Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
01/26/2012 03:00 PM House ENERGY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Status of Aea Projects, Specifically the Susitna Project, by the Alaska Energy Authority (aea) | |
| 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
January 26, 2012
3:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Lance Pruitt, Co-Chair
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Pete Petersen
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: STATUS OF AEA PROJECTS~ SPECIFICALLY THE SUSITNA
PROJECT~ BY THE ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY (AEA)
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
SARA FISHER-GOAD, Executive Director
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation
on the status of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project.
WAYNE DYOK, Lead Project Manager
Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project," dated 1/26/12,
and answered questions.
BRIAN BJORKQUIST, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Labor and State Affairs Section
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the presentation
on the status of the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project by the
Alaska Energy Authority.
MICHAEL SWIGER, Attorney at Law
Van Ness Feldman, P.C.
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions in his capacity as the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing attorney
on contract to the Alaska Energy Authority for the Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:04:24 PM
CO-CHAIR NEAL FOSTER called the House Special Committee on
Energy meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. Representatives Foster,
Pruitt, Olson, Saddler, Petersen, and Tuck were present at the
call to order. Representative Lynn arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
^PRESENTATION: Status of AEA Projects, Specifically the Susitna
Project, by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
PRESENTATION: Status of AEA Projects, Specifically the Susitna
Project, by the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
3:05:37 PM
CO-CHAIR FOSTER announced that the only order of business would
be a presentation on the status of Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
Projects, specifically the Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project,
and he introduced Sara Fisher-Goad, Executive Director of AEA.
3:06:16 PM
SARA FISHER-GOAD, Executive Director, AEA, Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED), introduced
staff members and reviewed the qualifications of the Susitna-
Watana Hydroelectric Project manager, Wayne Dyok.
3:07:51 PM
WAYNE DYOK, Lead Project Manager, Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric
Project, AEA, DCCED, said he would provide a synopsis of the
project, brief comments on the progress of the past year, and
plans for the future. He began a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project," dated 1/26/12.
Slide 1 was a map of the project location and its proximity to
the Anchorage/Fairbanks Electrical Intertie. The project is
located at river mile (RM) 184 on the Susitna River above Devils
Canyon. The proposed dam is approximately 700 feet high with a
reservoir 39 miles long and 2 miles wide at the widest. The
project will provide about 50 percent of the Railbelt electrical
demand by a capacity of 600 megawatts (MWs) and an annual
average energy production of 2,500,000 megawatt hours (MWhs).
The project's life will exceed 100 years, and it will provide
long-term and stable electric rates. Slide 2 illustrated the
project location relative to river miles, and he pointed out
that the middle river area from RM 98 to RM 184 will be the most
impacted. Studies will also be conducted on the lower river
area from RM 98 to RM 0. Slide 3 was a map that showed three
proposed access corridors: the Denali corridor from north to
south; the Chulitna corridor north of the Susitna River; and the
Gold Creek corridor south of the Susitna River. The access
corridor will house the access road and transmission line.
Slide 4 was a map of the project area including the dam,
powerhouse, reservoir, roads, camps, air strip, and quarry
areas. Slide 5 illustrated the conceptual site plan of the dam,
upstream and downstream diversion structures, roads, and the
flow-through area for the river during construction. Mr. Dyok
stated that the primary operating objectives of the project are:
maximize firm power generation from November to April; generate
power while meeting the minimum flows required for environmental
purposes; maximize power generation from May to October; and
generate power to meet the electrical Railbelt demand. Slide 7
was a graph that showed the fluctuation during a typical 24-hour
period of the anticipated Railbelt energy demand in 2025. The
project seeks to provide a load-following mode that allows on-
line gas-fired plants and other electrical generation to run on
a constant, cost-effective basis.
3:13:56 PM
MR. DYOK continued to explain that this mode of operation is
dependent upon the results of the environmental studies such as
the amount of water needed when salmon are spawning. The
average daily power generation is anticipated to be 250 MW;
however, the advantage of hydroelectric (hydro) power is the
flexibility and responsiveness to energy demand, and in an
emergency the system could run at 600 MW "for whatever it is
that we need" as long as there is no violation of environmental
requirements established for the dam.
3:15:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK understood this is an expandable dam and
asked for the reasons not to build the "full dam" now.
MR. DYOK explained that the primary reasons are cost and the
existing demand of the system. A study this year will determine
the optimum size of the dam; in fact, it is not unusual to build
a dam and then raise the height at some point in the future. At
this time the agency is anticipating that one-half of the energy
needed can be accommodated. He acknowledged that this is taking
a relatively conservative approach as AEA forecasted a decline
in demand in the near future due to conservation, and then
increases of .5 percent per year until 2023.
3:17:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK opined the demand should be built for future
- not current - demand because more industry and development
will come to the state. He asked how much more the full dam
will cost and why gas turbines are a factor to consider.
MR. DYOK explained that combustion turbines and combined-cycle
units for electrical generation need to keep running at a
constant level to be efficient. The goal of the project is for
maximum flexibility for the Railbelt utilities. In further
response to Representative Tuck, Mr. Dyok said AEA intends to
use energy from the project in the system first, and generation
from gas-fired turbines will be added to meet peak demand. Thus
the hydro project is run to meet the varying load and the gas-
fired units are run at a constant level.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said, "I would think that we would like to
be able to make gas turbines obsolete through hydro power."
He expressed his belief that limiting the size of hydro projects
to only meet current demand may be catering to the oil and gas
industry, and he reminded the committee of the state's policy to
generate 50 percent of its energy by renewable sources by 2025.
He cautioned against losing the vision of "building the big
dam."
3:21:09 PM
MR. DYOK explained AEA's feasibility report, which will be
available at the end of this year, will define a study area
including all of the different elevations and "will have all
this information laid out" so an informed decision can be made.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN assumed the proposed dam will be engineered
to allow for future expansion.
MR. DYOK explained that the powerhouse is sited at the
downstream end and will accommodate expansion; in addition, the
roller-compacted concrete (RCC) construction allows for access
to the back side of the dam where an additional 180 feet could
be added.
3:23:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether wind power could also be
easily integrated with hydro power.
MR. DYOK said yes. The project can utilize wind energy that is
available; in fact, hydroelectric generation allows improved
integration of wind projects.
MS. FISHER-GOAD added that AEA is working with the Railbelt
utilities in order to develop a wind integration study and
maximize the renewable power that is available.
CO-CHAIR PRUITT assumed that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) application filed by AEA will include several
different options regarding the size of the project.
3:25:13 PM
MR. DYOK said AEA filed a preliminary application document that
allows full flexibility, although the goal is to make a decision
as to the size of the dam by the end of 2012. If AEA chooses
the smaller project, but later decides to build the larger one,
it must file a license amendment.
MS. FISHER-GOAD, in response to Co-Chair Pruitt, said the
decision will be made by the team, which is led by Mr. Dyok, and
includes the AEA Board of Directors, Ms. Fisher-Goad, and the
administration.
3:27:00 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT surmised AEA has the authority, along with the
administration, to make the determination without further
legislation.
MS. FISHER-GOAD assured the committee the process will involve
the legislature because it must authorize funding after the plan
is recommended by AEA and the administration.
CO-CHAIR PRUITT clarified that for the purpose of filing for the
FERC permit by the end of the year, AEA will proceed.
3:28:40 PM
MR. DYOK summarized the accomplishments made in 2011. The
project office was opened in the fall and highly-qualified staff
members were hired. He described the expertise of the
engineering, environmental, and legal consultants who were
contracted. A data-gap analysis of environmental information
was completed by looking at all of the environmental data that
was compiled in the '80s, to determine what information is still
needed. Mapping of the Susitna River drainage was done,
although not a lot of new geotechnical drilling was necessary.
On 10/27/11, AEA filed its preliminary permit application with
FERC and continued its public outreach by consulting with
stakeholders and holding agency workshops, a site visit with
FERC, and presentations. Mr. Dyok advised the most notable
accomplishment was filing the pre-application document with FERC
on 12/29/11, which included a description of the status of the
project's engineering, proposals for working with participants,
and information on environmental studies. Slide 9 entitled,
"Licensing Status," indicated the federal government and AEA
have made critical contacts with Alaska Native entities
regarding cultural issues and land ownership; the FERC scoping
document will be issued 2/27/12; and the FERC scoping meetings
will be held from 3/27/12-3/30/12.
3:33:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for further information on the
federal government's meetings with Alaska Native entities.
MR. DYOK explained that FERC and the federal government consider
this contact to be government-to-government because they
recognize tribes "using the Lower 48 terminology."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER pointed out this raises questions of
sovereignty. Mr. Dyok deferred further questions to Mr.
Bjorkquist.
3:34:15 PM
BRIAN BJORKQUIST, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Labor and
State Affairs Section, Department of Law, advised that a
government to government obligation arises from FERC's federal
requirements. Using Lower 48 parameters, tribal entities are
villages, but not the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA) corporations, or the ANCSA village corporations. In
further response to Representative Saddler, he said one example
is the Native village of Cantwell, and another is Chickaloon
village, but not the ANCSA Chickaloon-Moose Creek Native
Association, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN heard a land dispute between Cook Inlet
Region, Inc. (CIRI) and Nililchik Native Village Association,
Inc. may slow the project.
MR. BJORKQUIST advised that CIRI obtained title to certain lands
involved in the project at the dam site and reservoir, and also
to land in the proposed transmission and transportation
corridors. Under ANCSA, CIRI is under obligations to convey the
surface estate of certain lands to the ANCSA village
corporations. Also, ongoing ANCSA obligations will grant
entitlements to some village corporations for title to
additional land. He said title issues present obligations to
negotiate with the landowners appropriate rights to develop the
project, but will not necessarily create barriers to the
project; in fact, AEA will begin direct negotiations of rights
in earnest in the next week or so.
3:38:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked whether Mr. Bjorkquist was aware
of other pending Native allotment cases that may affect the
planning of the project.
MR. BJORKQUIST understood there are Native allotments located in
the vicinity of the road and transmission corridors, but not in
the project; however, efforts will be made to avoid these areas
if possible.
3:39:00 PM
MR. DYOK returned to slide 9 and noted the next important
deadline is 6/11/12 when AEA will file detailed study plans with
FERC. Beginning early in 2012, the agency will conduct a number
of field studies to glean basic information from resource
agencies and others relevant to the FERC application. The
engineering studies will start with 56 years of data from the
U.S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey Susitna
River at Gold Creek gauging station. This data will help to
understand the hydrology of the area and the effect of climate
change on the flow of the river, and to estimate the number of
megawatt hours that will be generated from the project. Data
from AEA's Railbelt Integrated Resource Plan (RIRP) will be
updated for further planning. Also, AEA will design for
different elevations and for the sizing of the units, and will
explore transmission system reliability, stability modeling, and
upgrades to the existing intertie. He noted that "great data"
already exists on the geotechnical investigations. Important to
AEA and FERC is the early formation of the board of engineering
consultants so it can assist with decisions. Presently,
construction cost estimate updates are Level 4 of the Cost
Estimate Classification System, thus estimates are still in a
wide range rather than in specific numbers. Lastly, AEA will
work hard to complete the feasibility report in 2012.
3:43:29 PM
MR. DYOK then presented slide 11 entitled, "2012 Environmental
Studies," which are: studies on understanding sediment
transport; ice and changes in the temperature of the river;
project operations and engineering affected by ice and water
quality; fisheries; wildlife; botanical and the location of
wetlands; cultural resources; and recreation.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to geotechnical drilling work
done in the '80s that is still valuable. He asked whether there
is residual value in previous environmental work.
MR. DYOK opined there is great value in that that information
will help AEA look at trends, but significant money must be
spent to understand the situation today. In further response to
Representative Saddler, he anticipated little savings except in
cultural resources and other static subjects. Slide 12
entitled, "Susitna-Watana Schedule," was a chart of tasks and
their timelines. Item 1 was to file the Notice of Intent (NO1)
and Pre-Application Document (PAD); Item 2 was to complete the
Level 4 cost estimate; Item 3 was to conduct informal studies;
and Item 4 was the FERC approval of 2013 and 2014 study plans,
which is anticipated on November 30, 2012. Continuing, he said
Item 5 was the completed engineering feasibility study and Item
6 was a "check-in" with the legislature. After the first draft
of the study plan in June 2012, AEA will have a good idea of the
cost of all of the studies. Item 7 was a legislative
appropriation for licensing/final design, and Item 8 was a
possible appropriation for additional state investment in the
project. Mr. Dyok pointed out the goal is to file the license
application in September, 2015. Prior to filing, AEA seeks to
achieve a settlement with stakeholders such as the resource
agencies, Alaska Native entities, and nongovernment
organizations (NGOs). Item 12 was to negotiate power sales
agreements with Railbelt utilities, and Item 13 was the final
engineering design which will begin by the middle of next year.
After the application is filed, FERC will begin its processing
and will prepare its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
document. If a license is issued in January 2017, construction
will begin immediately and finish in 2023. Finally, AEA is
beginning plans for financing the project by discussions with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Utility Services
(RUS), because interest rates are very low at the present time.
3:51:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN questioned whether the project will meet
the state's energy policy goal of 2025.
MR. DYOK assured the committee AEA will proceed as quickly as
possible while still following the guidelines of the FERC
integrated licensing process for new projects. He said he
expected AEA will meet the schedule; in fact, AEA is taking on
the burden of getting all the information to FERC to facilitate
a timely filing.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired as to AEA's efforts to make the
case to Alaskans on the financial benefits.
MR. DYOK acknowledged AEA has more work to do on this element of
the project. Studies should show benefits such as the cost of
power, construction jobs, and low-cost energy for future
generations.
3:53:56 PM
MS. FISHER-GOAD added that part of the issue in 2012 is making
sure that AEA has a Level 4 cost estimate. More detailed cost
estimates and further modeling on the size of the project will
help "sell the case with respect that this is ... a project that
will provide a long-term, stable cost of power for the Railbelt
region."
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER supported finding the benefits of the
project as part of the message to people.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK would like to help promote the dam because
it is an exciting project. Natural gas and oil prices are
volatile and he is "a big fan of hydro." He asked for
clarification on whether the deadline on the decision to either
build the big dam or the expandable one is December, 2012.
3:56:45 PM
MR. DYOK said AEA would like to make the decision for the FERC
application by the end of 2012 to avoid the challenge of a
change "down the road." He opined the following year there will
be more environmental information but the engineering
information will be sufficient in 2012, except for information
on load-growth. The goal is to make the decision next year -
although it is possible to wait one or two years - however, when
AEA begins work on the FERC application, the decision should be
made. He displayed slide 12 entitled, "Susitna-Watana
Schedule," that indicated preparing and filing the license
application is scheduled for the middle of 2013. An early
decision is preferred, but is not required until the application
is started, and then "you really need to freeze the design at
that point."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether there is an opportunity to
expand the project in the middle of the FERC filing process, or
if "we have to start all over with FERC."
MR. DYOK said no because the preliminary application document
includes alternatives, but the timing of the filing will slow if
there are changes. In further response to Representative Tuck,
he said FERC will issue a license to build the project as
applied for and modified by any constraints placed by FERC.
During the construction - if a decision is made to expand to the
larger dam - a license amendment will be filed that would not
stop construction, even though approval of the change can be a
time-consuming process.
4:01:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled in 2009 AEA determined that the
higher dam would cost 22 percent more and would generate 200
percent more power. Furthermore, hydroelectric power has long-
term benefits, including rate stabilization, and the cost of
hydroelectric decreases with time, once the initial investment
is repaid. He questioned whether the fear of funding $8.4
billion will stop the full dam.
MS. FISHER-GOAD reminded the committee that AEA seeks a project
that will help the state meet its goal for renewable energy.
The right size of the dam is also determined by the projected
debt payments through a power sales agreement with the
utilities, and by the amount of power the Railbelt utilities can
purchase from the project. The power sales agreement and the
Railbelt utilities' interaction are important considerations.
4:04:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK urged AEA to continue to look at the larger
project.
CO-CHAIR FOSTER heard last year there was concern about the
public not being able to comment at the public scoping meetings,
and he asked about the format.
4:05:25 PM
MS. FISHER-GOAD reminded committee members that last year AEA
issued the preliminary decision document indicating that the
Susitna project should proceed. In February 2011, AEA held a
series of public meetings throughout the Railbelt using a
presentation format that did not encourage "open dialog."
Written questions were taken, but the public was not happy with
the format. At the end of August 2011, AEA held a site visit
with resource agencies that included a public meeting in
Talkeetna. During the meeting, about two and one-half hours
were spent by the team fielding questions and working through
issues that were raised by residents of the area. She said the
upcoming FERC public scoping meetings are another opportunity
for the public to provide comments.
4:07:17 PM
MR. DYOK explained that typically the FERC public scoping
meetings will have a presentation from the applicant on the
project, and then FERC will discuss its licensing and decision-
making process. Afterward, public comments of 3-5 minutes each
will be heard, although he will encourage the FERC manager to
ensure that everyone has a chance to speak. There is also an
opportunity to submit written comments to FERC for 30 days after
the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred back to the Susitna-Watana
Schedule on slide 12 and asked for a more detailed description
of the items.
4:09:09 PM
MR. DYOK responded that the pre-application document - also
called the pre-filing consultation - begins the licensing
process. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a formal
process to meet with participants and will develop the study
plans that have been filed 11 months previous. The following
year the studies will be completed, and the initial study report
will be submitted after meeting with all of the participants,
and FERC arbitrated any disputes. Thus in the two-year time
period, there will be one year of study and detailed reports
will be submitted to resource agencies - comments and
modifications will be addressed in the second year. Mr. Dyok
opined AEA will begin the application during the second year -
along with the confirmatory studies of 2012 and 2013 - because
after the first year of formal studies, negotiations with the
stakeholders to come to a settlement agreement will take place.
Item 14, the FERC National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
process, is scheduled for September 2015, and he estimated FERC
will take to the end of 2016 to complete its process, including
the draft and final environmental impact statement (EIS), and
issuance of the license. In response to Representative
Saddler's question about potential litigation, he deferred to
Mr. Swiger.
4:13:36 PM
MICHAEL SWIGER, Attorney at Law, Van Ness Feldman P.C., as
outside counsel to AEA on the project, advised that there is
always a possibility of litigation at the end of the process
after FERC has made its decision. There could be a challenge to
the issuance of the license, but a challenge to a FERC license
does not necessarily result in a stay of the license.
Hopefully, a challenge to the license will be avoided by meeting
all of the concerns that arise. The process for challenging a
FERC license is to petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and typically it takes two
years, so "at worst if someone challenged the FERC license, and
was able to get a stay of the license order, it might hold
things up for a couple of years."
4:16:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER confirmed that this would come at the end
of the process.
MR. SWIGER said yes, after the FERC process is concluded.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN questioned whether land acquired by
eminent domain would slow down construction of the dam.
4:17:15 PM
MR. SWIGER was unsure whether AEA has quick-take authority under
state law. If so, the quick-take provision of eminent domain
allows the land to be acquired immediately, and the cost is
litigated later. He pointed out that the conveyances to CIRI
were made subject to a power-site reservation which ensures the
right of reentry into formerly federal land to develop a hydro
project; therefore, eminent domain action will not be necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN, in response to Representative Tuck,
surmised the utilities might not want to buy 100 percent of
their power from the dam project because they are presently
investing in natural gas facilities that will be online for 35-
40 years with a 30-year payoff. He opined after those sources
of energy are gone, it makes sense to expand the dam.
4:19:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to page 20 of the "Susitna-Watana
Hydroelectric Project Report to the Legislature" provided in the
committee packet, and said one condition is that "one hundred
percent financing would be through bonds: no state investment."
The other condition is that "all energy will be sold and ... I
see that that could be a problem because ... we know that not
all energy will be sold." Further, he pointed out that the bond
rates are reported at 5 percent over a term of 50 years with no
contribution by the state; however, investment by the state
would garner better terms, and the state could defer to a 30- to
50-year payback. Representative Tuck said he understood the
financing issue presented by Ms. Fisher-Goad.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Ms. Fisher-Goad if AEA has
sufficient staff and resources for the work it is doing now.
MS. FISHER-GOAD acknowledged AEA has a small staff and that
authorization has been requested for some additional positions
for 2012, although with the addition of contractors, the
existing staff will be sufficient. In further response, to
Representative Saddler, she said there will be a need for
engineering and environmental assistant managers.
4:22:04 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT observed the present design calls for RCC
construction and asked whether this type of construction will
have an impact on the initial cost estimates.
MR. DYOK answered that RCC will allow for a smaller dam,
however, the construction schedule by MWH Global, Inc. (MWH),
one of AEA's consultants, remains the same and he does not know
of cost savings at this time. In further response to Co-Chair
Pruitt, he agreed that RCC makes the project easier to expand
because construction can take place while the dam is operating.
CO-CHAIR PRUITT asked whether AEA has looked for new industries
that will utilize power and thus bring the cost down.
MR. DYOK said the RIRP includes potential large mining projects
and other future demands for energy - but future demand is
really unknown - and the acquisition of turbines requires a lead
time of three to four years. He suggested there is a lack of
information from the utilities regarding load-growth.
4:26:09 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT questioned whether the estimated construction
timeline of 2017-2023 can be shortened.
MR. DYOK expressed his approval of the schedule prepared by MWH.
He warned that weather in Alaska can limit construction time and
access to the project must be arranged first. He opined the
schedule is optimistic and can be improved if the state acquires
stakeholder agreement and builds the access road. Mr. Dyok
asked for advice from counsel regarding building the access road
early.
4:29:53 PM
MR. SWIGER, responding to several questions from Co-Chair
Pruitt, advised that if the access road is part of a licensed
project it would not be built without the authority of the
license; however, if there is an independent justification for a
multi-purpose access road the state could go ahead. He
cautioned against work that could be deemed project construction
without a license.
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN observed this project will become a
tourist attraction.
4:32:00 PM
CO-CHAIR PRUITT asked whether AEA needs anything from the
legislature at this time.
MS. FISHER-GOAD suggested that legislators encourage public
participation by attending public scoping meetings and by
writing letters to FERC. There is no legislation or funding
needed now.
CO-CHAIR PRUITT commended AEA's direction and progress.
4:34:18 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 4:34 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AEA Susitna House Energy Presentation [Compatibility Mode].pdf |
HENE 1/26/2012 3:00:00 PM |
Susitna update AEA |