Alaska's Energy Desk

Commercial fishing in Alaska is a multibillion dollar industry. But every year, billions of dollars are lost to illegal fishing around the world. A new satellite-based surveillance system makes it easier to track illegal fishing. But some fishermen aren’t ready for Big Brother watching their every move.

Worldwide, overfishing is a huge problem. Jacqueline Savitz, vice president of the conservation group Oceana, says populations of big fish, like halibut, have dropped 90 percent. But the fish can rebound when their habitats are protected.

“We actually see fish stocks coming back and getting to levels where they’re sustainable, so we can continue to live off the interest, if you will, and not fish down the principal,” said Savitz. “But we also have a problem with illegal fishing. It’s about a $23 billion industry globally.”

Now, there’s a new tool for people who want to prevent illegal fishing: Global Fishing Watch. It’s a free, web-based, interactive map of the world’s traceable commercial fishing activity, dating back to January 2012.

It’s based off information gathered from vessels’ Automatic Identification Systems (AIS). The boats broadcast  signals including their location, who they are, and where they’re headed.

Not all boats have to use AIS. Currently, the International Maritime Organization only requires it for large vessels like big oceangoing cargo ships and certain vessels on international voyages

While AIS technology has been around for a while, this is the first time all its information is publicly available.

As ocean traffic increases, Savitz hopes Global Fishing Watch will increase accountability. She points to Alaska’s waters as an example

“There’s a lot of change happening up there with the changing climate and potential new shipping routes through the Arctic and the Bering Strait,” she said. “There are going to be areas that are protected. How are we going to know if they are really being protected?”

That’s what this project hopes to do. But fisherman Roger Rowland doesn’t like the idea that everyone can track his vessel. He wants to protect his fishing hot spots.

“With my salmon fishery, I don’t want people knowing where I am,” said Rowland. “Since I’m not legally required to have it, I turn it off.”

Rowland owns a 58-foot seiner based in Unalaska. Because his boat is small, he isn’t required to constantly run AIS.

Even though Rowland likes his secrecy, he thinks Global Fishing Watch could be helpful for certain fisheries.

“When I’m pot cod fishing, I do have legal areas where I cannot go,” he said. “My boat cannot go inside a ring around a sea lion rookery, and so it’s good for that. Nobody is sneaking in there because someone is watching.”

John Amos is the president of SkyTruth, a nonprofit that uses technology to highlight what’s happening in the environment. He says even though fishermen like Rowland might not want to be tracked, there’s a benefit for people who play by the rules.

“People care about where and how their food is being produced,” said Amos. “Here’s an opportunity for fishing vessel captains to create personal relationships with their consumers at the seafood market or at the restaurant table and say, ‘Look, we are the good guys, and we’re going to show you.’”

There will always be fishermen who turn off their AIS, but Amos believes Global Fishing Watch will help crack down on the amount of unregulated and unreported fishing as well as empower individuals to monitor patches of ocean they care about.

Residents across the Kenai Peninsula will soon vote on whether Homer Electric Association can operate without rate oversight from the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.

The utility says deregulation would save time and money and give it more local control. But it would also allow HEA’s board to raise rates as high as they want.

Brad Janorschke, general manager for Homer Electric Association, says the vote is about local control.

“Giving the Homer Electric Board of Directors the ultimate say or the final authority in the direction of the cooperative, and the rates we set,” Janorschke said.

HEA began the campaign to convince its members to vote “yes” for local control in late August. The cooperative is the only power provider for most of the Kenai Peninsula, with around 23,000 members.

Under the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, or the RCA, cooperative utilities already have a lot of local control. For example, they can can raise their rates up to eight percent, not to exceed 20 percent in a three-year period.

But Janorschke says going before the RCA for final approval of things like tariff changes, line extensions and more, adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and expense.

“Somebody asked me the other day, ‘How much do you think you would save?’ And I said, ‘We’d save a half million a year, easy, just in staff time and attorney fees,’” said Janorschke. “And I had one of the employees I worked with who is involved in a lot of these processes — [he] looked at me and said, ‘No, it’s probably double that.’”

Janorschke says that about 80 percent of cooperatives in the Lower 48 are not regulated.

Unregulated electric cooperatives have elected boards of directors that determine policy matters and approve rates and fees.

But part of the RCA’s job is to look out for ratepayers.

That’s something Homer resident Mike O’Meara feels strongly about. He was a spokesperson for the HEA Members Forum for years. The watchdog group formed in 2009 to counter the cooperative’s efforts to introduce coal power. They were successful and the group stopped meeting regularly in 2013.

“With the issue of deregulation, I’ve started getting emails and telephone calls from people,” said O’Meara.

O’Meara is skeptical of deregulation. He says that, without the RCA, there would be no consumer protection.

“A big part of its job is making sure that ratepayers are treated fairly, that the prices that are charged are within reason, that if there are significant ratepayer complaints, the RCA can intervene,” said O’Meara.

Mike Pate, also from Homer, was on the HEA board for 22 years. But he resigned in 2009 because he says he felt he could no longer trust the administration.

He’s a strong advocate for local control, but has reservations about what HEA is pushing for.

“I will be voting against deregulation. The final reason that I resigned from the board was I did not feel comfortable with the quality, integrity of the information that the board was receiving from the administration,” said Pate.

Bob Pickett is chair of the RCA.

“I would suggest it’s probably the most important deregulation election that the commission has ever been involved with,” said Pickett.

Pickett says other utilities have deregulated in Alaska. Matanuska Telephone Utility went independent earlier this year, but they have competition. HEA is a monopoly.

HEA claims regulatory operating costs could decrease with deregulation. Pickett says that’s very unlikely. He says the cooperative’s debt has grown from 172 million dollars to more than 350 million dollars in five years. He says that debt is having an impact on ratepayers.

“At this point, HEA has, on a per-kilowatt hour charge, the highest rates in the railbelt,” said Pickett.

Janorschke says HEA’s bylaws protect ratepayers from unreasonable rate increases. And he says members can trust the board.

HEA board members respond to the cooperative members, Janorschke says, but he acknowledges their fiduciary responsibility is to the viability of the cooperative.

If the co-op members feel their board is not making the right decisions, they always have the option to vote them out, Janorschke says.

Informational meetings are scheduled for Kenai Peninsula communities in September and October. Ballots will be mailed out in October and must be returned within 30 days. Election results will be made public in December.

Bob Pickett, the chair of the RCA, says he plans to attend both the upcoming HEA informational meetings in Homer on Wednesday September, 28 and in Soldotna on October 10.

Gov. Bill Walker’s administration has called a truce in its dispute with the big three North Slope oil producers over plans for Prudhoe Bay.

The Department of Natural Resources has approved the field’s latest development plan, ending a standoff that raised fears the Walker administration was threatening companies’ leases at the site, potentially disrupting production at the state’s largest oil field.

The dispute goes back to January, when the Walker administration requested detailed information about how BP, which operates Prudhoe Bay, plans to market the field’s massive natural gas reserves. It was the first time the state has made such a request; Prudhoe doesn’t currently ship gas, only oil.

But the state wants assurances that BP and Prudhoe’s other owners, ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, are preparing to make the gas available to a potential North Slope pipeline project.

“The state’s position is that we’re at a point where we need to prepare for major gas sales,” said new DNR Commissioner Andy Mack. Mack spoke by phone from Seoul, South Korea, where he was traveling with the governor and other state officials in an effort to promote Alaska’s gas line project.

BP refused the Walker administration’s request, arguing the information the state wants either doesn’t exist or would be illegal to release under antitrust laws. In June, the state declared the Prudhoe Bay plan incomplete and gave BP two months to try again.

That decision raised concerns the state might be considering action against the companies’ leases if they didn’t cooperate.

But the state reversed course. On Sept. 20, Mack sent a letter approving the companies’ plan (as first reported by the Alaska Journal of Commerce). In an interview, Mack said the state didn’t get all of the information it requested, but the administration has been encouraged by the companies’ public statements in support of a state-led gas line project.

“There’s always a request and then there’s a response, and in many cases it’s not a perfect match, and I think that’s the case here,” he said. “But we felt comfortable at the end of this process that it was the right thing to do for the state of Alaska to approve the plan through 2017.”

The approval letter included the caveat that the state expects more detailed information next year.

State Sen. Cathy Giessel, R-Anchorage, chairs the Senate Resources Committee. She said the letter seems to leave the issue open.

“I think there is definitely a tone of ongoing threat to the leases on the North Slope, based on Commissioner Mack’s letter,” Giessel said. “That’s a concern to me.”

Meanwhile, the head of the state Division of Oil and Gas, Corri Feige, announced plans to resign the same day Mack’s letter was sent. Feige has been the face of the Walker administration in the dispute for the past few months.

Mack said her decision had nothing to do with the Prudhoe Bay plan. A spokesperson for the Division said Feige was not available to comment.

It’s PFD announcement day in Alaska — but it’s a little less exciting than usual. That’s because this year, for the first time in the program’s history, it’s been cut.

Gov. Bill Walker announced in a pre-recorded video on Friday exactly how much Alaskans would receive in this year’s Permanent Fund Dividend check: $1,022.

This year’s dividend checks could have been about twice as much, but Walker vetoed half the money appropriated to dividends earlier this year while the state battles a $4 billion deficit.

On Thursday, Alaska’s Energy Desk asked Alaskans how they felt about this year’s smaller dividends. Some people already knew to expect a change.

MCCHESNEY: Do you know how much the PFD is this year?

Benji Neice, of Juneau: What it should be, tomorrow, should be about $1500.

Katrina Dennis, of Juneau: My guess is maybe about, $1200.

Daryl Shaw, of Anchorage: I know it’s not what it should be.

Back in July, Gov. Bill Walker’s veto capped the dividend at about $1,000. Without the veto, there would have been about $1.4 billion available for dividends.

“That number would equal a little bit over $2,000 per Alaskan,” said Ken Alper, director of the Alaska Department of Revenue’s Tax Division.

Alper and Walker argue that with the current budget crunch, the state couldn’t afford that amount. 

As oil prices have crashed over the last two years, the state has covered billions in budget deficits by drawing from its savings accounts. If lawmakers continue on their current path, they’ll burn through the state’s primary savings account in about two years. Then they’ll have to use the account the dividends come out of. Right now that account has about $7 billion in it. At current spending levels it will be drained in a few years as well. Then there wouldn’t be money for the budget or dividends.  

“That could go away in another couple of years and when the governor talks about, in 2020, the dividend would go away unless there’s a fiscal plan, that’s just not an idle threat, it’s a mathematical fact,” said Alper.

Alper and Walker want lawmakers to restructure the permanent fund and pass a combination of taxes and spending cuts to balance the budget. And in the meantime, they say we shouldn’t spend the nearly $700 million it would have taken to give everyone in the state $2,000 checks this year.

For now, that money is just staying in the account.

“It’s not going anywhere, it remains in the earnings reserve, it continues to be invested and it’s going to be producing income for future generations,” said Alper.

A lot of people aren’t happy with the idea that Walker is messing with the Permanent Fund.  One lawmaker sued. For a lot of Alaskans, that fund is inviolate.

That includes Anchorage resident Daryl Shaw, who was born in Alaska. His daughter was born just in time for the first dividend check in 1982. He says when the fund was started, it was supposed to be untouchable.

“I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed and I’m not a politician, but I’m an Alaskan and I just don’t think it’s right for Gov. Walker to actually reach into that fund and be able to even touch it in any way shape or form,” said Shaw.

But the amount of this year’s dividend isn’t uncommon. In fact, if you take an average over the last 33 years, it’s just under $1,100.

We talked to Alaskans in Anchorage, Juneau and Unalaska, and a surprising number said that $1,000 is good enough for them.

John Bosh, of Juneau: That’s fine, you know. It’s better than taxing me.

Suzi Golodoff, of Unalaska: If you’re on a fixed income, it makes a difference. Yeah you count on it, you do. But I guess I’m thinking that $1,000 is a pretty fair cap.

Keith Hermann, of Juneau: I always joke that people call it the permanent dividend funds thinking that the dividends are what’s permanent. The dividends are not permanent, they’re very temporary. They’re a way of getting the public to support the necessity of saving money for the future.

It’s likely that one way or another, the future means smaller dividends.

The Alaska Permanent Fund Corp. has rejected a proposal from Gov. Bill Walker’s administration to invest in state oil tax credits.

Former Attorney General Craig Richards presented the idea to the fund’s board earlier this month. The administration is looking for ways to ease the pain for smaller oil companies after the governor vetoed $430 million in credits that companies expected would be paid this year.

The Permanent Fund board said in a statement that the expected returns “do not justify taking on the associated risks.”