Distributed Renewables for Arctic Energy: A Case Study

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5000-84391

January 2023

Distributed Renewables for Arctic

Energy: A Case Study

Ben Anderson

Rob Jordan,

and Ian Baring-Gould

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Renewable Energy Alaska Project

NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5000-84391

January 2023

Distributed Renewables for Arctic

Energy: A Case Study

Ben Anderson

Rob Jordan,

and Ian Baring-Gould

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

2 Renewable Energy Alaska Project

Suggested Citation

Anderson, Ben

, Rob Jordan, and Ian Baring-Gould. 2023. Distributed Renewables for

Arctic Energy: A Case Study.

Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

NREL/

TP-5000-84391. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/84391.pdf.

NOTICE

This work was authored in part by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, operated by Alliance for Sustainable

Energy, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding

provided by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Wind Energy

Technologies Office. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S.

Government.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reports produced after 1991

and a growing number of pre-1991 documents are available

free via www.OSTI.gov

Cover Photos by Dennis Schroeder: (clockwise, left to right) NREL 51934, NREL 45897, NREL 42160, NREL 45891, NREL 48097,

NREL 46526.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.

iii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the community representatives that we interviewed: Tim

Kalke, Ingemar Mathiasson, Matt Bergan, Darron Scott, Roderick Phillips, Griffin Hagle, Jodi

Mitchell, Melony Allain, Dave Pelunis-Messier, and Tanya Lestenkof. This report would not

have been possible without their input. We would like to thank Stephanie Nowers, Donovan

Russoniello, Chris Rose, and Neil McMahon for their thoughtful reviews, and Sheri Anstedt for

editorial support.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Acronyms

AEA Alaska Energy Authority

ANCSA Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act

AOC Atlantic Orient Corporation

AVEC Alaska Village Electric Cooperative

BESS battery energy storage system

CWG Chaninik Wind Group

EIA Energy Information Administration

EWT Emergya Wind Technologies

F Fahrenheit

IPP independent power producer

KEA Kodiak Electric Authority

kW kilowatt

kWh kilowatt-hour

Li-ion lithium-ion

MW megawatt

N/A not applicable

NWAB Northwest Arctic Borough

PCE power cost equalization

PV photovoltaics

REF Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund

SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition

SEGA Sustainable Energy for Galena Alaska

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Executive Summary

Alaska is a vast state that stretches into the Arctic Circle. Roughly 140,000 people in the state

depend on isolated electric grids, traditionally burning expensive fossil fuels. These fuel sources

have negative impacts on air quality and climate. As the climate warms, fuel supply chains and

traditional ways of life are threatened. Renewable energy systems offer a clean, resilient

alternative with less volatile costs to remote Arctic communities, but developing them raises a

variety of technical, social, economic, and political challenges. Examples include harsh operating

conditions, lack of local technical and managerial capacity, complex funding mechanisms, and

lengthy permitting processes.

With many isolated energy systems incorporating a variety of renewable technologies, Alaskan

communities provide valuable lessons that can be applied across the Arctic. In this case study,

we interviewed communities that are interested in adding renewables to their energy systems to

understand their needs and challenges. We also interviewed communities that have successfully

installed renewable energy to understand how they overcame such challenges and the lessons

they learned. Notable results include the importance of local buy-in, education, and technical

involvement; procuring external funding sources; intercommunity collaboration; installing

bespoke systems; working with reliable equipment suppliers; and having a local "project

champion”. The goal of this report is to orient and inspire Arctic communities that want to begin

their renewable energy transition, by providing helpful examples and points of contact.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 3

3 Needs and Challenges Identified by Communities Without Renewable Energy Projects ............ 6

3.1 Technical ...................................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Human Capital............................................................................................................................... 7

3.3 Economic ....................................................................................................................................... 8

3.4 Social and Political ........................................................................................................................ 9

4 Case Study Results ............................................................................................................................ 11

4.1 Galena ......................................................................................................................................... 11

4.1.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 11

4.1.2 Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 12

4.1.3 Execution ........................................................................................................................ 12

4.1.4 Results ............................................................................................................................ 13

4.1.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned ................................................................................... 13

4.2 Kotzebue (Kotz) .......................................................................................................................... 13

4.2.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 13

4.2.2 Upgrade Story ................................................................................................................ 13

4.2.3 Capacity Building ........................................................................................................... 15

4.2.4 Results ............................................................................................................................ 15

4.2.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned ................................................................................... 16

4.3 Shungnak and Kobuk .................................................................................................................. 17

4.3.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 17

4.3.2 Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 17

4.3.3 Execution ........................................................................................................................ 17

4.3.4 Results ............................................................................................................................ 18

4.3.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned ................................................................................... 19

4.4 Kodiak ......................................................................................................................................... 19

4.4.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 19

4.4.2 Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 19

4.4.3 Execution ........................................................................................................................ 19

4.4.4 Results ............................................................................................................................ 20

4.4.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned ................................................................................... 21

4.5 Kongiganak (Kong) ..................................................................................................................... 21

4.5.1 Background .................................................................................................................... 21

4.5.2 Preparation ..................................................................................................................... 21

4.5.3 Execution ........................................................................................................................ 22

4.5.4 Results ............................................................................................................................ 23

4.5.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned ................................................................................... 23

5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 24

References ................................................................................................................................................. 25

Appendix: Contacts and Data Sources for Each Community .............................................................. 27

vii

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

List of Figures

Figure 1. Interviewed communities by ANCSA region and population ....................................................... 5

Figure 2. SEGA’s self-propelled chipper and self-loading log truck harvesting wood for the biomass

boiler. Image from Orr (undated) .......................................................................................... 12

Figure 3. Kotzebue’s wind turbines and solar PV arrays, which use the old wind turbine’s inverters.

Image from Misbrener (2021) ................................................................................................ 16

Figure 4. The 223.5-kW solar PV array that powers Shungnak and Kobuk. Image from DeMarban (2022)

................................................................................................................................................ 18

Figure 5. Three GE 1.5-MW wind turbines in Kodiak’s Pillar wind energy project overlook the flywheel-

powered electric shipping crane. Image from Kodiak Electric Association (undated) .......... 20

Figure 6. Kongiganak’s five Windmatic wind turbines, as seen from the town’s boardwalk. Photo by

Amanda Byrd, Alaska Center for Energy and Power ............................................................ 22

List of Tables

Table 1. Interviewed Communities Without Renewable Energy Systems. Generator Efficiency Is the

Metric Used To Represent the Technical Capability for Energy Projects. ............................. 3

Table 2. Interviewed Communities With Renewable Energy Systems. Generator Efficiency Is the Metric

Used To Represent the Technical Capability for Energy Projects. ......................................... 4

Table 3. Renewable Energy System Details in Case Study Communities.................................................. 11

Table A1. Contacts and Data Sources for Each Community. Data are available on Github at

https://github.com/REAP-Data/Arctic-Case-Study.git. (AEA: Alaska Energy Authority, EIA:

Energy Information Administration) ...................................................................................... 27

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

1 Introduction

Alaska is a vast state that stretches into the Arctic Circle. Its biggest urban area is known as the

“Railbelt,” which stretches between the Kenai Peninsula through Anchorage to Fairbanks and is

home to about 81% of the state’s population (Fall 2019). Outside of the Railbelt, roughly

140,000 people (Fall 2019), making up about 13% of Alaska’s electricity consumption

(McMahon and Jordan 2021), depend on isolated energy systems that have traditionally operated

on diesel generators and other fossil-fuel-based energy sources for electricity and most heating.

These same conditions, though with different underlying drivers, are present in many remote and

island communities across the globe, especially in the circumpolar Arctic. Although diesel-

powered generators have continued to provide reliable electricity, their continued use raises

economic, reliability, and sustainability challenges, especially in the face of increasingly lower-

cost energy generation options. Diesel fuel can be expensive to transport and store, and although

relatively affordable at times, is susceptible to large global price shocks. For example, between

the winter of 2021 and summer of 2022, average diesel prices in the state of Alaska rose by 26%

(DCRA 2022).

Fuel transportation to remote Alaskan communities is also becoming more susceptible to

climate-related disruptions. In these communities, fuel is typically delivered by barge, which for

inland communities is only available during the summer when the rivers are free of ice. Changes

in river paths, low water levels, increasing sediments, or unexpected storms can put shipments at

risk, leaving a community without the energy stores needed to meet high heating loads during the

long winter. Alternative methods of delivery, such as ice roads and winter-based overland routes,

are becoming less secure as the climate warms. The emergency alternative—flying diesel in on

small planes or even by helicopter—increases costs exponentially, with some communities

paying over $16/gallon (Hughes 2022). Burning diesel also releases greenhouse gasses and other

pollutants, accelerating climate change and reducing local air quality. The effects of climate

change are being experienced acutely in Arctic regions like Alaska, as melting permafrost further

reduces transportation options and puts building foundations at risk. A changing climate also has

other ecological and cultural effects, putting subsistence hunting and fishing at risk.

Remote Alaskan communities have and will continue to lead in community-based renewable

energy development, serving as an example for similar communities throughout the world. Many

communities have excellent wind, solar, hydropower or biomass resources waiting to be used.

Sixty-nine Alaskan communities have so far integrated some form of renewable energy

(McMahon et al. 2022), and between 2014 and 2018, 5,210 households in rural Alaska received

building energy efficiency improvements to reduce overall energy demand (Alaska Housing

Finance Corporation 2018). A variety of funding sources and programs are available to support

communities in the complex transition to renewable energy.

The goal of this study is to orient communities considering the integration of renewable energy

into their isolated grids, building on the experience gained across Alaska. In developing this

work, we interviewed communities that do not yet use renewable energy to understand their

needs and challenges. Informed by these interviews, we then interviewed “case study”

communities that have successfully deployed renewable energy, compiling the development

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

process and lessons learned. Holdmann et al. (2022) found that communities with successful

renewable energy projects shared the following characteristics:

• They had no subsidies for fossil fuels beyond the power cost equalization (PCE) program,

a subsidy that reduces electric costs for residents in a community to a certain level,

agnostic of how it is generated.

• They had either high capacity to manage projects and infrastructure, or pooled resources

with other communities, or both.

The authors found these characteristics to be consistent with the “case study” communities we

interviewed but also identified several other characteristics that led to more successful outcomes.

We hope that this study provides actionable information and inspiration for communities to build

their own local capacity and work with like-minded partners to incorporate larger amounts of

renewables into their energy systems.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

2 Methods

We first interviewed six representative communities without renewable energy to identify the

needs and challenges that they face in considering renewable energy development. Our goal was

to ensure that the following round of interviews with communities that have renewable energy

would be broadly helpful for this first group of communities. The communities vary in

population, Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) region, income, technical

proficiency, and local renewable resource potential. We wanted the communities to be diverse

enough to represent the common needs and challenges throughout remote Alaskan communities

and, to the extent possible, other Arctic communities with similar characteristics. These

communities are listed in Table 1 and key findings are provided in the next section.

Table 1. Interviewed Communities Without Renewable Energy Systems. Generator Efficiency Is

the Metric Used to Represent the Technical Capability for Energy Projects.

Community Population

Median

Household

Income

ANCSA

Region

Natural

Resource

Potential

Utility

Ownership

Diesel

Generator

Efficiency

(%)

Utqiagvik 4,354 $87,870

Arctic

Slope

Wind

North Slope

Borough

Community 95

Noorvik 562 $65,000 NANA Wind

Alaska

Village

Electric

Cooperative

Cooperative 88

Angoon 497 $41,500

Sealaska

Hydropower

Inside

Passage

Electric

Cooperative

Cooperative 92

Tuluksak 269 $28,571

Calista n/a Tuluksak Community 72

Tanacross 145 $53,750 Doyon

Solar

Photovoltaics

Tanacross Community 91

Nikolski 15 $35,000 Aleut Wind

Umnak

Power

Community 75

Census Reporter (2020)

PCE data; Jordan (2020)

Data USA (undated)

Next, the project team interviewed five “case study” communities with renewable energy to

understand their renewable development stories, and the recommendations they had for

interested communities. Based on the feedback from the first series of interviews, we focused on

their motivation for development, how they prepared for and executed the development process,

what the results were, the challenges they faced, and the lessons they learned. We chose a group

of five communities that varied in population, region, income, and local renewable resource used

so that their stories would be broadly helpful. The chosen communities are listed in Table 2.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Their stories are presented in Section 4. The locations and relative sizes of all interviewed

communities are shown in Figure 1.

Table 2. Interviewed Communities with Renewable Energy Systems. Generator Efficiency Is the

Metric Used to Represent the Technical Capability for Energy Projects.

Community Population

Median

Household

Income

ANCSA

Region

Natural

Resource

Potential

Utility

Ownership

Diesel

Generator

Efficiency

(%)

Galena 505 $76,111 Doyon

Biomass,

Solar

City of Galena Community N/A

Shungnak &

Kobuk

361 $50,850 NANA Solar

Alaska Village

Electric

Cooperative

Cooperative 86

Kotzebue 3,283 $87,000 NANA

Wind,

Solar

Kotzebue

Electric

Authority

Cooperative 92

Kodiak 5,983 $69,259 Koniag

Hydro-

power,

Wind

Kodiak Electric

Authority

Cooperative 90

Kongiganak 478 $48,958 Calista Wind

Puvurnaq

Power

Company

Community 77

Census Reporter (2020)

PCE data; Jordan (2020)

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 1. Interviewed communities by ANCSA region and population

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

3 Needs and Challenges

Communities without renewable energy projects identified a variety of needs and challenges

associated with developing such projects. We break these into several categories: technical,

human capital, economic, and social & political. Cited examples show how communities with

renewables have addressed these needs and challenges.

3.1 Technical Needs

Integrating components and controls is key to renewable energy project success. To avoid

technical problems, engineers and project developers must carefully consider how proposed

renewable generation will integrate with the existing power system, including generation,

controls, thermal heating systems, and the distribution network. System-specific engineering will

be needed, so customized solutions are more effective than potentially less-expensive, off-the-

shelf approaches that may not include the flexibility needed to integrate with local

configurations. Remote communities Buckland and Deering worked with their solar-battery

system supplier Box Power to create inexpensive solutions tailored to their environment.

Notably, they buried an entire Conex unit underground and filled it with gravel to keep the

attached solar panels from blowing over in high winds. Gravel was an abundant local resource,

and conventional concrete foundations would have been expensive due to the high cost of

shipping in Portland cement. In Shungnak, Alaska Native Renewable Industries used a helical

pile foundation instead of a cement foundation for their solar arrays.

Excellent logistics and project planning are critical. Shipping equipment is difficult and

expensive for many remote communities. Large equipment may only be accessible by barge for

limited amounts of time each year, and other transport options are much more limited and

expensive. Therefore, understanding potential needs for spare parts and preparing a robust parts

inventory can mitigate significant system downtime and repair costs. Shungnak learned from

previous failed renewable energy projects in their region, emphasizing project planning and

spare part availability. This approach allowed their renewable project to be completed rapidly,

within a year.

Stories about reliable, economical systems are required to build public trust in renewable

energy. Although renewable energy integration is becoming more common and its value better

understood, examples of success need to be well-documented to overcome previous negative

experiences and to articulate the benefits for different communities. In Kodiak, the renewable

energy sources have been reliable and saved the community money. There is now a strong sense

of community pride for renewable projects.

The use of battery energy storage systems (BESSs) can increase grid stability and even

allow diesel-off operation. Reliable and demonstrated battery systems provide a valuable

complement to wind and solar energy deployments. Multiple systems have been deployed where

short-term, battery-based electrical storage is used across a variety of system architectures. In

Kotzebue, battery storage provides spinning reserves to displace diesel generation during high

renewable periods and has reduced blackouts. In Kodiak and Kongiganak, storage is used to

regulate grid voltage and frequency. Shungnak has run its system in “diesel-off” mode during

high renewable periods.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Good resource assessment campaigns set projects up for success. It is important to accurately

characterize renewable energy resources and community loads prior to performing feasibility and

design studies. Kotzebue and Kodiak both performed rigorous wind resource assessment

campaigns before installing successful wind energy projects. These provided realistic projections

of renewable energy potential, important for managing expectations.

Equipment installed in isolated communities must be designed for those environments and

undergo supported demonstration prior to wide deployment. It is not unusual for equipment

installed in isolated areas, especially in the Arctic, to be forced to operate outside of their design

specifications due to unusual environmental conditions. In many cases this is unavoidable, but all

equipment should be assessed for its ability to operate in the expected environment, performance

de-ratings should be assessed and applied, and mitigation measures, such as assessing longer

break-in periods or higher initial maintenance costs, should be implemented. In Kotzebue, a

Zinc-Bromide flow battery that the utility initially deployed was not suited for the local

conditions and failed. The utility replaced it with a well-tested lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery. In

Kongiganak, winterized Windmatic wind turbines were used, and required further modifications

to work in the local cold, gusty, and weak-grid conditions.

3.2 Human Capital Needs

Community buy-in and ownership is essential. 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 buy-in

from key stakeholders 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 a successful project in Kongiganak: the community trained and retained a local

workforce, built community trust through presentations in village meetings, and received

community leader and tribal council support. In Galena, hiring and training an all-local

workforce provided enhanced job satisfaction, increased local capacity, and strengthened the

community overall.

Proposed systems should be commensurate with the training, education, and availability of

the local workforce. The use of community-appropriate technology reduces system failures and

the community’s dependence on long-term, expensive, external assistance. Local capacity should

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. Communities have found

that small, easy-to-maintain pilot systems with solar photovoltaics (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, installing small

wind turbines provided the technical capacity for subsequent installations of much larger wind

turbines, batteries, and solar PV systems. In Galena, a focus on community education and

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

training allowed the community to perform increasing portions of system maintenance locally

and has enabled it to set its sights on future solar projects.

Having a regional or statewide pool of support resources increases the likelihood of success.

Having a network of knowledgeable people actively engaged in operating projects, such as an

energy cooperative, that can provide targeted education or technical knowledge, increases the

likelihood of project success, and can allow 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. Kongiganak is part of the Chaninik Wind Group (CWG), which helps

secure wind energy project funding, shares training expenses, builds local capacity, and reduces

energy costs. The CWG has built projects in each of its member communities, leveraging the

capacity built from each successful project.

Competent, practical project managers are required. The technical, financial, managerial,

and community engagement components of a renewable energy project must be overseen by

experienced personnel to help ensure success. 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. In Kodiak, early renewable projects failed due to

insufficient engineering and project management. Since then, a renewed focus on these

components has enabled successful projects.

3.3 Economic Challenges

Communities that need renewable energy the most may have the hardest time developing

projects. Communities with high energy burdens are generally supportive of renewable energy

projects that can reduce energy expenditures, but these same households and communities are

often the least likely to be able to afford large investments in new renewable energy systems.

Energy subsidies and policies favoring existing technology hinder energy transitions.

Subsidies that incentivize one generation source over others have clear impacts on a

community’s energy mix, adding a political lens to decisions that may differ from community

values. This situation is not inherently bad but should be clearly recognized by policymakers.

Subsidies that reduce the cost of fossil energy for consumers affect renewable energy projects by

reducing the incentive for change or making it harder for consumers to understand the value of

that change. This understanding is particularly hard to achieve if only some portions of the

community receive those subsidies.

Individual use of renewable energy, such as net metering, can have significant impacts on

small, isolated energy systems. In small, isolated communities, generating one’s own electricity

can greatly impact the sustainability of the larger power network by potentially stripping away

the highest-value utility customers. As a result, power providers may oppose customers installing

renewable energy systems or supporting renewables through favorable connection agreements,

such as net metering. Self-generation by larger, and in some cases institutional clients, can

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

reduce utility revenue while still requiring the utility to be prepared to provide energy services

when renewables are not available. This revenue reduction can drive electricity rates higher for

other customers, often the ones who are already have high energy burdens. Collaborating on

solutions that benefit both the utility and customer will improve community energy access and

well-being.

Developing the funding for specific projects is complicated and requires a great deal of

skill. Due to the wide variety of funding opportunities, such as including simple loans,

guaranteed loans, and grants, funding entities (e.g., federal, state, philanthropic), recipient

organizations (e.g., governments, utilities, tribal organizations), and focus areas (e.g., studies,

design, hardware, infrastructure, operations), it can be difficult to obtain the funding needed to

complete a new energy project. To pay for Kongiganak’s renewable energy project, the

community’s skilled grant writer had to secure funding from several different sources.

3.4 Social and Political Needs and Challenges

Community engagement best practices should be employed. Several defined best practices

for productive community engagement have been developed (for example, Ross and Day 2022)

and should be applied by communities or outside parties while developing new renewable energy

projects. Key concepts include hiring coordinators that are humble, authentic, honest, and

understand local concerns and beliefs; and establishing democratized processes that respect and

support community agency as well as meet the community where it is. Clear demonstration of

how renewables can improve community life, and an enduring presence that shows appreciation

for community life, are essential. Many communities could provide examples of both good and

bad engagement efforts from a wide variety of state and national organizations.

Clear articulation of benefits and difficulties of renewable energy projects are needed. To

enable community-based decision-making, credible and transparent information on costs,

impacts, and benefits is needed. In Kongiganak, village meetings that articulated this information

were essential to building trust and relationships in the community. Without transparency and

community leaders’ trust, projects can be used as scapegoats for other technical issues in the

community.

Coordination across multiple engaged organizations can be difficult but is critical to

success. There are typically many different authoritative entities that are involved in the project

development process, including tribes; city, state, and federal government; native corporations;

and energy cooperatives or utilities. Competition, mistrust, and not sharing responsibilities

between the different organizations can hinder projects. Kongiganak found that cooperation

between community leaders, the tribal council, Puvurnaq Power Company, Native Calista

Corporation, and CWG enabled a successful project.

Overcoming the desire to “stick to what we know” is a key challenge. Risk-averse politics

and utility managers, misconceptions about renewable energy, disenchantment from past failed

projects, lack of information on successful project development, and culturally embedded

reluctance to transition toward renewable energy generation all hinder the acceptance of

renewable energy, even in areas where it could provide strong community benefits. The

hesitancy or inability to implement federal or state policy can lead to project stagnation that

could be addressed through more active political or organizational participation. Kodiak Electric

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Association’s healthy understanding of risk, including the risk of not doing renewable energy

projects, combined with careful engineering and progressive development, overcame risk

aversion. Kotzebue found that securing grant funding made stakeholders more open to renewable

energy.

Energy inequality and energy poverty can be hard to navigate with communitywide

solutions. Addressing communitywide energy challenges when there are diverse household-level

needs and energy inequality can be challenging. Care, combined with community engagement

best practices, is necessary to navigate the inequality of household needs and the perception of

community fairness, especially when applying for and using grants. In Kongiganak, about half of

the households have been equipped with electric thermal stoves, which are powered by local

wind turbines at a much lower cost of energy than the heating oil that warms most homes. Some

of the households that have not yet received these stoves are envious of those who have.

Persistence and respect are required to rebuild trust in renewable energy project

development. In some locations, trauma from past federal, state, and nongovernmental

organizations’ actions have broken trust in the state and federal government and their

representatives. Rebuilding trust will involve acknowledging past wrongs, respecting community

values, spending time investing in communities, and including community members in decision

making.

Complex federal review processes increase timelines and impact the likelihood of success.

When projects are on federal land, slow, expensive, inflexible federal permitting can increase

development timelines and costs, and make projects infeasible. Increased timelines and costs can

lead to underfunded projects, leading to the implementation of shortcuts, using cheaper, less-

suitable technologies, or neglecting needed engineering work to make the projects “fit within the

budget”. This can be problematic with fixed state or federal grant funding that typically has

limited flexibility to address rising project costs.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4 Case Study Results

System-specific information of the five “case study” communities that have added renewable

energy into their existing power systems are provided in Table 3. The renewable energy

development process and results are described for each community as follows.

Table 3. Renewable Energy System Details in Case Study Communities

Community Peak,

Average

Load

(kilowatts

[kW])

Installed

Renewable

Capacity

Storage Capacity and Function (e.g.,

Spinning Reserve, Frequency Regulation)

Annual Fuel

Savings

(gallons)

Galena 750, not

applicable

(N/A)

4.5-million British-

thermal-unit

biomass boiler

none 190,000

Kotzebue 3,500,

2,600

576-kW PV,

2,250-kW wind

1.2-megawatt (MW)/950-kilowatt-hour

(kWh) battery - spinning reserve

450-kW electric boiler - absorbs excess

renewable power

250,000-

400,000

Shungnak

and Kobuk

N/A

223.5-kW PV, with

Two 100-kW

inverters

250-kW/352-kWh battery N/A

Kodiak 27,250,

20,000

33.6-MW

hydropower,

9-MW wind

3-MW battery - voltage and frequency

regulation

2-MW flywheel - voltage and frequency

regulation, powers electric shipping crane

2.8 million

Kongiganak

N/A

475-kW wind

300-kW/ 1,550-kWh total electric thermal

stoves - absorbs excess wind power,

electric boiler - regulates grid frequency

375-kW, 31-kWh Lithium-ion battery -

voltage and frequency regulation

24,000

PCE data (Jordan 2020)

Infrastructure data (McMahon et al. 2022)

Nowers (2022)

4.1 Galena

4.1.1 Background

The Galena Interior Learning Academy boarding school services 200 students and is a

significant economic driver in the city. In 2008, ownership was transferred to the city from the

United States Air Force, which left enough diesel to provide the district heating system for 10

years. Oil was expensive, leading to an interest in developing a biomass-fueled (wood) heating

system to replace the oil by the time it ran out. A local engineer brought the city, school district,

and Louden tribe together to develop a project plan.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.1.2 Preparation

Community engagement was central to Galena’s preparation, with the city manager, school

superintendent, and tribal council administrator all working together. Quarterly meetings with

free food were held to engage community members, who appreciated the effort. Those

championing the project set down roots in Galena and hired locals to accomplish it, which also

built community support. Biomass resource data collection, although challenging, was performed

to help secure funding.

4.1.3 Execution

The tribe, city, and school district created Sustainable Energy for Galena Alaska (SEGA) (SEGA

undated) with $100,000 in funding from each to operate the biomass system for the first 3 years.

Tim Kalke, a part-time teacher who was getting a natural resource management degree at Oregon

State, was hired to help set up SEGA. Forest planning and Alaska’s Renewable Energy Fund

(REF) provided a $3-million grant for the 4.5-million British-thermal-unit biomass boiler. The

existing domestic water lines and steam distribution system were abandoned, with a new

hydronic distribution system funded by the Alaska Energy Efficiency Revolving Loan Fund and

new water lines funded by a $1.5-million Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

loan. A $500,000 governor’s grant funded mechanized wood-harvesting equipment, Figure 2.

The boiler came online in December 2016. In 2018, the project was expanded to energy

education, with additional renewable energy and energy efficiency projects. SEGA managed the

district heating system for 3 years in a contract with the city. Construction, labor, and a growing

capacity for system maintenance were kept internal to Galena. By 2022, the community had a

5,000-square-foot shop and the experience to keep the system running.

Figure 2. SEGA’s self-propelled chipper and self-loading log truck harvesting wood for the

biomass boiler. Image from Orr (undated)

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.1.4 Results

Biomass now meets 75% of the boarding school’s heat load, displacing 90,000 gallons of diesel

annually. The hydronic system upgrade displaces another 100,000 gallons, leaving just 40,000-

50,000 gallons of diesel necessary for heating annually. If the diesel price is over $3.30/gallon,

biomass is the cheaper heating option. The distribution system works well, and the fuel quality is

good. SEGA expanded from timber harvesting and operating the biomass district heating loop to

independent power production and construction. It shouldered project risk to benefit the

community. SEGA’s board has members from the city, school, tribe, and community,

constituting one full-time-equivalent employee. Timber is harvested from September through

March, employing 6-7 people. SEGA is now building energy-efficient, low-income housing,

employing 6-8 employees. Its total payroll in 2021 was over $400,000. With increased technical

capacity, SEGA is considering installing a 26-kW solar PV system on Galena’s electric grid.

4.1.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned

Galena’s biomass system has endured technical challenges. Wood-harvesting equipment breaks

down frequently while operating at -30℉. The boiler’s automated feed system has occasional

problems. Employees must clean the heat exchanger frequently due to mill scale (a magnetite

coating that can form on hot steel surfaces). On the social side, SEGA did not enter the local

firewood market (which could have been a revenue stream), to avoid competition with the local,

native wood-cutting industry.

One key takeaway is the importance of community engagement and empowerment. From the

beginning, community health and well-being were an important focus. The use of local

deciduous wood has long been part of Galena’s culture and economy, so it made sense to burn

wood instead of diesel. Including community members in discussions with the SEGA board,

along with educating and hiring an all-local workforce to complete and maintain the projects,

both empowered and enriched the community. SEGA has provided meaningful, satisfying work,

and created new jobs as it expands. Education and tools have allowed the community to tackle

new projects and maintain existing systems independently. Building local capacity was a huge

factor in the project’s success. This capacity building has strengthened the community, provided

a sense of purpose, and shifted the focus from the individual to the collective.

4.2 Kotzebue (Kotz)

4.2.1 Background

As Kotzebue grew from 1975 to 1995, its diesel fuel use increased from 1.0 to 1.5 million

gallons per year. In the early 1990s, Kotzebue was 100% diesel-powered. Kotzebue’s

community mindset, which is inquisitive and innovative yet practical, motivated the exploration

of wind energy. With a concern that PCE subsidies would go away, the community began to

realize that local wind power could eventually become cheaper than diesel power.

4.2.2 Upgrade Story

Wind energy development occurred in two main phases, as follows.

Phase 1: Pre-REF, 1995-2008

In the first phase, Kotzebue Electric Association installed several meteorological towers in 1995

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

to measure wind and solar energy resources, with a second collection campaign in 2000. The

community succeeded at getting grants, receiving funding from the STEP program in 1995 for

the first three 50-kW Atlantic Orient Corporation (AOC) 15/50 wind turbines that were installed

in 1997. These machines were not particularly reliable but were a stepping stone to increasing

Kotzebue’s capacity to handle bigger wind turbines. Over the next decade, fifteen 50-kW wind

turbines, one Vestas V15 (75 kW), and one Northwind NW100 (100 kW) were installed, for a

total of 925 kW of wind capacity. The community worked with the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory to verify the power curves of the Northwind and AOC machines. Operators were

hesitant to use the wind turbines because wind variability and turbine faults caused short load

shedding outages, prompting the need for a battery. In 2005, Kotzebue Electric Association

installed new switchgear and a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system to

minimize fuel consumption and automate the power system to maximize wind energy capture.

Phase 2: With REF, 2008-present

The REF was established by the Alaska State Legislature in 2008 to develop renewable energy

projects, with a focus on the most energy-burdened communities in the state. Since 2008, 244

REF grants have been awarded, totaling $284 million. Those state grants leveraged

approximately $250 million in private and federal funds to complete project funding. Over 100

operating projects have been built with REF support, collectively saving more than 30 million

gallons of diesel each year.

Kotzebue’s second phase of development began with a zinc-bromide flow battery installed in

2010. The battery did not meet the required specifications, was not tested for the application or

transported properly, and ultimately did not work. As a replacement, REF funding was used to

procure a 950-kWh Saft Li-ion battery coupled to a 1.2-MW ABB PCS100 inverter,

commissioned in 2015. The battery regulated the electric grid’s frequency, keeping the power

stable and preventing load shedding, which allowed more wind turbines to be installed. A 450-

kW electric boiler was installed at the hospital to further smooth over variability from the wind

turbines, absorbing 750 megawatt-hours of excess generation per year.

In 2012, two Emergya Wind Technologies (EWT) DW54-900 wind turbines (900 kW each) were

installed. These machines were chosen because they had direct drive (no gearbox and less

moving parts that would require a crane to fix) and EWT had a good track record. Eight of the

AOC wind turbines were decommissioned. In 2020, eight solar PV arrays were installed that

used the AOC’s existing infrastructure; the solar inverters had the same rating as the AOC’s

inverters (66 kW). The arrays were placed next to the wind turbines and their inverters were set

in the AOC shelters and plugged into their power cables to minimize cost, Figure 3. There is now

576 kW of total PV capacity.

Currently, only the two EWT wind turbines are operating, but Kotzebue Electric Association

would like to operate seven of the AOC wind turbines and the Northwind 100 again, given the

recent doubling in fuel prices. When the diesel generators are on, they stick to the minimum load

fraction recommended by the manufacturer. Future plans include installing:

• Vertical, bifacial solar PV arrays facing east-southeast and west-southwest to capture

more sunlight during the high morning and evening loads

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• A high-speed SCADA system to better understand what is happening during grid events

like outages

• Two more EWT wind turbines with large rotors to increase energy capture at low wind

speeds

• Larger batteries and thermal energy storage systems (Bergan 2021) to increase renewable

energy utilization and reduce the need for diesel generators to provide spinning reserve

• A diesel rotary uninterruptible power supply (possibly) to provide grid support.

4.2.3 Capacity Building

For this project, lots of information technology, electrical, and mechanical technician work was

needed, and it took several years to learn the technical skills to successfully operate these

projects. Kotzebue has received remote support to supplement growing local knowledge. The

community has a local wind energy technician, but no local BESS technician, so it has had to

learn to troubleshoot issues with remote support. Kotzebue has transitioned funds from buying

diesel to training staff, which creates local jobs.

4.2.4 Results

The large amount of renewable energy generation has reduced Kotzebue’s need for diesel

storage, allowing the utility to lease excess fuel storage to other local energy providers. As a

result, the local fuel market can now compete with an existing monopoly, and thereby reduce the

cost of living. The winter peak load has been cut by more efficient lights and appliances,

improved weatherization, and consumer mindfulness. Prior to wind energy installation, there

were occasional diesel-engine-related power outages. After installation, there were additional

wind-turbine-related outages. Now that the battery is installed, it has prevented most outages

from both.

Residential electric bills have not decreased because their savings are countered by reduction in

the PCE subsidy. However, nonresidential customers who are not eligible for PCE (e.g., stores,

hospitals, schools, and so on), have seen large electric bill reductions. The installation of

renewables has increased community technical capacity, wealth, and pride, and allowed

Kotzebue to become a leader in renewable energy development that is able to support other

communities that are new to developing renewables through cost and knowledge sharing.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 3. Kotzebue’s wind turbines and solar PV arrays, which use the old wind turbine’s

inverters. Image from Misbrener (2021)

4.2.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned

Kotzebue has found that the wind, solar, and battery technology of the future is here, and

recommends going “all in” on renewable energy. A community’s inquisitiveness, innovation,

and practicality can combine to create clean, cost-effective solutions. Representatives from

Kotzebue have several specific recommendations:

• Treat renewable energy technologies as the prime sources of power, and diesel as a

supplement.

• Ensure that all equipment is suited for the application, and work with suppliers who will

test, ship, and install it properly.

• Overbuild so that there is more than enough wind and solar energy to cover both baseload

and contingency scenarios (such as fast load ramp ups or generator trips).

• Use a battery large enough to meet the system’s load for an hour or two during the

winter, when heat is especially critical.

• Seek grant funding as much as possible; when local money is not at stake, people will be

less risk-averse.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

• Communicate the benefits of the new renewable system clearly to the community. For

example, in Alaska, the question, “Why didn’t my home electric bill go down?” can be

answered with, “Because you’re using less PCE, which preserves more of the subsidy for

future generations. Also, nonresidential customers without PCE, like your general store,

school, and hospital, will have lower electric bills, which will translate to lower prices on

the shelves and lower taxes, to the benefit of the whole community.”

4.3 Shungnak and Kobuk

4.3.1 Background

Shungnak and Kobuk were joined by a 10-mile-long intertie originally built in 1980 (Alaska

Village Electric Cooperative [AVEC] 2014). A fiber-optic telecommunications cable was added

in 2021. Before joining AVEC, Shungnak’s diesel generators powered Kobuk. Then, the river

flowing through these villages changed course and the water level decreased. This change

prevented barges from reaching the villages, which had been used to supply diesel fuel to the

area. As a result, the communities were motivated to move quickly: a solar PV array and battery

were planned to displace diesel, and heat pumps were planned in Shungnak to increase building

energy efficiency and reduce the use of diesel-fueled furnaces which were common for heating.

4.3.2 Preparation

To prepare for renewable installation, Shungnak and Kobuk joined forces as an independent

power producer (IPP). The Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) used its experience and data

collected from a project it had developed in Buckland and Deering to create a more efficient and

less costly project in Shungnak and Kobuk. Funding for the Shungnak and Kobuk solar-battery

IPP came from the United States Department of Agriculture ($1.3 million) and the NWAB

($800,000). An energy audit, costing about $1.02 million and funded by the Borough’s Village

Improvement Fund, was performed on 80 households in Shungnak and Kobuk to understand the

benefit of heat pumps. A pilot heat pump project was also conducted with grants from the

Coastal Impact Assessment Program to demonstrate that the technology would work in local

conditions.

4.3.3 Execution

The communities moved quickly, executing the solar PV, battery, and heat pump projects in

2021. Deerstone Consulting, with project experience in Deering and Buckland, provided

technical assistance. A 223.5-kW solar PV array on two strings with a 100-kW inverter each,

coupled with a 352-kWh battery and a 250-kW inverter were installed, Figure 4. The IPP signed

a power purchase agreement with AVEC and NWAB to complete the project. The PV arrays

were only installed in Shungnak because sufficient gravel needed to build above flood level in

Kobuk could not be found. The panels are bifacial, with no tracking and an 11% capacity factor.

The arrays are pointed in different directions to better distribute their power generation

throughout long Arctic summer days. System microcontrollers turn the diesel generators off

during the summer when they drop to 30% load and provide real-time visibility to AVEC. Solar

and battery operators were trained by the contractor, Alaska Native Renewable Industries.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Figure 4. The 223.5-kW solar PV array that powers Shungnak and Kobuk. Image from DeMarban

(2022)

4.3.4 Results

The solar PV produces 200 megawatt-hours of electricity per year, offsetting 14,300 gallons of

diesel. The battery is capable of energizing Shungnak and Kobuk for a few hours, ensuring

stable, reliable power in the case of a diesel generator or PV array shutting down. The

communities expect a renewable fraction of 11%-15% and want to get to 30%. They expect

households to save $2,000-2,500/year from heat pumps alone. No pushback was received from

community members, and NWAB is waiting to see how members respond to the project before

moving forward. The future goal is to displace more diesel. Plans are to upgrade the inverter to

500 kW to meet a winter peak load of 300 kW and add a 100-kW wind turbine to the system.

The communities are searching for funding to install more household heat pumps and lower the

electricity rate of customers. There is less heat recovery now that the diesel generators are

running at a lower level, so there is an inquiry into harnessing battery heat. In addition, there are

plans to build an intertie to the nearby village of Ambler, and then investigate installing wind

energy and hydropower, which are available along the potential intertie route.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

4.3.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned

Good relationships with suppliers, consultants, and contractors are essential to the success of a

renewable energy project. Shungnak and Kobuk have an excellent relationship with Box Power

(supplier of the solar-battery system), who worked with contractors on-site to tailor the

installation of their products to the location.

This rapid project was streamlined by good planning and the whole project being controlled by

the Native Village of Shungnak (the local tribe), thereby simplifying land and equipment

ownership.

Fuel prices must be high enough for heat pumps to be financially helpful. These pumps make

more sense when building a new house, and less when removing existing equipment and

replacing it. Increasing the energy eligible for PCE per household (from 500-750 kWh)

increases the financial benefit of electrical heat pumps.

4.4 Kodiak

4.4.1 Background

In 2000, roughly two-thirds of Kodiak’s power came from the Terror Lake hydropower plant.

The rest was covered by diesel generators. Hydropower was far cheaper than diesel power, and

its availability was dependent on rainfall, causing significant swings in power prices that were

difficult for customers to budget for. This unpredictability motivated the utility, Kodiak Electric

Authority (KEA), to pursue a system that was 95% renewable and provided power at a cost equal

to or lower than diesel.

4.4.2 Preparation

KEA bought the Terror Lake hydropower plant from the Four Dam Pool Power Authority in

2009 (Southeast Alaska Power Agency 2022) for $38 million, mostly with a United States

Department of Agriculture loan. This funding gave it the flexibility to modify and operate the

plant as required for a high-renewable-fraction system. The utility planned to couple hydropower

with wind energy. To maximize chances of success and increase local control, it engaged the

local community as much as possible, both in engineering studies and with community concerns.

For instance, KEA partnered with the local Audubon society to study the effect of wind turbines

on local birds. The utility also performed rigorous wind resource assessment campaigns. The

initial campaign had to be redone to consider the vertical wind component caused by the ridge

where the wind turbines were sited. Whatever engineering work that could not be performed

locally was outsourced.

4.4.3 Execution

To address the significant risks of integrating the amount of wind energy required to achieve

KEA’s ambitious goals, system upgrades have been carefully performed in stages over 16 years.

Each stage grew confidence and capability and answered questions that supported the next stage.

The 33.6-MW Terror Lake hydropower plant was outfitted with a faster control system, so that it

could quickly adapt to variable wind power. Three General Electric (GE) 1.5-MW wind turbines

were installed at Pillar Mountain in 2009, Figure 5. In 2012, three more GE 1.5-MW wind

turbines were installed, along with two 1.5-MW battery energy storage systems. Two ABB

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Powerstore 1-MW flywheels were installed in 2014. The batteries and flywheels maintained

system stability, and the flywheels provided stable power to a 2-MW Matson electric shipping

crane at the port. Roughly half of the $145-million total funding (Scott 2022) received for

upgrades was from Alaska state and REF grants, and the other half was loans from the CoBank,

National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation, clean renewable energy bonds, and

other sources.

Figure 5. Three GE 1.5-MW wind turbines in Kodiak’s Pillar wind energy project overlook the

flywheel-powered electric shipping crane. Image from Kodiak Electric Association (undated)

4.4.4 Results

KEA has exceeded its goals, with a system that uses 99% renewable energy and is significantly

cheaper than diesel power. About 85% of the community’s electricity now comes from

hydropower, and the rest from wind. The diesel generators only run when maintenance on the

renewable resources or the transmission infrastructure is necessary. Generator operation is so

infrequent that they are turned on quarterly to make sure they still work. KEA found that the

wind turbines are much cheaper to run and maintain than the diesel generators, and easier to

operate overall. Even high-quality diesel generators have costly regular maintenance and break

frequently. The wind turbines do trip often, but usually can be reconnected quickly. Hydropower

costs 6.8¢/kWh, wind energy costs 11¢/kWh, and diesel power costs 28.9¢/kWh (given a diesel

price of $3.50/gallon, which is about half of the current price) (Hobson 2016). Overall, $100

today buys the same amount of electricity as in 2000. The community loves renewable energy,

which is a source of pride (e.g., wind turbine art can be seen regularly around the city). Moving

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

forward, KEA is doing a detailed study on projected load growth caused by electric heat pumps,

electric vehicles, and U.S. Coast Guard ships docking in Kodiak. KEA also plans to increase the

size of the wind turbine and BESS deployments accordingly when they reach the end of their

expected lives. A diversion from Hidden Lake was added in December 2019 to boost the

hydropower resource so it can handle the variability of more wind capacity while maintaining its

water level.

4.4.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned

Previous failed projects provided lessons that set up other projects for success. In the past, a

water boiler was a waste of funds because it took so long to build that the surplus water it was

built to use ran out. Also, a power plant heat recovery system was poorly designed. Overall,

these lessons taught KEA the value of solid engineering, management, and data collection.

KEA’s independence from other communities, regulators, and the federal government provided

it with the flexibility to operate a high-renewable-fraction system. It decided not to become an

IPP so that it would not be beholden to any external customers. Competitive mentalities between

communities can ruin otherwise-promising projects. Also, because the wind turbines are

exclusively owned by and benefit Kodiak, there was no community resistance.

Ongoing community engagement and support were crucial to the success of the project. For

example, a healthy understanding of risk was important. KEA’s board was willing to accept risk

and understood the risk of doing nothing. This understanding, combined with careful engineering

and a progressive development approach, built confidence in the community and mitigated risks.

Furthermore, the board stuck to the original goals of the system (providing at least 95%

renewable energy at a cost less than or equal to that of diesel power).

Establishing good relationships with reliable equipment manufacturers who provided ample

support was important. KEA typically does closed bids to companies that they trust, instead of

just accepting the lowest bid they can find.

4.5 Kongiganak (Kong)

4.5.1 Background

In the past, Kongiganak was powered entirely by diesel. The fuel price spike of 2008 motivated

its move toward renewable energy.

4.5.2 Preparation

Originally, Kongiganak did not have a good hydropower resource or available solar technology.

Because there was a community member with experience using wind turbines to charge batteries,

the village decided to go with wind energy. In 2005, to qualify for the funding it needed to

engage in a wind energy project, share training, build local capacity, and innovate on ways to

reduce energy costs, Kongiganak formed CWG, an IPP, with the neighboring villages of Kipnuk,

Tuntutuliak, and Kwigillingok (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy Policy and

Programs, undated). CWG works with the local Puvurnaq Power Company. Intelligent Energy

Systems (IES), a local company with extensive Arctic energy experience, funded a wind

resource assessment campaign for several years before installing the wind turbines. IES also

secured funding from sources including the U.S. Department of Energy, REF, the state of

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Alaska, the Alaska Energy Authority, and other legislative appropriations. Technical assistance

was provided by IES and Frontier Power, who installed the wind-diesel SCADA system. The

resources supplied by CWG meant that the community only needed to hire an outside crane

operator and project manager.

Figure 6. Kongiganak’s five Windmatic wind turbines, as seen from the town’s boardwalk. Photo

by Amanda Byrd, Alaska Center for Energy and Power

4.5.3 Execution

Five 95-kW Windmatic wind turbines were installed in 2009, Figure 6. Kongiganak chose these

machines because they were inexpensive, reliable, easy to maintain, operate, and erect, and could

be winterized to suit the harsh Alaskan environment. Integration challenges were addressed by

changing the turbines’ brake rotors and pads to last longer, changing to a low-temperature gear

oil, and updating the older analog controls to digital to work with the weak grid. Each wind

turbine can provide up to 120 kW of power during gusts. The wind turbines were ultimately

commissioned in 2012. The Puvurnaq Power Company was $200,000 short, so it worked with

the local Calista Corporation to purchase the last two wind turbines with an agreement to buy

them back with a power purchase agreement over 7 years. Puvurnaq Power Company now owns

the wind turbines. Fifty electric thermal stoves, each with a 6-kW peak charge, 31 kWh of

storage, and a smart metering system, were installed in 2011 to take advantage of additional

wind generation and reduce reliance on diesel-powered stoves. The stoves are “charged” when

the grid is producing excess wind power. The smart metering system helps diagnose electrical

issues, has remote reading and disconnect/reconnect control, and provides customers with web

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

portal access. In 2012, Puvurnaq installed an electric boiler to buffer wind variability and provide

heat to the local washeteria, a government facility that provides potable water, showers, and

laundry facilities to the community. The utility also installed a wind-diesel SCADA system to

coordinate the generation and a hybrid system master controller to balance loads with generation,

provide redundant, remote control, and record data. Autonomous operation began in November

2012 (Meiners and Brause 2013). In 2018, Puvurnaq installed an ABB lithium-ion battery that

can deliver 375 kW for 5 minutes and provides voltage and frequency regulation to reduce wind

curtailment. Curtailment is lowering power output, e.g., when wind power is greater than the

power demand.

4.5.4 Results

Currently, two of the wind turbines are down, but all of the other system assets are working.

Prior to installing renewables, Kong consumed about 80,000 gallons of diesel every year. After

the wind turbines were installed, this number was reduced to about 56,000 gallons. Electric

thermal stove customers displace up to 50% of their original home heating oil use if their homes

have good weatherization. The community members are happy to save on their combined

electricity and heating bills, and local technical expertise has been built through good-paying

technical jobs. Renewable energy projects have now been installed in each of the CWG

communities. Moving forward, Kong has a 5-year strategic energy plan to reach 100%

renewable energy. It has received a U.S. Department of Energy grant to build a 200-kW solar

farm that must be completed by summer 2023, and REF is funding upgraded wind turbine blades

to increase power production. The community now has the technical capability to support

installations in other communities.

4.5.5 Challenges and Lessons Learned

One major key to Kong’s success is training, using, and retaining its local workforce, which is

made up of three wind technicians and a safety professional. Local technicians are well-paid and

have electric thermal stoves in their own homes, providing a double incentive to stay in the

community. The renewable energy project was done in stages, progressively building local

capabilities to take on more complex tasks. Increased local capabilities allowed the community

to overcome technical challenges, including:

• At one point, Frontier Power’s SCADA system upgrades took the system down, and the

local technicians had to figure out how to keep it going until it was repaired.

• ABB upgraded its battery software in 2019, but local technicians had to do warranty

work on the inverter capacitors themselves.

Community leader and tribal council support was crucial for proposals. Minimal conflict sped

projects forward. The Puvurnaq Power Company is under the local tribal council but has the

latitude to act independently.

Critical community trust and relationships were built by doing many presentations in village

meetings to communicate the motivations, benefits, and fuel savings of renewable energy

projects. At first, some residents had a hard time understanding that although their electric

thermal stove increased their electric bill, it reduced their combined heat and electric bill because

it was powered by the wind.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

5 Conclusions

Integrating renewable energy into existing isolated electric grids holds great promise for remote

communities across both Alaska and the Arctic. When done well, renewable energy projects can

save a community money, increase the reliability of their heat and power, and build local wealth,

skills, and job satisfaction. Such projects have the potential to drive down residents’ electric and

heating bills, and reduce dependence on expensive imported fossil fuels, insulating communities

from the effects of volatile petroleum markets and unpredictable weather.

The case studies highlighted in this report demonstrate that there are a variety of challenges to

renewable energy development. However, communities can take steps to address each of them.

Community buy-in can be built, and myths surrounding renewable energy can be dispelled, by

providing education and communicating through trusted leaders. Financial constraints and risk

aversion can be overcome by identifying and seeking the available funding sources, including

grants and secured loans. The expense of remote technical assistance can be overcome by

training a local workforce to take on more complex renewable energy projects, including cost-

sharing and training with nearby like-minded communities. Technical risks can be overcome by

rigorous engineering and project management, partnering with trusted project developers and

equipment suppliers, and ensuring that a technology is well suited and demonstrated for use in

remote, Arctic conditions. Finally, a local “project champion” is critical to cast a vision that all

stakeholders can buy into and to push the effort through inevitable difficulties.

To remote Arctic communities considering adding renewable energy to their electrical system: it

may seem like a daunting task, but there is help available. Entities such as the Renewable Energy

Alaska Project can provide resources that support communities through various development

challenges. In addition, other communities that have already successfully installed renewable

energy, including those interviewed in this study, are willing to share their experience and what

they learned through the process. We hope that this document can provide inspiration and

connection for all remote communities that want to take advantage of their renewable energy

resources.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

References

Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. 2018. 2018_Statewide_Housing_Assessment; Statewide

Housing Summary.

https://www.ahfc.us/application/files/3115/1638/5454/2018_Statewide_Housing_Assessment_-

_Part_1_-_Executive_Summary_and_Housing_Needs_011718.pdf.

Alaska Village Electric Cooperative. 2014. Intertie Options for Selected AVEC Villages.

https://www.v3energy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/AVEC-Intertie-Report-for-Denali-

Commission.pdf.

Bergan, Matt. 2021. “Load Shaping to Right-size Energy Storage.” Kotzebue, AK.

https://alaskarenewableenergy.org/library/load-shaping-to-right-size-energy-storage/.

Census Reporter. 2020. “Census Reporter: Making Census Data Easy to Use.”

https://censusreporter.org/.

Data USA. Undated. “Tuluksak, AK.” https://datausa.io/profile/geo/tuluksak-ak.

DCRA. 2022. “Alaska Fuel Price Report: Summer 2022.” ArcGIS StoryMaps. September 15,

2022. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/429b4ff23f2648e0b46f38c8aeff09d2.

DeMarban, Alex. 2022. “Large solar array means 2 Northwest Alaska villages can turn off diesel

power for hours a day.” Anchorage Daily News. https://www.adn.com/business-

economy/energy/2022/05/22/large-solar-array-means-2-northwest-alaska-villages-can-turn-off-

diesel-power-for-hours-a-day/.

Fall, James. 2019. “Alaska Population Trends and Patterns, 1960-2018.” Alaska Department of

Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved

=2ahUKEwjfzMT3nJf5AhVCg4kEHVHfBbwQFnoECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.a

dfg.alaska.gov%2Fstatic%2Fhome%2Flibrary%2Fpdfs%2Fsubsistence%2FTrends_in_Populatio

n_Summary_2019.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2BB2WOhrjLPkfQdAW4r7Wh.

Grainger, John. 2022. “Keeping the Lights on in Canada’s North.” School of Environment and

Sustainability. Accessed December 23, 2022. https://sens.usask.ca/news-articles/2022/keeping-

the-lights-on-in-canadas-north.php.

Hobson, Margaret Kriz. 2016. “On Kodiak Island, flywheels are in and diesel is 99.8% out.”

E&E News; ENERGYWIRE. June 10, 2016. https://www.eenews.net/articles/on-kodiak-island-

flywheels-are-in-and-diesel-is-99-8-out/.

Holdmann, Gwen, Dominique Pride, Greg Poelzer, Bram Noble, and Chad Walker. 2022.

“Critical pathways to renewable energy transitions in remote Alaska communities: A

comparative analysis.” Energy Research & Social Science. Volume 91: 102712.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102712.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Hughes, Zachariah. 2022. “Fuel in the Alaska village of Noatak was $16 a gallon. The costs are

more than just money.” Anchorage Daily News. https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/rural-

alaska/2022/05/18/fuel-in-the-alaska-village-of-noatak-was-16-a-gallon-the-costs-are-more-than-

just-money/.

Jordan, Rob. 2020. “PCE & EIA Generation 2001-20 (Data).” Alaska Energy Authority.

https://github.com/REAP-Data/Arctic-Case-Study.

Kodiak Electric Association. Undated. “About Us.” https://kodiakelectric.com/about/.

McMahon, Neil, and Rob Jordan. 2021. “2018 Energy Statistics (Data).” Alaska Energy

Authority. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/2/d/1f0hnHZbv16HDb-

HS66nD5FOb2mYP7ARs/edit?usp=sharing_eip_m&rtpof=true&sd=true&ts=62e84c33&usp=e

mbed_facebook.

McMahon, Neil, Rob Jordan, and Holeman Gwen. 2022. “AK RE Infrastructure (Data).” Alaska

Center for Energy and Power. https://github.com/REAP-Data/Arctic-Case-Study.

Meiners, Dennis, and Ona Brause. 2013. Chaninik Wind Group Multi-Village Wind Heat Smart

Grids Final Report.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved

=2ahUKEwjLucO77rf5AhUyj4kEHUe4D3gQFnoECAUQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.en

ergy.gov%2Fsites%2Fprod%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F12%2Ff27%2Fchaninik_final_report_ee00002

497_july_2013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2Kirz9v-HcH_5pb5UMYiay.

Misbrener, Kelsey. 2021. “Alaskan rural electric cooperative completes 576-kW solar project.”

Solar Power World. https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2021/11/alaskan-rural-electric-

cooperative-completes-576-kw-solar-project/.

Nowers, Stephanie. 2022. “Can You Serve as an Editor?” Email, September 21, 2022.

Orr. Undated. https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/november-2020/budding-energy/.

Ross, Liz, and Megan Day. 2022. Community Energy Planning: Best Practices and Lessons

Learned in NREL’s Work with Communities. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy

Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A50-82937. https://doi.org/10.2172/1883201.

Scott, Darron. 2022. “Fact-Checking Info from Our Interview.” Email, October 7, 2022.

Southeast Alaska Power Agency. 2022. “History; Pioneering Waterpower.”

https://seapahydro.org/history.

Sustainable Energy for Galena Alaska. Undated. “How We Harvest.”

http://www.sustainablegalena.org/how-we-harvest/.

U.S. Department of Energy Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs. Undated.

“Chaninik Wind Group - 2010 Project.”

https://www.energy.gov/indianenergy/chaninik-wind-group-2010-project.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Appendix: Contacts and Data Sources for Each

Community

Table A1 provides a contact person, their contact info, and preferred data source for each

community interviewed for this report.

Table A1. Contacts and Data Sources for Each Community. Data are available on Github at

https://github.com/REAP-Data/Arctic-Case-Study.git

. (AEA: Alaska Energy Authority, EIA: Energy

Information Administration)

Community Contact Person

Contact Info

Preferred Data Source

Galena Shanda Huntington shuntington@ci.galena.ak.us

PCE 2001

2020

Shungnak and

Kobuk

Ingemar Mathiasson [email protected]

PCE 2001-2020, 2022

Renewable Energy

Inventory

Kotzebue Matt Bergan m_bergan@kea.coop

PCE 2001-2020, AEA

Renewable Energy

Atlas

Kodiak Darron Scott [email protected]

EIA 923, AEA

Renewable Energy

Atlas

Kongiganak Roderick Phillips kongpp[email protected]

PCE 2001

2020

Utqiagvik Griffin Hagle griffin.[email protected]t EIA 923

Noorvik Ingemar Mathiasson [email protected]

PCE 2001

2020

Angoon Jodi Mitchell Jmitchell@insidepassageelectric.org

PCE 2001

2020

Tuluksak Melony Allain tuluk[email protected]m

PCE 2001

2020

Tanacross Dave Pelunis-Messier david.pelunismessier@tananachiefs.org

PCE 2001-2020, AEA

Renewable Energy

Atlas

Nikolski Tanya Lestenkof Iko.tribe@hotmail.com

PCE 2001

2020