Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
02/08/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB336 | |
| HB256 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 256 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 336 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 336-SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT 1:05:21 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 336, "An Act directing the Alaska Energy Authority to conduct a study of and to prepare a proposal for an appropriately sized Susitna River hydroelectric power project; and providing for an effective date." CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted that the committee had expressed a desire to talk to someone who had been involved with the 1984 Susitna Hydropower Project and Mr. Boyd Brownfield is one such person. 1:06:48 PM BOYD BROWNFIELD stated he was involved with the proposed Susitna Hydropower Project ("Susitna Project"), along with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process, from 1972-1976 when he was the Deputy District Engineer for Alaska in the U.S. Army Civil Works Program under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. When the project was transferred to the state of Alaska's jurisdiction, he retired from the federal government to oversee the project for the Alaska Power Authority from 1980-1985 or 1986. MR. BROWNFIELD said he thinks the Susitna Project is as viable today as it was before. It would be the economic engine to provide power at a reasonable price not only for the Railbelt area but other areas that rely on fossil fuel. He said he believes the project would be in place now if the state had not taken it over from the federal government. It faltered due to cost issues, not environmental issues. It was a $5.2 billion project in 1982 funds and the state decided it was too much to start at that time. He recalled that the project could have been built in steps and generating power incrementally to help pay the costs as it was completed so that the whole $5.2 billion would not have had to be spent all at one time. Hydropower is a clean, renewable resource, he said, and Susitna is one of the cleanest projects he has ever seen. Due to a natural blockage, anadromous fish go up the river only as far as Portage Creek which is before the site where the Devil's Canyon dam would be built. He urged that the state get on with this project. 1:13:42 PM MR. BROWNFIELD, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, explained that Portage Creek is more the size of a river than a creek and is about a mile before Devils Canyon. The gradient at Devils Canyon is so steep and has so many blocks that the salmon cannot go beyond that spot and instead go up Portage Creek to spawn in the creek and in small lakes, depending on the salmon species. In response to further questions from Co-Chair Gatto, Mr. Brownfield said the Susitna River makes a sharp bend to the east near Talkeetna and Devils Canyon is located about 4-5 miles after that bend. Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated (CIRI) used to own the land around Devil's Canyon and probably still does, he related. Mr. Brownfield said the Susitna Project would take 10- 15 years to build and further study is still needed for some features. CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether the Susitna Project would power a different population area than would a gas line coming into Southcentral Alaska. MR. BROWNFIELD replied it would be the Railbelt area primarily. 1:17:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for Mr. Brownfield's opinion regarding an appropriate size for the project. MR. BROWNFIELD couched his response because it is based from 28 years ago. He said the project was sized at about 1600 megawatts, but more could have been squeezed out of it. Under the federal project there was a four-dam system that included the Devil's Canyon and Watona Dams along with two others, he said. The state reduced the project to a two-dam system that included Devils Canyon and Watona. Devil's Canyon does not have the ability to hold enough water during the low water seasons so, at the least, two dams are needed. He said the two-dam system could produce 1600 megawatts and he recommends starting the project with no less than that. The studies need to be updated, but they are still valid, he added. 1:20:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether Mr. Brownfield had seen the paper with the side-by-side comparison of the Susitna and Chakachamna hydropower projects. MR. BROWNFIELD answered no. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON estimated that the 1985 construction cost of $5.4 billion for the Susitna Project would probably be about $60 billion today. MR. BROWNFIELD said yes. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON observed that the side-by-side comparison states $1 billion is needed for new transmission lines to bring power to load centers, but only 42 miles of transmission lines would be required for the Chakachamna Project. She asked how many miles of transmission lines would be needed for the Susitna Project. MR. BROWNFIELD responded that transmission lines are already in place for the Susitna Project. That is one the project's advantages because transmission lines stretching from Anchorage to Fairbanks are already in use. In further response to Representative Wilson, he said he believes the $1 billion is for upgrading of the current lines. He noted that he was involved in Chakachamna when it was a federal project and in Bradley Lake which has been built. He said he was also involved in the Rampart Dam, but even from the federal standpoint Rampart was considered too large of a project for Alaska. He said there is no question of the Susitna Project's viability as far as the long range benefits for the Railbelt area and transmission lines to villages that are paying a premium for fossil fuels. 1:23:04 PM MR. BROWNFIELD, in response to Co-Chair Gatto, said he did not know what the cost for the Susitna Project would be in today's dollars. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON pointed out that the $1 million in HB 336 will determine what the project will cost on an energy basis. 1:24:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked what appropriately sized means to Mr. Brownfield in terms of the Railbelt grid and the river and to take advantage of the most power. MR. BROWNFIELD replied all those factors are important. Of huge importance is how much can be gotten from that particular topography and how many dams are needed behind it. The Railbelt would be an area to be served because the transmission lines are already there, along with outlying areas that are close enough where transmission lines would not be too expensive. He said he would start at 1600 megawatts and see where that leads. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether Mr. Brownfield is considering this to be current needs or in 15 years when the power is online. MR. BROWNFIELD said any study must look at the future. CO-CHAIR GATTO, in response to Representative Kawasaki, stated that the side-by-side comparison of the Susitna and Chakachamna Projects came from Jim Sykes [a member of the Working Advisory Group to the legislatively-funded Alaska Energy Authority]. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether the side-by-side comparison was correct in stating that the Susitna Project would produce 6.5 billion kilowatts from two world class dams versus 1.6 billion kilowatts from one small diversion dam for the Chakachamna Project. MR. BROWNFIELD recalled that the two-dam system for the Susitna Project was 1600 megawatts. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether it would be technically possible to build one dam at a time for the Susitna Project. MR. BROWNFIELD said yes, that was what was considered before so that the project could be paid for incrementally by using income from the power as it came online. A three-dam system could be used if impoundment was found to be a problem, he added. 1:29:22 PM MR. BROWNFIELD, in response to Representative Guttenberg, stated that he worked on the Susitna Hydropower Project from about 1973-1976 when it was a federal project under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and again when it was a state project from about 1980-1985. In further response to Representative Guttenberg, Mr. Brownfield said he did not stay intimately involved in the project after 1985, although he has had many conversations about it in general terms. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired about FERC's involvement during the time of Mr. Brownfield's tenure with the project. MR. BROWNFIELD responded that FERC was involved during both the federal and state studies for the project. The FERC process was well along, there was no outstanding showstopper, and the project was viable, he recalled. 1:32:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI stated he has heard three different reasons for why the Susitna Project failed: the price of gas, not enough money in the state's budget at the time for a $5.4 billion project, and environmental concerns. He asked for Mr. Brownfield's opinion on why the project did not go forward. MR. BROWNFIELD replied that environmentally the Susitna Project cannot be challenged. It is a clean project because there are no issues with anadromous fish. Although there is the issue of impoundment from behind the dam, every environmental issue is solvable. He acknowledged there is a [geologic] fault, but that "engineeringly" it can be solved. He noted that he was there during the midst of the studies, but is unsure of the results. He understood the project was stopped because the state did not have enough money. He said he believes that was misleading, however, because it could have been done in increments and paid for itself as it was being built. 1:34:54 PM MR. BROWNFIELD, in response to Representative Wilson, explained that when Susitna was a federal project the plan was to have three dams with a fourth dam to be built later. When the project was transferred to the state, the plan was reduced to two dams. With only two dams, the second impoundment - which does not produce electricity - must be bigger because there must always be enough water behind the turbines to produce power all the time. For instance, Cook Inlet tidal power is viable, but it is on-again/off-again because electricity cannot be produced during certain times of the tide; resolving that loses some of the top-end power that can be produced. He said future studies can determine whether two or four dams are needed and those studies can be based, to a large extent, on the studies that have already been done. REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired whether there is a danger in not having enough water to fill the dam due to climate change if the Susitna River is glacier fed. MR. BROWNFIELD speculated the answer is no. While the river is glacier fed and the glaciers are receding, he said he did not think they would diminish to that point during the project's lifetime. However, he allowed, this is a question that should be looked at. 1:38:38 PM CO-CHAIR GATTO asked what the life of a dam would be given the amount of silt in the Susitna River. MR. BROWNFIELD said the life of a dam is related to where and how it is built, and guessed it would probably be 40-50 years or more for the Susitna Project. CO-CHAIR GATTO expressed his concern that silt would cause problems with the impellors. He surmised the first dam would take out the silt and the second would produce the electricity. MR. BROWNFIELD agreed with that assessment and that silt does come down the Susitna River. He said silt was considered in the studies he was involved in, but he does not remember the results. 1:41:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated his hope that the $1 million study under HB 336 will be able to determine a return on value calculation with a time value of money analysis for the generation of 1600 megawatts. CO-CHAIR GATTO agreed. CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that public testimony was previously closed; therefore he is disallowed from permitting public testimony today because there was no notice. However, public testimony will be taken in the next committee of referral, he advised. 1:43:24 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report HB 336, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected for discussion purposes. He said he has made a lot of phone calls regarding numerous proposed energy projects, such as Susitna, coal-to-gas, and biomass. One concept that was discussed is that Alaska's oil and gas are worth more to the state selling it to others when alternate resources are more reasonable to Alaskans. Part of that concept was that the Susitna Project not be too big, resulting in Alaska having all its eggs in one basket. He noted that there are other things going on in the state, one of which is a Railbelt energy assessment. The Susitna Project needs to be an option, he said, and should be re-examined. The people of Alaska need to be given energy options so all of the state's energy options are not in one basket. CO-CHAIR GATTO agreed with the point that Alaska cannot sell its hydropower out of state, but it can sell its oil. 1:47:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON urged that sight not be lost regarding the balancing of cost, size, and usefulness, and that a 200-300 megawatt project be investigated as well as a 1600 megawatt project. He noted that the side-by-side comparison says the Chakachamna Project was shelved by the Alaska Power Authority in 1983 because it competed for the Susitna market. He expressed his concern with projects not going forward because of competition. He also expressed his concern with projects being considered only on the basis of cheap power. There are other considerations which could prevent something from moving forward, such as mercury from coal. He supported HB 336. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG withdrew his objection. There being no further objection, CSHB 336(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|