Heads-up to anyone in Juneau, and to anyone moving here soon... (Anchorage: lawyers, purchase)

[akck]

Originally Posted by cobolt

Well that's the thing: how long do the rates stay at the increased rate? Is there a plan or timeframe? My bet is no. After the repairs have been done and the higher energy costs paid, you'll continue to see the higher rates and some claptrap justification for them.

I believe they can only charge the higher rate when they're burning diesel, plus a one month lag to catch that first month. They're regulated, so they can't just raise the general rate without requesting an increase. I'm guessing about half way into the repairs, they'll put in a request for increase so we can continue to pay more after they stop the diesel generators.

To top things off, we're also getting hit with higher prices for the things we buy as the retailers add the higher power cost to their overhead mark-up.

[cobolt]

Originally Posted by akck

I believe they can only charge the higher rate when they're burning diesel, plus a one month lag to catch that first month. They're regulated, so they can't just raise the general rate without requesting an increase. I'm guessing about half way into the repairs, they'll put in a request for increase so we can continue to pay more after they stop the diesel generators. .

So does this mean once the hydro is back online and the diesel isn't being burned, that rates will go back to pre-avalanche?

Originally Posted by akck

To top things off, we're also getting hit with higher prices for the things we buy as the retailers add the higher power cost to their overhead mark-up.

Yep. Higher prices in an already high cost of living area. I wonder if those retailers will roll back prices once the diesel burners have gone out? See, that is my big question. How many stories and examples do we have of tolls, fees, increases in rates that were "temporary" only to pay for this or that, only to see those dollars become a permament fixture?

[akck]

Originally Posted by cobolt

So does this mean once the hydro is back online and the diesel isn't being burned, that rates will go back to pre-avalanche?

Yes, that part of the rate structure will go down. They're able to pass on the extra cost of diesel power generation, but no additional profit. I'm betting they ask for a general rate increase to cover the repair cost to go in effect when the rate goes down, so it won't go down to pre-avalanche rates.

[icarian]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

How can you say that when I just listed two examples of exactly that: the Northern Intertie and the Healy Clean Coal Plant???

Floyd, the Healy Clean Coal Plant was no doubt subsidized (like pretty much all such plants), but I don't think we can say it lowered actual cost to the people of Fairbanks, etc...has it ever been operational? What a waste that I still don't understand.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

How can you say that when I just listed two examples of exactly that: the Northern Intertie and the Healy Clean Coal Plant???

I can't find anything that gives a funding break down on the Intertie, but the State contributed to the $81 million cost.

The funding break down for the Healy Clean Coal Project looks like this:

• $150 million, Alaska Industrial Development & Export Authority
• $120 million, Department of Energy
• $ 25 million, Alaska Legislature
• $ 10 GVEA & Usibelli Coal Mine

GVEA buys 17% of the output from the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project, which the State of Alaska paid $175 million of the total $328 million cost.

These are all subsidies that were intended to reduce your electric bill. They are provided to you via AS 37.05.520, the Railbelt Energy Fund, which was originally authorized in 1986 with $230 million. The "Railbelt" covers about 75% of Alaska's population, and accounts for about 85% of its electric power generation.

Now, tell me how any of that brings my fuel and electric bill down? How does a subsidy from the State toward a project that has been stopped for over e year help the consumers around Fairbanks?

[Crossfire600]

I haven't read this entire post so if this has been hashed around already then I apologize. Do I understand correctly that they had absolutely no hazard insurance to cover this? They have no reserve funds to cover this? They live month to month as in payment to payment? Holy cow folks, this is a company that provides a service in a hostile environment that is prone to avalanches and they didn't have a financial plan in place for times like this? You have GOT TO BE KIDDING ME! I think Palin needs to launch an investigation as to how this company operates. I am not a fan of government intervention but this is a critical service.. I am just stunned. Am I out in left field on this one?

One last thought, why didn't the BURY the lines?

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Now, tell me how any of that brings my fuel and electric bill down? How does a subsidy from the State toward a project that has been stopped for over e year help the consumers around Fairbanks?

Just imagine Ray... that instead of the State of Alaska paying for that boondoggle, if GVEA had paid for it, and was now charging it off on your bill.

Now, just imagine if they were not buying cheap power from the Bradley Lake project that the State paid for, but intead had had to build their own power generation facilities. Which of course they would be billing you for now too. Or, just imagine that the State had never even built the Intertie at all, and not only were they not buying cheap power, they didn't have the backup/reserve availability and instead had to build their own.

Your bill would be astronomically higher than it is.

The reality is that the State of Alaska has (and quite correctly so) made a huge effort at keeping electric rates low.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by icarian

Floyd, the Healy Clean Coal Plant was no doubt subsidized (like pretty much all such plants), but I don't think we can say it lowered actual cost to the people of Fairbanks, etc...has it ever been operational? What a waste that I still don't understand.

It was subsidized. If it had not been paid for by the State of Alaska, and instead GVEA had paid for it... GVEA would be charging astronomical rates today.

The fact that is a boondoggle just means the cost to customers would have been higher, as GVEA was forced to find some other form of power generation, and hence customers would have been paying twice.

The State took the risk instead of GVEA, and as a result GVEA still has reasonable prices despite having invested heavily in a boondoggle that did not work out.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

Just imagine Ray... that instead of the State of Alaska paying for that boondoggle, if GVEA had paid for it, and was now charging it off on your bill.

Now, just imagine if they were not buying cheap power from the Bradley Lake project that the State paid for, but intead had had to build their own power generation facilities. Which of course they would be billing you for now too. Or, just imagine that the State had never even built the Intertie at all, and not only were they not buying cheap power, they didn't have the backup/reserve availability and instead had to build their own.

Your bill would be astronomically higher than it is.

The reality is that the State of Alaska has (and quite correctly so) made a huge effort at keeping electric rates low.

I am not arguing that the State of AK subsidizes all sorts of businesses. But that has nothing to do with the price difference for electricity in bush Alaska when compared to the rest of Alaska. Fuels is more expensive, which in turn is passed down to GVEA's customers. Also, any construction projects GVEA gets involved with brings an immediate price hike. There are two refineries in Alaska, one in the interior, and another near Anchorage, so delivering fuel to these areas does not cost as much as flying or "barging" fuel to the bush, thus the subsidy provided to bush AK by the State. This same subsidy isn't available to the rest of Alaska.

Regardless, GVEA is a cooperative. Any breaks on electrical cost to its customers comes from GVEA instead, and for the past few years the price for electricity has gone up in proportion to the price of the fuel needed to run the power plants. The reason why I posted two links was to show you how much it costs per kilowatt/hour around here, and also to point-out to you that the Healy project has been dead for awhile.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

It was subsidized. If it had not been paid for by the State of Alaska, and instead GVEA had paid for it... GVEA would be charging astronomical rates today.

The fact that is a boondoggle just means the cost to customers would have been higher, as GVEA was forced to find some other form of power generation, and hence customers would have been paying twice.

The State took the risk instead of GVEA, and as a result GVEA still has reasonable prices despite having invested heavily in a boondoggle that did not work out.

Why should GVEA pay for an experiment that was of no benefit to its members? The reason why the State, Feds, and a couple of other organizations paid for it was because it was their experiment, not a GVEA's clean-burning coal plant. If the experiment would have ran clean and had been successful, then GVEA would have ran the new power plant, and other similar power plants would have been constructed in Alaska.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications...f/97CCT3_4.PDF