Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/10/2011 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation Preliminary Decision Document | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 2011
8:06 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz, Chair
Representative Neal Foster, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Berta Gardner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Alan Dick
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: RAILBELT LARGE HYDRO EVALUATION PRELIMINARY DECISION
DOCUMENT
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
BRYAN CAREY, Technical Engineer
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Railbelt Large
Hydro Evaluation Preliminary Decision Document.
SARA FISHER-GOAD, Executive Director
Alaska Energy Authority
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During overview, answered questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:06:03 AM
CHAIR CATHY ENGSTROM MUNOZ called the House Community and
Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 8:06
a.m. Representatives Austerman, Foster, Saddler, and Munoz were
present at the call to order. Representatives Cissna and
Gardner arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^Overview: Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation Preliminary Decision
Document
Overview: Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation Preliminary Decision
Document
8:06:11 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ announced that the only order of business would be
an overview from the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) regarding the
Railbelt Large Hydro Evaluation Preliminary Decision Document.
8:07:04 AM
BRYAN CAREY, Technical Engineer, Alaska Energy Authority (AEA),
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), reminded committee members that AEA originally began as
the Alaska Power Authority back in 1976. Currently, AEA owns
the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric and Alaska Intertie. Bradley
Lake Hydroelectric is the largest hydroelectric project in the
state and generates 120 megawatts while the Alaska Intertie
connects Interior Alaska such that in times of energy shortages
the energy can be switched between the Interior and Anchorage.
During the winter, gas-generated electricity, which has a lower
generation cost, is used and sent north. If there is an outage
or power problems in Anchorage, power can come down from the
Interior to Anchorage. He then highlighted the following major
programs of AEA: the renewable energy fund, alternative energy
and energy efficiency, and rural energy upgrades. He related
that AEA has been building various energy projects in rural
Alaska for the last couple of decades. In more recent times,
there has been concern with regard to gas deliverability, rising
fuel prices, and the need to replace the major generation and
transmission projects in the Railbelt. Therefore, both the
state and utilities developed an integrated resource plan to
review the possible future electricity demands along the
Railbelt and how that electricity will be provided.
8:09:42 AM
MR. CAREY directed attention to slide 3, which relates one
possible future for the Railbelt. The chart shows a dip in the
energy necessary, which he attributed to energy efficiency
improvements. As the chart illustrates, no matter the
situation a substantial amount of the Railbelt's energy will
come from natural gas. The chart also illustrates that in 2025
a large amount of hydro comes online, which he said could be
attributed to one of the two large hydroelectric projects.
Although this chart doesn't show much wind, it was reviewed.
Different model runs include or don't include wind. The two
large hydroelectric projects that could satisfy the demand are
the Susitna project at Watana or the Chakachamna project.
Although there are other possible large hydroelectric projects
along the Susitna River, they were discarded during the 1970s or
1980s due to fish concerns. He acknowledged that there are
other possible small hydroelectric projects along the Railbelt,
although some of these may not go forward due to the cost of
construction and transmission. Mr. Carey informed the committee
that today's overview will focus on the two large hydro
projects, Watana and Chakachamna, and compares and contrasts
them.
8:12:19 AM
MR. CAREY, moved on to the slide entitled "Susitna Watershed,"
which illustrates the salmon spawning areas. The map doesn't
show the Chinook salmon. Although a 1980s investigation of the
Watana area found no salmon for several years, in 2003 juvenile
Chinook salmon were found above Watana. However, most of the
salmon are below the dam site and tend to go to the spawning
areas highlighted on the map. Although the map illustrates that
the salmon do enter the Susitna River, those tend to be not as
productive as some of the tributary streams. Many salmon make
their way up other rivers, such as the Yentna River, the
Talkeetna River, and others to spawn. He related that although
there is very little salmon at the Watana site, there would have
to be modifications to the operations of the reservoir/project
in order to ensure salmon downstream aren't impacted. Mr. Carey
then turned to the slide entitled "Chakachamna Watershed" and
informed the committee that Chakachamna is located about 85
miles west of Anchorage. To the west of Chakachamna is the Lake
Clark National Park and Preserve. The Chakachatna River, which
comes out of the lake, goes through the Trading Bay State Game
Refuge. The Chakachamna is a glacier-dammed lake and thus the
glacier is acting like a dam to hold the water. The proposal is
to construct a 10-12 mile tunnel through the mountain range and
empty the water into the McArthur River Basin. However, with
the Chakachamna there is the need to reduce the water flow
through the Chakachatna River to gain energy, which may result
in adult and juvenile salmon not being able to make it up. In
fact, the salmon may only be able to reach the Cook Inlet
through the power house tunnel. Furthermore, reducing the water
flow may result in the wetlands drying and changing the
character of the wetlands to perhaps a moose browse type of
area. He then directed attention to the red areas on the slide
that illustrate the known or suspected spawning areas of salmon,
per the 1980s studies. During the [1980s] there were at least
40,000 red/sockeye salmon that passed through [the areas in
red]. He reminded the committee that the adjacent national park
and the resource agencies have mandatory conditioning ability,
and thus they can institute standards in the hydropower license
including flow and when flow would occur. Those flows would be
the environmental flows to maintain the fisheries or other
wildlife. He then pointed out that the boundary line of the
Lake Clark National Park and Preserve passes through Kenibuna
Lake. The national park has already sent a letter to FERC
expressing its concern that Kenibuna Lake and Chakachamna Lake
would be hydrologically connected. If the aforementioned is the
case, then any change in the water level with Chakachamna Lake
would impact Kenibuna Lake and the park. The FERC can't license
a hydropower project if the aforementioned occurs. The only way
to license such a project would be through a direct act of
Congress. He then mentioned that at the head of the Blockade
Glacier is the volcano Mt. Spur, which is a bit active.
8:18:15 AM
MR. CAREY specified that this type of project is important
because of the diversion from one river system to another and
the need to maintain flows in the existing river system for the
salmon or other aquatic life. He then moved on to slide 7,
which reviews the environmental aspects of the two projects.
For the Susitna/Watana project the reservoir would be about 39
miles in length with a maximum width of 2 miles. He noted that
most of the reservoir has a width that's narrower than two
miles. Since the 2003 study found juvenile salmon, the project
is about 30 miles above significant salmon. The Alaska
Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) will perform more studies,
which will be part of the daily data set to determine how many
salmon make it up the [Susitna River]. From the earlier
studies, the belief is that it's only several hundred Chinook
salmon. He noted that there would be some loss of wildlife
habitat because of the inundation of water. Although there will
be more studies, he opined that there will be a minimal
fisheries impact. The impacts will be downstream and there will
be both positive and negative impacts. Due to the conditions on
the license by the resource agencies, any fisheries impacts will
be compensated through mitigation or other measures.
MR. CAREY then turned to the Chakachamna Project, which has
significant salmon populations that travel through the lake to
the Lake Clark National Park and Preserve. It's also believed
that salmon spawn in the lake along with lake trout, dolly
varden, and white fish. He mentioned that drawing the lake down
in the winter could result in some of the spawning bed areas
freezing. Furthermore, the diversion of the water and change of
habitat in the Trading Bay State Game Refuge is of concern.
There is also concern with regard to adult false attraction,
which causes the fish to go up the McArthur River Valley to the
powerhouse location. The question then becomes how to get the
fish back into the lake. Even if all the adults could be
trucked up to the lake, the smelt tend to follow the most
current and when a power house is operated the most current will
be going down the power tunnel. Therefore, he questioned how to
ensure the juveniles make it back to the sea without any
impacts. As mentioned earlier the Chakachamna Project may not
be able to be licensed under FERC.
8:21:18 AM
MR. CAREY, in response to Representative Gardner, clarified that
a hydropower project may not be licensed under FERC if it
impacts a national park. Therefore, for the Chakachamna Project
the concern is whether Kenibuna Lake is hydrologically connected
to Chakachamna, which would impact the Lake Clark National Park
and Preserve. The letter from the U.S. National Parks Services
relates that it wants the aforementioned investigated prior to
any other investigations.
8:22:10 AM
MR. CAREY, continuing his overview, directed attention to slide
8. He informed the committee that the installed capacity for
the Susitna Project would be approximately 600 megawatts and
average energy in the amount of about 2,600 gigawatts an hour
per year, which is close to 50 percent of the Railbelt's annual
energy. He reminded the committee that the hydro energy is
dependent upon the rain and snow melt each year; any year the
energy produced could be plus or minus 10-15 percent. In the
case of the Chakachamna Project, the installed capacity in the
preliminary permit application was 300 megawatts. With the
environmental flows, the average energy for the Chakachamna
Project amounts to about 860-1,100 gigawatts an hour annually,
which would amount to about 20 percent of the Railbelt's annual
energy. He noted that the average energy figures won't be known
until five years or more are spent to better understand the
fisheries and wildlife. Mr. Carey then directed attention to the
slide with entitled "Railbelt Demand." The graph on the slide
relates the Railbelt's approximate energy [needs] on a monthly
basis. The peak [of energy needs] is generally in the winter
months whereas [the Railbelt's energy needs] are lower in the
summer.] The importance of the hydro projects, particularly the
Bradley Lake Hydro Project, is that such projects can produce a
lot of energy in the winter months when there is less ability of
gas wells to deliver the gas. The graph illustrates that during
the months of July and August [the average monthly power] peaks
because a large amount of water flow needs to be let in order to
have the normal river flow. Therefore, all the summer time flow
isn't being held back. In the case of Susitna, all the summer
time flow will pass through the powerhouse, which results in a
large amount of energy. Chakachamna will also have large summer
time flows. The winter separates the projects, he stated. For
instance, with Chakachamna there is limited storage because
there would be no dam construction at that outlet of the lake.
Therefore, energy production decreases to less than 50 megawatts
in the winter, which doesn't help the gas situation. However,
the Susitna [would generate] more than 200 megawatts, which is a
substantial portion of the Railbelt's generation requirements in
the winter. Mr. Carey then pointed out that the amount of
energy produced by the projects would be less than what the
Railbelt currently uses. Therefore, it would tend to replace
existing power generation projects of the 1970s and 1980s and
the increment of energy and power can still be absorbed by the
utilities. Regardless of construction of a hydro project,
utilities and the state will have to spend billions in the
coming decades to replace aging infrastructure.
8:26:11 AM
MR. CAREY directed the committee's attention to the slide
entitled "Bradley Lake Hydroelectric," which is a photograph of
the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project as an example of an
embankment dam. An embankment dam is one way to construct
Watana. He pointed out that there is no fish ladder at the
Bradley Lake Project because there are no fish. However, there
is water flowing from the bottom of the dam, which is for the
environmental/fish flows for where the salmon are down next to
the inlet. Those who were involved with the Bradley Lake
Project prior to the construction of the dam generally believe
there have been positive fisheries impacts on the salmon located
at the bottom of the dam by the inlet because there are more
salmon than prior to the construction of the dam. Mr. Carey
told the committee that most hydroelectric projects aren't going
to have the cheapest power in the first 10 years of existence,
which is why half of the initial funding for the Bradley Lake
Project was from the state while the other half was financed by
bonds to be paid by the utilities. Even when the utilities have
paid the bonds, they will continue to make payments and those
payments go to the state to help repay for its investment in the
Bradley Lake Project. Bradley's cost of power is substantially
less than much of the power generation on the Railbelt. On the
basis of the generation cost being less alone, Railbelt
consumers are saving close to $10 million per year in terms of
what it would have to generate by other means. Moreover,
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric's ability to provide power in the
winter is critical for Southcentral, which would otherwise face
a much greater gas problem.
8:28:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that over time
all dams will silt up. She asked if that is happening with
Bradley Lake, and if so she inquired as to how long it will
continue to function.
MR. CAREY clarified that although that's true, the time period
would be fairly long. He said that he hasn't seen the time
scale with Bradley Lake Hydroelectric, but he estimated that it
would likely be hundreds of years before it would silt up. In
the case of a dam at Watana, the estimate for the full Watana
height of 885 feet during the 1980s was that it would be greater
than 1,000 years before there would be enough silt to impact the
operations. Since a lower height dam is being considered, the
time period in which silt would impact the operation would be
shortened. Still, it would be hundreds of years before silt
would impact the dam.
8:29:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if any of the water in Bradley Lake
is of glacial origin.
MR. CAREY replied yes, and specified that a third of Bradley
Lake's water is from each of the following: rain, snow, and
existing glacial melt. The Kachemak and Nuka Glaciers are both
providing water to Bradley Lake, and therefore it's "silty."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER recalled concerns from Talkeetna
regarding whether glacial silt or any rocky matter would cause
damage to turbines. He inquired as to the service life of the
turbines at Bradley Lake. He also inquired as to whether there
has been any damage to the turbines from glacial silt.
MR. CAREY informed the committee that in the Andes Mountains
there have been hydroelectric facilities that are closer to the
run of the river where there are large particle sizes that tend
to wear down the turbines. He noted that there have been
similar problems at King Cove Hydro. In the case of Bradley
Lake there hasn't been any wear at this point, which he
attributed to the large size of the reservoir that allows the
heavy particles to settle in the lake. Therefore, the matter
that passes through the turbines is more of a flour consistency,
which isn't that abrasive and doesn't wear on the turbines.
Bradley Lake Hydroelectric has been operating for 20 years with
no problems, in terms of the turbines or the silt.
8:31:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to estimates of the origin of
the water in Watana Lake.
MR. CAREY informed the committee that Watana Lake was studied in
the 1980s and at that time the Alaska Range valleys were
producing 50 percent of the water going into Watana Lake. He
indicated that more studies would be needed to answer the
question. The FERC licensing process is very extensive and AEA
will update all the studies for water sources. He noted that
climate change will also have to be studied as well in terms of
changes to the glaciers in the area and future projections.
8:33:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN asked if the area where the water is
coming out of the bottom of the dam is the location of the power
house.
MR. CAREY clarified that the water coming out of the bottom of
the dam is the fish water releases. The power house for the
Bradley Lake dam is located 3.5 miles away. The intake is
approximately 150 feet down below the lake level and it passes
through a power tunnel that is 3.5 miles in length down to tide
water. With the power house being located at tide water, the
difference in the lake and tide water is about 1,100 feet. The
1,100 difference places the water under a tremendous amount of
pressure.
8:34:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN inquired as to the span of the dam at
Watana and the location of the power house in relation to the
dam.
MR. CAREY informed the committee that the elevation of the
Bradley Lake dam is 125 feet while the Watana Lake dam elevation
is 700 feet with approximately 125 feet being located below
ground in order to reach the bedrock. Therefore, the area above
the tail water at the Watana Lake dam would be about 550 feet.
In the 1980s the proposed location of the Watana Lake dam power
house was an underground power house off to the side of the dam
and located down river. If the dam was constructed using roller
compacted concrete, the power house would be located closer to
the base of the dam and would likely not be underground. He
explained that the power house would likely not be placed
directly on the dam because doing so would constrain the size of
the dam in the future. For instance, the ability to raise the
height of the dam would be lost if the power house was located
right next to the dam. Therefore, the location of the power
house needs to be far enough away from the dam to be able to
increase the size of the dam in the future.
8:36:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN related that for the Kodiak
hydroelectric project two turbines were installed with a slot
for a third turbine. He asked if such expansion possibilities
are being considered with the Watana project.
MR. CAREY responded that the original design of Watana was an
embankment dam with an underground power house. The notion was
that the underground cavern would be made large enough to add
more turbines in the future. However, an external power house
makes it easier for expansion, although there would still be
changes necessary. The Watana dam would be designed such that
more turbines could be added in the future.
8:37:59 AM
MR. CAREY, returning to his overview, directed the committee's
attention to slide 11 entitled "Timeline." He clarified that
the timeline he'll present is the one that will occur once the
formal FERC process is reached, which has not yet been reached.
For Watana, the final application for license could be prepared
and filed in 3.5 years. Therefore, after 6.5 years the project
could move forward into the construction phase. The first power
would be generated in approximately 11 years. Mr. Carey told
the committee that it's believed that more time will be required
at the start for Chakachamna because it has had very little
[documentation] for it. Furthermore, Chakachamna is a more
complicated system because of the diversion of water and the
impacts it would have on the Lake Clark National Park and
Preserve, the Trading Bay State Game Refuge, and the nearby
river systems. The aforementioned will require more studies and
time at FERC. The construction time period for Chakachamna will
also likely take more time because drilling a tunnel 10-12 miles
long will take a substantial amount of time. Moreover, for both
projects access to the location needs to be obtained first and
then there will be a couple of years of construction for access.
He related that the first power at Chakachamna will likely be
generated in about 14 years.
8:39:57 AM
SARA FISHER-GOAD, Executive Director, Alaska Energy Authority,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development,
related her understanding from legislators who attended the
Energy Conference that FERC has a somewhat more optimistic
licensing schedule of 2-3 years. Therefore, AEA plans to have
conversations with FERC regarding a more aggressive timeline.
Although AEA isn't prepared to update its proposed timeline, the
aforementioned information was encouraging.
8:41:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER mentioned that he and Representative
Saddler were part of the team that spoke with FERC from which
the aforementioned sentiment was heard. He recalled the
discussion relating that more of the issues might lay with the
agencies and departments.
8:41:40 AM
MR. CAREY, referring to the slide entitled "Watana vs.
Chakachamna," informed the committee that Watana will produce
more energy, perhaps 2.5 times more energy, at a lower cost per
unit and with fewer geologic risks. He noted that both Watana
and Chakachamna have some seismic activity, but dams can be
designed around seismic concerns as is the case in California
and elsewhere. However, the glacial lake at Chakachamna is of
concern because it's inherently unstable as it's unknown when it
will release. At some point the aforementioned could
significantly impact how much water is in storage. Furthermore,
how Mt. Spur will impact the operation of [Chakachamna] in the
future is also unknown. He highlighted that Watana doesn't have
river diversions and has less of a fisheries impact, although
there are some salmon at the site. He acknowledged that there
are also salmon down river on the Susitna River, but the Susitna
River tends to be used as a salmon highway. He noted the
presence of salmon will be reviewed with the resource agencies
in order to determine how best to address them. Mr. Carey
reiterated that it's likely Watana will go through licensing
quicker than Chakachamna. In fact, it's likely that Chakachamna
may require Congressional action prior to licensure. Watana has
the ability for expansion for future growth and demand, whereas
that's not the case for Chakachamna. Moreover, Watana has the
ability to provide significant amounts of winter energy, whereas
Chakachamna can't. Therefore, the [electric energy from Watana]
can displace the gas necessary in the winter for generation and
thus can be used for home heating, etcetera. Furthermore,
Watana is necessary to achieve the state's 50 percent renewable
goal. It's extremely unlikely that without a large hydro
project, the state would achieve the 50 percent renewable goal,
he opined. A large hydroelectric project is necessary to
provide dispatchable energy, stabilize the system, and to reach
the state's renewable energy goal.
8:45:18 AM
MR. CAREY related that during the public workshops, the desire
to review other potential sources of energy was expressed.
Although the preliminary decision document didn't cover other
potential sources of energy, such as wind, geothermal, and
nuclear, they were covered in the integrated resource plan. The
integrated resource plan included wind, geothermal, gas
generation, coal generation, nuclear, and energy efficiencies.
Depending upon whether there's a carbon tax and the growth rate
estimates of the Railbelt, the mix of energy sources differs.
Unless there is a large hydroelectric energy source, most of the
energy will be from gas with some wind and energy efficiency
upgrades. With regard to questions about the cost of energy,
Mr. Carey informed the committee that AEA is currently working
with a financial firm to obtain better numbers. He opined that
the cost of energy [from a hydroelectric project] would not
result in a rate shock. He further opined that if the cost of
the energy from the hydroelectric project is substantially more
than gas or otherwise, the utilities wouldn't be interested in
receiving energy from such a project. With regard to the
seismic concerns, those are fairly well understood by engineers
and dams have been constructed in seismic active areas.
Furthermore, there's no record of a modern dam failing due to a
seismic event, although it can be damaged.
8:48:12 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ inquired as to the point in the process when the
commitments from the utilities are determined and information is
available to the legislature.
MR. CAREY said that in the coming years there will be many
discussions with utilities regarding power sales agreements. In
terms of the price to utilities, that will be a give and take in
relation to the amount of state participation.
MS. FISHER-GOAD acknowledged that much activity is necessary for
a project of this size, and thus there will be a variety of
conversations. There will be an engineering and licensing
process once the preliminary permit application is filed with
FERC. The aforementioned will help AEA refine the timeline,
cost, and schedule. During that time, conversations with the
utilities regarding purchase commitments will begin. She
informed the committee that AEA has already engaged its
financial advising firm to help calculate some numbers and
develop information sooner than anticipated. These discussions
have resulted in one example using the Bradley Lake
Hydroelectric model in terms of the potential power cost. This
example has resulted in many questions, which she interpreted to
mean there is a need to refine the numbers and obtain more
scenarios to reach the potential wholesale power cost. At this
point, the power cost to the retail ratepayers if [Susitna] is
built is unknown. Even with the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
project, the rate that Fairbanks residents pay is different than
that paid by Anchorage residents through their utility. Ms.
Fisher-Goad stated that AEA owes the legislature additional
information regarding the cost, although some of it won't be
available this session.
8:51:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired as to the impacts and costs of
these two different projects. She further inquired as to the
impacts of these projects in the long-term and the possibilities
a dam would afford these communities. She mentioned that a dam
could impact other resources beyond energy resources, such as
agriculture.
MR. CAREY informed the committee that along with the FERC
studies required for licensing there will also be economic
studies in regard to the potential impacts, such as jobs, a dam
would have on the surrounding communities. With regard to
fisheries and siltation issues, those issues would be studied as
part of the licensing process. Mr. Carey pointed out that the
resource agencies have the mission to protect the fisheries and
the wildlife, and therefore they can place conditions on the
license to ensure that the fisheries are protected for
fishermen. If the resource agencies believe there would be any
negative impact, portions of the license include provisions such
that the licensee would pay for enhancement or mitigation. For
instance, more wetlands could be purchased, funding could be
utilized for enhancement projects, or a fish hatchery could be
done. Therefore, a variety of methods could be utilized.
8:56:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA turned to the matter of oversight, and
expressed the need to relay information in a format that's
understandable for new legislators as there's often changing
players in the legislature and the administration. She also
expressed the need to work [on these projects] in terms of
providing long-term understanding in order that oversight
actually does happen.
8:57:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN related his support for the Watana Dam
and the concept of generating more hydro power. He mentioned
the life span of a hydro project, which is 150-200 years less
the time necessary to change the turbines. Representative
Austerman also expressed concern with regard to fisheries
mitigation and water for agriculture. [A good example] is the
Columbia River system where the dams were built knowing they
were going to have to mitigate and destroy salmon. Those dams
were built to draw water for agriculture and create an industry
that's dependent on those dams. Therefore, he cautioned the
[state] to be careful in terms of what it asks for as there may
be a lot of opposition to hydro power. He then recalled that
the governor's budget includes $52 million, and asked if that
provides enough funds to get started.
MS. FISHER-GOAD clarified that the capital appropriation request
in the governor's budget is approximately $65.7 million, which
is the estimated unobligated balance of the Railbelt Energy
Fund. Although the aforementioned isn't enough funding to
complete the full licensing and design process, it's a start.
The current estimate is approximately $20 million per year for
the environmental and design work. However, those numbers will
be refined as the project proceeds. Ms. Fisher-Goad clarified
that this is a multi-year request.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN inquired as to when AEA will be able to
come to the legislature with the specific construction cost,
amount of wholesale power that will be sold, and whether there
will be mitigation so that the legislature can make the final
decision.
MS. FISHER-GOAD answered that she would expect there would be an
opportunity every session to provide the legislature additional
information. Once the preliminary permit application was filed,
the agency would know when it could provide better information.
MR. CAREY interjected that currently data gap analysis is being
performed on aquatics and wildlife to determine what information
will be needed to determine the potential impacts. Once the
aforementioned analysis is finished, AEA will meet with the
resource agencies regarding what additional studies are
necessary. He said that AEA would have more information in a
couple of months in terms of what the resource agencies want.
9:02:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER recalled questions of reservoir induced
seismicity (RIS) that were raised in the House Special Committee
on Energy meeting on the Watana project. He asked if the
preliminary decision document considers the seismic conditions
of the area to be developed. He also asked if there is such a
thing as RIS.
MR. CAREY said that most of the seismic activity occurring when
there is a new reservoir is the earth adjusting to a new weight
and the earthquakes tend to be small, of a magnitude 1 or 2.
Therefore, most people wouldn't even notice an earthquake that
small, even if he/she were standing on top of the dam. The
control earthquake, design earthquake, for these projects would
be earthquakes located within 10 miles of the site. In the case
of Watana, the control earthquake would be a magnitude 8 with
less than a 10 mile proximity to the reservoir. The control
earthquakes tend to be close earthquakes that are very large.
Therefore, the reservoir seismicity tends to be less than what a
control earthquake would be.
9:04:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER opined, "I fear that much the same way
that an endangered species or critical habitat is discovered
near every development project, I'm afraid that RIS would ...
generate a seismic risk where one might not really exist." He
then inquired as to whether there are hydrologic or geodetic
studies regarding where and how fast the water would go if there
was a leak in the dam. The concern, he specified, is for
Talkeetna downstream.
MR. CAREY responded that if there is to be water coming out of
the dam, that's studied as part of the FERC licensing process in
order to provide estimates in terms of time and amount of water
that would flow down. He pointed out that Talkeetna is 90 miles
downriver, and thus the water flow will be constrained as it
passes through Devil Canyon. Work was performed in the 1980s
regarding how fast the water would travel down and which areas
would flood. Although the aforementioned would be required
under new licensing, FERC normally doesn't review catastrophic
failure of a dam because it just doesn't occur. However, he
acknowledged that there can be some release of a dam from a
smaller failure, which is what's considered a more likely
occurrence and reviewed.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER remarked that although he is intrigued by
the possibilities with these projects, he does hold concerns
that he believes should be addressed.
9:06:03 AM
CHAIR MUNOZ thanked everyone for their participation.
9:06:14 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 9:06 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|