Alaska Tribal Solar for All is sponsored by Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC). Supports Tribes in project management, design, and construction of community-scale solar and battery systems to address energy inequities in Alaska Native communities.

# ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY # PROGRAM NARRATIVE 1ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL # Program Strategy Narrative There are two distinct grid categories in the State of Alaska: Railbelt and remote. The majority of the state’s population (70%) resides in urban areas of what’s known as the Railbelt. The remaining 30% of the population reside in isolated rural communities served by independent utilities.

This relatively small interconnected electrical system is home to significant Department of Defense assets, tribal governments, highly diverse populations, and a remarkable variety of carbon and non-carbon energy resources. Alaska’s Railbelt is serviced by five electric utilities (four cooperatives and one municipal utility) and is an interconnected grid that loosely follows the route of the Alaska Railroad.

The State of Alaska, through the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), owns significant transmission and generation infrastructure on the Railbelt system. The residents and businesses along the Railbelt consume approximately 80% of the state’s electricity across a service area similar to the distance from West Virginia to Maine. On an annual basis, the Railbelt generates approximately 4800 GWh.

Interconnection between regions is by single transmission lines, which limits economic transfers and negatively affects system resiliency. The opportunity for residential solar is high in this market. The remaining 30% of the state’s population resides in over 200 rural and tribal communities and rely on local and regional power generation, and over 100 isolated and independent utilities provide those services.

Most rural Alaska communities are only accessible by plane or marine vessel, with over half classified by the Denali Commission as distressed communities . Alaska’s solar program offers an opportunity to reduce entry barriers for underserved Alaskans, enabling them to enjoy the advantages of residential rooftop solar along the Railbelt, and community-based solar in rural Alaska.

The collaborative approach between AEA and the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) will result not only in lower energy costs for disad - vantaged Alaskans, but it will also provide access to critical resilience assets in rural Alaska.

Further market analysis will be conducted in the first year’s planning effort, including focusing on residential-serving distrib - uted solar and storage deployment, and the participation of low-income and disadvantaged households. While Alaska is data-poor, there are program models that have been used effectively and that experience is described below. FIGURE 1: Solar resource comparison of Alaska and Germany (NREL).

2ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL Despite having a solar insolation value similar to Germany (Figure 1), Alaska has not fully embraced solar energy as a widespread source of power.

With 19 MW of solar installed at the end of 2022, according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), the state ranked 49th in total The high-level results of a 2016 NREL analysis indicate there are plausible scenarios in which photovoltaic (PV) can be economically competitive with diesel fuel prices at low PV penetration levels.

In this analysis, the cases where PV appears economically competitive generally requires a combination of (1) high diesel fuel prices (at least 40 cents/kWh), (2) relatively low, for Alaska, PV prices (approximately $6 to $9 per W installed), (3) relatively high, for Alaska, solar production levels (capacity factor of nearly 10% or higher), and (4) the ability to make use of economically valuable tax benefits provided by the federal government.

Solar development is likely favorable for other Alaskan villages, not considered in this analysis, but have a similar combination of Solar projects accounted for 2% of investment in Alaska in renewable energy between 2010 and 2020, including the state’s first utility-scale solar farms constructed in Healy and Willow.

Solar generation in the spring and fall is often impressive in northern latitudes where clear skies, cool temperatures, dry air, and bright, reflective snow all support solar generation. Solar PV systems can exceed their rated output during these times of year.

A good example is the Native Village of Hughes, a community of 85 people located on the Koyukuk river accessible only by boat or plane, which recently installed a 120 kW solar PV system to help advance the community’s renewable energy goal of 50% by 2025. In 2022, the Native Village of Hughes generated 500 MWh with diesel and 8. 7 MWh through solar.

The 8. 7 MWh of solar power saved the community $21,353 in diesel costs. Alaska’s solar market is relatively immature compared to many other states.

Alaska ranks 52nd out of the 56 States and Territories in both total Solar Jobs and Solar Jobs per Capita and 49th in installed solar capacity. 1 In 2022, only 0. 2% of the state’s electricity was from solar with an installed capacity of 19 MW.

That’s enough to power 2,281 of Alaska’s approximately 329,285 Alaska’s solar installation rate has steadily increased over the years. Before 2018, the yearly installation was less than 1 MW. In both 2019 and 2020, it rose to over 4 MW, before the effects of COVID-19 shutdowns slowed the pace of installation.

Per IREC’s Solar Job Census, 2 Alaska > FIGURE 2: Alaska Annual Solar Installations ( https://www. seia. org/state-solar-policy/alaska-solar ).

3ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL has 74 total solar jobs and 14 solar companies, with a growth projection over the next five years of 2. 8%. Overall costs to install solar infrastructure decreased by 43% in the past decade.

The chal - lenge of Alaska’s high latitude, resulting in extended periods of limited solar exposure during long, dark winters, presents challenges as well as opportunities for program implementation. 1. Market-wide historical deployment rates The Alaska Energy Authority has a strong understanding of the market for community solar, having funded through 15 rounds of its Renewable Energy Fund Program (REF).

In its most recent round (16), six of 31 applications were for solar projects and totaled over $8 million. Through REF funding, multiple projects have proven the effectiveness of solar energy in rural Alaska. A good example is the hybrid solar + storage microgrid 3 supporting the residents of Shungnak, a remote community above the Arctic Circle in Alaska.

Funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB), the microgrid addressed the numerous challenges of operating in extreme conditions and break the community’s dependence on its expensive diesel generator power plant. The microgrid’s 225-kW solar array can offset much of Shungnak’s energy needs, while battery systems each store excess energy for later use.

Uniquely designed to enable a “diesels off” operation, the system automatically coordinates between solar and energy storage to ensure lowest cost power and communicates with the utility’s power plant about the best times to turn diesel genera - tion off.

The microgrid is expected to save 25,000 gallons of fuel per year and an estimated $200,000 per year on fuel costs, based on $7 to $8 per The Alaska Center for Energy and Power (ACEP) produced a map of installed solar in communi - ties across the state, tracked by its Solar Technologies Program 4, which helps this project identify current locations to scale and a visualization of market need. 2.

Participation of low-income and disadvantaged households and communities AHFC is an independent statewide agency working to provide access to safe, quality, affordable housing, which has achieved success in engaging and partnering with underserved and disad - vantaged communities across the state. Specifically, AHFC’s experience with its weatherization programs led to positive outcomes for these communities.

AHFC, working with and through its Weatherization Assistance Program partners, increased the energy efficiency of 20,917 low income or disadvantaged homes between 2008 and 2018. This is when the program received a high amount of State funding due to high oil prices. • The average affected household experienced a 29% reduction in energy consumption.

• 42% of participating households were outside of urban centers. • 38% of households were comprised of at least one Alaska Native member. > FIGURE 3: Solar installation across Alaska (ACEP).

4ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL • 34% included an elderly member and 24% included a child younger than age six. • Median household income for participants was $28,263. Since 2018, with state and federal funding, AHFC’s weatherization program continued its work annually 200-300 benefiting low-income and disadvantaged households.

## Output and Outcome Targets Based on their experience in delivering projects in Alaska and past program deployment rates, AEA and AHFC have worked together to determine the following output and outcome targets for Community Solar and Residential Solar. The justification for achieving these targets is outlined under Underlying Methodologies, Data, Inputs and Assumptions . 1.

The megawatts of solar capacity deployed over time (both as an absolute number of megawatts of solar deployed and dollars of award funding requested per megawatts of solar): • Residential: 10. 38 MW | Community: 3. 91 MW • Total: 14.

29 MW deployed, $6,995,828 award funding requested per MW deployed. 2. Megawatt hours of storage capacity deployed over time (both as an absolute number of megawatt hours of storage deployed and dollars of award funding requested per megawatt • Residential: N/A | Community: 5.

712 MWh • $17,507,003 per MWh storage deployed. 3. The number of households projected to benefit from the solar program (both as an absolute number of households and award funding requested per household); • Residential: 2,596 households | Community: 3,504 households • Total: 6,100 households, $16,393 funding per household.

4. Short tons of annual carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions avoided over time (both as an abso - lute number of tons of CO 2 reduced and dollars of award funding requested per tons of CO 2 • Residential CO 2 avoided: 8,137 tons/yr, 244,102 tons over 30-year life. • Community CO 2 avoided: 3,065 tons/yr, 91,956 tons over 30-year project life.

• Total CO 2 avoided: 11,202 tons/yr, $8,927 award funding per ton per year. – 336,060 tons avoided over 30-year life, $297 award funding per ton CO 2 avoided. 5.

Absolute amount of household savings realized over time (both as an absolute number of dollars saved and dollars of award funding requested per dollars of household savings). • Residential: 42%, $49,849,977 over 30 years. • Community: 39.

8% $40,004,160 over 30 years. • Total: $1. 11 of award funding per dollars household savings (over 30 years) # 2.

Meaningful Benefits Plan ## Delivering Meaningful Benefits The project team has utilized a variety of tools to thresholds of burden faced by project communities and households. CEJST and EPA’s EJScreen identify areas in Alaska that are overburdened or under - served, consistent with Solar for All guidance, which will direct Alaska’s program investments.

This is generally consistent with where Power Cost Equalization (PCE) communities fall in AEA’s 10 rural energy regions (which are geographically dispersed), where high cost is relative to an average of three urban communities. Community solar will focus on eligible projects in rural communities that are considered disadvantaged or Tribal.

Disadvantaged communities within the Railbelt will be eligible, 5ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL where residential solar might be a more viable option. AEA’s review of the CEJST produces a map of Alaska that indicates the majority of the State’s eligibility to qualify as disadvantaged.

This is further enhanced by the White House Executive Order identifying all Tribal lands as disadvantaged, which applies to almost all of The table below demonstrates for relevant census areas and boroughs (county equiva - lent), their FIPS identification for reference, population, Rural status according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), their Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), whether they are Areas of Persistent Poverty (APP) according MAP 1: CEJST Mapping Tool - Alaska Disadvantage City/Borough FIPS* Pop.

Rural Aleutians East Borough 2013 3,515 Yes Moderate to High No Yes No Aleutians West Census Area 2016 5,723 Yes Low to Moderate No Yes No Bethel Census Area 2050 18,216 Yes High Yes Yes Yes Bristol Bay Borough 2060 877 Yes Low to Moderate No No Yes Valdez- Cordova Census Area 2063 9,202 No Low to Moderate No No Yes Denali Borough 2068 2,059 Yes Low No Yes Yes Dillingham Census Area 2070 5,000 Yes High No Yes Yes Haines Borough 2100 2,474 Yes Low No No Yes Hoonah- Angoon Census Area 2105 2,151 Yes Low to Moderate No No Yes Ketchikan Gateway Borough 2130 13,918 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Kodiak Island Borough 2150 13,345 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Kusilvak Census Area 2158 8,049 Yes High Yes No Yes Lake and Peninsula Borough 2164 1,587 Yes High No No Yes Nome Census Area 2180 10,008 Yes High No Yes Yes North Slope Borough 2185 9,872 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Northwest Arctic Borough 2188 7,671 Yes High No Yes Yes Wrangell- Petersburg Census Area 2195 5,910 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Prince of Wales – Hyder Census Area 2198 6,422 Yes High No No Yes Sitka 2220 8,458 Yes Low to Moderate No No No Skagway 2230 1,240 Yes Low No Yes No Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 2240 6,918 Yes Moderate to High No Yes Yes Wrangell 2275 2,127 Yes Moderate to High No No Yes Yakutat 2282 662 Yes Moderate to High No Yes No Yukon- Koyukuk Census Area 2290 5,327 Yes High Yes No Yes 6ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL to United State Department of Transportation (USDOT), whether they are Difficult to Develop Areas (DDA) according to Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and whether the Denali Commission considers communities within Distressed.

AEA will conduct an equity assessment as part of project identification and as part of the award process. This will include reviewing available datasets to ensure distribution of project benefits to 40% disadvantaged communities and to structure the project for sponsors and contractors to imple - ment strategies that maximize equitable benefits. Rural Alaska faces some of the highest energy costs in the nation.

Most of Alaska’s rural commu - nities are islanded microgrids and rely on diesel power generation.

Program benefits will vary substantially across the state, contingent on several factors such as solar resource availability (determined by project’s geographic location), ease of site accessibility (whether the community is road-accessible or if materials need to be transported by air or barge), and the level of complexity associated with incorporating the system into the existing diesel microgrid.

Given the geographically dispersed locations of Alaska’s rural communities, electric rates are frequently three to five times greater than those incurred by customers residing in urban areas of the state.

AEA, along with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA), administers the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program to provide economic assistance and reduce the effective electric rates for rural consumers to be comparable to in urban areas of the state.

The PCE program serves 82,000 Alaskans in 193 communities that are largely reliant on diesel fuel for power generation, providing payments to households in high-cost energy communities to effectively lower residential energy costs, up to 750 kWh per month.

Savings from residential solar in a PCE community would be applied to their PCE benefit and would have no impact on a homeowner’s effective utility bill, making residential solar more challenging in these communities. The project team recognizes constraints to solar implementation based on previous work in these communities, including that many houses in rural Alaska may not be suitable for rooftop solar.

The necessary upgrades are prohibitively expensive and would quickly run up to the utility’s limit of 6% of nameplate capacity of the grid coming from solar generation. However, these constraints have been successfully managed for community solar and battery projects in rural Alaska.

The model that has been successfully deployed in Alaska and is the planned model for the Community portion of this program is the community owned Independent Power Producer (IPP) model. This model aims to build a community owned Solar PV array with battery storage, operated by a commu - nity owned IPP. The community owned IPP will sell power to the local utility through a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).

Revenue from the sale of power from the utility will fund operations and maintenance (O&M) of the asset, and excess funds will be distributed back to the community as a diesel avoidance payment, 20% of the average house - hold’s electric bill.

FIGURE 4: 193 PCE Communities that AEA works with monthly 7ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL This community owned solar PV plus battery integrated into the existing microgrid model has been successfully implemented in Shungnak-Kobuk, which was a grand prize winner of the Sunny Award for equitable community solar.

The community owned IPP model is the best method to increase access to the benefits of solar in rural Alaska and delivers on all five of the meaningful benefits targeted in Solar for All. • Benefit 1: Delivering a minimum 20% of household savings to program beneficiaries. – Residential Program: On the Railbelt, residential electric rates average $0.

22/kWh. Under the assumed base case 4kW rooftop solar array, in this program, an average household can expect to save $640 annually, or 42% of annual electric bill. – Community Program: With the above described IPP model, preliminary estimates based on past projects indicate that households will receive diesel avoidance cost benefits equivalent to 40% of their effective electric bill.

• Benefit 2: Increasing low-income and disadvantaged households’ access to solar through financing products and deployment options. – Residential Program: Solar deployment in Alaska has remained largely out of reach for low- income and disadvantaged communities. This program will have no match requirements for qualifying households, significantly lowering the barrier to entry.

The program will aim to reduce the administrative burden as much as possible for these households through simple applications and net-metering permits handled by the installers similar to the approach AHFC took with its COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance and Homeowner Assistance Fund programs.

– Community Program: The IPP deployment option allows disadvantaged communities in rural Alaska to realize the benefits of solar and battery storage. • Benefit 3: Increasing resiliency and grid benefits by creating capacity that can deliver power to low-income and disadvantaged households and/or critical facilities serving low-income and disadvantaged households during a grid outage.

– Community Program: Many Rural Alaska communities rely on outdated infrastructure past its useful life and are subject to frequent power outages, especially during fall and winter storms. The importance of reliable energy in Rural Alaska cannot be overstated. Short outages can have drastic detrimental impacts to the well-being of a community.

Water and sewer distribution systems can quickly freeze up in the winter months. If power generation isn’t quickly restored, residents can go the entire winter without access to clean water and working sewer system in their homes. Community-owned battery backup generation can greatly reduce the frequency and severity of these events.

• Benefit 4: Facilitating ownership models that support low-income households and communities building equity in projects. – Community Program: The community IPP model has proven to work well in Alaska, and one of the critical aspects is that the solar array is community-owned. The power produced will be sold to the utility, and the revenue generated will be dispersed to the community and back into the project for O&M.

Having the community own the asset allows residents to receive Power Cost Equalization (PCE) while still seeing a direct positive impact of havingsolar in the community. Alaska’s Solar for All program will score and evaluate proposals for commu - nity-based solar, and one of the criteria will be the use of local hire labor.

Hiring local labor to build a community solar array encourages pride and ownership of the asset and develops a local workforce to have the skills to perform routine O&M tasks. This is particularly important in Rural Alaska. Flying a technician can be a prohibitively expensive and lengthy process.

• Benefit 5: Investing in quality jobs and businesses fits under the Administration’s Good Jobs Principles and Executive Order 14082 (Implementation of the Energy and Infrastructure Provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022).

The following Job 8ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL Creation describes the project’s approach to this benefit for both the Residential and The project team is committed to fostering safe, healthy, and inclusive workplaces with equal opportunity, free from harassment and discrimination.

AEA will provide multiple pathways for creating high-quality, middle-class jobs in the residential-serving distributed solar energy industry based on principles outlined below. In addition, the partners have considered ways to invest in training, education, and skill development and support the corresponding mobility of workers to advance in their careers.

The project will assess collective bargaining agreements as identified throughout the life of the project. i.

Wages, benefits, and other worker support provided - The project sponsors and partners approach to quality jobs means that project staff will have (1) fair, transparent, and equitable pay that exceeds the local average wage for an industry, while delivering; (2) basic benefits (e.g., paid leave, health insurance, retirement/savings plan); (3) providing workers with an environment in which to have a collective voice; and (4) helps the employee develop the skills and experiences necessary to advance along a career path.

In addition, the partners will offer good jobs that provide (5) predictable schedules and a safe, healthy, and accessible workplace devoid of hostility and harassment. With good jobs, (6) employees are properly classified with the limited use of indepen - dent contractors and temporary workers. Workers have a (7) statutorily protected right to a free and fair choice to join a union under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

ii. Commitments to support workforce education and training - The partners will encourage project staff to participate in training programs and encourage contractors to offer paid time for employees to participate in skills training. This will include the provision of personalized, modularized, and flexible skill development opportunities, such as on-demand and self-directed virtual training.

This will be included as part of the cohort support system established through the project. The project will identify and provide continuing education programs for employees to earn credentials and degrees relevant to their career pathways.

AEA’s plan for job creation includes active partnership with public and private sector partners that will help implement the deployment of Alaska’s Solar for All program and is complemented by a robust workforce development program. AEA has identified multiple components, elaborated in later sections.

## High Quality Jobs and Shared Economic Opportunity AEA’s job creation plan is centered on delivering meaningful benefits to low-income and disadvan - taged communities, which these examples exemplify. AEA has decades of experience developing projects that increase shared economic opportunity and will apply that to its implementation of community and residential solar energy.

An NREL study on distributed renewables for Arctic energy ,5 found that community buy-in and ownership is essential. AEA knows that projects must be community-driven and supported, with community members understanding and participating in the value proposition of moving to a stronger reliance on renewable energy.

It is critical to include and receive sanction from key stake - holders like utility managers, operators, project champions, and local government officials. Beyond project development, community engagement must be ongoing, and continue after the project is deployed to maintain community support and ownership. Long-term engagement is an essential element of sustainability.

For example, a strong community focus enabled Galena, a city of 472 people in the Yukon-Koyukuk area, to hire and train an all-local workforce provided enhanced job satisfaction, increased local capacity, and strengthened the community overall.

9ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL ## Multi-sectoral Partnerships AEA has a successful record partnering both as owner and project manager in community capital projects and in advancing State energy goals and priorities. AEA also has established relationships with tribal entities, local governments, and other State departments, with a focus on workforce, permitting, and community development.

Early engagement with these stakeholders will help to ensure that the project is responsive to local energy plans and goals. AEA has assembled a strong list of partners that start with AHFC, which will deliver the program’s residential solar activities.

AEA and AHFC will collaborate with academic, public and private sectors, labor, training centers, utility, and community-based organization partners to deliver job creation and workforce development. AEA and Alaska’s public and cooperative utilities are accustomed to engaging with local govern - ments and tribal entities through permitting and regulatory processes for rural energy projects.

The applicable projects would establish milestones urging earlier dialogue with local governments and Tribal entities. These conversations should begin sufficiently early to inform project development in response to local communities’ needs and concerns.

Local governments and Tribal entities are uniquely situated to help identify the most effective actions the projects can take toward partner - ships that advance workforce issues; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and the flow of project benefits to disadvantaged communities. AEA and partner utilities have extensive experience engaging with residents and businesses in town halls and similar formats.

AEA is planning to ensure that proposed systems should commensurate with the training, educa - tion, and availability of the local workforce. AEA knows using community-appropriate technology reduces system failures and the community’s dependence on long-term, expensive, external assistance. Local capacity will determine how simple or complex the system should be, and what assets it can include.

Robust operations and maintenance plans must be considered from the start. Technical assistance must be provided to complete and maintain the systems. Communities have found that small, easy-to-maintain pilot systems with solar PV, batteries, and/or wind can be a good stepping-stone to larger, more complex systems with higher contributions of renewable energy.

Community-based technical capacity may be increased over time through community education and expanded experience from operating power systems. Many communities have been successful in engaging local youth, with energy providers gaining traction by speaking through credible, community-based educators.

In Kotzebue, a hub community of 3,102 residents, on the Northwest Coast of Alaska, installing small wind turbines (50-kW capacity through 3 turbines) provided the technical capacity for subsequent installations of much larger wind turbines (17 turbines totaling 915 kW capacity), batteries, and solar PV systems.

In Galena, a focus on community education and training allowed the community to perform increasing portions of system maintenance locally, enabling to set its sights on future solar projects. AEA knows that having a regional or statewide pool of support resources increases the likelihood of success, which its cohort and technical assistance approach will support.

Having a network of knowledgeable people actively engaged in operating projects, such as an energy cooperative, that can provide targeted or technical education, increases the likelihood of project success. This network allows communities to install systems that they may not be able to support on their own.

Allowing a process for communities to access this network will streamline the renewable energy development process including planning, financing, installation, and operations. Such a network is especially helpful for small communities with limited human capital. A face-to-face knowledge sharing network would increase the number and success rate of community projects.

10 ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY – SOLAR FOR ALL AEA will identify and support competent, practical project managers that are required to ensure the project’s success. The technical, financial, managerial, and community engagement components of a renewable energy project must be overseen by experienced personnel to help ensure effec - tive delivery of projects.

Managers must be able to validate project proposals from engineers and external entities, compare those proposals to community needs, and decline when necessary. Some communities also face rapid turnover of bookkeeping and managerial staff, reducing their financial and managerial capacity for projects. Such seemingly minor problems can have long-term impacts.

# 3. Distributed Solar Market Strategy Adoption of solar PV in Alaska on a substantial scale faces multiple market barriers both common to the rest of the nation, and specific to the state. Barriers such as net metering, third party owner - ship (TPO), obscure interconnection processes, and renewable portfolio standards (RPSs) all exist here as they do across the country.

Additionally, the substantial variance in seasonal generation and the astronomic cost of installation for remote communities pose geography specific problems.

The prevailing net metering legislation established by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) dictates that all utilities under their economic jurisdiction must provide net metering options to their customers, provided that the total nameplate capacity of all net metering participants does not exceed 1. 5% of the previous year’s average retail demand.

Utilities with annual retail power sales below 5,000 MWh or those generating electricity entirely from approved renewable sources are exempt from this requirement. Several leading utilities in the Railbelt region, notably Chugach Electric Association (CEA) and Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), offer net metering limits exceeding the RCA’s cap, extending up to 5% of average retail demand.

Homer Electric Association (HEA) goes even further, allowing up to 7%. Meanwhile, Matanuska Electric Association (MEA) has not set a specific limit on net metered capacity but currently operates at approximately 3% of retail demand, with no recent refusal of new net metered capacity applications according to the latest RCA filing.

Payment for net metering occurs monthly through bill credits, determined by each utility’s non-firm avoided cost rate registered quarterly with the RCA. These credits have no expiration date and can be applied to subsequent monthly bills. Individual net metered systems must have a nominal capacity between 400 W and 25 kW.

Utilities are prohibited from imposing additional fees, such as standby, interconnection, or capacity charges, unless approved by the RCA. Utilities can limit net metering amount if it causes stability or operational issue. In case of a decrease in retail sales, resulting in the net metering amount exceeding the limit of 1.

5%, utilities are not allowed to disconnect the metering of a member. The utilities can require net metering customers to have insurance with the condition that it is attainable and priced reasonably. The RCA has not instituted statewide mandates regarding the implementation of virtual net metering or other aggregative/alternative net metering policies.

In 2019, the RCA rejected a utility-sponsored proposal for a community solar project, citing specific plan