Questions about the mines

September 9th, 2010

“If Golden Valley wasn’t providing power to Fort Knox and Pogo mines, would we still need all the diesel-fired generation that is in operation now? What percentage of the power generated by GVEA goes to those mines? When those mines came on, we were told they’d cause our rates to drop. Do Fort Knox and Pogo pay the same rates I do as a residential customer? Interested rate-payers want to know!”  wrote a member recently.

These are such great questions, I thought they deserved a home on our main blog page (instead of being buried on the About GVEA page).

1. If Golden Valley weren’t providing power to Fort Knox and Pogo mines, would we still need all of the diesel-fired generation that is in operation now? Yes, absolutely. In order to maintain reliability, we need the generation facilities we have today. We do not have one specific power plant dedicated to Fort Knox and Pogo mines.

2. What percentage of power generated by GVEA goes to those mines? In 2009, GVEA sold 1.31 billion kilowatt-hours. Some of that power was purchased from Aurora Energy and Chugach Electric in Anchorage. Pogo and Fort Knox accounted for 26 percent of Golden Valley’s total sales.

3. When those mines came on, we were told they’d cause our rates to drop. When Fort Knox came online in 1997, members saw a Fort Knox credit on their bill. The verbiage read “Your fuel credit of ____ per kWh resulted from GVEA’s reduced fuel costs, economy energy purchases and Ft. Knox gold mine margins.”

4. Do Fort Knox and Pogo pay the same rates I do as a residential customer? No, they pay an industrial rate. All GVEA members pay for their cost of service as filed with the Regulatory Commission of Alaska. During our latest rate case, it was found that these large industrial members (like Fort Knox and Pogo) were overpaying by 5.1 percent. They chose to forgo this decrease and pass the savings on to the rest of the membership.

Further questions? Don’t hesitate to ask.


Why keep power lines in harm’s way?

August 30th, 2010
 
“I’ve heard that trees in the line are the number one cause of outages in the Interior. Why doesn’t GVEA bury the lines and eliminate this problem?” asked a member recently.
 
There are a couple reasons why we prefer to install our power lines above ground. First, it costs four to seven times more to install underground lines than above ground lines. Cost varies depending on the location.

Second, while underground lines may ultimately experience fewer outages, the average outage lasts much longer. And extended outages are bad news at 40° F below.

One reason underground lines cost more is we install double feeds. That way, if we lose one feed, we’ve got a backup.

But sometimes both feeds fail. And unlike many above ground outages that last just seconds – say a tree bounces on a line on its way to the ground – underground outages are rarely temporary. Instead, power remains off until a repair is made.

It takes time to dig up frozen ground. And since buried lines are not visible, it also takes time to locate the failure.

GVEA has more than 3,100 miles of power line. Transmission line accounts for approximately 460 miles; distribution line makes up the remaining 2,640. Only 115 miles, or four percent, of our distribution line is underground.

We really try not to go underground. If a contractor requests underground lines, we require them to pay the difference in cost. The last thing we want to do is decrease reliability and increase members’ rates.

Comments welcome, but please take ownership

August 26th, 2010

We welcome your comments and feedback. We only ask that you provide a valid first name and email address when you post. It helps us distinguish between spam and a comment from a real person. It also creates a sense of ownership, which we feel is important. Your email address will not be visible to the public.

Are there hydrokinetic turbines in Fairbanks area rivers?

July 28th, 2010

“I’m curious about hydrokinetic turbines. Are there any in the Fairbanks area?” asked a member recently.

The short answer is no; we don’t have hydrokinetic turbines in Fairbanks area rivers…yet.

The Alaska Center for Energy & Power and the Ocean Renewable Power Company are studying “low-head,” or hydrokinetic, turbine generators for village applications at a test site in Nenana.

Also, on June 28 of this year, Alaska Power & Telephone deployed Alaska’s first  25-kilowatt hydrokinetic turbine in the Yukon River near Eagle.

Unlike conventional hydroelectric generation, hydrokinetic units capture the energy of moving water without the use of dams. Instead, the units are installed in a “free flow” environment and can be moved around – permit depending, of course.

Hydrokinetic turbines are much smaller than conventional hydro turbines, providing anywhere from 10 to 100 kW of power. They are designed to allow fish to pass through and leave the flow of water undisturbed.

While dams stay year-round, the turbines must be removed from the rivers in the winter to prevent damage from ice build up.

Hydrokinetic units might be a great option for SNAP producers. However, it should be noted that they are still in the development phase.

Why is wind power a good deal all of a sudden?

July 11th, 2010
 
 
“I’ve heard GVEA say over and over that wind is extremely expensive and impractical, yet you introduced it at the annual meeting as a good deal. Why?” asked a member recently.

The federal government has billions of dollars in stimulus money available for renewable energy projects. And Golden Valley has been aggressively seeking this funding for a new wind project near Healy called Eva Creek.

By taking advantage of these federal funds, GVEA can borrow the money for the project at the unheard of interest rate of 1.9 percent.

“We need to move on this project because interest rates could rise at any time,” said President and CEO Brian Newton.

“Five years ago, GVEA’s Board of Directors made a renewable energy pledge to have renewable resources account for 20 percent of the co-op’s peak load in 2014,” said board member Rick Schikora at the annual meeting.

The board’s goal is to meet this pledge by integrating renewable energy into our mix without raising rates. Eva Creek could be the ticket.

While wind generation is very expensive to build, once constructed, the power is practically free – save the cost of operation, maintenance and infrastructure repayment.

Eva Creek, at 24-megawatts, would be the largest wind project in Alaska, and the first by any Railbelt utility. 

“If we get started on Eva Creek soon, we’ll not only meet our renewable energy pledge, but we’ll be the greenest co-op on the Railbelt by far,” said Rick.

Simulated photo of the proposed Eva Creek Wind Project