GVEA approves Alaska's largest wind project for Healy area
by Jeff Richardson / jrichardson@newsminer.com
Jun 28, 2011 | 7115 views | 22 22 comments | 14 14 recommendations | email to a friend | print
FAIRBANKS — After years of study, debate and anticipation, Golden Valley Electric Association is officially in the wind power business.

The GVEA board voted unanimously Monday to approve the $90 million Eva Creek project, a 24.6 megawatt turbine farm planned near Healy. With an planned launch date of September 2012, the utility-owned project will be the biggest wind-power source in Alaska.

“I have no question we’re doing the right thing,” said board chairman Bill Nordmark. “This is going to be a good project.”

GVEA has eyed a renewable source of wind energy for years, using much of the past decade to collect wind data at Eva Creek to see if it would be a suitable location. The turbines are engineered specifically for cold-weather conditions found in Interior Alaska, said Mike Wright, the GVEA vice president of transmission and distribution.

But even with board approval, Eva Creek isn’t quite a done deal.

GVEA needs to obtain a permit to fill in a wetlands area at the project site, and satisfy requirements that it won’t harm bird life in the area, in particular two golden eagles nested a few miles away. Project Manager Greg Wyman said he doesn’t anticipate either of the permit issues causing problems.

Getting clearance from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska may be a bigger challenge. GVEA President Brian Newton said winning that approval could require some “heavy lifting,” since large wind farms are a new concept in Alaska.

If it clears those obstacles, the wind farm will allow GVEA to meet a self-imposed goal of generating 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2014.

The board had vowed at the start of the process that it wouldn’t endorse renewable energy at the expense of higher rates. GVEA projects Eva Creek will provide its members with a small savings during the next 20 years, based on oil prices that average $90 per barrel. The higher oil prices go, the more the wind farm is expected to save.

The anticipated cost of Eva Creek electricity would drop by roughly 10 percent more if a $10 million state grant toward the project survives a veto from Gov. Sean Parnell next week.

“This project makes sense,” said board member Rick Schikora.

But Eva Creek hasn’t been without controversy.

A study commissioned by GVEA determined Eva Creek would save money over other options, but that result was hotly contested by Delta Wind Farm owner Mike Craft and some vocal GVEA members. GVEA began solely considering Eva Creek for development in February, when the board chose its own project over Delta Wind Farm and another planned turbine farm near Anchorage.

GVEA board member Tom DeLong said on Monday that it always made sense for the utility to run its own project, rather than contracting with a wind farm owned by a for-profit company. He said the numbers proved that point.

“I’m always in support of GVEA owning and operating, being in control and reaping 100 percent of the benefits,” DeLong said.

The Eva Creek decision caps a good month for advocates of wind power in Alaska, including the two projects passed over by GVEA.

CIRI reached an agreement two weeks ago to supply power in Southcentral from its proposed Fire Island wind farm near Anchorage. Craft, meanwhile, said he’s a close to finalizing a deal with an unspecified customer. He said more details will be available when the contract is complete.

“It’s a smaller project, but nonetheless it’s worthwhile,” he said.

Contact staff writer Jeff Richardson at 459-7518.
Comments
(22)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
1AhHa
|
June 29, 2011
By the way the GVEA membership approved GVEA borrowing nearly 1 billion dollars!

I voted NO for the same reason I voted on the $2,000 per pound local fish hatchery..
AudentesFortunaJuvat
|
June 28, 2011
Way to raise the GVEA debt limit and waste ratepayer money. Why haven't the ratepayers been allowed to vote on this?

I'll give you a hint:

THEY DON"T WANT THIS STUPID BS!!!
oldowl
|
June 28, 2011
Thank you GVEA for approving this project. Now please prove the naysayers wrong.
RJ11
|
June 28, 2011
100% of the benefits and 100% of the risk - my mistake only partial risk because the many of the dollars spent today our children will end up paying for. I truly hope this does not end up like our other Healy project promising to lower electric rates.
coolboy
|
June 28, 2011
grandpa99701

you (and I) are going to be dead by the time this thing gets up and running but we are going to be paying for it out the nose.

what are you so thrilled about?
bluesriff2
|
June 28, 2011
How much has the coal plant project cost to date?

Now they want to sink $90 million into something that will run 15% of the time.

Is the LNG trucking plan still part of the mix?

Southcentral Utilities now want to import LNG by 2014.

This absolutely smells like politically correct environmental BS.

"Poor misguided souls......the strain was too much for them to bare."
Boodrow
|
June 28, 2011
This wind energy will replace oil fired power, not coal. Oil is more costly than wind at least at current prices and it will be turned off and on when the wind comes and goes. The only viable energy to replace the coal is Susitna and don't plan on that for at least ten or fifteen years. If this were China Susitna would be on line in three or four but they don't put with extreme greenies. In the meantime get the checkbook out or move. Since I am no longer working I will be looking for a cheaper place to live with a lot less winter and high energy costs.
1AhHa
|
June 28, 2011
As for wind, here is a critique of the con job and happy talk.

"Stand by for more big, windfarm-driven 'leccy price rises

Think it's bad now? Just wait, says Grid"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/0614/national_grid_2020/

-------In the do -good -create -a -prefect -world without coal etc. the environmentalists have mislead us into thinking you will replace coal, and nukes with wind generators!

Which has absolutely false! Because, you must have back up power when wind does not blow[1].

The same thing applies to solar electric... it is cloudy about 2/3s of the time here in Fairbanks.. dark at night [excluding the summer] and worse yet the sun is to low from Nov to mid January.

To collect useful amounts of power you need to be on a hill and have over sized the collector to make up for the low sun during the 4 hrs of sun light in December.

--------

[1] In the UK they have spent billions on wind power only to find out instead of running 30% of the time they get power about 19% of the time.

And the people who own the wind generators want get "stand by pay" to cover the loans and expenses. On top of that the coal plants must be "on stand by" when the wind blows.

Example:

Suppose you have a 100 Kw load supplied by a wind generator ; the wind quites for 3 days. You must have a100 kw back up for the 3 days.

Keep in mind you are making payments on both generators; but only use one at a time or both to provide supplemental power ie you both same time.

Either way, you end up making payments on 2 generator systems and the control system to make them work together suppling the 100 kw.

On the good side, you do save on generator fuel at $4 bucks a gallon when using "free" wind power



grandpa99701
|
June 28, 2011
It's about time! Thanks GVEA for looking into the future and doing what's right for Alaska!
KevinMcCarthy
|
June 28, 2011
The article makes it sound like GVEA is breaking new ground and pushing the limits - needing permits and permission - to go ahead with the project in the state of Alaska.

The fact is Kodiak Island - a very small community - put up several huge wind trubines years and years ago (not to mention having hydroelectric installed in the late 70's). The hillsides of Nome have two dozen similar huge wind turbines. This is not new, or unusual, for Alaska.

If anything - most everyone in the interior - have been kinda lazy watching other communities push the cutting edge of electrical technology in Alaska. Take a short drive around North Pole and outlying home in Fairbanks you will see small solar arrays and wind turbines on private homes. If you did a similar drive in America you would see large community solar arrays and wind farms - not small one on private homes. Why is that?

The pipeline was only suspose to last 20 years - it's still going strong. The GVEA presentation to the borough assembly made it seem like the whole wind farm was expected to disentigrate into nothing once the project was paid off.

This is proven technology for Alaska. Like the Susitna dam - we should have started that dam project and these wind turbine farms a decade ago. Why we are just now rolling out the projects now is something to discuss. Especially when communitie with less expensive power have already done it.
BetweenGee&Haw
|
June 28, 2011
Cheaper power is not happening with wind power projects in the rest of the nation. So.... how is it going to happen here? What will happen is this will be a boom to the coal generation industry. We have wind here in Healy but it's not particularly steady. When it's too slow or too fast the wind generation stops and is taken over by the coal-fired plant that has kept the boilers running to respond quickly to power fluctuations. So we'll still be burning lots of coal.

Users should be asking GVEA about when the pay-out (the point where the generators have recouped the costs of construction) occurs. Elsewhere payout is in the 50 years or more area. I'm sure with Alaskan construction costs this one will be a whopper. That's a problem because the turbines don't have a life span anywhere near 50 years.
akguy1
|
June 28, 2011
C'mon Fairbanks, get with it

The PERCEPTION of wonderful clean, green energy is much more important than your bill....

Maybe they can put the windmills on top our our wonderful huge battery backup....then when this, too, goes over budget...just bulldoze the mess into the landfill....
john_alaska
|
June 28, 2011
What the hell does GVEA have doing with this project. Haven’t they screwed us enough with the high cost of electricity? I thought we the people own this cooperative?

Look how much we got ripped off for with the moth balled Healy coal plant that never got turned on. GVEA needs to get under some proper management “NOW”…

JustMe24
|
June 28, 2011
THE MANIACS AND FOOLS HAVE WON. I quit! After 43 years, the house goes up for sale today. Good luck.
AudentesFortunaJuvat
|
June 28, 2011
This has the feel of another huge GVEA boondoggle in the making...

WHY AREN'T THE RATEPAYERS VOTING ON THIS???
childofsol
|
June 28, 2011
There's a plan for a new clean burn power plant, Larmex? When did that happen?
Invictus
|
June 28, 2011
If today's estimate is $90M, then tomorrow's reality is at least $180M. How long before we earn that back?

I think that DeLong probably best encapsulated GVEA Board's primary principle -- power and control. If the decision is to experiment with wind power, then the better solution is to do both Eva Creek and Delta and find out for a fact, which is more cost efficient for the members.
1AhHa
|
June 28, 2011
Useless happy talk news story.

Price based on 90 dollar per barrel oil!

It costs the state about 5 bucks to deliver 1 barrel of oil to the refinery, which is sold @ 95 bucks a barrel.

This figures out to about $2.50 per gallon hidden tax on fuel oil.

As for wind, here is a critique of the con job and happy talk.

"Stand by for more big, windfarm-driven 'leccy price rises

Think it's bad now? Just wait, says Grid"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/0614/national_grid_2020/

------------

The only way "wind power" to competitive is to pay cash for the wind mills using Obama Bucks borrowed from China.

PS read my comments about the Fish Hatchery story.. the first 89,000 batch of fish ... just for the construction of the building is 500 plus dollars per fish!

The price averaged per fish over the next 20 years is about $25 per fish.

--------------

Coal is still cheaper, and Susitna Dam the best choice next to geothermal.

CHS Resort is getting about 5 megs per 2 million dollars spent, allegedly. Which suggests the equivalent geothermal price of the wind farm would cost about $10 million NOT $90 million.

Even using 1 meg per 2 million dollars, geothermal is still half price! And runs 24/7 rain, or shine. Intermittent wind is the big bug-a-boo because the UTILITY must have back up for when the does not BLOW.

Charliebussell
|
June 28, 2011
Lamex:...you are right about wind power not being cheap, but maintance will not kill the project, it will place a bunch of hurt on every rate payer along the entire rail belt, but mostly on the rate payers of GVEA...in many ways the HCCP project started out the same way and somewhere north of $500,000,000.00 how is that working our for us..??

Project like HCCP and Eva Creek tend to take out focus off Susitna. We lost focus after bring Bradley on line and are just now beginning to get some of that focus back...Projects like Susitna will provide meaningful relief for the long term high cost of energy for the entire railbelt region.
Newsminer.com encourages a lively exchange of ideas regarding topics in the news. Users are solely responsible for the content. Comments are not pre-approved by News-Miner staff. Please keep it clean, respect others and use the 'report abuse' link when necessary. Read our full user's agreement.