newsminer.com

The Anchorage Daily News this morning blasted the Susitna dam project, calling it a “boondoggle” and recommending it “be put back in the crypt where it belongs.”

Ouch.

The editorial argues that a gas pipeline would be a better bet, providing heating and real economic development opportunities in addition to electricity. Then it argued against putting all your eggs in one mega-project.

Steve Haagenson, the recently retired head of Golden Valley Electric Association, took issue with the assessment.

“They did not even look at the reality around them,” he told me.

There’s no way that gas can provide cheaper energy than a hydroelectric project on the Susitna, he said. You have to build the turbines and replace them every 30 years or so, and you have to buy the gas. Once you build a dam, you can get power at a flat price for 100 years.

The Susitna project is the long-term centerpiece of a broad energy plan developed by a Fairbanks think tank called the Interior Issues Council. Haagenson led the group’s energy task force, which has some far out ideas but also lots of backing, and energy (excuse the pun).

They don’t have the ideal Susitna dam nailed down, but Haagenson figures it would be much smaller than the original plan — about 600 megawatts instead of 1,600 — and be funded by a team of utilities, a port authority, or some other low-profit entity.

There are now three bills aimed at restarting the Susitna dam project, and most of those signed on are from the Fairbanks area. Sens. Thomas, Wilken, and Therriault are backing a bill calling for a state review of the project. Reps. Ramras and Kelly have signed on to similar bills in the House, one of which would provide $1 million for the study.

Ramras told me the other day he was worried the project would become a regional issue, with Southcentral reluctant to get on board because of its access to Cook Inlet gas.

Wide-ranging support would help get a bill through. It might also be needed to get a project through. Haagenson said he saw the project helping Anchorage, Fairbanks, and the Kenai, and relying on all three areas.

“It’s almost mandatory that we all come together.”

Haagenson said he’s been in touch with all the utilities in the area as well as some environmental groups, and claims interest is growing as people learn more.

If backers can get Anchorage on board, then the only question is how to lower energy costs in the Bush. (The Fairbanks plan suggests liquid fuel made from biomass.)