Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/05/2012 09:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB360 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 360 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 360
"An Act enacting the Interstate Mining Compact and
relating to the compact; relating to the Interstate
Mining Commission; and providing for an effective
date."
10:01:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN explained the legislation. The bill
authorized Alaska to participate as a full voting member in
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. Currently Alaska
was an associate member who cannot vote. He remarked that
the mining industry has historically been the cornerstone
of the Alaska economy and was growing more significant
every day. Alaska currently had seven operating mines
employing more than 2000 people in high paying jobs. The
Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC) was a multi-
state governmental organization representing the natural
resources and environmental protection interests of its
member states. The compact's purposes were to advance the
protection and restoration of land, water and other
resources affected by mining and act as the industry's
collective voice in Washington D.C. He asked for support of
the bill in light of its importance for Alaska's future.
ED FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES (via teleconference) pointed out that mining in
Alaska had been increasing over the past several years. The
seven operating mines were all doing well. He identified
increasing controversy over mining in recent years and
skepticism of the permitting process. At the governor's
request, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was
exploring ways to strengthen and improve permitting for
mining and other sectors and make it more efficient. The
department examined how other states permitted and
regulated mining and aimed to improve collaboration with
the federal government. Membership in the IMCC would assist
the state's goal of improved collaboration with the federal
regulatory agencies. Alaska had been an associate member of
the compact for six years. The commission presently
consisted of 24 states and provided a robust information
exchange between the member states and fully represented
the states when testifying before Congress on crucial
legislation. The compact also met with the key federal
agencies that oversee the permitting process in Alaska. He
provided an example of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) initiative to take over bonding for hard rock mining
throughout the nation. All mining states were concerned
about the initiative to take over mine bonding and threaten
each state's ability to permit and regulate its mines. The
commission was bringing its members together to start
working with the EPA to educate the agency on the
initiative's ramifications and propose alternative
solutions. He emphasized the benefit of full membership for
Alaska in the compact.
10:08:05 AM
Representative Guttenberg questioned whether Alaska
relinquished any state sovereignty by joining the
commission as a full member. Mr. Fogels answered in the
negative. He reported that specific language existed in the
bill, which ensured Alaska's authority. He explained that
the commission was an advisory body that does not dictate
to the states what they can and cannot do. The role of the
commission was to make the member states, "a joint voice to
the U.S. Congress."
Representative Guttenberg asked whether anything prohibited
Alaska speaking on its own behalf that might contradict the
compact as it dealt with other states. Mr. Fogels replied
that nothing existed in the legislation or membership that
prohibited the state from speaking on its own behalf.
Representative Neuman wondered if the IMCC carried any
authority to improve some of the mining laws facing the
state. He mentioned increased attention by the Federal
Safety Mining Act. He wondered if the compact could work
toward compromises with the federal government to allow the
state to take over safety management of smaller mining
operations. Mr. Fogels replied that the IMCC can help
achieve some of the member's goals. He added that it
depended on the specific federal law that dictated the
program. He noted a recent IMCC effort to work with state's
concerns. As a result, the federal Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHW) director pledged to work more closely
with states to resolve issues. He did not know how the
effort would affect the state of Alaska's issues. He
assured the committee of DNR's continued effort on the
issue.
10:12:19 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze OPENED public testimony.
GREG CONRAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERSTATE MINING COMPACT
COMMISSION (via teleconference) testified in support of the
legislation. He related that Alaska was an associate member
since 2006 and had the opportunity to learn about the
benefits and services that IMCC provided to its member
states. The legislation was introduced to bring the state
into full membership. He felt it was important that the
states regulatory concerns were heard in Washington D.C. He
shared that the IMCC was recognized for "its experience and
expertise on mining issues." Over the past year, the IMCC
testified to Congress on behalf of the member states six
times on various mining subjects. The IMCC was frequently
asked to provide recommendations on a number of mining
issues on Capitol Hill and before federal regulatory
agencies. The commission's member states commitment and
input on common concerns allow the IMCC to "speak with one
voice."
Mr. Conrad talked about why Alaska should become a full
member of the commission. He emphasized that "the act of
participation and commitment of the full member states
carry the organization forward in support and leadership."
Alaska will have a formal vote as a full member and carry
influence "in guiding the direction of the compact." The
state will have leadership opportunities and a greater
chance to wield influence within the organization. Alaska,
as a full member will be better understood by Congress and
other federal interests the IMCC worked with. He believed
that Alaska's participation in the IMCC offered the state a
unique and special voice in mining.
10:17:09 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked Mr. Fogels what he saw as the role
of the Alaska Mental Health Trust in the IMCC as one of the
new mining partners in the compact. Mr. Fogels replied that
the biggest benefit for the Mental Health Trust membership
was to make sure that the permitting process was as
efficient as possible. The trust will have a stronger
relationship with federal agencies through the IMCC. He
remarked that the trust was looking at potential coal
development and other major mining activities.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal note FN 1 (DNR).
She reported that the fiscal note appropriated $60 thousand
for membership and travel expenses.
Vice-chair Fairclough commented that the governor
participated as a designee for the associate membership.
She wondered how the state became an associate member and
whether the membership included travel in the governor's
budget. Mr. Fogels responded that the current dues portion
of the membership was covered through existing funds in the
Division of Mining, Land and Water in the amount of $7,500
per year. The travel expenses were also paid for out of
"existing budgets" and the state only attended a portion of
the meetings. Full membership entailed greater
participation in IMCC meetings.
10:21:39 AM
Vice-chair Fairclough asked for clarification of how one
aspect of membership dues were calculated. She described
the dues as an equal portion (divided among member states)
of 50% of the IMCC budget. Mr. Conrad affirmed that was one
component of the budget.
Vice-chair Fairclough requested clarification on the dues
related to the other 50 percent. She noted an IMCC
reference to a formula that calculated the state's total
resource value for extraction. She wondered how she could
determine the current status of Alaska's additional dues
compared to other states. She asked whether Alaska would be
the major contributor to the compact and whether that would
reduce the other states contribution. She asked what was
Alaska's contribution compared to the commissions total
budget. Mr. Conrad explained how dues were calculated. He
cited Article 7 in the legislation that defined the formula
used to determine member's dues. The requested
appropriation was a combination of two factors: one half of
the contribution was pro-rata and the remainder was based
on the value of mineral production. He indicated that
Alaska's dues from coal and non-coal production was
approximately $35,000. Several member states pay more. He
offered to provide a dues assessment chart that presented
the fee distribution among the member states. He relayed
that the operating expenses for the IMCC were approximately
$550 thousand. The compact employed two full time staff and
a part time book keeper. Administrative expenses were
approximately 20 percent of the budget.
Vice-chair Fairclough requested clarification about how the
mineral valuation was obtained. Mr. Conrad responded that
the IMCC calculated the value of non-coal mineral
production from the most recent Mineral's Yearbook
published by the United States Geological Survey. The value
of coal was determined using the figures provided by the
federal Energy Information Administration, part of the
United States Department of Energy.
Vice-chair Fairclough extrapolated that the two numbers
were tied together to form a base and a percentage was
determined from that. Mr. Conrad replied that the
percentage was calculated based upon the value of the
mineral production compared to the rest of the member
states.
10:28:02 AM
Representative Guttenberg referenced the backup document
"Interstate Mining Compact Commission" (copy on file), Page
3, first paragraph:
The Governors of the party states are to be the
commissioners. This means one commissioner from each
party state. However, it was considered essential to
provide mechanisms for the representation of the state
by a Governor's alternate, when the Governor himself
could not carry out his responsibilities in compact
work in person. To accomplish this purpose, the
article requires that there be in each party state an
advisory body to counsel the Governor in matters
relating to the compact. …
In order to assure the connection between the
Governor's work on the Interstate Mining Commission
and this advisory body, the article also requires that
the Governor's alternate be a member of the advisory
board.
Representative Guttenberg inquired whether Alaska's
associate membership currently required a governor's
alternate and if that was built in to the existing budget.
Mr. Fogels answered that an advisory board does not
currently exist. He communicated that the governor
appointed a designee and he was currently the designee. He
contended that an advisory board was discretionary by the
use of the word "may" in HB 360. The governor had two
advisory bodies related to mining: the Alaska Minerals
Commission and Natural Resources Conservation and
Development Board. The governor remained undecided about
creating another advisory board for IMCC membership.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that the document
specified that the IMCC articles required an advisory
board. Mr. Fogels confirmed that was correct but the
language in the legislation modified the provision which
allowed Alaska's discretion in choosing to appoint an
advisory board.
10:30:41 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze asked whether the administration supported
the bill. Mr. Fogels responded that the administration
supported the legislation.
Vice-chair Fairclough remembered that when the state
entered a compact the state then cannot make modifications
to the compact. She wondered whether Alaska's modification
was actually permissible. Mr. Fogels responded that the
Department of Law (DOL) and the IMCC worked specifically on
creating the modification.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested a yes or no answer.
Vice-chair Fairclough questioned whether an individual
state's modification to the compact was prohibited or
whether the IMCC "advised" against modification by a state
entering the compact. Mr. Conrad replied that the IMCC
"advised" that the compact language "not be amended
significantly by the states."
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for further clarification. Mr.
Conrad stated that the importance of compacts was the
uniformity of the membership in the legislative language.
However, the IMCC regularly agreed to make adjustments for
new member states that were deemed appropriate by the
commission.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to AMEND the Department of
Natural Resources fiscal note to eliminate $20,000
appropriated for the travel budget. She felt that
sufficient funds existed in DNR's budget for IMCC related
travel.
Co-Chair Stoltze concurred with amending the fiscal note.
There being NO OBJECTION it was so ordered.
10:34:31 AM
Representative Doogan asked if the motion eliminated the
travel budget for FY 2013. Co-Chair Stoltze indicated that
was correct and specified that the elimination was intended
for all future years.
Vice-chair Fairclough indicated that the remaining $40
thousand appropriation was intended to meet the state's
obligation for membership dues.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report HB 360 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note(s.)
HB 360 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and new fiscal note from the Department of
Natural Resources by the House Finance Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| ADF&G Notice on Dvex.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 9:30:00 AM |
HB 360 |
| HB360 Participants Witness List.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 9:30:00 AM |
HB 360 |
| 07 HB360 IMCC Back-Up - What We Do.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 9:30:00 AM |
HB 360 |
| 06 HB360 IMCC Back-Up - Member States page 1 only .pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 9:30:00 AM |
HB 360 |
| 05 HB360 IMCC Background.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 9:30:00 AM |
HB 360 |
| 05 HB360 IMCC Background.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 9:30:00 AM |
HB 360 |
| 04 HB360 IMCC Back-Up - Welcome.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 9:30:00 AM |
HB 360 |
| 03 HB360 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 9:30:00 AM |
HB 360 |
| 02 HB 360 REVISED Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/5/2012 9:30:00 AM |
HB 360 |