Are large hydroelectric projects above 100 Megawatts a ‘renewable energy?’

To the editor:

With a new state administration, I hope the following is considered regarding the proposed Susitna Dam. The real role of the Alaska Energy Authority should not be to promote the project. AEA should only oversee the pre-licensing process. At the end of the pre-licensing process, there needs to be a decision put to Alaskans by the state administration whether to actually pursue the project by filing the actual license with the feds.

However, from the very beginning of the second Susitna Dam reincarnation in 2010-2011, the state shamelessly put all its effort into the dam promotion. The administration touted the 50 percent renewable by 2025 as a justification for the dam. The 50 percent figure was just a figure picked out of the air by the Palin/Parnell administration. It is a policy and not a legal mandate. But how convenient to promote the dam. No other state has that high a percentage of renewable energy in state policies. Other states have renewable portfolio standards, which Alaska does not have. The only place in state law that declares hydroelectricity a renewable energy source is on a list of energy sources in the enabling legislation that created the state’s Renewable Energy Fund. Alaska needs to answer the question are large hydroelectric projects above 100 megawatts a renewable energy resource?

This is an exciting time where solar and wind energy resources have lower per kilowatt-hour costs for electricity ever. Lower 48 utilities are signing power purchase agreements with wind and solar projects, and the retail rate is lower than natural gas and coal.

Are we going to sacrifice our current renewable and sustainable resources of the river that are important to our economies and lives for electricity that is going to have to be subsidized by the state in order to make it affordable?

Becky Long

Talkeetna