Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project NORTHWEST HYDROELECTRIC ASSOCIATION February 20, 2013
Elaine Brown, Nuvista CEO
Chikuminuk Lake Hydroelectric Project Western Alaska Energy Options ISSUES, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS?
Why Chikuminuk Lake? Our Mission: To improve the energy economics in rural Alaska. South Western Alaska needs sustainable, affordable, and reliable energy solutions. Energy conservation and alternative sources like hydro, wind, and biomass can help, but aren’t sufficient on their own to meet energy needs. We think Chikuminuk is worth looking at as one option to help our communities survive and thrive.
Previous Alternatives Considered Alt. Energy Type
Cost to Construct
Cost to Operate
Use Cost per Kw
Capacity to Demand 65kw
Public Perception
Likelihood or Feasibility
Diesel
Existing
High
High
Same
-
Existing
Geothermal
High
Low
-
None
Positive
Small
Wind Power
Medium
High
Low
Low
Positive
Limited
Hydropower
High
Low
Medium
High
Positive
High
Coal Power Plant
High
Medium
Low
High
Negative
Medium to Low
Nuclear Power
Low
Low
Low
High
Very Negative
Poor to None
Remaining Hydro Options
Chikuminuk Lake, Kisaralik River Upper Falls, Kisaralik, River Lower Falls, Kisaralik River Golden Gate
Chikuminuk Lake – A long history • Nuvista is building on studies that began in 1954 • Previous geotechnical work in the 1980’s authorized by an “incompatible use” permit issued by the State Park • Nuvista was denied a State Park Special Use Permit for 2012 field work • SB 32 would allow Nuvista to study the lake’s potential for hydroelectricity Our Goal: To determine if the the Chikuminuk Lake project is feasible and a good fit for Western Alaska.
A Comprehensive Approach • Look at all solutions: conservation, efficiency, distribution, and supply • Develop a regional approach, south western Alaska as a whole, for example, – Job training for locally based energy related jobs (wind, hydro, interties, weatherization) – Shared knowledge of wind power solutions – Regional supply and distribution alternatives – 2012 Rural communities spent 60 to 75% of income on utilities and home heating
• Nuvista wants to explore all these options
Chikuminuk Transmission Routes
Transmission Options
- SB 32
Decision Point • Benefits • Impacts • Costs
Project Issues… • Concern about impacts on fish and wildlife. (3 stream gages in place to understand water flow. Wildlife studies in 2013 +) (Temporary gages install in spring and removed in the fall to monitor water temperature)
• Is this project linked to any mine projects or other industrial development? (NO) Not enough power will be generated • Is it possible or appropriate to develop a hydro project inside Wood-Tikchik State Park? (Grant and Elva are being studied. Chikuminuk requires state statute change) - SB 32 Legislation Introduced to allow feasibility studies at Chikuminuk Lake
• Who will get the power? (Dillingham? Bethel?) We don’t know at this time, we are studying both routes
• How much will it cost, who will pay? (Currently, we don’t know. Economic study to be done in 2013. Cost to be determined.)
• Federal 65% or 237.8 M Acres, State 24.5% 90.0M Acres Native 10% 36.7M Acres
How to Stay Involved • www.nuvistacoop.org • www.ferc.gov; Project # P-14369 • Sign-up for our mailing + e-mail list Contact Information • Elaine Brown: 868-2460
[email protected] • Tanya Iden: 222-5424
[email protected]
Thank You
Alternative Energy for Southwest Alaska
