Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFay, Ginny
dc.contributor.authorMeléndez, Alejandra Villalobos
dc.contributor.authorSchwörer, Tobias
dc.date.accessioned2014-06-12T00:40:36Z
dc.date.available2014-06-12T00:40:36Z
dc.date.issued2012-03
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11122/3931
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study is to examine the current Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program formula’s impacts on incentives for implementation of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. In addition, it examines if alternative formula structures might improve market signals that are more conducive to investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy in rural Alaska. As part of the analysis we also present information on the history of the PCE program and levels and patterns of electricity consumption across regions of Alaska. Alaska has large regional and intra-regional differences in energy consumption and prices that result from a number of factors including proximity to different types and quantities of resources, community population, remoteness, and transportation costs. Most communities in rural Alaska depend on volatile and high priced fossil fuels for the generation of electricity, space heating and transportation. The Alaska statewide weighted average residential rate for electricity (17.6 cents per kWh in CY2011) is substantially higher than the U.S. average of 11.8 cents per kWh (U.S. EIA, 2012). Yet in Alaska the average residential rate per kWh is currently lower than in Hawaii (34.5 cents), New York (18.4 cents) and Connecticut (18.1 cents). Hidden in the Alaska statewide average is considerable variation with some communities paying less than the national average and some—generally those least able to afford it—paying among the highest in the country. The Railbelt and Southeast regions have the lowest average residential electric rates (Appendix I map). North Slope residential customers also have lower average rates because of access to natural gas and North Slope Borough energy payments in addition to PCE disbursements. Most other regions have rates two to three times as high as Alaska urban rates. Some communities with hydroelectric power have notably low rates but customers are not paying the full, true cost of power because the cost of construction was heavily subsidized by state and federal governments. In Table 3 (p. 20) we present average annual residential electricity consumption and rates for different regions of Alaska.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Renewable Energy Laboratoryen_US
dc.description.tableofcontentsTable of Figures and Tables / Executive Summary / Introduction / Power Cost Equalization History / Electricity Rates and Levels of Consumption / How the current Power Cost Equalization funding formula works / Analysis / Policy considerations / References / Appendix A. PCE funding levels per year / Appendix B. PCE appropriations and disbursements over time / Appendix C. Residential and effective rates of PCE communities, 2001-2010 / Appendix D. Effective residential rates and consumption of electricity in PCE communities, 2008-2010 / Appendix F. PCE communities characteristics of importance as factors of electricity production and demand / Appendix G. Monthly Customer Payments under Current PCE Formula and Seasonal Fixed Payment Formula / Appendix H. Data sources and methods / Appendix I. Map of Alaska Energy Regionsen_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherInstitute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorageen_US
dc.titlePower Cost Equalization Funding Formula Reviewen_US
dc.typeTechnical Reporten_US
refterms.dateFOA2020-02-26T01:36:21Z


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
2012_03_14-NREL_PCEfinal.pdf
Size:
3.829Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record