Last week, the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee (LBA) quietly approved $100 million in taxpayer money to be used for a collection of renewable energy projects funded through the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA). Shockingly, lawmakers approved the money just hours after the Division of Legislative Audit released a report that raised serious questions about AEA's due diligence in determining the economic viability of these speculative projects. The report found that four out the five randomly selected energy projects they reviewed showed "there is a higher than necessary risk that the projects will not be successful."

Last year, the legislature passed a bill to spend $50 million a year on renewable energy projects for the next five years. I voted for that bill. During the special session, the amount was bumped up by another $50 million. I voted against that addition, on the grounds that we shouldn't double the price tag of an untried program. ...They say if you do this job long enough, you're bound to make mistakes. I think voting for this cart-before-the-horse renewable energy bill is one of mine.

Renewable sources such as wind energy, geothermal energy, hydroelectric power, photovoltaic and solar thermal energy should only be considered supplements. Replacing, for instance, a coal power plant of 100 megawatts would require 300 to 400 wind generators, even if we assume a nominal performance of 2 to 2.5 MW per wind generator. And the problem of storing of wind-generated energy during long-lasting periods of calm has not been solved. Is such a substitution reasonable for Interior Alaska? Certainly not.

I have actually designed, built and operated a windmill, and I can tell you that the cost of wind energy is 4-6 times that of conventional. Western Alaska is littered with the skeletons of discarded windmills destroyed by icing and gale-force winds.

One million barrels a day is the equivalent of the energy we wold obtain from a 3.7-million-acre wind farm....the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined.