Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/12/2010 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB280 | |
| HB306 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 280 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 306-STATE ENERGY POLICY
2:01:41 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 306, "An Act declaring a state energy policy."
[Before the committee was CSHB 306(ENE).]
2:03:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted that he and Representative Millett
provided the history behind HB 306 on [3/8/10] and today's
presentation will provide details of the bill itself.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLETT, Alaska State Legislature,
pointed out that the policy was drafted by both the resource
development/consumer side and the conservation/environmental
side.
2:04:44 PM
CHRIS ROSE, Executive Director, Renewable Energy Alaska Project
(REAP), began his PowerPoint presentation by noting that he was
one of 15 stakeholders working with the House Special Committee
on Energy from July through December 2009 to develop this state
energy policy. To show the diversity of the people working on
this issue, he listed the other members of the Stakeholder
Advisory Panel [slide 2]: Gwen Holdman, Alaska Center for
Energy & Power; Robert Venables, Southeast Conference; Scott
Goldsmith, Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER);
Jason Brune, Resource Development Council, John Davies, Alaska
Cold Climate Housing Research Center; Ralph Andersen, Bristol
Bay Native Association; Bill Popp, Anchorage Economic
Development Corporation (AEDC); Bob Pawlowski and Denali
Daniels, Denali Commission; Caitlin Higgins, Alaska Conservation
Alliance; Stacy Shubert, Municipality of Anchorage; Marilyn
Leland, Alaska Power Authority; Meera Kohler, Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative; Ron Miller, Energy Consultant; [and Kathy
Wasserman, Alaska Municipal League (AMA)].
2:06:24 PM
MR. ROSE pointed out that most states have an energy policy, but
Alaska does not [slide 3]. An energy policy is important for
setting guidelines and sidebars on what goals Alaska wants to
have for energy. The policy, as written, starts out with
legislative intent language which is essentially five of the
goals that the group decided, by consensus, could be included.
The goals would be up to the legislature to promulgate. A part
of the goals is recognizing that Alaska must first have a policy
that sets a long-term vision to address its energy needs. The
bill is also an attempt to align that policy with all the
different units of government so that all of the units of
government in the State of Alaska are working toward the same
end. After the goals are set up, plans and projects can be
implemented to reach those goals.
MR. ROSE emphasized the hierarchy of what the stakeholder group
saw as important [slide 4]. First is to establish an energy
policy, second is to develop the strategic goals, third is to
create the plan to achieve the goals, and fourth is to implement
the projects. He noted there are currently a number of
organizations and regions in the state that are all crafting
energy plans. However, that planning is without the benefit of
a statewide vision and HB 306 is the attempt to provide that
statewide vision for everyone to work toward.
2:08:09 PM
MR. ROSE said the guiding principle of the process the
Stakeholder Advisory Panel worked on was that energy is the
lifeblood of any economy - without energy security there is no
economic security [slide 5]. The stakeholder group wanted to
talk about energy as it applied to residential, commercial, and
industrial users. Whether this should apply beyond electricity
and heat to include transportation was discussed, and
transportation is something the legislature may decide to
include. The group also wanted a statement in the policy that
anticipates what the group believes will be future reality.
Some of that reality is that fossil fuel prices will continue to
trend upward due to supply and demand and because there may be
some kind of carbon regulation that will make it more expensive
to use fossil fuels in the future. The group wanted to ensure
this is taken into consideration as energy decisions are made
and the state moves forward.
MR. ROSE explained the starting point of this statewide policy
was an energy policy that was put together by the Tri-Borough
Commission, a commission established a few years ago by the
mayors of the Kenai Peninsula and Matanuska-Susitna boroughs and
the Municipality of Anchorage [slide 6]. Mr. Popp of AEDC
staffed that effort for which the strategy included developing a
policy first, and which is the same thing that is being said now
for the state policy. When the effort with the House Special
Committee on Energy was started last summer, the decision was
made to not reinvent the wheel and to use elements of the Tri-
Borough Commission energy policy as the starting point.
2:10:58 PM
MR. ROSE stated that the fundamentals of the policy in HB 306,
pages 2-3, Section 44.99.115, are to institute a comprehensive
and coordinated approach of supporting energy efficiency and
conservation [slide 7]. Everybody in the group agreed that
investment in energy efficiency must happen first because it is
always cheaper to save a unit of energy than to generate it.
This investment would save the economy money and re-circulate
those dollars in the state's economy rather than exporting them
to purchase fuels.
MR. ROSE said the second fundamental of the policy is to
encourage economic development by promoting the development of
both renewable and nonrenewable energy resources. One of the
goals in the legislative intent language is that Alaska remains
a leader in petroleum and natural gas production, as well as to
become a leader in renewable energy development. Another
fundamental is to support energy research, education, and
workforce development, which are items addressed in HB 305 and
SB 220, the House and Senate energy omnibus bills.
Additionally, those bills would create an emerging energy
technology fund. The last fundamental of the policy is to
support coordination of governmental functions. Right now there
are governmental functions on energy in many different
departments around the state, but there is not necessarily any
coordination on those.
2:12:40 PM
MR. ROSE summarized that this diverse group of stakeholders, by
consensus, agreed Alaska must have energy policy first, then
have goals, plans, and projects in that descending order to get
to where it is going [slide 8]. To provide an idea of how the
consensus process worked, he explained that at one point the
bill was about seven pages long because each stakeholder wanted
to include his or her group's pet goal. However, a decision was
made to tighten things up by agreeing on only a few goals that
would be sent to the legislature for passage and use as a vision
to coordinate the goals that the legislature might consider most
important.
2:14:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT pointed out that this would be a
statewide policy and the House Special Committee on Energy
tasked the stakeholders group to make a policy that would
overarch the entire state and apply to both rural and urban
residents. It required a lot of compromise between stakeholders
that have parallel lines, but much different philosophies on
energy, to come up with a policy that serves a purpose in every
corner of the state. She noted that the stakeholder group had
long debates about many of the topics that are in the amendments
she is aware will be proposed.
2:15:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the promotion of energy
efficiency for transportation was intentionally omitted from the
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT responded yes, because one community's
version of transportation may be much different than another's.
For example, bicycles and public bus systems may be appropriate
forms of transportation in Anchorage, but not in Dillingham or
Aleganek. The group had a long discussion about there being no
such thing as energy efficient airplanes and most of the
transportation in rural Alaska is by airplane. The stakeholders
wanted to be aware of the fundamental differences between rural
and urban when it comes to transportation, and they were
passionate about ensuring nothing be put in state policy that
would negate a community or be unattainable by a community.
2:18:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON added that it can be seen from looking at
the policy that the major themes are conservation, efficiency,
economic development, education, and training. During committee
discussions with the stakeholder group, it was felt that
transportation might better serve as a subset of those major
themes that would go into statute. There were a number of other
items that could have also been included in the policy to
provide more detail, and at one point this two-and-a-half-page
bill ballooned to seven pages. It was felt that decisions
needed to be made to make the bill short and concise with
appropriate emphasis. The stakeholder group decided that
transportation, and the unfunded mandate that might be carried
with it, would be better served by the strategic work products
that will follow once the policy is put in place.
2:20:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that, on an energy policy basis,
it seems a large chunk of policy is being left out by omitting
transportation.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON encouraged Representatives Edgmon and Millett
to continue working on transportation issues.
2:22:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related that the House Special Committee on
Energy discussed not wanting to strap the state and ensuring
that the overall energy policy is a fit for all communities. A
big part of conservation, efficiency, and economic development
is infrastructure, whether that is power, gas, or transportation
infrastructure. He said he is a proponent of electromagnetic
trains as one of the best ways of conserving and protecting the
environment. He asked whether Representatives Edgmon and
Millett see how potential transportation systems could be a part
of building conservation, efficiency, and economic development
in communities by having some fit-for-all direction to work
towards, but not necessarily policy plans that would be
implemented now. For example, building efficiency is included
as an overall statement of goal, but it is not defined.
2:24:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON replied this is a policy call that
committee members will likely want to consider as there is an
amendment that speaks to this somewhat. He directed attention
to page 2, lines 29-31, which state, "working to identify and
assist with development of the most cost-effective, long-term
sources of energy for each community statewide". He said his
recollection of stakeholder discussion about including a
transportation element in the policy is that there is room in
this language for any community to develop its own
transportation policy or plan. There was great concern that by
putting it into the overall policy, some of the smaller
communities could be disenfranchised. It is a policy call, and
he and Representative Millett are simply reporting to members
what the very diverse stakeholder group came up with.
2:25:50 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, in regard to the goals listed on page 1, lines
5-15, inquired whether action items with dates for reaching
those goals were developed to act as measuring sticks.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT answered that that is exactly what was
done. The group started out with these goals in the legislative
intent; Alaska has already reached 24 percent of its electric
generation from the renewable energy source of hydropower, so it
has 26 percent to go. The House Special Committee on Energy
debated whether to raise that renewable energy goal from 50
percent to 75 percent; however, she said she was comfortable
with the goal of 50 percent, knowing that it was attainable.
When applying for grants or loans from the state, these goals
let folks know that this is a priority.
2:27:48 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted that under federal guidelines hydropower
is not considered renewable. He asked whether hydropower is
considered renewable by the State of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT responded that hydropower is defined as
renewable on page 2, line 22, as are hydrokinetic and tidal.
The intent is to go around the federal government and continue
considering hydropower as renewable energy.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, in response to Co-Chair Johnson, pointed
out that nuclear energy is included under efficient development
of nonrenewable resources on page 2, lines 26-28.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT added that nuclear energy was a point of
contention with the stakeholder group, as was coal. She said
she must give the conservation community credit for
understanding that nuclear is a possibility and that coal is a
necessary resource for serving as a bridge while Alaska moves
forward to renewable and alternative energy sources.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON offered his belief that nuclear energy may be a
viable alternative in the not-too-distant future.
2:30:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG observed that however a person feels
about nuclear, it is appropriate for nuclear to be in the
document as something to be considered under this broad policy.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he is a supporter of each community being
able to determine on its own what it wants.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that his district includes the only
nuclear-free city in Alaska and the only city that is currently
working on a nuclear plant, those cities being Homer and Seward,
respectively.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out his district has the only
non-city that is a nuclear-free zone and there was once a plan
to put a nuclear plant there.
2:31:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked where the sponsors think it would be
most appropriate to insert something about encouraging energy
efficiency for transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT replied that transportation needs are
included under the declaration of state energy policy on page 2.
Lines 4-5 talk about taking a broad approach to transportation
needs, but it is not specified in the body of the bill exactly
what that means. She said she thinks the transportation portion
is covered, and the bill was put together with the idea that
transportation is included. She added that it is Representative
Seaton's call on the policy, but she wanted to point out that
the bill already addresses the transportation question in the
declaration.
2:33:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, in further response to Representative
Seaton, said it seems to him the most appropriate location for a
transportation amendment would be somewhere in Section 2 on page
2, should the committee decide to put transportation into the
policy.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON offered his opinion that the intent language
might be a more appropriate location than the statute itself.
2:36:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled
26-LS1049\T.1, Kane, 2/18/10, and written as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 3, following line 2:
Insert a new subparagraph to read:
"(E) making available to affected
communities residential solid fuel burning device
change out programs that meet Environmental Protection
Agency emission requirements and implement energy
efficiency standards that conserve the use of the
state's timber resources used in space heating;"
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG explained that his intention is not to
persuade members to adopt the amendment, but to persuade members
to do larger things. He said his community clearly needs to
address emission standards through the more efficient burning of
solid wood. He withdrew Amendment 1 in the spirit of the work
done by the House Special Committee on Energy to remain focused
on overall state energy policy, even though it would be more
efficient for his community to have Amendment 1 in policy now.
If members keep adding things on to this policy it would likely
not survive by sheer weight.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN pointed out that wood pellet stoves are very
efficient and pellets could be shipped to Western Alaska where
fuel costs are very high.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said his point is that Amendment 1 is
a specific program as compared with an overall energy policy.
2:39:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 26-
LS1049\T.3, Kane, 3/5/10, and written as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 16:
Delete the second occurrence of "and"
Page 2, line 20, following "efficiency;":
Insert "and
(D) encouraging and empowering communities
to adopt community-appropriate measures to reduce
motor vehicle fuel use and other energy use, including
measures encouraging the use of public transportation,
if appropriate for the community;"
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
2:39:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained the House Special Committee on
Energy discussed an amendment that would have assisted
communities in developing public transportation options.
However, the committee did not want the state to play such an
in-depth role in communities and was unsure of the definition of
assisting. In taking this amendment back for a re-draft, he
wanted to ensure it met the criteria under the declaration of
state energy policy. He further noted that Amendment 2 is not
just about transportation within a community, but also
transportation that would link communities in the most energy
efficient ways.
2:43:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he supports the intent of the
amendment, but it gives him pause because the diverse group of
stakeholders felt it would be better to address this after the
policy's adoption. The word empowering on line 6 carries more
connotation than what the policy itself would want to carry, the
amendment has more detail than the stakeholders envisioned for
HB 306, and each community already has ability to adopt vehicle
emission ordinances. The stakeholder group put a lot of effort
into winnowing the policy down to a generic energy policy that
addresses all the components of a resource development state.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON maintained his objection to Amendment 2.
2:45:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 as follows:
Line 6:
Delete "and empowering"
Line 8, following "energy":
Insert "transportation"
Lines 8-9:
Delete "including measures encouraging the use of
public transportation, if appropriate for the
community"
Thus, lines 6-9 of Amendment 2 would read:
(D) encouraging communities to adopt community-
appropriate measures to reduce motor vehicle fuel use
and other energy transportation use;
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
2:48:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired what "other energy transportation
use" means.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded he wants the focus to specifically
be on energy transportation uses and not all the energy uses
that are out there.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he would recognize an amendment
that adds something that cannot be read into the policy. The
amendment is unnecessary because this can already be read inside
the policy as currently written.
2:50:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether public transportation is
included under "other energy transportation use".
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON commented that Amendment 2 would give one
of the stakeholders another bite at the apple, so it would then
be necessary to open it up to everyone. He will therefore vote
no on the amendment even though he is not opposed to the intent.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether Amendment 2 was brought up in
the House Special Committee on Energy.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT responded yes. While she understood the
maker's intent, she said it is covered in the broad policy and
is a second bite at the apple.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON maintained his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK withdrew Amendment 2 and offered his
appreciation for the hard work of the stakeholders.
2:52:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved Conceptual Amendment 3, written as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 27 move reference to "coal"
to
Page 2, line 28 after "nuclear energy," insert "and
coal if utilized with carbon capture technology,"
Thus, page 2, lines 26-28, of CSHB 306(ENE) would read:
(B) promoting the development, transport, and
efficient use of nonrenewable energy resources,
including natural gas, oil, gas hydrates, heavy oil,
and nuclear energy, and coal if utilized with carbon
capture technology, for use by Alaskans and for
export;
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.
2:53:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Co-Chair Johnson,
explained that with carbon capture technology the carbon dioxide
would be captured when the coal is burned. In further response,
he agreed that it is a form of carbon sequestration.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN offered his belief that Alaska has a 300-year
supply of coal and said he thinks the use of carbon capture
technology is already covered under the current language.
2:55:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the word "coal" should
be deleted from line 27, not moved.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the intent is to move the reference
to coal from line 27 to line 28. He added that the first "and"
on line 28 should be deleted.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG recalled Representative Joule stating
that one of his communities has coal nearby and use of that coal
would be more efficient and affordable than flying in diesel.
2:56:53 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON maintained his objection, saying he fears that
putting carbon capture technology into statute could result in a
community being unable to use its coal even if that was the most
efficient source of energy available to the community.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN objected to Conceptual Amendment 3 because much
work is being done at the Healy plant.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON contended the amendment is not restrictive
and is a policy that would encourage economic development by
promoting development. He said he does not think the export of
coal should be promoted without using clean coal technology or
carbon capture technology. He clarified it is not his intent to
close a generation facility.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Edgmon, and
P. Wilson voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 3.
Representatives Olson, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Neuman, and Johnson
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 3 failed by a
vote of 3-5.
2:59:51 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to adopt Amendment 4, written as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 12, following "by"
Delete lines 13, 14
Renumber section accordingly
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON explained he does not want to codify the
creation and establishing of efficiency codes for new and
renovated residential, commercial, and public buildings because
the codes might cause problems, increase costs, and stymie
development. He is not prepared to have the administration
develop energy efficiency codes until further down the line.
3:01:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON supported the state having efficiency
codes because while living in Tok she saw houses that were just
being thrown together. Given the state is currently paying to
winterize [existing] homes, there should be some kind of a basis
for new construction so the state is not paying for something
that could have been done to begin with. Therefore, she said
she would like to leave this provision in the bill.
3:02:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON agreed with Representative Wilson. He
said this is a very important part of the overall policy, which
is reflected in omnibus legislation that is making its way
through both the House and Senate. He pointed out that there
are over 1,000 public facility buildings in the state with each
agency using a different energy efficiency code for its
buildings. Energy efficiency is the best and quickest way to
reduce the consumption of energy. The legislature has put
almost $400 million into the weatherization program, with much
of that designed to go after sub-standard private sector homes.
Under HB 296 the governor is proposing to use $18 million of
Alaska's $30 million in federal stimulus monies to allow for
performance contracting for public facilities. Thus, including
efficiency codes in the energy policy is only appropriate.
3:04:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG AHFC noted that the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation (AHFC) already has codes for weatherization
and energy efficiencies and is going to great length to ensure
the money is being used to meet certain standards. Banks want
codes so they know what they are loaning on. So, in many ways
the state is already there. The bill does not say adopt codes,
it just says establish energy efficiency codes. If the state
does not establish codes for itself, someone else might, such as
an insurance agency requiring that certain building standards be
met before it will provide insurance. However, he added, codes
should not apply to the cabin in the middle of the woods.
3:06:27 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN supported Amendment 4 for all the aforementioned
reasons because he sees the word establishing as meaning it will
become mandated building code statewide. Many people need to
build their own home because there are no contractors in their
area, codes would also increase the cost of construction.
Promoting the most efficient way is hard to do because the most
efficient fuel for a home, such as natural gas, may not be
available in all areas of the state. He said his biggest issue
is that this would mean state government is telling local
governments and citizens what to do when it should instead be
encouraged at the local level.
The committee took an at-ease from 3:09 p.m. to 3:10 p.m.
The meeting was recessed at 3:10 p.m. to a call of the chair.
6:02:03 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON called the meeting back to order at 6:02 p.m.
Present at the call back to order were Representatives Seaton,
P. Wilson, Edgmon, Tuck, and Johnson. Representatives Olson,
Guttenberg, Kawasaki, and Neuman arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Discussion resumed on Amendment 4.
6:02:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 4 as follows: page 2, re-insert lines 13 and 14; line
13 replace "establishing" with "encouraging". Thus, page 2,
lines 13-14, would read:
(A) encouraging statewide energy efficiency codes
for new and renovated residential, commercial, and
public buildings;
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON explained that encouraging would better
fit the intent of the overall policy statement and would not be
a mandate that requires something.
6:05:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected. He pointed out that the AHFC is
currently using the 1998 international building code, and
although that code has been updated the AHFC is still using the
1998 version. Should the AHFC ever be challenged, he feared
that it would be required to use the revised international
codes, which is something the State of Alaska would not like to
do. It is important that Alaska have its own codes that meet
its needs rather than an international code. Alaskans could use
the state's code as a guideline even if it is not implemented.
He related that the [Cold Climate Housing Research Center] in
Fairbanks is looking for the best method of construction in
Alaska and learning what does and does not work so the state can
have proper codes to meet its needs.
6:07:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that establishing has a stronger
meaning to it and is a mandate that could mean there will not be
enough support for the policy. Encouraging accomplishes the
same result by providing basically the same direction in that
energy efficiency codes are coming Alaska's way, whether through
the marketplace, federal designation, or lenders.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT added that the word encouraging better
fits the document because the policy's recommendations were
drafted to be guidelines, not mandates. She said she is
comfortable with the amendment to the amendment and in
continuing forward with the theme of the policy, which is
encouraging the state to do certain things and one is to adopt
some energy efficiency codes.
6:09:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that regardless of which
word is used, no codes are being adopted by this bill. The AHFC
is already doing quite a bit of this and there are already codes
or guidelines. While encouraging is not quite as good to him as
establishing, it is acceptable and will work for getting the
policy through the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK withdrew his objection. He offered his
appreciation for Representative Guttenberg's comments and said
it will be up to local communities whether to adopt any codes
that are established.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 4 was passed. There being no objection, Amendment 4,
as amended, was passed.
6:11:02 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON withdrew Amendment 5 without offering it.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 6,
written as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 3,
Insert:
"(E) promoting energy efficiency utilized for
transportation"
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected.
The committee took an at-ease from 6:11 p.m. to 6:12 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG removed his objection.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected.
6:13:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the energy policy outlines
what is wanted to take place throughout the state. Conceptual
Amendment 6 would promote economic development by promoting
energy efficiency utilized for transportation and, as suggested
by Representatives Edgmon and Millett, would be inserted under
Section 2 which promotes economic development.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT stated the amendment is a good compromise
for putting in transportation without mandating anything and she
does not think it would alienate any of the rural communities.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he is fine with the amendment and
noted it would accomplish what the earlier amendment had wanted
to accomplish.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Conceptual Amendment 6 was passed.
6:14:51 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7 as
follows:
Page 1, line 15, after "renewable":
Insert "and alternative"
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN explained he would like to include this language
because alternative fuel sources can be created from methane, a
clean fuel that would provide a great opportunity for Alaska.
The amendment would tie in with the other parts of the policy,
such as page 2, line 26. He added that alternative energy would
also provide jobs.
6:17:43 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes. He inquired
whether alternative is defined in the bill.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN stated that alternative energy can be gas-to-
liquids, coal-to-liquids, or biomass to liquids. Alternative
fuels are an evolving culture as far as what will be the fuels
of the future.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON understood, but said his question is whether
alternative is defined.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she believes alternative is defined
in the omnibus bill, but she is unsure whether it is defined in
the policy bill. She offered her belief that alternative energy
is a defined term in statute so a definition may not be needed.
6:19:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that an inventory book published by
the Alaska Energy Authority includes nuclear as alternative
energy, and he therefore thinks alternative energy is anything
that is not defined under renewable and that is not currently
being utilized.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted he is not opposed to including the
alternative language, but he wants to be clear that at some
point coal is not considered alternative. Additionally, he
wants to ensure that what the bill is trying to accomplish is
clearly defined.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that a year or so ago the title
for the renewable energy fund was changed at the last minute
from renewable to alternative, which would have meant that the
funds could have been spent on coal gasification. Thus, he
understands the point of needing clarity. However, this policy
deals with all the energies and the amendment would not mean
that alternative energy would be defined as renewable, thus he
does not have a problem with the amendment.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON agreed.
6:21:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that page 2, lines 22-25,
promote the development of renewable energy resources, and page
2, lines 26-28, promote the development of nonrenewable energy
resources. He agreed that "and alternative" would apply because
it would help to emphasize lines 26-28.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. He inquired whether this
amendment would require that another section be added to the
bill to define what is renewable, nonrenewable, and alternative.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she thinks that including
alternative is forward thinking. While it might be thought that
energy sources can be defined, new sources of energy may come up
that may not be defined; thus, alternative might provide a broad
enough scope. While she thinks that gas-to-liquids would be
covered under fossil fuel and hydrates, she said she is not
opposed to alternative because every energy is encompassed that
can be defined at this point in time.
6:24:08 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON supported adding alternative. He noted that
fish waste is being changed into diesel, something that is not
technically covered in the bill; however, alternative would
bring that in.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that alternative would cover all the
bases because Alaska's definition of renewable might not be the
federal government's definition, hydropower being one example.
6:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON agreed with adding the word alternative to
the intent section and suggested that it also be included in the
codified section. He moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 7 as
follows:
Page 2, line 27, after "nonrenewable":
Insert "and alternative"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 to Amendment 7 was passed.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 7.
There being no further objection, Amendment 7, as amended, was
passed.
6:26:21 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opened public testimony.
CAITLIN HIGGINS, Executive Director, Alaska Conservation
Alliance and Alaska Conservation Voters, supported HB 306 and
urged its passage on behalf of her organization's 40 member
groups. She thanked Representatives Edgmon and Millett and
stated it was a pleasure to work as part of the stakeholders
group. She said HB 306 is a policy that creates the first step
in reaching a longer-term vision of the energy goals that the
state wants to achieve. The energy policy would put Alaska on
an economically viable, sustainable, stable energy path that
supports energy efficiency first and foremost. Further, the
energy policy would support renewable energy development,
workforce training, and coordinating efforts among government
entities focused on energy. The Alaska Conservation Alliance
has identified energy efficiency as a priority issue for this
legislative session and supports the policy to encourage the
establishment of statewide energy efficiency codes, decrease
energy use in public buildings through efficiency, and educate
the public about becoming more energy efficient. The bill sets
Alaska on a path to a cleaner, brighter, and more economically
stable future.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony after ascertaining no
one else wished to testify.
6:28:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK thanked the House Special Committee on
Energy co-chairs for partnering with the stakeholders and giving
all of them the opportunity to weigh in and refine the bill. It
is a good piece of legislation with buy-in from all parties and
is a great example of government bodies reaching out to the
public to come up with policies that benefit both the people and
the state.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON also recognized the hard work done by the co-
chairs of the House Special Committee on Energy. He related
that the Obama Administration stated in a meeting that natural
gas is the bridge to the future, although it might take 100
years to cross that bridge to renewable energy. He said it will
therefore be important to continue to develop fossil fuels in
the immediate future.
6:31:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that HB 306 is a remarkable piece
of legislation because it truly is the work of an ad-hoc group
of Alaskans representing every sector of the energy industry and
advocacy.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he is looking for the same type of
cooperation from the people and user groups that put the policy
together to help develop Alaska's fossil fuels.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to report CSHB 306(ENE), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
306(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CS HB 280 (LC).pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB280 Background.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB280 Overview.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB280 Sectional Summary.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB280 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB 280-1-1-021710-ADM-N.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB 280-2-2-021710-CED-N.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB 280 WD v. C.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB 280 Changes v. C.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB 280 v. C Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| HB 280 v. C Overview.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| CSHB280-DNR-OG-03-05-10.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |
| CSHB280-REV-TAX-03-07-10 Cook Inlet Recovery Act.pdf |
HRES 3/12/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 280 |