Locals speak against Susitna dam project

TALKEETNA — About 45 people — mostly from Talkeetna, Trapper Creek, Chase and Sunshine — attended a recent Alaska Energy Authority board meeting at the Talkeetna Alaskan Lodge.

Most were there to express opposition to construction of the proposed Susitna-Watana dam. Several speakers said they opposed the scale of the dam and favored other, smaller alternative energy projects, such as wind power, tidal power, geothermal power and solar power.

Several others who spoke against the project also said they are originally from the Pacific Northwest where several dams have been, or are in the process of, being taken down.

Depending on the size of dam built at river Mile 184, above Devil’s Canyon, cost estimates range from $4.33 billion to $4.76 billion, depending on the dam’s height, according to AEA handouts. Other information from the AEA includes:

• A 700-foot dam would be 2,000 feet above sea level, with a reservoir 39-miles long and 2-miles wide at its widest point, with a capacity of 600 megawatts, producing 2.5 million megawatt hours of energy annually.

• A 750-foot high dam would require a 41-mile reservoir and produce an “optimized annual energy” of 2.8 million megawatts.

• The project would provide “nearly 50 percent of Railbelt demand,” with a projected life of more than 100 years.

Many who spoke said they are skeptical of the estimated project life and of engineers’ ability to design a fail-proof dam in an earthquake-prone area.

Throughout the public comment portion of the meeting, those speaking against construction of the dam drew frequent rounds of applause. Several said they have no faith in the AEA’s ability to evaluate the project fairly and objectively, and a few speakers said they’re convinced the AEA is acting at the behest of Gov. Sean Parnell. Some also expressed concerns about the project being “fast-tracked.”

During the public comment period, no one present spoke in favor of the project.

“I have zero faith that AEA is going to take an honest, objective look at the data,” Robert Gerlach said. “I think it’s a rubber-stamp process.”

However, he said there are still some things that could keep the dam from being built — the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the courts.

“I’ve seen boondoggle after boondoggle after boondoggle being financed by the state,” Gerlach said. “This is another one.”

Becky Long was among those who spoke in opposition at the meeting.

“It is obvious from Governor Parnell’s recent speech to the Alaska Power Association in Juneau that the proposed Susitna dam is an important part of administration plans for Railbelt energy,” she said. “What is less obvious is that the Pebble Partnership’s John Shively has said publicly that the Susitna Dam is part of the electrical plan for the Pebble Mine. Is Susitna going to power that mine? People ask me that all the time. People also ask if Susitna will power the proposed Donlin mine. What are the answers to these questions? Will Susitna also power the Jet Propulsion Lab in California, sending energy down to the Lower 48?”

During an update on the Susitna-Watana hydroelectric project AEA executive director Sarah Fisher-Goad said she has had no discussions with anyone from the Pebble Partnership or any representative of the Donlin Creek mine regarding providing power for either project.

“The Susitna River can only generate 250 to 350 megawatts of power, because that is all the water there is,” Long said.

Long said variables like climate changes melting the glaciers and causing glacial sediment erosion make it uncertain whether there will be enough water or reservoir space to provide that amount of power for the next 100 years.

“This board needs to give serious thought to future Railbelt needs without Susitna (dam), because it is for sure not going to be cheaper electricity for rural Alaska and in Fairbanks in 2024,” Long said.

She cited a July 16 report prepared by the Institute of Social and Economic Research at the University of Alaska Anchorage that says power from the dam would likely cost more to produce than using natural gas to produce electricity.

Long said the report — “Susitna-Watana Cost of Power Analysis” — concludes that ratepayers would pay between 23 and 40 cents per kilowatt hour for hydro power produced by the dam, natural gas would cost $13 per million BTU, or 21 cents per kilowatt hour.

“AEA and FERC are only interested in the wholesale cost of power generated at the power plant,” she said. “What the actual Railbelt consumer’s rates will be after a dam is built has been ignored.”

Of the more than 356 people who attended FERC scoping meetings in March and April, 169 submitted comments. Those comments were used to make revisions to the second version of the projects scoping document, Long said.

Richard Leo, representing the Coalition for Susitna Dam Alternatives, urged the AEA board to consider the possibility that the dam won’t be built and to consider other alternatives.

“This is not a local issue, this is a statewide issue,” Leo said.

He also read a letter from his son who lives in New York and opposes the project. Leo said his son represents the future generations that are supposed to benefit from the dam.

Ric Ernst of Trapper Creek said communities in the Susitna drainage presently have “a vibrant visitor and tourism economy. Let’s keep it.”

AEA has organized 19 stakeholder workgroup meetings, made about 60 presentations regarding the proposed Susitna-Watana hydroelectric project, made about 20 visits to communities, and has had initial meetings with CIRI and village corporations since December 2011.

In July, AEA filed its proposed 2013-14 study plan. Formal study plan meetings are scheduled this month, and comments on the proposed study plan are due by October. AEA expects to file its revised study plan in November, with the FERC issuing its study plan determination in November. An engineering feasibility report is expected in December.

According to AEA, 17 early studies with fieldwork are currently under way, with approximately 80 people in the field this summer. AEA says the studies including synthesizing data from cultural, fish, large game and ice studies, extensive Chinook salmon studies, and data from the 1980s, with a goal to “better understand the Susitna ecosystem to build and operate the right project for Alaska.”

The proposed study plan includes 58 individual studies and has a projected cost of $60 million to $70 million. It is expected to include extensive studies on fish, including the five species of salmon, and to develop a better understanding of populations of big game such as caribou and moose.

At the peak of construction, the dam project is expected to employ a workforce of 1,000, with a smaller permanent workforce.