“The proposal includes Renewable Energy Credits, a pseudo carbon tax wherein co-ops buy credits instead of building renewable projects; a wind-energy bonus multiplier of 1.25x for large projects; and a Fine reinvestment option to force renewable projects. This mandated energy transformation locks Alaskans into unreliable and politically favored renewables, whether the market (or the people) like it or not.”
For decades now, Alaska’s energy policy has come to be shaped not by the will of the people but by nefarious outside influence. The long track of intrusion has been led by climate activists and their NGOs (nongovernmental organizations).
Back in 2010, renewable energy targets were snuck into Alaska energy policy, laying the groundwork for today’s clamor for the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Most Alaskans don’t realize how much of this policy was written by and for self-interested, Leftie NGOs.
The same activist networks that roamed the halls of Juneau back then never left. These groups continue to steer government toward their ideological ends, co-opting Alaska’s representative republic in the process. None of this is organic; it’s the result of calculated pressure from groups that have little concern for Alaskans but plenty of appetite for power.
A Renewable Portfolio Standard is back on the agenda in Alaska for the third time. Gov. Mike Dunleavy backed the original version in 2022, and now Republicans are out of the majority.
Renewable Portfolio Standard #3
“An Act relating to generation of electricity from renewable energy resources; relating to a renewable portfolio standard; relating to power cost equalization; and providing for an effective date” (House Bill 153) was introduced by Rep. Ky Holland (I-Anchorage) on March 24, 2025. Per his presentation:
An RPS is a requirement on retail electric suppliers… to supply a minimum percentage or amount of their retail load… with eligible sources of renewable energy. HB 153 sets the following targets: 40 percent by 2030, 55 percent by 2035.
The 2023 RPS proposes 25 percent by 2027, 55 percent by 2035, and 80 percent by 2040. Currently, the Railbelt (the grid serving 85 percent of Alaska’s load) is only at 15 percent renewable. Hydropower dominates, suppling ~90 percent of the renewable electricity statewide in 2023. According to the sponsor, 40 percent by 2030 from 15 percent today is “modest,” and 55 percent is a “realistic” cap.
Although the legislation allows for hydropower, activists behind the bill have simultaneously called for the removal of the Eklutna Dam, which provides about 14 percent of the Railbelt’s total renewable share. With that, it becomes obvious what sources the co-ops will be forced to adopt: intermittent sources like wind and solar.
House Bill 153: Problems Aplenty
Then-candidate Holland was provided with information on just how unreliable wind can be when Alaskans need it the most. During the 2024 cold snap, wind at Fire Island fell to zero for a prolonged period, with the average at just 20.3 percent for the week—100 percent unreliable.
The legislation penalizes member-owned co-ops who fail to meet the targets with fines of $45/MWh, adjusted annually for inflation. The fine, as proposed in 2023, was $20/MWh, and while co-ops couldn’t technically recover it through rates, there was no realistic way for them to pay it otherwise. But this bill is completely different, and they don’t even try to hide it.
When asked by committee member Rep. George Rauscher about who pays the price, Shaina Kilcoyne, Holland’s staffer, admitted that “ultimately the ratepayer would pay.”
In a larger scale scenario, such as a hospital using 10,000-15,000 MWh/year, the fines at a 20 percent shortfall would be more than $100k annually. For residential homes, it is in the hundreds of dollars, and it only escalates for both as the push to electrify everything—heat pumps, EVs, public transit, industrial process heat. This does not include the intermittency factor or the higher cost of renewables themselves that the co-ops will undoubtedly need to increase your base rates to account for.
This proposal includes Renewable Energy Credits, a pseudo carbon tax wherein co-ops buy credits instead of building renewable projects; a wind-energy bonus multiplier of 1.25x for large projects; and a Fine reinvestment option to force renewable projects. This is a mandated energy transformation with sharp, big sticks aimed directly at ratepayers’ wallets. It locks Alaskans into unreliable and politically favored renewables, whether the market (or the people) like it or not.
Activists, Operatives, Dark Money
The credit for the RPS legislation this round goes to staffer Kilcoyne, who presented the sectional analysis to the House Energy Committee on April 1, 2024. Kilcoyne co-led the implementation of the Anchorage Climate Action Plan under Mayor Ethan Berkowitz. She is listed as the Energy Transition Program Director for the Alaska Venture Fund. Alaska Venture Fund is a project of the New Venture Fund, the flagship nonprofit of the many organizations managed by Arabella Advisors. The Alaska project received $10 million in 2021 from the Bezos Earth Fund to advance former President Joe Biden’s unconstitutional Justice40 in Alaska.
No surprise, the same old cheerleaders for past RPS bills were invited by the committee for testimony. This included blogger Erin McKittrick who is on the board of REAP and the Chief Energy Officer from Hawaii, plus one new recruit: Alaska Public Interest Research Group, AKPIRG.
AKPIRG claims to be Alaska’s only non-governmental, nonpartisan consumer advocacy group- yet they testified in support of the RPS. Hard to imagine a bigger hypocrisy: backing a policy that punishes ratepayers and consumers. The claim of nonpartisanship made during testimony, as well as in the written presentation, is especially interesting.
The presenter, Energy Lead Natalie Kiley-Bergen, is a registered Democrat. Their website dons a land acknowledgment and states that they use the Jemez Principles for Democratic Organizing, used exclusively by anti-capitalist radical environmental justice groups that promote fossil fuel bans.
According to their 2024 report, this “nonpartisan” group proudly celebrated a four-month sabbatical for their executive director and locked in a permanent four-day workweek, complete with a paid wellness day every single week. Apparently, dismantling the economy is exhausting work, even for the nonpartisan crowd. Proudly displayed in their 2024 annual report is the list of donors, the typical blend of left-wing policy, climate, and electoral influence networks. The climate and energy transition funders include the 11th Hour Project, Hopewell Fund and Tortuga Foundation. The Hopewell Fund is also part of the Arabella Advisors network.
Grand Deception
For years, Alaska’s RPS was pushed by activists and policymakers as a solution to climate change. But as skepticism has grown—especially during the Trump administration, which is now actively pulling the rug out from under the climate agenda and slashing Green New Deal funding—the same players have simply shifted tactics. With the climate narrative losing traction in Alaska, they’re now repackaging the RPS as a response to dwindling Cook Inlet gas reserves and the supposed threat of expensive gas imports. Biden’s U.S. Department of Energy helped them with that.
It’s the same mandate, just a new fear campaign, swapping the “climate crisis” for a “gas crisis” to force through costly, unreliable energy policies driven by far-left climate NGOs.
This is the trap of an “all of the above” energy approach. Dunleavy has repeated this mantra multiple times. This approach is an excuse for doing a little bit of everything and none of it well. Enormous amounts of state resources and effort were poured into Energy Security Task Forces and Sustainable Energy Conferences. There was even a technical committee stood up by former Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson to advise the Southcentral Alaska Mayors on the gas crisis. A report on their investigations has yet to be issued. The net result for Alaska is centralized planning, green banks, carbon capture and RPS mandates designed to force wind and solar onto the grid.
Alaska needs leadership that stops hiding behind “all of the above” and moves to all of the sensible instead. Last September, I suggested an RPS to Holland when he was running for office, a Reliable Portfolio Standard. But here he is now, pushing the complete opposite—backing a policy that guarantees unreliability and skyrocketing costs. Alaska deserves power that works, not politics that don’t.
HB 153 Hearing
Public testimony on HB 153 was held April 10. Public testimony clearly rejected the RPS. Ratepayers came out in force, and most speakers were firmly against. Everyday Alaskans made it clear they don’t want unreliable energy forced on our grid.
Meanwhile, nearly all the support of the RPS came from those set to financially profit from the bill, led by Chris Rose of Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP), who conveniently got over three minutes to make his pitch compared to our two. It was heartening to see the citizens do so well against the 15-staffed REAP and other government and Left environmental organizations out to have Big Brother implement bad energy policies.
Looking Ahead
The Committee claimed there will be more hearings next week, but nothing is scheduled yet. The bill still has to move through House Resources and House Finance after Energy. Unfortunately, those committees are dominated by Leftists, and with the majority lost in 2024, the bill is likely to pass.
The thin hope is that the governor feels the heat given Trump’s latest executive orders. Signing the bill would be political suicide given the replacement of the Biden regime. But we know Dunleavy’s game — if he doesn’t veto, and simply lets it sit for 20 days, it becomes law quietly.
The governor has the Sustainable Energy Conference at the end of legislative session for a reason, and Shaina Kilcoyne, who carried this bill, is a speaker (coincidence?). Alex Epstein and Daniel Turner are featured speakers as well.
One very important point raised in testimony: Rep. Holland is a conflicted lawmaker. He’s a founding member of Alaska Version 3, an organization dedicated to moving Alaska away from its oil economy and into renewable mandates. As they put it in 2021:
Ky wanted to start a conversation about Alaska’s future…. Recognizing that its oil economy has beneficially driven state growth, but is now in a mature state and can no longer sustain us. What comes next?
The answer, clearly, is this bill — and it serves his ideological agenda, not Alaska’s energy security.
Speak out. Letters and opinions can be emailed to House.Energy@akleg.gov
———————
Kassie Andrews is an energy expert on Alaskan politics and resource development. A lifelong Alaskan, her career in energy has involved project management, construction, and finance. Her prior analyses from a free-market perspective can be found here.
Wind and solar can’t replace anything it only duplicates FF because solar doesn’t function 75% of the time, and wind doesn’t function 60% of the time. Battery storage for more than 4 hours of the full output of any wind or solar array is forever, yes, forever too expensive. It’s not a matter of someday new and better battery technology, it’s the limits of chemistry, physics and thermodynamics
.
Four hours of battery storage doubles the cost of wind and solar but would reduce the non-delivery percent 4 hours/24 hours = 17% so solar would be unavailable 75%-17% =58% of the time, wind 60% -17% = 43 % of the time. If constructed in equal amounts the combined unavailability would be 58% +43%/2= 101/2= 50% of the time, truly a half-a**** way to provide power. But keep in mind a week or so of cloudy/calm weather happens, so conventional backup would still be required.
Anyone who endorses wind and solar is either less than wise, or mendacious, seriously so. N2N, Natural Gas to Nuclear with factory assembled, semi-trailer delivered small scale modular reactors to the job site for plug and play. SMR isn’t the best future alternative, it’s the only one. None of this is complicated.
Story Tip:
Project to suck carbon out of sea begins in UK
Yeah, sure
Yikes! Covering the ocean with solar farms is going to help?
This is plain stupid! In the ocean the proportions of CO2-HCO3^1-CO3^2 is 0.5-89-10.5. The
pH of the oceans is ca. 8.1 and is maintained by the bicarbonate-carbonate buffer. CO2 from the air that is absorbed by ocean water, is rapidly converted to bicarbonate. The low level of CO2 is due to its removal by phytoplankton (i.e., alga), seas weeds and grasses, and kelp.
These guys acidify water which converts bicarbonate and carbonate anions to CO2 which removed by purge of air. The acidified ocean water is neutralized with base.
All the carbon in the plants and animals in the oceans comes from CO2 in the air and from underwater vents and volcanoes.
Presently, one cubic meter of air contains a mere 0.8 g of CO2. We really do not have to worry about CO2.
I’ve been to Alaska four times, three times working (mining exploration) and once for a guided caribou hunt. In all of my four visits I never met any Alaskan that had any patience with government interference of any sort. Although this lurch to the left should be dismissed sooner rather than later, why does Alaska keep electing Senator Lisa Murkowski (RINO)?
“why does Alaska keep electing Senator Lisa Murkowski (RINO)?”
That’s what I would like to know, too.
Alaska’s voters must like a Republican that votes with radical Democrats.
Funny how some of the countries and states most associated with individualism, toughness, and innovation– Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Alaska, California–have become the home of docile, follow-the-leader, con artist marks and pseudo-intellectuals.
I too spent quite a bit of time working in Alaska. My friends in Fairbanks would be very happy if one of the (proposed) natural gas pipelines followed the current pipeline from the North Slope so they could tap into the same natural gas that we here in the lower 48 enjoy.
About 25% of Alaska’s registered voters are Republicans, with 13% Democrats and the remaining 62% either undeclared or minor party independents. Typically, undeclared and independent voters lean conservative and tend to vote Republican.
Frank Murkowski was an Alaska senator from 1981 until 2002 when he became governor and immediately appointed his daughter, Lisa, to replace him. Accusations of nepotism aside, she was elected in 2004 and continues to be reelected. Bottom line: the Murkowski name is deeply rooted in Alaska politics making it extremely difficult for a challenger from any party to unseat her.
This task is nearly impossible now after Alaskans approved ranked choice voting in 2022 by only about 3500 votes as I recall. The change to RCV was heavily backed with $millions spent by left-leaning groups from outside Alaska.
With RCV, Voters rank their choices by preference, with votes being counted in rounds. If a candidate wins over 50% in the first round, it’s over. If not, round two starts with the candidate who got the fewest votes in the first round being eliminated. If the eliminated candidate was your vote then your next choice gets your vote in this round. In Alaska, rounds continue until two candidates are left and the one with the most votes wins. Unless a candidate has a magic wand to hypnotize voters, good luck defeating Lisa with RCV.
Good comments, muskox2. Sounds like you’re from Alaska? The famous inventor of the Intelligiant (hydraulic cannon with recoil cancelling design, now used by fire departments, etc) Jon Miscovich, from Flat, Alaska, showed me how to use a hydraulic monitor on rocky materials: “cut with high-speed and transport with high volume”. Summer of 1967 (yes, I was in the Fairbanks flood).
“All of the above” energy makes sense in some places like the US SouthWest.
If you can sell solar panels to Alaskans I guess selling refrigerators to Eskimos must be a piece of cake. What’s the capacity factor during the winter? At least they should be able to get good wind energy if they put the turbines in the Aleutians – I hear that the winds there regularly take the doors off vehicles.
Why would anyone in Alaska be worried about a couple of degrees of warming anyway? Gas supply issues? – drill-baby-drill.
Number one hydro should never be counted as renewable, without hydro renewables (wind and solar) amount to nothing. Reaching even a ten percent renewable mandate would be impossible.
Number two buying credits in lieu of not achieving a mandate must be outlawed. Credits allow no nothing councils to demand targets everybody knows can’t be achieved. Remove credits and only achievable mandates can be required.
Number three if a power company can’t achieve the mandated renewable percentage it should cut its non renewable production to stay in compliance. I’m sure after a few days or weeks of brownouts or blackouts a new lower mandate will be considered, or they could come to their senses and remove mandates. Either way we win they lose.