Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
04/02/2019 10:00 AM House FISHERIES
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 | |
| HB99 | |
| HB105 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 99 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 99-NUYAKUK RIVER FALLS: HYDROELECTRIC SITE
10:03:04 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 99, "An Act relating to the development and
operation of a hydroelectric site at the Nuyakuk River Falls;
providing for the amendment of the management plan for the Wood-
Tikchik State Park; and providing for an effective date."
10:03:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, Alaska State Legislature,
introduced HB 99 as prime sponsor. He explained the bill would
provide a member-owned local power cooperative from the
Dillingham area the ability to do feasibility and impact studies
on a hydroelectric project in the Wood-Tikchik State Park. He
indicated this was just the beginning phase of a long and
involved process for a project that is estimated to cost well
over $100 million. He said HB 99 would give the cooperative, in
statute, permission to do the necessary studies, by making
required changes to Alaska Statute Title 41.
10:06:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for a primer history on how
Elva Lake and Grant Lake ended up in Alaska Statute Title 41 and
what the hydroelectric potential is at each of those sites.
CHAIR STUTES surmised that the requested information would be
included in the upcoming presentation.
10:08:04 AM
ROBERT HIMSCHOOT, CEO/General Manager, Nushagak Electric and
Telephone Cooperative (NETC), directed attention to slide 1 of a
PowerPoint presentation, entitled "Logical Natural Location."
He explained that Nuyakuk River flows over a natural glacial
moraine which creates Nuyakuk Falls. The project would divert
some of the river water around the falls for use in a
hydroelectric plant. Mr. Himschoot moved to slide 2, "Power
Production Location and Potential." He explained that the
United Stated Geological Survey (USGS) has had a flow monitoring
program at the Nuyakuk Falls since 1953, which is advantageous
because that is over 60 years of data available for modeling
what the possible hydroelectric power production from the falls
might be. He said if they used 25 percent of the flow, the
minimum power over the three lowest months would be 4.5
megawatts. The modeling showed that there is considerably more
potential at high flow times. Modeling projections were stopped
at 10 megawatts, but during high flow time there is potential
for power up to 30 megawatts. He stated that 10 megawatts of
power were enough power not only for Dillingham and Aleknagik,
but for regional distribution as well. The natural flow
production potential matches the seasonal demand, which is
driven by salmon processing in the summer. He stated that
Dillingham used approximately two megawatts of power during the
winter, which jumped to five megawatts during the summer. He
noted that with the addition of a new Icicle Seafoods processing
facility, Dillingham would require closer to eight megawatts of
power during the processing season.
10:12:06 AM
MR. HIMSCHOOT used slide 3, "Power Plant, and slide 4 [not
titled] to show the possible affected area. He explained the
falls occur at a splendid location in the river for a
hydroelectric facility. There is a natural oxbow in the river
above the falls which is perfect for the intake above the
proposed power production facility. The intake would lead to a
1500-foot power channel which would flow into the power plant at
the bottom of the falls. The water flow from the Nuyakuk River
would be affected for approximately 3000 feet, the distance from
the top to the bottom of the falls. At the base of the falls
the water used for power production would be introduced back
into the river, returning the river to its full flow rate. Mr.
Himschoot said salmon traversing the falls would use the same
passage that had always been used.
10:13:29 AM
MR. HIMSCHOOT moved on to slide 5, "Transmission System." His
presentation showed a line drawing of the potential distribution
of hydroelectric power if the project is successful. He
explained that there would be enough electricity generated for
six communities in the Dillingham area, and production may be
enough for three more communities in the region. He said if
electrical production was sufficient for all 9 communities, that
would greatly increase the viability of the project. Another
benefit to connecting all the communities would be the ability
to bring broadband telecommunications to all of them while
building the transmission lines.
10:14:25 AM
MR. HIMSCHOOT moved on to slide 6, "Considerations." He said
the project would displace 1.5 million gallons of fuel annually.
The estimated cost for the project and construction was $120 to
$150 million. Mr. Himschoot explained the financial savings
over a 40-year licensing period to the Nushagak Electrical and
Telephone Cooperative would total $171 million. He told the
committee that the slide show he'd just presented was an
abbreviated version of the presentation shared to the community
for outreach. He said, "We've tried to include as many people
as possible to see if there would be anyone who would not be
supportive of us moving forward." He answered Representative
Kreiss-Tomkins' question by saying when the Wood-Tikchik State
Park was established, enabling statutes recognized hydroelectric
as one of the potential uses of the state park and called out
two particular sites that had been identified in advance. He
said those were Grant and Elva Lake. He continued his
explanation by saying the cooperative was constantly looking for
a path off of diesel and had evaluated both the Grant and Elva
Lake sites but neither one of them turned out to be financially
feasible. Mr. Himschoot said what the cooperative is trying to
do is study the Nuyakuk Falls to see if the location is
feasible, both environmentally and financially, for a
hydroelectrical power facility.
10:18:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS expressed his understanding of the
difficulty in finding non-diesel projects, then asked if the
$120 million to $150 million project price included the
transmission line infrastructure.
MR. HIMSCHOOT answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked how the electrical baseload
would be affected if the project was to include the three
communities that Mr. Himschoot mentioned could possibly be
included in the project if the studies showed enough power
generation.
MR. HIMSCHOOT answered that the amount of electricity produced,
even in the low times, would be enough for those communities to
avoid diesel generation.
10:20:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said the project had enormous potential and
shared some information about other successful hydroelectric
projects with which he was familiar. He mentioned the potential
for a fish processing plant in Levelock and how excited he was
about the benefits from the hydroelectric project that could
result.
10:22:01 AM
CHAIR STUTES shared that Kodiak was 99.7 percent renewable
energy. She said the reasonable cost of electricity was an
economic driver for the community, bringing in fish processors
due to the low cost of electricity.
10:23:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked whether Mr. Himschoot had a breakdown
of projected cost per home in the area, and whether he had
projections for utility costs per household if the project was
to succeed.
MR. HIMSCHOOT answered that much of what Representative Vance
asked would be determined through the studies and design process
for the project. He said based on the known current costs and
projected estimated costs, the household energy costs would not
increase. He expected to be able to find grants and other
funding that would drive the project cost down. He explained
that all the modeling for the project was based on a 40-year
license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [FERC].
He added that 40 years is a very short term for
hydroelectricity, but in the long term the region will benefit
from a mature hydroelectrical facility with lower rates.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE acknowledged that choosing Bradley Lake was
one of the wiser decisions made by the state. She said it was
impressive that this project did not need a dam and that it
maintained 75 percent of the natural water flow for fish habitat
and passage. She expressed her hope that this project would
move forward.
10:27:17 AM
CORY WARNOCK, Senior Licensing and Regulatory Consultant,
McMillen Jacobs Associates, shared his background and explained
he had been working with NETC for the past year, exploring the
initial feasibility of the Nuyakuk Falls hydroelectric project.
He said he'd been hearing some concerns in regard to HB 99
potentially allowing for the expedited development of the
project prior to fully exploring the feasibility of the project.
He said he was available to answer procedural questions and add
clarity with respect to the intent of the bill versus the
onerous and requisite FERC licensing process that would need to
take place. He explained one phase of the FERC licensing
process is to collect existing baseline natural resource data,
then to go through a process with state and federal agencies to
determine additional study needs.
CHAIR STUTES asked for clarification about the FERC process.
She explained that she wanted to make sure HB 99 would not
circumvent any of the steps required by anyone in the process.
MR. WARNOCK replied the bill would allow the cooperative to
begin the study development and implementation processes
necessary to inform the FERC process; it would in no way
circumvent or avoid it.
CHAIR STUTES asked for an estimate of the timeframe involved in
getting a FERC permit.
MR. WARNOCK answered five to seven years based on no significant
issues associated with legislation or other external influences.
10:31:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented he'd heard the words
"onerous," "burdensome," and "time-consuming" in the description
of the FERC process, and he asked Mr. Warnock to elaborate on
what is entailed in the FERC permitting process.
MR. WARNOCK answered there are a series of phases; the first
phase is what the cooperative is in now. He told the committee
that the cooperative had applied for and received a preliminary
permit from the FERC, which would grant them access to the site
for a feasibility study. He went on to explain the initial
permit granted the cooperative three years to perform the
feasibility and exploration phase requirement. At the end of
the three years the cooperative would have to show enough
progress to be granted an additional two-year extension.
Following the baseline data acquisition, there is a five-year
window for all the stakeholders to determine and complete
studies that govern whether the completion of the project would
be more beneficial than detrimental overall. He explained that
once the studies are completed, all the stakeholders would
reconvene and determine whether the project should move forward.
The stakeholders then would develop terms and conditions that
they would like to see in the FERC license. Mr. Wardnock said
that at this point the cooperative would file a final license
application with FERC, those terms and conditions from
stakeholders would be applied, then FERC would do a full
comprehensive review to determine if the project was viable. If
FERC determined it was viable, then a license would be issued.
10:34:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked if there were any sites closer to
Dillingham that could work better for a hydroelectric facility.
MR. HIMSCHOOT said the search that led to the Nuyakuk River
Falls site was from a comprehensive search of the area.
10:36:15 AM
MR. WARNOCK added to Mr. Himschoots comments by saying that
from a biological perspective, the proposed site is fairly
unique because of the small footprint the project would
encompass. The amount of area for viable rearing or spawning of
the resident and anadromous salmonids that exist in the system
would not be impacted. From an engineering and natural resource
perspective, the falls site is appealing.
CHAIR STUTES asked for a ballpark idea for cost of the project
through the FERC permit being issued.
MR. WARNOCK answered that there are a lot of variables, but the
project estimates are $6 million for natural resources studies;
regulatory services for engineering feasibility would be in the
range of $10 million to $20 million. He recognized the range
was broad but said it would be refined, and he, hoped minimized
as they learned more.
10:39:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked a two-part question, the
first part being what the anticipated impact on anadromous fish
was; then what sort of summer and winter studies would be needed
to get through the FERC process.
MR. WARNOCK said he could definitely address the studies part of
the question. As an example of site-specific needs, he said
there would be geotechnical work done in the first year of the
study program. That would include analysis of the substrate
being used for development of the project to determine what it
can withstand in terms of the force of the river and the amount
of infrastructure that would be added. From a natural resource
perspective, he said one of the first and highest priority
studies would be the Nuyakuk Falls. Overall, he said there
would be minimal impact to habitat; however, the falls
themselves would be an area called a "bypass reach" or area of
the river where water would be moved around to develop power.
He stated, "We would be looking at the flow through those falls
to ensure that safe, effective, and timely passage of both
upstream migrating adults and downstream migrating juveniles was
maintained throughout the entire year." Mr. Warnock related
another unique feature of the project is that these falls, at
certain times of year that coincide with upstream migration of
certain anadromous species, create a velocity barrier that can
prohibit upstream migration. He said removing some of those
(indisc.) flows over the falls at certain times of the year
would provide "more safe, timely, and effective passage than
natural conditions currently allow."
MR. WARNOCK said those are the primary, upfront studies, but
because there is not a lot of existing data for the remote
location, there would also be a period of studies that would
"more globally and comprehensively investigate the project area
for species presence" and composition, and to determine the
water quality. He said, "All of that would ... coalesce into a
model or a series of models during the data analysis phase,
which again would be cross-referenced with project design to
determine how natural conditions would be, if at all, impacted
by project operations."
10:43:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether the project was owned
cooperatively with any other companies, because he had seen
Naknek Electric was also pursuing a FERC permit for the same or
similar project.
MR. HIMSCHOOT replied that he believed there was a
misunderstanding, then explained the Naknek Electric resolution
was in support of the Nushagak Cooperative's efforts. He
explained that the project would certainly need to be a regional
project, but it was too early in the planning stages to know how
the cooperation between the regional electrical companies might
work.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP explained that he had just misread the
information.
10:46:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked for an explanation to make
sure he understood what velocity barrier meant.
MR. WARNOCK said he used the term velocity barrier to define a
natural condition where water flow coming over a barrier such as
a waterfall impeded the upstream movement of adult anadromous
fish.
10:48:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON commented that this project had a myriad
of steps and stages and was comparative, on a smaller scale, to
the gas line project in the complexity of the overall process.
He then asked Mr. Himschoot if at any time in the exploratory
phase the cooperative would be compelled to recognize the
project wasn't feasible, and if so, what would happen.
MR. HIMSCHOOT answered that Mr. Warnock had given a description
of the process. He said some of the more critical studies were
going to be done early in the process, specifically those
studies that had a "go/no go" bearing on the project. He
continued by explaining that if any of those studies came back
indicating the project was not feasible, the cooperative would
evaluate the decision to move forward or not.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON commented that this was a speculative
project for a small cooperative and would be a long-term
process. He added that given those factors the cooperative
would have to err on the side of caution.
10:51:33 AM
CHAIR STUTES announced that HB 99 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB099 Supporting Document - Naknek Electric resolution.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB099 Supporting Document - NETC Fish First Resolution.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB099 Supporting Document - Nuyakuk Hydroelectric_2019update.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB099 ver A 3.28.19.PDF |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB099 Supporting Document - Nuyakuk Studies Description and Estimate.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB105 Fiscal Note DLWD 03.29.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Sponsor Statement 03.29.2019.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Support Document - PSVOA 03.26.2019.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Support Document - SEAFA 03.26.2019.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Support Document - SEAS 03.26.2019.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 Support Document - UFA 03.26.2019.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB105 ver A 03.26.2019.PDF |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/4/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 105 |
| HB099 Fiscal Note DNR 03.29.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB099 Sectional Analysis ver A 3.28.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB099 Sponsor Statement 3.28.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB099 Supporting Document - Aleknagik Resolution.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB099 Supporting Document - BBNA resolution.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB099 Supporting Document - Curyung Tribal Council resolution.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB099 Supporting Document - Dillingham City Council resolution.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |
| HB099 Supporting Document - Hydro presentation_testimony.pdf |
HFSH 4/2/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 5/7/2019 10:00:00 AM |
HB 99 |