On October 22, 2025, Chugach Electric Association’s Board of Directors unanimously approved a $26.4 million investment for the 10 MW-AC Beluga Solar Project, set to be Alaska’s largest solar project. Located at the existing Beluga power plant near Tyonek, the project will leverage existing transmission infrastructure to minimize costs while advancing Chugach’s decarbonization goals. The projects reducing carbon intensity by 35% by 2030 and 50% by 2040, aligning with the cooperative’s sustainability objectives and the broader Alaska Railbelt’s clean energy transition.
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) is pivotal to the project’s profitability, enabling Chugach to compare solar costs against natural gas generation. Estimates suggest a solar LCOE under $70/MWh, competitive enough to displace costlier fossil fuel output. The federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC), covering at least 30% of capital costs, reduces the project’s net cost to approximately $16.4 million, minimizing ratepayer impact. “This project is a cornerstone of our commitment to affordable, sustainable energy,” said Chugach CEO Arthur Miller. “The ITC ensures negligible rate increases while diversifying our energy mix.”
By siting the project at Beluga, ongoing land use discussions with CIRI will enable Chugach to meet project objectives. The solar output is expected to offset volatile natural gas costs, stabilizing consumer rates long-term, especially during peak summer demand.
Absolutely a waste of money and a foolish project.
What?! No snarky attacks??
What a disaster. as all can see, this has nothing to do with reliable energy generation and everything to do with meeting farcical, decarbonization goals to no known effect on climate – NONE! At the time when we most need it (cold, dark, winter) this plant will be producing zero kWh.
In other words Chugach’s customers prepare to pay a lot more so we can feel good about green energy
This is a huge, huge waste of money solar panels are not in any way cost-effective in Alaska to create electricity for our homes. This is just a feel good pat me on the back because I think I’m helping the environment but truly, I am not by the board of Chugach electric.
Anybody experiencing high electric bills., That Chugach Electric purchase of ML&P gave Chugach a monopoly on customer rate’s.
Hell, they even want to keep your monthly billing change$$$.
LCOE is a garbage metric that does not include the cost to make solar and wind reliable. Don’t believe Chugach reporting under $70/MWh for solar because the cost to make it firm power is not included in the $70. Total special interest math used to fool the public.
The strength of it goes to whomever/wherever the solar panels are manufactured.
The liability goes to the purchaser , aided and abetted by the governmental interference that makes it pencil out when it otherwise would be far more of a dodgy prospect. Realistically the availability of the ITC should be wholly dependent on Made in USA solar panels.
The calculations and assumptions used to explain and justify this decision will set new standards of opacity and obfuscation. For example, the utility may pretend that there is a national tax on carbon. Such a tax does not exist.
A huge waste of money, financed by CEA ratepayers. Plan for more rate increases. These will be just like the ones that occurred after you were told there would be none due to the ML&P acquisition. This is what happens when you elect a woke board of directors who have no idea whatsoever about what they are doing.
What a load of crap.
How much power will it put out at night?
How much power will it put out when
covered with snow ? Or a cloudy day?
How much daylight in the winter?
How many years will it take before needing
replacing ? Solar panels don’t last forever !
There are high mountains to the west of
Beluga that will shade the afternoon sun.
It appears like they don’t want us to have
reliable power.
Better than coal.
By who’s standards? I don’t believe it.
Prove it.
How so?
Here are a few possible ways to prove your statement correct, or incorrect.
Compare the energy density of coal to solar.
Compare the cost of building the generating plants
Compare the cost to green spaces
Compare the reliability and availability over a daily, monthly, and yearly timeframes.
Compare the longevity of the generation method, as in which one will still be operating 10, 20, and even 50 years from now.
.
Get back to us with some of those comparisons, and defend your statement please.
So tiresome you are, whoever you are. At least I use my full name.
Solar creates clean, fuel-free electricity. It’s not for everyone or everywhere, but it has its place. You rail against it solely because you’re Conservative, and anti-solar is a part of the Conservative dogma, the tenets of which you repeat without question. So go ahead – burn your coal up there, dig up your countryside, and plug up your lungs with soot.
Solar creates clean, fuel-free electricity, so does hydro and
they want to do away with that. Coal produces power 100%
of the time, solar at best 20% of the time.
Nuclear is even better.
Interesting. Your problem is that solar is among the dirtiest forms of power in existence. Not only is it inconstant, requires storage, and not available half the time, but cleanup is awful. The lifetime of the panels is significantly less than what they are advertised when sold, less than half. The panels use rare earths, so there is a hazmat component to cleanup. And up here, they don’t work so well when covered in snow or frost. OTOH, they work great if your goal is virtue signaling. This isn’t dogma. It is economics. Cheers –
“…whoever you are.” Then you proceed to tell me about myself, implying that you know me. (Hint: You do not.)
.
Anyway…
You successfully managed to not provide a single data point in support of your comment. I literally gave you five, count them, five possible ways for you to support your position, but you got… well… nothing. Soot? Digging… oh that is a good one.
.
Like the manufacturing of solar panels does not require mining in any way? Here, check into this:
How many cubic yards of soil do you need to disturb to collect a ton of coal, versus how many cubic yards need to be disturbed to collect the rare earth minerals required for solar panels.
While you are at it, tell us how much dirty diesel the earth moving equipment uses per ton of rare earth mineral mined. Compare that to the emissions for lifting an equivalent energy density of coal.
.
Do not be one of those people who refuse to look at the serious environmental impacts of “clean” energy and only focuses on the thing that supports your position. Solar has its place. As a replacement for conventional energy production it fails.
One other area you could check into as well. In order to convert the mined materials into solar panel quality materials, what needs to happen and how is it accomplished.
Here, I will start you off with one possible avenue.
For solar panels, you have to first mine metallurgical grade silicon. Then you need to heat that silicon in order to make it into solar panel quality (known as polysilicon). China produces the majority of that polysilocon by… heating the mined silicon using coal. Demonstrate that the use of coal for this purpose is offset by the ecological savings from solar.
Need coal to start this project and lots of it
Well, there it is….the dumbest thing I will read all day……..Chugach BoD should be brought up on charges for this act of idiotic virtue signaling………..
Where is the money coming from in a place with low velocity? This is a fraud of grand scale.
Oh dear.
Name a country who’s invested in solar and thereby driven down its energy costs?
. . . I’ll wait . . .
And who’s dying in China to provide the rare-earth minerals for this project?
Shame on U.S.
To answer your question- China.
In 2024, China invested $144 billion in new solar. They have increased their total grid supply from 3.5% in 2020 to over 10% and growing exponentially.
And, if I understand correctly, they have also built a ridiculous number of coal fired electric plants. In fact, over 50% of their electricity generation is coal fired.
.
China has built over 100 Gigawatts worth of coal fired power plants in 2024 alone.
.
And, yes, China has invested heavily on solar. Now, demonstrate that solar is driving down the cost of energy in China, as NotAnymore requested.
You can never run out of sunlight.
How about at night?
Hans, in this case its not about running out of sun light, but more about running out of other people’s money!
You run out of sunlight for an average of 12 hours a day.
I’m not optimistic that this is going to be successful in the long run. There are too many problems with solar farms in general, along with Alaska’s compounding problems of ice, snow, and earthquakes.
What happens when we get a Foot of Snow.
Solar in Alaska. An absolutely dumb idea when it doesn’t work all that well in states that get a ton of sunlight.
What is the ROI on this boondoggle?
How much will rate payers have to add to their bills like we do for the wind power?
“This project is a cornerstone of our commitment to affordable, sustainable energy.”
Mr Miller, that is simply not true. If a project relies on federal taxpayer subsidies, it is not “affordable”. And to date, attempts at “sustainable” energy under the guise of “green” energy has been a continual failure.
Stop selling us BS. If you want to force your captive customer base to fund your Gaia worship, fine, but accurately report it as supplemental to an improving, balanced energy portfolio. That is the best it will be.
This is such a bunch of crap, throwing good money after bad just to further enrich the IBEW 1547. This is another albatross being hung around the neck of Chugach rate payers and is completely uneconomical.
Idiocy and lunatics. What a waste and fruad.
“Decarbonization” sheer stupidity.
“Estimates suggest a solar LCOE under $70/MWh, competitive enough to displace costlier fossil fuel output. The federal Investment Tax Credit (ITC), covering at least 30% of capital costs, reduces the project’s net cost to approximately $16.4 million, minimizing ratepayer impact.”
.
I suspect there is a lot of wishful thinking in that estimate. Solar is not realistically going to see any kind of ROI this far north. There are places where solar does pan out, but a project of this magnitude at this latitude is not one of them.
May we thank Chugach officials in advance for reporting (a) what additional cost will appear in rate-payers’ bills, (b) what parts of the PV control system are manufactured by non-U.S. sources, and (c) whether Chugach’s PV cybersecurity plan is fully developed and tested within the framework of “Cybersecurity in Photovoltaic Plant
Operations”.
In a letter published Tuesday, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates said too many resources are going toward climate change instead of issues like welfare and poverty.
The letter was published ahead of COP30 in Brazil, a meeting that comes a decade after officials opted into the Paris Climate Agreement.
“I didn’t pick that position because everybody agrees with it – it’s I think intellectually the right answer,” Gates told CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin.
Bill Gates has finally realized his decades long climate grift is 1)no longer working to fool enough people, and 2)no longer profitable for him. Not sure what he plans to do with his blocking the sun plans.
The problem is the Chugach Electric board is all run by environmental. They are the reason we have those beautiful windmills across the inlet that have to be subsidized! They never worry about cost to consumer. Instead the just fund their agenda projects.
And for our next Alaska trick and treat, we will keep daylight savings time because sun never sets in summer and darkness prevails in winter so it makes so much difference.
(Sarcasm)
Well the Windmills didn’t work So let’s try something else, Dark winters and snow covered panels, Sounds great MORONS!!
After yesterday’s load shedding event, I’m super excited to see lots of these types of events get more and more common. As a manufacturer that depends on electricity for both manufacturing and office functions, I guess we will have to make sure our diesel generator is ready to go when the next load shedding event occurs. Chugach Electric has been taken over by idiots.
Didn’t learn anything from the freak snow falls in Texas eh? In Alaska, we have more snow…
DEI hires need something to do I guess. Woohoo equality!
BTW, if climate change was really was a threat of increasing sea levels, like the REEREES in government state, then those same “representatives” would not be buying multimillion dollar beach front properties. Just saying.
Also, the leading cause of “global warming” is actually the Sun. So yeah, maybe the geniuses who call them selves engineers can turn down the dimmer switch and save us all!
Nah, that won’t happen, but paying more money to politicians who lie to you will surely fix the issue.
heh heh heh
Profitability?
Non-existent.
We can look forward to contamination of soils and water there in the near future.
Who had this idea, anyway?
The board of directors is incompetent and need to be removed.
Two bits of good news here. First and most importantly, the proposed farm is pretty small, not the 120 MW behemoth REAP and their acolytes considered last year. Better piece of good news is that DOGE is still active, and have been busily eliminating renewable energy grants. Many, many more have been cancelled this year than have been approved. Cancel the grant, and this doesn’t happen. Maybe we ought to contact members of the congressional delegation to make sure this goes away. Cheers –
Plain stupid idea. What ever happened to my cost efficient electricity bill I’m plus $90 now not in a good way
I bought panels and put solar on my house. I dont pay for electricity any more. Even this month, with short days and many cloudy days, it’s produced over 210kWh. I can definitively say it’s productive and works in AK.
Solar panels on individual homes are one thing but massive solar panels farms have not been successful overall. As a side note did you pay the full cost for the panels/installation or did US taxpayers help pay part of it?
A lesser issue but significant nonetheless…the tough questions and evaluations based on critical thinking came in from the comments not from MRAK. The MRAK article was essentially a puff piece parroting the CEA board and fellow travelers. Takeaways?: 1) Anchorage is getting what it deserves for electing the current CEA board and for allowing the dissolution of ML&P: and 2) who or what is the current leadership at MRAK trying to please by acting like ADN-lite? MRAK is apparently no longer interested in presenting any PoV that is contrary to the group-think of the now establishment cabal nor interested in asking the tough questions.
Hi CRL, thank you for commenting on our article. MRAK seeks to provide the news that matters most to Alaskans as well as a platform for civil discourse. Unlike ADN, we allow comments of varied perspectives. The insights added by our commenters are exactly the type of discourse we want to promote. Our goal with this article (as it was not an opinion piece) was not to tell you what to think or take away, but simply to present the facts and allow discussion to develop.
….but you presented statements issued by CEA as facts when those statements were without data and are simply assertions. If assertions are treated as facts, what does MRAK provide except a publishing avenue along with a comment opportunity? Allowing comments with divergent viewpoints is great, but is it good journalism to simply parrot assertion if the supplier of such assertion offers it as “fact”?
You must have missed the largest section of the article that talked about LCOE… it is the one thing CEA does not want you to know about. LCOE isn’t listed anywhere in their decision about the project but it is critical as consumers to understand how this metric skews the economics of a project in the favor of green… you can lead a horse to water…..
Natalie,
Why haven’t my comments been approved on this article?
Hello Steve-O, thank you for engaging with our content. Our internal guidelines do not permit me to approve comments over 50 words or comments that contain external links. These are the reasons your previous comments were deleted. If you are able to present your ideas in around 50 words or less, I will approve them.
Assuming the 10 MW is installed nameplate data, and not delivered capacity for the year, this represents probably somewhere less than 1% of CEA annual generation. If this were delivered capacity then the solar field would need to be much much larger than the 10 MW nameplate since solar power is generated in Alaska predominantly during the summer month, and for a peak period during each day, assuming there are no clouds.
In reality, if the 10 MW number is nameplate data, during the peak of summer on the peak days during summer the likely peak output will still be less than the 10 MW’s and will be for around 4 hours during the middle of the day.
According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a 10 MW solar field in the same area, June 12 would be the peak day of the year and from 11 am until 2 pm would be the peak of that day with between 7.1 and 7.7 MWh generated during that time,
there are 6 hours that day where there would be zero generation whatsoever, with 6 hours less than 1 MWh, 6 hours between 2 and 6 MWh, and the remaining 2 hours having about 6 MWh generated. In the middle of winter there are days where a 10 MW solar field generates less than 1/4 of a MWh for the entire day.
The good news is that construction and upkeep at a remote facility will extremely expensive, but at least the Federal Government might cover about 30% of the capital cost (by adding that amount to the National Debt) so that rate payers are only on the hook for $16,400,000.00.
Peak summer demand for natural gas? One thing I’ve noticed living here, is that my gas bill goes to almost nothing in the summer. Draw downs of natural gas peak in the depths of winter, which is why they store excess gas produced in the summer. And during those dark snowy days solar doesn’t work so well.