Survey: Alaskans report high electric bills in Fairbanks, Kenai and rural communities; AK LNG support falls if state funding required

A joint presentation to the Alaska House Resources Committee on April 24 laid out statewide polling that shows substantial regional variation in energy affordability and conditional public support for the AK LNG pipeline.

"We had about 500 statewide respondents plus an oversample of about 100 in 2023, and in 2025 we again had roughly 600 respondents," said Gwen Holdman, chief scientist at the Alaska Center for Energy and Power, explaining the survey methodology and its limits. The Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska Anchorage co-led the work with ACEP; Diane Hirschberg (ISER) and Holdman presented their findings and cautioned that smaller regional subsamples should be treated as directional rather than definitive.

The polling finds large perceived electric bills in some non-urban areas: respondents in Fairbanks and parts of the Kenai Peninsula reported the highest shares saying monthly electricity exceeds $200. Holdman gave an illustrative Juneau effective rate of about 13.7¢ per kilowatt-hour and said some Kenai/Fairbanks locations currently see effective costs nearer 32¢/kWh.

Holdman also highlighted generation shifts that are driving higher local costs. "Right now we are burning in Fairbanks during the winter…about 250,000 gallons of diesel fuel per day," she said, contrasting that number with roughly 70,000 gallons per day across all of rural Alaska. Holdman attributed the northern diesel burn in part to constrained south‑central natural‑gas supplies and tighter gas contracts that have limited the intertie flow of cheaper gas-fired generation northward.

The presenters explained how the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program changes the distributional impact of retail rates across urban and PCE‑eligible communities and noted that many rural communities still pay unsubsidized, high per‑kilowatt‑hour rates.

Participants pressed for detail on regional sample sizes and chart clarity. Representative Elam asked specifically how many Kenai respondents the survey captured; Holdman said the 2025 survey had about 60–70 responses from the Kenai Peninsula and reiterated the limitation of drawing strong inferences from small regional n's. Holdman and Hirschberg said they would provide committee staff with updated slides and underlying data for follow-up.

The survey also asked about support for a statewide natural‑gas pipeline (AK LNG). "We saw a decrease of about 27% in support if there was the need for additional state investment," Holdman told the committee, adding that respondents’ support also weakened if they were told the pipeline would produce exports or if it did not lead to lower prices for consumers.

The presenters framed many numeric findings as estimates: the sample is described as somewhat convenience‑based, the diesel and bulk‑fuel impact calculations were presented as order‑of‑magnitude estimates, and the presenters repeatedly cautioned that subregional results should be verified with larger samples.

The committee requested follow-up data on borough- or community-level respondents and behavior changes tied to price signals. Committee staff will share the full slide deck and data links; the House Resources Committee will reconvene April 27, when House Bill 381 is scheduled to return to the committee.

Sources: Presentation by Diane Hirschberg (Institute of Social and Economic Research) and Gwen Holdman (Alaska Center for Energy and Power) to the Alaska House Resources Committee, April 24, 2026.