|
ANGDA works on route decision criteria for in-state pipeline Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority board works on list of items it will consider in providing public process for route; Michael Baker Jr. wins $5 million contract from DNR Kristen Nelson Petroleum News
The Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority board welcomed two new members when it met in Anchorage July 16 — Bill Jeffress of Anchorage and Brian Rogers of Fairbanks — and continued work on evaluation criteria for selecting an in-state pipeline route.
The ANGDA board will provide the public process for selecting a route but Harold Heinze, ANGDA’s chief executive officer, noted that ANGDA is not responsible for acquiring any new information it may need to make that decision.
That information, said Deputy Revenue Commissioner Marcia Davis, will come from the contractor hired by Harry Noah, the governor’s in-state gas coordinator.
The discussion draft of in-state gas pipeline route evaluation criteria included benefits: customers served; reduced energy costs; environmental; and future customers. Impacts included environmental, economic, subsistence and missed opportunities. Economics included capital cost and operating and maintenance cost. Risks included project, market changes and stakeholders. Strategic fit included state energy policy and U.S. energy policy.
Engineering and technical considerations included design parameters; constructability; permitting; land access; construction; operations and maintenance; and potential synergies.
Desired outcomes of an in-state gas pipeline project included: long-term and stable supply of gas to as many Alaskans as possible; significantly reduce energy cost to Alaskan consumers; appropriately weigh near- and long-term impacts; does not adversely impact development of the Alaska-Canada pipeline project; provide maximum future opportunities for beneficial development of Alaska gas and other natural resources; provide maximum social and economic benefits to Alaskans; cause least environmental harm; and reduce Alaska’s carbon footprint.
Draft suggestions Heinze said the board represents the public process in route selection to the administration and the Legislature and said the draft of the project route evaluation criteria was a response to the ANGDA board being cast into the role of route decision maker.
He said additional information may be necessary in some areas, such as subsistence.
Board member Kate Lamal asked about the desired outcome: Is that what the governor wants, she asked? Lamal also asked what is being evaluated: Is it all options for in-state gas? And on costs, she suggested adding the cost of infrastructure upgrades.
The board discussed the gas line options, and outlined a 48-inch line to Alberta built by either TransCanada and ExxonMobil or by Denali, vs. an in-state line: either North Slope to Valdez with an ANGDA spur; a bullet line from the North Slope to Cook Inlet via the Parks Highway; or a bullet line from the North Slope to Cook Inlet via the Glenn Highway.
Heinze said he sees it as three projects: North Slope to Canada with possible spurs to Valdez and Cook Inlet; a smaller line from the North Slope to Valdez; or a still smaller line from the North Slope to Cook Inlet.
He said a lot of this involves what the project is: Once you know the project then you can make the route decision.
Criteria changes Board member Brian Rogers said in addition to customers served, the selection criteria should include customers missed on each route. He also said the energy cost should be expressed in net present value, capturing when a project happened as well as the route.
And in addition to future customers, Rogers noted, there is an opportunity for new suppliers from Nenana, for example, with the flip side of that being missed suppliers depending on the route selected.
Rogers noted that improved air quality won’t contribute to a route decision and suggested elimination of criteria that won’t affect the route.
Lamal said that on the cost issue, while it would be nice to have the cost of energy reduced, it would be better to have it stabilized. Energy costs in Anchorage, she said, won’t be reduced. She also said she preferred to focus on long-term impacts.
Heinze said with the board’s guidance on how to move forward ANGDA staff could make a stab at information needed to make decisions and that list could be passed to Harry Noah and his contractor.
Lamal said she would be comfortable with that if the board was able to see drafts.
The original request had been that the board would make a route decision in July; that was deferred so criteria for the decision could be determined; additional information needed for the decision will also need to be determined.
The next board meeting was set for Sept. 3 in Anchorage.
| 