Well, AEA strikes again… after spending hours reviewing the draft Alaska Energy Master plan and sending in comments today by the deadline, I discovered that the AEA had a new draft out Friday, that they quietly attached to the agenda for today… it has a lot of things cleaned up, but wow – what a waste of my time looking at the original draft that was not ready for public review.

Here is the newer draft and comments from others received before today’s public meeting if you are interested – scroll down to the 10/24 meeting agenda materials. https://www.akenergyauthority.org/What-We-Do/Energy-Planning-Project-Development/Alaska-Energy-Security-Task-Force/Task-Force-Meeting-Schedule

Here is a summary of my comments pointing out some perceived inadequacies and lack of clarity based on the original draft.

Delays and Incompleteness: The initial task force plan required by May wasn’t delivered. The draft is not on track for an October 31 completion… but I would not be surprised if the AEA is rushing to push it out anyway. The current draft is missing substantial content, making it challenging to offer meaningful comments.

Restatement of Existing Policies: The plan mirrors current plans and policies, lacking innovation.

Lack of Detailed Strategies: Sections are either missing or only offer vague ideas and undefined “moonshot goals” without tangible outcomes.

AEA’s Self-Serving Plans: The plan advocates for AEA control of transmission capabilities and purchasing assets. The plan advocates for more AEA staff. (Let them keep buying ANWR oil leases…)

Unconnected Points: Certain areas, such as the Donlin Mine gas demand or cook inlet energy options, are not cohesively addressed. The plan has apparent contradictions, like increasing energy demand to reduce costs while also pushing for high-cost new supply projects (that will then need even more demand… in a shrinking state.)

Lack of Clear Goals: The plan needs more focused, measurable goals rather than broad statements, including a definitive greenhouse gas emissions reduction path aligned with national and international goals.

Scenarios for the Future: Recommends the plan to be based on potential scenarios like “Gas Dreams,” “Transformer,” “Slow Drain,” “Climate Winner,” and “1987.” These scenarios address potential futures, from gas line construction to climate leadership to potential economic downturns.

Need for a Genuine Master Plan: The current draft doesn’t fulfill the criteria of a “master plan.” There is good work being done in various areas of our state, but we need a more focused and innovative approach departing from the status quo with a vision toward a promising energy future for the state… not a road map to justify building the Gas Pipeline

Ky