HomeMy WebLinkAboutAEA grant guidelines ALASKA CENTER for the ENVIRONMENT
807 807 G Street, Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501
907-274-3632 valerie@akcenter.org www.akcenter.org
Butch White, Grants Administrator
Alaska Energy Authority
813 West Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
bwhite@aidea.org
Dear Mr. White, August 23, 2010
Thank you for accepting comments regarding your evaluation guidelines for the Renewable
Energy Grant Fund. I am writing on behalf of The Alaska Center for the Environment (ACE).
We are a local non-profit environmental education and advocacy organization, whose mission is
to enhance Alaskans’ quality of life by protecting wild places, fostering sustainable communities
and promoting recreational opportunities. ACE advocates for sustainable policy on behalf of
over 6,000 Alaskan members.
We, along with the support of the Alaskan conservation community, promoted the passage of
the Renewable Energy Fund, and we look forward to seeing the development of new projects
throughout the state, especially those that take advantage of Alaska’s abundant tidal, wind and
geothermal resources. We believe that Alaska can provide a good example in the development
and production of renewable energy technology and electrical generation while also protecting
the environment, our fisheries, wildlife, outdoor recreation and tourism-based local economies.
We are proud to be a part of this national movement towards a cleaner energy future.
We have reviewed the renewable grant guidelines and were quite surprised to see that projects
are not given an adequate environmental evaluation during the review stages. The only time
the process consults with anyone with expertise in natural resources is during stage 2 where
DNR has the following role:
“Staff from Department of Natural Resources – technical experts providing specific review
and comment on projects that may have issues related to permitting and natural
resource development.”
Specifically, we are concerned that hydroelectric projects are not receiving professional scrutiny
by ADF&G biologists with regards to potential impacts to resident and anadromous fish.
Further, it would seem critical that ADF&G, DNR, ADEC, and possibly other agencies, should be
funded by the Legislature at levels that will fully support professional review of renewable
energy project proposals.
Economics of the project are given a most thorough review, and while we agree that economics
is a vitally important variable, we believe that every project, before being funded should have
some environmental and social scrutiny. In all cases, environmental, social and economic
impacts must be justified by appreciable new energy production.
For example, in the case of Kenai Hydro, LLC which AEA funded to study the feasibility of four
hydroelectric sites on the Kenai Peninsula, AEA failed to address the fact that all of these sites
are located in popular recreational sites and all are within the Kenai River watershed, one of the
most productive salmon rivers in the world. Does it make sense for the state to subsidize dams
that will invariably impact our fisheries and the economies of local communities that rely
almost completely on sport fishing and outdoor recreation related tourism? Will we trade one
resource or economy for another? AEA should at least address these questions in an open and
transparent way, so that the public not only has an opportunity to weigh in, but a bona fide
opportunity to influence the distribution of public funds for the development of projects.
Two of the Kenai Hydro, LLC projects were surrendered shortly after receiving funding to study
them, leaving us to question why they received funding in the first place. Anyone from the area
could have told AEA that these sites were not appropriate for dams or diversions. Additionally,
the guidelines indicate that 5% of the weight is put on local support, and yet no one from any of
the nearby communities that we have talked to knows of a single person who was contacted to
test the theory of local support. If it is going to be a part of the decision, (and we fully support
that), then it should be apparent to the local residents that AEA is doing a formal survey to
determine the level of support for the proposed projects.
We also suggest that levels of community and public support for a project carry a much greater
weight in the review process. When Cook Inlet Region Inc, separated from the Kenai Hydro, LLC
partnership, it announced publicly that it had two reasons for not continuing with the projects;
CIRI believed the projects were not economically feasible or publicly acceptable. For CIRI, public
support ranked much higher on the project merit scale than 5% - and we believe the state
should consider amending this in its review process.
Alaska is blessed with an abundance of renewable energy potential, and we hope that as you
move forward with Round IV applications, that you will take into consideration the possible
negative impacts that hydropower has had on fisheries, watersheds and communities in the
lower 48, and make every effort to not repeat those same mistakes.
Alaska Center for the Environment does not support any further funding to Kenai Hydro, LLC for
their proposed hydroelectric projects in the Kenai River Watershed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Valerie Connor
Conservation Director
Alaska Center for the Environment
807 G Street, Suite 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
(907)274-3632
valerie@akcenter.org