Community Energy 

Management in 

Sitka, Alaska

What Strategies Can Help Increase 

Energy Independence?

David Nicholls and Trista Patterson

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

General Technical Report 

PNW-GTR-882

December 2013

DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULT URE

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service
Authors

David Nicholls is a forest products technologist and Trista Patterson is an 

ecological economist, Alaska Wood Utilization and Development Center, 204 

Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835.

Cover photograph: Sitka, Alaska, by Jeffrey Fox, U.S. Geological Survey.

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of 

multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, 

water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the 

States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National 

Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service 

to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, sexual 

orientation, marital status, family status, status as a parent (in education and training 

programs and activities), because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program, or retaliation. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs or 

activities.)

If you require this information in alternative format (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), 

contact the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (Voice or TDD).

If you require information about this program, activity, or facility in a language other than 

English, contact the agency office responsible for the program or activity, or any USDA 

office.

To file a complaint alleging discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call toll free, (866) 

632-9992 (Voice). TDD users can contact USDA through local relay or the Federal relay 

at (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or (866) 377-8642 (relay voice users). You may use USDA 

Program Discrimination Complaint Forms AD-3027 or AD-3027s (Spanish) which can be 

found at: http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html or upon request from a local 

Forest Service office. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 
Abstract

Nicholls, David; Patterson, Trista. 2013. Community energy management in 

Sitka, Alaska: What strategies can help increase energy independence? Gen. 

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-882. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 29 p. 

This report summarizes practical energy management strategies that could help 

communities in southeast Alaska move closer to energy independence while 

utilizing local resources more effectively. Our analysis focuses primarily on Sitka, 

Alaska, yet could be relevant to other communities having similar energy structures 

that rely primarily on hydroelectric power. We consider how community energy 

capacity and locally abundant resources can help communities move toward energy 

independence. Our recommendations focus on energy conservation, appropriately 

scaled renewable energy project development, and adoption of new technologies, 

including electric vehicles. We also identify key stakeholder elements that could 

be important for successful collaborative projects in southeast Alaska. Last, we 

consider broader implications for southeast Alaska, including communities having 

energy resources different from those of Sitka.

Keywords: Energy conservation, renewable energy, community energy 

management, hydroelectric power, biomass, sustainable communities.
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Why Is Community Energy Management Important?

2 Objectives

3 Hydroelectric Power in Southeast Alaska—An Abundant Resource?

7 Renewable Energy Profile for Sitka, Alaska

7 Community Energy Management—From Theory to Practice

9 Community Energy Themes—Practical Planning Considerations for Managers

18 Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

22 Metric Equivalents

22 References
1

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

Introduction

Why Is Community Energy Management Important?

Community energy management is a strategy that combines planning concepts with 

energy management, and which can be implemented at the scale of neighborhoods, 

cities, and even small regions (Jaccard et al. 1997). A key aspect of community 

energy planning is that local actions that prove successful at small scales can 

become integrated into the fabric of increasingly larger efforts. In this way, community energy planning, if replicated forward, could become an essential feature 

of reaching the global carbon dioxide (CO2) emission reduction goals articulated by 

Pacala and Socolow (2004) (table 1). 

Community energy management is dynamic and constantly evolving to keep 

step with changing population patterns, construction practices, energy technologies, 

and social awareness. Further, regulatory issues can greatly influence the energy 

planning process, especially when long planning horizons are involved (e.g., with 

some hydroelectric projects). Community energy planning often assumes that 

future energy consumption is largely determined when land use decisions are made, 

and therefore is directed at residential, commercial, and urban transportation energy 

Table 1—Proposed areas that could reduce global carbon dioxide emissions by 1 billion metric tons per year

 Global emission reduction area Proposed action

1 Vehicle fuel economy Increase to 60 miles per gallon

2 Vehicle miles driven Lower to 5,000 miles per year

3 Energy efficient buildings Reduce energy consumption by 25 percent

4 Coal plant operation Increase to 60-percent efficiency

5 Coal plant infrastructure Replace 1,400 GW generated from coal with 

 natural gas

6 Coal plant—carbon capture/storage Sequester carbon from 800 GW of coal plants

7 Coal plant—hydrogen generation Capture and use hydrogen from 800 GW of coal plants

8 Synfuels from coal Capture and store carbon from 30 million barrels per day

9 Coal power Displace 700 GW of coal power with nuclear power

10 Wind energy Add 2 million wind turbines (each 1 MW in size)

11 Solar energy Displace 2,000 GW of coal energy with solar energy

12 Wind energy Produce hydrogen from 4 million wind turbines (each 1 MW in size)

13 Biomass Liquid fuels to displace oil (100 times current biofuel capacity)

14 Forestry Stop deforestation; reestablish 300 million ha in new plantations

15 Crop management Apply conservation tillage to crop lands (10 times current level)

Source: Pacala and Socolow (2004).

GW = gigawatts; MW = megawatts.
2

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

use (Sadownik and Jaccard 1999). Aspects of community planning that relate to 

sustainable energy planning can include net-zero energy homes, advanced vehicles, 

and innovative utility energy management, among others (Carlisle et al. 2008). 

Perhaps most important in implementing a successful energy plan is the ability to 

bring about behavioral change, and to identify the elements needed to catalyze this 

change within the community at large.

In southeast Alaska, energy issues are at the heart of the economic viability 

and sustainability of many communities. However, a complicating factor in energy 

management strategies is the two-tiered nature of energy generation, in which some 

communities in Alaska enjoy relatively low-cost hydroelectric power while other, 

often smaller, communities depend exclusively on the costly use of diesel generators. With generally increasing fossil fuel prices, interest in renewable energy and 

energy conservation has never been greater. In many respects, Alaskan communities are more vulnerable than similar communities in the continental United States 

owing to Alaska’s remoteness and longer heating seasons, among other factors. In 

this report we address some of these issues, discussing themes of interest to Sitka, 

Alaska, and southeast Alaska as a whole. We hope that this will be useful information for municipal officials and other energy users whose actions influence community energy planning decisions.

Objectives

Our aim is to evaluate Sitka’s energy needs and management, assessing local 

resource availability. We identify the role that increased energy efficiency and 

energy conservation could play in community energy management strategies. We 

also emphasize the importance of community participation and the need for “project champions” when implementing projects. Finally, we consider the broader role 

of community energy management throughout southeast Alaska, including other 

communities dependent on hydroelectric power as well as communities having 

different energy sources.

This research attempts to answer the following questions relevant to community energy management in Sitka:

1. What are the opportunities for Sitka to expand its renewable energy 

project infrastructure?

2. What energy management strategies can assist with steps toward 

energy independence? 

3. What technologies can assist in diffusion of renewable energy at the 

community level? 

Perhaps most 

important in 

implementing a 

successful energy 

plan is the ability to 

bring about behavioral 

change, and to identify 

the elements needed 

to catalyze this change 

within the community 

at large.
3

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

Hydroelectric Power in Southeast Alaska—

An Abundant Resource?

Most communities in southeast Alaska are characterized by remote island locations with rugged topography and high rainfall—conditions often conducive to 

hydroelectric power generation. Abundant hydroelectric power provides about 208 

megawatts (MW) of installed capacity to southeast Alaska communities (table 2). 

Statewide, Alaska derives close to 21 percent of its electricity demand from hydroelectric power (REAP 2011).

Table 2—Hydroelectric power projects in southeast Alaska (completed and proposed)

Location Name Size Status

 Megawatts

Juneau Annex Creek 3.6 Completed (in operation)

Ketchikan Beaver Falls 5.4 Completed

Klawock Black Bear Lake 4.5 Completed (1995)

Petersburg Blind Slough 2.0 Completed (1920s)

Sitka Blue Lake 6.0 Completed (1961)

Metlakatla Chester Lake 1.0 Completed

Skagway Dewey Lakes 0.94 Completed (early 1900s)

Gustavus Falls Creek 0.8 Completed (2009)

Skagway/Haines Goat Lake 4.0 Completed (1997)

Juneau Gold Creek 1.6 Completed (1950s)

Sitka Green Lake 18.6 Completed (1979)

Haines/Skagway Kasidaya Creek 3.0 Completed

Ketchikan Ketchikan Lakes 4.2 Completed (1957)

Juneau Lake Dorothy 14.3 Completed (2009)

Pelican Pelican 0.7 Completed (1988)

Petersburg Petersburg 2.0 Completed

Metlakatla Purple Lake 3.9 Completed

Juneau Salmon Creek 6.7 Completed (1984)

Ketchikan Silvis Lake 2.1 Completed (1968)

Juneau Snettisham 78 Completed (1979)

Prince of Wales Island South Fork Black Bear 2.0 Completed (2005)

Ketchikan Swan Lake 22.4 Completed (1983)

Wrangell Tyee 20.0 Completed

 Total installed capacity (completed) 207.74

Ketchikan Mahoney Lake 9.6 Proposed

Prince of Wales Island Reynolds Creek 5.0 Proposed

Ketchikan Whitman Lake 4.6 Proposed

 Total capacity (proposed) 19.2

Source: REAP 2011; http://alaskarenewableenergy.org/alaskas-resources/projects-in-alaska/.
4

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

In contrast, communities that rely on fossil-fuel-derived electricity (i.e., diesel 

generators) can experience very high electricity costs, sometimes greater than 

$0.50 per kilowatt-hour (kW-hr) (table 3). This creates completely different energy 

conservation imperatives and energy use patterns versus communities (such as 

Sitka) that enjoy electrical rates closer to $0.10 per kW-hr. When diesel generators 

are used for backup generation in hydroelectric-dependent communities, short-term 

energy cost spikes can result. For example, in Sitka, four diesel generators can produce 11.4 MW of backup electricity, at a cost of about $0.33 per kW-hr (more than 

three times the cost of the hydroelectric power normally supplied) (CBS ED 2008a). 

Sitka’s diesel generating capacity would cover only about 71 percent of the summer 

peak requirements (estimated to be 16 MW), and just over 50 percent of the winter 

peak demand (22.5 MW). However, it is estimated that, under certain circumstances during winter weather, the diesel backup would be able to provide only 

about 25 percent of Sitka’s electrical needs (Brewton 2012). These factors illustrate 

a strong vulnerability in Sitka’s current electrical use patterns. If transmission lines 

were disabled, isolating all of the hydroelectric power generation from use, sudden 

and significant energy conservation would be needed.

Other communities in southeast Alaska have developed their own hydroelectric 

power resources. A total of 23 hydroelectric power projects are in operation in 

southeast Alaska with three more projects proposed (table 2). Additional hydroelectric projects are likely in the near future (Black and Veatch 2011). Several other 

recent developments reflect increased dependence on renewable energy projects in 

southeast Alaska.

• Increased hydroelectric power capacity, including a planned expansion of 

the Blue Lake facility near Sitka

• Increased use of alternative-fuel vehicles (vegetable oil, electricity)

• Wood fuel initiatives (including the Coast Guard base in Sitka)

• Other funded renewable energy projects for southeast Alaska (tables 4 and 5)

Among the most important elements of successful community projects are community activism and stakeholder participation. Sitka is characterized by high levels 

of community involvement, in part with such wide-ranging environmental causes 

as energy conservation and renewable-energy project development. Several recent 

examples of community participation in energy-related activities in Sitka are noted:

• Completion of a climate action plan for municipal operations (CBS 2010)

• Power Supply Status (green light/yellow light/red light) system to indicate 

level of hydroelectricity production

• Local foods network, where residents can share or sell locally grown foods

• Active recycling program; recently expanded to a new location

Among the most 

important elements of 

successful community 

projects are 

community activism 

and stakeholder 

participation.
5

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

• Increased use of electrically powered vehicles

• High level of environmental issue awareness in local print and broadcast media

• Installation of residential-scale solar and wind energy systems

• Proactive municipal electric department, with various outreach activities 

encouraging responsible energy use (energy use estimator, energy savings 

tips, energy conservation brochures, etc.)

Table 3—Electric power costs in southeast Alaska communities

Population 

in 2009 Primary Electrical Average

(age 16 power generating electricity

Community and older) Energy provider source capacity cost

 Megawatts Cents per 

 kilowatt-hours

Haines 1,884 Alaska Power Company Diesel 7.45 21.2

Angoon 344 Inside Passage Electric Coop. Diesel 1.83 54.7

Gustavus 355 Gustavus Electric Company Hydroelectric 0.80 26.0

 and diesel

Hoonah 662 Inside Passage Electric Coop. Diesel 3.06 54.0

Pelican 110 Pelican Utility Company Hydroelectric 2.66 16.8

 and diesel

Elfin Cove 25 Elfin Cove Utility Commission Diesel 0.35 52.0

Klukwan 72 Inside Passage Electric Coop. Diesel 1.17 54.0

Juneau 23,184 Alaska Electric Light and Power Co. Hydroelectric 214.61 9.0 to 12.0

Ketchikan 5,708 Ketchikan Public Utilities Hydroelectric 64.05 9.6

Kake 395 Inside Passage Electric Coop. Diesel 3.39 54.0

Petersburg 2,353 Petersburg Municipal Power & Light Hydroelectric 10.60 11.8

Coffman Cove 138 Alaska Power Company Diesel 0.74 39.0

Craig 838 Alaska Power Company Hydroelectric 5.00 19.2

Hydaburg 254 Alaska Power Company Hydroelectric 1.02 19.2

Kasaan 43 Alaska Power Company Hydroelectric 0.25 19.2

Klawock 598 Alaska Power Company Hydroelectric 1.38 19.2

Thorne Bay 368 Alaska Power Company Hydroelectric 2.03 19.2

Metlakatla 1,036 Metlakatla Power and Light Hydroelectric 8.24 9.2

Naukati Bay 118 Alaska Power Company Diesel 0.53 48.4

Sitka 6,231 Sitka Electric Department Hydroelectric 34.84 14.2

Skagway 740 Alaska Power Company Hydroelectric 4.84 21.2

 and diesel

Wrangell 1,727 Wrangell Municipal Light and Power Hydroelectric 32.70 12.6

Yakutat 500 Yakutat Power Diesel 3.51 41.1

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration (2010). 
6

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

Table 4—Alaska renewable energy fund ranking for Round 3 (current February 2010)

Renewable 

Project title Energy user Project energy

Hoonah-IPEC Inside Passage Utility Hydroelectric

 Hydroelectric Project Electric Cooperative

Neck Lake Alaska Power and Utility Hydroelectric

 Hydroelectric Project Telephone Company

Biomass Fuel City of Craig Government Biomass

 Dryer Project

Reynolds Creek Hydroelectric Alaska Power Company Utility Transmission

 Transmission Line

Indian River Hydroelectric Project City of Tenakee Springs Utility Hydroelectric

Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project Ketchikan Public Utilities Utility Hydroelectric

 Electric Division

Connelly Lake Hydroelectric Project Alaska Power Company Utility Hydroelectric

Takatz Lake Hydroelectric City and Borough of Utility Hydroelectric

 Feasibility Analysis Sitka Electric Department

Thayer Lake Hydroelectric Kootznoowoo Inc. Independent Hydroelectric

 Power Development power producer

Elfin Cove Hydroelectric Project Elfin Cove Utility Utility Hydroelectric

Gastineau Elementary City and Borough of Juneau Government Geothermal

 School Geothermal

Spur Road Distribution City and Borough of Wrangell Government Hydroelectric

 Line Extension

Schubee Lake Alaska Power and Utility Hydroelectric

 Hydroelectric Project Telephone Company

Port Frederick Tidal Power Project Alaska Power and Utility Ocean/River

 Telephone Company

Hoonah Schools Hoonah City School District Government Biomass

 Biomass Heating System

Metlakatla-Ketchikan Intertie Metlakatla Indian Government Transmission

 Community (MIC)

Yakutat Wave Energy City and Borough of Yakutat Government Ocean/River

 Pilot Demonstration

Tenakee Inlet Geothermal Inside Passage Electric Utility Geothermal

 Cooperative

Ruth Lake Hydroelectric Project City of Angoon Government Hydroelectric

Scenery Lake Hydroelectric Project City of Angoon Government Hydroelectric

Angoon Tidal Power Project Blue Energy Canada, Inc. Independent

 power producer

Triangle Lake Hydroelectric Project Metlakatla Indian Community Government Hydroelectric

Sunrise Lake Project City and Borough of Wrangell Government Hydroelectric

Wrangell Downtown Revitalization City and Borough of Wrangell Government Transmission

Wrangell Street Light Conversion City and Borough of Wrangell Government Other

Alaska–British Columbia (AK-BC) City and Borough of Wrangell Government Transmission

 Intertie Project
7

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

Renewable Energy Profile for Sitka, Alaska

Sitka is a remote island community with few direct ties to urban centers, and has 

a limited road system and transportation infrastructure (with less than 20 miles of 

primary paved roads). Although there are more than 9,800 registered vehicles in 

Sitka (ADA DMV 2012) many residents drive just a few thousand miles per year. 

Much of the road system is flat, and this lack of hills bodes well for less-powerful 

vehicles, including electric vehicles. Sitka’s relatively mild maritime climate results 

in essentially no air-conditioning needs in the summer, and, by Alaska standards, 

a relatively mild winter heating season. Sitka is renowned for its concerned and 

proactive citizens, who could likely garner community support on a broad scale. 

Almost all of Sitka’s electricity is generated from sources of hydroelectric power, 

including the Blue Lake facility (6-MW capacity, established in 1961) and the 

Green Lake facility (18.6-MW capacity, established in 1979) (CBS ED 2011) (fig. 1). 

Within the past decade, increasing electric load growth has created a strong need to 

explore options for increasing generating capacity.

Community Energy Management—From Theory to Practice

Community energy management combines planning concepts with energy management concepts, and can be implemented at the scale of neighborhoods, cities, and 

even small regions (Jaccard et al. 1997). This multidisciplinary field can encompass 

land use planning, transportation management, and site design, as well as energy 

supply and management. Aspects of community planning that relate to sustainable 

energy planning can include net-zero energy homes, advanced vehicles, innovative 

utility energy management, and other sustainable living practices (Carlisle et al. 

2008). Community energy planning has become central to communities for establishing renewable energy goals, setting emission reduction targets, and providing 

affordable energy to residents. For example, the city of Banff, Alberta, Canada, 

has developed a community energy plan to reduce household energy costs by 7 

Table 5—Summary of projects listed in table 4 (Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Ranking)

 Independent

Government Utility power producer Total

 Number of projects

Project type 13 11 2 26

Hydroelectric Geothermal Transmission Biomass Ocean/river Other Total

 Number of projects

Renewable 14 2 4 2 2 2 26

 energy

Source: Alaska Energy Authority (2010).

Community energy 

management combines 

planning concepts with 

energy management 

concepts, and can 

be implemented 

at the scale of 

neighborhoods, cities, 

and even small regions.
8

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

percent, reduce CO2 emissions by 20 percent below 1998 levels, and realize aggregate savings of about $20 million over a 12-year period (Sheltair Group Resource 

Consultants Inc. 2000). Other researchers have indicated the importance of community energy management (Jaccard et al. 1997), community energy planning (St. 

Denis and Parker 2009), community-owned energy production (Walker 2008), and 

sustainable energy for rural communities (Banister 2005, Byrne et al. 1997, Carlisle 

et al. 2008, Hillring 2002, Marsden and Smith 2005, Smith 1998).

Many communities in southeast Alaska already have substantial hydroelectric 

resources and could benefit from a comprehensive community energy plan, integrated into existing community practices, to further reduce their carbon footprints. 

Of particular interest is how secondary renewable technologies (e.g., wood, wind, 

and solar) could supplement hydroelectric power. Because Sitka is an island 

community, certain unique issues need to be considered, including transportation energy needed to import most of its consumer goods as well as construction 

materials. Community energy planning could have several important ramifications, 

Figure 1—Electrical energy requirements and power resources for Sitka, Alaska (1973–2030). Source: City and Borough of 

Sitka Electric Department (2008a).

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

240,000

260,000

280,000

300,000

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

Energ

y in

megawatt-hrs

Blue Lake 

Capacity

Added Green Lake 

Load Growth Scenarios

2.1% Add Electric Cars

1.9% High Case

1.2% Medium Case

 Add 3rd turbine at Blue Lake

 Raise dam 83 ft to elev 425

 And fill lake 

Historical

 Load

Projected 

 Load

Load

Low Rainfall

Firm Energy Capability

Average rainfall

Avg Energy Capability

0

Add Interruptible Loads

Add Takatz Lake
9

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

including encouraging energy conservation and awareness of energy issues. For 

example, hydroelectric resources in Sitka are characterized by a red, yellow, and 

green “traffic-light” system that reflects the city’s current power supply. When lake 

levels are low, and generating capacity is limited, public awareness of a “red light” 

status can serve to stimulate conservation. 

One approach that could be used for diagramming planned greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions is based on “Socolow’s wedge.” Conceptually, each stabilization wedge can be thought of as one component in reducing climate change. The 

triangular wedges can be added together to form a larger wedge, signifying the 

total effect. In practice, Socolow’s wedges can depict diagrammatically how climate 

change can be reduced over time versus “business as usual.” Although the original 

development (Pacala and Socolow 2004) was applied to a global scale, it can be 

adapted to much smaller scales, including the community level. The rationale 

behind reduction wedges is that each wedge, once realized, would represent one 

aspect of GHG reductions. In Sitka, four primary wedges have been identified as 

having strong potential for reducing GHG emissions: (1) residential energy conservation; (2) increased use of wood energy for home heating; (3) increased use of 

alternative fuel vehicles, such as electric cars; and (4) increased use of electricity for 

home heating (Nicholls 2010). In practice, however, any number of GHG reduction 

areas could be identified, each representing a wedge. 

Community Energy Themes—Practical Planning 

Considerations for Managers

In the following section, we review a number of themes that could be of interest to 

community energy planners. We attempt to identify practical examples and lessons 

learned for different geographic regions, including southeast Alaska, the United 

States, and internationally.

Theme: New energy sources and technologies—

Community energy management strategies are likely to become more significant as 

new energy types become integrated into mainstream energy use to displace fossil 

fuels. Integration of several renewable energy forms (wind, solar, and hydroelectric 

power) into small, village-scale energy systems is sometimes possible. In some 

cases, it may be desirable to have integrated hybrid energy systems, with diesel generators meeting baseload needs and renewable energy providing peak power. This 

energy delivery strategy is sometimes used in rural western Alaska, using hybrid 

diesel-wind systems (Baring-Gould 2008), and has been used in combination with 

battery systems to manage diesel fuel use more efficiently (Flowers et al. 2000). 

Community energy 

management strategies 

are likely to become 

more significant as 

new energy types 

become integrated into 

mainstream energy use 

to displace fossil fuels.
10

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

A coherent strategy for sustainable energy management could be especially 

important for communities that are on isolated grid systems, including many in 

southeast Alaska. For example, Stirling engine technologies,1 although not widely 

adopted, have been considered for meeting the electricity needs of rural villages 

(Podesser 1999). Other strategies could include incrementally reducing demands for 

a primary energy source by gradually “phasing in” one or more secondary sources. 

For example, although Ketchikan, Alaska, is highly dependent on hydroelectric 

power, at least four wood pellet systems are in development (including the city’s 

federal building, Discovery Center, public library, and fire station). Similarly, 

Juneau, Alaska, primarily uses hydroelectric power; however a wood pellet heating 

system recently was installed to heat a downtown office building, burning close to 

300 tons of pellets per year and displacing 35,000 gallons per year of heating oil 

(Soboleff 2011). Kodiak, Alaska, made significant strides to reducing its carbon 

footprint by installing three large wind turbines (each 1.5 MW in capacity) (Tetra 

Tech 2011), adding to its abundant hydroelectric power resources.

The “learning curve” for the first renewable energy systems in a given community could present challenges, although successful examples will make it easier 

to implement subsequent projects. For example, on Prince of Wales Island, the first 

chip-fired wood energy system in Alaska was recently established in the town of 

Craig (Bolling 2007). This pioneering facility has spawned a great deal of interest 

in wood energy locally and statewide. More recently, interest in wood pellet production on Prince of Wales Island could lead to new wood energy opportunities while 

strengthening wood products firms located near Thorne Bay, Alaska (Pedersen 

2011). Although the diffusion of new renewable energy technologies can be a slow 

process, such as use of wood energy in southeast Alaska, innovation among participating firms can help lead this process (Jacobsson and Johnsson 2000). 

In Sitka, hydroelectric power meets most of the community’s energy needs, 

although use of fossil fuels for transportation (on land, air, and water) is substantial. 

A new renewable energy product, the all-electric vehicle, could see broad-scale 

adoption once commercially produced vehicles become available and recharging 

stations are established. Throughout Alaska, a grant program administered by the 

Alaska Energy Authority is providing grant funding for renewable energy systems 

across different technologies. This is apparent in the growth of the wind energy 

1 A Stirling engine is an external combustion reciprocating engine having an enclosed 

working fluid that is alternately compressed and expanded to operate a piston (The 

FreeDictionary 2012). Because Stirling engines are not powered by combustion, there is no 

exhaust, and they can therefore be used in specialized applications, such as submarines or 

auxiliary power generators, where quiet operation is important. In other applications, the 

energy to heat the working fluid can be supplied by wood or other forms of biomass.
11

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

sector, with at least seven communities in Alaska having wind energy systems 

(Alaska Energy Authority 2011). 

Statewide, wood energy has also seen significant growth, with more than nine 

small-industrial scale systems now operating in Alaska (Nicholls 2009). In southeast Alaska, interest in wood pellet systems has also been very high. An advantage 

of wood pellets in southeast Alaska is their lower cost of transportation over longer 

distances compared to wood chips, which are economical to transport for only 

relatively short distances. 

Theme: Identify energy “forte”—

Communities can identify their “forte,” or strong suit, for successful energy project 

development. For example, many communities would have at least one area of “lowhanging fruit” that would represent their most viable form of renewable energy, 

whether hydroelectric power, wind, solar, or biomass. In most cases, a community’s 

energy forte would be very closely related to the community’s resource availability. 

For example, Sitka relies heavily on hydroelectric power while Craig, with a more 

extensive road system and wood products infrastructure, has a stronger bioenergy 

focus. However, the idea of a community energy forte must be tempered by the 

reality that many community-scale energy projects can be very complicated, with 

intertwined factors. For example, in Sitka, state regulations have restricted development of an otherwise promising hydroelectric project at Lake Diana. 

In some cases, communities should favor a mix of renewable energy technologies rather than rely on an energy forte. For example, Tsioliaridou et al. (2006) 

used sensitivity analysis and simulation to determine optimal proportions of energy 

technologies for the island of Crete. Their research found onshore wind energy and 

biomass to be leading renewable energy options (while small-scale hydroelectric 

and solar energy were less favorable). Perry et al (2008) and Ryden et al. (1993) 

emphasized the importance of integrated energy sectors that could include several 

types of renewable energy systems to supplement fossil fuel systems. 

Theme: Community acceptance and public participation—

Community acceptance can be evaluated in the context of specific acceptance of 

renewable energy projects and siting decisions by local stakeholders, including 

residents and local authorities (Wustenhagen et al. 2007). There is some debate over 

the importance of NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) objections to renewable energy 

projects (Wustenhagen et al. 2007). In Sitka, the NIMBY element for hydroelectric 

projects located several miles from town would perhaps not be as pronounced as 

for other types of renewable energy (e.g., a wood-burning facility located in town). 

Therefore, community acceptance of environmental impacts will need to be an 

important part of any renewable energy project.
12

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

Community energy management strategies should be developed with extensive 

public participation (Roseland 2000) and stakeholder involvement (Smith 1998). 

Many local governments have embraced community energy management principles; in Vermont more than 75 communities have established local energy coordinators or town energy committees (Van Hoesen and Letendre 2010). Community 

energy management strategies should be developed with extensive public participation (Roseland 2000). In particular, this is seen with regard to community wood 

energy systems, where project teams can include diverse members such as administrators, system operators, contractors, architects, and engineers (Maker 2004). For 

larger capital projects, public support may be required through taxpayer approval. 

Also desirable is having one or more “project champions” to provide local support 

and coordination. Sometimes project champions can spend several years setting 

the groundwork for a successful bioenergy project. For example, the Craig, Alaska, 

wood energy facility (started in 2009) had been in planning for several years. 

Wustenhagen et al (2007) identified three components of social acceptance for 

renewable energy project development: community acceptance, market acceptance, 

and sociopolitical acceptance. Adoption of renewable energy projects in Sitka is 

likely to involve participation from a number of community stakeholders.

The Tongass Futures Roundtable is a collaborative effort established to address 

community resource issues on the Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska, 

including renewable sources (Tongass Futures Roundtable 2011). Key members of 

the group include representatives of the Tongass, Sealaska Corporation, the Wilderness Society, the Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, Native organizations, fishing interests, and city government. Because this collaboration represents 

interests spanning much of the 17-million-acre Tongass, it also addresses issues of 

community importance. 

Bergmann et al. (2006) found that rural residents place a high value on wildlife, 

thus any renewable energy projects with the potential to harm wildlife would need 

to have large offsetting benefits. The significance of this in southeast Alaska is that 

forest thinnings have been conducted throughout the Tongass to improve wildlife 

habitat (primarily to increase deer forage), while also providing the potential for 

biomass removals. On Prince of Wales Island, forest thinnings are being conducted 

that are designed to improve wildlife habitat (primarily for deer) while also providing the potential for biomass utilization. In the Staney Creek watershed, an 

integrated resource management plan (IRMP) has been facilitated by The Nature 

Conservancy, the Wilderness Society, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) Forest Service (ConserveOnline 2011). In 2010, a series of public meetings 

were held to develop a shared vision among local and regional stakeholders. 
13

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

Theme: Energy conservation as part of community energy management—

A desirable condition for sustainable communities is a reduction in per capita 

consumption of resources as communities grow (Roseland 2000). Incentives can be 

put in place to motivate energy conservation while providing community economic 

incentives. For example, Davis, California, created a program in the early 1980s 

to encourage residents to reduce peak energy use (Kowalczyk et al. 1983). Here,

the municipal utility was rewarded $10,000 for each 1 percent of overall energy 

conservation during a summer season. Total electricity consumption during the 

study period was reduced by 7 percent, and an estimated 54 percent of residential 

customers participated in this program. One of the strategies employed in the 

Davis program was to target certain areas for energy conservation (e.g., reduced 

air conditioning). 

Similar strategies could be employed in Sitka, such as prudent use of electric 

space heaters to reduce overall electric load. In Sitka, a “cost of service” model 

for electric rates is used. Typically, larger users are less costly for the local utility 

to serve on a per kilowatt-hour basis, with the added benefit of commercial users 

providing employment (Brewton 2012). In 2008, the largest 12 electrical users in 

Sitka consumed more than 19.7 gigawatt-hours (GW-hrs) (CBS ED 2008a), and 

17 of the top 25 accounts (based on kilowatt hours consumed) were government 

entities (Brewton 2012). The Davis energy conservation program found that once 

programs like this are started, there can be a residual (or carryover) effect of 

continued conservation after the formal program ends. This was observed in Juneau 

during spring 2008 when an avalanche damaged a transmission line, resulting in a 

loss of hydroelectric power that had to be replaced with expensive diesel generation. 

Rates increased from $0.11 to more than $0.50 per kW-hr (Golden 2008). During 

the period of high energy prices in Juneau, strong conservation programs were put 

in place, reducing peak energy use from about 1,000 MW-hrs per day to roughly 

600 MW-hrs per day, a reduction of about 40 percent (USDOE 2008). 

Theme: Adopting a bottom-up approach—

Sustainable energy management models should favor a “bottom-up,” or grassroots 

approach to ensure the involvement of all stakeholders (Roseland 2000, Ryden et al. 

1993). An emerging trend is the development of community energy plans that focus 

on local action. St. Denis and Parker (2009) found that communities tend to focus 

on policies and practical programs to increase energy efficiency and conservation, 

and that less attention is devoted to implementing renewable energy technologies. 

This research also found that, for small communities in Canada, the most common 

renewable energy technology goal was use of biofuels for transportation. Further, 

a goal of many community energy programs was to set ambitious GHG reduction 
14

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

targets for municipal operations while setting less-stringent targets for the community at large (St. Denis and Parker 2009). In this way, the broader community could 

follow the successful examples already implemented by the municipality. This has 

been the case in Sitka, where a community action plan has been completed (CBS 

2010) that considers only municipal operations.

Small communities can become leaders in introducing renewable energy 

systems (St. Denis and Parker 2009). This trend is also apparent in rural Alaska, 

where significant strides toward renewable energy have occurred in the past decade, 

notably with wind energy systems (Alaska Energy Authority 2011). A central 

theme is that significant changes, including reductions in GHGs, can be made at the 

community level. A comparison of five Swedish communities working together has 

also illustrated the importance of a bottom-up approach as well as using a portfolio 

of renewable energy technologies to meet goals (Ryden et al. 1993). Many positive 

changes can be made at the grassroots level with little or no capital investment; for 

example, household actions can reduce overall energy use with little or no reduction in household well-being. These actions could potentially save up to 20 percent 

of household direct emissions (7.4 percent of U.S. national emissions) (Dietz et al. 

2009). 

Theme: Community energy and the role of climate action plans— 

In 2007, statewide CO2 emissions in Alaska were estimated to be more than 43 

million metric tons (USDOE EIA 2009). Several communities across Alaska 

have developed climate action plans. As of July 2011, climate action plans have 

been completed by Sitka (CBS 2010) and by Homer (Parks et al. 2007). Juneau 

has completed a plan that is in public review (Bus et al. 2011), and Anchorage 

has a proposed plan (Kimmel and Pace 2007). Nationally, dozens of cities have 

developed climate action plans, ranging in size from Burlington, Vermont, to Los 

Angeles, California (City of Louisville 2011). Further, numerous federal agencies 

have adopted climate change action programs. Climate action plans are useful for 

identifying many grassroots efforts that could be practiced at the community level, 

including efficiency improvements to schools and other public buildings, as well as 

individual energy reductions. 

An important aspect of community energy management is setting GHG 

emission-reduction targets, as well as having a well-defined baseline. Often, it is 

beneficial to first implement GHG reduction measures within municipal or other 

government structures, followed by diffusion to the community at large and to 

businesses (as is the case with Sitka’s climate action plan). In Sitka, an emissions 

reduction goal of 25 percent for municipal operations has been set for 2020, 

based on a baseline year of 2003 (CBS 2010). The Homer plan recommends 
15

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

GHG emission reductions of 12 percent by 2012 and 20 percent by 2020 (using a 

baseline year of 2000) (Parks et al. 2007). 

Theme: “Island” energy technologies—

Sitka has an isolated grid system that is not shared with other neighboring communities, and therefore is entirely dependent on the energy it generates. Other communities in southeast Alaska are also characterized by isolated grid energy systems, in 

which all the energy users are located near the power plant. Hiremath et al. (2007) 

indicated a need in rural areas for greater levels of decentralized energy planning 

as well as a shift to greater levels of renewable energy production. This illustrates 

the importance of improving the cost-effectiveness of technologies for small-scale, 

decentralized cogeneration of heat and electricity, especially if heat requirements 

are concentrated (Jaccard et al. 1997). In rural Alaska, small-scale cordwood energy 

systems are popular for community heating where either a single building or several 

buildings are heated (Nicholls 2009); however, it is unlikely that cordwood energy 

systems could be the sole energy provider for communities in southeast Alaska.

The geographical coverage of decentralized energy models has an important 

impact on how energy is supplied to rural communities. Hiremath et al. (2007) 

considered three levels of decentralized energy planning: the village level, the 

block level (a cluster of villages), and the district level (a scale potentially involving 

several thousand villages over numerous blocks). In Alaska, the most relevant level 

of planning would likely be the village level (i.e., where a single village or community is self-contained in terms of its energy use and generation). However, examples 

of the block or cluster level to which Hiremath referred are also evident in cases 

where transportation corridors connect communities. Examples include communities connected by the Prince of Wales Island road system, and communities located 

along the Yukon or Kuskokwim River in interior Alaska. In both cases, wood fuel 

could easily be shared among communities (by road or by river), in effect creating a 

cluster relationship. 

Island energy systems could become renewable energy “testbeds,” with potential to become energy self-sufficient in the sense that they neither import fossil 

fuels to the island nor share an electrical connection to a nearby mainland (Duić 

and da Graça Carvalho 2004). Higher energy costs in island communities can make 

renewable energy more economically viable because they would be less likely to 

compete with large-scale fossil fuel systems found in areas connected to electrical 

grids providing lower cost power. This can be facilitated in part by the high cost of 

providing energy from mainland sources to islands (Weisser 2004). Rural communities that are connected by centralized grids (that are also shared by large cities) 

tend to be more vulnerable to power interruptions (Van Hoesen and Letendre 2010), 

a potential advantage of isolated grid systems. 
16

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

Theme: Community energy management to reach broader goals—

Small-scale, community renewable energy systems should not be overlooked as 

important components of large-scale national energy goals. Community energy 

efforts, if adopted on a sufficiently broad scale, can have a significant effect on 

reaching national renewable energy goals (Hain et al. 2005). Small-scale systems 

(ranging from 100 kW to 5 MW) that closely match local electrical needs can 

be more stable and less expensive to operate than larger systems, under certain 

scenarios. Walker and Devine-Wright (2008) emphasized the importance of community energy projects with respect to mainstream energy policy. They reviewed 

how “process” and “outcome” can interact to influence outcomes of renewable 

energy projects. In particular, processes that are “open and participatory,” combined 

with outcomes that are “local and collective,” could be considered ideal community 

energy projects because they are carried out by community members for the benefit 

of the local community.

Theme: Landscape-level resource utilization—

In Sitka, community energy management actions could have implications at the forest landscape level. For example, hydroelectric power projects in southeast Alaska 

can have broad-ranging impacts on local resources such as fish, timber, biodiversity, 

and others. Local residents must weigh the benefits of site-specific renewable 

energy versus the anticipated impacts. Several proposed hydroelectric projects or 

expansions in recent years have illustrated the impact of energy use at the landscape 

level. For example, Lake Diana near Sitka was a proposed hydroelectric project 

located near a wilderness area on the Tongass National Forest. This project was not 

pursued, in favor of an expansion of the existing Blue Lake reservoir near Sitka. By 

raising the dam height at Blue Lake, this project has potential impacts owing to the 

increased lake size, loss of forest ecosystem, and other landscape-level considerations. However, this project will also provide potential benefits such as improved 

water temperatures for fish habitat and displacement of diesel fuel use (Brewton 

2012). 

Perhaps the broadest example of landscape-level planning in southeast Alaska 

is the electrical intertie project, a plan to connect numerous dispersed communities 

with hydroelectric resources. Although several exploratory studies have been completed for possible interties, including one from Juneau to Hoonah (Emerman 2006) 

and one from southeast Alaska to British Columbia (Hatch Acres Corporation 

2007), their high cost is a limiting factor along with numerous technical challenges 

(Brewton 2012). 

Lessons can be learned from other regions of the Nation. In the Upper Midwest 

region, wind energy farms have been established over extensive rural areas. As 

of 2009, a total of 5,414 MW of wind energy has been installed in Minnesota and 

Small-scale, 

community renewable 

energy systems should 

not be overlooked as 

important components 

of large-scale national 

energy goals.
17

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

Iowa (USDOE 2011). Additional wind farms are in operation in Indiana, including 

the 400 MW Fowler Ridge wind farm (the largest wind farm in the Midwest). All 

one has to do is fly over these regions to appreciate the landscape-level changes that 

are taking place. At the same time, social opposition to landscape-level changes 

(e.g., reduced viewscapes from wind energy projects) can hamper renewable energy 

project development.

Theme: Self-sufficient communities—

Communities can make a collective choice to become energy independent, deriving 

most or all of their energy from renewable sources. For example Gussing, Austria, 

(population 3,900) has established 27 separate renewable energy plants, creating 

employment of close to 1,000 jobs (including direct and indirect employment). In 

doing so, Gussing has become the first community in the European Union to reduce 

carbon emissions by more than 90 percent (Tirone 2007). Vaxjo, Sweden, also realizes significant contributions of renewable energy. Well-defined community energy 

plans can be an important step, in addition to policy measures, toward supporting 

renewable energy project development. 

Bergmann et al. (2008) found that, compared to urban residents, rural respondents placed a higher value on the creation of new permanent jobs and were more 

willing to tolerate negative landscape impacts resulting from renewable energy 

project development. This would suggest that rural areas may actually have some 

advantages versus urban projects despite lacking the economies of scale often 

associated with urban settings. 

Theme: “Rainmaker” projects—

One strategy that communities can employ is to invest in large-scale projects, 

designed to meet their long-term energy needs, perhaps decades into the future. 

Here, installed energy capacity is added in “chunks” rather than incrementally. For 

example, the proposed Susitna hydroelectric project near Talkeetna, Alaska, could 

supply up to 2,600 GW-hrs of electricity per year to Alaska’s railbelt—enough to 

allow Alaska to achieve the state energy goal of 50-percent renewable energy by 

2025 (Alaska Energy Authority 2010). However, the leading proposal for the Susitna 

project would cost about $4.5 billion, and require construction of a 700-ft-high 

dam2

 (Mauer 2011). Although these projects can potentially take care of demand 

growth for decades in the future, they are often very expensive. In the case of the 

Susitna project, the cost would be roughly $7.5 million per installed megawatt. Near 

Sitka, the 27-MW Takatz Lake project has been proposed. If completed, this project 

would generate about 107 GW-hrs of electricity per year (CBS ED 2008a), almost 

2 By comparison, Hoover Dam (located on the Arizona/Nevada border) is 726.4 ft high.

Communities can make 

a collective choice 

to become energy 

independent, deriving 

most or all of their 

energy from renewable 

sources.
18

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

doubling Sitka’s current generating capacity (fig 1). However, the Takatz Lake 

facility is projected to have a construction cost of more than $200 million (CBS ED 

2011), including expensive transmission tunnels on Baranof Island. Despite high 

initial costs, hydroelectric projects can offer attractive life-cycle costs owing to 

their long service lives (often up to 100 years) (Brewton 2012).

One advantage of “rainmaker” projects is the added local employment, especially during the construction stages. For example, the Blue Lake expansion could 

provide work to about 30 employees over a period of about 7 years (CBS ED 2008a), 

with estimates of 50 to 100 jobs during the 2- to 3-year construction phase (Brewton 

2012). This is generally consistent with research by Bergmann et al. (2008), which 

found that rural residents tend to be highly supportive of renewable energy projects 

that create new permanent jobs (more so than their urban counterparts).

These two case studies illustrate that large projects can sometimes provide 

decades of energy security. Greater energy resources could attract new industry to 

regions, stimulating economic growth. Reliable, long-term energy resources can 

also reduce the need to “juggle” primary sources (e.g., hydroelectric) and intermittent or backup sources (e.g., diesel) as is currently being done in Sitka. On the other 

hand, a sudden surplus of energy could diminish energy conservation efforts or perceptions among community members that energy is a scarce resource that should be 

conserved (especially if accompanied by a rate decrease). Another potential disadvantage of “rainmaker” projects is that they necessarily “lock in” a given energy 

technology for decades, preventing the use of new and emerging technologies that 

could potentially cost less. For example, if cost-reducing breakthroughs were to 

occur in wind, solar, or geothermal energy within the next few decades, the large 

scale hydroelectric facilities would take precedence so that their high construction 

costs could be recovered.

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

Opportunities for Sitka have been identified to increase its energy independence 

through community energy management strategies. For Sitka, there are great 

opportunities to expand its utilization of hydroelectric power to displace fossil 

fuels for current residential heating and future transportation needs. However, this 

will require careful management of new electrical generating capacity, as well 

as a community-wide commitment to energy conservation. This commitment is 

illustrated by local residents’ purchase of energy-efficient appliances as part of the 

“Energy Star Rebate Program” in 2012 and 2013. Here, a total of 194 appliances 

were purchased for residential use, including freezers (18), heat pumps (43), refridgerators (75), and washing machines (58) (Agne 2013). The Blue Lake hydroelectric 
19

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

power expansion project, which could increase Sitka’s capacity by 34 GW-hrs per 

year (roughly 27 percent of Sitka’s current electrical use) (CBS ED 2011), could 

provide a golden opportunity for greater energy independence. However, this 

assumes that successful energy practices could help limit future growth. This will 

be important because Sitka’s energy use has been increasing dramatically since 

2005. With rising prices for heating oil, more residents are switching to electric 

heating, causing electric demand to increase 5 percent in 2006, and 3 to 5 percent 

annually in 2007 and 2008. This is considerably higher than historical growth rates 

of about 0.8 percent per year (CBS ED 2011), but still lower than the cumulative 

average growth from 1973 to present of about 3 percent (Brewton 2012).

Substantial reductions in Sitka’s fossil fuel use could be facilitated by new commercial technologies, including electric vehicles with a driving range of at least 20 

miles (the approximate length of Sitka’s road system). Electric vehicles are already 

starting to be used in Sitka, and in Petersburg, Alaska, about eight electric vehicles 

have been acquired (Viechnicki 2008). Sitka, Petersburg, and other communities 

in Alaska that have limited road systems and relatively low driving speeds could 

become early adopters of electric cars. Electric vehicle use is finding policy support 

as well—Senate Bill 59 has recently been passed, allowing low-speed vehicles on 

roads having posted speed limits of 45 miles per hour (mph) or less (AHSO 2010). 

As electric vehicle technologies evolve, including batteries that offer greater 

driving ranges, communities with more extensive road systems could benefit. 

Although widespread use of electric vehicles could affect electricity use, adoption on a limited scale could be done in balance with other community needs. The 

potential of electric vehicle use in Sitka was significant enough to be included 

in the 2008 electric load forecast (Dhittle and Associates 2008). In this report, a 

separate scenario was prepared for widespread use of electric vehicles in Sitka. Up 

to 3,500 all-electric cars were projected to be in operation in Sitka by 2028. Each 

vehicle would be driven an assumed 4,380 miles per year, using 0.2 kW-hr per mile 

driven (876 kW-hr per vehicle per year). Also assumed is that vehicle heating would 

require 1,095 kW-hr per vehicle per year) (table 6). Therefore, the total projected 

energy requirements for electric vehicles in Sitka would be about 6.13 GW-hr per 

year, based on 75 percent of all vehicles being electric. This number is significant 

in that it represents only about 5.6 percent of Sitka’s current total retail energy sales 

(year 2008). Thus, it seems very plausible that, with some prudent planning and 

energy budgeting, Sitka could easily power an entire community of electric vehicles 

while using only a small fraction of its available electricity. Once electric vehicle 

use becomes established, the impact on electric load growth would be similar to the 

nonelectric car scenario (table 7). 

Substantial reductions 

in Sitka’s fossil fuel 

use could be facilitated 

by new commercial 

technologies, including 

electric vehicles.
20

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

Energy prices have been shown to have a marked impact on conservation 

efforts, and in some cases this has been dramatic (for example, the case of Juneau 

in spring 2008). In Sitka, during spring 2011, low water levels at the Blue Lake 

and Green Lake hydroelectric facilities created a “red light” scenario, indicating a 

strong need for energy conservation and increasing community awareness (KCAW 

Radio 2011). Sitka has among the least expensive electricity costs in the state (at 

about $0.09 per kW-hr for residential customers). 

Community activism could also play an important role because Sitka is 

renowned among communities in southeast Alaska for its community activism 

and ability to support grassroots efforts. Conservation-oriented groups in Sitka 

include Bike-Friendly Sitka, Local Foods Network, Sitka Global Warming Group, 

Table 6—City and Borough of Sitka 2008 electric load forecast

Estimated electric vehicle loadsa

Estimated Annual 

number of miles Annual Total

passenger Percentage Estimated per Average vehicle annual

cars of electric number of electric electricity space electric

Year (all types) cars electric cars car consumption heat car load

 Miles/kWh kWh/car kWh

2008 4,860 0 — 4,380 5.00 1,095 —

2009 4,878 0.5 24 4,380 5.00 1,095 47,304

2010 4,896 2.0 98 4,380 5.00 1,095 193,158

2011 4,894 5.0 245 4,380 5.00 1,095 482,895

2012 4,892 10.0 489 4,380 5.00 1,095 963,819

2013 4,890 15.0 734 4,380 5.50 1,095 1,388,261

2014 4,888 20.0 978 4,380 5.50 1,095 1,849,754

2015 4,886 25.0 1,222 4,380 5.50 1,095 2,311,246

2020 4,841 50.0 2,421 4,380 6.00 1,095 4,418,325

2025 4,776 75.0 3,582 4,380 6.50 1,095 6,336,007

2028 4,749 75.0 3,562 4,380 7.00 1,095 6,129,184

kWh = kilowatt-hours. 

Source: Sitka 2008 Electric System Load Forecast (CBS ED 2008b). a Assumptions: (1) Average vehicle daily use is 12 miles; (2) vehicle heaters require 1,500 watts per hour for an average daily heating 

time of 2 hours.

Table 7—Forecasted total energy requirements in Sitka, Alaska 

(excluding potential interruptible sales)

Year Low Medium High Electric vehicle

2008 (actual) 111,919 111,919 111,919 111,919

2010 114,380 122,730 127,820 127,870

2015 119,530 131,410 143,830 145,810

2020 121,550 136,380 151,490 155,750

2025 123,280 140,670 158,900 165,240

2029 124,180 143,590 164,860 171,420

Source: City and Borough of Sitka Electric Department (2008b).
21

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

Sitka Conservation Society, and Sustainable Sitka. The Sitka public transit system 

(Community Ride) also provides regular bus service. Community activism could 

lead to greater energy conservation as well as adoption of new technologies. Public 

outreach and education also can play an important role in community energy 

planning. A conservation-minded community is a strong asset. Further, in smaller 

communities, the diffusion of information for new renewable energy developments 

can occur rapidly through community newspapers, radio, and other media eager to 

showcase new developments. For example, in Sitka, the first private electric vehicle 

to be used on a regular basis generated numerous radio and newspaper stories 

(Ronco 2010). Similar examples in Sitka can be noted for the first wind energy 

system (installed at a local high school) and the first solar electric system (installed 

at a private residence).

Biomass energy could play an integral role in Sitka’s energy planning, for both 

residential and “small-industrial” systems. A general increase in the use of firewood 

for residential heating has been observed as a result of rising heating oil prices, and 

firewood users in southeast Alaska consume an average of about 3.6 cords annually (Nicholls et al. 2010). Other potential wood energy users include the Coast 

Guard base in Sitka, which is moving forward with a project to burn wood pellets 

for energy (Deering 2011). This project could consume close to 900 tons of wood 

pellets annually when completed. 

Given the momentum in wood energy development that has been spurred by 

recent fuel price increases, it is conceivable that regionwide bioenergy networks 

could soon form in southeast Alaska. Notably, recent advances in wood pellet use 

in Juneau and Ketchikan (systems in operation as of September 2011) and in Sitka 

(a planned system at the Coast Guard base) could catalyze even further wood pellet 

use and manufacture throughout the region. As larger wood energy systems become 

established, wood-chip-fired systems could take advantage of greater economies 

of scale, including interisland biomass shipments. The significance of this is that 

community energy management practices would be carried out at the local level, 

yet strongly influenced by regional considerations, including fuel type and availability among other factors. Perhaps the greatest element influencing community 

energy planning is not within the control of the residents of Sitka—namely the 

market price of fossil fuels. During the recent energy price surge that peaked in mid 

2008, renewable energy interest skyrocketed, especially in rural Alaska where price 

increases were magnified. Given the strong interest in renewable energy in Alaska 

over the past decade, it appears that communities are taking a long-term view to 

develop sustainable energy solutions, while becoming less vulnerable to fluctuations in the cost of fossil fuels. 
22

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

References

Agne, J. 20013. Energy Star Rebate Program—Final Report. Sitka, Alaska. 13 p.

Alaska Department of Administration, Division of Motor Vehicles [ADA 

DMV]. 2012. Currently registered vehicles. http://www.state.ak.us/dmv/research/

curreg11.htm. (09 November 2012).

Alaska Energy Authority. 2010. Alaska Renewable Energy Fund Ranking 

and Funding Allocation Round 3. ftp://ftp.aidea.org/ReFund_RoundIII_

Recommendations/100129_1042%20(D)/1_Project_Recommendation_Methods/

region_summary/RE%20Fund%20Round%203%20Ranked%2011x17.pdf. 

(12 February 2013).

Alaska Energy Authority. 2010. Railbelt large hydro evaluation—

preliminary decision document.http://media.adn.com/smedia/2010/11/24/14/

AEA_23NOV2010final_with_letter.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf. 

(09 November 2012).

Alaska Energy Authority. 2011. Wind programs—wind systems operating in 

Alaska. http://www.akenergyauthority.org/programwindsystem.html. 

(09 November 2012).

Alaska Highway Safety Office [AHSO]. 2010. Low speed vehicles. http://www.

dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/hwysafety/low_speed.shtml. (12 November 2012).

Anon. 2008. Juneau, Alaska, cuts energy use by 40 percent. 

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Renewable-Energy/Juneau-Alaska-EnergyConservation.aspx. (09 November 2012).

 Ashok, S. 2007. Optimised model for community-based hybrid energy system. 

Renewable Energy. 32: 1155–1164.

Banister, D. 2005. What are sustainable rural communities? London: Commission 

for Rural Communities. 100 p. http://crc.staging.headshift.com/files/

Sustainable%20Communities%20Thinkpieces.pdf. (09 November 2012).

Metric Equivalents

When you know: Multiply by: To find:

Feet (ft) 0.305 Meters

Miles (mi) 1.609 Kilometers

Gallons (gal) 3.78 Liters

Tons (ton) 907 Tonnes or megagrams

Kilowatt-hour (kW-hr) 3.6 Megajoules
23

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

Baring-Gould, I. 2008. Wind-diesel performance: a review of the performance of 

existing wind-diesel applications in rural Alaska. Girdwood, AK: Alaska Rural 

Energy Conference.

Bergmann, A.; Colombo, S.; Hanley, N. 2008. Rural versus urban preferences for 

renewable energy developments. Ecological Economics. 65: 616–625.

Bergmann, A.; Hanley, N.; Wright, R. 2006. Valuing the attributes of renewable 

energy investments. Energy Policy. 34: 1004–1014.

Black and Veatch. 2011. Southeast Alaska integrated resource plan. Vol. 1—

executive summary. 86 p. http://www.akenergyauthority.org/SEIRP/12-23-2011_

Vol1_SoutheastAlaskaIRP.pdf. (22 May 2012).

Bolling, J. 2007. Wood fired boiler heating system. Alaska Wood Energy 

Conference. November 14–15, 2007. Fairbanks, Alaska.

Brewton, C. 2012. Personal communication. Utility director, City and Borough of 

Sitka, Electric Department, 105 Jarvis Street, Sitka, Alaska 99835.

Bus, A. 2011. Juneau climate action & implementation plan. 98 p. http://www.

juneau.org/manager/documents/CAP_Final_Nov_14.pdf. (09 November 2012). 

Byrne, J.; Shen, B.; Wallace, W. 1997. The economics of sustainable energy for 

rural development: a study of renewable energy in rural China. Energy Policy. 

26(1): 45–54.

Carlisle, N.; Elling, J.; Penney, T. 2008. A renewable energy community: 

key elements—a reinvented community to meet untapped customer needs 

for shelter and transportation with minimal environmental impacts, stable 

energy costs, and a sense of belonging. Tech. Rep. NREL/TP-540-42774. 27 p. 

Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/

fy08osti/42774.pdf. (12 December 2012). 

City and Borough of Sitka [CBS]. 2010. Climate action plan. 68 p. http://

www.cityofsitka.com/government/clerk/boards/info/climate/documents/

SitkaClimateActionPlan6-11-10.pdf. (12 November 2012).

City and Borough of Sitka Electric Department [CBS ED]. 2008a. Sitka’s 

power supply plan. 14 p. http://cityofsitka.com/government/departments/electric/

documents/PowerSupplyPlan101908.pdf. (12 November 2012).

City and Borough of Sitka Electric Department [CBS ED]. 2008b. 2008 electric 

system load forecast. 34 p. http://www.cityofsitka.com/government/departments/

electric/documents/LoadForecastRpt2008-Final.pdf. (13 February 2013).
24

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

City and Borough of Sitka Electric Department [CBS ED]. 2011. Takatz 

Lake hydroelectric feasibility project. http://www.cityofsitka.com/government/

departments/electric/TakatzLakeProject.htm. (09 November 2012).

City of Louisville. 2011. Climate action plans of other localities. 

http://www.louisvilleky.gov/APCD/ClimateChange/ClimateActionPlans.htm. 

(09 November 2012).

ConserveOnline. 2011. Staney Community Forestry Project. 35 p. 

http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/staney-creek. (09 November 2012). 

Deering, R. 2011. Personal communication. Civil and environmental engineer, 

United States Coast Guard, 345 Egan Drive, Juneau, AK 99801.

Dietz, T.; Gardner, G.T.; Gilligan, J.; Stern, P.C.; Vandenbergh, M.P. 2009. 

Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon 

emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 

of America. 106(44): 18452–18456.

Dhittle and Associates, Inc. 2008. City and Borough of Sitka 2008 electric system 

load forecast—final report. 34 p. http://cityofsitka.com/government/departments/

electric/documents/LoadForecastRpt2008-Final.pdf. (09 November 2012).

Duić, N.; da Graça Carvalho, M. 2004. Increasing renewable energy sources in 

island energy supply: case study Porto Santo. Renewable and Sustainable Energy 

Reviews. 8(4): 383–399. 

Eaton, R.L.; Hammond, G.P.; Laurie, J. 2007. Footprints on the landscape: 

An environmental appraisal of urban and rural living in the developed world. 

Landscape and Urban Planning. 83(1): 13–28.

Emerman, R. 2006. Hoonah Intertie Extension—Economic Considerations. 41 p.

http://www.cityofsitka.com/government/departments/electric/documents/

HoonahIntertieFinalReport06-152006.pdf. (09 November 2012).

Flowers, L.; Baring-Gould, I.; Bianchi, J.; Corbus, D.; Drouilhet, S.; Elliott, 

D.; Gevorgian, V.; Jimenez, A.; Lilienthal, P.; Newcomb, C.; Taylor, R. 

2000. Renewables for sustainable village power. NREL/CP-500-28595. 10 p. 

Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Lab. http://http://www.nrel.gov/docs/

fy01osti/28595.pdf. (13 December 2012).

Golden, K. 2008. Avalanche knocks out hydro power. Juneau Empire. 

http://juneauempire.com/stories/041708/loc_269314122.shtml. 

(08 November 2012).
25

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

Gupta, A.; Saini, R.P.; Sharma, M.P. 2010. Steady-state modelling of hybrid 

energy system for off grid electrification of cluster of villages. Renewable 

Energy. 35(2): 520–535.

Hain, J.J.; Ault, G.W.; Galloway, S.J.; Cruden, A.; McDonald, J.R. 2005.

Additional renewable energy growth through small-scale community orientated 

energy policies. Energy Policy. 33(9): 1199–1212.

Hatch Acres Corporation. 2007. AK-BC intertie feasibility study SE Alaska. 

261 p. http://www.cityofsitka.com/government/departments/electric/documents/9-

18-2007AK-BCAlaskaFinalReport.pdf. (09 November 2012).

Hillring, B. 2002. Rural development and bioenergy—experiences from 20 years 

of development in Sweden. Biomass and Bioenergy. 23(6): 443–451.

Hiremath, R.B.; Shikha, S.; Ravindranath, N.H. 2007. Decentralized energy 

planning; modeling and application—a review. Renewable and Sustainable 

Energy Reviews. 11(5): 729–752.

Horne, R. E.; Bates, M.; Fien, J.; Kellett, J.; Hamnett, S. 2007. Carbon neutral 

communities: definitions and prospects. Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University 

Centre for Design. 14 p. http://Mams.rmit.edu.au/4m5iz8pii1ts1.pdf. 

(12 November 2012).

Jaccard, M.; Failing, L.; Berry, T. 1997. From equipment to infrastructure: 

community energy management and greenhouse gas emission reduction. Energy 

Policy. 25(13): 1065–1074.

Jacobsson, S.; Johnson, A. 2000. The diffusion of renewable energy technology: 

an analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy. 28(9): 

625–640.

KCAW Radio. 2011. Call for conservation at assembly meeting. 

http://kcaw.org/2011/07/13/call-for-conservation-at-assembly-meeting/. 

(09 November 2012).

Kimmel, M.; Pace, K., eds. Proposed climate action plan for the municipality of 

Anchorage. Anchorage, AK: University of Alaska. 53 p. http://www.uaa.alaska.

edu/politicalscience/Faculty/upload/Climate-Action-Plan-2009.pdf. 

(09 November 2012).
26

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

Kowalczyk, D.; Cramer, J.C.; Hackett, B.; Craig, P.P.; Deitz, T.M.; LeVine, M.; 

Vine, E. 1983. Evaluation of a community-based electricity load management 

program. Energy. 8(3): 235–243.

Maker, T.M. 2004. Wood-chip heating systems—a guide for institutional and 

commercial biomass installations. Montpelier, VT: Biomass Energy Resource 

Center. 91 p. http://www.biomasscenter.org/pdfs/Wood-Chip-Heating-Guide.pdf. 

(12 December 2012).

Marsden, T.; Smith, E. 2005. Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable 

development in local communities through quality food production and local 

branding. Geoforum. 36(4): 440–451.

Mauer, R. 2011. Susitna hydro, in-state gas line take the energy spotlight. 

Anchorage Daily News. http://www.adn.com/2011/07/25/1984954/susitna-hydroinstate-gas-line.html?storylink=tacoma. (12 December 2012).

Nicholls, D.L. 2009. Wood energy in Alaska—case study evaluations of selected 

facilities. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-793. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 33 p.

Nicholls, D.L. 2010. Could Sitka become a zero emission community in about 

10 years? [unpublished document]. Alaska Wood Utilization and Development 

Center, 204 Siginaka Way, Sitka, AK 99835.

Nicholls, D.L.; Brackley, A.M.; Barber, V. 2010. Wood energy for residential 

heating in Alaska: current conditions, attitudes, and expected use. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PNW-GTR-826. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 36 p. 

Pacala, S.; Socolow, R. 2004. Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem 

for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science. 305 (5686): 968–972.

Parks, A. 2007. City of Homer climate action plan: reducing the threat of global 

climate change through government and community efforts. 41 p. http://www.

cityofhomer-ak.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/climate_action_plan.pdf. 

(12 November 2012).

Parrent, D. 2008. Preliminary feasibility assessment for high efficiency, 

low emission wood heating in Sitka, Alaska. Juneau, AK: Juneau 

Economic Development Council. 44 p. http://www.akenergyauthority.org/

BiomassWoodEnergy/Sitka2008_AWEDTG.pdf. (12 November 2012).
27

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

Pedersen, C. 2011. Prince of Wales Biofuel Cooperative plans wood pellet mill. 

Capital City Weekly, Juneau, Alaska. http://capitalcityweekly.com/stories/020211/

new_779432488.shtml. (12 November 2012).

Perlack, R.D.; Jones, H.G.; Waddle, D.B. 1990. A survey of renewable energy 

technologies for rural Applications. Energy. 15(12): 1119–1127.

Perry, S.; Klemes, J.; Bulatov, I. 2008. Integrating waste and renewable energy to 

reduce the carbon footprint of locally integrated energy sectors. Energy. 33(10): 

1489–1497.

Podesser, E. 1999. Electricity production in rural villages with a biomass Stirling 

engine. Renewable Energy. 16(1–4): 1049–1052.

Renewable Energy Alaska Project [REAP]. 2011. Projects in Alaska. 

http://alaskarenewableenergy.org/alaskas-resources/projects-in-alaska/. 

(12 November 2012).

Ronco, E. 2010. Electric car owner says new legislation won’t change her habits. 

Sitka, AK: KCAW Radio. http://kcaw.org/2010/01/29/electric-car-owner-saysnew-legislation-won039t-change-her-habits/. (12 November 2012).

Roseland, M. 2000. Sustainable community development: integrating 

environmental, economic, and social objectives. Progress in Planning. 

54(2): 73–132.

Rydén, B.; Johnsson, J.; Wene, C.-O. 1993. CHP production in integrated 

energy systems examples from five Swedish communities. Energy Policy. 

21(2): 176–190.

Sadownik, B.; Jaccard, M. 2002. Shaping sustainable energy use in Chinese 

cities—the relevance of community energy management. DISP. 151: 15–22.

Sheltair Group Resource Consultants Inc. 2000. Community energy plan for 

the town of Banff—final report. 52 p. http://www.ghgregistries.ca/registry/out/

C2842-28MAR01PL-DOC.pdf. (12 November 2012).

Smith, G.R. 1998. Are we leaving the community out of rural community 

sustainability? International Journal of Sustainable Development and World 

Ecology. 5(2): 82–98.

Soboleff, N. 2011. Sealaska Plaza’s wood pellet boiler and wood pellet delivery 

company. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Wood Energy Conference. ftp://ftp.aidea.org/

2011AKWoodEnergyConference/4-27-2011_Presentations/1030am-2_Soboleff_

Sealaska.pdf. (12 November 2012).
28

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-882

St. Denis, G.; Parker, P. 2009. Community energy planning in Canada: 

The role of renewable energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 

13(8): 2088–2095.

Tetra Tech. 2011. Kodiak Electric Association Pillar Mountain wind project. 

http://www.tetratech.com/projects/kodiak-island-wind-project.html. 

(12 November 2012).

The FreeDictionary. 2012. Stirling engine. 

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Stirling+engines. 

(12 November 2012).

Tirone, J. 2007. “Dead-end” Austrian town blossoms with green energy. New 

York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/business/worldbusiness/

28iht-carbon.4.7290268.html. (12 November 2012).

Tongass Futures Roundtable. 2011. http://www.tongassfutures.net/. 

(12 November 2012).

Tsioliaridou, E.; Bakos, G.C.; Stadler, M. 2006. A new energy planning 

methodology for the penetration of renewable energy technologies in electricity 

sector—application for the island of Crete. Energy Policy. 34(18): 3757–3764.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration 

[USDC EDA]. 2010. Southeast Alaska comprehensive economic development 

strategy—2010 update.110 p. http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/ded/dev/oedp/

pubs/SEC%20CEDS%202006-2010.pdf. (12 November 2012).

U.S. Department of Energy [USDOE]. 2008. Juneau, Alaska, cuts electricity use 

drastically during crisis. http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/

news_id=11802. (12 February 2013).

U.S. Department of Energy [USDOE]. 2011. 2010 wind technologies market 

report. 98 p. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/51783.pdf. 

(12 November 2012).

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration [USDOE 

EIA]. 2009. State-by-state CO2 emissions: 1990–2010. http://www.epa.gov/

statelocalclimate/documents/pdf/CO2FFC_2010.pdf. (12 February 2013). 

Van Hoesen, J.; Letendre, S. 2010. Evaluating potential renewable energy 

resources in Poultney, Vermont: a GIS-based approach to supporting rural 

community energy planning. Renewable Energy. 35(9): 2114–2122.
29

Community Energy Management in Sitka, Alaska

Viechnicki, J. 2008. Low-speed electric cars come to Petersburg. KFSK Radio. 

http://kfsk.org/modules/local_news/index.php?op=sideBlock&ID=149.

Walker, G. 2008. What are the barriers and incentives for community-owned 

means of energy production and use? Energy Policy. 36(12): 4401–4405.

Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P. 2008. Community renewable energy: What should 

it mean? Energy Policy. 36(2): 497–500.

Weisser, D. 2004. On the economics of electricity consumption in small island 

developing states: a role for renewable energy technologies? Energy Policy. 

32(1): 127–140.

Wustenhagen, R.; Wolsink, M.; Burer, M.J. 2007. Social acceptance of 

renewable energy innovation: an introduction to the concept. Energy Policy. 

35(5): 2683–2691.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/

Telephone (503) 808–2592

Publication requests (503) 808–2138

FAX (503) 808–2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208–3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300