Written by Mark Wiggin and Sam Cason
Updated: 18 seconds ago, Published: 52 minutes ago
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/adn/LTCTEHIPU5DFFIC6ARMHK4SWCM.jpg)
Tim Bradner's article (“Carbon capture could expand Alaska's electricity options'') published in the April 21 issue of ADN notes that the South Central will be affected by the decline in natural gas from Cook Inlet. He argued that coal-fired power plants should be seriously considered to supplement supply. There was a more critical take on the same proposal by Roger Painter in the April 28 opinion section (“Alaska's 'clean coal' misfortunes show the dangers of jumping on energy hype” ”). As board members of the Chugach Electric Association, we appreciate your thoughtful comments and ideas. These two well-written articles of his demonstrate why we need to remain open to new ideas, but insist on solid analysis before making choices. What neither article highlights is the real risk of this proposal: distraction and delay.
It takes at least 10 years to design, permit, and construct a plant like the one described above. New coal-fired power plants are not a short- to medium-term option for diversification. Hilcorp's contract to supply “all requirements” gas to the utility will end before the coal-fired power plant is built. Homer Electric is already facing an alternative arrangement with MEA next year and Chugach in March 2028. The state Department of Natural Resources' projected production curve for Cook Inlet gas includes “proven but undeveloped reserves” that roughly equal projected demand. In 2025 and 2026 the demand is predicted and in 2027 or 2028 it will be less than the predicted demand.
The same timing issues also mean we can't rely on North Slope gas lines or new hydro projects to solve gas supply problems. Even if Congress appropriated enough funds to start the construction process today, by the time such a project was built, alternative ways to keep the lights on would already have had to be figured out. . The serious risk of preoccupation now is that unless new gas supplies are secured soon, natural gas, the railbelt's most common heating fuel, will run out during future cold snaps. .
Chugach is actively developing short- to medium-term plans to acquire and store enough natural gas to meet the utility's needs even in the face of adverse conditions. In the medium term, the pressure on existing gas supplies can be alleviated by proactively integrating renewable energy and enabling fuel savings and load balancing. As an example, we are evaluating proposals for wind energy projects on the western side of Cook Inlet. We estimate that this wind project will reduce gas consumption by up to 3.5 bcf of natural gas per year (approximately one-quarter of Chugach's annual consumption of 17 bcf). You can also stretch the gas and use it when the wind is not blowing. We hope to start operating that project within the next three years. This is a fraction of the time required for coal-fired power plants and natural gas lines.
Currently, 80% of electricity generation comes from natural gas. Chugach members have invested millions of dollars in highly efficient gas-fired power plants. Most of them have many years of useful life left. Natural gas power generation can be dispatched. If you have gas, you can start up your plants to generate electricity on demand. Natural gas will be a major part of our portfolio for many years to come. However, an increase in the price of natural gas means an increase in the price of electricity generated using natural gas. In the face of rising prices, we intend to rapidly diversify our portfolio to include sustainable renewable electricity and expand our gas reserves.
If we do this, this type of medium-term planning can complement and facilitate consideration of longer-term solutions such as hydropower, geothermal power, tidal power, and even coal power plants. Long-term planning provides an opportunity to develop a more complete cost assessment (not included in Bradner's article, but suggested by Painter's suggestion). This allows for a realistic assessment of the cost and rate implications of such projects.
Some issues can be isolated. For example, regardless of how electricity is generated, whether we continue to rely on gas or move toward diversification into renewable energy, we need improved transmission. Railbelt utilities are working together to improve their transmission systems, and Congress appears to support using matching federal funds.
This type of planning requires time and stability. Last winter, the lights remained on even though Anstar announced there was an energy emergency. Chugach contracts with producers for future gas needs at lower costs than other railbelt utilities. That's the reliability and stability we stand for.
Mark Wiggin is an engineer with oil and gas field production experience. Sam Cason is an attorney with regulatory and litigation experience. Both have been actively involved in utility issues for decades and are running for re-election to Chugach Electric's board of directors.
The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a wide range of viewpoints. To submit your work for consideration, please email comment(at)adn.com. Submissions of less than 200 words should be sent to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via your web browser. Read our full letter and comment guidelines here.
