Legislature(2015 - 2016)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/19/2015 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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: Susitna-watana Dam - Administrative Order 271 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 19, 2015
9:03 a.m.
9:03:40 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair MacKinnon called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Anna MacKinnon, Co-Chair
Senator Pete Kelly, Co-Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Mike Dunleavy
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Sara Sarah Fisher-Goad, Executive Director, Alaska Energy
Authority, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development; Wayne Dyok, Project Manager, Alaska Energy
Authority, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development.
SUMMARY
^PRESENTATION: SUSITNA-WATANA DAM - ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
271
9:04:43 AM
SARA SARAH FISHER-GOAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENERGY
AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, introduced the presentation, "Susitna-Watana
Hydro." She recapped that the project had received $192
million in capital fund appropriations starting in FY 06,
and had, based on legislative direction, sought the
appropriate large hydro project in the Railbelt region. She
turned to Slide 2, "Project Status":
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Integrated Licensing Process
• Three Environmental Field Seasons Supporting
58 FERC-Approved Studies
• Filed Initial Study Report June, 2014
• 50 Tech Memos filed with FERC 2013-2014
• Engineering Feasibility Report Released
January 2015
• 60-Day Licensing Abeyance
9:08:04 AM
Ms. Fisher-Goad moved to Slide 3, "Project Funding":
• Funded total of $192 million through
Capital Fund appropriations
- FY09-11: $11.17 million (combination of
Railbelt Energy Fund and General Fund)
- FY12: $65.7 million (Railbelt Energy Fund)
- FY13: $0
- FY14: $95.2 million (General Fund)
- FY15: $20 million (General Fund)
9:08:38 AM
Ms. Fisher-Goad presented Slide 4, "Administrative Order
271":
• Dec. 26, 2014- AO 271 directs all State agencies to
halt to the maximum extent possible discretionary
expenditures for six projects, including Susitna-
Watana Hydro
• Summary of Project Funding ($thousands)
- State of Alaska appropriations $192,072.8
- Expenditures (as of 12.31.14) ($158,476)
- Total Non-Discretionary Encumbered Funds
($26,915.10)
- Balance of Authorized Funds $6,681.70
9:09:19 AM
Ms. Fisher-Goad continued to Slide 5, "Potential Paths".
The slide detailed what would be done with the remaining
unencumbered funds with the addition of work that could be
done with potential future funding as the project advanced
toward licensing:
Current Status
· Expenditures: (12.31.14) $158.5 million
· Encumbered Funds - $26.9 million
$6.6 million in Remaining Unencumbered Funds
· 28 Studies Completed
· Modeling
· Vegetation and Wildlife
· T-line Corridor Baseline
$10 million Additional Funds
· 36 Studies Complete
· Extensive Modeling
· Fisheries
· Botanical
· Limited Cultural Resources
$20 million Additional Funds
· 43 Studies Completed
· Instream Flow
· Water Quality and Geomorphic Modeling
· Additional Fisheries
License Application
· $100 million
· Complete All Studies
· License Application
· 404 Permit
· Water Quality Certification
· Biological Assessment
· Eagle Permitting
9:11:15 AM
Senator Bishop asked how long the FERC license would be
valid.
WAYNE DYOK, PROJECT MANAGER, ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
replied that construction had to begin within four years
after procurement of a FERC license. He added that the
timeline could be extended permanently through federal
legislation. He furthered that the original license was
good for 50 years, but reiterated that construction had to
begin within the first four years.
9:12:01 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether building 100 feet of road
could be considered construction.
Mr. Dyok responded that people have tried in the past to
get by with as little construction as possible, he believed
that FERC would require an effort that was not diminimus.
Senator Dunleavy asked how the state taking a year off from
spending would affect the project.
Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that currently the AEA was not
requesting for any additional funds to be appropriated.
Senator Dunleavy asked whether the project could move
forward as planned if the state were to clawback the $6.6
million and offer no additional expenditures for FY 16.
Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that she did not think that the
project could move forward as planned under those
circumstances. She said the clawback of the $6.6 million
would cause a "hard stop" of the project and would make it
difficult to move forward at a later date.
Senator Dunleavy wondered what would happen to the $26.9 in
encumbered funds.
Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that it was difficult to address
the question in light of the unknowns in the process toward
the license application. She said that the remaining
unencumbered funds would allow the state to keep equipment
in the field and maintain the momentum of the project.
Senator Dunleavy relayed that he was trying to fix the
state's revenue shortfall. He thought that all projects
should be scrutinized as to whether they really needed
funding in FY 16.
Ms. Fisher-Goad explained that without the $6.6 million in
unencumbered funds the project could not move forward in a
manner that would preserve the option to license the
project in the future. She reiterated that AEA was no
requesting additional funds in FY 16, but was asking for
funds that had already been appropriated for the project,
in order to maintain the momentum of the project.
Senator Dunleavy requested a definitive answer as to
whether the project would be dead without the $6.6 million
in unencumbered funds.
9:17:34 AM
Senator Hoffman asked for a timeframe of the funding
pathways represented on Slide 5.
Ms. Fisher-Goad answered that the anticipation was that
there would not be a request for additional funds until FY
18. She stated that AEA had met with FERC staff to discuss
the process forward given the state's fiscal climate; FERC
understood the investment and commitment that the state had
made in respect to the project and would exercise patience
as the state worked through its fiscal issues. She added
that in respect to the administrative order, AEA believed
that it could continue to work forward incrementally on the
project, without additional funding, while continuing to
preserve the option to license.
9:19:42 AM
Senator Hoffman asked when the cash calls would occur for
the additional funding listed on Slide 5 for the license
application. He wondered whether the requests would be
general funds, or were there other expected revenue
sources.
Ms. Fisher-Goad reiterated that additional funds would not
be sought until FY 18. She elaborated that railroad energy
and general funds had already been received for the
project. She thought that the current financial situation
was an opportunity to explore other potential funding
options for licensing.
9:21:01 AM
Senator Bishop asked how much money had been spent in the
1980's on the project.
Ms. Fisher-Goad replied $140 million.
Senator Bishop asked whether the FERC license has a value
that could be assigned to it, and whether the license was
transferrable with the value assigned to it.
Mr. Dyok responded that it was hard to quantify the value
of the license, but that the state could consider selling
sometime in the future. He did not believe that there was
any value until the license was officially procured. He
thought that once the state got the license, it would be
easier to bring in partners to help develop the project.
9:22:19 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether the $10 million and $20
million listed on slide 5 were cumulative, and whether
there would be 36 independent studies and then 43
additional studies.
Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that the $20 million would pay for
the 43 studies.
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that the steps were not
incremental, but were options that the legislature could
choose from. She surmised that AEA was advising that $100
million was needed in order to reach the licensing, the $10
million and $20 million were interim steps that could move
the project forward.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that projections of what could be
done with half of the requested funding could be provided.
9:23:50 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked how many people were employed
working on the projects, including contractors.
Ms. Fisher-Goad said that she could get back to the
committee on the specific number of employees. She stated
that in the 2013 and 2014 field seasons, there were over
200 people employed in the field alone.
Mr. Dyok added there were approximately 70 different
contractors currently working on the project. He offered
that there had been approximately 700 employees working in
the field over the past three years.
9:25:45 AM
Ms. Fisher-Goad presented Slide 6, "Project Cost Range,"
and noted that over $150 million that had already been
expended on the project for field seasons and data
collection. She made note of the unprecedented effort in
the licensing effort. She spoke to the slide, which
illustrated that the base estimate for the project cost
range was $5.6 billion.
9:27:20 AM
Ms. Fisher-Goad moved to slide 7, "Comparing 3 Finance
Options," and shared that AEA had been working with a
financial advising form that specialized in very large
projects:
• Bond & RUS Financing
- $0.064/kWh 50 year average real price
• All Bond Financing
- $0.073/kWh 50 year average real price
• State Loan & RUS
- Similar to Bradley Lake model
- $0.037/kWh 50 year average real price
Ms. Fisher-Goad emphasized that AEA was examining financing
options that would provide a reasonable cost of power and
were not looking to the state to grant fund the project.
9:28:39 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked whether there was a formula or
program being used to evaluate different economic
strategies using different variables.
Ms. Fisher-Goad replied that there was not a simple
spreadsheet that could provide that information, and that
there was a connection between the way the project would
operate through model and engineering work and the
financing options. She said that the models that were used
to evaluate different scenarios were complicated.
Senator Dunleavy explained that he was trying to understand
the financing options for the $7 billion project. He
asserted that the public equated the project with cheap
electricity, which might not be the case under certain
financing options.
9:30:31 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon clarified that the price for the project
was $5.6 billion and not $7 billion.
Ms. Fisher-Goad offered to have the project's financial
advisor walk through the financing options at a later date.
She added that the bond financing for the Bradly Lake
Hydroelectric Plant model involved a power sales agreement
with the utilities that purchased the power, those
utilities were committed to paying the debt service, which
was incorporated into rates for the customer. She said that
a more detailed description of the various options could be
provided at a later date.
9:31:56 AM
Ms. Fisher-Goad presented slide 8, "Economic Impact":
• Majority Alaska Hire
- 65% Alaskans employed
- Capitalizing on Pacific Northwest hydroelectric
experience while maintaining Alaska Hire
• In 2014, nearly $7 million earned in Alaska wages
• In 2013, $6 million spent in goods and services in
the Mat-Su Valley
9:33:08 AM
Mr. Dyok presented Slide 9, "Environmental Study Process,"
and noted that there were four phases to the process:
· Study Plan Development
• Study Implementation
Phase
• Impact Assessment
• Development of
Protection, Mitigation and
Enhancement Measures
(PMEs)
Mr. Dyok relayed that although AEA had not completed the
last two bullet points on the slide, he was going to draw
conclusions from the data that had already been collected
in order to give the committee a taste of what would come
in the future.
9:34:13 AM
Mr. Dyok moved to Slide 10, "2014: Safe and Effective Field
Work":
• More than 200 in the field, with one recordable
incidents
• Completed data collection for 13 FERC-approved
studies
- Water Quality, Bioaccumulation of Mercury
- Ice Processes, Glacier and Runoff Changes
- Salmon Escapement, Aquatic Habitat
Characterization, Fish Passage Barriers
- Large Carnivores, Terrestrial Furbearers, Bat,
Wood Frog
- Subsistence
- Probable Maximum Flood
9:34:51 AM
Mr. Dyok moved to Slide 11, "Understanding the Susitna
Basin," explaining that the work that had been done, to
date, had identified environmental issues and expanded the
state of knowledge that would allow the agencies to do a
better job managing resources, with particular emphasis on
fish and wildlife data:
• Advanced the state of science for agencies to better
manage resources
- Wildlife, fish, recreation, subsistence surveys
etc.
- Documented distribution of invasive Northern
Pike in Lower Susitna River
- Contributed >4,500 tissue samples to ADF&G Gene
Conservation Lab
- Expanded distribution data for species such as
Chinook Salmon, Lake and Rainbow Trout
- Maximized value of Mat-Su fisheries research
• Expanded public knowledge of Susitna Basin
- Environmental, fish and game, aerial imagery,
hydrology data, etc.
9:36:13 AM
Mr. Dyok moved to Slide 12, "Cultural Resources":
• Developing a better understanding of historical and
current human use of the Susitna region
- Subsistence, cultural resources, archeology,
ethnogeography, recreation, health, etc.
• Ahtna Ethnogeography Study
- Interviewed Ahtna elders to discuss traditional
uses
- Documented Ahtna place-names, Athabascan groups
and territorial boundaries, traditional routes,
trails, artifacts.
• A similar effort for Dena'ina people part of FERC
approved study plan, not completed
9:36:43 AM
Senator Dunleavy requested the total amount that had been
spent on fish studies, and the amount dedicated to further
studies.
Mr. Dyok responded that approximately $50 million had been
spent on fish studies.
Senator Dunleavy asked what was included in the studies.
Mr. Dyok replied that the studies included hydrology; out
of the total licensing cost more than half of the cost
would go toward water quality, hydrology, ice, and
fisheries studies. These studies were largest driver of the
cost of the project, with cultural studies coming in second
place.
Senator Dunleavy asked how much money would be spent on
fish studies in the future.
Mr. Dyok agreed to provide the information at a later date.
9:38:00 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon asked whether Mr. Dyok was actively
sharing the information with the Department of Fish and
Game (DF&G).
Mr. Dyok responded in the affirmative. He and added AEA was
also working with federal agencies.
9:38:32 AM
Mr. Dyok presented Slide 13, "Wildlife Studies and
Coordination":
Increased ADF&G's Understanding for
Game Management Unit 13E
- Moose habitat use and movement; population
estimates and bull and calf ratios; productivity
and survival
- Caribou seasonal use and movement; interactions
between neighboring herds and population dynamics
- Dall's Sheep surveys
9:39:12 AM
Mr. Dyok presented Slide 14, "Understanding Potential
Impacts," which depicted a map of the Susitna River,
divided into three sections, indicating the proposed dam
site. He relayed that studies in the 1980's had revealed a
limited number of Chinook salmon going upstream of the dam,
but that the real impacts of the dam were in the middle
river, thinning out further downstream.
9:40:05 AM
Mr. Dyok moved to Slide 15, "Confirming Results and
Defining Areas of Impacts":
• Observations similar to 1980s
- Fish distribution
- Chinook salmon only documented anadromous fish
above Devils Canyon
- Water chemistry and seasonal changes in
chemistry
- Geomorphically stable river system
- Magnitude of bird migration and breeding
distribution
• Defining potential areas of impacts
- Insignificant water quality or geomorphic
impacts below Yentna River Confluence (No further
modeling proposed in this reach)
- Minor impacts on main channel geomorphology in
Middle River (Dam site to Chulitna River
confluence)
9:42:11 AM
Senator Bishop asked whether recent water chemistry
findings, and the findings from 1980, could be provided to
the committee.
Mr. Dyok agreed to provide the information.
9:42:43 AM
Mr. Dyok moved to Slide 16, "Average Annual Flow
Contributions," which illustrated how conditions would
attenuate downstream of the dam.
9:44:02 AM
Mr. Dyok turned to Slide 17, "Average Annual Bed Material
Load Contributions," and explained that gravel was good for
fish, sand was not. He continued to explain that the
Susitna River, upstream of Watana Dam, 99 percent of the
bed material was sand, and 1 percent was gravel. He said
that the dam would stop the material from going downstream;
studies had mirrored those done in the 1980's, the
reservoir had 100's to 1000's of years if capacity to store
the sediment. He shared that the Chulitna River was a
driver of the gravel in the system, and most sediment would
be coming in downstream from the Yentna River.
9:45:04 AM
Mr. Dyok showed Slide 18, "Salmon Spawning Distribution,"
which offered two pie charts detailing where the salmon
were distributed in the river system; 95 to 99 percent of
the fish spawned in the lower river.
9:46:19 AM
Mr. Dyok showed Slide 19, "Chinook Salmon Spawning
Distribution by Basin," and explained that 97 to 99 percent
of the salmon spawned in tributaries.
9:47:49 AM
Mr. Dyok continued to Slide 20, "Coho Salmon Spawning
Distribution by Basin." He said that no Coho salmon spawned
in the Susitna River above Devils Canyon.
9:47:53 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche queried whether the AEA had a plan to
deal with the 5 percent of fish that were spawning in the
middle Susitna River, below Devils Canyon.
Mr. Dyok clarified that his intent had been to give
perspective on the salmon in the middle river. He asserted
that most of the fish studies pertained to the fish in the
middle river. He said that if the impacts of the dam on the
middle river were understood and addressed effectively,
there would be lesser effect downstream between the Yentna
and Talkeetna Rivers.
9:49:13 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked what the plan was for the fish above
the dam.
Mr. Dyok moved to Slide 21, "Chinook by the Numbers," and
explained that there was an area upstream of Devil's Canyon
that was utilized by most of the fish that made it that
far. He said that DF&G had tagged fish in the lower river,
and a contractor had tagged fish upstream of the Talkeetna
River. The slide relayed that only one salmon species had
been documented within 30 miles of the project site, the
numbers were as follows:
2012 - 352 Chinook salmon tagged; 23 made it to
Devil's Canyon; 10 above Devil's Canyon; 4 above
project site
2013 - 603 Chinook salmon tagged; 18 made it to
Devils' Canyon; above Devil's Canyon; above project
site
2014 - 622 Chinook salmon tagged; 11 made it to
Devil's Canyon; above Devil's Canyon; above project
site
Mr. Dyok felt that the AEA had a good perspective of the
fish activity upstream.
9:53:05 AM
Ms. Fisher-Goad added that the licensing effort was an
attempt to build the project. She said that in order to
know how the project would operate, the rivers needed to be
thoroughly examined and evaluated. She referred to Slide 9,
bullet point 4: the development of protection, mitigation
and enhancement measures (PMEs), which were an important
part of the FERC licensing development. She related that
the benefits of the project, with respect to the potential
cost of power, was balanced on the environmental impact by
the development of the PME measures. She asserted that the
river system needed to be evaluated and understood before
work could begin on the PMEs.
9:54:15 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche asked whether systems within the
drainage could be returned to higher levels of
productivity. He asserted that the job of the AEA was to
convince the public that the effects of the project on
water quality and fish populations would be minimal. He
said that in reality there would be environmental impacts.
He stated that those proposing and constructing a project
could provide mitigation that would deliver a far higher
return than the affected water systems. He asked if
neighboring drainages had been examined for mitigation of
adverse effects of the dam.
Mr. Dyok responded that many ideas had been discussed. He
thought that as a mitigation effort AEA could work with
DF&G to develop a more robust eradication program for
northern pike.
Vice-Chair Micciche queried whether AEA had worked with
fish habitat experts on the possible issues the project
could generate.
Mr. Dyok responded that AEA had worked with some groups,
but that closer work would be done on PMEs as the process
developed.
9:57:32 AM
Senator Hoffman asked whether a sketch of power line routes
and land status options for the project could be provided
to the committee.
Mr. Dyok responded that two preferred routes had been
identified. He referred to the map on Slide 14. He shared
that the Gold Creek option, south of the Susitna River - or
approaching from the Denali Highway, were the two least
environmentally damaging options.
10:00:04 AM
Senator Olson noted that there were native lands and
residents of the area that were not enthusiastic about
power lines traveling across their land. He wondered what
percentage of the over-land power line routes had been
negotiated.
Ms. Fisher-Goad stated that AEA was in the process of
studying what the appropriate corridors would be. She noted
that they had a permit with CIRI and support to move
forward with the licensing of the project. She stated that
the CIRI group had expressed support for the road access,
which would follow the transmission lines. She stated that
the Gold Creek road access plan had been stated as the
group's preferred route, and went through their land. She
attested that she had not heard of the village corporations
taking issue with the access route and power lines.
Senator Olson clarified that he was aware that residents
were generally not opposed to roads that provided access to
their property; however, they did take issue with power
lines and the support structures that accompanied them. He
understood that more than 20 percent of the three proposed
access routes had not been approved by native corporations,
both village and regional.
Mr. Dyok explained that an agreement had not been made, but
that CIRI had stated their preference. He said that AEA had
made it clear that the primary transmission route needed to
be close to the access route so that it could be
maintained. He believed that further discussion would be
necessary. He added that the Ninilchik and Tyonek Native
Corporations had submitted letters to the governor in
support of the continuation of the licensing process.
10:03:36 AM
Senator Olson noted that the two native corporations
mentioned were located far from where the dam was planned
to be built.
Ms. Fisher-Goad pointed out that although they were further
away than some, they owned the land in the area.
10:04:06 AM
Senator Hoffman asked whether the access road would be open
to the public, or would it be exclusively for maintenance
of the power line.
Mr. Dyok relayed that the decision on the access of the
road after construction was still in question. He pointed
out to the committee that the Gold Creek route would come
from the railroad and would not link up to the Parks
Highway. He said that during construction, for safety
sake, the road would be open for construction only.
10:05:10 AM
Mr. Dyok showed Slide 22, "Engineering Accomplishments":
• Board of Consultants Endorsed Roller
Compacted Concrete and Dam Configuration
• 2014 drilling confirmed no active faults found at
dam site
• Mean Annual Energy - 2,800 Gigawatt Hours
• Engineering Feasibility Report - January 2015
- Optimized dam height, capacity and power
generation
10:07:08 AM
Ms. Fisher-Goad mentioned a missing slide that had provided
information about the corridor selection process. She
shared that in order to file the license application, a
preferred route needed to be identified, as well as
alternative routes. She relayed that an additional corridor
access study would need to be done in the future.
10:08:01 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked how the project compared to other
dam projects in the country, and/or world, with regard to
gigawatt production.
Mr. Dyok replied that there were a number of dams in the
world with higher numbers. He said that in terms of
gigawatt production the project ranked in the top 50 dams
in the United States.
10:09:10 AM
Senator Olson asked whether construction had started on the
dam. He referred to an individual related to the project
who was killed several years ago while operating heavy
machinery.
Mr. Dyok clarified that the man who had died had been a
contractor who had worked for a lodge which had housed
workers in the area. He asserted that construction had not
begun.
Senator Olson referred to the 1980's, when the price of oil
had dropped into the single digits. He wondered whether the
AEA had a contingency plan for financing construction if
the current low price of oil, and the lack of oil
production affected project funding.
Ms. Fisher-Goad felt that the opportunity to review the
project and examine the project's financing provided by the
administrative order was a contingency plan in itself.
10:12:22 AM
Senator Bishop asked whether the U.S. Corps of Engineers
had modeled the dam at their headquarters in Vicksburg.
Mr. Dyok responded in the negative.
10:13:14 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche queried the number of utility funded,
large energy projects in the Lower 48, where the government
had not entered taken responsibility, outside of
permitting, and finance options were strictly a percentage
of rate-base and not funded by the state.
Mr. Dyok replied that most of the projects in the lower 48
were done by the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Tennessee Valley Authority on the
federal level. Large dams on the state level involved
governmental agencies which benefited from low-cost
financing. He added that there were some investor owned
utilities that were sizeable, but the majority of the
larger projects in the Lower 48 were developed by federal
or state-backed entities. He said that private entities
investing could lead to bonding restrictions and higher
interest rates for those investors.
10:16:56 AM
Ms. Fisher-Goad added that when AEA was originally given
the authority to move forward with the project, there was
an assumption that the state would invest. She asserted
that it was anticipated that the state would be paid back
for its investment in the project. She reminded the
committee that the legacy of the project would be clean,
reliable energy for the next 100 years. She added that
having a low-cost and consistent power source at an
inflation proof cost would be economically beneficial for
the state.
10:19:01 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked how many households the project
would provide power to.
Ms. Fisher-Goad responded that the project was projected to
provide over 50 percent of the power needed in the entire
Railbelt area, and not just households.
10:20:12 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon explained that the purpose of the
presentation was to consider the viability of the project
in the current fiscal climate. She noted that one of the
aspects of the project was for the state to meet the goals
inside of Alaska's energy policy of 50 percent renewables
by 2025.
10:21:43 AM
Senator Dunleavy reiterated the question about what the
clawback of the $6 million, and taking a year off from
funding, would mean for the project.
Co-Chair MacKinnon requested the response in writing.
10:22:12 AM
Vice-Chair Micciche noted that he was interested in the
exploring the private funding options for the project
moving forward. He requested that the AEA provide finance
models that reflected private/public partnerships.
Co-Chair MacKinnon stated that AEA would be back before the
committee in the future to discuss individual projects.
10:24:15 AM
Senator Hoffman asked whether the numbers for the cost of
the dam construction included the cost of the right-of-
ways.
Mr. Dyok replied in the affirmative.
10:25:11 AM
Co-Chair MacKinnon discussed housekeeping.
ADJOURNMENT
10:25:41 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:25 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 021915 SFC Susitna-Watana Hydro.pdf |
SFIN 2/19/2015 9:00:00 AM |
Administrative Order 271 |