Blow The Dust Off The Dam Project Already
Nobody is happy a natural gas shortfall is looming on the Kenai Peninsula up through Anchorage and Mat-Su and onto Fairbanks. Nobody is fond of importing gas into our resource-rich state. Everybody is focused on figuring out how we can get companies to drill more Cook Inlet gas. Everybody is focused on the short-term. Nobody, nobody, everybody, everybody. Isn’t there SOMEBODY who can look past the tip of their nose?
Cook Inlet natural gas has kept us cozy and kept our power plants running and our lights on but it hasn’t been exactly cheap. This is a DeJa’Vu moment, people. We faced a shortfall before and the state government was our knight in shining armor and came to the rescue, remember?
The state incentivized more Cook Inlet drilling. That tided us over nicely, but the gas to our homes and businesses wasn’t particularly cheap. It didn’t spur the economy; it didn’t foster a manufacturing, added-value sector; it didn’t bring new companies to our state. Why? Because, again, it wasn’t cheap.
Cook Inlet gas was certainly welcome and kept things afloat but it really didn’t get us anywhere. Now here we go again: same ol’, same ol’. Another shortfall is on the horizon, and we’re looking for our knight to rescue us once again. We’re looking to the state not for cheap gas, mind you, but for gas that we’ll merely keep us afloat.
Remind you of the definition of insanity? Ready to look beyond the tip of your nose?
Alaska has 40% of our nation’s surface water. We have 3 million lakes. 12,000 rivers. Rainfall and snowfall faithfully replenish our waterways year after year after year. Water is an incredibly abundant resource in Alaska. Pair those facts up with the fact that hydro is a cheap source of power. Now we’re getting somewhere.
When we’re worried about a coming natural gas shortage and we fail to think about a long-term solution that will revitalize our economy, we are missing the boat that will actually get us somewhere. Merely staying afloat is not a good goal for us. People are leaving Alaska; our young people are headed elsewhere to live.
I say if we want a vibrant Alaska, it’s time to dust off the Susitna-Watana Dam project and see what it would take to turn that concept into a reality. The good news is that I’m not alone. I received a letter from the Alaska Energy Authority, and they believe it’s time to reconsider the dam project too as does the Alaska Energy Security Task Force. After all, the dam would provide 70% of the power generated in the railbelt and would more than quadruple the power generated currently from renewable sources.
Iceland is thriving today because of their past investment in hydro. Let’s look once again at the Susitna-Watana project and while we do, keep a vision before us of cheap power, of new opportunities, and of a strong and vibrant state.
Below is an overview written by my Chief of Staff, Anneliese Roberts, of the next steps we need to take regarding the Susitna-Watana Dam project.
The FERC Journey
The journey toward FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) licensing is a critical pathway for energy projects, especially for those in the hydropower sector. The decision to move forward with such licensing involves a detailed and structured approach, ensuring that all necessary steps are thoroughly planned and executed. Four pivotal tasks are necessary for making an informed Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project go/no-go decision regarding FERC licensing.
Task 1: Update the Project Management Plan
The initial step involves updating the Project Management Plan to include a detailed approach, budget, and schedule for completing the licensing process. This task is fundamental as it lays the groundwork for the entire project, ensuring that all subsequent activities are aligned with the project’s goals and timelines. The Project Management Plan will be updated concurrently with Tasks 2 and 3, signifying its continuous relevance throughout the licensing process.
Task 2: Update Construction Cost and Economics
A critical aspect of the licensing journey is understanding the financial implications of the project. Task 2 focuses on updating the construction cost and economic projections. This step is considered to be relatively straightforward and is expected to be completed within six months. Accurate and up-to-date financial estimates are crucial for making informed decisions and for the overall feasibility assessment of the project.
Task 3: Determine Licensing Approach and NEPA Process
The third task is pivotal and involves determining the appropriate licensing approach and the necessary studies to conduct the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. This stage is more complex and requires a comprehensive review of existing reports and studies to ascertain the validity of data. Additionally, it involves consultation with a range of experts and stakeholders, including FERC license experts, a hydropower legal firm, FERC itself, and relevant agencies. This task requires six months to a year to complete, reflecting the depth of analysis and collaboration needed.
A significant part of Task 3 is the collaboration with AEA’s environmental contractor, which plays a crucial role in reviewing existing materials and determining the need for further data collection. This collaborative effort ensures that all environmental considerations are thoroughly assessed, aligning the project with regulatory standards and environmental protection goals.
Task 4: The Go/No-Go Decision
Upon completing the aforementioned tasks, the project team is positioned to make an informed go/no-go decision regarding the pursuit of FERC licensing. This decision is the culmination of the detailed planning, financial assessment, environmental considerations, and consultations conducted throughout the process.
Timeline and Budget
The outlined tasks are designed to be completed within a year, demonstrating an efficient and focused approach to project planning and execution. The budget for this process is projected to be $2-3 million, accounting for the expertise and senior-level consultation required at various stages of the licensing process.
Conclusion
The path to FERC licensing is intricate, requiring meticulous planning, financial and environmental considerations, and expert consultations. By following the structured approach outlined in these tasks, energy projects can make informed decisions about pursuing FERC licensing, ultimately contributing to sustainable and efficient energy solutions. This strategic pathway not only facilitates regulatory compliance but also ensures that projects are economically viable and environmentally responsible.
Image courtesy of KTOO.com
