House Energy Committee adopts substitute for HB 153, holds broad public testimony on renewable portfolio standard

The Alaska House Energy Committee on Thursday adopted the committee substitute (CS) for House Bill 153, a proposal to establish a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for utilities serving the Rail Belt, and opened an extended public testimony period with dozens of speakers both supporting and opposing the measure.

The committee, chaired by Co-chair Mears with Co-chair Representative Kai Holland present, adopted the substitute as a working document for continued consideration. "This committee substitute represents a lot of work...including utilities to understand the concerns that they have, with the renewable portfolio standards," Representative Kai Holland said as he moved adoption for purposes of discussion. Staff told the committee the CS had been circulated that afternoon and does not represent a final bill.

Why it matters: The CS alters target dates, credit rules and how noncompliance funds are handled—changes members and stakeholders said could affect whether utilities can meet standards and how ratepayers ultimately bear costs. Supporters said an RPS would attract independent developers, diversify generation and buffer Alaskans from volatile gas prices; opponents said the mandate risks higher bills, reliability problems and legal challenges.

Staff summary and key changes

Staff member Shana Kilcoyne reviewed the CS provisions for the record. She said the CS: extends the 40% RPS target date from 12/31/2030 to 12/31/2032; clarifies how a customer's produced and used energy is calculated (including a multiplier of 2); replaces the phrase "energy efficiency investments" with "investments in energy efficiency technologies" and allows investments through state-approved programs; renames "renewable energy credit" to "renewable portfolio credit" for credits relevant to Rail Belt load-serving entities; permits utilities to use noncompliance remittances to fund renewable projects and battery storage; sets spending deadlines for remitted funds tied to target thresholds; modifies several definitions (including adding "community energy facility" and widening the definition of renewable resource beyond fossil fuels); removes references to Power Cost Equalization (PCE) communities and the ability to count credits from PCE communities toward Rail Belt compliance.

Public testimony: split and extensive

The committee took two-minute public testimony from about two dozen callers and several in the room. Testimony split sharply.

Supporters, including Ben May (Alaska Solar), Mark Masteller (former UAF faculty), Chris Rose (Renewable Energy Alaska Project) and others, said an RPS would create market certainty, attract investment and help reduce dependence on imported liquefied natural gas. Ben May summarized a common theme: "This is a jobs bill. Essentially, residential and commercial, solar or other renewables in Alaska is built by Alaskans." Chris Rose told the committee an RPS would help utilities cooperate and bring competition to the Rail Belt.

Opponents raised cost, reliability and local-control concerns. Several testifiers argued wind and solar are intermittent or impractical for Alaska’s climate and geography, and said the state should prioritize local resources such as hydro, coal or natural gas. Marcus Moore, who identified himself as a lifelong Alaskan, told the committee: "This bill forces unreliable wind and solar energy under our grid, raising costs and risking energy stability for Alaskans." Multiple testifiers warned the measure could expose utilities or the state to legal risk and said local utility boards should retain the decision-making authority.

Questions, clarifications and follow-up directions

Committee members pressed staff and the sponsor on implementation details. Representative Rauscher asked whether noncompliance remittances ultimately stay with the utility or could be spent statewide; staff and the sponsor said remittances are intended to be used by the utility to advance renewable projects but that any unspent balance after prescribed periods would be remitted to the Alaska Renewable Energy Grant Fund administered by the Alaska Energy Authority. Kilcoyne said the CS replaces the word "fine" with "remittance" to distinguish this mechanism from standard fines collected by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA).

Members also requested legal clarification about whether funds remitted to the Renewable Energy Fund would require legislative appropriation or could be credited directly; staff said they would follow up with legal counsel. Representative Holland said the commission would have purview over the account used to hold remittances and that the bill was not intended to move money out of the utility sector except as specified.

Formal and procedural outcomes

- The committee adopted the committee substitute for House Bill 153 as a working document by unanimous voice/without objection for the purposes of continued discussion and public testimony.

- The committee kept public testimony open and limited speakers to two minutes for the day; members announced a planned continuation of public testimony at the committee's next scheduled meeting (April 15) and encouraged written testimony submitted to house.energy@akleg.gov. Staff said an amendment deadline will be set later and communicated to members.

What was not decided

No final vote on the bill itself or on specific statutory text occurred; the CS was adopted as a working document to guide further hearings and amendments. Committee members and staff repeatedly said the CS was not a final draft and that additional stakeholder input — including from utilities and from legislative legal counsel on appropriation mechanics — would be sought before further action.

Ending note

Committee leadership said the CS will come back for further hearings and that members and stakeholders would have more opportunities for written and oral input before any final committee or floor action.