Background) – Watt?

from masterresource

Cassie Andrews

Ed. notes: Alaskans are waking up to the sneak attacks on electricity affordability and reliability by agenda-driven special interests and their pliant politicians. The latest incident involves the state's third-largest hydroelectric project, which has become a Trojan horse for the Green New Deal plan. As energy expert Kassie Andrews writes in this two-part article, “Cronyism, abuse, and manipulation of our critical energy infrastructure are the result of 'stakeholder inclusion.'”

The planned power generation capacity of Eklutna Dam is 40 MW, accounting for 5% to 6% of the railway belt's total power generation. Eklutna provides the largest share of renewable energy, accounting for 44% of the Matanuska Electric Association's (MEA) renewable energy portfolio and 25% of Anchorage-area service provider Chugach's renewable energy portfolio.

Eklutna is the lowest-cost source of electricity in south-central Alaska due to low capital depreciation and operating costs. Assuming CO2 is of concern, the program would offset approximately 72,500 tonnes of CO2 per year, equivalent to driving 16,911 gasoline-powered passenger cars for a year, or about half of the daily commuters on the Glenn Highway.

Chugach's effective share in Eklutna is 64.3%, amounting to 25.7 MW. Allows storage of spring and summer runoff, Eklutna Hydro acts as a pseudo-battery for electricity generation and provides stable spinning reserve capacity on demand. Natural economics, no need for special government subsidies.

The cold snap in early 2024 is proof of this. During the coldest seven-day period (January 28 to February 3, Anchorage Airport readings), Eklutna's average capacity factor was 77%. This compares to an average capacity factor of 20% for the 17.6 MW Fire Island Wind, which was 0% on February 1, 2024.

new water politics

The Upper Eklutna Dam is a federal Bureau of Reclamation project built in the 1950s. While ownership of Eklutna Hydro officially transferred to the parties in 1997, a stipulation of the sale was a congressionally approved fish and wildlife agreement. Think politics, and the worst kind.

The 1991 Fish and Wildlife Agreement acknowledges that hydroelectric development may have “unquantified impacts on fish and wildlife resources.” Because the project is not subject to a FERC permit, there is “no opportunity to determine the extent of impacts to fish and wildlife.”

Project owners, the City of Anchorage, Chugach Electric Power Association and Matanuska Power Association were asked to examine and quantify the Eklutna project's impacts on fish and wildlife “if possible.” They will develop proposals to protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by hydroelectric development.

When Chugach acquired Municipal Light & Power in 2020, the city of Anchorage lost its voting rights on the Eklutna hydroelectric project, and the subsequent 1991 Fish and Wildlife Agreement.

The timeline set out in the agreement required the owners to initiate the study process “no later than 25 years after the transaction date,” which began in 2019, three years early. The final Fish and Wildlife Plan should be submitted to the Governor at least three years before implementation in 2027.

new proposed agreement

The agreement gives the governor the authority to issue a final package and remediation plan. The agreement provides that the Governor must give equal consideration to the following matters:

• The purpose of efficient and economical power production
• Energy saving
• Protect, mitigate damage to, and enhance fish and wildlife
• protect recreational opportunities,
• municipal water supply
• Protect other aspects of environmental quality
• Other beneficial public uses
• State Law Requirements

A key aspect of major projects is stakeholder participation. Decide who will be part of your project, or in this case shouldn't Involvement may make or break budget, schedule, and may negatively impact the outcome of the project. A major misstep in this process was the expansion of the consultation process “to include not only the parties to the 1991 Agreement, but also the Village of Eklutna Native Nation (NVE), Eklutna, Inc., the Conservation Fund, Trout Unlimited, Alaska Pacific Company” University and several other stakeholders interested in the project. “

new narrative

Even before the research process began, narratives revolved around the idea that mitigating the damage would include restoring sockeye salmon runs that existed before the placement of the original dam, built in 1929. Turner River Dam, which was removed in 2018, was primarily supported and funded by the Stakeholders Conservation Fund, headed by Brad Meiklejohn, who has written extensively in support of depopulation and overpopulation, shamelessly admitting that he favors “rapid depopulation” of the U.S. to reduce its population size. In a statement that should revoke citizenship, “The last thing the world needs is more Americans, but the most important thing the world needs is more people.”

While removing the lower Eklutna River dam helped solidify the Conservation Fund’s position as a stakeholder in Eklutna’s future, it did not restore water to the entire river.

Eklutna Aboriginal Village (NVE) is located in the remaining state of Eklutna Dam

There will be no water overflow from the Lake Eklutna Dam along the river except during floods. A 4.5-mile-long bypass tunnel carries lake water to the power plant. Of the water diverted, 90 percent is diverted to the Knik River for hydroelectric power generation and 10 percent is diverted to Anchorage Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment, effectively blocking the remaining 14 miles of the Eklutna River. .

Part of the Eklutna River has dried up, affecting fish swimming.

become suspicious

In supporting information documents for the proposed final plan, the project owner highlighted the NVE's representation of fish through traditional ecological knowledge (TEK). “The NVE's Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) indicates that sockeye salmon migrated to Lake Eklutna prior to the construction of the lower dam in 1929,” the document states.

However, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) reported in 2011 that

It is doubtful that the Eklutna River Basin ever spawned large numbers of sockeye salmon because of the limited availability of suitable spawning areas in the upper reaches of the lake, and the lake's water quality may have limited spawning opportunities along the lake's shores. Fully 80% of the water entering Lake Eklutna comes from two glacial streams, which is not conducive to the continued survival of sockeye salmon from eggs to fry, and the remaining spawning area is not enough to support large numbers of anadromous spawning salmon. . Furthermore, physical limnological studies of Lake Eklutna have shown that the turbidity of Lake Eklutna during most of the year is not conducive to substantial primary production.

and

A separate study was conducted by Loso et al. An attempt was made to determine “whether anadromous spawning salmon entered Lake Eklutna before 1929” by using marine derived nutrients (MDN) as biochemical markers in lake sediments. The study found that there was no significant difference in the composition of the sediment layers before and after 1929. It was determined that “without significantly altering the measured isotopic composition of Lake Eklutna sediments, annual salmon migrations may be as high as 1,000, and possibly even as high as 15,000 salmon.” Therefore, the results “provide no evidence that this Such fisheries occurred, but it is not ruled out that a relatively small sockeye fishery existed in Lake Eklutna before 1929.

Experts tell us that the lake is not suitable for fish because it does not produce food. However, the Eklutna Trailrace provides a rich and abundant source of fish for all Alaskans, with the 2019 stocking plan setting a goal of stocking 7,500 coho salmon and 4,000 chinook salmon.

The draft plan, released in October 2023, outlines that the preferred option is to return water to 11 of the 12 miles of the Eklutna River. The project has a price tag of $57 million, and as of November 2023, the study alone has cost the project owner $8 million.

Evolution of the plan

After the draft plan was released in October 2023, the voices of environmental stakeholders and the Eklutna Aboriginal Village have grown louder. In response to the plan, NVE sent a letter to the Anchorage Council on November 10, 2023. It is proposed that the Lake Eklutna dam be simply removed within the next ten years, by which time there will be sufficient renewable energy generation capacity to replace any power production capacity lost by Eklutna.

According to NVE, the only viable solution is to remove the Eklutna Dam and the clean, reliable and affordable power and water it provides to 90% of Anchorage residents, but only Can be replaced with other sources that don't exist – most likely not cheap, rugged and unreliable. NVE finally said:

We are committed to expanding renewable energy in southcentral Alaska, and we are eager to work with all parties to achieve this goal. Recent projections are that Alaska will easily reach the 80% renewable portfolio standard by 2040 given known opportunities, including a major expansion of Bradley Lake hydropower that will generate more electricity than the Eklutna project, and an estimated 200 Megawatts of new wind and solar projects are being considered across the rail belt.

In a Dec. 4, 2023 letter to consultants overseeing the draft Fish and Wildlife plan, the NVE blasted the plan owners for ruling out dam removal as an alternative, calling it a “serious error” in the environmental analysis. “Removal of the dam is a reasonable alternative because it would provide the greatest protection, mitigation, and enhancement for fish and wildlife at a cost that is significantly less than the alternatives considered,” the NVE said.

To test the idea of ​​dam removal, NVE cited a technical report completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2011:

In 2011, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“USACE”) declared that “[t]Unfortunately, restoration of the Eklutna River ecosystem requires the removal of two dams […]”.

However, NVE failed to include the rest of the sentence In the report——

The cost is estimated to far exceed 206 Authority's funding constraints and will leave much of Anchorage without water or power.

NVE concluded: “We are therefore asking the project owner to consider our proposed dam alternatives that are consistent with the purposes of the agreement and provide substantial public benefits, including the long-term benefits of affordable energy from truly renewable energy sources. ”

Environmentalists oppose hydropower

Environmental stakeholders who have slyly inserted themselves into the process are launching an all-out frontal attack on hydropower in order to convince people that hydropower is not “green” and that we need to replace our companies and are already paying for it with extremely expensive infrastructure. and destroying the bedrock of the environment to promote Green New Deal profiteering. Depopulationist Brad Meiklejohn’s twisted view: “You can’t really call Eklutna Hydro renewable if you’re killing salmon, Alaska’s ultimate renewable resource.” Source. Apparently, these salmon are not fit for human consumption.

——————

Tomorrow’s Part Two will examine solutions proposed in the past and present to reveal the largely questionable ulterior motives of stakeholders and elected officials.

Relevant