For decades the residents of Tenakee Springs have been cautious about development around Tenakee Inlet. So, many of us were concerned when we learned the Inside Passage Electrical Cooperative had submitted an Alaska Renewable Energy Fund grant application for a project in Tenakee Inlet without notifying the local government in Tenakee. We were later offended to read the grant proposal which stated “we have encountered nothing but support for this clean, reliable energy source.” Inside Passage may have received “nothing but support,” but that is only because they did not speak to anyone in Tenakee Springs.
The site Inside Passage has proposed for its geothermal project has been selected as a proposed “enterprise site” in the Sealaska Lands Bill. The site has been named Pegmatite Mountain on the “future sites” map and is located at the northwest end of Tenakee Inlet. The City of Tenakee Springs has a long history of opposing development in Upper Tenakee Inlet and the City Council unanimously passed a resolution opposing the Sealaska choice of Pegmatite Mountain. The City is also in the process of exploring hydo power much closer to town that could satisfy our electricity needs.
As a resident of Tenakee Springs, I fear development of the site could lead to road construction and increased boat traffic in Tenakee Inlet. It would disrupt the solitude and isolation I sought when I moved to Tenakee Springs. Furthermore, development of the site could disrupt a now pristine watershed which is used extensively by local residents and visitors. Several members of the community commercial fish there and it is frequented by subsistence and recreational users.
Because transferring the parcel to Sealaska likely would lead to development largely beyond my control, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the Pegmatite Mountain site being included in the Sealaska Lands Bill. The people of Tenakee were already left out of the discussion regarding this parcel once. This time I hope we’re heard, and I hope Juneau residents who know what a special place Tenakee Inlet is will join me in voicing their discontent with this proposal.
Joan McBeen
Tenakee Springs
Comments (6)
Add commentWho gives a tinker's dam about high cost rural energy!
One might at least expect some empathy for the much longer term residents in Hoonah to the north of Tenakee and those to the southeast as well. I'm happy for the residents who reside in the former Tlingit lands - they have readily recognized what the former predominant culture saw in this area.
It's interesting at least one of the current residents refuse to share with the former landholders any energy benefits the island obviously holds. I don't think the offense should only be held by the writer. Our Tlingit brethren might take offense as well but from an opposite perspective.
Should the writer represent the entire community - well, then there are some incredibly selfish folks residing in Tlingit territory. It is doubtful all Tenakee residents oppose energy development to help lower the energy costs for their neighbors. However, the above letter doesn't speak well for our region as a whole when there is an empathy vacuum for those saddled high energy costs.
Non-empathy for our smallest communities may be symptomatic of that which seems to permeate those towns which have better rates and living conditions. That is a shame, we are all humans who love the region in which we reside whether we've been here for 3 year, 3 generations or multiples of 3000 years.
I hope this letter doesn't serve as a line in the sand against renewable energy development. Can critical questions be asked? My response is absolutely - they must be!
The region won't be serve well without a thorough vetting of any proposal. I've watched many projects be improved through the offering of constructive criticism.
While the solitude which the writer seeks to maintain is understandable - it should not be maintained at the expense of communities which have experienced and enjoyed this region's blessings for a much longer time.
Should that be the writer's objective, many will be opposing this narrow and selfish perspective.
Hey she's lived there for a long time - show some respect
Hey she lives there - show some respect.
Who would trust Sealaska up in that nice area anyway?
Sealaska care.....
Joan McBeen's letter shows how a corporation deals with human beings.
A corporation thinks only of the bottom line. Other people's lives, and the impact the corporations actions have on them, is meaningless in the Board Room.
I'm glad Joan McBeen has had the courage to speak out ...... too many people just bow down their heads when facing the arrogance of power .
TheEyeOpener
If by "incredibly selfish people living in Tenakee" you mean people who are incredibly protective of the entire area from which they get their food and make their living, then yes, we are incredibly selfish. We are hoping to develop hydro power to lower those costs for our community. When assisting other communities to lower the burden of their energy costs means building roads to connect to Tenakee, or even to suggest a road that can be used to connect to Tenakee, then you are talking about an issue we, as a community, have been wholly opposed to for many, many years. We have no line in the sand as far as renewable energy development goes, hence our proposed hydro project. Our line in the sand is drawn when lies are told and underhanded, sneaky behavior becomes the game.
Here's a suggestion for you: You feel that the people living currently in Tenakee owe it to you to develop energy so that your costs can be lowered. Tenakee didn't actually develop it, but I'm more than happy to share some secrets: Turn your TV off, burn wood, walk or bike, don't drive. Satisfied? Good.
I wonder why?
Why would anyone be skeptical of the motives of the Sealaska Corporation?
Prior comments mustn't construed as positive towards Sealaska
Nothing I wrote could possibly be construed as positive towards Sealaska or Inside Passage Electric Cooperative. This must be explicitly stated. Except for the fact that people in the smaller towns are enduring ridiculous electrical rates, which in part is due to utility incompetence, with a share going towards the "not in my back yard" folks, and the rest due to an I could care less attitude by state and regional energy "officials".
In fact I'm rather enjoying the heat this issue is generating on all the previous mentioned stakeholders. If it weren't for the folks suffering decades of neglect by those responsible, I'd find it rather laughable. It isn't humorous however, because people are suffering. And our region is needlessly undergoing a shrinkage in population and economy. That is why despite my objections to the proponents of the proposed geothermal facility - I support what they are attempting to consider.
The fact that the head of IPEC sits on the board of Sealaska along with two area legislators these relationships create all kinds of potential conflicts of interest for these folks - has nothing to do with the merits of creating some lower cost energy for Hoonah and perhaps Pelican initially. And these issues must be kept at arms length for some form of energy relief to occur.