HomeMy WebLinkAboutNov 14 1993 MemoInterOffice Memo
‘To: Dennis McCrohan
From: Elaine $. McCambridge Vow
Date: January 26, 1994
Subject: AFF Intertie Budget
You have inquired as to whether or not we have complied with the Alaska Intertie Agreement Section
10.3.6 which requires the AEA “shall present the final operations budget to the Alaska Legislature in a
manner consistent with the Executive Budget Act and shall take all steps necessary to secure an
appropriation, or appropriations, from the legislature in an amount adequate to cover the budget submitted
and approved under the budget". I believe that we have complied with this requirement for the FY95
budget, however I would like to point out that the budget submission for the "new" AEA is substantially
different from past budget submissions.
The FY95 budget submitted to the State includes only the costs of AEA agency operations associated with
the AF Intertie. It does not include the contractual services costs to operate and maintain the intertie,
which have been included in past AEA budget submissions . This change in budget approach resulted
from the melding of the remaining AEA structure into the AIDEA Budget Reporting Unit of the
Department of Commerce and the redefinition of the AEA funding source as corporate receipts versus
program receipts. Consistent with AIDEA operating budget requests under Executive Budget Act ,
AEA's FY95 budget request excludes direct project costs funded from corporate receipts.
This change in AEA's budget submission to be consistent with AIDEA's budget request was approved by
Guy Bell of the Department of Commerce and by Cheryl Frasca of the Office of Management and Budget.
CC: Valorie Walker
File: AFEBUDGE
8 ‘
ALASKA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
AND EXPORT AUTHORITY
480 WEST TUDOR + ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99503-6690 + (907) 561-8050 + FAX (907) 561-8998
MEMORANDUM
TOr William R. Snell
Executive Director
Coes FROM: Dennis V. McCrohan
Deputy Director (Energy)
DATE: January 25, 1994
SUBJECT: Intertie Issues
Existing Intertie
The November 14, 1993 incident clearly jeopardized the entire
southern portion of the intertie. The northern portion was safe
since they had been previously separated. On the specific
incident, our position has been expressed as a member of the
Ioc. AML&P will prepare a response to the Dispatch Committee
including AEG&T's request. AML&P will not necessarily respond
directly to the CEA's January 16, 1994 letter regarding
Controller performance.
The underlying issue involves having two controllers and the
perception by CEA and supported by GVEA that AML&P is not
qualified to be the southern’ Controller. The incident
reinforced CEA's perception of AML&P. The informal position
that we have expressed is:
1. Two controllers are required by the Intertie Agreement.
However, the specific duties and procedures of the
controller can be modified by the I0C without an
agreement change.
2. Reduction to a single controller or better yet,
elimination of all controllers should be considered.
This would require an Agreement amendment.
No party appears to want to change the Agreement. All parties,
excluding AML&P, want to modify the duties, accounting
procedures, etc., imposed by the Agreement. It seems prudent
and perhaps will be necessary as the new intertie project
develops, to make changes. At that time, the Controller issues
will be a major topic.
William R. Snell
January 25, 1994
Page Two
In the most recent IOC meeting a motion, proposed by MEA, was
passed which defined the conditions precedent to energizing the
Stevens Substation. AML&P has now verbally advised me that
AML&P will appeal the motion.
DVM: ec
DOCEVA - 255
cc: S. Sieczkowski, AIDEA