Issue FAQs
Campaign space is often limited— a 200 word candidate statement, a one minute speech.
In addition to these things, candidates receive a handful of questionnaires from interested groups that follow our elections, and sometimes those too have word limits. Many of the questions are the same or overlap a bit.
This isn’t a comprehensive list of every question I’ve filled out for every survey—and I’ve merged an
answer or two from multiple surveys. It is a list of important questions that provide you with a
greater perspective on my stance on the issues.
Why are you running for the board?
I am passionate about local government and public power.
Our issues are interesting and very important. In the next four years CEA will face important
decisions regarding gas supply, infrastructure investments, generation, and Railbelt decision
making that will greatly impact the utility’s direction for decades.
In the past 8 years as a CEA board member, I have worked hard to understand the organization and the industry, learned from our members and partners, and built relationships that will help CEA increase our resiliency and ability to serve our members well moving forward. I believe I can continue to add
value to the board through service for another term.
What do you think are the biggest challenges
facing CEA over the next 5-10 years?
What can be done to prepare to meet them?
Chugach has significant generation-related issues: secure, affordable long-term gas supply is critical for Chugach, as is the ability to develop acceptable hydroelectric projects in time to take advantage of tax credits, and to continue adapting our generation mix to reduce our carbon footprint.
CEA must also look for ways to grow load as a means to keep our rates affordable and look to control costs as current load declines and increasing costs negatively impact rates.
Finally, the Railbelt utilities, including CEA, must work together for a successful Railbelt Reliability Council and Railbelt Transmission Organization.
What area would you change regarding how the utility operates and why?
I believe CEA can do a better job of engaging with our members and the public. I would like to see us do more open houses, issue focused community forums, and meet and greet events in our service territory. I think we can increase our interactions with stakeholder groups and potential partners on a variety of issues and work together more on mutual concerns including legislative agendas.
What is your view on the type
of board discussions that should be held in executive session and those
that should be open to the public?
Most board discussions should be held in open session.
Executive session should be narrowly reserved only for very specific circumstances outlined in Alaska Statute 10.25.175 regarding sensitive matters in finance, HR, and legal.
The board should be clear about why executive sessions are necessary when they are called and provide a brief high-level summary after each executive session. There must be a clear reason that follows statute for the executive session.
The 2023-2027 Strategic Plan
states Chugach Electric will "reduce its carbon by at least 35% by 2030 and at least 50% by 2040 using 2012 as a baseline year without a negative material impact on Chugach members' rates."
Do you agree with the goals and timelines as stated in the strategic plan?
Do you have policy and project suggestions for how continued emissions reductions can be achieved?
I agree with these goals. During the August 2025 board meeting that was part of our annual strategic planning session, the board of directors was presented with a “Roadmap to 2040” that provided a strategy for reaching these goals.
That plan is iterative and we receive regular updates at operations committee meetings and board meetings. Our last update was at the January board meeting (1/28/26). The plan includes beneficial electrification and energy conservation, grid development, small scale hydro, and regional wind and solar projects.
By moving forward on multiple fronts with smaller scale renewable projects and energy
conservation efforts, we can make progress from now until 2040. This is a better strategy than trying for several large projects that currently have economic and reliability challenges given their scale.
Would you support a renewable portfolio standard
that requires utilities to meet certain
renewable energy goals?
I'm not fundamentally opposed to an RPS/DPS. We should have utility specific and Railbelt specific RPS/DPS goals that are public and for which the utilities are responsible for reporting progress.
I'm not sure excessive and steep penalties are the right economic driver to bring about long-term price stability and reliably increase renewable generation when such penalties
could provide bias for wind and solar, which are variable power and have shorter life cycles over hydro power, which has a very long life cycle, is dispatchable and has stable pricing, but a significant up front project cost and timeline.
The utilities should develop the best long-term generation mix. Dispatchable generation needs to be developed along with variable generation opportunities.
If you look at the integrated resource plan CEA has adopted, you'll see mix of solar,
wind, battery, and hydro power, in increasing quantities balanced with our gas generation.
Hilcorp has stated that it cannot guarantee
providing natural gas after 2027.
How will you go about identifying and executing a response to the natural gas shortage crisis that takes sustainability, cost, and reliability into effect?
We are working on several fronts, closely managing our 2/3 working interest in the Beluga gas field, working on a short-term solution to important natural gas, with minimal infrastructure investment, while we aggressively pursue increasing our access to gas storage and renewable generation.
What mechanism(s) would you endorse and advocate for
to create a more stable cost, affordable energy
system on the Railbelt?
We know that our best investment in stable cost, affordable energy for the Railbelt has been Bradley Lake hydro. We need to be exploring other hydroelectric projects, especially now as they are still eligible for federal tax credits if construction begins by 2033. I support CEA’s current exploration of four projects that will add 52 megawatts in generation.
In addition, I support CEA’s current work to complete smaller scale solar projects. Now is also the time for these projects as solar can still take advantage of tax credits if construction starts by early July 2026.
We all understand the need to be less reliant on natural gas generation. I support maintaining a focus on the regional planning efforts that are going to allow for greater planning and dispatch on the Railbelt as well as the development of renewable projects based on the locations that make sense for the assets and the entire Railbelt, agnostic to service territory location.