Empire editorial: Hydropower is nice, but not in national parks
No one would want the electric bill of a Gustavus resident. They pay five times what Juneau residents pay for power.
That's why some are clamoring for a hydroelectric project that would replace the diesel power Gustavus now uses. It's understandable that many of the 450 residents of Gustavus are sick of outrageous electric bills. The hydro project is intended to prevent power bills from rising even higher with the escalating cost of diesel fuel.
Nevertheless, the plan to build the hydroelectric project has a few major holes.
The biggest problem with it is that it would require plucking 1,050 acres out of Glacier Bay National Park to build the plant. In exchange, the state would transfer state land to Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and designate two islands near Glacier Bay as wilderness.
National park lands are protected for the benefit of all U.S. citizens and making exceptions to that sets a dangerous precedent. While this time the benefactors are supposed to be the residents of a small Alaskan town, it opens the door for others to pitch money-making schemes - veiled in claims they're for the public good - as a way to tap the rich resources of our federal parks. Such a proposal steals from everyone to benefit a few.
Another problem with this hydro proposal is that the project likely won't lower electric rates any time soon. Any reduction in rates is based on an expectation of population growth. But, with limited economic options, the growth of this wilderness town is debatable. That raises the question whether anyone will really gain from the project besides the Gustavus Electric Power Co.
While one can sympathize with Gustavus residents' frustration with their electric rates, they are, unfortunately, among the tradeoffs one makes when living in rural Alaska. The more remote a community, the higher the costs of daily essentials. It is not the National Park Service's responsibility to try to help lower utility costs for people who choose to enjoy the pleasures of remote living.
One of the strongest arguments for the hydropower plant is an environmental one. Hydropower is far cleaner than the diesel power that now keeps Gustavus' lights on. Communities should do what they can to move away from fossil fuel whenever possible. But in this case, when one weighs the effects of a tiny town's dependence on a dirty power source against the potential of eroding national park land, the diesel argument doesn't hold up.
Either the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or the National Park Service, which must agree to the swap, should pull the plug on the Gustavus hydropower proposal. Keep Glacier Bay and other national parks the refuges Americans expect.