What’s this three step plan to lower electric rates?
“There are ads on the radio and TV about GVEA’s three step plan. What’s this all about?” asked a member.
If you take a look at your bill, almost half probably goes to cover the Fuel and Purchased Power Charge. That charge covers all costs of fuel to operate our power plants as well as the cost to buy power from other utilities (like natural gas-fired power from Anchorage). Why does it cost so much? Oil is expensive! While GVEA has a diverse power supply including hydro, coal and natural gas, oil generates the majority of our electricity – about 38% in 2010.
Golden Valley has a plan to kick the oil habit. It involves three steps:
1. Bring Eva Creek online in 2012;
2. Restart HCCP in 2014;
3. And truck LNG from the North Slope to Fairbanks by 2015.
Of course, conservation is a big part of kicking the oil habit too. And this is something you can help with today; check out our list of ways to save around the house.
The Eva Creek Wind project is underway in Ferry, Alaska. At 24-megawatts, it will be the largest wind project in Alaska and the first by any Railbelt utility. Twelve turbines standing 180 meters tall are expected to be up and feeding electricity into our grid by September 2012. Find out more about the Eva Creek Wind project.
When the permit to operate the Healy Clean Coal Plant is renewed, the plant will provide 50 megawatts of stable-priced power to the Interior. HCCP is currently sitting in warm layup. Find out more about HCCP.
In July of 2011, GVEA entered into a partnership with Flint Hills to bring liquefied natural gas to the Interior. GVEA would use the gas to power its newest turbine at the power plant in North Pole. Flint Hills would use the gas as a supply fuel for the refining process at its North Pole refinery. The details of this project are still being ironed out.
Its a proven fact that there is a much cleaner and very least expensive way for us residence here in Alaska to have electric for our homes.LIKE WIND POWER, Battery powered automobiles, etc. BUT the so called oil industry does not care about us and the cost, than the man in the moon. All they care about is the almighty buck and always have. We must stay on our politicians in this state to get on the ball and get the cost of electricity for everyone lowered not to mention just plain fuel cost to HEAT your home. We should be paying less than most of this country, but again, it boils down to money, including the pockets of our so called representatives nation wide!! I am really sorry to also say, “It may be to late”.
Mr. Jensen, like so many other people, is very quick to point out that the HCCP isn’t really “clean” but he is remarkably vague on the details. What does “clean” mean, and how is it measured? To be more specific, “clean” is measured by comparison to other “dirtier” processes, including coal, diesel, and gas processes that emit more criteria pollutants than others. “criteria pollutants” are defined in the clean air act. These are NOx, CO, SO2, PM-10, PM-2.5, Lead, and VOC (there are other lesser ones too). In coal burning the pollutants that are emitted most of NOx, CO, PM-10 and PM-2.5. The level of emissions from HCCP are below the harmful levels that are specified for these pollutants in the clean air act. When you consider the ratio of pollution to power output, the HCCP is much better at producing power with less emissions than a similarly-sized diesel-fired or “unclean” coal process. All of these facts are public information you can obtain from the ADEC. So, in fact, HCCP IS a clean facility. And in fact, GVEA is doing a great job of making this information available to you, Mr. Jensen. Opponents of HCCP should brush up on the facts a bit more and be more thoughtful in their commentary.
Social responsibility when it comes to energy production has been a big topic for many years now. Which energy source is the best for the environment? Considering our society demands reliable energy (especially at 40 below, right?), the question becomes even more difficult.
This cooperative backs hydroelectric and geothermal power. We are also strong supporters of wind. Just think, next fall, Eva Creek Wind in Healy will bring 24-megawatts of wind energy online. GVEA also encourages energy conservation. In 2004, the average member consumed 776 kilowatt-hours per month. Last year, the average bill was for 677 kWh. That’s a pretty significant decrease.
If we could, we would convert our North Pole Expansion Power Plant to burn liquefied natural gas tomorrow. But we have a problem: the volume of LNG we need is not available right now. We are working on a solution to this problem, but it will take time.
Restarting the Healy Clean Coal Plant is a bridge to other forms of energy. (And it might be noted that HCCP would be one of our cleaner burning units on a per megawatt scale.) In the short-term, HCCP can help us manage costs while we work towards energy projects like the Susitna dam and a natural gas bullet line.
Reading this and the associated article in Ruralite it would appear that there’s not a negative thing to be said about this plan. It’s an exercise of presenting the best image possible. This is how you market a commercial product, and people have seen enough commercials to know what that means: There’s a bias on the info presented.
You make decisions that have an impact on people, locally and globally, and those decisions are far from trivial. You are owned by members who all want lower bills, but your cheapest option is to burn more coal which is an obvious step backwards in terms of sustainability and environmental impact. The term “clean coal” is an embarrassing misnomer that quite frankly hurts your credibility.
It’s hard to criticize you for making decisions that reflect current priorities of your members, but when you present your plan for HCCP as if it’s something we can only feel good about, you are running away from your responsibilities. When you make it that easy for people to ignore the negative consequences of the short-sighted demands they impose on you, how will their opinions ever change to allow you to make responsible choices that you could rightfully be proud of? All of the world is influenced by economic pressure and increasing energy demand, and here you are making the case that burning more coal is a good solution.
You can do better to educate people. A lot better.