It may be prohibited, it may be happening; My information is second hand.
That said:
Alaska consumers could benefit from a coalition of energy producers in the state of AK who generate power and ship electrons vs piping fuel.

Put the plan in a CIP.

Sec. 31.05.030. Powers and duties of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

(b) The commission shall investigate to determine whether or not waste exists or is imminent, or whether or not other facts exist which justify or require action by it.

Sec. 31.05.095. Waste prohibited.
The waste of oil and gas in the state is prohibited.

Sec. 31.05.170. Definitions.

(15) “waste” means, in addition to its ordinary meaning, “physical waste” and includes:
(H) the release, burning, or escape into the open air of gas, from a well producing oil or gas, except to the extent authorized by the commission;

To fulfill these duties the AOGCC has enacted Alaska Administrative Code 20 AAC 25.235 which detail the limited instances that gas can be flared to insure safety and maximum preservation of oil and gas value.

Additional information can be viewed at the AOGCC website within the Alaska Department of Administration. You can contact the Commission directly at (907) 276-7542 or via e-mail at aogcc.customer.svc@alaska.gov

Gene Therriault
GVEA

Is gas flared in significant quantities or not?

This writing concerns the 2012 Director Election for the Golden Valley Electric Association, District 4.

Please don’t invite your enemies in your house – don’t re-elect a lawyer or elect another lawyer as your new director. Incumbent Candidate Ward Merdes and Candidate Valerie Therrien are attorneys and active members of the Alaska Bar Association.

Here is why:

Fairbanks members of GVEA pay substantially higher rates for electricity today than in the days when they were members of the Fairbanks Municipal Utilities System
[FMUS] because today in part they actually “subsidize” due to “rate-equalization”
the cost of providing electricity to the outlying developments that include huge industrial users such as mining operations.

When I brought this up at the last annual meeting at the Carlson Center, the moderator countered that FMUS was sold and implied that GVEA paid the City of Fairbanks a fair price and that from the coal fired power plant that was sold to a private enterprice GVEA buys electricity now; and in any event, FMUS, had it remained, would have had to supplement the increasing demand for electricity with high priced oil fired generation anyway. Well, it does not need a genius to figure out that no matter how muych additional oil fired generation was required, the coal fired power plant serving only the members within the City of Fairbanks would certainly have resulted in lower rates to them than those presently charged by GVEA.

However, the main concern for GVEA members should lie in the clearly unlawful way the FMUS sale was conducted and was upheld against the principles set forth in the Constituion of the State of Alaska by the Alaska Court System and its Alaska Bar Association members in particular. I know, and can prove it, because I filed multiple suits against the Council members of the Citiy of Fairbanks on behalf of the property owners who were the rightful owners of the assets of FMUS.

You see, FMUS was a public utility just like GVEA is. There was not a single tax dollar invested in FMUS by the City of Fairbanks. All investments in FMUS were paid for in the form of assessments and fees against the real property and paid for by its owners; similarly, every member of GVEA is a real property owner that has a vested interest in GVEA and its assets. Only members that have a vested interest or financial stake in GVEA are allowed to vote on major questions – such as for example whether GVEA should be dissolved and its assets be sold – therefore only members of FMUS that had a vested interest or financial stake in FMUS, that were only the property owners and not the electorate as a whole of the City of Fairbanks, should have been allowed to vote on the question whether FMUS should be dissolved and its assets be sold.

Provisions in the Alaska Constituion demand such; however to the contrary, the question wheter to dissolve FMUS and whether the proceeds from the sale of its assets be placed in a “permenent fund” for the City of Fairbanks was submitted to the Fairbanks electorate as a whole.

Even if the question whether FMUS should be dissolved would have properly be voted upon, the proceeds of the sale of its assets should have rightfully be returned to its investors, namely the property owners, and not be stolen from them by the City of Fairbankks and placed in a “permanent fund”.

At that time numerous active members of the Alaska Bar Association (attorneys) were real poperty owners within the FMUS, but none of them was willing to bring this matter as a class action to the attention of the courts. That left me no choice but to pursue the legal matter in the public interest on my own behalf and on behalf of all property owners similarly situated.

Needless to say, the courts ruled against the interests of the right full owners of the assets of FMUS.

The moral of the story is what happen then to FMUS can and probably will happen to GVEA in the future, namely that GVEA will be sold to an outside interest whether it be statewide, national, or an international corporation, or a corporation of a foreign country such as China. The influx of money from the sale of GVEA will be propagandized as a boost to the local economy and the then former members of GVEA, that are the property owners, will be left without compensation, and left with paying higher eledctricity bills, because the new corporate owners certainly see to the recovery of their investment, and a profit of course.

As it was in the case of the sale of FMUS, no member of the Alaska Bar Association (that includes all judges and justices) will likely stand for the interests of the members of GVEA and will condemn and smear them as the “landed gentry” for even daring to raise their objection to the sale of GVEA.

Therefore here is my warning: I urge you not to vote for any “attorney at law” as
your new or re-elected Director of GVEA, District 4; Candidates Ward Merdes and Valerie Therrien are attorneys and active members of the Alaska Bar Association.

Sincerely,
Wolfgang Falke

According to the list of the tallest dams in the world ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_dams_in_the_world)

Susitna would be the thirty-first tallest dam in the world. Just a couple of feet shorter than the Daniel-Johnson Dam in Canada.
It would probably just as well known too. Some authors are prone to exaggeration.

The dam would:
1) Have an economic impact to Alaska approaching that of the TAPS (Trans-Alaska Pipeiline System)
2) Enhance fisheries
3) Mitigate effects of global warming, 10% increase in precipitation leading to flooding is predicted by IPCC modeling.
4) Fix cost of power for duration of financing then reduced costs. 4 or 5 cents/kWH then 1 or 2 cents/kWh
5) While proposed dam is tall, it is smaller than all the ten dams on the Columbia River in Washington and Oregon
6) Displace many tons of carbon produced by gas, oil and coal
7) The Knikatnu Native corporation supports the dam while enhancing the moose and other wildlife population
Seismic studies in the 1980′s identified earthquake risks that are manageable with proper design. These should be verified.
9) The Bradley Lake dam is a good model for many aspects of the Susitina Dam. It has proved to be an enormous asset to South Central Alaska.
9) No amount of conservation or efficiency will made the dam unnecessary. Conservation and efficiency will reduce the amount of fossil fuels required.
10) The dam is the ideal compliment to other forms of renewable energy. The dam can provide the storage needed when the wind stops blowing or the sun doesn’t shine.
11) Studies have shown the silt will have only a minor effect on the storage capacity.
12) Much of Southeast Alaska is enjoying cheap hydro power – even to the extent that is cheaper to heat with than oil in Juneau
13) Recreational Opportunities
14) Best alternative
15) reduce the 185 wells in Cook Inlet at $1.9 -$2.8B that are required just to maintain 90BCF/yr supply thru 2020 (Tom Wells, PRA, presentation House Energy Committee 11 Apr 2012, http://gavelalaska.org/media/?media_id=HENE120411A )

Since the Susitna dam would only provide 50 percent of the Railbelt energy needs, we would continue to operate and maintain local generation. You are right about space heating; Susitna would not be a solution.

Any energy project will impact the environment. When the Alyeska pipeline was built, many people thought it would negatively affect wildlife, specifically local caribou herds. Instead, it was found that the caribou adapted well to the changes.

Given the volatility of oil, the Susitna dam is one of the best long-term bets for stable priced electricity.