A Report from the Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group

December 9, 2016

WORKSHOP SERIES REPORT 2

United States Arctic Research Commission

Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group

Residential Heating in 

Remote Arctic Villages:

Implementation Plan
Contents

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................1

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................3

Matrix of Research Needs.................................................................................................................5

Data and Technology Research Questions and Needs...............................................................7

Socioeconomic Research Questions and Needs........................................................................10

Policy and Collaboration Research Questions and Needs......................................................12

Prioritization of Research Needs and Strategies for Implementation..................13

Data and Technology Research Needs..........................................................................................13

Socioeconomic Research Needs......................................................................................................14

Policy and Collaboration Research Needs....................................................................................15

Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................17

Appendix 1. Research Needs Matrix........................................................................................18

About This Report

This report reflects the views and opinions of workshop 

participants, not those of the US Arctic Research Commission, the Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group, 

or any of the organizations affiliated with the working 

group. USARC provides this report as a public service 

with the understanding that we make no warranties, 

either expressed or implied, concerning the accuracy, 

completeness, reliability, or suitability of the information. USARC web pages and this report do not endorse 

any commercial providers or their products. 

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group and workshop participants that generously 

donated their time and thoughts. We would like to thank 

the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium for providing 

the venue for this workshop. We would also like to thank 

the Alaska Village Electric Cooperative for sharing photographs for this report.

COVER PHOTO: Residential homes in 

Kasigluk, Alaska. Credit: AVEC

Acronyms

AAEM ...........Alaska Affordable Energy Model

AAHA............Association of Alaska Housing Authorities

ACEP .............Alaska Center for Energy and Power

ACS ...............American Community Survey

AEA ...............Alaska Energy Authority

AHFC ............Alaska Housing Finance Corporation

ANTHC .........Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

APU ...............Alaska Pacific University

AREWG ........Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group

ARIS ..............Alaska Retrofit Information System

AVEC .............Alaska Village Electric Cooperative

BSNC .............Bering Strait Native Corporation

CCHRC .........Cold Climate Housing Research Center

DOE ...............US Department of Energy

ISER ...............Institute of Social and Economic Research 

at University of Alaska Anchorage

KAE................Kotzebue Electric Association 

NSF ................National Science Foundation

REAP .............Renewable Energy Alaska Project

UAF ...............University of Alaska Fairbanks

USARC ..........United States Arctic Research Commission

USDA-RD .....United States Department of AgricultureRural Development
1

Residential heating in Alaska’s remote Arctic communities 

is one of the most challenging and expensive essential services for utilities to provide and for consumers to afford. To 

better understand how renewable energy systems, energy 

efficiencies and education and policy initiatives might best 

address home heating needs for remote communities, the 

US Arctic Research Commission’s Arctic Renewable Energy 

Working Group held a workshop, in January 2016, to identify data gaps and research needs regarding how heat is 

used in villages. In December 2016, a follow-up workshop 

was held to assess and identify progress, prioritize unmet 

data and research needs, and develop strategies to address 

outstanding data gaps and research needs. 

Executive Summary

Implementing research to address outstanding questions 

and information needs for residential heating in remote 

Arctic villages requires supportive funding. This poses a 

serious challenge given current State and federal research 

funding limitations. However, through incentives, collaborative approaches, partnerships and understanding the 

relevance of completed efforts in other Arctic countries 

we can continue to address the home heating needs of 

Alaska’s Arctic rural communities.

To address outstanding research needs identified, participants from the follow-up workshop divided and prioritized 

specific actions into three categories: Data and Technology, 

Socioeconomics, and Policy and Coordination.

Data and Technology

> Need: Continue to develop and deploy heating fuel 

meters for individual residential homes to provide fine 

scale data on the volume of heating fuel used over time.

Strategy for implementation: Develop a collaborative 

approach between technology development entities, 

academic institutions, regional housing authorities and 

corporations to continue to develop and distribute lowcost, non-invasive heating fuel meters to collect data on 

individual homes in remote Arctic communities.

> Need: Research heat technology case studies from 

other Arctic nations to better understand the feasibility 

and effectiveness of converting renewable resources to 

electric heat in Alaska’s Arctic rural communities.

Strategy for implementation: Examine the efforts and 

findings of heat technology research (e.g., wind-to-heat, 

sewage-to-heat, solar thermal, biomass, etc.) in other 

Arctic countries to determine and provide guidance on 

which technologies may be best suited to the needs of 

Alaska’s remote Arctic communities. This work could 

be conducted by an academic institution (possible 

post-graduate project), a technology development 

company, or by a governmental, NGO, or private sector 

energy entity. 

Socioeconomics

> Need: Develop programs to train and retain local 

skilled laborers in rural communities. 

Strategy for implementation: Review other “growyour-own” programs, such as the Health Aid and Village 

Public Safety Officer programs, to determine how a 

skilled labor program could be structured to keep trained 

laborers in remote communities. The possibility of sharing laborers in skilled positions across a region should 

also be explored. This research could be conducted by 

workforce development entities, tribal or state government groups, or academic institutions.

> Need: Understand the feasibility and potential to create

economies of scale (or scope) for heat energy infrastructure projects (e.g., regional or multi-village projects). 

Strategy for implementation: Develop a collaborative 

approach involving regional corporations, vendors, academic institutions, private investors, and governmental 

economic and energy entities to study the feasibility and 

effectiveness of regional infrastructure development 

projects that would serve multiple remote communities.
2

Policy and Coordination

> Need: Develop and implement a robust, updated 

Alaska State Energy Policy and review progress made 

since the 2010 Alaska State Energy Policy was issued. 

Strategy for implementation: Develop a collaborative 

approach between academic socioeconomic institutions 

(e.g., UAA’s Institute of Social and Economic Research) 

and State government energy agencies to outline a feasible strategy for effective energy policy aimed at reducing remote community dependence on diesel fuels. 

Note: Since this workshop took place, the Alaska Energy 

Authority publicly released its Alaska Affordable Energy 

Strategy that provides policy recommendations related to 

the Alaska State Energy Policy.

> Need: Improve education and communication of 

energy efficiency practices, technology and behaviors 

within remote communities.

Strategy for implementation: Identify and encourage 

community-based agencies to work with established 

energy education programs (e.g., Renewable Energy 

Alaska Project, RurAL CAP) to determine remaining 

needs and how collaborations could increase capacity 

to address those needs.

The village of Teller, 

Alaska. Credit: AVEC

Workshop 2 Attendees

Colleen Dushkin (AAHA)

Emil Laarson (AAHA – Bristol Bay)

Neil McMahon (AEA)

Sean Skaling (AEA)

Mimi Burbage (AHFC – Weatherization Program)

Scott Waterman (AHFC)

Tashina Duttle (ANTHC)

Eric Hanssen (ANTHC)

Sharnel Vale (ANTHC)

Steve Colt (APU)

Forest Button (AVEC)

Bruno Grunau (CCHRC)

Tom Wolf (Denali Commission)

Brad Reeve (Kotzebue Electric Association)

Tom Marsik (UAF)

Gwen Holdmann (UAF/ACEP)

Jessie Huff (USDA-RD)

Carrie Eischens (USARC)

Cheryl Rosa (USARC)
3

In remote Alaskan villages, subzero temperatures, inefficient building envelopes and high heating fuel prices 

challenge residents’ ability to adequately heat their 

homes. The Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) estimates that 

the 200+ remote communities in the state will spend 

approximately $186 million in residential heating costs in 

2017.1 Compared to the more populated areas of the state 

where natural gas is used for home heating, the primary 

residential heating source in remote Alaskan communities 

is diesel fuel oil (Figure 1). The exceptions to this are two 

communities in the North Slope region where local access 

to natural gas exists.2 

The January 2017 Alaska Fuel Price3 report indicated that 

the average retail price of heating fuel oil across 100 remote 

communities was $4.49/gallon but ranged both between 

Introduction

and within regions with an average cost of $5.17/gallon in 

Western Alaska to $1.74/gallon in Northern Alaska where 

the North Slope Borough subsidizes residential heating fuel 

costs for its residents (Table 1). In all regions where heating 

fuel is not subsidized by the local government, average 

prices were above the national average heating fuel cost 

of $2.63/gallon in January 2017. In some communities, 

residents in the lowest income bracket spend 47% (median 

value) of their annual income on household energy.4

The high cost of diesel heating fuel in remote Alaska stems 

partially from the cost to transport fuel, either by air or by 

barge, to remote communities. The transport cost is largely 

responsible for the wide variation in fuel prices by region, 

with the more accessible communities in Southeast Alaska 

having lower heating fuel prices.

1 Personal communication – Neil McMahon, Alaska Energy Authority

2 Alaska Energy Authority. 2017. The Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy: Methodology, Finding and Recommendations. https://goo.gl/2q6vLP 3 Alaska Fuel Price Report: Current Community Conditions, January 2016. https://goo.gl/ovN9C7 4 Saylor, B., S. Haley, and N. Szymoniak. 2008. Estimated Household Costs for Home Energy Use. Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, 

Note 1, 10 pp. https://goo.gl/9zKwSC

FIGURE 1. Primary source of 

residential heat in AEA energy 

regions.2 Source: American 

Community Survey (2013), 

AEA (2017)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Southeast

Copper River/Chugach

Kodiak

Railbelt

Aleutians

Bristol Bay

Lower Yukon-Kuskokwim

Yukon-Koyukuk/Upper Tanana

Bering Straits

Northwest Arctic

North Slope Utility Gas

Propane

Electricity

Fuel

Wood

Other

Gulf Coast Interior Northern Northwest Southeast Southwest Western

High $6.90 $12.00 $2.50* $7.21 $4.60 $6.85 $7.32

Low $2.30 $2.40 $1.40* $3.50 $2.79 $2.56 $3.95

Average $3.48 $4.83 $1.74* $4.92 $3.27 $4.35 $5.17

* Fuel costs in this region are subsidized by the North Slope Borough.

TABLE 1. RETAIL HEATING FUEL PRICES PER GALLON ACROSS ALASKA, JANUARY 2017.
4

Within regions, prices also vary over time and depend on 

accessibility. For example, some river communities that 

traditionally received shipments by barge are no longer 

able to, due to changes in the seasonal river flow which 

has resulted in low water levels at critical times. These communities now rely on fuel delivery by airplane, which is a 

significantly more expensive means of transport.

Due to their remoteness and the infrequency of fuel delivery, many communities routinely purchase and store large 

quantities of diesel fuel to last until the next fuel delivery 

season (generally, a full calendar year). As a result, fuel 

prices also include the operational cost of community bulk 

fuel storage, and are not influenced by the seasonal variability seen in other parts of the country.

In addition, because the cost of home heating fuel is not 

regulated by the State of Alaska, local retailers can incorporate other expenses, such as the cost of debt for bulk 

fuel loans, when setting the price of heating fuel within 

the community. This leads to substantial variation between 

communities with similar geographies and logistical 

circumstances.

Renewable energy and energy efficiency strategies are seen 

as potential means of reducing residential heating costs by 

reducing dependence on expensive diesel fuel oil in these 

communities. The Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group 

(AREWG), coordinated by the US Arctic Research Commission 

(USARC), promotes research on renewable and efficient 

energy systems in remote Arctic communities. Formed in 

2015, this working group aims to benefit rural Arctic communities by identifying and addressing critical research 

needs related renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Initial efforts of this working 

group have focused on 

the home heating needs 

of isolated Alaska villages. 

AREWG hosted an initial 

workshop (Workshop 1) in 

January 2016 to identify 

data gaps and research 

needs related to residential heating in remote 

Arctic villages. In order to 

better understand how renewable energy systems, energy 

efficiencies, as well as education and policy level efforts 

might best address heating needs for remote communities, a review of the status quo and identification of data 

gaps was the seen as a necessary first step. A report from 

the initial workshop is available at the following web site: 

https://goo.gl/5fMt84.

The second workshop (Workshop 2) of the series, held 

in December 2016, was convened to plan for the implementation of research needed to address data gaps and 

research questions related to residential heating which 

were identified in the initial workshop (January 2016). The 

objective of the second workshop was to develop pathways and strategies to address outstanding data gaps 

and research needs. A future work shop will focus on 

evaluation of efforts, outcomes and lesson learned (2018).

Participants in the second workshop included representatives from a wide variety of agencies and institutions (see 

full list on page 2). 

AVEC’s tugboat and barge making a fuel delivery in 

Shaktoolik, Alaska. Credit: Karl Haddow

Bulk Fuel Tank Farm in Emmonak, 

Alaska. Credit: AVEC
5

Matrix of Research Needs

A review of the research needs and priorities identified during Workshop 1 was provided at the outset of 

Workshop 2. Research needs were categorized into one of 

three groups—Data & Technology Needs, Socioeconomic 

Needs, or Policy & Collaboration Needs—to create a 

Research Needs Matrix (Appendix 1). This matrix was created to serve as a framework for the Workshop 2 effort. 

The matrix created identifies research questions and, 

when possible, specific data metrics needed to answer 

the research questions identified during Workshop 1. It 

also includes a column to note progress made by various 

entities on these research questions since the January 2016 

meeting (see Appendix 1).

Given the time interval between the two workshops, it 

was necessary to update participants on projects that 

had been completed or were currently underway which 

address research needs identified in Workshop 1. This 

information was used to populate the “Progress” column 

of the matrix. Three formal presentations were provided 

by representatives from the AEA, CCHRC and UAF/ACEP to 

review progress. These presentations can be accessed at 

https://goo.gl/PLp1AV.

Presentation 1: Development of the Alaska 

Affordable Energy Model (Alaska Energy Authority)

In 2014, AEA was tasked by the Alaska State Legislature 

to provide recommendations (by January 2017) aimed 

at improving the affordability of energy in the areas of 

the state that will not be served by a natural gas pipeline 

(the area broadly defined as the Railbelt Region). As part 

of the overall Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy (AkAES) 

project, the Alaska Affordable Energy Model (AAEM) was 

developed to help communities evaluate potential energy 

infrastructure projects that may reduce the cost of energy. 

The model is also aimed at assisting the state of Alaska in 

making energy policy decisions. To initialize this model, 

AEA conducted a large data collection effort, pulling 

together available information related to energy costs 

(both electrical and heating). This included the best available data on village level energy consumption, generation 

and cost for 240 separate Alaska communities. Community 

data was gathered from over 100 sources including US 

census data (2010; American Community Survey), housing 

data from the AHFC’s Alaska Retrofit Information System 

(ARIS), research on potential and existing renewable 

energy projects, and fuel pricing data. Most of this information is housed on the Alaska Energy Data Gateway and 

through the Alaska Energy Data Inventory (Sidebar 1). As 

a model validation check, the model was used to estimate 

annual consumption of heating fuel for 100 communities 

based on available community data. These estimates were 

shared with the fuel supplier for these communities who 

provided feedback that the estimates were within 10–20% 

of the actual fuel amounts delivered to the communities, 

indicating that this model is providing reasonable estimates. While this model uses the best available data, it 

was noted that in the study areas (outside of the Railbelt 

Region), heating fuel is generally supplied by unregulated 

local heating oil companies. As a result, the volumes and 

type of heating fuel consumed at the residential household 

level is not precisely known and assessments must be at 

the community or regional level.

Sidebar 1. Alaska Energy Data Resources

The Alaska Energy Data Inventory (AEDI; https://goo.gl/

9pZN1M) is a partnership project between the AEA, the 

University of Alaska’s Geographic Information Network 

of Alaska (GINA) and the Alaska Department of Natural 

Resources Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. 

The main goals of the AEDI project are to a) inventory and 

consolidate available Alaska energy resource data suitable 

for electrical power generation and space heating needs 

and b) help identify locations or regions where the most 

economic energy resource or combination of energy 

resources can be developed to meet local needs. 

The Alaska Energy Data Gateway (AEDG; https://goo.gl/

7Um5iU) is a public resource initially funded by a grant to 

the University of Alaska from the Department of Energy’s 

Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research 

(EPSCoR) program and now supported by State funds 

through the Alaska Energy Authority. This resource provides the public, as well as project developers and researchers, with energy data from across the state aggregated at 

the community level. With this information, the public can 

make informed decisions about energy issues in their communities and see how similar issues are being addressed in 

other parts of the state. 
6

The large data collection effort undertaken 

to initialize the AAEM addresses data 

collection gaps identified at Workshop 1, 

specifically as they relate to community 

infrastructure and building types and use. 

The model also assists with understanding 

the impact of policy on the cost of heating 

in rural communities, a research need raised 

during Workshop 1. 

Presentation 2: Monitoring Home 

Energy Use (Cold Climate Housing 

Research Center)

The CCHRC has been working on residential 

home heating issues with the aim of testing, 

developing and vetting building and heating 

technologies for the North. Demonstration 

homes have been built in 17 Northern communities (such as 

Anaktuvuk Pass, Quinhagak, Atmautluak, Galena, Fairbanks 

and Bethel) and CCHRC has been monitoring heating fuel 

use at these demonstrations homes since the first one was 

constructed in 2008. This monitoring has shown that these 

energy-efficient homes use 1/5th the amount of heating 

fuel that typical houses use in the same community while 

being comfortable and socially accepted at the local level. 

CCHRC has also worked with the Alaska Housing Finance 

Corporation (AHFC) to develop, improve, and begin verifying the “AKWarm” energy modeling software, which is an 

effective proxy for energy use for homes which cannot be 

directly measured (due to high costs of automated monitoring and/or high variability in data quality when measured manually). Initial efforts to compare modeled energy 

use with actual energy use of select homes have indicated 

the AKWarm software models are within 10-15% of the 

actual energy use, however further verification is needed.

A second project conducted by CCHRC in association with 

AHFC is the 2014 Alaska Housing Assessment.5 The Alaska 

Housing Assessment provides an overview of housing 

characteristics in Alaska so that housing authorities, policymakers, funding agencies and other interested parties can 

make informed decisions about resource allocation and 

housing program management.6 Characteristics included 

in the Housing Assessment include metrics on community 

features, residential overcrowding and energy usage/cost, 

as well as housing affordability. Information is available 

at the state, regional (Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act region), US census area, and community level. Data 

for this assessment was drawn from the Alaska Retrofit 

Information System (ARIS), the 2011 American Community 

Survey (ACS), the 2009 Residential Energy Consumption 

Statistics from US Energy Information System, and the 

2010 US Census. An updated Alaska Housing Assessment is 

due out in summer 2017 and will provide similar, but more 

current information.

One of the research questions raised during Workshop 1 

was the need to understand the context of heat need for 

individual residences in a community. The Alaska Housing 

Assessment addresses this by providing a summary of the 

housing characteristics in a given community including 

summary information on the age and relative air-tightness 

of homes as well as the types of fuel used to provide heating. 

Presentation 3: Filling Data Gaps through 

Collaboration (Alaska Center for Energy and Power)

In November 2016, ACEP, ISER and USARC co-sponsored 

the Alaska Community Data Workshop. Its purpose was 

to bring together users and collectors of data in Alaska to 

discuss what data is currently being collected, its limitations, gaps, and the potential for establishing an Alaska 

data portal. This data portal could be an expansion of the 

current Alaska Energy Data Gateway or a new data gateway that would include spatial and numerical data portals 

5 2014 Alaska Housing Assessment. https://goo.gl/PdHhpx 6 Wiltse, N., D. Madden, B. Valentine, and V. Stevens. 2014. 2013 Alaska Housing Assessment. Cold Climate Housing Research Center. Prepared for: Alaska Housing 

Finance Corporation.

The CCHRC demonstration home in Anaktuvuk 

Pass. Credit: USARC
7

Data and Technology Research Questions and Needs

detailed verification of home heating models such as 

the AKWarm model and allow more research to address 

behavioral aspects of energy usage. Obtaining this type of 

data has been challenging as currently available heating 

fuel meters, while measuring volume of fuel used, do not 

provide information on the rate and timing of fuel use and 

do not record or display information for the homeowner. 

Currently available heating fuel meters also tend to be very 

expensive and require breaching the fuel system to install. 

It was shared that ACEP has developed a prototype for an 

inexpensive, non-invasive fuel meter that provides continuous real-time data on fuel oil consumption (see Sidebar 2). 

These units can be easily retrofitted to fuel oil heaters, typically found in remote Arctic homes, however this device is 

still in the testing stages of development. 

The first, and perhaps most pressing, data gap identified at 

the initial heat workshop in January 2016 was the need for 

basic, fine temporal scale data on energy and fuel type 

use for residential heat in remote arctic villages. While 

the 2014 Alaska Housing Assessment database mentioned 

above provides data on the average annual energy usage 

and cost for housing units in each community or region, 

it does not provide data at an appropriate temporal scale 

to answer questions that address how renewable energy 

systems, energy efficiencies, or education and policy level 

efforts might improve heating efficiency and reduce costs. 

Understanding how renewable systems, such wind-to-heat 

energy, could be implemented and what behavioral modifications would reduce fuel usage requires fine-temporal 

scale data on the current types, volumes and rates of fuel 

used. This type of data would also allow further and more 

that allow communities, researchers, and agencies to 

access existing databases relevant to Alaska communities. 

This data portal would not be limited to energy data but 

would aim to provide a home for all community relevant 

data (economic, ecological, infrastructure, energy, social, 

cultural, health, etc.). During the workshop, commonalities 

in data collections among agencies and organizations were 

identified along with realization that data some organizations thought was missing or not being collected is actually 

available from other agencies. This last finding stressed the 

need for use of a common site (portal) that could bring 

together scattered data sets. Moving forward, ACEP will be 

pursuing support through the National Science Foundation 

Arctic Sciences division to facilitate Alaska community data 

rescue, discovery, dissemination, and coordination. Once 

established, this effort will address the need for a database 

of rural community infrastructure, buildings and homes 

that was identified as a research need in Workshop 1.

Following these three formal presentations, workshop 

participants discussed other known projects or efforts 

that could address research needs listed in the matrix. 

Additional research needs were added to the list as participants worked through the matrix.

Sidebar 2. ACEP’s Pump Monitoring Apparatus

The Pump Monitoring Apparatus (PuMA) has been developed by 

the Alaska Center for Energy and Power as a means of obtaining 

data on real-time diesel fuel oil consumption for individual residents. This device’s installation does not require breaking into the 

fuel system and thus can be mounted by a residential user with 

basic written instructions. PuMA is able to record consumption 

over time and transmit the data to a central repository via SMS 

or MMS (cellular texting). Information and data collected and 

displayed by this device provides information to homeowners 

about their residential fuel use, including fuel remaining in the 

tank. This meter has been pilot tested at a few homes in the 

Fairbanks area but additional funds are needed to further test, 

refine and validate the system before it can be deployed and 

used in remote communities. 

ACEP’s PuMA fuel meter installed 

on residential heating stove. Photo 

credit: Amanda Byrd/ACEP

Internal components of the 

PuMA fuel meter.

Photo credit: 

Amanda Byrd/

ACEP
8

Metering of residential fuel use for heat would benefit not 

just academia and research needs, but would facilitate 

more persuasive grant applications and decrease risk 

when seeking public or private energy-related financing 

packages by providing higher quality data. If data were 

available to highlight the rate and volume of heating fuel 

used in remote communities at the scale of the individual 

home, it would help to bring more cost certainty to project 

developers when looking for feasible projects.

Additionally, this fuel use information could benefit 

homeowners by allowing them to see the relationship 

between the volume and cost of fuel used (allowing for 

budgeting) and how cost-saving adjustments track with 

behavioral changes in heat use. This has been shown to be 

true with the use of prepayment meter systems to monitor 

residential electrical use (see Sidebar 3), in several remote 

communities in Alaska and around the world. In communities where these meters have been installed, residents 

noted significant savings on their electric utility expenses 

immediately through the increased energy conservation 

behaviors activated by watching their money being 

spent on the in-home display of the prepayment electrical meter system.7

It was noted that when individual home metering of heating fuel usage in real time is not available, data regarding 

the amount of fuel purchased from suppliers at the individual residential scale would be useful to understand the 

overall heating fuel usage of homes and provide a baseline 

against which to assess improvements. This data does exist, 

however, it is difficult to obtain from the suppliers due to a 

number of concerns. Not only would extracting and sharing 

this type of data consume already constrained staff time, 

but there are high-level concerns, such as cyber security and 

price competition impacts, that make fuel suppliers hesitant to provide information and data publicly. The concept 

of data availability agreements or policies was discussed. It 

was shared that a model for a data agreement does exist 

and has been used by AHFC in their work with various 

entities including academic institutions, CCHRC, AEA and 

the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. A key 

aspect of the AHFC data sharing agreement focuses on the 

confidentiality of the individual homeowner or building 

data and the use of aggregated data to insure this confidentiality. Some workshop participants felt strongly that 

there should be mandatory public data agreements for 

publicly-funded (including federal or state) energy projects/

fuel suppliers with requirements for reporting energy use. 

It was also suggested that small grants of some kind could 

be used to help fuel suppliers with the personnel cost of 

providing this information. 

7 Personal communications – Jessie Huff, USDA-Rural Development, and Connie Fredenberg, Utility Management Assistance

Sidebar 3. Prepayment Electrical 

Utility Meter Systems

Prepayment Electrical Utility Meter Systems require the 

residential customer to purchase a volume of electricity 

in advance. The meter, installed in the home, tracks actual 

electrical usage and removes the funds from the customers 

account in real-time. The meter display shows the level 

of electrical usage and the amount of funds remaining in 

the customers account. These types of systems provide 

specific data to the homeowner on energy usage and have 

assisted households in conserving energy. In Alaska there 

are currently two types of prepayment electrical meter 

system in use: “PowerStat” deployed by Precision Power, 

LLC and the “Ampy Meter” deployed by Marsh Creek, LLC. 

These prepayment systems are used in approximately 

20 small villages statewide.

Data from home heating fuel meters can provide baseline 

information for long-term improvements such as weatherization, 

allow for an understanding of the impact of behavioral changes 

on heating fuel use, provide insight into seasonal and diurnal 

heating needs, and create a data set for research and analysis that 

could inform policy. – G. Holdmann, ACEP
9

efficiency in biogas digesters for generation of cooking and 

heating gas for Alaska households. Results showed that 

residential-scale biogas digesters for cold climates are not 

economically viable at this time.9

It was noted that heat technology research is a continually 

evolving field with work being done around the world. 

Studies into the ability to turn renewable resources (hydro, 

wind, solar) into electrical heat, solar technology that combines waste heat from solar thermal systems to heat water, 

and battery storage technologies are taking place. Studies 

are also taking place that examine the potential for air-source 

heat pumps to function efficiently in cold climates. Case 

study write-ups for both international and Alaska-based 

research in heat technology would have significant value, 

especially if case studies incorporated “lessons learned”. A 

repository, similar to ACEP’s Energy Wiki (Sidebar 4) would 

be of benefit to the public but requires funding and manpower to maintain. Both AEA and AHFC have some case 

studies already compiled for Alaska-based projects. 

Additional research questions related to building envelopes 

and ventilation were added to the Research Needs Matrix. 

Data is needed not only on the state of existing building 

envelopes but also for design needs of building envelopes 

in order to address mold avoidance and breathability. 

Studies have taken place in Greenland and current work 

with the ANTHC/CDC Air and Healthy Homes program10

may be of use.

Another data need identified at the initial workshop was 

a database of rural community infrastructure and 

buildings to include information about the number and 

types of buildings in each community, the size and spacing 

of buildings as well as the current method of heating for 

all buildings. While some of this data is currently available 

through the Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS), via 

AHFC’s energy audit and weatherization programs, not 

all of the information listed in the Research Needs Matrix 

is available. Specifically, the current ARIS database does 

not account for non-residential (i.e., municipally or tribally-owned buildings) and in many cases the size, current 

method of heating and vacancy status of buildings in 

audited communities is not complete. The Alaska Energy 

Data Gateway also contains some of these data measures 

which AEA is utilizing in the Affordable Energy Model.

Research questions related to the possible use of district 

heating systems for residential heating, the production of 

heat through small scale anaerobic digestion of sewage, 

food or fish waste at the residential scale, and the potential 

for methane as a fuel source for residential heating were 

also revisited. In all cases, data on residential home heat use 

and the geographical layout of community buildings and 

infrastructure are required in order to determine the needs 

and feasibility of an alternative energy system. Several 

examples of district heating systems proposed or already 

in use in Alaska were discussed (Chena Hot Springs, Dot 

Lake, Galena). It was noted that residential district heating 

is successfully used in several other Arctic countries such 

as Iceland and Russia but that success is highly dependent 

upon community layout which may pose a challenge for 

remote Alaskan villages. 

A working group, led by USDA-RD, is currently being 

assembled to investigate the feasibility of using anaerobic 

digestion of sewage, food or fish waste as a way to provide 

net zero waste and water facilities in Alaska communities. 

This technique has potential, but, as of yet, is relatively 

unexplored in Alaska with two exceptions: a study on the 

use of methane gas seeps in Atqasuk, Alaska conducted by 

ACEP found that switching to a methane fuel for residential heating would not be economical for the community8

and a second project, conducted by high school students 

in Cordova, Alaska, that investigated the use of psychrophiles (cold loving microbes) for the purpose of improving 

Sidebar 4. Alaska Energy Wiki

The Alaska Energy Wiki was created and powered by UAF’s 

Alaska Center for Energy and Power. The Energy Wiki was 

designed to help readers learn about the state’s diverse 

energy needs. The site provided information on raw 

energy resources and the technology developed to utilize 

those resources. The site also shared information on the 

challenges that these technologies and resources present. 

Energy related project information and energy related 

events were also posted to the Wiki. While still accessible 

(http://energy-alaska.com), the Wiki has not been updated 

since 2013 due to lack of funding. 

8 Walter, K., D. Witmer, and G. Holdmann. 2009. Final Report: Field Exploration of Methane Seep Near Atqasuk. University of Alaska Fairbanks; DOE Award number: 

DE-FC26-01NT41248.

9 Pathan, S., A. Villalobos-Melendez, and G. Fay. 2012. Cordova Psychrophiles Bio-Digester Benefit-Cost and Sensitivity Analysis, Technical Report, Institute of Social and 

Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, prepared for the Denali Commission, 12 pages. https://goo.gl/SRFt8t 10Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Air & Healthy Homes program. https://goo.gl/i1gkqq
10

The direct, high cost of fuel oil for residential heating 

in remote Arctic communities, as well as the potential indirect impacts of continued fossil fuel use led to 

many socioeconomic research questions at the initial 

January workshop.

An important area of socioeconomic research needed 

involves the impact of energy subsidies on remote 

Arctic communities. There is currently no specific State 

economic subsidy for home heating in remote villages in 

Alaska. The previously available Alaska Heating Assistance 

Program did not continue after FY2016 due to the reductions in the State budget. Other energy subsidies such as 

the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 

(LIHEAP) and the state’s Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program provide some relief from high energy costs to home 

owners. In the case of PCE, residents are subsidized up to 

a certain threshold of electrical power usage per month. 

This threshold does not cover the level of electrical energy 

needed to make electric heat feasible. Similarly, the federal 

LIHEAP program helps low income households pay for 

heating or cooling their homes. In most states, it also helps 

people make sure their homes are more energy efficient by 

paying for certain weatherization home improvements. 

When considering energy subsidies and their impact, 

workshop participants noted it is important to ensure policy makers understand the true cost of energy in remote 

communities. Often the true cost of energy production 

to the community or state is much higher than the cost 

to the consumer. The Alaska Affordable Energy Model 

recently developed by AEA (referred to on page 5) provides 

economic projections of the cost of an energy project to 

the community and consumer regardless of subsidies. This 

model will allow decision makers to have a more informed 

understanding of the true cost of home heating, energy 

consumption and cost in remote communities. Additionally, 

AEA’s Affordable Energy Strategy report,2 publicly released 

in January 2017, examines the impact of various Alaska 

State energy programs on energy (both electric and heat) 

affordability. Many of these programs focus on providing 

capital funds (in the form of grants or loans) to develop or 

improve the infrastructure and efficiency of current energy 

production, thus decreasing cost to the consumer. Some 

programs, such as AHFC Weatherization program and 

Home Energy Rebate program, focus directly on improvements that can be made to individual buildings to increase 

efficiency, thus reducing the amount of fuel needed to heat 

the building. While the impact of these energy programs 

is well described, further study is needed to gain a better 

understanding of the implementation process needed and 

potential impact of a direct subsidy for home heating in 

remote Arctic communities. It is currently unclear how a 

subsidy to an unregulated fuel supplier service would be 

managed to the benefit of the homeowner. Further consideration of some kind of heating energy subsidy, similar in 

Snow drifts against residential homes 

in Wales. Credit: AVEC

Socioeconomic Research Questions and Needs
11

structure to the PCE program for electrical energy, would 

be helpful but unlikely to come to fruition given Alaska’s 

current fiscal climate.

The concept of using subsidies to help finance renewable 

energy projects is of great interest as communities often 

do not possess the capital to implement new projects. To 

gain a better understanding of the true impacts of energy, 

and specifically heat subsides, it was suggested that information be compiled that includes all subsidies coming into 

any given community with updates to this information 

being provided each fiscal year.

One participant noted that at the base of all these socioeconomic questions is the need to understand the household level of fuel use for heat. This information forms the 

foundation against which various subsidy structures and 

policy implementations can be considered. As discussed 

above, this kind of household level heat use data is not 

readily available.

Other socioeconomic questions raised included the 

potential impact of multi-family housing on heating use 

and cost. AHFC indicated that teacher housing models in 

several communities are moving towards multi-family configurations to create efficiencies of scale and this may be 

a source of data to examine these questions in the future. 

However, it was also noted that the cultural acceptability of 

multi-family housing is variable across Alaska.

Additional questions were raised about the barriers and 

challenges to local implementation of renewable or energy 

efficiency projects. While it was agreed that lack of funding 

is the biggest barrier, village-level capacity is also an issue 

for many aspects of project implementation, including 

operations and maintenance, availability of certified trade 

positions and administrative aspects. AHFC reported that 

their Home Energy Rebate program was less effective in the 

rural communities because communities lacked the certified technicians to install modifications and also because it 

was expensive to purchase and ship materials required for 

the energy efficiency improvements out to communities. 

It was also noted that there are often communication and 

financial education barriers present (e.g., lack of communications, operations data not being used to inform financial 

decisions), resulting in a disconnect between the fiscal 

11Conway, K. Nightmute Whole Village Retrofit—Then and Now. Alaska Energy Authority. https://goo.gl/MRV5Yi 12Pre-Qualified Project Developers program. https://goo.gl/VK758T 13Holdmann, G., D. Pride, J. McGlynn, A. Byrd, and S. Colt. 2016. Barriers to and Opportunities for Private Investment in Rural Alaska Energy Projects. https://goo.gl/fyBAup

decision makers for the community and those (such as 

the operators) that can have an impact on the efficiency 

of the system.

The concept of “economies of scale” and how to achieve 

them when planning energy projects for rural communities was also revisited and discussed. It was noted that a 

common definition of the term “economies of scale” was 

needed in order to be able to determine if such economies 

of scale or scope were realistic for remote Arctic communities. It was also suggested that economies of scale could 

be achieved through the implementation of whole village 

retrofits—similar to what was carried out in Nightmute in 

2008 and 2009.11 It was noted that while this is theoretically a feasible strategy, it is often difficult to execute due 

to a shortage of local skilled laborers. It was also noted that 

these kinds of large programs require a “Project Developer” 

to pieces together the planning, funding and implementation of the project. Often, villages do not have a local person trained in a level of project management that would 

allow execution of a project in an efficient and economical 

way. In an attempt to address this gap, AK Department 

of Transportation (AK DOT), in conjunction with AHFC, 

recently pre-qualified a set of Project Developers12 who 

are available to provide project development and energy 

efficiency consulting services to any entity that chooses 

to access and pay for their services. The services include 

building energy audits, general consulting, design consulting, measurement and verification analysis, energy 

saving reporting and building maintenance and operation staff training. 

The question of how to minimize risk to investors to augment installation of renewables in remote Alaska was also 

raised in the initial January workshop. Since that time ACEP 

has develop a report on this topic based on a literature 

review and a series of interviews and roundtable discussions focused on energy infrastructure development in 

communities located outside the Railbelt Region.13 The 

Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy report also explores the 

risk and barriers to successful energy project implementation and identifies three categories of risk: developmental, 

financial and operational. General risks were also identified 

and include a lack of resources, leadership, economics and 

weather or climate related events.2
12

14Colt, S., G. Fay, M. Berman, and S. Pathan. 2013. Energy Policy Recommendations. https://goo.gl/ux9wYD 15 The Alaska State Legislature. https://goo.gl/EfNLzw 16Davis, J., and K. Dodge. 2012. Statewide Codes White Paper. Cold Climate Housing Research Center.

Policy and Collaboration Research Questions and Needs

At the initial workshop on research needs, several questions 

regarding the role and impact of policies related to home 

heating and energy efficiency in rural communities were 

raised. It was noted that the current state energy policy (see 

Sidebar 5), passed in 2010, sets goals for energy efficiency 

and use of renewables. However, there has been no formal 

documentation of progress made since the State Energy 

Policy was enacted possibly due to the State of Alaska’s 

limited financial ability to fund such a study. A report by 

ISER submitted to the Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency 

and State Senate Energy Working Group in January 2013 

provided energy policy recommendations and suggested 

a potential heating fuel cost reduction program, similar in 

structure to the PCE program.14

Another policy issue that impacts residential home heating 

needs is energy codes for buildings. Currently Alaska has no 

standard state-wide energy codes for buildings, although 

most new construction follows the Building Energy 

Efficiency Standards (BEES). A whitepaper, commissioned 

by AHFC and conducted by CCHRC, found that there are 

currently six different agencies that have input on building 

energy codes with 34 (multi-part) statutes which are not 

always congruent.16 The Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy 

strongly recommends the establishment of residential 

Sidebar 5. State of Alaska Energy Policy

In July 2010, the State of Alaska passed House Bill 306 

declaring a State Energy Policy.15 This policy stated that it 

was the intent of the legislature that: 

1. the state achieves a 15% energy efficiency improvement 

between 2010 and 2020;

2. the state receives 50% of its electrical generation from 

renewable and alternative energy sources by 2025; 

3. the state work to ensure a reliable in-state gas supply for 

residents;

4. that the Power Project Fund serves as the main source of 

state assistance for energy projects; and

5. the state remains a leader in petroleum and natural gas 

production and become a leader in renewable and alternative energy development.

and non-residential building energy codes for new construction and major renovations. The Alaska State Home 

Builders Association has also lobbied the Alaska Legislature 

for a state-wide building code that would level the playing 

field for all builders. A comprehensive statewide building 

code would create a minimum safety standard as well as a 

minimum energy efficiency standard.

From the perspective of lenders and homeowners, the minimum 

energy standard established by a comprehensive statewide 

building code would protect homeowners from skyrocketing 

energy costs in the winter months, decreasing the chances of 

defaulting on mortgage payments. The required safety standards 

could improve indoor air quality which will reduce health costs 

and lost person-days of work. – B. Grunau, CCHRC
13

To prioritize research needs that had not yet been 

addressed by efforts over the previous year and to strategize for implementation of new efforts, workshop participants divided up into separate breakout groups (Data 

and Technology Research Needs, Socioeconomic Research 

Needs, and Policy & Collaboration Research Needs) with 

each group focused on a specific research need category. 

thus reducing some of the overhead costs of mobilizing 

separate work crews to deploy them. It was also suggested 

that students at UAF’s Bristol Bay campus, could potentially 

assist with validation studies by installing these heating fuel 

meters at their homes. It was noted that involvement of UAF 

students in such a project may qualify for funding through 

the National Science Foundation’s Tribal Colleges and 

University Program17 (TCUP) which provides awards to tribal 

Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native-serving institutions, 

and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions to promote high 

quality science, technology, engineering and mathematics 

(STEM) education, research, and outreach. Other similar 

funding opportunities may also exist. Research projects 

to develop and test heating fuel meters for Arctic homes 

were also thought to be of potential interest to the Alaska 

Association of Housing Authorities and to communitybased suppliers, and thus outreach to these groups may be 

beneficial in terms of financial or in-kind support. 

Discussion of an implementation strategy to move 

ahead with development and deployment of heat fuel 

meters also included aspects of community involvement. 

Community meetings would need to be planned to explain 

the need, as well as the benefits to the community and to 

Prioritization of Research Needs and 

Strategies for Implementation

There was general concurrence that the most pressing 

need in the Data and Technology category was basic, fine 

temporal scale data on individual home heating fuel 

use. This would include information on the volume of fuel 

oil used and timing of use throughout the day and year. 

Additional information about all other home heating appliances (e.g., wood stove) in the home, and their use (running or not) would also be needed to accurately measure 

heat use. Homes involved in this research would also need 

a concurrent (or very recently completed) energy audit to 

place heating fuel usage in context.

The most straightforward strategy identified for addressing 

this research need was to encourage the continued technology development and follow-up deployment of lowcost, non-invasive heating fuel meters on individual homes 

in remote Arctic communities. Academic and technology 

development entities would be best suited to conduct this 

research. Institutions such as the CCHRC can offer assistance 

with validation of developed heat fuel meters and act as an 

independent evaluator if needed. AHFC’s weatherization 

program may be able to assist with launching a pilot study 

by helping to install heat fuel metering devices in communities where they are conducting weatherization projects, 

Data and Technology Research Needs

17National Science Foundation’s Tribal Colleges and University Program. https://goo.gl/gp1KFj

An AVEC lineman checks on a 

new Elster electronic meter being 

installed in Shishmaref. Credit: AVEC
14

gain community acceptance of the effort. These types of 

community meetings may also be helpful in identifying 

specific homeowners interested in participating in studies 

to monitor heating fuel use at their residence. Some type 

of agreement with home owners would be necessary 

to cover liability issues, to gain permission to get utility 

information from the local utility (to examine relationship 

between home heat and electrical energy use), and use 

these data in study reports. It would also be helpful to have 

a specific person in the community serve as a local point 

of contact for the project who was trained to troubleshoot 

the heat fuel meters.

As an example, in the case of ACEP’s PuMA project (see 

Sidebar 2, page 7), heating fuel meters need to be further 

tested and subjected to a larger scale pilot study for validation before deployment in homes in remote communities. 

ACEP is currently planning to deploy a limited number of 

meters in the Fairbanks area to test their use and specifically 

the data transmission system which relies on cell phone 

coverage in areas where the cellular signal may be relatively weak. If funding were available to deploy additional 

meters, pilot testing could be expanded to more rural 

communities (outside the Fairbanks area). Construction of 

the PuMA meters costs approximately $200/unit, however 

this construction is currently unfunded with two UAF student interns fabricating the units. Post-validation, there are 

funds available to deploy up to 250 heating fuel meters in 

remote communities as part of a NSF social science project 

(#1522836: Collaborative Research: Using Field Experiments 

to Understand Household Barriers to Energy Efficiency in 

Alaska) on energy use behavior changes in the fall of 2017.

While the group felt that the basic need for individual home 

heating fuel use data was by far the top priority, the need 

to research heat technology that has been used in other 

Arctic environments to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of converting renewable resources to electric heat in 

Alaskan rural communities was also a top priority. This could 

be done by examining the efforts and findings of heat technology case studies in other Arctic countries. Using lessons 

learned from research on heat technology such as wind-toheat, sewage-to-heat, biomass and solar thermal systems 

in other areas with similar environments constraints could 

provide guidance regarding which technologies may be 

best suited to Alaska’s remote communities.

Finally, feasibility studies for residential district heating 

systems in remote Alaska communities was considered a 

high priority. However, this task was seen as very broad, 

with unique challenges and solutions for individual communities given the unique physical and environmental 

features of each community. Investigation into the feasibility of district heating approaches as part of the relocation 

efforts for climate change impacted villages is warranted. 

Other Arctic countries are already doing these types of 

research and implementation of such work in the US Arctic 

should look to those international examples for guidance. 

Socioeconomic Research Needs

Many of the socioeconomic questions raised in January 

2016 are still relevant 12 months later, although projects 

such as the Alaska’s Affordable Energy Strategy2 (Chapter 5) 

and work by ISER14 are beginning to examine the role of 

subsidies in home heating assistance. 

The group felt many of the questions related to the barriers and challenges to local implementation of energy 

efficiency and renewable projects had been addressed: it 

is common knowledge that there is a lack of skilled labor 

in the rural communities to work on technical projects 

such as these. The group identified resolution of this 

skilled labor shortage as an important step, which could 

be addressed through engagement with pre-existing 

programs such as Alaska Rural Utility Collaborative (ARUC) 

and AEA’s Operator Training programs, as well as through 

continued and increased engagement with state and 

regional colleges and universities. The group focused 

primarily on local support and encouragement of trades 

needed to work on energy projects by rural K-12 education and hub colleges. One means to address this would 

be to conduct a review of the Community Health Aid and 

Village Public Safety Officer programs as examples of how a 

potential skilled labor program could be structured to keep 

trained workers in rural communities. Questions were also 

raised about the number of skilled trade laborers (e.g., electricians, plumbers, HVC, linemen and welders) currently 

working in remote communities and programs in place 

to support continued training. The group was unaware of 

the answers to these questions and suspect they are also 

data needs. The group felt a promising way forward would 

be to regionalize skilled positions and encourage existing 
15

regional entities to adopt apprentice programs and grow 

their capacity to better accommodate the entire regions 

needs. Note: Since this workshop took place the Renewable 

Energy Alaska Project (REAP) has initiated the Alaska Network 

of Energy Education and Employment (ANEEE) program.18

The goal of the ANEEE initiative is to build a comprehensive 

energy network in Alaska that will inventory Alaska’s energy 

education programs and provide a way for both education 

providers and consumers to see and understand what is available in the state. This program may be well-suited to explore 

education gaps and needs to establish a stable skilled labor 

force for the energy sector. 

The second priority research need identified by this group 

was the need to address the concept of regional project 

development in rural Alaska communities, including 

the creation of “project developer” positions. The group 

suggested examining the successes and lessons learned 

from project development examples both inside and 

outside of Alaska, focusing on project development that 

led to projects with business models that were based on 

large grant funds. A future evaluation of the rate of use 

and the effectiveness of AK DOT’s pre-qualified Project 

Developers program12 might be a first step. Exploring how 

this type of program could be expanded may also lead to 

addressing this need. 

The group also raised the question of how to solve issues 

related to creditworthiness and limited financial knowledge. It was suggested that more collaborative projects 

were needed so that lenders could fund multiple homeowners as one unit to make projects bigger and more 

worthy of financial investment and a project developer’s 

time. This aggregated approach would require a state, 

regional entity, or project developer, to organize and manage the project. Regional energy planning (Sidebar 6) was 

seen as a first step and a way to continue making progress 

addressing both the issue of economies of scale and as a 

means of minimizing risk to investors to augment installation of renewables in rural Alaska.

Questions related to the economic feasibility of district 

heating models were given lower priority by the group due 

to the variability of village physical layouts and because 

most communities already have some type of heat recovery 

system for utility or community/school buildings. While the 

concept of expanding the district heating approach or heat 

recovery concept to residential homes still needs development, each village will have their own set of strengths, challenges and barriers based on the layout of the community. 

Similarly, questions related to the use of multi-family housing as a means of increasing energy efficiency were given 

lower priority because individual communities need to 

accept the idea of multi-family housing as a solution before 

it gains traction. It was noted that, in some communities, 

current multiplex housing is not at maximum occupancy, 

as community members find this model unattractive and 

prefer having their own space/yard area.

Sidebar 6: Regional Energy Planning

As defined by AEA,19 Regional Energy Planning is a way for 

Alaskans to determine their energy priorities and formulate 

a concrete, implementable, and fundable energy plan. Each 

regional plan should address energy needed for electricity, 

heating and transportation. Each energy region can craft a 

specific action plan to ensure a less expensive, more reliable, efficient and sustainable energy future. Each planning 

effort should include regional stakeholders, document current energy resources, evaluate alternatives (both projects 

and strategies) for reducing energy costs and provide a 

prioritized action plan of projects that can be funded.

18Alaska Network of Energy Education and Employment (ANEEE) program. https://goo.gl/VhW9rU 19Alaska Energy Authority. http://www.akenergyauthority.org/Policy/RegionalPlanning

Policy & Collaboration Research Needs 

Questions related to policy and collaboration for improved 

residential heating in remote Arctic communities were 

reviewed by the third breakout group with consideration 

given to the previous discussion (above). It was determined 

that the top priority in this sector should be the establishment of state-wide energy codes for buildings and a 

more robust and financially supported energy policy. 

Efforts are in progress to establish standardized energy 

codes with specific efforts by CCHRC and AHFC. This 

includes commissioned research to analyze the multitude 

of current building codes used in the state. Additionally, 

AHFC, CCHRC and REAP have been providing research, 
16

suggestions and education to various state 

officials in an effort to move towards a comprehensive building energy code for the entire 

state. This effort seems to be having an impact 

with a bill anticipated in the Alaska Legislature 

in late 2017. While movement is being made 

on the energy code aspect, development of a 

more robust and financially supported state 

energy policy requires more research and effort 

and is something that the AREWG group is considering as a potential new group objective. 

Another high priority identified was the need 

for energy education and communication

in rural communities. REAP is working on the 

energy education component of this need and has developed resources for K-12 education efforts on clean energy 

and teacher training programs.18 A productive next step 

would be to identify and encourage community-based 

agencies to work with the REAP program to determine 

what needs remain and how collaborations could be built 

to address those needs.

A research review of the policies of other international 

Arctic communities regarding energy and renewable 

energy resources was seen as an additional priority. 

Information on technology usage and approaches to heat 

utilities in other countries with remote Arctic communities 

would be beneficial as policies and approaches are established in Alaska. This was seen as a great opportunity for 

a graduate student or perhaps as a contracted study for a 

group such as ISER or AEA if it aligns with their research 

efforts. This type of international comparison research project may also be of interest to the Arctic Council.20

Increasing opportunities for public-private partnerships

to develop renewable energy and energy efficiency projects 

and enhance residential heating options was identified as 

the group’s final priority item. The recently released ACEP/

AEA report titled “Barriers to and Opportunities for Private 

Investment in Rural Energy Projects”13 outlines several 

approach recommendations. These include the development of a project specification process that would facilitates 

public-private partnerships for energy projects. The goal 

of this process would be to reduce the transaction costs 

(legal fees, permits, loan-closing fees, etc.) associated with 

project development for the private investor and ease the 

ability of the private investor to respond to opportunities 

20Arctic Council Sustainable Development Working Group (SDWG). https://goo.gl/S8q4L1

that already have local community support. This report also 

recommends assessing how the regulatory environment 

could be adjusted or clarified to promote development 

of public-private partnerships that protect consumers. 

Additionally, the development of a Rural Energy Project 

Development Portal where potential borrowers could go 

to understand the available financing options, including 

public-private partnerships, was recommended. The Alaska 

Affordable Energy Strategy report2 similarly notes that communities and investors (both public and private) lack data 

and data driven-support tools to identify potential infrastructure and non-infrastructure opportunities that could 

spur public-private partnerships. As discussed earlier in this 

report, community energy data is not systematically compiled making it difficult to assess the level of risk associated 

with a particular project in any given community. Similar 

to the Rural Energy Project Development Portal outlined 

in the ACEP report, consolidation of funding information 

in one accessible location is recommended in the Alaska 

Affordable Energy Strategy report.

Suggested funding sources to pursue these high priority 

items related to policy and collaboration included the 

regional corporations, AEA’s Alternative Energy program, 

USDA-RD and Rural Utility Service program, and the 

US Department of Energy (DOE). Specifically, within DOE, 

the Indian Energy program may be a potential source but 

requires a 50% match. DOE funding is also available for 

policy efforts as it applies to tribes and would be available 

if work was done in partnership with ANTHC or housing 

authorities. Denali Commission may also be a funding 

source if future funds are received.

Fuel tanks farm and wind turbines 

in Kasigluk, Alaska. Credit: AVEC
17

Home heating is a critical service that can be difficult and 

expensive to maintain in remote Arctic communities, 

where winter temperatures fall well below freezing and 

fuel needs to be transported in via barge or air. The high 

cost of heating fuel and the reason behind these high costs 

have been well studied in Alaska.2, 21, 22, 23 Effecting changes 

to mitigate these costs and implementing the use of alternative energy sources to reduce the dependence of remote 

communities on expensive diesel fuel for home heating 

continues to be a challenge.

This workshop examined the research progress made over 

the preceding year and developed pathways and strategies 

to address outstanding data gaps and research needs as 

they relate to residential heating in remote Arctic villages. 

The need for basic, fine scale data on the volume and 

timing of heating fuel use for individual homes was seen 

as a central research need that has yet to be addressed. Not 

only is this data needed for the development of technology and efficiency programs to reduce household dependence on expensive diesel fuel, but also to help inform 

socioeconomic and policy related questions. While efforts 

have begun to address this need, funding limitations have 

stalled progress. To reinvigorate this effort, workshop 

participants suggest exploring partnerships with other 

research and housing agencies as well as regional corporations to share the cost of the effort. Community participation and project buy-in were also seen as a key component 

of project success. 

Implementing research to address questions and information needs for residential heating in remote Arctic villages 

requires funding to support the work. In the current climate 

of limited state and federal research funding this poses 

a serious challenge. While seen as an important issue in 

Alaska, funding for renewable energy or energy efficiency 

research projects is difficult to acquire. The Renewable 

Energy Fund, created by State Legislature in 2008 and 

renewed for 10 years in 2012, is a program which aims to 

provide financial assistance for feasibility studies, reconnaissance studies, energy resource monitoring, and work 

related to the design and construction of eligible facilities. 

In 2013, the program also established a target allocation for 

heat projects to compose 30 percent of the total funding 

recommendation. Despite the good intent of this funding 

program, it is subject to state appropriations and in 2016 

no funding was appropriated due to other state funding 

priorities and a constrained state budget. Other sources 

of research funding for renewable energy and efficiency 

projects are also limited with a high level of competition 

for national grant and funding programs (e.g., NSF, DOE). In 

this funding environment, research collaboration and partnerships are increasingly important as is prioritization of 

research needs. Involving the private sector in the financing 

of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects is seen 

as an important step to fill the gap left by the diminished 

state and federal funding.2,13 One option being explored 

by REAP to increase the participation of private investors, 

and recommended by the AkAES, is a state “Green Bank”. 

Green banks are quasi-state institutions that work to bring 

private investors into deals to finance clean energy projects 

and have shown success in other states around the county. 

Building community capacity (financial, technical and 

managerial) and building networks between rural utilities 

at the regional level may also help private investors feel 

more comfortable investing in rural energy projects.

The Arctic Renewable Energy Working Group is focused on 

the continued progress and development of options for 

home heating that increase energy efficiency and use of 

renewable energy while reducing heating oil consumption 

in remote Arctic villages. A future workshop in 2018 will 

revisit the recommendations and research needs identified 

earlier and evaluate the success of implementation. 

To learn more about the Arctic Renewable Energy Working 

group and access data resources and energy related publications referred to in this report, visit https://arctic.gov//

arewg/index.html.

Conclusion

21Wilson, M., B. Saylor, N. Szymoniak, S. Colt, and G. Fay. 2008. Components of Delivered Fuel Prices in Alaska, June 2008. https://goo.gl/xFUPDo 22 Szymoniak, N., G. Fay, A. Villalobos-Melendez, J. Charon, and M. Smith. 2010. Components of Alaska Fuel Costs: An Analysis of the Market Factors and Characteristics 

that Influence Rural Fuel Prices. University of Alaska Anchorage, Institute of Social and Economic Research. Prepared for the Alaska State Legislature, Senate Finance 

Committee, 77 pp.

23Alaska Attorney General. 2010. Rural Fuel Pricing in Alaska: A Supplement to the 2008 Attorney General’s Gasoline Pricing Investigation. https://goo.gl/hz6RkF
18

Appendix 1. 

Research Needs Matrix

Research Needs and Questions Specific Data Needed to 

Answer Question Progress to Date or Research Underway

DATA AND TECHNOLOGY NEEDS

INDIVIDUAL HOME HEATING DATA (PER HOUSEHOLD)

How is home heating fuel use distributed 

throughout out the day/night? Fuel type(s) and use by hour

Continued need for cost-effective technology that will monitor 

heat fuel use at fine temporal scale for individual residences in 

remote communities; ACEP fuel meter development project 

on hold due to funding

How much of what fuel is used to heat 

individual homes on a seasonal basis? 

Fuel type(s) and amounts by month 

(can be calculated from hourly data)

Data on heating fuel purchased by individual residences from 

fuel suppliers/retailers exists but not shared publicly; could be 

addressed with data from heat fuel meter (see above)

How much total heating fuel is used 

monthly for individual residences?

Fuel type(s) and amounts by month 

(can be calculated from hourly data)

Question could be addressed with data from heating fuel 

meter (see above)

What home heating appliances 

are in use? List of heating appliances in use 

AHFC’s Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS) has this 

information gathered from homes that participated in AHFC’s 

energy audit and Weatherization programs (n=17,000 homes)

Are any supplemental heating fuels 

used (other than oil) to heat the house? 

What is the “trigger” (i.e. threshold 

external temperature?) for use of the 

supplemental heat source?

Fuel type(s) and amounts by month, 

behavioral information

Fuel type data is in ARIS for homes that participated 

in AHFC’s energy audit and Weatherization programs 

(n=17,000 homes); no known monthly fuel amounts data 

or behavioral information

What is the context of heat need for 

individual residences? 

Age of home, R value of insulation 

of home

AHFC’s Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS) has this 

information (n=17,000 homes); Data can also be found in the 

Alaska Housing Assessment report

HEAT FUEL USE DATA ON INDIVIDUAL HOME AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

Fuel type(s) and amounts by hour AHFC/ANTHC/AEA/Denali Commission/DOE village level 

energy audit information

DATA BASE OF RURAL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE, BUILDINGS AND HOMES (PER COMMUNITY)

Number of buildings and type 

(residential, city, tribal, business)

AHFC’s Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS) has 

much of this data but does not include buildings that are 

municipally or tribally owed; AEA also has some of this data for 

some communities

Size of buildings

Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS) has much of this 

data but does not include buildings that are municipally or 

tribally owed

Spacing of buildings No known progress/research underway

Current heating method of each building

Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS) has much of this 

data but does not include buildings that are municipally or 

tribally owed

Building use and status (vacant vs. 

occupied)

AEA assemble much of this data for the Alaska Affordable 

Energy Model for a number of communities

Energy audit (census) data

Alaska Retrofit Information System (ARIS) has much of this 

data but does not include buildings that are municipally or 

tribally owed

Distance to nearest community No known progress/research underway

Distance between communities in 

the region No known progress/research underway
19

Research Needs and Questions Specific Data Needed to 

Answer Question Progress to Date or Research Underway

HEAT TECHNOLOGY CASE STUDIES

Review of heat technology case studies 

(i.e., air-source heat pumps, biomass, 

waste heat and renewable energy 

resources to electric heat or water heat)

Feasibility data (results as compared to 

other methods and economics)

AEA has data on the complex economy related to the wind to 

electric heat model; Alaska Affordable Energy Model (https://

goo.gl/Jj7BeL) also incorporates data from some of these case 

studies for this purpose

Solar technology that combines waste 

heat from solar thermal to heat water 

List of past research trials and 

international research efforts that may 

apply to Alaska

There are currently several potential efforts being planned to 

begin addressing this question through ACEP and CCHRC 

What are the opportunities for heat 

production through small scale 

anaerobic digestion of sewage, food 

waste or fish processing waste at the 

residential scale?

Fuel (input) resource information, 

community layout information, 

economic information

USDA-Rural Development has convened a working group to 

explore this question

What is the potential for methane as a 

fuel for residential heating in remote 

arctic villages?

Fuel (input) resource information, 

community layout information, 

economic information

Two studies have been conducted to date; both show that this 

is currently not an economically feasible strategy

DISTRICT HEAT

Where are centralized district heating 

system possible to implement for 

residential heating?

Fuel resource information, 

community layout information, 

economic information

ANTHC has some of this information for community projects 

that may be applicable to residential applications

ENERGY STORAGE

What are energy storage options: battery 

storage, ceramic block storage?

Current storage ability and type, 

amount/duration/timing of storage 

needed, economics

ACEP has developed a Research Briefing on this topic with 

specific research needs identified (https://goo.gl/g5cSr2)

SOCIOECONOMIC NEEDS

IMPACT OF ENERGY SUBSIDIES

How would a reduction or a change in 

structure in energy subsidies impact 

remote arctic communities?

Individual community and household 

economics (data on MHI and utility 

expenses, etc.) 

AEA’s Affordable Energy Strategy Report (https://goo.gl/

2q6vLP), Chapter 5

Understanding the larger questions 

of subsidies (i.e., in Russia) and the 

possibility of using subsidies to finance 

projects (secure loans, etc.)

International data on subsidization 

and finance

ACEP is currently working on this topic with a specific focus on 

subsidies in Russia, Canada’s North West Territories and Alaska 

WHAT ARE THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOR BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION?

What are the challenges to 

local implementation of energy 

efficiency projects?

Capacity information, local governance 

information, information on technician 

turnover; social science research on 

attitudes towards EE/RE

USARC capacity assessment/improvement workshop(s)

What are the barriers to behavioral 

changes to implement energy 

efficiency efforts?

Social science research 

Lister, C., and D. Ives. 2011. Recommendations for Alaska 

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Public Education and 

Outreach. https://goo.gl/pZetzT

What organizational/capacity barriers 

exist to implementing renewable energy 

projects or energy efficiency programs?

Capacity information, creditworthiness 

info, local governance information, 

social science research on attitudes 

towards EE/RE

AEA’s Alaska’s Affordable Energy Strategy report Chapter 4 

(https://goo.gl/2q6vLP); ACEP’s Barriers to and Opportunities 

for Private Investment on Rural Energy Projects report (https://

goo.gl/P8ixBB); UAA Center for Economic Development report 

Financial Benchmarking for Rural Alaska Electrical Utilities 

(https://goo.gl/3kCFg3)

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

How do we reach “economies of scale” in 

small remote Alaskan villages?

Individual home heating data, 

community infrastructure data, 

economic data, cost of transporting 

fuel/heat

AEA’s Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy (https://goo.gl/

Jj7BeL), Chapter 7, Recommendation C2

How do we minimize risk to investors to 

augment installation of renewables in 

remote AK?

List of risks from investors, economies of 

scale information, capacity information, 

economic information

ACEP’s Barriers to and Opportunities for Private Investment on 

Rural Energy Projects report (https://goo.gl/P8ixBB)
20

Research Needs and Questions Specific Data Needed to 

Answer Question Progress to Date or Research Underway

Is district heating feasible for residential 

home heating in remote arctic AK?

Cost estimates, fuel resource 

information, community layout 

information, economic information

No known progress/research underway

What would be the impact of multifamily-housing on the solutions for 

residential heating?

Individual home heating data, 

community infrastructure data, 

economic data

Colt, S. 2015. Final Report: Benefits and Costs to Rural Alaska 

Households from a Carbon Fee and Dividend Program. 

https://goo.gl/xSpukd

(This publication included a estimate of heating fuel use by 

home type, comparing single and multi-family homes.)

Would multi-family housing be socially 

acceptable to communities? Social science research, health research No known progress/research underway

POLICY AND COORDINATION NEEDS 

ENERGY CODES FOR ALASKA BUILDINGS

What is the difference between 

state building codes/standards and 

community building codes/standards?

Code/standard comparison

Work by AHFC, CCHRC and REAP has been done to analyze 

state-wide energy building codes; Recommendations and 

information has been provided to AK State Officials to move 

forward with standardization

Are community specific building codes 

working in AK?

Economic data, comparison of 

community building code area to state 

building code area, individual home 

heating data

Alaska Housing Assessment data shows improvement over 

time with BEES standards; Data in ARIS could be used to 

investigate this question

ENERGY EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION

How do we provide accurate information 

on energy efficiency behaviors/

upgrades/programs to villages 

and consumers?

Additional data on communication best 

practices and behavioral impact

REAP’s Alaska Network for Energy Education and Employment 

program (https://goo.gl/VhW9rU) is beginning to address this; 

Alaska Center for Appropriate Technology (http://acat.org) a 

community organization in Fairbanks, had begun an effort to 

develop path to net zero housing but this has stalled

How could a network of energy 

educators be created?

Economics/funding source, home 

institution availability, willingness to 

cooperate among regions

REAP’s Alaska Network for Energy Education and Employment 

program (https://goo.gl/VhW9rU) is beginning to address 

this; CCHRC has been engaged with existing school programs; 

ANTHC’s new collaboration with Alaska Pacific University may 

also provide an avenue for network enhancement

POLICY STUDIES

What is the role of policy regarding 

heating in rural communities?

Additional information on relationship 

between policy research and 

policymaking with respect to heat

AEA’s Affordable Energy Strategy Report, Chapter 5, 

January 2017

Which policies influence behavior with 

respect to energy efficiency?

Social science research; impact of 

state programs CCHRC’s Weatherization Assistance Program Outcomes (2012)

How do we approach prioritization 

and strategic planning to better inform 

renewable energy policy?

Additional information on relationship 

between policy research and 

policymaking with respect to heat

AEA’s Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy Report (https://goo.gl/

2q6vLP); Alaska Microgrid Partnership (https://goo.gl/usMMFk) 

is also starting to address this

What are the policies of other 

international Arctic communities 

regarding energy and renewable energy 

resources?

International policy data No known progress/research underway

How do other Arctic communities 

approach administration of energy 

systems/services?

International data on energy system 

administration No known progress/research underway

What is AK’s long term vision for 

on renewable energy and energy 

efficiency? How does it compare to the 

federal vision?

Additional information on the current 

federal renewable energy vision

Current long-term vision is the 2010 Alaska Energy Policy 

(15% energy efficiency improvement by 2020, 50% of 

electrical generation from renewable energy and alternative 

energy sources); Comparison to federal vision has not 

been conducted 

How do we increase opportunities 

for public-private partnership in the 

renewable energy sector in AK?

Additional information on risk/profit and 

community capacity

ACEP’s Barriers to and Opportunities for Private Investment on 

Rural Energy Projects report (https://goo.gl/P8ixBB)

What new approaches to energy and 

maintenance management services 

would be effective?

Economic/cost effectiveness of regional 

approach

AEA’s Alaska Affordable Energy Strategy Report (https://goo.gl/

2q6vLP); AEA and UAA Center for Economic Development 

currently conducting study on ARUC-type model
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

This document is a work of the United States government and is in the public domain 

(see 17 U.S.C. §105). Subject to the stipulation below, it may be distributed and copied 

with acknowledgment to the US Arctic Research Commission. Copyrights to graphics 

included in this document are reserved by the original copyright holders or their assignees and are used here under the government’s license and by permission. Requests to 

use any images must be made to the provider identified in the image credits or to the US 

Arctic Research Commission if no provider is identified.

BACK COVER PHOTO: Snow drifts over 

residential homes in Wales. Credit: AVEC
www.arctic.gov

Printed in the United States of America

December 2017