FERC Orders Preliminary Permit for Connelly Lake

On March 19, 2012, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ordered a "Preliminary Permit" and "Priority to File License Application" to Goat Lake Hydro, Inc., Project Number 14229-000.  That's the Connelly Lake hydro power project.  Click here to go to the FERC e-library for the Order and to download the PDF of the document.

A "preliminary permit" is indeed - preliminary.  For example, the Order states that "this preliminary permit does not authorize the permittee to undertake any ground disturbing activity at the proposed site" (Section 7, page 2).  The order also confirms that it is during this stage of development (the permit stage) that the information will be developed that will enable the agency to make a conclusion as to the whether or not the project is in the public interest (Section 12, pages 3-4).  Section 14 of the Order states:

14. A preliminary permit does not authorize a permittee to undertake construction of
the proposed project. The purpose of a preliminary permit is to study the feasibility of
the project, including studying potential impacts. The concerns raised in the comments
are premature at the preliminary permit stage, in that they address the potential effects of
constructing and operating the proposed project. Should the permittee file a license
application, these issues will be addressed in the licensing process.

The Order does not specify any particular set of studies, however, Section 18 of the Order states:

18. The Commission has not sought to place all relevant study requirements in
preliminary permits. Rather, the studies to be undertaken by a permittee are shaped by
the Commission's filing requirements for development applications. Potential
development applicants are required to consult with appropriate state and federal resource
agencies and affected Indian tribes, conduct all reasonable studies requested by the
agencies, and solicit comments on the applications before they are filed. Further,
permit conditions have been framed to ensure that the permittee does not tie up a site
without pursuing in good faith a study of the project's feasibility.

Please take a moment and read the Order in full.  Thank you.

Fireworks!

The Haines Borough Assembly sits down with the Chamber of Commerce Tuesday, March 27, 5:45 PM to "study" the issue of assumption of liability for the 4th of July fireworks display.  The less formal Committee of the Whole (COW) structure has been tapped in order to fully understand  the March 1, 2012, request to the Assembly. The Chamber Board of Directors requested the Assembly to "consider taking on this responsibility because of the liability costs and insurance expenses incurred by the Chamber."  The Assembly may make a decision during its Regular Meeting later on the same evening.

Historically, the Chamber of Commerce has sponsored the 4th of July Fireworks with help from the Borough.  Last year, the Borough budgeted $3500.00 for the display.  This year, the Chamber Board of Directors unanimously voted to ask the Borough to take over the event.

The Mayor and the Chamber president, Ned Rozbicki, discussed the request in a series of emails, resulting in a draft MOU (Memorandum of Agreement) prepared by the Chamber outlining the shared responsibilities.  According to the MOU, the Chamber will continue to do all the tasks related to organizing and advertising and coordinating the event; but the Borough will be listed on the permits as the official sponsor.  This step will free the Chamber from either purchasing additional insurance coverage for this single event, or sponsoring an event for which it is carrying potentially inadequate liability insurance should there be an accident.

One reason that this seemingly simple request rises to the level of discussion it has is that the Assembly must consider the point of view of its own insurer.  Through the Manager, I requested information from the Borough's insurer regarding any impact of sponsoring the fireworks on our premium.  Jila Stuart, Haines Borough Chief Financial Officer, responded March 20, 2012.  Ms. Stuart writes:

I spoke with our insurance agent Joe Johnston. He sounded very uncomfortable with the Borough taking on liability for the fireworks display.  He said, "It probably won't increase your premium but it will definitely increase your liability exposure."  He also said, "Is this part of the Borough operation that you want to accept liability for?"  He questioned whether the Borough wanted to take on the exposure for the possibility of something going wrong with the display and there being a great deal of injury to people and property. He said in Ketchikan (where he lives) the City and Borough make a donation to the Lyon's Club who puts on the display.  I did a quick google search and I see that in Juneau, the CBJ similarly makes a donation to help make the fireworks happened. Joe suggested the Borough would be better off increasing the donation to the Chamber to offset the cost of their increased premium.

So, this seemingly simple request will take a little more thought to process.  That's why I have called a Fireworks COW!

Southeast Integrated Resource Plan - Haines Borough Assembly Comments

The Haines Borough Assembly (meeting 3/13/12) unanimously endorsed the Mayor's draft of a comment to the Alaska Energy Authority regarding the draft Southeast Integrated Resource Plan (SEIRP).  All comments submitted on the SEIRP can be viewed from AEA's website by clicking here.  The comment submitted by the Haines Borough Assembly follows in its entirety:

Dear AEA:

I am submitting the following comments on behalf of the Haines Borough Assembly[1].

The Haines Borough Assembly takes note of the significance of the Southeast Alaska Integrated Resource Plan.  The plan was requested by the Legislature and is characterized as “directional.” Although we have absolutely no argument with the finding that the energy needs of Southeast Alaska can best be met through a balanced portfolio of resources as opposed to a single-minded focus on building new hydro electric projects and transmission lines, we have concerns about several aspects of the direction suggested for Southeast Alaska and for the Upper Lynn Canal in particular. We would like to point out some omissions and possible errors that may, if uncorrected, mis-direct the development of a good plan to meet the energy needs for Southeast Alaska and specifically for the Upper Lynn Canal.

Overall, we find that the failure to seriously calculate the impacts of the mining industry and the cruise ship industry on the needs of residents and businesses in Southeast Alaska is a significant oversight.  Additionally, we do not understand the rejection of an economic model for Southeast Alaska that includes transmitting our abundant hydro electric resources to consumers in Canada or the lower 48.  We are also surprised at the off-hand rejection of solar as an energy source (11-9) as well as ground source heat pumps (15-1, 15-7).  Although there are no commercial installations of solar panels in Southeast Alaska that we know of, we are aware of effective residential installations.  The installations of ground source heat pumps for the AEL&P office in Juneau and for the Juneau Airport speak for themselves, and speak volumes.  The IRP is “bullish” on pellet-fired space heat.  Living as we do on the edge of the Haines State Forest, we are eager to help develop both a pellet plant and participate in biomass heat solutions.  However, we find the off-hand dismissal of the resources under our feet (ground source) and beaming down (solar) as too complicated or too expensive a little patronizing. We want to see the numbers. 

With respect specifically to the Upper Lynn Canal, the plan recommends that we take the following path, labeled “Near-Term implementation Action Plan” to take place between 2012 and 2014.  The Upper Lynn Canal is slated for Demand Side Management  and Energy Efficiency projects (DSM/EE) with a capital cost $32,700.00 as well as a biomass conversion program with a capital cost of $5,292,500.00. [2] This “path” is characterized as the path of  “Optimal DSM/EE, Biomass, and Other Renewable Resources”.  According to the analysis in the IRP, the Upper Lynn Canal will experience the most savings over a 50 year period, compared to the status quo, if it adopts this path.  Please correct us if we are wrong, but we understand from the IRP that this particular path does not include the construction of additional hydro electric energy projects.   

The problem is that the savings realized by the recommended path differ only by 1% with another path!  The competing path called a path of “Optimal Hydro and Transmission” (see 1-38, 39) promises a savings of 48% percent compared to the recommended path’s (Optimal DSM/EE, Biomass, and Other Renewable Resources) 49% savings.  The path labeled “Optimal Hydro/Transmission for the Upper Lynn Canal” includes the following hydroelectric projects and transmission segments: Connelly Lake, Schubee Lake, Walker Lake, West Creek, and a transmission line from Haines to Juneau (10-12). 

But we have another issue. No “Other Renewable Resources” have been identified for the Upper Lynn Canal (11.10.8).  We believe that that is the case because no one has seriously looked at either our wind or tidal potential. Failing to do so would seem to contradict  walking a path to energy security that includes “and Other Renewable Resources.”

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the document, the IRP reports that the electric utility serving the Upper Lynn Canal, Alaska Power & Telephone (APT) “does not have adequate firm hydroelectric power at this time to serve the peak demand” (8-63). The path recommended for the Upper Lynn Canal just makes no sense given this finding.

Finally, load forecasts for the Upper Lynn Canal may be erroneous, based as they are on the assumption of declining population in the Upper Lynn Canal. The IRP states that “Future load forecasts …are driven by projected population trends…(20-2) so it seems important to get these right.  Although Southeast may be declining in population regionally (3-4), Haines is not.  The IRP reports that the 2010 Census for Haines found the population to be 2,508 (4-7), but it does not observe that this is a 4.8% increase from the 2000 official census of 2,392.  We are growing.  The path designed for us by the IRP does not take this into account.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Stephanie Scott

Mayor, Haines Borough

Cc:             Senator Albert Kookesh

            Representative Bill Thomas

            Randy Ruaro, Office of Governor Sean Parnell

            Shelly Wright, Executive Director, Southeast Conference

            Robert Venables, Energy Coordinator, Southeast Conference

           

---

[1] The Haines Borough Assembly unanimously moved to endorse these comments at its Regular Meeting March 13, 2012.

[2] We recognize that the Upper Lynn Canal would benefit from the regional actions recommended in 21.3, Table 21-9, which are estimated to cost $23,425,000.00. However, we can’t help but compare that costs to the construction cost for hydro electric projects that we support including Connelly and Schubee Lakes estimated to cost $36 - $54 million and produce 39,762 and 35,000 MWh respectively (10-12.)

Weighing in With State Agencies

Should the Assembly take the time and spend the effort to study and comment on plans proposed in the Haines Borough by state agencies?  Some say, "No."  Some say, "Let the state agencies and agents do their jobs.  What do we know, for example, about timber sales?"

I have a different opinion.  I believe that it is very important for the Haines Borough Assembly to consider the local impacts of activity sponsored by others.  When items such as the proposed FERC license for the Connelly Lake hydro project, the Juneau Access Road, the Southeast Regional Integrated Resource Plan, the 13 Mile Timber Sale, the Fall/Winter AMHS ferry schedule come before the Assembly, it gives the whole community an opportunity to be reminded of these proposals and to offer their own comments to the Assembly. 

This coming Tuesday, March 13, the Assembly will consider the Southeast Regional Integrated Resource Plan and the Haines State Forest 13 Mile Timber Sale.  The Assembly may also weigh in on the proposed Fall/Winter AMHS ferry schedule.

The Week in Review...

I am sure the public felt somewhat inconvenienced by Assembly procedures this week. Issues that you waited patiently to address on 2/28 slipped to 2/29. The Assembly, perhaps for the first time ever, adjourned at 10:30 PM on 2/28 and continued at 6:30 PM on 2/29, adjourning finally at 10:50 PM on the 29th. There was one long private deliberation on the 28th  and one shorter deliberation in a formal executive session on the 29th.  However, throughout, the public and the Assembly conducted testimony and discussion in a demonstrably civil and attentive manner.  Thank you.

Here are some highlights.  Please bear in mind that the official record is contained in approved minutes. My blog is in no way "official"!

Conditional Use Permit for 26-Mile Heliport Denied. 
The Assembly sat as a board of appeal for  SEABA's application for a conditional use permit (CUP) for a heliport at their 26 mile property. The CUP was denied by the Haines Borough Planning Commission by virtue of a 3-3 vote of the PC.

When the Assembly hears an appeal, it sits as a "quasi-judicial" body and follows "quasi-judicial" processes.  One of the special rules that apply is that the decision of the Assembly, acting in this capacity, has to be a "super majority " of the entire Assembly or a 5 to 6 vote. See Haines Borough Charter 5.06 (D). Another rule is that the Assembly can choose to deliberate either in private or in public. The Open Meetings Act (AS 44.62.310(d)) does not apply to deliberations on permit appeals.

After hearing testimony from the Appellant through Attorney Daniel G. Bruce;  testimony from the Haines Borough Manager, Mark Earnest;  and testimony from the public, the Assembly choose to deliberate in private.  Upon returning to the meeting, the Assembly moved to confirm the Borough Manager's recommendation not to grant a conditional use permit for a heliport at the SEABA 26-mile site  by a vote of 5 to 6, with Assembly member Lapp voting no.  Borough attorney Bruce Falconer will prepare findings for the Assembly's approval during its regular meeting  March 13.

Heliski GPS Data Required When Requested
The Haines Borough Assembly adopted a modification to Haines Borough Code  5.18.080 (F) (4): General Permit Conditions and Regulations.  Every operator continues to be required to use GPS equipment to track and preserve "information establishing the route taken by the helicopter to and from the skiing and snowboarding area and all landings." However, instead of automatically providing the information to the Borough bi-weekly, the operators are now required to provide the information "when requested by the Borough."  The new law also stipulates that Borough requests are "limited to enforcement of borough permitted activity." 

During discussion, the Assembly clarified that this ordinance in no way prevents others from requesting the information from the operators. 

Borough Policy Regarding Reports to the Public During the Heliski Season
The Assembly moved to require that the Borough report findings related to heliski activity on the Borough website.  The first report will be available by March 15.  It was acknowledged that the format of the report is in development and that changes can be made to the format to meet a variety of objectives.  Transparency is a high priority.  There is a heliski page on the Borough's website and this seems a likely location for the seasonal reports. The Assembly is interested in reporting the information gleaned from the GPS requests (violations, no violations) as well as Borough response to complaints (date, investigation, findings). 

For example, the Borough has received one complaint this season.  The complaint was made on February 22. It was investigated and resolved with the knowledge of all parties by March 1.  The Borough found no evidence of non-permitted heliski helicopter activity.

Resolution Supporting Forward Funding and Yearly Increases for Education Unanimously Adopted
Resolution 12-02-336 is identical to Resolution 12-02-331 which was before the Assembly on 2/14.  The Assembly postponed moving on the resolution 2/14 in order to seek clarification of concerns expressed by Representative Bill Thomas.

According to testimony provided 2/28 by School Board member Nelle Greene Jurgeleit and Haines Borough Superintendent Michael Byer, an increase in the state Base Student Allocation will mean approximately an additional $100,000 for the school district.  Forward funding will enable the School District to accurately anticipate state funding at the time it must determine the teacher contracts it will authorize mid-March of each year. 

Community Waste Solutions Request for a Negotiated Land Sale for 19.54 acres adjacent to the landfill on FAA Road.
The Borough Clerk circulated an email March 2 to help clarify the Assembly's action on this topic:

..the assembly passed the following motion: “Consider both options, the full 19.54-acre request and the planning commission’s 5-acre recommendation, in order to give the borough manager and Community Waste Solutions more leeway for negotiation.”

The Clerk also provided this helpful clarification:

HBC 14.20.100 outlines the required steps for a negotiated borough land sale, and this is one of those steps in the process. The motion should not be taken as an assembly decision to sell land to CWS.  They have simply authorized the borough manager to enter into negotiations.

Waste Management Contract between the Haines Borough and Community Waste Solutions
After considering a confidential memo from the Borough attorney in Executive Session, the Assembly set March 6, Tuesday, 5:00 PM, for a meeting of the Committee of the Whole (COW).  The Clerk's previously mentioned March 2 email adds further clarification of this action:

Following the executive session for the waste management contract agenda item, the assembly took no action. They simply scheduled the Committee of the Whole meeting that was promised by a 2/14 motion.*  That meeting will be Tuesday, 3/6, 5:00pm.  [It is an open meeting.]

* 2/14 Motion: “assembly schedule a Committee of the Whole to discuss possible conditions of a short-term contract with Community Waste Solutions to provide security to meet regulatory compliance at Community Waste Solution’s landfill pending feedback from the lawyer.”