railbelt? What expertise do you have in this area?

The available stock of natural gas required to maintain stable operations would need to be banked in storage as a mechanism to offset high demand periods in the winter. The same would be said for any import purchase where gas purchase agreements of imported LNG would be targeted to cover the balance of storage needs during peak periods. 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. Redundancy and reliability on gas wells in the near term provides a way to limit costs and secure the supply of gas. My background is in oil and gas production and I have experience in well surveillance, maintenance, and transmission. This includes gas commercial scheduling and pipeline management.

Renewable/Diversified Portfolio Standard (RPS / DPS)

Would you support a renewable portfolio standard that required utilities to meet certain renewable energy goals?

No, I would not support a renewable portfolio standard.

What mechanism(s) would you endorse and advocate for to create a more stable cost, affordable energy system on the Railbelt? Why? What expertise do you have in this area?

The mechanisms that I would endorse are those that look to an economy of scale for long term security. This would be evaluating the portfolio based on redundant base load energy from different fuel sources based on the resiliency of the reserves. This would include hydro, coal, and expanded gas conditioning. These do not immediately resolve rate issues and in many cases result in a rate increase but when evaluated over the lifecycle of the generation facilities they tend to be the cheapest power.

Railbelt Transmission

In October 2023, the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) was awarded a $206.5 million grant through the federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to build a High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) submarine transmission cable between the Kenai Peninsula and Anchorage. The award requires an equivalent $206.5 million in non-federal matching funds. State legislators and other Railbelt energy stakeholders have begun discussing potential sources of the matching funds, as well as the rationale for upgrades to the Railbelt transmission system.

What is your opinion on the need for new transmission in the Railbelt and potential funding sources? What expertise do you have in this area?

I believe that adding or upgrading transmission systems should be a reflection of strategic growth for the utility in the way of business development. At the moment there are very few industries looking to move operations within the Railbelt where large energy demands would necessitate more transmission. The HVDC GRIP funding is now a commitment with little incentive since many of the renewable projects tied to this infrastructure have slowed investment with decreasing levels of federal subsidies. Subsea electrical cables are not new; I worked at an oil and gas facility where offshore platforms were powered by an onshore generation facility. I think this is a great idea to explore but should not be limited to DC transmission. When it comes to funding, many major infrastructure projects have had government funding mixed with private investment. The investment and grants related to decarbonization, net zero goals, and climate change have distracted the utility away from it’s core mission and in many ways been a strategic delay in addressing serious issues where the equivalent spend could have gone towards investing in reliable infrastructure for the gas and hydro portfolio. My experience comes from corporate project management and operations leadership putting budgets together, managing costs, and developing project scope.

Utility Rate Design

What is your opinion on utility rate design as a means of incentivizing energy conservation and reducing ratepayers’ dependence on an increasingly expensive and volatile priced fuel? What expertise do you have in this area?

I don’t agree with using the rates as the means to incentivize energy conservation and reducing ratepayer dependence on fuel. This implies that there is nothing that can be done to lower the fuel costs or find ways to be more efficient with the generation. It also implies giving the consumer a false choice of investing more money into alternatives that come with maintenance and potentially loans that will be greater than any credits issued over the life of the investment. The rates of the utility should be consistent and as flat as possible so they are predictable. If anything, rate design should reflect a forward-looking strategy to support investing in equivalent energy offsets with the same reliability, i.e. new hydro, coal, or nuclear as a comparison to offsetting gas generation.

Annual Net Metering

Many renewable energy focused organizations are advocating for the passage of state legislation that would require large electric utilities in Alaska to offer annual net metering to their customers. Under this framework, for compensation purposes customers who install rooftop solar systems would have their net consumption calculated during a calendar year, rather than a billing month. This would enable a customer to, in effect, receive compensation for their rooftop solar generation at the full retail rate. Excess generation beyond a customer’s annual total consumption would be gifted to the utility. This would incentivize customers to help displace gas generation and reduce their utilities’ dependence on an increasingly expensive and volatile priced fuel source.

Do you support the establishment of annual net metering in Alaska? What expertise do you have in this area?

No, I would not support an annual net metering in Alaska. I would support that the customer is rewarded for their investment at the time it is metered. The customer still pays the retail price during the zero solar months which are the peak periods. Gifting the utility excess power is rewarding poor customer service if the goal of the utility is to provide affordable power. Chugach recently pointed to diminishing load in the service area so annual net metering would put the customer at even more risk of high rates during peak periods to cover the operation and maintenance of fixed assets on the system. I don’t believe there has been enough done to reverse the trend of gas volumes and subsequently prices largely due to decarbonization policies that disincentivizes gas in total.  The customer should see the offset on their monthly bill because that is the time most families are having to make decisions about home budgets. Any excess should enable the family to pay off the installed system and plan for obsolescence and maintenance. I have no direct expertise in this area but I am an engineer that has worked on various systems and done economic evaluations that look to scale small applications across a large system to increase efficiency.