MEA duplicitous with power line plan

On March 28, Matanuska Electric Association conducted a public hearing taking testimony for the record concerning the installation of 80-foot power towers with lines. If MEA truly values public input and comments, why then did it submit permit applications to the city for approval of the transmission lines on Tuesday, March 26? Why is the proposed route the same as submitted last fall instead of one of the three routes presented at the last two open house meetings or some other alternative route?

MEA states that its goal is to improve redundancy of the transmission grid, which requires the construction of new transmission lines extending from the hospital substation to either the Cottle or Herning substations. This will be a separate project from the new power plant at Eklutna. However, MEA’s goal of tying into the Herning (Wasilla) substation is to achieve an idealized distribution system at the sacrifice of Wasilla’s scenic mountain vistas. Once the view is gone, there is no amount of money that can compensate the community for the loss. MEA can achieve most what it is seeking with new transmission lines to the hospital substation and using the existing Eklutna line to Palmer, or MEA can also recognize the new 24 megawatt power plant being proposed as a co-generation site at the Goose Creek Correctional facility that will yield 10 megawatts back to the grid toward Wasilla as a form of redundancy.

MEA does not need to construct new transmission lines into Wasilla to provide the redundancy it is seeking. According to testimony given by MEA’s general manager to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) on March 13, power will still be transmitted to the Valley from the new power plant and provide a looped transmission system even if the proposed transmission line is not built. He stated that, “We can still feed through the existing line right here, and we also in our long-range plan will build from this area to Douglas Substation. So that will, in effect, give us a looped transmission system in the Valley, and that’s what’s long been needed up there.”

MEA can serve power by the Jan. 1, 2015, deadline when its 30-year contract ends with Chugach for selling power to MEA without any new transmission using the existing Eklutna line into Palmer in one direction and back through Chugach-MLP in the other direction. The existing transmission lines currently distribute power adequately to the Wasilla area and these same lines will also be able to distribute power from the new plant.

Even if you agree that MEA must construct new 80-foot tall transmission lines, there are many other alternatives to the route along the Parks/Palmer-Wasilla highways. A good beginning would be to get MEA, the city, Fairview Loop Council, Alpine Energy, DOT and Alaska Railroad together to discuss the options. It seems disingenuous for MEA to choose the Fairview Loop option, thus inflaming that community and creating enmity between Fairview and the city. Also, the Bogard Road and Palmer-Wasilla Highway routes are unrealistic alternatives due to the length of the distribution system, potential conflicts with roadway improvements and the number of parcels impacted by right of way acquisition. MEA states that it can’t bury the transmission lines within the City of Wasilla view shed — even though this is three miles or less, not the entire Parks Highway route. However, the testimony of MEA’s general manager to the RCA stated that “the planning and zoning commission in Wasilla will probably try to force underground. We have priced that and my position with them, if you want underground, we’ll underground it; it just costs more.”

Where is the meaningful look at the alternatives Wasilla has proposed to MEA to avoid the Parks Highway and Palmer-Wasilla Highway viewsheds? Anyone can understand that MEA’s route will negatively impact residential and commercial values, the scenic views for a lifetime and the domino effect producing nothing but long term negative impacts.

MEA initially brought this plan to the city in November 2012 applying for administrative and use permits. The plan could have been approved by in-house staff without a hearing. My office instructed the city planner to elevate the matter to the planning commission. Given the gravity and impact of MEA’s proposal, if this step had not been taken there would be no public hearing or weigh-in. MEA was scheduled to appear before the Wasilla Planning Commission on Jan. 8, but withdrew the application. Notwithstanding the testimony of a Wasilla city councilwoman at the hearing on March 28, the facts are that this matter was elevated to the planning commission and the code does not require the city council’s approval, nor initially the planning commission. However, as stated, out of an abundance of caution it was the best policy to give the public a voice, so I directed the matter be moved to a public process.

Regardless of which route is chosen or how it will be constructed, MEA needs to engage the residents and property owners (residential and commercial) in a meaningful process where their input and suggestions actually mean something. MEA intends to move forward with the Parks Highway route, period. It clearly never intended to consider anyone’s input since the cooperative has already submitted permit applications to the city of Wasilla to construct the transmission lines along the original route proposed last fall — even though the city expressed strong opposition to the route. MEA’s general manager made it perfectly clear that MEA intends to push forward with the Parks/Palmer-Wasilla Highway route as indicated in his testimony to the RCA on March 13: “ … the next step is to go to the courts and have that argument in the courts. I have a right to be in that right of way along the highway.”

Enough said?

Verne E. Rupright has been Wasilla mayor since 2008.