development

November, 1980

RENEWABLE ENERGY

DEVELOPMENT

GEOTHERMAL AND SMALL-SCALE HYDRO SUPPLEMENT

NCSL ENERGY PROGRAM: ALASKA

National Conference of State Legislatures

Reprinted with permission of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

'~

Acknowleagements The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Small-Scale Hyoroelectric (SSH) Project is funded oy a grant from the Department of Energy (OE-FG03-80RA50236) and is assisted unaer a subcontract by the Energy Law Institute (ELI) of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. The NCSL Geothermal (GEO) Project is funded by a grant from the Department of Energy (OE-FG03-78SF01795) in oroer to provide technical assistance to state policy reviews of obstacles ana incentives to geothermal aevelopment, including the use of grounawater heat pumps. The materials and opinions herein are those of the authors and not those of the United States or the Department of Energy. l

Authors George ~illiam Sherk (NCSL) Kenneth A. Wonstolen (NCSL)

Taole af Ccn:en:s I. II.

Introduction ..................................................... . Small-Scale Hydroelectric Development: (A) (8) (C) (D)

III.

IV.

3

Appl ication Procedures ....................................... 3 Review Procedures •........................................... 5 Standaras Enforcement in Lieu of Permits ..................... 9 Secondary Issues ...........•................................. 10

Geothermal Development: (A 8 C D

Licensing Procedures ......

District Heating ......................... 12

Feasibility: Resource Extent, Location and Cost ............. Financing Mechanisms ......................................... Operation and Maintenance Obstacles .......................... Seconaary Issues .............................................

12 ILl 16 16

Thermal Water Rights ..•........................................... 18

Footnotes ............................................................... 19 Appendices .............................................................. 20

RENEWABLE ENERGY

OEVELOP~ENT

GEOTHERMAL AND SMALL-SCALE HYDRO

I.

Introduction

The Energy Program of the National Conference of State Legislatures is engagea in a policy review with the Alaska legislature of issues related to the aevelopment of renewable energy.

Small-scale hydropower and geothermal

policy concerns are oeing examined unaer existing NCSL projects.

Other

renewable energy issues (solar, wind, biomass) are being examined under a contract with the House Research Agency.

This report concentrates on two

areas not alreaay dealt with by the SSH and GEO proJects:

streamlined

permitting proceaures, especially regaraing SSH; and geothermal district heating.

Thermal water rights are also discussed.

Following is a brief

synopsis of previous project activities.

A number of reports have been prepared by the NCSL SSH/GEO projects for the Alaskan Legislature.

In response to a Resolution of the House of

Representatives,l a Geothermal Policy Report was prepared in July, 1979. 2 A Preliminary Profile of Small-Scale Hydroelectric Development was prepared in September, 1979. 3 Preliminary options for a state geothermal policy were reported in October, 1979. 4 This was followed in November, 1~79

oy a similar preliminary options and recommendations report for SSH

policy.S

An addenaum to this report addressing options for financial

assistance for both hyaroelectric and other power projects was prepared in January, 1980. 6 Finally, legislative options ana reccmmenaaticns policy were submittea to the l~gislature in February, 1980. 7 The 1980 legislature aaopted NCSL proposals in both areas (H.B. 779, H.B. 438) which were signed into law by the Governor.

Puolic and private inaividuals involved in small-scale hydroelectric and geothermal development were interviewed during the period from September 11 tnrough September 19. ana Fairbanks.

These interviews were conaucted in Juneau, Anchorage,

A number of telephone interviews were subsequently conducted.

One must oe minaful of two important factors in considering SSH and geothermal aevelopment policies. Alaska.

The first is the size of the state of

The extreme geographic ana climatic aifferences within the state

require policies which are flexible enough to meet a wide range of often conflicting neeas.

The second factor is the relationship of the SSH and geothermal issues herein analyzea to issues which are beyond the scope of this report.

The

possibility of aeveloping a master permit application for SSH development is only a part of the review of administrative procedures which is currently unaerway in Alaska.

The development of geothermal resources for district

rleating is also only a part of much larger community development issues.

-2-

II.

SSH Development:

Iss~es

Licensing Procedures

and options relating to the licensing proceaures

~nich ~oula

aff~ct

SSH development can generally be broken down into three areas: (A) application proceaures; (8) review procedures; and (C) standardS enforcement in lieu of permits.

There are a number of related secondary

issues which also warrant consideration. S

(A)

Application Proceaures.

1.

Options:

• Develop a master application which would be used Dy all affected agencies in granting permits .

• Develop an activity-based permit which would include all necessary permits for a given project.

2.

Discussion:

There was general agreement among those interviewed that the Environmental Proceaures Coordination Act (EPCA) was of relatively little value.

Though intended to be a master application procedure,

the EPCA has been infrequently usee.

The reasons behind this are many.

The EPCA procedure is seen as being too cumbersome. especially with regard to small projects. 9 There

also appears to be a feeling that a developer Girectly

~lth

~Ould

rather aeal

e6ch permitting agency than re1j :n tne

~~C;

proceaure. 10

An option which coula speed the permit process would be the aevelopment of a master application.

Unaer this approach, a single document would

be prepared by an applicant.

This one document would contain all of

the information required by each permitting agency.

The development of

a master application would reduce the burden on a SSH aeve10per by eliminating redunaant applications for aifferent permits.

It appears that there are a number of different state agencies working on a master application.'l

Such an application should state what

information is required and why it is needed. 12

A second option whlcn could furtner simplify the permitting process would be the development of an activity-based master permit.

Under

this approach, a single permit would be granted for a given activity. This permit would replace all of the separate permits which a project might otnerwise require.

An activity-based permit is currently being used for placer mines. This placer mine permit, issued after review by the Departments of Fish and Game, Environmental Conservation and Natural primary permit that a developer need obtain. 13 activity~oased

Resourc~s,

is the

To be successful, any

permitting procedure would require agency c09peration.

-4-

With regard to agency cooperation, it was argued that the Cooperative Agr2Ement

cet~een

tne Jepartmencs cf Fish

~na

~~me,

~~/~r~r~en:~:

Conservation and Natural Resources was a better approach tnan the ~~~M proceaures. 14 Finally, while it was suggested that che designation of a lead agency could foster interagency cooperation,

1rJ

agreement that a general master permit was not required.

there was The current

delays appear to be caused by review procedures within specific agencies rather than by the number of different permits requirea.

(8)

Review Procedures.

1.

Options:

• Amena the state Administrative Procedures Act to establish uniform and consistent notice and comment requirements. 16

• Amend tile state Administrative Procedures Act to require comments early enough in the comment period to allow a developer to amend a permit applicatlon prior to the time it has been considered by other state agencies.

• Establish classes of permits and mandatory review periods for each c 1as s .

• Establish a training program for technical staff charged with the responsibility for permit applications review.

-5-

• Authorize and appropriate fun as for a study of the regulatory path ,~nicn

2.

a SSH aeveloper '/iQuid De

re~l.Ji('ea

.

to

--

~

..

tOI iC\N.

Oiscussion:

A number of people interviewed were of the opinion that redundant or inconsistent notice and comment requirements resulted in substantial delays in the permitting process. 17 Under existing procedures, a SSH aeveloper is required to obtain a numoer of different permits. these permits requires a notice and comment period.

Each of

At present, these

notice ana comment periOdS are inconsistent or redunaant.

It was

argued that the state should Ilconform the hoops to be jumped through. 1118

As was discussed in the previous section, the EPCA is not being utilizeo.

One reason for this is the EPCA notice and comment

proceaures which appear to be overly burdensome on small projects,19 including SSH development.

Legislation was introduced in 1979 which would have established classes of permits. 20 Mandatory review periods would have been established for agency consideration of permit applications falling within each class.

This legislation was not passed.

The estaolishment of classes of permits and mandatory review periOdS might also De done administratively.

-6-

Regulatory changes whiCh would

achieve these results are currently being

~reparea

l' tor publlC comment "Dy late 1980 ,-? 1

aGm~,1is'Cra:i'/2

ihese

cannot, of course, Qe in conflict with

stat~tory

ana shoula be ready r2\'1S1Cns

requirements.

With the exception of water use permit applications, there was general agreement that the number of permits required of a aeveloper was not a factor delaying development.

Mandatory review periods for different

classes of permits would assist in eliminating agency delays.

Any

SUCh

revisions should include a detailed time frame which would accurately oelineate when an agency action would be required,

It was suggested

that notices of agency actions be sent by registered mail so that the timing of the action could be establishea. 22

Finally, with regara to mandatory review perioas, there was disagreement as to whether an agency's failure to act within the prescribed period should constitute automatic approval.

While such a

result was generally favored, it was not necessarily seen as necessary to force agencies to respond to designated time limits. 23

A requirement that comments and proposed stipulations be submitted early in the notice and comment period would reduce delays by allowing an application to be amenaed prior to final consideration by other state agencies.

Allowing one agency to respond to the changes

suggested or stipulations required by another agency

COUld

eliminate

tne need for a developer to make repeated appearances before the same agency.24

At present, the Department of Fish and Game is htnderlng

-7-

the permitting process by making adverse comments so late in the comment peried tnat the ceveloper ooes rot nave time to croper;) respono. 25 As a result,the process may require reiteration ana, ooviously, further aelay.

A number of inaiviauals, both within agencies and those affected by agency actions, commented that the lack of trained personnel substantially delayea the permitting process. 26

Furthermore, this

proDlem appear to make permit stipulations nearly impossioie to enforce. 27

It was suggested that the state train a number of permit application reviewers.

These reviewers would be trained to know what information

was required by a specific application and why it was required.

Such

reviewers WOUld also be trained to understand the regional differences which exist in Alaska and how these aifferences affect operational requirements. 28 A core group of trained personnel could speed the permit process by reducing the length and improving the quality of agency review.

It was also suggested that a study which would document the "permit path" requirea tor SSH aevelopment would be of great assistance both to the aeveloper and to agency personnel. 29

It was suggested that, in

many cases, neither the applicant nor the reviewer "knows what he's ooing.,,30

A specific statement of the permit path could be of great

assistance in removing this uncertainty.

-8-

(See Appendix 1.)

(C)

Stanaards Enforcement in Lieu of Permits.

1.

Option:

• Eliminate most state permits in favor of enforcing a set of operational stanaaras.

2.

Discussion:

An interesting suggestion was that the state eliminate its existing permit requirements.

Insteaa, the legislature would direct the

appropriate state agencies to promulgate a set of operational standaras, which might be enforced by personnel presently employed in processing permit applications.

This approach, modeled after that used

in Switzerland, has a certain appeal.

Currently, time aelays are

imposed on projects while paper (permit applications) is processed and stuaies performea.

Enforcement of permit requirements is generally lax.

Under the proposed approach, the emphasis would be shifted to enforcement, to achieve the goals of the existing permit system. Licensing a project would occur via a straightforward Notice of Intent procedure.

That is, a project proponent would submit a notice and plan

of development to either individual agencies or to a central agency, WhlCh would inform the developer of the operational stanaards applicable to the project.

Field enforcement, including spot

inspections ana fines, woula ensure compliance with the stanaaras.

-9-

There are, of course, numerous ramifications of this approach which neea to De

conSl~ereG.

First, comprenensive Jet flexiJie stancar:s

woula neea to be estaolishea. permit system.

This process woula craw on the existing

Notices of Intent must be held to minimum stanaaras of

sufficiency, allowing interested agencies to determine the probably impacts of the project and the relevant standaras.

Field enforcement

woula of course be susceptible to manipulation, including bribery of officers.

The use of inspection and enforcement teams, geographically

rotated, plus allowing citizen complaints, might alleviate this concern.

At all times, nowever, due process of law requirements must

'De observed.

It must also be determined whether such operational standards should be technology--basea or goal-basea.

For example, should a project be

forcea to employ specified pollution abatement equipment, or be allowed to meet pollution abatement goals in its own fashion.

Certain

projects, especially in sensitive areas, may threaten such significant impacts as to require a more stringent licensing process, including permits.

Finally, the interface of federal/state programs should be

examined to ensure that such a system as proposed would meet minimum federal standards for aelegation to the state.

Nevertheless, the

proposed system offers an innovative approach to state licensing.

(0)

Secondary Issues.

1.

It was suggested tht the Coastal Zone Management Act was inhibiting SSH aevelopment. 31

-- 10-

2.

It was also suggested that the state establish a Permit Information

Reterral

C~nt~r

ln rne Office of rne

would incluae Doth

feaer~l

Gcv~r~cr.

~

,.....,,.....

-

: ·.... e::::.

I

'j

ana state agencies ana coula De moaelec

after the Feaeral-State lana use planning process. 32

3.

As previously mentionea, the range of regional aifferences existing

in Alaska result in a need for flexible operational requirements.

The

oevelopment of SSH resources coula be enhanced if the state established specific operational requirements for various regions. 33

4.

It was suggestea that any revision of the permitting process

include the establishment of threshola levels for all permits.

As with

tne aforementioned suggestions relating to notice and comment periods, these threshold level requirements must be consistent. 34

S.

One means to aiscourage frivolous complaints auring the notice and

comment period would be to require intervenors in the permit process to pay a filing fee.

This appears to be stanaara administrative proceaure

in a number of states. 35

6.

Finally, one problem was mentioned by a number of those interviewed

which is beyond the scope of this report.

Apparently a major obstacle

to SSH oevelopment in Alaska is the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

With

regara to the areage ana fill permits which could be required for SSH development, the Corps appears to be "hopelessly mired in trying to aeciae what wetlands are. 1I36

The legislature may It/ish to urge the

- 11-

federal government to either restrict or clarify the role of the Corps

OT Engineers.

III. Geothermal Development:

District Heating

Geothermal energy resource oevelopment for district heating has been considerea in two previous Energy Program reports.

The July, 1979

geotnermal policy report recommenaea that the legislature authorize Doth public ana private utilities to provide aistrict heating services, direct the State Development Corporation to consioer the organization of heating aistricts, declare district heating to be in the public interest despite competition with existing utilities, and exempt district heating from Puolic Utilities Commission rate jurisdiction. 37 The October, 1979 preliminary issues and options report did not significantly aiverge from these recommenaations.

The October report did contain an additional suggestion

ttlat the legislature specifically authorize the issuance of municipal bonds to finance heating districts. 38 In conducting the field research for this Phase Two report, three issue areas emergea:

(A) Feasibility:

resource

extent, location and cost; (8) Financing mechanisms; and (C) Operation and maintenance obstacles.

As with SSH development, there are also a number of

seconaary issues which merit review.

(A)

Feasioi1ity:

1.

Resource Extent, Location ana Cost.

Options:

-12-

• Authorize ana appropriate funas for research ana aevelopment programs.

• Require collection ana submission of temperature aata from oil ana gas well logs.

• Require collection and submission of temperature data from water well logs.

2.

Discussion:

The most frequent comments received regarding geothermal development tor aistrict heating reflectea a belief that there was, as yet, inaaequate information about the resource.

lack of verifiable aata

concerning the extent of geothermal resources,39 their location,40 and the costs associatea with their development 41 appeared to be substantial aisincentives to geothermal development.

For example, it

appears that one reason the Alaska Power Authority is not an advocate for geothermal energy aevelopment is the lack of valid cost aata. 42

An inventory of geothermal energy resources in Alaska was publ istled in September, 1980. 43

This is an essential first step, but a

considerable amount of aaaitional research needs to be done.

The

energy research situation appears to be in confusion regarding the role of the Alaska Energy Center.

If the type of oaseline aata that is

necessary to encourage geothermal development is to be generated,

-13-

research roles ana authority must be clarified.

Once this role

(jefinitlon rlcS OCCUrr2G, 2.0ec;uat2 furicing 7'Jr ;eCeSSc.:j ""':S2Y::;'1

prOjects is essential.

One way to collect baseline aata would be to require the submission of temperature aata derived from well logs. These well logs could be for either oil and gas 44 or water wells. 45 It would be essential that any aisclosure requirement include a confidentiality clause which would allow the information to remain proprietary for a given period of time.

Such disclosure requirements woulG, however, c.ssist in the

compilation of baseline data on geothermal resources in Alaska.

It is

interesting to note that the aforementioned geothermal inventory utilizes data provided by Union Oil Company geologists. 46

(B)

Financing

1.

a~d

a number of private

~echanisms.

Options:

• Provide adaitional state assistance to cities and boroughs seeking to aevelop geothermal resources .

• Authorize the creation of special districts for geothermal development.

-14-

2.

Discussion:

There is a strong constitutional policy oiscouraging the creation cf number of separate entities, each having taxing authority.47

a

Despite

the vesting of substantial authority within the boroughs 48 and cities,49 there were frequent comments to the effect that the existing entities lacked both the resources and the leadership to do geothermal development. 50

One way to resolve the problem of limited financial resources woula De for the state to expand existing programs (e.g., the Alaska Power Authority) and to establish new programs to ao geothermal development for district heating.

This assistance could eliminate the obstacles to

financing geothermal development through either revenue bonds or general ooligation bonas, or both. There is both constitutiona1 5l and statutory52 authority for the creation of special districts.

It was suggested that special districts

were needed to do geothermal development because of the difficulty of either boroughs or municipalities in conducting such development. 53 Such special aistricts could have taxing authority (aeriving revenues from the native corporations which cease to be tax-exempt after 1990) and could serve both villages and boroughs.

It may be easier to

establish a new entity to do geothermal development than to try to aaopt existing institutions to that role.

-15-

I \

r ) "

Operation and Maintenance Obstacles.

-I.

Option:

• Authorize and appropriate money to establish a district heating operator training program.

2.

Discussion:

A frequent comment relating to the development of geothermal resources for aistrict heating 'I'Ias that the state coula not "build it and leave it. 1154

I n fact, one commentator observed that

II

geotherma 1

aevelopment is more a social than a legal or technological prob1em. 1I55

To be successful, any geothermal development program will require ongoing operational oversight.

The villages appear to lack the

expertise and the resources to maintain operational energy 56 systems. Though the acquisition of operational skills could occur at the expense of cultural values,57 such operation and maintenance programs must be established if aistrict heating with geothermal resources is to oe successful.

(0)

Seconaary Issues.

A number of suggestions were made which could encourage the development of geothermal resources for aistrict heating.

-16-

While the number of seconaary

issues 58 tangentially relatea is quite large, three suggestions relate airectly to

1.

geot~ermal

G2velopment.

The Alaska Industrial Development Authority (AIDA) nas financea

large industrial facilities using an umbrella loan program. 59

The

activities of AIDA have been expanding and will continue to expand in the immeaiate future.

District heating could be encouraged if the AIDA

loan program were expanded to include geothermal development projects. Such an expansion of authority could proviae a means to meet some of the financial requirements of geothermal aevelopment.

2.

The native corporations will lose their tax-exempt status after

1990.

The suggestion was made that tax relief for the corporations

could encourage native corporation involvement in geothermal aevelopment. 60

This relief from future tax obligations could come in

many aifferent ways.

One promising approach would be to al low a tax

credit applying to post-1990 taxes for geothermal expenditures made prior to 1990.

3.

The Northern Technology Grants Program has made many small grants

for alternative energy development.

At present, however, no grants

have been made for geothermal development. 61 most beneficial.

Such grants could be

If geothermal development grants have not been made

because of limited funds, the legislature may wish to increase the amount of money available for use by the Grants Program.

-17-

IV. Thermal Water Rignts

The comprehensive geothermal resource legislation passea in the last session (H.B. 779) removed high-temperature geothermal resources (greater than 120 0 C) from the water law regime.

Geothermal aevelopers must avoid or

repair interference with established water rights.

Property rights to the

geothermal resource are based on correlative ownership of the mineral estate.

The issues related to obtaining a "thermal water right" to groundwater (less than 120 0 C) were not specifically addressed in H.B. 779.

However,

amenoments to the water law were enacted which were intendea to allow a flexible approach to such situations.

An application for a thermal water

right from the Fairbanks area has precipitated an examination of these issues by NCSL and Department of Natural Resources staff (see memoranaum in Appenaix B).

It appears that there is sufficient flexibility in the water

law to aeal with this matter in an innovative way.

Hence, no additional

proposals are offered in this regard, pending further operational experience.

-18-

Footnotes 1

iHouse Resolution No.7, April 26, 1979.

2Geothermal Policy Report. Prepared for the Alaska Legislature, July, 1979. (National Conference of State Legislatures, Energy Program: Geothermal Policy Project.) 3preliminary Profile: Small-Scale Hydroelectric Development in Alaska, September, 1979. (National Conference of State Legislatures, Energy Program: Small-Scale Hyaroelectric Policy Project.) 4Geothermal Policy Report for Alaska: Preliminary Options and Recommendations, October, 1979. (National Conference of State Legislatures, Energy Program: Geothermal Policy Project.) 5Small-Scale Hyaroelectric Policy Report for Alaska: Preliminry Legislative Options ana Recommendations. Prepared for the Alaska Joint Special Committee on Renewaole Energy Policy, November, 1979. (National Conference of State Legislatures, Energy Program: Small-Scale Hyaroelectric Policy Project.) 6Aaaenaum to the Small-Scale Hydroelectric Policy Report for Preliminary Legislative Options and Recommendations, Options Assistance. Prepared for the Alaska Joint Special Committee Energy Policy, January, 1980. (National Conference of State Energy Program: Small-Scale Hydroelectric Policy Project.

Alaska: for Financial on Renewable Legislatures,

7Small-Scale Hydroelectric Policy Report for Alaska: Legislative Options and Recommendations. Preparea for the Alaska Joint Special Committee on Renewable Energy Policy, February, 1980. (National Conference of State Legislatures, Energy Program: Small-Scale Hydroelectric Policy Project.) SIt should not be assumed tht secondary issues are of lesser importance. This report is based on the results of interviews with a number of different people. Those issues which were identified by a number of people were given primary consideration. Those issues which were identified by only one person were given secondary consideration. 9Interviews with Mary Lu Harle, Water Management Officer, and Greg Doggett, Water Resources Planner, Water Management Section, Department of Natural Resources; James H. Pedersen, Project Manager, CIRI-H&N: John Tillinghast, Assistant Attorney General; Deming Cowles, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation; Brent Petrie, Alaska Power Authority, Department of Commerce and Economic Development. 10Tillinghast,

2£.

llHarle & Doggett, supra note 9.

Petrie, supra note 9.

l2Peaersen, supra note 9.

-19-

l3Interview with Ross Schaff, Director, Division of Minerals and Energy Management, Department of Natural Resources. l4Petrie, supra note 9. 15Interview with Eric Youla, Executive Director, and Terry McGuire, Alaska Power Authority, Department of Commerce and Economic Development. l6It was also suggested that the state Administrative Procedures Act be amenaed to establish consistent procedural requirements for allstate agencies. While this could facilitate SSH development, further analysis of this suggestion is beyond the scope of this report. 17Har le & Doggett, Tillinghast, Cowles and Petrie, supra note 9; Schaff, supra note 13. l8Schaff,

.1.£.

19Ti 11 inghast, supra note 9. 20Sena te Bill 548 (1979). 21Tillinghast, supra note 9. 22This procedure is currently in use in the Department of Environmental Conservation. Pedersen, supra note 9. 23Cowles, supra note 9. 24Petrie, supra note 9. 25Yould & McGuire, supra note 15. 26Harle & Doggett, supra note 9; Yould & McGuire, supra note 15. 27S c haff, supra note 13. 28pedersen, supra note 9. 29lnterview with James Wickes, Senior Planner, Planning and Research Seeton, Department of Natural Resources; Peaersen supra note 9. It should be noted that NCSL submitted a small-scale hydroelectric permit flowchart in its Preliminary Profile, supra note 3. This flowchart, which was predicated on use of the EPCA, is attached as an appendix item to this report. 30Pedersen, supra note 9. 31Yould & McGuire, supra note 15. 32pedersen, supra note 9. 331d.

-20-

34Ti11inghast, supra note

9.

3Spetrie, supra note 9. 36Youla & McGuire, supra note 15. 37Geothermal Policy Report, supra note 2 at 3-4. 38Geothermal Policy Report for Alaska: Recommenaations, supra note 9 at 15.

Preliminary Options and

39Interview with Neil Davis, Director, Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska; Schaff, supra note 13. 40Schaff, supra note 13. 41The Institute of Social and Economic Research of the University of Alaska is currently aoing research on energy costs, personal incomes and service levels in the villages. The compilation of such backgrouna aata is essential. Interview with Lee Gorsuch, Director, and Scott Golasmitn, Institute of Social ana Economic Research, University of Alaska; Yould and McGuire, supra note 15. 42Youla and McGuire, supra note 15. 43 0. Turner, R. Forbes, M. Albanese, J. Macbeth, A. Lockhart, S. Seed, Geothermal Energy Resources of Alaska, September, 1980. (Report by the GeophYSlcal Instltute, Unlverslty of Alaska, to the Division of Geothermal Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.) 44~icks, supra note 29.

45petrie, supra note 9. 46Geothermal Energy Resources of Alaska~ supra note 43 at 2, 13. 47Alaska Constitution, Art. X. 48AS 29.33.010-.290, 29.38.0l0-~050, 19.41.010-.020, 29.43.010-.040 and 29.78.010. 49AS 29.48.010-.330, 29.53.010-.460, 29.58.010-.340, 29.78.010. 50Interviews with Nancy Lee, Coordinator, Alaska Alternative Energy Resources Center; Peter Argetsinger, Attorney at Law, Wohlfarth and Flint; Schaff, supra. note 13; Davis, supra. note 39. 51A1aska Constitution, Art. X. 52AS 29.63.010-.090, 29.78.010. 53Petrie, supra note 9.

-21-

540avis, supra note 39.

56Interview with Mike Tavella, Staff Electrical Engineer, Alaska Village Electric Co-operative, Inc. 57 Lee, supra note 50. 58Supra , note 8. 59presentation by Lance Anderson, Growth Policy Council Roundtable, 31st Alaska Science Conference, Anchorage, Alaska. 60lee, supra note 50. 610avis, supra note 39.

-22-

Appendix 1

-23-

FLOI.J DL-\GR.:....H

I.

Ownership of Land Is site on State Land? Is site on navigable watercourse?

Yes

)To

1

Apply for Federal Lands permit

Apply for use of land from D.::i.R.

u.

1

Apply to D.N.R. fo= permit to appropriate water.

/

Granted

~

Denied

1

Appeal to Commissioner D.0T.R.

/

Granted

~enied

t

Appeal to Courts

III.

Complete appropriation and apply to D.N.R. for certificate of appropriation.

Granted

Denied

IV.

Submit master application to Jepart:::ent of ::nv:'ron~e;:1.i::al Cor..s2C7at:"oc:. - Jepar:nent circulaces, for comn.em:, c::e 2,pp:'icati::m t:J a::": 2:-:ec:.:.::ive depart:nencs and affected ::lunic:::'~a1.i::::'es. Depart:nenr: submits cd applicant necessar:; ?e!:'":lit a,;-;l':"::2.::"8n5 completion. - Applicant returns completed forms. Department returns forms to appropriate agencies. - Permits may be required for: a. Water pollution control from D.E.C. b. Certificate of reasonable assurance from D.E.C. c. Anadrcrmous fish protection permit from the Department of Fish and Game. d. Endangered species and critical habitat permits from Department of Fish and Game. e. Construction of fishway, fish ladders and hatcheries :rcm Department of Fish and Game. f. Interference ~ith salmon waters per:nit :rom Depart:nent :JI Fish and Game. g. State Game Refuge Land Use ?er:nit from the Depart::ler..r:J': Fish and Game. h. State Game Sanctuary Permit from 1)epart:nent of Fish and~a.nle. i. Parks and recreational facilities use permit from D.~'T .R. j. Compliance with Alaska Historic Preservation Act administered by D.N.R.

Denied Granted

t

Follow State Administrative Procedure Act for relief

~----------------------- Grant~enied V.

VI.

If retail sales of power contemplated, apply for a certificate of public convenience and necessity from P.U.C.

If necessary, apply for permit for construction of transmission iL""les from Highway Department.

VII.

If necessary, apply for funding from 1Jarious programs ~Ji':hin Depar~­ ment: of Commerce and Economic Development or ::he ,".laska ?,er..e'..;aD.!..: ~esources Corporacion. C-lunic:"oalities ~ave additional. op?or~"-':::::':~; \vicn the ;luni~ipal Bond: Bank Authority.) Federal funding ::lay also be available.

Granted

VIII.

Denied

1

Continuing obligations: - State and local taxes - Comply with conditions of all permits and licenses - Obtain liability insurance for dam breach

Acknowledgement: This flow diagram ;s taken from a report prepared under contract to NCSL by the Energy Law Institute of the Franklin Pierce Law Center; Director--Peter Brown.

Appendix 2

/::-:--.., :,,'

.

.

Office

1125 Se'Venleenth

1303) 623--:1600

S{r~1

Hl"adquaners

.

Cc:-:fere::ce

-

.

"'" , ~3 c;:::.:;:.'~:::::es

Suite 1500 Den Yer, Coinr30o

Pr ... ,ident

Richud S. Rodes Speaker Pro Tempore. Flonda Hou~e

of

~\tcu{i~e

E.a:l 5.

Repre~n!alives

Oirector

\1:.ic\...e~

October 2, 1980 Ms. Karen Tony Division of Water Management Department of Natural Resources 4420 Airport Way Fairbanks, AK 99701 Dear Karen: In response to your phone call af last week, I have done an analysis of Alaska water law vis-a-vis an application to appropriate water for thermal purposes. I hape the enclosed memo is useful to you. This issue will be one af the areas reviewed by the NCSL Energy Program (Geothermal) during its technical assistance to the Alaska Legislature in 1980. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance and keep me informed of developments. Yours truly,

Ken

\,~onstolen

Energy Program IOJ/ps enclosure cc:

Bob Speed - House Research Ann Preznya - Division of Law Cindy Patterson - Div. of Water Management, DNR Mary Lou Harle - Div. of Water Management, DNR Jim Wickes - Div. af Research & Development, DNR Brent Petrie - Alaska Power Authority

Tony, DiiR

i \...1.

: