Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 106
03/26/2015 10:15 AM House ENERGY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska Energy Authority | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
March 26, 2015
10:22 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jim Colver, Co-Chair
Representative Liz Vazquez, Co-Chair
Representative Benjamin Nageak
Representative David Talerico
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SARA FISHER-GOAD, Executive Director
Alaska Energy Authority
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled
"Alaska Energy Authority: Renewable Energy Fund and Susitna-
Watana Hydro," and dated 3/26/15.
SEAN SKALING, Director of Program Development and Project
Evaluation
Alaska Energy Authority
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation by the
Alaska Energy Authority.
BRYAN CAREY, Project Manager
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Alaska Energy Authority
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation
by the Alaska Energy Authority.
WAYNE DYOK, Project Manager
Susitna-Watana Hydro
Alaska Energy Authority
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the presentation
by the Alaska Energy Authority.
BETSY MCGREGOR, Susitna-Watana Environmental Manager
Alaska Energy Authority
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation by the
Alaska Energy Authority.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:22:30 AM
CO-CHAIR LIZ VAZQUEZ called the House Special Committee on
Energy meeting to order at 10:22 a.m. Representatives Claman,
Wool, Nageak, Talerico, Colver, and Vazquez were present at the
call to order. Representative Tilton arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
^PRESENTATION: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
PRESENTATION: ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY
10:23:18 AM
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ announced that the only order of business would
be a presentation by the Alaska Energy Authority, Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development.
10:24:06 AM
SARA FISHER-GOAD, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority
(AEA), Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), informed the committee AEA manages statewide programs
under its mission: To reduce the cost of energy in Alaska. She
said AEA has the ability to own and operate some projects, but
cannot own new projects, except the authority to own and develop
Susitna-Watana Hydro was granted in 2011. To carry out AEA's
mission, most statewide programs fall under AS 42.45 and the
renewable energy programs fall under the statute for energy
programs for Alaska (slide 2). The agency has focused on
communities by taking a holistic approach, combining renewable
energy projects and core infrastructure projects for Rural
Alaska. This focus will ensure communities are in a project-
ready status so that their basic structure can accept the
integration of a renewable project. Internally, AEA seeks to
emphasize community development, planning, program development,
project evaluation, and implementation (slide 3).
10:26:26 AM
SEAN SKALING, Director of Program Development and Project
Evaluation, AEA, said one benefit of the renewable energy fund
program is to help achieve the state's renewable goal of 50
percent by 2025. In 2012, the goal was at 24 percent and there
is additional wind and hydroelectric (hydro) power not accounted
for at this time. Also, in certain regions of the state there
has been great progress towards the goal, especially on Kodiak
Island and in Southeast, which has 97 percent renewable energy.
Another benefit is that the renewable energy fund program helps
displace volatile-priced fossil fuels; in fact, about 15 million
gallons of fuel per year has been displaced. Another benefit is
that the program expands the renewable energy knowledge base by
"leaps and bounds" (slide 4).
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked when the state's renewable energy goal
was established.
MS. FISHER-GOAD answered the goal was established in 2010 by
House Bill 306 [passed in the 26th Alaska State Legislature].
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked how "renewable" is defined in regard to
this goal.
MR. SKALING responded that renewable is defined in statute for
this program as follows: wind, hydro, biomass, woody biomass,
geothermal, solar, and an option for any local fuel, such as
local natural gas.
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ surmised the state definition differs from that
of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
which excludes hydro.
10:31:20 AM
MS. FISHER-GOAD said EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
definitions of renewable can include hydro power; however, AEA
seeks to better define what federal programs are available for
developing hydro power. For example, financing can be available
for hydro power, but statistics of renewable energy often do not
include hydro power.
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ concluded that federal programs will exclude
hydro, but for financing and for state purposes, the definition
includes hydro.
MS. FISHER-GOAD acknowledged there is no black and white
definition; in fact, AEA has identified projects that are best
for communities, but that do not quite fit the statutory
requirements of the renewable energy fund program either. On
the federal level, AEA has found that for financing, certain
hydro projects qualify as a renewable resource.
MR. SKALING pointed out that DOE has a strong goal called
Hydropower Vision which seeks to utilize hydro by energizing
water systems for irrigation and other purposes; however,
federal support is limited to certain departments and grant
programs. He returned attention to the benefits of the
renewable energy fund, noting that the program has a strong
technical and economic evaluation process which means the
projects are subject to the same vetting process, so that public
funds are granted for the best use possible. There is an
emphasis on high cost areas and providing regional balance, and
eligible applicants also include the transmission of renewables.
Mr. Skaling added that projects are funded in phases, beginning
with a feasibility study and followed by funding for design
and/or construction (slide 5). In 2014, the renewable energy
fund program and Kodiak Electric received a joint award from the
Clean Energy States Alliance, and he restated that in 2014 -
throughout the state - 15 million gallons of diesel equivalent
were displaced (slide 6). He provided a funding summary for
Rounds I through VII: each round is one year beginning in July,
with applications due in September. After Round VIII, about 800
applications will have been received and 185 distinct projects
will have been funded, and there are about 125 active grants
(slide 7). He displayed a map that showed the grants funded
across the state after Rounds I-VII, and which illustrated the
regional distribution of the many communities affected by the
fund (slide 8). Further, a graph indicated the funds spent by
resource: wind and hydro are approximately 35 percent of the
fund, followed by biomass, heat recovery, and heat pump projects
(slide 9). Mr. Skaling advised that the renewable energy fund
allows sufficient flexibility so that AEA can make adjustments
in response to the needs of communities.
10:38:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked whether there has been any ocean tidal
activity.
MR. SKALING responded that there have been resource studies
which would go through the emerging energy technology fund; in
False Pass, studies show a strong tidal resource, but the issue
is how to provide a cost-effective device to serve a very small
community.
MS. FISHER-GOAD added that the False Pass project does not fit
well into the renewable energy fund, but is a good project for
hydrokinetic testing that could be provided through the emerging
energy technology fund.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN inquired as to heat projects and heat
recovery projects.
MR. SKALING explained that heat projects include biomass; heat
recovery projects take excess heat from a small community diesel
power system and use it in a nearby building. Heat pumps are
direct heat and geothermal projects generally are electric, but
they can have a direct use of heat. In further response to
Representative Claman, he added that excess wind and hydro
energy can also go to heat, but their best use is to produce
electricity. Mr. Skaling provided a graph which illustrated the
regional distribution of funds from Rounds I-VII (slide 10).
The first 44 projects in operation funded by the renewable
energy fund in the amount of approximately $314 million, have a
net present value (NPV) of $889 million for an overall program
benefit cost ratio of about 2.8 (slide 11).
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked when the program started.
MR. SKALING said the program began in 2008, and grew to its
present level of activity. He provided a graph that showed the
fuel displaced by renewable energy fund projects in operation,
beginning in 2009. In 2013, many projects reached operational
stages; it is projected that 20 million gallons of diesel
equivalent fuel would be displaced in 2015 (slide 12).
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN observed that slides 11 and 12 indicate
that wind power activity is highest. He asked for the reason
wind has historically outperformed hydro.
10:45:44 AM
MR. SKALING responded that wind power can be developed quickly
whereas hydro requires more time for permitting, design, and
construction. However, hydro projects are reaching construction
at this time.
MS. FISHER-GOAD added that prior to 2008, AEA had federal grants
for wind development through the Denali Commission and DOE, thus
upfront work was done and some wind projects were somewhat
"shovel ready" when the program was established.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN returned attention to slide 8 which
indicated there are many wind projects in Western Alaska and in
the Aleutian Islands.
MR. SKALING agreed.
CO-CHAIR COLVER directed attention to slide 12 and asked for a
description of wind to heat.
MR. SKALING said when a wind project is producing more energy
than is needed by a community, the project uses the excess to
power an electric boiler in a large building, such as a school.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked which hydro projects reach completion
this year.
MR. SKALING answered Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project, Blue
Lake Expansion, and possibly the Gartina Falls project.
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked for the megawatts produced by each
project.
MR. SKALING said Gartina Falls will produce about 450 kilowatts,
and he will provide more information.
10:49:54 AM
MR. SKALING provided a graph which indicated the funding, count,
and percentage of projects by region. The funding amount and
number of projects can vary, particularly when a region has a
number of small, heat projects (slide 13). Round VIII
recommendations before the legislature are from projects that
have proceeded through the four stages of evaluation:
eligibility, technical and economical evaluation, ranking, and
regional distribution. In order to fit within the governor's
$15 million budget, AEA recommends 34 projects: 18 heat
projects and 16 standard projects. The regional distribution
formula was adjusted at the suggestion of the Renewable Energy
Fund Advisory Committee (REFAC); for example, Southeast Alaska
was determined to be overserved and thus was limited to 22.15
percent (slide 14).
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked how many projects are not fully
funded due to a funding cap.
MR. SKALING said five.
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ questioned what would happen to the projects
with limited funding.
10:53:34 AM
MR. SKALING related that one project would require other
financing, and the future is unclear about the other projects.
In further response to Co-Chair Vazquez, he noted that some
projects may be eligible for AEA's power project loan fund, or
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development, Rural
Utilities Service (RUS) funding may be an alternative source.
MS. FISHER-GOAD advised that it was difficult to maintain
regional balance within the program's $15 million budget. For
the first time, alternative financing is sought when a project
becomes ready for construction; in the future, AEA and REFAC may
recommend that projects delay, although projects like the one in
St. Mary's would be challenged. In further response to Co-Chair
Vazquez, she said AEA is working with all five projects that are
not fully funded. The AEA power project loan fund is a logical
alternative source of funding; however, any project with state
participation greater than $5 million needs legislative approval
through an appropriation or through an authorization. She
offered the Blue Lake Expansion project in Sitka as an example.
REPRESENTATIVE COLVER asked for a description of the top five
rated projects in Round VII.
MR. SKALING referred to a report entitled, "Renewable Energy
Fund Status Report and Round VII Recommendations," and dated
January 2015.
11:00:52 AM
The committee took an at ease from 11:00 a.m. to 11:07 a.m.
11:07:08 AM
MR. SKALING directed attention to pages 10 and 11 of the
aforementioned report and said of the top five projects, three
are biomass projects, one is a heat recovery project, and one is
a wind project. The report provides information on each
project's energy source, its recommended phase, funding amounts,
and cumulative funding. Additional information is available on
AEA's web site. Mr. Skaling returned to the presentation,
noting that there are several temperature zones in Alaska,
therefore, some areas of the state use significantly more energy
than others (slide 15). Round VIII recommended heat projects
and standard electric projects, including transmission, were
distributed throughout the state (slides 16 and 17).
MS. FISHER-GOAD informed the committee REFAC wanted AEA to
emphasize heat projects thus the application process was
bifurcated.
11:10:11 AM
MR. SKALING continued that displacing 15 million gallons of fuel
per year benefits commercial businesses in rural Alaska because
they do not qualify for the Power Cost Equalization (PCE)
program, and also benefits communities, schools, and the PCE
program (slides 18 and 19). Resource types within hydro power
sources are: conventional with storage; run of river; others
such as hydrokinetic, tidal, and pumped storage (slide 20).
Types of woody biomass are: cordwood boilers, pellet boilers,
chip boilers, and others such as bricks and microchips (slide
21). A comparison of biomass technologies was presented (slide
22).
11:14:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK asked for examples of low- and high-cost
fuel.
MR. SKALING explained fuel pellets are manufactured and so are
higher cost, and shipping adds cost. He presented information
on the Thorne Bay Biomass and Greenhouse project which was very
successful (slide 23), and on Kodiak's existing hydro power to
which six wind turbines and battery storage were added (slide
24). Power in Kodiak is nearly 100 percent renewable and the
residential rates were reduced from 20 cents to 15.8 cents
(slide 25). Mr. Skaling concluded that the renewable energy
fund is achieving its original goals which are: providing
benefits throughout the state; reducing fuel; increasing the
knowledge of renewables throughout the state (slide 26).
11:18:11 AM
MS. FISHER-GOAD provided a short history of hydro, stating that
hydro has a long history in Alaska, especially in Southeast, and
many projects are still being built. In fact, a primary purpose
of the Alaska Power Authority - which preceded AEA - was to
build, own, and operate the Four Dam Pool Projects which serve
Kodiak, Copper Valley, Wrangell, Petersburg, and Ketchikan. In
addition, Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (Bradley Lake)
produces low-cost power for the Railbelt utilities. Hydro
provides long-term diversification, promotes inflation-proofing,
rivals the cost of coal, is clean, sustainable, reliable, and
levels out the volatile cost of power (slide 26). A Susitna
hydro project was first studied in the '50s and pursued in the
'80s, but was mothballed by low oil prices and long-term natural
gas contracts. In 2008-09, efforts to review the project arose,
and AEA was funded to evaluate large hydro projects in the
Railbelt. A primary decision document identified Susitna-Watana
Hydro (Susitna-Watana) as a large hydro project to pursue. In
2011, AEA was funded to obtain a Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) license. Studies began on the Susitna River
and surrounding areas in 2012 (slide 27). Benefits of the
project include: provides 50 percent of power to the Railbelt
region which has 80 percent of the state's population; provides
1,000 jobs during peak construction; provides long-term
diversification; provides stable electric rates for 100 years;
enables Alaska's 50 Percent Renewable Goal; maximizes the value
of fossil fuels; annually displaces 1.3 million tons of CO2
(slide 28).
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether the economics of the project
are viable without the goal of 50 percent renewable.
11:24:32 AM
MS. FISHER-GOAD said the renewable goal is not a factor in the
feasibility of the project; in fact, the renewable goal set the
stage for the policy and programs established by the legislature
in 2010. The renewable goal is important to Alaskans; however,
AEA has not suggested that the project would be funded by
general fund appropriations to AEA, but that financing would
follow the example of Bradley Lake, which received a 50 percent
upfront capital contribution by the state, and 50 percent was
debt financing. In 2021, the utilities will have an excess
payment which is assumed to be roughly the same amount as the
amount to be paid back to the state. Bradley Lake was used as a
financing model; however, AEA's financial advisors have advised
that financing "for Susitna-Watana is, is assume debt financing
from the get-go including the eventual payback of the state of
Alaska for the original investment, including what, what we're
currently funded for, and expending, for the licensing
development."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how much it cost to build Bradley
Lake.
MS. FISHER-GOAD estimated the cost was $385 million. In further
response to Representative Claman, she said the cost to build
Susitna-Watana is over 10 times that of Bradley Lake and is
estimated at $5.6-$5.7 billion, including preconstruction and
licensing.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned whether Bradley Lake is the
biggest hydro dam built by the state, in terms of cost.
MS. FISHER-GOAD said Susitna-Watana would be the largest
project; Bradley Lake is currently the largest hydro project in
Alaska.
11:27:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL observed that the proposed production
capability of the [project] exceeds the Railbelt's consumption,
and asked what would be done with the excess power.
MS. FISHER-GOAD said the utilities - if the project becomes a
reality - will retire their old generation facilities. She said
the project is now "right-sized to be 50 percent of the
Railbelt." In the '80s, the project was projected to produce
1,600 megawatts from two dams.
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked for information related to the capacity
of Bradley Lake.
11:29:47 AM
BRYAN CAREY, Bradley Lake Project Manager, Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric, AEA, said the rated capacity used by FERC for
Bradley Lake is 120 megawatts. In further response to Co-Chair
Vazquez, he said the project came online in 1991, following four
to five years of construction. In further response to Co-Chair
Vazquez, he advised that Bradley Lake provides power to the
following six utilities: City of Seward, Homer Electric,
Anchorage Municipal Light & Power, Chugach Electric Association,
Matanuska Electric Association, and Golden Valley Electric
Association.
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked whether there is an operating agreement
between the utilities to share energy.
MR. CAREY stated there are many agreements between the utilities
and AEA related to payments for power, and how the power is
shared; all of the utilities receive energy and pay on a basis
of percentage shares which were fixed in power sales agreements.
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked for the amount of megawatts projected for
Susitna-Watana.
MS. FISHER-GOAD said the projected energy is 2,800 gigawatt
hours annually; the capacity is 459 megawatts based upon the
generators and turbines. In further response to Co-Chair
Vazquez, she said the projected construction period is about
seven and one-half years.
MR. CAREY confirmed that the construction period is
approximately seven and one-half to eight years, and the time
period is "probable, more on achievable scenario, slightly
aggressive ...."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL compared the output and construction cost of
Bradley Lake with the proposed Susitna-Watana project, and
surmised that the "dollar per megawatt is quite a bit more for
this project, correct."
MS. FISHER-GOAD answered that she would present financing
examples that analyze cost per kilowatt hour or capacity;
however, the two projects may not be an apples-to-apples
comparison, due to inflation. She offered to provide further
information.
11:34:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL suggested economy of scale would be a
factor.
MS. FISHER-GOAD agreed that all parties want to know what the
project will cost per kilowatt hour. The estimates in this
presentation are based on 2014 dollars, and the calculations are
not inflation-proof.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN restated the question and observed that
Susitna-Watana is eight to ten times the expense of [Bradley
Lake] but will not provide four times the megawatt capacity.
Bradley Lake produces 120 megawatts and Susitna-Watana is
estimated to produce 459 megawatts.
MS. FISHER-GOAD remarked:
... what we've been using, it's not, it's not just
looking at the capacity of the generators that, that
are there, it's actually looking at the amount of
energy that's produced, and so the more, the number to
use that I don't think is being recognized is the
2,800 gigawatt hours per year that the project is
estimated to produce. ... It's actually about the
energy generated.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for the gigawatt generation from
Bradley Lake on an annual basis.
MR. CAREY answered that the annual generation of Bradley Lake is
approximately 380,000 megawatt hours, which is about one-seventh
of that proposed by Susitna-Watana.
11:37:38 AM
MS. FISHER-GOAD returned to the presentation and informed the
committee that the project is currently within a FERC integrated
licensing process. Three environmental field seasons and 58
FERC-approved studies have been completed. The initial study
report was filed in June 2014, and tech memos have been filed in
support of the initial study report. The engineering
feasibility report was released in January 2015, which refined
cost estimates and provided additional design information.
Because of [Governor Bill Walker's Administrative Order No. 271
(AO 271) executed 12/26/14] directing AEA not to spend
nondiscretionary funds, AEA requested, and FERC granted, a
licensing abeyance; were it not for AO 271, AEA would be holding
a series of meetings related to study reports, filing further
information with FERC, and soliciting stakeholder comments
(slide 29).
CO-CHAIR COLVER asked for the amount of project funding on hand,
and how much is unencumbered.
MS. FISHER-GOAD explained that from authorized funds of $192
million, as of 12/31/14, $19 million was encumbered. There are
essential tasks to be completed such as removing radio collars
from animals and field work to remove equipment in compliance
with a pause in the project schedule, and budgeted personnel
costs. Nondiscretionary funds at the time of AEA's response to
AO 271 are about $26-$27 million. She noted that of the
encumbered funds, many have been expended; however, $6.6 million
are available pursuant to AO 271.
CO-CHAIR COLVER questioned whether AEA's project personnel costs
are in its operating budget.
MS. FISHER-GOAD advised that AEA has staff devoted to the
project and some accounting and procurement staff working within
the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA),
DCCED. In further response to Co-Chair Colver, she pointed out
that if the $6.6 million were made available for other non-
project purposes, AEA plans to "button up" the project by
December 2015; however, if the $6.6 million is not removed from
the project, AEA would continue to pursue the project and best
preserve the investment that the state has made in the project.
Ms. Fisher-Goad said there will be continued discussion with the
administration and legislative committees.
11:44:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK observed that energy is needed for the
growing population, and so Alaska can continue to extract its
natural resources. Furthermore, millions of dollars have
already been spent. He suggested that power from the project
could be sent to many villages and save money on fuel.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN inquired as to how many staff are
dedicated to Susitna-Watana.
MS. FISHER-GOAD said seven staff are dedicated to the project
and the percentage of shared services is unclear. In further
response to Representative Claman, she explained that all AIDEA
employees and their work for AEA is accounted as separate
personal services, although there is a separation of duties and
supervision. This is done for efficiency and economy of scale.
In further response to Representative Claman, she said AEA would
need until 12/31/15 to responsibly suspend the project, and she
elaborated.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked how much it would cost to "wind it
down most effectively as possible."
MS. FISHER-GOAD clarified that the $6.6 million is for after
12/31/15, in compliance with AO 271. She returned to the
presentation and described the environmental study process, that
is in the study implementation phase, and which would be
followed by an impact assessment and a process to develop the
protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures (PMEs) for the
project (slide 30). Last year, AEA had more than 200 people in
the field and completed data collection for 13 FERC-approved
studies (slide 31). Regarding economic impact, she provided the
following: 65 percent of workers were Alaska residents; many
workers had hydroelectric expertise; $7 million were earned in
Alaska wages in 2014; in 2013, $6 million were spent in goods
and services in the Ma t-Su Valley (slide 32).
CO-CHAIR COLVER requested that AEA provide the firms that were
hired and their contract amounts, disciplines, locations, and
local hire component.
MS. FISHER-GOAD turned to the remote siting of the project which
requires significant work prior to filing a comprehensive
license application. A majority of the studies have been to
understand the Susitna Basin and the impact of the project,
including PMEs. Past work has advanced the science in order to
understand the area, and has been done in close cooperation with
the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), the University of
Alaska Fairbanks, and the Department of Natural Resources (slide
33).
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for AEA's official position on
whether Susitna-Watana will enhance salmon habitat.
11:55:01 AM
WAYNE DYOK, Project Manager, Susitna-Watana Hydro, AEA, informed
the committee there are several attributes that may help the
salmon fishery: reducing turbidity could have a beneficial
impact; managing water temperature and providing temperatures
that are appropriate for the fishery; managing flows to better
meet the needs of salmon. He said AEA is in the process of
assessing these aspects through modeling, and its official
position is that there could be possible benefits, but they are
unknown until the analyses are complete.
CO-CHAIR COLVER returned attention to slide 33, noting that
4,500 tissues samples were submitted to the ADF&G Gene
Conservation Lab, and questioned whether genetic analyses on the
samples were prefunded, as the lab has an extensive backlog. He
expressed concern about completing the genetic analyses and
cataloguing the data.
MS. FISHER-GOAD offered to provide the requested information.
She referred to the wildlife surveys done on moose, caribou, and
Dall's sheep, noting that AEA and ADF&G need to complete studies
of the animals that have been fitted with radio collars (slide
34). Turning to the cultural resources of the area and human
uses of the region, she related that Ahtna are the primary
traditional users of the area; furthermore, AEA has not
completed its studies of the Dena'ina (slide 35). A map of the
Susitna River illustrated the basin (slide 36).
12:00:14 PM
BETSY MCGREGOR, Susitna-Watana Environmental Manager, AEA,
stated that AEA has implemented fish distribution and relative
abundance studies, collected water sediments, bed load and
hydrology and ice processes data, and calibrated models for
baseline conditions. Based on the results, similarities to the
'80s were found, and areas of potential impact were defined
(slide 37). The average annual flow contributions provide
context for the relative portion of the total Susitna River flow
impacted by the dam, and for significant influences of potential
project effects related to flow, sediment, water quality and ice
processes. Above the dam, the Susitna River contributes 16
percent of the total Susitna River flow. In the middle river,
tributaries contribute another 4 percent, the Chulitna River
contributes approximately 18 percent, and the Talkeetna River
contributes approximately 8 percent. These two rivers
significantly influence the river downstream, and the main stem
of the river quadruples below this confluence. The Yentna
River contributes 40 percent of the total, which is why
potential impacts of the dam to river resources below the Yentna
River will be insignificant (slide 38). Ms. McGregor further
explained that the average annual bed material load
contributions show both the water and sediment balances for the
middle and lower Susitna River are similar to information
gleaned in the '80s. The Chulitna River is the dominant source
of gravel, and the Talkeetna River contributes a significant
quantity as well. In fact, the Yentna River is the largest
contributor of both water and bed load material with the bed
load dominated by sand. Referring to earlier comments regarding
the impact to salmon, she observed that the quality of salmon
substrate will not be negatively impacted in the Susitna River
main stem by the dam, because the upper Susitna River is not a
source for this spawning substrate; water in the middle river
will be clearer due to the dam capturing the silt (slide 39).
To understand the impact of the dam on fish, it is necessary to
understand what species of fish in life stages use the river,
their locations, and their habitat. Of the total Susitna River,
95 percent of the total river escapement for Chinook, coho, and
chum salmon occurs in the lower river below the three rivers'
confluence, and primarily within the tributaries of the lower
river. For sockeye salmon, less than l percent of total
escapement enter the middle river. Distribution is important
because the impact to riverine processes and the quality and
quantity of habitat will be attenuated in the lower river;
however, the majority of spawning occurs in tributaries which
will not be impacted by the dam (slide 40). An illustration
provided more detailed information on the spawning distribution
of Chinook salmon. She pointed out that less than 5 percent of
the total escapement pass above Devils Canyon, which is an
impediment for all anadromous fish except Chinook salmon (slide
41). In 2014, AEA employed sonar at the dam site which revealed
that 24 fish greater than 50 centimeters in length passed above
the dam site.
12:06:24 PM
MS. MCGREGOR presented an illustration of more detailed
information on the spawning distribution of coho salmon. The
total escapement is to the lower river basin with less than 6
percent spawning in the main stem lower river. Approximately 5
percent escaped to the middle river watershed, with less than
0.5 percent spawning in the main stem middle Susitna River; no
coho salmon have been documented above Devils Canyon (slide 42).
There followed a chart illustrating the radio telemetry studies
regarding Chinook salmon and which indicated salmon that were
tagged at Curry, and subsequently were found at Devils Canyon,
above Devils Canyon, and above the project site. She noted that
the canyon has three impediments (slide 43).
CO-CHAIR COLVER expressed his understanding that in the '80s,
one of the problematic issues was that a large reservoir would
impede the crossing of the Nachena caribou herd. He asked
whether there was research on the ability of the herd to migrate
through the area.
MS. MCGREGOR related that AEA is funding an ongoing ADF&G study
of the Nachena and Delta caribou herds and their migration,
productivity, and calf survival, augmented by global positioning
system (GPS) radio collars. Results compiled by ADF&G thus far
are found in the initial study report. In further response to
Co-Chair Colver, she said she would provide a copy of the
report.
MS. FISHER-GOAD displayed a comparison of Susitna-Watana and
Hoover Dam, with the goal to look at the differences between
capacities and estimated annual generation, in order to
determine cost per kilowatt hour (slide 44). The project base
cost estimate is $5.6-$5.7 billion, and the cost estimate will
not be updated again until more geotechnical work is done (slide
45). Financing options include USDA RUS financing for up to 50
percent, blended rates, and the Bradley Lake model of state
investment upfront with repayment (slide 46).
12:12:20 PM
MS. FISHER-GOAD continued to a comparison of the cost of power
from Susitna-Watana and the cost of power from natural gas over
time. Although hydro is more expensive in the beginning, the
cost of hydro is inflation-proofed, and costs decrease, unlike
natural gas generation (slide 47).
12:13:32 PM
CO-CHAIR VAZQUEZ asked the committee to submit questions in
writing. She related her earlier involvement in the project.
12:14:06 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 12:14 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AEA REF Susitna House Energy 03.26.15.pdf |
HENE 3/26/2015 10:15:00 AM |