Alaska Legislature: House Energy - April 30, 2026 1:00pm

Good afternoon. I call the House Energy Committee meeting to order. Today is Thursday, April 30th, and the time is 1:04 PM. Members present are Representative Costello, Co-Chair Haaland, and myself, Co-Chair Mears. We don't have quorum to conduct business, but that's fine because we're just having a conversation and hearing today.

Just a reminder to please silence your cell phones. Staff and members of the audience, please send a note through our committee aides, Griffin Plush and Tim Trewer, who may be here later, from Representative Holland's office. I'd also like to thank our recording secretary, Cheryl Cole, and Susan Quigley from the Judo LIO. On today's agenda, we have a presentation from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. We have not had a full presentation on their important work since the membership of this committee changed coming into this session.

Before they begin, I'd like to thank them both for their continued engagement in this committee, as well as for opening an informational docket on natural gas import facilities immediately following this committee's hearing on the dueling proposals for natural gas import facilities on January 26th. Their presentation today will include an update on that i-docket. I'd also like to represent— ah, recognize Representative Kopp for joining us. Apologies, I've been a little under the weather and will do my best to keep my brain functioning at the level that this committee has come to to expect. So with that, I'd like to welcome our RCA representatives to, to the committee.

They are available on Teams. We have Chair of the Commission John Espendola, joined by our new Commissioner and longtime staff member Julie Vogler, as well as Claire Knudsen-Ladda, a utility analyst. Chair Espendola, Commissioner Vogler, Ms. Knudsen-Ladda, please put yourselves on the record and begin your presentation. For the record and through the chair, my name is John Espendola, chair of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Good afternoon and thank you for allowing the Regulatory Commission of Alaska the opportunity to present to the House Energy Committee.

Today I am joined by my colleague, newly appointed commissioner Julie Vogler, and utility engineering analyst Claire Knutson-Latta, both here with me to present. They are also available to help answer questions the committee may have. Next slide, please.

We are here today to cover 3 main topics requested by the committee. The first item we will cover is the process and the associated timelines the commission undertakes as it relates to dockets. The second item will address many aspects of rate setting, and finally, a high-level briefing of several important and impactful docketed matters that have come before the commission in recent years will be provided. In your packets, there is an appendix with a list of dozens of open dockets currently pending before the Commission with a brief summary of the subject matter in those dockets. Please note that several of those dockets are currently in the adjudicatory process.

I would like to note for the committee that in addition to our current docket workload, the Commission processed 262 tariff filings, 118 power cost equalization filings, and issued 225 orders last fiscal year. We are currently on track this fiscal year to meet or exceed those numbers. Please feel free to ask questions throughout our presentation. Next slide, please.

Next, Commissioner Vogler and I will briefly touch on some of the requirements that govern Commission action as filings make their way through our process. Next slide, please.

At a very high level, when we receive filings, the Commission classifies them in one of two categories: informal and formal. As stated on the slide, informal filings do not require a formal Commission order for the action taken on them. The decision can be communicated via a letter order, which is delegated to staff for issuance on behalf of the Commission after we make a decision. Informal complaints are handled by the Commission's Consumer Protection Section without any Commissioner involvement other than myself on rare occasions. Informal proceedings do not require the involvement of an administrative law judge.

Other filings that are acted upon, the Commission require a more formal process. Examples are applications for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, also known as a CPCN, formal complaints, rulemaking dockets, and when a tariff is suspended into a docket for further investigation. This formal process requires the chair to assign a commission panel, designate an administrative law judge to oversee the proceeding, and at times we invite parties to intervene in the docket. Next slide, please.

Chair, we've got a couple of questions. Um, Coach Holland. Great, thank you. If you could go back to the previous slide, um, I think we're controlling that. Sorry, I was asking you, um, just for clarification, we're going to come back to it later, but just briefly, in the case of the information dockets and the iDoc that I know will come up later, are iDockets informal or formal, or do they that, like you note in the formal list, are they ones that can cross that boundary?

And just clarification for later on this bifurcation you have here of activities.

Through the Chair, for the record, John Espendola to Co-Chair Holland, they are listed on the formal side of our process. One differentiating factor with informational dockets is that no decision is adjudicated. The intent of the docket is to merely gather information, and I will speak to that more in detail detail later on in the presentation specifically to docket I-26001. Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. Representative Costello. Thank you, and I appreciate the presentation today and you being here. I just have a question about the administrative law judges. How many are there?

And I assume they're under your umbrella, or are they under the Department of Law?

For the record, John Espendola, Chair of the Commission. Through, uh, to the co-chairs, to Representative Costello, we currently have 4 administrative law judges that are on staff, and they are housed within our agency and report to the chair, but they are not housed in the Department of Law. We do have outside legal counsels assigned to us as an assistant attorney general that is housed in the Department of Law if we need additional legal support. Thank you. Thank you.

Please continue with the presentation.

So the next slide will cover our docket process. At a very high level, when we receive filings, the Commission classifies them— I'm sorry.

Okay, I'm sorry. Once again, examples of formal filings are applications, CPCNs, formal complaints, rulemaking dockets, and when a tariff is suspended into a docket for further investigation. As I mentioned, the formal process requires the chair to assign a commission panel, designate an administrative law judge to oversee the proceeding, and we invite parties to intervene in the docket.

The first step in the life of the docket process includes public notice. Then an administrative law judge or the chair issues an initiating order. Depending on the matter in the docket, we invite other parties to intervene or require briefing on aspects of the docket. At times, we adjudicate the matter internally for dockets such as applications for a CPCN, service expansion requests by a utility, or formal complaints. If a hearing is required, we build a robust public record, adjudicate the matter internally, and communicate our decision via a formal Commission order.

Next slide, please.

Now I will turn it over to Commissioner Vogler to provide a thorough overview of our timelines and rate settings. For the record, Julie Vogler through the Chair. Timelines for tariff filings applications, formal complaints, rulemaking dockets, and extensions are established by statute and regulation. While the next two slides address these timelines, I will focus on the timelines applicable to general rate cases for electric and gas utilities. The initial tariff filing has a 45-day timeline.

If the tariff is suspended into a docket for further investigation, the timeline is 450 days after a complete filing is made. The Commission may extend the timeline at the request of the parties to a proceeding or on its own, one time only, for up to an additional 90 days. Next slide, please.

I've got a question, I guess, before we go to rate setting. Was there one more before rate setting? I'm not sure. They've been flipping back and forth. On timelines, okay.

I'm not quite sure where we are. So Commissioner Vogler, um, Co-Chair Holland has a question. I just want to preface that by sometimes in the legislature, in our committee hearings, we're dealing with things in, in, in silos. But the timeline for review—. Could you go back one more slide, please, to slide 6?

Just for awareness, to kick us out of our silos. So at the moment, SB 180, which deals with another matter, has got an adopted amendment to reduce the review timeline for the RCA and the tariff filings here. So there's a reduction of the 450 days, which is 15 months, down to 9, and the 270 days, which is, I think, 9 months, down to 6, if I'm getting my math right. And that's pretty significant, and I think worth some discussion here since it is— something that else that's going on in the building that was just done as an amendment to a bill. So I think that might lead into some questions from Co-Chair Helen.

I'm kind of anticipating.

Yep. Go, Chair Holland. Yeah, there's a note from COB there. Yep, thanks for that. I think you were definitely kind of getting into the— some of the questions I was curious about here.

And I think just starting off with looking at this slide, I'm curious, in terms of the 450-day schedule, how many of the dockets actually use the full 450 days in order to complete the dockets? And I think you mentioned that they could be extended in some cases, so I'm curious curious how many have to get extended beyond the 450. So how many are under 450 and don't need the full 450, and how many are getting pushed out beyond that? Through the chair. For the record, Julie Vogler, um, through the co-chairs, co-chair Holland.

So I don't have those numbers right off the top of my head. We have— I do know that we do meet all of our timelines. And as far as when have we extended on our own, there are quarterly reports that the chair submits to the LB&A, and that any time that we have extended a timeline on our own, or if the party to the docket have agreed to an extension of a timeline, those are reported quarterly. Okay, great. Follow-up?

Follow-up. Great. Thank you for that information. To what degree are these timelines being supported with adequate staffing, and to what degree are there staffing issues that are affecting the timelines being completed within these or extensions being needed?

For the record, Julie Vogler through the chair's co-chair Holland. So I do actually talk about this later on in my presentation when on slide 14, but I can go ahead and talk about it now. So when the— I'll try not to talk about it later, but I might be redundant. So when the Commission suspends a revenue requirement filing for investigations, one of the things that is established in the initial order of suspension is to schedule a pre-hearing conference. And the purpose of that pre-hearing conference is to bring the parties together to agree to a procedural schedule.

So when the parties get together, they agree on the procedural schedule, which establishes timelines for discovery, due dates of intervenor testimony, due dates of the filing utility's reply testimony, and then the dates of the hearing. And that's all taken into consideration to the 450 days of the existing timeline. Follow-up. Follow-up. Great.

Thank you. Through the chair, the timeline that you just laid out in that process— and thank you for jumping ahead in your slides in order to answer that— to what degree does that provide a pathway to know at that stage who the interveners are going to be and how much time might be required? It sounds like, unless I missed a step, that that timeline is being set up potentially before all the interveners are identified, but maybe I missed that. And perhaps as you walk through that timeline, you could just kind of focus in on the timeline steps that are providing opportunity for interveners to learn about a case or docket, to have time to look at it, respond to it, petition to be a part of it, and then to be a participant in that.

For the record, Julie Vogler through the chairs, Co-Chair Holland. Um, so again, I have this further, but I'll discuss it now. So when the tariff filing comes in the door, we have 45 days to act on that filing. We'll just say it's a general rate case for a utility. So we have 45 days to act on that filing.

The—. In that 45 days, the Commission issues a public notice. So at that time, ratepayers and potential intervenors see the filing has come in the door, and then they are able to comment on that filing. Once the Commission has taken action for— to suspend that filing, if that is the action chosen at that 45 days, then the Commission issues a formal order. And so in that formal order, one of the things that we do is we invite intervention— or we, excuse me, we invite participation by the Regulatory Affairs and Public Advocacy section.

And then we also invite intervention of interested parties. And then there's also a scheduling of the pre-hearing conference. Within that initial order, there's the, um, there's, there's dates that the intervenors need to request, dates the interested parties need to request intervention.

Okay, that's good for now. Thanks. Thank you, Representative Costello. Oh, thank you. And I was curious, I, you know, I remember having the discussion about the timelines in previous legislatures, and I'm curious, do you happen to know when they were last put into statute or when they were last changed?

For the record, Julie Vogler, through the chair's Representative Costello, I do not, but I do know that back in 2011 or '12, there was a docket, an R docket opened looking at the timelines, but they remained the same. So I don't have the initial date.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Vogler. So we're getting down to the end of the session, and sometimes things around here are moving pretty quickly. Has the Commission had the opportunity to look at what changes there would be in the timeline in review to accomplish a shorter timeframe for the tariff dockets. Yeah, for the record, this is John Espendola, Chair of the Commission, to Co-Chair Mears.

I have reviewed the timelines, and regardless of what timelines are imposed on the Commission, We will meet our statutory timelines regardless. We ultimately control the outputs from the, the procedural schedule, and we will carve out the time before and after to one, adjudicate the record at hand and write an order that conveys our decision. I will state that there are other parties involved that could be impacted, but as far as the Commission is concerned, We regularly and historically meet all of our statutorily mandated timelines that are imposed on us by the legislature. Thank you, Chair Espinosa. I appreciate you bringing that up because, um, yes, you, you guys are very highly impacted by that timeline, but also the utilities and interveners and, you know, anyone else involved has got some work that they need to do in that time.

And One thing that I think that we need to consider a little bit more fully as we're reducing that time for— that statutory time for you is also what happens to everybody else in this process to make sure that we do have a, you know, a back and forth for everyone else involved so that— because consumer protection is our point here and just shoving things through without that process.

Isn't very— might not lead to the best process. Yes, for the record, John Espendola, Chair of the Commission. For this committee's awareness, the Commission as a whole has not taken a position on— if you're referring specifically to Senate Bill 180 Amendment Number 1, collectively as a whole, the Commission has not discussed that openly, and we have not as a Commission taken a position on that amendment.

Understood, Chair Espinosa. It's happening fast. That was just last week, and I think there's two different issues. One is shortening the timeline, and then two, that what that happens in that timeline and what the steps are in that process. And I understand fully that, you know, that's— this is happening fast and that the Commission hasn't had the opportunity to to weigh in on that.

And I think that's something that we in the legislature have to be thoughtful as well, as we've got, we've got a timeline, a seasonal timeline, in a way that, that, that the commission does not. Are there any further questions or discussion on timelines? We're good for the moment. Thank you very much. And I know, uh, Co-Chair Holland has got another bill hearing, so he will step out.

For a little while for that, but please continue with the presentation.

For the record, Julie Vogler through the chairs. I will now provide a high-level overview of general rate case filings for electric and gas utilities. Commissioner Vogler, I apologize, Representative Johnson has a question before you get back to it. Johnson, thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to let you know, put on the record that I arrived about 3:15, I guess.

Thank you for that, because I had not written that down. Uh, thank you, Commissioner Vogler. Please continue. For the record, Julie Vogler through the co-chairs. So here on the slide, we provide the rate setting authority established in statute for general rate case filings.

Next slide, please. And then here we provide.

Rate setting authority established in regulation for general rate case filings. Next slide, please.

We also thought that it would be useful to include the definitions related to general rate cases, so have done that here. And as reflected on this slide, the definition of a general rate case refers to base rates and adjustment clauses, so those definitions have also been provided.

Next slide, please. I will now discuss rate-making parameters, a general rate case, also referred to as a revenue requirement study, and the rate approval process. When a utility files a revenue requirement study and proposes a change to rates, the following rate-making parameters apply. Rates must be just and reasonable. Not be unduly discriminatory or preferential, must be cost-based and not confiscatory to the utility, with the cost causer being the cost payer.

A utility is allowed to recover prudently incurred costs in addition to being provided the opportunity to earn a fair return. Plant must, plant must be in service and used and useful for the cost to be included in rates. Costs must provide benefit to the ratepayer. Costs deemed to be extravagant, unnecessary, or excessive can be disallowed, and costs such as charitable contributions and lobbying expenses are typically disallowed because these expenses do not provide a benefit to the ratepayer. And lastly, rates are implemented on a prospective basis only.

Utilities cannot collect past costs through current rates. So Commissioner Mogler, I just want to, want to pause on that for a moment. So there's a lot of terms in there that I think we hear pretty often that are just important to remember as, you know, we in the legislature are thinking about things. Cost-causer, cost-payer, used and useful, fair return. So those are all terms that we hear fairly frequently that are, you know, the basis for the decision-making for the RCA.

Um, thank you, Commissioner Vogler. Um, on to slide 13.

For the record, through the chair, Julie Vogler, uh, to, to, to the chair, excuse me. So the revenue requirement is a study required by 3 AAC 48.275(a) to be filed when a utility seeks to propose a change to rates and is the amount of revenue needed for a utility to recover prudently incurred expenses and be provided the opportunity to earn a fair return. If the utility requests an across-the-board change to rates, the percentage change is equal to the calculated revenue shortfall. If the utility is not requesting an across-the-board increase, the utility must also prepare and file a cost of service study which allocates the revenue requirement amongst customer classes to determine rates. Basic revenue requirement components include operating expense, depreciation expense, taxes other than income, income tax allowance, rate base, rate of return, and return on rate base.

However, a revenue requirement for an electric cooperative does not include rate base, rate of return, or return on rate base. Instead, the revenue requirement includes a margin component which is referred to as the times interest earned ratio. Next slide, please.

When a utility requests a change to base rates, the utility files a tariff filing that complies with the requirements of 3 AAC 48.275(a). The commission issues a public notice which allows for ratepayers to comment on the filing. The commission must act on the filing within 45 days of the filing being received. Actions include reject for formal filing, which occurs when the filing does not comply with filing requirements established in regulation, suspend for further investigation, or approve the tariff sheets reflecting the proposed rates. Due to the complexity of a revenue requirement study, the Commission generally suspends the tariff filing into a docket for further investigation.

When a utility requests an increase to rates, The utility typically requests an interim and refundable rate increase. This increase is approved by the commission upon suspension of the filing and allows the utility to charge ratepayers the interim rates until the commission approves permanent rates at the end of the proceeding.

If the final approved permanent rates are greater than the interim rates, refunds are due to ratepayers. And this is where I might be a little repetitive as to what Representative Holland was asking me questions earlier, but I'm just going to repeat it. So when the Commission suspends a revenue requirement filing for further investigation, the Commission issues a formal order suspending the filing and approving tariff sheets that reflect the proposed interim rates, inviting intervention— excuse me, inviting participation by the Regulatory Affairs and Public Advocacy section, inviting intervention of interested parties and scheduling a pre-hearing conference. The purpose of the pre-hearing conference is for the parties to the docket to propose and agree to a procedural schedule which establishes timelines for discovery, due dates of intervenor testimony, due dates of the filing utility's reply testimony, and hearing dates. Following the pre-hearing conference, the Commission issues a formal order establishing the procedural schedule that has been proposed and agreed to by the parties.

In some instances, prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties to a proceeding will file a full or partial stipulation resolving issues. If this occurs, the Commission may issue an order accepting the stipulation and canceling the hearing, accepting the stipulation in part and hold the hearing, or issue an order rejecting the stipulation and go to hearing on all merits of the docket. If a stipulation is not reached, evidence is taken at hearing and the Commission adjudicates all contested issues and then issues an order resolving all issues. Next slide, please. Before we get on—.

I will not—. Before we get on to the, to the dockets, Commissioner Vogler. So I'm kind of thinking about my background in infrastructure engineering and Sometimes we overbuild things a bit to provide additional capacity in the mid to long term so we don't have to come back and redo things. How does something like overbuilding capacity get considered with just and reasonable? For the record, Julie Vogler through the Chair.

So we have had cases, dockets where we've had intervenors, and there have— it has been contested on the overbuilding of capacity. And ultimately the parties will provide evidence and the Commission will make their decision based on those facts and evidence provided at hearing. Thank you. Before we go to the next section, committee members have any questions?

Alrighty, let's get into our key dockets. I will now turn it over to Claire Knudsen Latta to discuss key energy dockets.

For the record, through the chair, this is Claire Knudsen Latta. Before I begin, I want to note that I hold the Commission's ex officio seat on the Rail Belt Reliability Council, or RRC's, Board of Directors. In the presentation today, I'm not speaking on behalf of the board. The next section of the presentation will address recent important energy dockets, including the development of both the RRC and the Rail Belt Transmission Organization, or RTO, NSTAR's recent request to recover costs associated with securing long-term gas supplies through its gas cost adjustment, the ongoing informational docket on LNG facilities on the Kenai, and two recent certificate applications for North Slope pipelines. Next slide, please.

The next few slides address the development of the RRC following the passage in 2020 of Senate Bill 123 directing the development of Electric Reliability Organizations, or EROs. Rulemaking docket R-20-001 was opened on May 18, 2020, to consider the new regulations required by SB 123. On July 14th of the same year, R-2002 and R-2003 were spun off to address integrated resource planning and large project pre-approval and filing and other administrative procedures, respectively. The dockets, despite being open during the COVID pandemic, produced a strong dialogue between the stakeholders and the commission and resulted in the adoption of Chapter 46 as part of Title III of the Alaska Administrative Code on June 29, 2021. Next slide, please.

Following the adoption of Chapter 46, the RRC, currently Alaska's only ERO, filed its application for certification on March 25, 2022. The RRC filed under the regulations providing for a combination balanced and independent stakeholder board, meaning that while some board members represent stakeholders like the rail belt— rail belt load serving entities, or LSEs, various consumer classes, environmental advocates,.

RRC and independent power producers, the board also has a member who holds an independent seat. Additionally, as required by statute, the commission and RAPA serve as ex officio non-voting members. On September 23rd, 2022, the commission granted the RRC a certificate and required it to return in 6 years for review. Next slide, please. Consistent with Chapter 46, the RRC filed its initial budget on October 10th, 2022.

This was suspended on November 17, 2022. As a note, the Commission is not empowered to approve the ERO's budget, only the surcharge passing the budget's costs on to the LSEs. The RRC filed its initial tariff including a surcharge based on its initial budget on November 23, 2022. This was suspended for further investigation on January 6, 2023, and consolidated with a suspended budget filing. The rail belt electric cooperatives filed to intervene, and RAPA elected to participate.

A partial stipulation was filed and accepted by the Commission, and a hearing was held on the remaining issues. The Commission approved the tariff, including the surcharge, on November 17, 2023. Next slide, please. Ms. Knudson-Lotta, could you, as you're going through, um, the different filings have got prefix letters, um, could you explain what those are as we go along? I think we've got, you know, R is a regulatory docket.

Here we've got an E and a TE. Could you just give a quick—.

Of course—. Description of those tasks as we go along? You guys have your own language. Yeah, acronyms around here are a real treat. Same here.

So yeah, yeah, so formal dockets or always use the naming convention of a letter followed by the last 2 numbers of the year and then a 3-digit sequential number. So E25001 is the first eDOCKET opened in 2025. You know it's a formal docket because it's got that 3, 3-code designation. E in this case stands for ERO. So you will see U, which is for utility, P for pipeline, E for ERO, R for rulemaking, and I for informational.

Those are all the formal types. Informal filings typically take the format of 2 letters, a number followed by— 2 letters, a sequential number followed by the certificate number. So that's gonna be all of your tariff filings will take that format. So you'll see TA, which just stands for tariff advice. That's what we use for utilities.

TL stands for tariff pipeline. I will let you work out for yourselves why we didn't use the more obvious acronym. And then TE is for tariff ERO. In this case, 9001 is the certificate number that the Commission assigned to the ERO, so, or to the RRC, so that will always stay the same. And then it'll go TE8, TE9.

In front of the Commission right now, for example, we have TE13. So that's how that numbering system works. That's extremely helpful. Not a problem. Would you like me to carry on, or do you, would you like to hear more about it?

Any further questions?

All set for now. Please continue. Brilliant. So we, uh, just discussed the initial budget. The primary— uh, we're on to the reliability standards.

The primary purpose of the RRC is the establishment of enforceable reliability standards for the rail belt. The RRC filed its initial batch of standards on December 21st, 2024 and on February 14th, 2025, the Commission suspended the filing to allow it and the stakeholders an opportunity to fully vet the process of standard development to ensure it was conducted consistent with statute and regulation and with sufficient stakeholder input. A short hearing was held and the Commission issued a final order approving standards on June 26th, 2025. To date, the Commission has approved 18 standards. 3 Are currently in front of the Commission for review.

3 Are in working groups at the RRC, and 28 are awaiting development. Next slide.

From the RRC, we move to the RTO. In 2024, the, the legislature passed House Bill 307, creating the RTO for the purpose of establishing a non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff. On August 5th, 2024, the commission opened U24026, to determine the best method to meet the requirement that it certify the RTO under AS4205.221. After reviewing— after review and hearing, it was determined that while the RTO does not meet the statutory definition of a public utility, the only statutorily available path to certification under AS4205.221 was an application using the standard commission form for certificate application from a utility. This form is called Form PU-101.

Thus, the RTO was directed in a final order issued October 7, 2024, to complete the form as fulsomely as possible and request waivers of inapplicable sections. The RTO submitted its application on December 20, 2024. The Alaska Public Interest Research Group, or AAPIRG, filed to intervene, and RAPA elected to participate. RAPA and the RTO filed a stipulation settling all matters, which was contested by ACPURG. ACPURG sought a summary disposition by the Commission requiring the application of Alaska's Open Meeting Act, or OMA, to the RTO subcommittee meetings.

The RTO opposed ACPURG's request and filed one of its own, asking the Commission to determine that the open meeting provisions in its bylaws were consistent with HB 307. After considering both motions, the stipulation, and the RTO's application, the Commission determined that the only appropriate venue for OMA questions was Superior Court, accepted the stipulation, and granted the application on May 6, 2025. Next slide.

On July 1, 2026, the RTO filed TA-1-8001, its initial non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff. The commission received 11 petitions to intervene, including from all the railbelt utilities, the RRC, the Bradley Lake Project Management Committee, the Alaska Energy Authority, the Intertie Management Committee, ACPURG, the Renewable Energy Alaska Project, and Alaska Wind Holdings. RAPA also elected to participate. A 15-day hearing was held beginning on February 17, 2026, producing a robust record. The Commission is currently reviewing that record and will issue a final decision by June 4th, 2026.

Next slide. So before we move on from that, actually, so the Open Access Transmission Tariff was a good bit of my summer reading last year, and this is a lot of work that, that initiated from House Bill 307 from 2 years ago, and a lot of that work for utilities working together and getting rid of, you know, wheeling rates and what is the backbone. Hopefully I'm getting that correct. But this is something that if you have at all capacity members of the legislature and/or staff, it's something to follow. So thanks for bringing that up.

I think you undersold the magnitude of this, because, you know, like a 15-day hearing, my understanding is, is a lot. And it really— it's just a couple weeks ago you guys got done with that.

Yeah, it— so this is actually a docket that I'm staff on, and it was the longest hearing I've participated in. The record that the Commission and the parties have developed is frankly enormous. It is really an impressive thing to be a part of. Yeah, the few lines on this slide kind of belie the importance and the depth of this docket. Thank you.

On to slide 22.

Thank you, Claire. For the record and through the chair, John Espendola, Chair of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Docket U25004 was opened as a result of a tariff filing by Enstar Natural Gas Company LLC with a request for commission approval to recover costs through a surcharge mechanism associated with studying and securing a long-term supply— gas supply related to importing liquefied natural gas, as well as development costs the utility anticipated incurring. Because FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over the siting, construction, expansion, and operation of LNG import facilities under the Natural Gas Act, we needed to determine whether we had jurisdiction over costs incurred by utilities using those LNG facilities and the LNG gas itself when those costs are sought to be recovered in rates passed on to ratepayers.

We concluded we have jurisdiction to do so, and our decision is supported by FERC precedent issued under analogous circumstances. We have also asserted that we have jurisdiction to review costs associated with terminal or facility use agreements. Because we lack jurisdiction over LNG import facilities themselves, we have no authority to bar or approve the construction of duplicate LNG import facilities under AS 4205.221(d). This decision was conveyed in our order U-25-004, order number 5, issued April 22, 2025, and has been used in several proceedings this legislative session.

Next slide, please.

Next, I will provide a briefing on docket I-26-001, Beginning with the history of how this docket came into existence. We conducted a public meeting held June 25th, 2025, where Chugach Electric Association Incorporated informed us that it was negotiating agreements with Harvest Alaska LLC related to the development of an LNG import facility. In a separate commission public meeting held August 27th, 2025, NSTAR informed us that it was negotiating agreements with Glenfarm Alaska LNG LLC related to the development of a different LNG import facility. At a public meeting held on January 28th, 2026, the commission unanimously voted to open an informational docket to gather data on these competing LNG import facilities. The commission recently conducted a public meeting on March 11th, 2026, where Cook Inlet LNG LLC made a presentation for their own proposal for an LNG import facility to meet projected gas supply shortages.

This docket is open, and we have been provided both public and confidential information by Chugach and Enstar about the projects they are evaluating. We have also recently received public and confidential information from Cook Inlet LNG regarding their project. Lastly, we have requested and received briefing from Chugach and Enstar as it relates to Commission jurisdiction compelling the two utilities to coordinate their efforts on one LNG import facility in the context of maximizing efficiency and minimizing costs to consumers. At this current time, no decision has been made about the extent of our jurisdiction to do so. Next slide, please.

Chair Espendola, um, on that I-DECCAD on this topic, What do you see next steps?

Through the chair, uh, for the record, John Espendola, chair of the commission. We are currently evaluating the information that we have recently received by all three parties to determine next steps.

Thank you. Um, Representative Costello. Thank you. Um, on slide 22, it mentions a regulatory asset. Could you describe what a regulatory asset is?

For the record, uh, through the chair, Julie Vogler. So a regulatory asset is an account where a utility will set aside costs and defer those costs, and rather than expensing them on an annual basis, um, in this instance, the costs are being collected until the— until there's a final number associated with the regulatory asset. And then typically the utility eventually will include those in a revenue requirement study, and it's determined at that time an amortization period to spread those costs out. Follow-up. Follow-up.

So you had mentioned earlier you're not allowed to have the ratepayer incur costs for a previous, I guess, asset that the utility would have. I'm just curious how, how setting aside an account works with the, the laws that you're operating under. And then my other question has to do with, I think, slide— page 23, slide 23. When you are approached, who determines that the docket is an informational versus a case where you're going to make a decision.

For the record, Julie Vogler through the chair, uh, Representative Costello. I will answer the first part of that question. So my statement made previously about collecting past costs and current rates, an example of that is if a utility has a 2025 test year revenue requirement study. They can't try and pass costs through from 2024. So the regulatory asset is a specific, um, uh, accounting type of method which is allowed in rate making.

And as the costs are set aside and eventually possibly put into the plans of being used and useful, at that time is when it's looked at instead of expensing them now. And the prudency of those costs is looked at at that time. Final question. I think there's a second part you're waiting for.

Through the chair. Yeah, for the record, Don Espandola, chair of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. To Representative Costello, regarding who determines whether or not the docket is an I docket, we voted at a public meeting collectively, and there was a unanimous vote that all of us did chime in on to open up this particular docket as an informational docket. So the direct response to your question is the commissioners decide collectively, uh, what, what type of docket will be open for that subject matter. Follow-up.

So therefore, I suppose that when it's an informational hearing and you make a recommendation, that essentially there's no enforcement mechanism there. It's just simply making a recommendation.

Uh, for the record, John Espendola through the co-chair to Representative Costello, what will likely happen with this is once we've vetted all of the information in front of us, the next step, if the majority of the commission wants to do that, would likely open up a different type of docket such as a U docket which a decision would be made, adjudicated based on a record, potentially inviting other parties including the Regulatory Affairs and Public Advocacy section of the Department of Law. And based on that record, an actual adjudicated decision would be conveyed in a commission order. Thank you. Thank you. And I, I think an outcome of this, um, you know, might be conversation with the legislature if there are tools, statutory tools that the RCA does not have in order to make decisions like that.

Hopefully we'll have a discussion and be able to make those changes as we go forward. I think it's always a balance of, you know, where government steps in and, you know, how much we can do, and if we're finding that we're short on those tools, I think that that might be a timely discussion, but that's not the discussion for today.

Please continue. Through the chair, this is Chair Espendola for the record. I believe Representative Costello had a second question or a third question. Um, no, I was able to I think we've got it, although the floor is open if she has any more as we go along. Chairess Madola, please continue.

Thank you. Docket P-22-007.

Oil Search USA filed an application for a CPCN and permit to construct and operate a common carrier oil pipeline, approval of a connection, and an approval of a connection agreement. The common carrier oil pipeline known as the Pikka-Sales Oil Pipeline extends from the Nanushuk processing facility in the Pikka Unit to the Kuparuk Pipeline with ultimate transportation to market through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Pikka is approximately 22 miles long and is expected to initially deliver in Phase 1 80,000 barrels of oil per day with maximum production capacity increasing to 160,000 barrels today. The commission granted the application and permit on October 21st, 2022, and we have recently been informed that the field is on the verge of production. Next slide, please.

Docket P-23-007 was opened for the application of Willow Transportation Company for a CPCN and permit authorizing the construction and operation of a new common carrier oil pipeline. A hearing was held on November 8th, 2023, and members of the public were invited to provide comments on the application. No comments were received, and witnesses were provided by Willow for the commission's examination. The commission issued a final order on December 19th, 2023, granting Willow's application and issuing a certificate and a permit authorizing the.

Construction and operation of the pipeline. The field is not in production at this time, but is estimated to produce 180,000 barrels of oil per day. This docket remains open pending a compliance filing, which is their initial tariff. Next slide, please.

In closing, I would like to thank the committee for allowing us to present today, and I'll now open it up for any additional questions.

We have just been rejoined by Co-chair Holland, who's finished his other bill hearing. So I believe, Co-chair Holland, you've also been following along with a lot of other dockets and so forth, and may have some questions that may be some retreaded ground. Understanding that that might be happen— might happen, but we also have the time and space to explore that. Great. Thank you, Co-Chair Mears, and thank you, Chair Espendola, particularly because I know we had had this hearing scheduled once before, and I appreciate the chance for us to come back together to complete that.

The two areas that I was hoping to come back to, and I've tried as best I could to follow along in the few minutes minutes I've been gone, but I am going to ask you to back up just a little bit. If we go back to slide 23 on the information docket, I wanted to follow up a little bit more with the discussion we had at the very beginning about information dockets being in the formal category as opposed to informal, but in identifying that, I'm I'm curious about what are the outcomes of an information docket in terms of specific direction or guidance, um, or perhaps regulatory, um, instruction that an information docket can create. And I understand, and I want to be careful here, that you have an open-eye docket, so I want to thread the needle here between not asking you to opine on the current docket, but I'm interested in the nature of these kinds of dockets, information dockets that get created, and what kind of power and weight can they have for the participants in the docket in terms of being able to set direction and to set guidance that might be in force or have some weight of future actions that may be taken on projects that were included in an information docket.

For the record, John Espendola, Chair of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, to Co-Chair Holland. The intent of the informational docket is just that. It's to gather information that we can use to open up a docket where we do make a decision after we've created a public record, adjudicated the issues in the public record, and convey our decision via a formal commission order. So essentially, the current docket that we have in place now is a gathering of information exercise. Both public information and confidential information has been filed in that docket, and we are currently evaluating the information in that docket on next— so we can decide what the next step will be with regard to the subject matter that we're— that is currently under review.

Follow-up? Follow-up? Yeah, thank you. So that's helpful, but, you know, broad. So let's try and make this a little more specific.

If in the case of an information docket, you're evaluating a couple different projects, and out of that evaluation, you generate a record that shows that one project for any number of reasons might be beneficial to ratepayers compared to another project. Uh, it might be a better rate, it might be more reliable, might have longer-term benefits. Um, could be a number of criteria that I think you could normally look at with projects. But if you find that one is better than the other for ratepayers, how would that determination surface in your final record and final order that would come out of an information docket? That might then be on the record to impact future rate decisions that might be made on a particular project.

For the record, John Espendola, Chair of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. Uh, Co-Chair Holland, you, you hit exactly the intent of why the docket was opened. Next steps would be, after the evaluation of the information, opening up a docket where we can actually make a decision based on information and a public record inviting other parties to intervene in that docket. And that decision would be, as I mentioned previously, conveyed in a commission order. But that's the exact intent of the information docket, is to determine on an informal basis what next steps should be on the hypothetical scenario that you just portrayed.

Great. Follow-up. Follow-up. Great. Thank you for that.

And to kind of extend that discussion one more step. Let's assume that we're looking at an information docket that's looking at multiple different ways of solving a future utility need. This case could be gas. And if you see that there are multiple projects that if in totality they were all to get built would create more capacity than that serviced region actually needs. How would you be looking at, um, analyzing that in terms of that extra capacity and the degree to which different ratepayers might be asked to be paying for what could turn out to be more capacity than the market needs if all the projects were built?

Is your information analysis going to look at the market need for capacity and the appropriate allocation of projects to meet that need so that we don't end up building more than is necessary and would be having to be burdened by rates. So kind of a capacity question now, whereas the first question was more about rate pricing.

Through the Chair, for the record, John Espendola. To Co-Chair Holland, I know you had stepped out during slide 22. A couple things that I will reiterate to the committee and one additional item. We, in that order, U-25004, asserted that we lack jurisdiction over LNG import facilities themselves. So we have no authority to bar or approve construction of duplicate LNG import facilities under AS 4205-221(d).

However, although we do lack authority over duplicate LNG import facilities under that statute I just cited, We did assert that we hold authority to assess the prudence of a utility's decision to select between competing LNG import projects for their gas supply needs.

So I'd like to, to take this, uh, up another level. So our energy landscape is changing fast in, in a field that does not generally change very fast. And I think where we're at here, to me, I see the need for larger energy planning that we're just not doing on the statewide level. And I had conversations with folks before session started about like, what are we going to do about two import facilities? And I said, well, the best thing is for utilities and the private sector to work it out.

The next thing is the RCA, and then the next level is the legislature. And really, there needs to be other pieces in there that we don't have at this point. And I think that's really apparent with where we're at right now. I mean, we're at where we're at and we've got to use the tools that we have. But I think going forward that that's something for us to look at as a legislature and in the executive branch to make sure we're doing this energy planning so that we are building appropriately for Alaska, for our economy and for our customers.

Because where are we going to go in the future and how can we get there is not the job of the RCA, and it's a challenging job for the legislature. But I think that needs to be done.

I'm done now. Who's next? I've got another follow-up. When you want to—. Coach Holland.

Oh, great. Thank you. Thank you for that and also, Chair Smanola, for your previous answer. But let me try and build off of your answer, understanding that you have— and I believe you said you're asserting some rate authority while maybe not having site facility authority. But to the degree that your IDocket— the RCA's IDocket was to identify that the projects you're looking at would create excess capacity in the market, do you have the ability to identify the limits to which the rates could be prudently set to the capacity that serves the market.

And just to make it, you know, perhaps simple, if the excess capacity.

Were to cause rates to be higher than they would be if the capacity were to actually match the need of the market, would you signal through an IDocket that only the portion of the rate that applied to the capacity that served the market would be prudent and approved, or would you let somebody have a rate approval, uh, because it met appropriate cost recovery that was essentially allowing rate recovery for excess capacity that was above and beyond what was needed by the market.

Through the chair, for the record, John Espendola. Representative Holland, that is a very complex hypothetical you just posed to me, and with all due respect, without seeing any specifics on the hypothetical, I don't want to assert a decision that has not come before the commission We don't speak in hypotheticals. We use public record to adjudicate our decisions. And although I do appreciate and I understand where you're coming from, I really can't answer that because we don't have anything in front of us that we've adjudicated that speaks to excessive load or how we would treat rates in the context that you've portrayed. Follow-up?

Follow-up. Okay. Thank you. Through the Chair, thank you for that.

Let me try and frame the question slightly differently, because I do understand in part your desire to have something specific to look at, but I'm also just trying to understand in the case of IDocketts and your tools and authority under statute what you can do. And if we take the— again, unfortunately, it will be hypothetical, but maybe it will be a little more specific. And I've looked at this in terms of the— Public Utility Commissions in the Lower 48. And if you have, for example, a power generation facility that could produce 2 gigawatts for a local market that only needs 1 gigawatt, in the Lower 48 PUCs, their statutory authority, their rulemaking authority, essentially would say to the utility, if you build a 2-gigawatt plant, you can only approve a rate to the ratepayers for the gigawatt of capacity that they actually need. If you want to speculatively build a plant that's twice as big because you think maybe someday there'll be a data center or something else that may happen, you can't ask the current ratepayers to pay for capacity that's not appropriate to their market need.

And so I'm looking at that question in terms of, does your authority— and through the IDocket, can you look at the situation where the aggregate combination of projects being proposed is potentially going to build out, let's say, double the capacity the local market needs, would you— can you allow those rates to be allowing capital recovery on that investment that has been made that really provides return for the investors of those individual projects but leaves the ratepayers paying a far higher rate than they would have if an appropriately sized utility infrastructure had been built.

Through the chair, for the record, John Espendola, co-chair Holland. The— so, so first off, the regulatory construct in the Lower 48 is not the same that we have here in Alaska. We are again in the infancy of vetting the data that was filed in that I docket. We're looking at a whole host of things that I'm not able to speak to because it is an open docket, although it's not an adjudicatory docket. We are looking at different aspects of what you're speaking to.

I don't believe we've ever looked at if a utility's overbuilt their asset and the excess capacity not being passed on to ratepayers. My colleague Commissioner Vogler spoke to a question that Representative Mears asked her earlier about utilities building larger assets than are necessary, and if the assets are prudently incurred, they're essentially passed on to ratepayers. You know, we didn't respond to a question that Representative Mears asked about coordinating between utilities. This body essentially did that with the creation of the Electric Reliability Organization that ultimately turned into the RRC. So you do have the power to do that, and you've done that on the electric side of things.

Now talking about natural gas matters, that is a policy that this legislature has the ability to do, but I don't really have a straightforward answer for you because we, we're still vetting the information that has been filed with us in the informational docket. Okay. But we are looking at a whole host of different aspects of the impact to ratepayers. Thank you very much. Are there further questions from the committee?

I can follow up when you want. Great, thanks. Thanks for that answer. I think, you know, we have probably gone as far as we can on this. I would like to, you know, down the road pursue this because I think the lack of a clear objective statutory framework for this question of can we build out excess capacity and just assume that if it's prudent in terms of the project that somebody's got to pay for it and that's ratepayers.

I think the fact that that is kind of up in the air and subject to an individual eye docket as opposed to having a broader policy framework for you to work with and a tool for you to use raises some question in my mind about whether or not we can do more to guide that. And of course, you know, the underlying issue here is, you know, if we look at something like a large pipeline that is built with a capacity that's far in excess of the local market demand, is it fair to ratepayers to have a tariff on the gas that reflects paying for a substantial excess capacity for a period of time rather than the size of the pipeline that would have served that market? And it's apparent to me that there's still a piece of this puzzle that's missing to be able to fully answer that question. So I appreciate the discussion we've had.

To the OTE filing. I'm trying to get to the right page in the presentation.

Which one was that?

I think it's page 21— or excuse me, slide 21, through the chair. Yes. Yeah. So I just want to return back to this again. I apologize if we're retreading a little bit of material that was covered while I was out here.

But I want to go back to this one to get a little more clarity on how this filing is being guided by the original intent under House Bill 307. As I understand this, and I wasn't here in that legislature, there was a very clear intent that this RTO open access tariff process would be looking at all of the transmission, um, and yet there seems to be some interpretation that perhaps it's only going to apply to a minority portion of the transmission system. Indeed, it looks like potentially almost 80% of the rail belt transmission capacity might be exempted from this. And I'm trying to reconcile the intent, as I understand, the use of this open access tariff versus what appears to be, um, some efforts to exclude some of the projects from that. I'm wondering, Chair Espinosa, if you could help me understand how you're working with the language and intent under 307 and some of the uncertainty right now about what transmission is included in this tariff and what transmission might be excluded and how perhaps, again, understanding we need to be kind of up one level because it's an act of DOCA, but how do you look at this issue and what role will you have in being able to sort this out versus perhaps saying it's uncertain and you maybe need to punt it to somebody else to give you more guidance so you can complete the decisions.

For the record and through the Chair, uh, to Co-Chair Holland, uh, this is Claire Knudsen Latta. I'm actually staff on the docket, so, uh, Co-Chair Holland, if it's acceptable to you, I'll respond. Great, thank you. Yep, uh, so, uh, the first thing I'll say is that this is a docket that is currently under adjudication, as you noted, so I can't get into any of the particular details of the Commission's process or discussions that they're having. What I will say is that we are guided, of course, by AS4483-700 through 720, which was passed with HB 307, establishing the RTO.

And in looking at that, we are also looking at the legislative record, which means I have spent a.

Considerable chunk of the last little bit watching past hearings, reviewing past minutes, stuff like that. We are also very fortunate in that we have a very robust record for the Commission to review. So looking at the pre-filed testimony, the reply testimony, looking at briefings on questions the Commission issued that get in part to your question about what constitutes the backbone transmission system. Stuff like that. And then, of course, the hearing, which I think produced a total of about 3,300 pages of transcript.

So lots to go through there as well.

Does that give you kind of any sense of what you're looking for, or is there other information I can provide? Thank you. Through the Chair, I think it establishes the situation But I was trying to get to a little more specificity on how you'll resolve the question and what authority you have in the RCA in this docket to actually bring some clarity to how the tariff is determined and set with this. And I'm unclear whether or not the RCA will have the authority to make a determination of what's in the backbone. Um, or whether you'll get to a point where the grayness is going to leave you unable to complete the tariff determination or perhaps kick it back.

So I'm just kind of looking for kind of authority to sort this out as opposed to just knowing that it's complex and it's got some areas that, um, have so far I think been, uh, identified as being uncertain. And curious how you'll deal with that.

Uh, so happily 4483, uh, I think it's 710, does discuss the non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff being approved by the Commission. So the Commission does have, uh, the— its broader abilities to review and approve a utilities tariff, or in this case the RTO's tariff. And the other thing I wanted to speak to is I just totally went blank on it. I'm so sorry. The first part of— so you asked about our authority, and you— what was the other part you asked about?

I'm again terribly sorry. Yeah, thank you. Through the chair, it's hard for me to always rewind my mental tape also, but I think it was a question about authority and process of how you'll come to some determination on this, and You know, in particular, to get more specific, I believe there is some real grayness in the question of the degree to which certain projects may be viewed as being extended— I'm forgetting the contract language— but extended projects within the Bradley Lake Project or the hydro project there, and whether or not new projects that are somehow associated with that will be considered part of the original grandfathered project or whether RCA has the ability to draw that line of when that project was completed and anything new is now separate and part of the transmission as opposed to being grandfathered back into the original project. I'm curious about RCA's ability to sort that out or if that's something that's going to cause you to get to a stopping point and have to kick that back out to somebody else to sort it out. So I will say, through the chair, this is Claire Knudsen Latta, to the— to Coach Er Holland, you asked a little bit about process, and then I'll see what I can do about answering the second part of that.

In terms of process, as always, it's reviewing the record. The AS4483-700-720 also pointed us to to FERC standards and precedent. So in part of what we're doing is looking at how the FERC has handled some of these questions. It's not a perfect one-to-one analogy because obviously the federal— the FERC is underscored by federal legislation that we are not underscored here in Alaska by. So we are working with that.

But in terms of specific line extensions, or specific new projects. I don't know that I can speak to individual projects at this juncture because the process for new facilities for determining the backbone transmission system, that aspect of it, is under adjudication, and I don't want to cross a line that I am forbidden to cross. Okay, thank you. Just short follow-up and then move on. Go ahead, Chair Hyland.

Great, thank you, Chair Mears. Thanks for that answer. You know, I think underlying this is a desire for us to understand the framework of this particular case. I think many of us understood, certainly I did, that this open access tariff was going to apply very broadly to all of the primary and future transmission infrastructure that existed and would be built in the future. And this tariff process has highlighted the fact that that is maybe not as widely understood and committed to as was originally understood.

And rather than this tariff process finally eliminating the wheeling problem and having clear open access for projects, it's threatened by the ability of perhaps carving it down to the point where it only covers a small 20% portion of our transmission, leaving the vast majority of it still without a clear structure without the wheeling rates. And it's just— it took us a long time to get to this point, and for us to be at this point and to realize that what is being developed may not be actually solving the full problem that it was intended to is a bit surprising. And so, you know, I'm hoping that the process you're in will either quickly resolve these questions and help us establish the original legislative intent, which is having a clear open access tariff that applied to all the transmission system, or fairly quickly figure out out that there's perhaps a gap or a problem in the original legislation that we can fix so we can get back on track so that we do have the open access that was originally intended. So I'll leave it at that for now. I'll chime in on that a little bit.

So I think, you know, really broadly what we're looking for is a system where if you've got a distance between the source of electricity and a final user, that it's not so cost burdensome along the way that it's more cost efficient to use something that's less energy efficient for generation on the back end. And, you know, I think we can see that very clearly between getting electrons from Bradley up to Fairbanks and that Fairbanks is in the situation that using less efficient and more expensive generation up there is actually less costly for their users than paying all the wheeling along the way. And understandably, there's complexities because there's existing agreements and contracts that have got precedence or authority along certain sections of that line for what those costs are. But the quicker we can unwind them and start acting more unified, and not spreading those, you know, stacking those costs up, the better we are. We are a small energy market in Alaska, and throwing up these administrative hurdles, really, that's what it is.

The wheeling and these contracts are administrative hurdles to letting the actual energy of this system operate more efficiently. And so fun. Practicalities and administration, that's But that's some of the fun stuff we have to do here. So do we have any further questions from the committee? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Brief adieu.

Back on the record with House Energy. Um, So I just have one thing to follow up as a request to the RCA.

I have spent a career as a regulator and following regulatory processes and have been getting over the challenges of navigating the RCA website, but I think it would be very helpful— and I'm not asking for a big time sink into this— But if you're able to provide the committee an email with some links very specifically to the OAT, to U25028 and to the IDocket I26001 about the LNG import facilities, that— just a super brief tutorial so that committee members and staff can more.

Follow along with that. Again, not looking for, you know, like a big manual on how to navigate your website, which I understand is getting updated soon, but I think that would be very helpful. Chair Espinosa, is that something— is that a burden?

For the record, Chair Espinosa to Co-Chair Meyers, no, we think we can get that done as early as tomorrow. I appreciate that. So, um, at this point I don't have any wrap-up comments. Koji Holland. Great, thank you, Chair Mears.

Um, Chair Spindola, and, uh, to the staff that have joined us, I just want to thank you for what you're doing with this information docket. You know, we began this process a couple months ago with a hearing on the LNG import facilities and had introduced the notion of perhaps having this information docket. And I'm very grateful that the RCA has taken on the effort to create this docket, to go through the process of inviting participants, and the work that you're doing on this. I recognize, and as you noted, this is a lot of work. It's very complex.

But I think it's a remarkable step for us to think a little bit differently about the future energy assets and infrastructures being built. This, from my perspective, is a rare case where we've kind of stepped up to a balcony level to kind of look across multiple potential future projects in order to learn about them and to be able to perhaps make a little different kinds of decisions about how those projects proceed in the future in the best interests of our ratepayers and our economy. So thank you for the work that the RCA has taken on when it agreed to create this docket, and I both am going to be wanting to follow the docket in particular in terms of what you you specifically are learning as it relates to the specific subject of this docket, but I'm also looking forward to learning about how this tool of an information docket might be a more useful and valuable tool for us to understand when we might want to use it in the future for different situations and to use it to our benefit as a resource and to be able to bring in all of the expertise and experience that that you and the people that support these dockets have through the RCA. So, again, thank you for the work you're doing on this. Help us to both understand how to access, as Chair Muir— or Co-Chair Muir has mentioned, this particular case, but also help us to learn about how this type of tool can be used in the future to our benefit.

So, thank you for the time on that. [Speaker:DR. LISA SMITH] Thank you. And we'll be paying attention to the I docket as well. And I think with the OAT looking at a final decision in early June that, you know, we might have an room catch-up meeting remote during— to catch up and see how things have progressed in a few months. But that is TBA.

Thank you everyone for delving into this pretty nitty-gritty here with the RCA today. Chair Aspendola, Commissioner Vogler, and Ms. Knudsen-Latta, thank you all for being in Juneau recently, and I think you've been spending a little bit more time down here than usual this session. You do do complex, important work. We appreciate that you do that and that you have been open to the legislature for learning more about your processes and what is going on.

With that, we are done with our business for today. We are not only done for our business for today, we are not planning any other future energy meetings for this session. So this is our, our final meeting for the 34th Legislature. Thank you all for participating. And with that, we are adjourned at 2:29 PM.