So what's new?

Letter to the editor (April 28)

One aspect of the Snettisham powerline debacle which has not been publicly addressed is the obvious permanent solution: replacement of overland transmission lines with a submarine cable.

The two-mile crossing of Taku Inlet between Point Bishop and Waterfall is already connected by submarine cable and Alaska Electric Light & Power recently connected Douglas and Admiralty Islands with a cable to serve the Greens Creek Mine. So there is no question as to it being a feasible alternative to land powerlines.

I've lived in Juneau for more than 50 years and well recall the public meetings in the 1960s preceding design and construction of the Snettisham power project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Alaska Power Authority. Recommendations by Juneau residents, familiar with local weather-related hazards, to consider an all-submarine power cable, were summarily rejected as being too expensive and not technically feasible, despite widespread use of submarine power cables in Scandinavia.

The responsible federal agencies grossly underestimated the severity and frequency of "acts of God" such as high winds, heavy snowfall, avalanches, falling trees, broken insulators, etc., which have plagued the line since its construction.

During the first two years in the early l970s, large sections of the line above timberline blew down, causing numerous power outages and costly repairs. These sections had to be relocated to lower elevations near the beach, requiring expensive helicopter logging to clear a powerline right of way through the old growth forest.

A case could be made to justify federal disaster funds based on the failure of the federal agencies who designed and built the original line to adequately assess its vulnerability to damage from natural hazards. The Snettisham situation is similar to the Hurricane Katrina situation: failure of the corps of engineers to estimate the potential for failure of dikes breached by floodwaters.

Simply rebuilding the failed sections of Snettisham powerline will do nothing to prevent a repetition of power interruption by avalanches, high winds, etc., plus constant maintenance over the 100-plus year life of the Snettisham power project.

At least eventual replacement of the still-vulnerable overland sections of the line with a submarine cable should be included in current discussions.

Ted Merrell Sr.

Juneau