MEA Board Meeting, June 9, 2025
MEA Board Meeting, June 9th, 2025
Board members in attendance: Directors Bill Kendig, Mark Masteller, Anastasia Buretta, Mark Hamm, Arthur Keyes, Dan Tucker; Maxwell Sumner joins 2 minutes after meeting start in-person.
Acceptance of Agenda
Mark Masteller motions amending the agenda to move the E3 Wind study out of executive session to the general meeting. It is seconded by Director Buretta and the report is moved to the reports section of the agenda.
[Ed. note—During meeting, repeated mention is made about a letter concerning the Susitna-Watana dam project. The letter, signed by all 4 Railbelt cooperative CEOs, including MEA CEO Tony Izzo, was sent to the House Finance Committee on May 2, 2025. It urges the state to resume funding the studies needed to move the dam’s licensing process forward.]
Persons to be heard:
1 .Name: Connie Fredenberg
Comment: Member of MEA since 1995, making comment on the letter of support regarding Susitna-Watana. Connie used to work on TDX power who worked on Chakachamna. Connie suggests focusing on geothermal energy solutions and cites a recent talk on geothermal that was hosted by state officials and staff of GeoAlaska. Geothermal offers firm base load power without the environmental risks of these large hydro projects.
Bill Kendig replies: We have directed our staff to leave no stone unturned and that includes geothermal.
2. Name: John Robertson
Comment: Thanks for the opportunity. I have been a member for 25+ years and this is the first time I have made a comment to the board. I want to express concern for the letter that was sent regarding Su Dam. I disagree with my friend Connie about Chakachamna but my concerns with Su Dam is that it has historically absorbed so much attention and resources. We have spent 338 mil plus dollars, which with inflation is 426 mil for the same studies today. The project doesn’t have public support and detracts from cheaper projects like Chakachamna. In 2010 a report favored Chakachamna over Su dam but the state moved towards Su Dam and spent a ton of money there. We could have Chakachamna running right now for a lower cost. Su Dam is taking away from Shovel Creek, Little Mount Susitna (LMS), and other small renewable projects that could replace our natural gas demand.
3. Name: Ben Willis
Comment: I am a citizen concerned about the increasing demand for power in Cook Inlet. I read in Stars and Stripes that JBER is planning a large testing and training center with over 400 data servers. I am retired military, but are the utilities assessing these incremental demands as more of these sites come online? How do we prioritize these demands?
4 .Name: Colleen Al-Samarie
Comment: Member of MEA who lives in Wasilla and is concerned about the Su Dam letter. This expensive project could reshape our community and debt load at MEA. I am upset that we learned about this letter through the press. MEA acknowledges concern from Talkeetna residents but I am here to say that members outside of Talkeetna are also upset about the dam. MEA has worked to build trust and transparency. I ask that the board identify how it decided to send this letter and how it can work to involve members on these decisions.
5. Name: Willi Pritte
Comment: I have been a member for 25 years in Sunshine near Talkeetna. I am concerned about the return of the Susitna-Watana Dam. Billions are being spent in the lower 48 on removing dams. I’m not against hydro but damming a free-flowing salmon river is a bad idea and it is looking backwards at technology from 100 years ago at the same mistakes the Lower 48 has made.
6. Name: Mark Kay Robinson
Comment: MEA member in Wasilla from 20 years ago. Educating myself about the Su Dam and would like to share some resources on it including the Alaska Energy Authority website, the ARLIS, and GENA has information. I am not against hydro but I saw the degradation of the everglades growing up in south Florida. Once the dam is in, it destroys land that can’t be repaired. I thought it was uncalled for to cast the barb at Talkeetna in the press release by MEA because I live in Wasilla and I am also against the Su Dam.
7. Name: Dave Musgrave
Comment: MEA member owner calling again after the Annual Meeting with a shout out to Julie and Jennifer for streamlining info about the board meeting on the MEA website in response to my comments. I want to comment that I am also against Su Dam and that we should be using money on micro-hydro projects and the environmental damage is significant. The cost is also huge and gives me concern. I am an old guy who gets stuck in a rut but I believe MEA needs to get out of the rut and not do what we have always done in the past. I am a member of Mat-Su climate watch who asked about renewables 8 years ago before the natural gas crisis that we are now in. I would also like to see the board make a motion to move the meeting to 6p.m.instead of 4 p.m. to give more members the opportunity to attend.
Committee Reports
1. Committee: Finance Committee
Presenting: Director Mark Hamm
Met today to discuss an $80 million CFC [Cooperative Finance Corporation] approved credit facility, part of a $120 million package to increase capacity over the next 5-6 years.
Plan to implement another $40 million facility once the $80 million is spent.
Agreed to move the loan package forward and bring a resolution today to do so.
2. E3 Report
Presenting: Jon Sinclair
Brief overview of the E3 Wind Integration Study
Study was an economic study of Little Mt. Susitna (LMS) and Shovel Creek (proposed wind farms). It was done with Plexus modeling.
Assumptions included in the study were:
Wind resource with simulated data instead of MET Data
Capacity Factor of 42 for Shovel Creek and 46 for LMS which seemed pretty high
Assumes a single load balance area (LBA) which we do not currently have.
Tony Izzo comments that we have a single LBA with Chugach, but not with the rest of the Railbelt. This is not something that can be built easily, it would include over $1 billion in transmission upgrades. There is federal funding from GRIP that we have received to connect Kenai to us and it appears those funds have not been negatively impacted at the federal level yet. 10 years would be an aggressive timeline for implementing this.
Mark Masteller asks: I could not find the capacity factors in the report, I agree that they look high but could not find them in the report. I am under the impression that the utilities told E3 to make the report assuming a Single LBA, is that correct?
Jonathan Sinclair: I am not sure what the utilities asked aside from providing constraint data. The report overall really uncuffs the Railbelt from transmission constraints and contractual constraints and pushes the generation to its limits.
Mark Masteller: Comments that the report mentions power moving form Shovel Creek south should not be a problem and that the utilities did request the Railbelt be treated as having a Single LBA, so I am curious about if that is true.
Gas cost is also an assumption
CO2 reduction is also based on assumptions
Analysis of the projects based on these assumptions
Wind stimulated data was done at 5 minutes, which is fine for economics, but not great for stability and ramping data. We would want sub-minute data.
It doesn’t appear that this was MET tower data, but simulated data.
We anticipated capacity factors are more like 20-31% based on what we see from existing data from wind farms in Alaska.
We need sub-minute data to have appropriate regulation to keep stability when ramping events happen. The data they used which caused large ramping events on LMS, would need more study.
The report indicated using hydroelectric power, which has slow ramp rates and ais hard to regulate minute by minute, to provide regulation. The study is dependent on hydro to provide stability, which is a technical challenge.
We would need to implement batteries or spend on transmission to get stability.
Financial Challenges
Over $100 million a year in production [cost of power] cost savings, production is the highlight here.
This savings is in fuel, which doesn’t factor in transmission cost and capital costs, which are significant.
We need a full economic evaluation with capital and operating costs included. They weren’t sure the cost, so they could have made a guess, but the $100 million is very much just fuel savings so take those savings with a grain of salt.
Questions and Comments
Tony Izzo: Confirms that the utilities asked for a study with that assumed a Single LBA. I think the misconception is coming from the availability of federal dollars to eliminate constraints at the time of the study, which has shifted. I think depending on who reads the report makes an assumption of what the cost would be.
Mark Hamn: Who paid for the study?
Tony Izzo: MEA did help pay with the other utilities
Mark Hamm: Can the current BESS regulate the 2 wind farms?
Jon Sinclair: No, it is not large enough, it could sort of regulate Fire Island but significant regulation would be needed for these 2 projects.
Mark Masteller: It comes across to me that we are basically saying, this is a bad idea and that we don’t want to go down this path. The way we are working with Alaska Renewables is that they would bear the cost of capital and the interconnection cost and we would just buy power, correct?
Jon Sinclair: Yes, the study acknowledges that an IPP could come in and take some of the cost, so it is not in the economic analysis. The study just talks about fuel savings
Mark Masteller: The way we are talking about it here assumes that we would shouldering all of those costs, even though we would not be doing that, for $112 million in savings per year along with some O&M savings and our work that we are already doing on wheeling. The point is that we can make wind like this work with regulation in batteries or flywheels like Kodiak. We know how to engineer for these costs but the way it is being presented to us here suggests that we should drop the idea
Bill Kendig: If we add the cost of capital no matter who pays, it affects the cost of power no matter what right? Nothing is for free.
Jon Sinclair: That is true, an IPP would have to give us a cost per MWh, the report just gives us savings per fuel. The cost of gas is critical in the cost saving equation.
Tony Izzo: The cost of gas has been estimated by other reports and is unknown outside of the RCC contracts with HEX and currently is $12.50. We won’t have 3rd party reports and reservoir analysis to make a complete plan. You raise some great points, and I want to say that this is not off of our radar whatsoever. It is clearly front and center as an option. I am frustrated that a while ago we had better collaboration from Railbelt utilities on this, but this is just a way to give perspective of the challenges we are looking at in all these sources and not a reason to not do this anymore. In the context of the RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard] proposed this session, those of us in the utilities and technical side realize it is not feasible to get permits and capital to achieve that goal. Testimony on the RPS said that these 2 projects would meet RPS goals but doesn’t include the cost of transmission and limitations in GVEA systems, storage, etc. I like it because it is diversified, but it doesn’t triage our immediate fuel concern.
Mark Masteller: This would be a good reason for the utilities to write a letter to the congressional delegation supporting the federal tax credits for groups like Alaska Renewables.
Tony Izzo: Good point. APA is working on that with Murkowski already.
Jon Sinclair: It would be good to incorporate those costs because there are savings if you dig deeper but we need more clarity on the technical side.
Mark Masteller: That’s great but I think the utilities set these parameters that are holding the study back. Even if these projects don’t come online for 10 years, that doesn’t mean that we won’t need to conserve gas for things like heating. Let’s do what we can do now to conserve gas.
CEO’s Monthly Report:
1. Introduced Nathan Greene in his new role as the Senior Manager of Energy Transformation here today. He has been at MEA for a few years and its replacing Ed Jenkins.
2. There was a public comment about the JBER facility and I want to remind folks that JBER is managed by Chugach Electric (who took over there when they purchased ML&P). We don’t generate power for the base.
3. Susitna-Watana had a number of comments due to the letter that I signed. It was drafted by another utility, but I want to say that this comment is the only staff hours going to Susitna-Watana and it is not on our radar to solve any of our issues. We can’t afford it and we have no budgeted dollars for the project in the next year. It is not on our radar. I will take any questions on that.
Questions
Mark Hamn: Do we have any reports from the Sustainable Energy Conference?
Tony Izzo: We had some staff attend who could speak to it. We had a booth there but we didn't have a report.
Bill Kendig: It was all over the media while I was in DC and as we were talking to the Energy Department. It was a big talk of the country.
Arthur Keyes: If no hours are going to the Susitna-Watana letter from MEA, since we aren’t looking into it, does that mean that other utilities looking into it?
Tony Izzo: What I am comfortable saying in the public portion of the meeting is that 1 utility views this as the solution to a lot of things including less transmission. That doesn’t add up to me based on previous estimates but no we have no staff time dedicated to this. It would be a mega-project.
Mark Hamn: Trump freezes funds for back-up electrical transmission, does that involve the GRIP application and do we have an update?
Tony Izzo: The Department of Energy put a pause on those funds related to DEI but we have positive rumblings and are waiting for confirmation that those funds will be released to move forward on that second line from the Kenai. We have funds and matches in place so we won’t lose a construction season and can move forward.
Mark Masteller: It looks like the RCA is requiring MEA and Chugach Electric (CEA) to make informational filings on their power-pooling agreement. What do they want from us or are they just being onerous?
Bill Kendig: I want to expand on that, in the next paragraph it mentions a new analysis or documentation, is that what we are trying to do?
Tony Izzo: Yes, so being blunt, MEA has been very frustrated for years trying to get CEA to create a power pool as directed by the RCA. It is saving members millions across MEA and CEA, and you may recall that they violated the agreement with imprudent management practices and were required to reimburse MEA members 2 years ago. The commission required in their purchase of ML&P that CEA formalize this power pool to maximize efficiency. They became aware of a lack of progress on this and required CEA to provide monthly reports to the RCA to track progress. CEA would file individually, then MEA would have to follow-up since they didn’t want to file jointly. We found things in these reports that we wanted to correct for the commission and in recent months we are now filing the report jointly so the data will still be available in other ways than MEA filing separately.
Mark Masteller: Are we going to stop accepting applications for the EV time of use rate program?
Tony Izzo: We won’t stop, but our limiting factor is meters at this time.
Mark Masterller: This is a comment, but thanks to staff for meeting with Dave and making changes right away.
Tony Izzo: Thanks to Dave for his comments. We do anticipate bringing some additional proposals to the board for consideration on this matter, probably in July.
New Business:
1.Early Retirement of capital credits to estates—approved $29,428.57
Motion by Dir. Dan Tucker motions, Dir. Anastasia Buretta seconds. [Passed by unanimous consent]
2. Adopt Resolution 2171, approving a loan agreement with the Cooperative Finance Corporation (CFC) for a PowerVision loan of $80 million, to be drawn on over next 4 years. This is in addition to existing $5.5 million on existing PowerVision loan; another $40 million loan in future is part of total package of $125 million in capital to meet future needs. We need authorization so signing of loan documents can occur. We will close with an opinion of Consul as well afterwards.
Motion by Dir. Dan Tucker motions, Dir. Maxwell Sumner seconds [passed by unanimous consent]
Board Remarks
Dir. Mark Masteller: It was great to see staff at the [Governor’s Sustainable Energy] conference. I am more convinced than ever that we have options for clean power, including geothermal like Mount Augustine and ways to get away from long-term dependency on gas. The conference is no longer a “sustainable” energy conference, it is an energy conference focused on gas. I agree with the comments on S-W Dam, it just sucks the life out of thinking other ways. We have put so much money into it all the way back to the 80s and there are better ways to save money than investing in litigation. There were presentations on long-duration energy storage and geothermal. Not much on wind or solar.
Dir. Anastasia Buretta: Thank you to everyone who made comment and to staff who quickly replied to Mr. Musgrave.
Dir. Arthur Keyes: I think it is great that staff met with Dave and I am looking forward to seeing what comes out of that meeting. I am curious after what Mark just said, has MEA put any money into Susitna-Watana?
Mark Masteller: No, the state has put a lot of money in, but not MEA
Dir. Mark Hamn: Welcome to the team Nathan and thanks for the report on the conference Mark.
Dir. Dan Tucker: I wanted to go to the conference, but my wife needed sudden surgery. You are right about how much money being spent to study is appropriate. We spend too much time studying and arguing about projects instead of building them. It is an energy conference instead of a sustainable energy conference, but again we know what works. My comment on the E3 is what do these items cost compared to the $112 million saved? If they cost as much to install as saved, are we doing the right thing? It’s frustrating to see this elixir stir in a circle.
Dir. Bill Kendig: In DC, the departments and our delegation, there is a positive energy that things are going our way and the country realizes what we can do. The opposite of what I experienced last time.
Executive Committee:
Items to be discussed:
1. Strategic Project Progress
Left meeting at start of executive session.
Meeting notes submitted by Allie Sargent and the Susitna River Coalition.
