In response to MEA’s plans:

1)  We need to be independent

We say: Tell us why!  There is no indication of actual benefit to the ratepayer.  In fact it appears to be a bad business move.  Instead cultivate better working relationships with all of the railbelt cooperatives, which will lead to better economies of scale and better rates for everyone. 

2)  Coal is Cheaper

We say: What is the True cost of Coal? This plan appears to be doubling our electric rates.  Put your coal plant plans on the table (with the necessary documentation) next to contract proposals solicited from Chugach, ML&P, and Golden Valley and others as interested and let the best deal win. 

3)  Local generation is more reliable

We say: Conduct and publicize an honestly independent study of the reliability issues over the last ten years or so and assess what the true reliability problem is and what the best solution would be.  THEN, begin discussion with the OWNER-members on whether or not we need local generation. 

What we want:

1) Seek other options. Negotiate with other utilities; employ demand-side incentives to reduce the load as well as integrating renewables to carry part of the load.

2) Cooperate with the other utilities to jointly explore possibilities for gas and renewable energy options.

How did we come to this?

MEA has failed to cooperate with other Railbelt utilities. They did not participate in the recent Rail belt study designed to identify the most efficient and cost-effective plan for future power generation.

MEA quit the Alaska Power Association, which exists to facilitate communication and cooperation among the Alaska utilities for the benefit of the ratepayers. Now MEA has apparently told its bulk electric supplier, Chugach Electric, it would not buy any more power after 2014.

Why would any prudent co-op cut itself off from important options and leave us with only one option that could easily be subject to delays, costly overruns and new taxes on carbon emissions?

Should we believe there are no other options? Could MEA negotiate a better bulk contract or cooperate with other Railbelt utilities to find options such as co-generation or renewable fuels?

A combination of gas generation in cooperation with other utilities, along with increasing integration of renewable sources, might be the cleanest and most economical short- and long-term solution.

At least one MEA board member has said renewable clean energy sources cannot replace MEA's entire load. They can, however, provide energy for at least part of the load.

Other Railbelt utilities are interested in geothermal possibilities, wind, and tidal power.

Ocean Renewable Power Co. expects to install a test tidal turbine as early as spring 2008. MEA is alone, lacking interest in renewable power and lacking cooperation with other utilities.

MEA's IRP executive summary that supports a coal-fired power plant has several significant holes.

It appears MEA has seriously underestimated both building costs and operating costs. The current bulk power cost to MEA of 5 1/2 cents per kilowatt could easily double.

Larger costs to everyone in Upper Cook Inlet have not been addressed. They include health costs from blowing coal dust, contamination of our crops and proven links to cancer and birth defects from mercury. The unloading of coal in Seward caused plumes of coal dust to blow more than 15 miles in gentle breezes.

Please join others in Mat-Su in the new MEA Ratepayers Alliance to work for an open process that invites meaningful public input.

The public and MEA owner-members need the opportunity to decide whether a coal plant is needed. We need to explore other options with other utilities and renewable fuels.

MEA needs to make public their "Integrated Resource Plan" so all concerned can examine it.

We need cost analysis for the adverse health, pollution and adverse economic effects on everyone in Upper Cook Inlet.