Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 17
02/12/2015 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: Golden Valley Electric Association | |
| Presentation: Alaska Railbelt Cooperative Electric and Transmission Company | |
| 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
February 12, 2015
10:19 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jim Colver, Co-Chair
Representative David Talerico
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Matt Claman
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Liz Vazquez, Co-Chair
Representative Benjamin Nageak
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
- HEARD
PRESENTATION: ALASKA RAILBELT COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC &
TRANSMISSION COMPANY
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
CORY BORGESON, President and CEO
Golden Valley Electric Association
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Understanding Energy in the Interior," and dated
2/12/15.
DAVID GILLESPIE, CEO
Alaska Railbelt Cooperative Electric & Transmission Company
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Grid Restructuring and Open Access," and dated
2/12/15.
ACTION NARRATIVE
10:19:19 AM
CO-CHAIR JIM COLVER called the House Special Committee on Energy
meeting to order at 10:19 a.m. Representatives Talerico, Wool,
and Colver were present at the call to order. Representatives
Tilton and Claman arrived as the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION: GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
PRESENTATION: GOLDEN VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION
10:20:08 AM
CO-CHAIR COLVER announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation by the Golden Valley Electric Association on
understanding energy in the Interior.
10:20:20 AM
CORY BORGESON, President and CEO, Golden Valley Electric
Association (GVEA), provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled,
"Understanding Energy in the Interior," and dated 2/12/15. Mr.
Borgeson gave brief background information on GVEA as follows:
serves nearly 100,000 residents; serves a service territory of
5,973 square miles from Delta Junction to Cantwell; situated
similarly to an island at the end of a long transmission line;
serves an area with extreme temperatures (slide 2). He further
informed the committee that GVEA is an electric cooperative
owned by its 34,000 members, who vote for the board of
directors. Ten years ago GVEA took measures to maintain its
high reliability record by installing a battery storage system
to respond during an outage; in fact, in 2014 it prevented a
large number of outages from occurring. Golden Valley Electric
Cooperative has the capacity to generate 296 megawatts (MW) of
electricity and its peak load in 2014 was 201.6 MW; in 2014
retail sales totaled 1.22 billion kilowatt (kW) hours (slide 3).
Total sales in 2014 were down as members are using less
electricity in response to GVEA's business and homeowner energy
conservation programs; average residential usage has lowered
from 750 kW hours per month to less than 600 kW hours per month.
In response, GVEA is cutting costs to keep rates as stable as
possible. Sources of generation are diversified: hydroelectric
(hydro), coal, natural gas, oil, and wind. Mr. Borgeson pointed
out GVEA's source of hydro is the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric
Project (Bradley Lake) located close to Homer. Having a
diversified portfolio of generation has served GVEA members well
(slides 4 and 5).
10:25:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked for the percentage of GVEA's
electricity that comes from the [Alaska Intertie transmission
system (Alaska Intertie)].
MR. BORGESON answered that is represented by the percentage of
natural gas which was 33 percent in 2013, and 35 percent in
2014, as shown on slide 4.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL surmised hydropower also comes over the
Alaska Intertie, making the total 41 percent.
MR. BORGESON said yes. On a typical summer day, GVEA generates
about 150 MW, and brings about 80 MW on the intertie. He
returned attention to Bradley Lake, noting that the project is
owned by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), and is
considered an independent power producer (IPP). Bradley Lake
was developed by the state, and is considered to be a model for
financing energy projects in Alaska. For the funding to build
the project, the state provided 50 percent, and 50 percent was
thirty-year bonds to be paid back by the Railbelt utilities on a
fifty-year contract for the use of the electricity. The bonds
will be paid in about seven years, at which time the utilities'
payments will go to [AS 37.05.520 Railbelt Energy Fund].
CO-CHAIR COLVER asked whether the Delta oil-fired facility is
always in operation.
MR. BORGESON said the Delta power plant is very expensive to
operate and is rarely in operation. In further response to Co-
Chair Colver, he advised the power plant is there for extra
reliability in the Delta Junction area.
CO-CHAIR COLVER asked whether GVEA generates power for U.S. Army
Garrison Fort Greely.
MR. BORGESON stated Fort Greely generates power, and also takes
about two MW from GVEA.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL stated that the Aurora [Energy Chena Power
Plant] is an IPP and asked what percentage of GVEA's coal
consumption is from the Aurora plant.
MR. BORGESON estimated Aurora Energy supplies about 25 MW and
the Healy Unit 1 power plant produces about 25 MW.
10:30:16 AM
MR. BORGESON returned attention to Bradley Lake, stating that it
was a very successful project and its power is low-cost;
however, the transmission lines are constrained and power from
Bradley Lake is not always available when needed. One advantage
of hydro is that generation can be stored by the water level, so
all of GVEA's allotment is provided, but not at the optimal
time. This situation costs GVEA money, thus GVEA is
significantly interested in having the transmission lines
unconstrained. Also, power from Bradley Lake is limited by the
level of the lake and the facility cannot deliver 120 MW for a
long period of time. The Alaska Energy Authority is working on
the Battle Creek Diversion project which would divert runoff
into the lake and increase generation from the existing
facility.
CO-CHAIR COLVER asked for the average output from Bradley Lake.
MR. BORGESON said GVEA averages 11 MW from Bradley Lake, which
is about 20 percent, and he was unsure of the total. The power
is dispatched by Chugach Electric Association Inc. (CEA). Eva
Creek Wind is owned by GVEA, and was built with $13 million from
the state and federal financing at 1.3 percent interest. The
project averages 33 percent, which is a good capacity factor for
a wind project. In winter, more power is needed and more wind
is blowing; however, wind generation requires backup generation
at some cost (slide 6). Small independent power producers, such
as residential solar and wind projects, are accommodated by
GVEA's Sustainable Natural Alternative Power (SNAP) program
which allows IPPs to hook into the system and get paid for their
electricity through net metering authorized by the legislature
and the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) in 2010. At this
time, GVEA has 53 IPPs; 412 GVEA members pay an extra amount to
offset the higher cost of renewable energy from SNAP producers,
thus IPPs get more than GVEA's avoided cost for their power
(slide 7).
10:36:06 AM
CO-CHAIR COLVER asked whether the extra amount to any small
producer is a $0.10 tariff rate.
MR. BORGESON said the amount varies each quarter due to fuel
cost. In further response to Co-Chair Colver, he said IPPs
receive a credit as Co-Chair Colver described, but net metering
reduces the amount of electricity delivered by running the meter
backwards.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL provided a scenario in which a consumer
generated more power than is consumed, and asked whether a
credit would accrue.
MR. BORGESON said yes, or the consumer would receive a check;
Delta Wind Farm produces more power, and it receives a check. A
special tariff was developed for IPPs that put up to two MW of
electricity into the grid, and no regulation costs are charged.
He returned to the presentation, noting that GVEA purchases 25
MW from Aurora Energy at $75 per MW hour, 60 MW from CEA, and
other amounts from Anchorage Municipal Light & Power (ML&P), and
Homer Electric Association (HEA) (slide 8). In response to Co-
Chair Colver, he said CEA is GVEA's main source of electricity,
which is delivered to Fairbanks at a price that varies from $95-
$105 per MW hour.
10:40:28 AM
CO-CHAIR COLVER asked how much of the cost is for transmission
through other utility districts.
MR. BORGESON estimated CEA's transmission rate is about $8-$9
per MW hour, and GVEA has to pay about $6 per MW hour to
transmit across the Alaska Intertie; in fact, GVEA uses 96
percent of the electricity transmitted across the Alaska
Intertie thus pays 96 percent of the maintenance of the
transmission line. Also, line losses cost about $4-$6 per MW
hour. In further response to Co-Chair Colver, he said, "So FOB
from Chugach, is about 100 to 105, and it varies, sometimes a
little bit less, sometimes a little bit more ... ten to ten and
a half cents."
CO-CHAIR COLVER inquired as to AEA's interest in joining the
transmission cooperative and contributing assets thereto.
MR. BORGESON stated that AEA has requested direction from the
new administration and is interested. He said he saw no problem
with AEA being a part of a transmission company (TRANSCO) or
putting a line in. He opined that all of the transmission lines
should be part of a TRANSCO, including the Alaska Intertie. Mr.
Borgeson returned attention to the Healy Unit #1 and Unit #2
power plants (slide 9). Unit #2 is a 50 MW plant which will be
running in about two months; as part of the air permitting
process, GVEA agreed to install additional environmental
controls which will require two additional years of
construction, although the plant will be able to run during the
two-year period. The plant was purchased from the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), DCCED, in
2012 or 2013 (slide 10).
10:43:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked whether the proposed Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) carbon dioxide (CO2) emission
regulations would impact the production of the coal-fired plant.
MR. BORGESON stated that the proposed EPA regulations identified
five plants in Alaska that would be subject to the new
regulation. Not included are the North Pole Expansion Plant
that runs on naphtha, and oil-fired plants. Included in the
proposed regulation are Healy Unit #1, and four others. The
regulations call for a 26 percent reduction in emissions, some
of which can be accomplished by closing the Beluga and
Southcentral plants which are less efficient. Unit #2 was not
included as a base unit and is "in transition in between the
rules;" however, to comply with the proposed regulations,
increased efficiency will be required and GVEA is concerned
about Unit #1 being shut down, which will raise the cost of
electricity. He opined that shutting down a coal plant in
Alaska and burning more diesel does not improve the CO2 limits.
10:46:45 AM
CO-CHAIR COLVER asked how ratepayers will be affected by the
"regulatory morass."
MR. BORGESON acknowledged that there is a cost to regulation;
GVEA has two staff members and also uses consultants to respond
to regulations and other work required by RCA.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL questioned which generation source will be
displaced when Healy Unit #2 is online.
MR. BORGESON answered that Healy Unit #2 will displace some oil-
fired power, and gas-generated power from the south. In further
response to Representative Wool, he explained that the cost of
power from Healy will be very close to the cost of power from
CEA, ML&P, and HEA, but Healy will provide stability - a long-
term low-cost coal supply - while the price of oil will
fluctuate along with the price of gas from Cook Inlet.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL surmised if fees, rates, or tariffs to move
electricity from a gas-fired plant in the south were less, the
power from Healy would be more expensive.
MR. BORGESON advised that the cost of transmission will be
spread out amongst all six of the Railbelt utilities; therefore,
what will be gained from one transmission rate will be economic
dispatch; in fact, under certain circumstances, the power from
the coal plant may be cheaper than the gas- or oil-fired power.
Economic dispatch will allow the utilities to more efficiently
dispatch all of the types of generation and thereby gain
significant savings.
10:51:20 AM
A video describing operations at the GVEA dispatch center was
shown from 10:51 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.
10:56:01 AM
MR. BORGESON advised that dispatching power creates big savings
for GVEA; furthermore, an independent system operator (ISO) or a
unified system operator (USO) for the Railbelt would dispatch
generation from all of the utilities, and savings would be
significant (slides 11 and 12). Although some power plants may
be shut down for periods of time, the savings would be enough to
keep staff as needed and to save members money. He then
provided a brief history of the transmission system in the
Railbelt, noting that prior to construction of the Alaska
Intertie in the 1980s, the system was not connected. The Alaska
Intertie allowed GVEA to benefit from gas in the Cook Inlet
(slide 13). In the 1990s, the system became more robust around
the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, and GVEA added a
transmission line to the Fort Knox gold mine, which was possible
because of the Alaska Intertie (slide 14). In the 2000s,
improvements to the Railbelt system were: GVEA built the
Northern Intertie with money provided by the legislature; GVEA
installed the battery energy storage system (BESS) to stabilize
the long transmission line; the Strategic Missile Defense System
line was installed; Alyeska became electrified by Pump Station
#9; Pogo gold mine transmission line was installed; North Pole
to Carney transmission line was installed (slide 15). However,
the transmission system needs further improvement, and forming a
TRANSCO and a USO are key to finding financing and a solution.
An upcoming project is adding a substation at Clear Air Force
Station for a four MW system and backup generation. Also, GVEA
is part of the Alaska Railbelt Cooperative Electric &
Transmission Company (ARCTEC) and supports a USO or ISO; all six
Railbelt utilities have signed onto guiding principles of a
Railbelt TRANSCO agreement in conjunction with the American
Transmission Company.
11:01:19 AM
CO-CHAIR COLVER asked when the aforementioned agreement was
signed.
MR. BORGESON responded the agreement was about four months old
(slide 16). He turned attention to GVEA's efforts to purchase
power from Fire Island Wind LLC, Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI).
The cost to buy power coming from phase 2 of the wind farm and
across the undersea cable was about $2.81 per MW hour just for
operation and maintenance cost, because the construction of the
cable was by a state grant. The power was then to travel via
CEA's system for an interruptible tariff rate modeled at $11.
An interruptible rate was a concern for GVEA because it may have
to pay for wind power even if the transmission system to
Fairbanks were down. At that point, the firm cost was estimated
to be $43 per MW hour. The power was then to go to Matanuska
Electric (MEA) which was to shape and schedule the wind power,
along with some Bradley Lake hydropower, for a wheeling cost of
$2.17, plus operation and maintenance cost of $7.59; therefore,
the worst case was that the power would cost $204 per MW hour,
and at the very least $140 per MW hour to Fairbanks. He pointed
out that some of the cost was for the regulation of wind costs
by MEA's Wartsila cycling engines. Although GVEA has a good
working relationship with CIRC, CIRI was extremely disappointed
by GVEA's decision not to purchase its wind power from phase 2
of the Fire Island Wind Project (slide 17). In response to Co-
Chair Colver, Mr. Borgeson said AEA charges about $6 per MW hour
for operation and maintenance.
CO-CHAIR COLVER questioned why there is not the same problem
when transmitting gas-generated power from CEA.
MR. BORGESON explained the problem is the same when CEA sells
power, although it can "net out the wheeling costs," but GVEA
still has to pay the Alaska Intertie cost, thus when CEA is
$100-$105 per MW hour there are some transmission tariff costs
included. Power sold to GVEA from ML&P includes costs from the
Alaska Intertie and also the CEA wheeling cost. A TRANSCO would
establish one price.
CO-CHAIR COLVER inquired as to whether there is a pathway to get
all of the parties together, or if it is necessary for CEA "to
take the lead ..."
MR. BORGESON acknowledged that CEA has taken the lead and has
completed a significant amount of work; in fact, the utilities
are moving forward with the American Transmission Company.
CO-CHAIR COLVER asked whether MEA's new gas-fired system will be
competitive with wind.
MR. BORGESON said negotiating with MEA was a problem because
costs were estimated conservatively; after two years, MEA will
have a better idea about its costs. In addition, there may be
competition from ML&P and CEA. He pointed out that the proposed
wind was 20 MW with a 30 percent capacity factor; although the
Railbelt needs this energy, Anchorage utilities' gas prices are
now low, and the wind power was expensive. Mr. Borgeson closed,
saying that GVEA feels that electric costs have impacts to the
community and to mining development in the state, and thus is
"embracing this TRANSCO and independent system operator."
11:11:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL remarked:
So, in looking at your diagram from the Fire Island
Wind and all of the expenses and fees ... if you're
embracing TRANSCO then a lot of this, a lot of these
problems, there are fees, but it won't be, it'll be
easier to do, cheaper.
MR. BORGESON agreed there will be fees, and all of the costs for
transmission in the entire Railbelt seem to equal about $46
million-$47 million per year; when divided amongst all of the
kilowatt hours sold, there will be "losers and winners in the
transmission cost." For example, a utility with a lot of
generation and little transmission is going to pay more, but the
savings comes with having one price which leads to economic
dispatch. All of the utilities are modeling the economics.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL observed this problem has not been solved in
the past and asked whether the situation is different now.
MR. BORGESON opined this has changed: CEA, ML&P, and GVEA used
to generate the electricity; over the past two years, HEA and
MEA have begun generation. This has made the rules,
regulations, and management of the system more dynamic.
11:14:36 AM
The committee took an at ease from 11:14 a.m. to 11:21 a.m.
^PRESENTATION: ALASKA RAILBELT COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC and
TRANSMISSION COMPANY
PRESENTATION: ALASKA RAILBELT COOPERATIVE ELECTRIC and
TRANSMISSION COMPANY
11:21:23 AM
CO-CHAIR COLVER announced that the final order of business would
be a presentation by the Alaska Railbelt Cooperative Electric &
Transmission Company.
11:21:32 AM
DAVID GILLESPIE, CEO, Alaska Railbelt Cooperative Electric &
Transmission Company (ARCTEC), provided a PowerPoint
presentation entitled "Grid Restructuring and Open Access," and
dated 2/12/15. He informed the committee the utility industry
is facing many changes and exciting challenges. Mr. Gillespie
explained that ARCTEC was formed by four of the largest
cooperatives in the Railbelt to advance issues of common
concern. Unlike the Alaska Power Association (APA), ARCTEC is
focused on the Railbelt and issues associated with its
interconnected grid. He gave a brief personal history on his
experience in the industry (slide 3). Mr. Gillespie explained
that ARCTEC's mission is to deliver reliable and sustainable
energy to its customers at the lowest possible cost, with an
obligation to serve all who are connected to its system;
furthermore, the Railbelt transmission system was built for the
foregoing purpose, and ARCTEC has no shareholders, only members
(slide 4). Action must be taken to address the Railbelt
transmission system for the following reasons: hundreds of
millions of dollars are lost each year in the form of uneconomic
dispatch - economic dispatch is the simple concept of using the
cheapest energy available; it is difficult to build projects
that have regional benefits; despite the Public Utility
Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) and the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA), independent power producers (IPPs) have
difficulties getting projects developed; reliability standards
are not uniformly adopted; there is no entity responsible for
implementing an integrated plan (slide 5).
11:26:20 AM
MR. GILLESPIE said there are two problems: a lack of transfer
capability prevents cheap power from going where it is needed,
and there is no structure because the utilities are separate
(slide 6). First turning to the structural problem, he
explained that each utility has an obligation to its members,
thus each have transmission charges, there is little system-wide
planning, and there are competing priorities. Furthermore, the
system cannot deliver existing or new sources of generation.
The system is complicated, which leads to frustration and an
atmosphere of mistrust (slide 7). Mr. Gillespie acknowledged
many points in agreement with the Alaska Independent Power
Producers Association (AIPPA), except for its support of
proposed legislation. Instead of legislation, he suggested
relying on RCA for implementing new regulations. Additional
points of agreement are fair and nondiscriminatory access, open
access to an independent system operator (ISO), a unified system
operator (USO), or a transmission company (TRANSCO), and
measured outcomes (slide 8). He remarked:
The message with the slide is, everybody already
agrees on what we need to do, let's talk about how we
get there.
MR. GILLESPIE stated the first guiding principle for a USO is
stakeholder governance.
11:30:11 AM
CO-CHAIR COLVER asked whether a TRANSCO would be a separate
corporation with shareholders or board members from the
utilities, and representation from IPPs.
MR. GILLESPIE advised that normally a system operator is a
nonprofit entity with members who are the stakeholders. The
members are utilities, IPPs, and customers, but the board is not
dominated by utilities. He returned to the guiding principles
of a USO: governance by RCA and a regulatory compact; accepts
nationally recognized reliability standards; accepts
interconnection standards; plans system upgrades; provides
nondiscriminatory access and service; provides economic
dispatch; respects existing agreements and investments (slide
9).
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked how previous agreements would be
recognized.
MR. GILLESPIE provided the example of a utility that is now
generating power and in the future may have its investment
"stranded" because the generation is not as heavily in demand.
Instead, a utility's investment should continue to be recovered
in rates because its generation is still useful. Mr. Gillespie
said ARCTEC's objectives are to capture the economic benefits
through better integration, economic dispatch, more efficient
use of the transmission system, and opportunities for IPPs. He
acknowledged that IPPs provide service, accept risk, are
innovative, and are lower cost. Also, there needs to be
coordinated planning, an efficient use of capital, a regulatory
framework that is understandable, transparent, and stable, and a
regulatory regime overseen by RCA (slide 10). The role for
ARCTEC is to act as a catalyst that provides a venue for change,
and to provide a forum for stakeholders.
11:36:50 AM
CO-CHAIR COLVER surmised that ARCTEC was not waiting for a study
that will be coming from RCA on the system operator concept.
MR. GILLESPIE said no. Although RCA will be opening an
informational docket in the near future seeking information on
this process, ARCTEC intends to garner consensus on a proposal
to submit to RCA for implementation. Returning to ARCTEC's
role, he said ARCTEC can ultimately provide services to a USO
such as settlement services, accounting, and energy clearing
(slide 11). He turned to the difference between a USO and a
TRANSCO: a USO would establish and implement a set of rules; a
TRANSCO would own and operate assets, deploy capital, and
implement policy (slide 12). Further differences are: a USO
does not own assets, and a TRANSCO does; a USO makes and
enforces rules, a TRANSCO follows the rules; a USO is
stakeholder governed, with diverse management, a TRANSCO is
governed by its owners; both entities have regulated tariffs; a
USO provides planning for the transmission system, a TRANSCO
implements the transmission system; a USO is always nonprofit, a
TRANSCO is usually a for-profit entity; a USO is a policy and
rulemaking body, a TRANSCO is an operating body (slide 13). Mr.
Gillespie observed that ARCTEC's focus is primarily on a USO,
because it is possible to have either a USO or a TRANSCO, but it
is better to have both.
11:40:48 AM
MR. GILLESPIE continued to infrastructure financing: The
transmission infrastructure in Alaska needs further development
to achieve the economic benefits that come from economic
dispatch; however, the state has granted money for
infrastructure in the past, and cooperatives are not financially
capable of supporting large new debt for capital projects. In
fact, recent generation projects have consumed the debt capacity
that utilities have; in addition, the state is less able to fund
large projects. Finally, no one has been responsible for "the
big picture," such as the constrained transmission system from
the Kenai Peninsula to Fairbanks (slide 14).
CO-CHAIR COLVER referred to slide 15, which listed three
projects, and said he understood a section at Willow was still
constrained as well.
MR. GILLESPIE responded that the projects on slide 15 are a
partial list of projects being done in sections, and which
represent $30 million of $100 million left to do. Also shown
was the Susitna-Watana Hydro project, which ARCTEC believes
should be funded by the state through licensing (slide 15). He
then advised that there are different methods for financing
infrastructure and transmission projects (slide 16):
· Funding by the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project model
wherein the state bonds a project and the users of the
project - in this case the utilities - pay the debt service
through their electric rates.
· TRANSCO owners can bring private capital.
· Existing state assets can be restructured or refinanced.
· Public/private investment and loans backed by the state's
credit.
· Other nontraditional methods.
MR. GILLESPIE concluded that the Railbelt utilities agree with
the need to implement the USO concept, thus the legislature
should encourage a stakeholder process presided over by RCA.
Also, ARCTEC would like to be the catalyst to "make that
happen." Finally, the state should encourage alternative forms
of financing in order to enhance infrastructure and generate
economic activity (slide 17).
11:47:38 AM
CO-CHAIR COLVER asked for ARCTEC's recommendation on the next
step to implementation of the concepts of an ISO and a TRANSCO,
and whether legislative action is appropriate at this time.
MR. GILLESPIE opined the next step is to continue the efforts to
begin the groundwork on a USO and a TRANSCO. Soon, RCA will
release its opinion on its jurisdiction in this matter; if the
answer is no, RCA may need enabling legislation, which ARCTEC
will request from the legislature "in the next month or so."
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL surmised that ARCTEC is in a USO position at
this point, and a TRANSCO is a yet-to-be-determined holding
company that would own, operate, and maintain the transmission
lines.
MR. GILLESPIE agreed, and restated that six utilities have
"signed on to a set of [memorandum of understanding] MOU
principles which is moving the ball forward on that, on that
front." In further response to Representative Wool, he added
that a USO is about the rules, enforcement, and standards, and a
TRANSCO is about implementing. He clarified that ARCTEC is not
yet a TRANSCO.
11:50:53 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 11:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2015-02-12 - HENE - ARCTEC Presentation to House Energy Committee Feb 2015.ppt |
HENE 2/12/2015 10:15:00 AM |
|
| 2015-02-12 - HENE - Agenda.pdf |
HENE 2/12/2015 10:15:00 AM |
|
| 2015-02-12 - HENE - GVEA Presentation to House Energy Committee Feb 2015.pdf |
HENE 2/12/2015 10:15:00 AM |
|
| 2015-02-12 - HENE - GVEA Presentation to House Energy Committee Feb 2015.ppt.pptx |
HENE 2/12/2015 10:15:00 AM |
|
| 2015-02-12 - HENE - ARCTEC Presentation to House Energy Committee Feb 2015.pdf |
HENE 2/12/2015 10:15:00 AM |