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 ebrown@nuvistacoop.org
• Tanya Iden: 222-5424 tanya@agnewbeck.com
Thank You
Alternative Energy for Southwest Alaska