Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/06/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB132 | |
| HB109 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 109 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 109-OIL AND GAS LITIGATION SETTLEMENTS
2:31:41 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 109, "An Act relating to the duties and powers of
the attorney general with respect to certain settlements
directly related to oil and gas leases; providing exceptions for
certain tax and regulatory matters; and providing for an
effective date."
2:31:52 PM
MARY HUNTER GRAMLING, Assistant Attorney General, Oil, Gas &
Mining Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law
(DOL), on behalf of the administration, sponsor, thanked the
committee for hearing HB 109.
SUSAN POLLARD, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Legislation &
Regulations Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law
(DOL), said the governor submitted HB 109 for the legislature's
consideration due to his concerns over development of oil and
gas leases. The bill relates to the authorities and the powers
and duties of the attorney general (AG) with regard to civil
litigation related to oil and gas leases under the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). In the
instances where a development oil and gas lease gets to civil
litigation, the bill would place in statute requirements that
the attorney general make determinations that any settlement is
necessary to the issues at litigation. This excludes unrelated
matters and does not alter other procedures required by the law.
2:33:55 PM
MS. HUNTER GRAMLING noted the bill has a zero fiscal note. She
provided a sectional analysis, explaining Section 1 of the bill
amends AS 43.05.070, related to the compromise of a tax or
penalty. She explained that AS 43.05.070 is found within the
Department of Revenue (DOR) statutes for the administration of
tax. This statute generally provides that before the Department
of Revenue may compromise a tax or penalty, the approval of the
attorney general is required. Section 1 adds a new subsection
(c) to clarify that the requirements set forth later in the bill
in AS 44.23.020(i) would not apply to the attorney general's
approval of a compromise of a tax or penalty. This provision is
necessary to clarify that the existing ability of the attorney
general on approval of a compromise of a tax or penalty is
unchanged. Section 2 of the bill amends AS 44.23.020(d). This
is the section of statute relating to the Department of Law and
the general powers and duties of the attorney general. Section
2 provides conforming language to indicate that the attorney
general has the existing broad settlement powers except as
otherwise provided in the new subsection (i), which is in
Section 3 of the bill. Section 3 amends AS 44.23.020 by adding
new subsections (i), (j), and (k). New subsection (i) would
require the attorney general before finalizing a settlement
directly related to an oil and gas lease under ANILCA to make
three determinations: 1) that the settlement before the
attorney general is limited to matters necessary to settle the
action; 2) excludes matters unrelated to the action; and 3) does
not alter constitutional, statutory, or regulatory procedures
required by law. New subsection (j) clarifies that the
requirement for a determination in new subsection (i) would not
apply to the attorney general in matters related to the function
of the Department of Law and the attorney general as a party
before the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA). Subsection
(j) also clarifies that the requirements in new subsection (i)
would not apply to the attorney general in matters related to an
oil and gas pipeline or products pipeline under the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska or another regulatory agency. She noted
that "the Regulatory Commission of Alaska or another regulatory
agency" is a term of art here because that language is found in
the production tax statutes as well; "another regulatory agency"
is generally interpreted to mean the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC). Subsection (j) clarifies that the authority
of the attorney general to settle matters before the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission would be unchanged by HB 109. New subsection (k)
adds a definition for oil and gas lease and references the
definition found in the production tax statutes at AS 43.55.900.
This definition was chosen so it is clear that when HB 109 in
Section 3 references oil and gas leases it means an oil and gas
lease and potentially a gas-only lease. Section 4 adds an
applicability section that would be in uncodified law. Section
4 clarifies that the determinations in new subsection (i) would
apply prospectively and would not have any retroactive effect.
Section 5 provides for an immediate effective date of the bill.
She pointed out that Section 3, subsection (i), is the meat of
the bill. The other sections primarily give additional clarity
of what the bill does not do. It does not relate any criminal
matters arising out of an oil and gas lease. It does not relate
to any tariff litigation or tax issues. It is a narrowly
targeted bill to address primarily the governor's concerns about
oil and gas lease development cases.
2:39:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked why the demarcation of concern
with oil and gas lease cases and not all sorts of cases.
MS. POLLARD replied it is limited to oil and gas leases in
recognition of the vital importance of oil and gas leasing to
the state and the reality that the state is a leaseholder with
the lessees. Because it is a long-term relationship the state
will be having lease discussions 40 years from now. Some
issues, particularly the oil and gas development issue, are
capable of continuing because the state will be in the process
of managing the development. The Department of Natural
Resources will need to continue to assure that leases are
developed in accord with the lease terms. Due to the great
public importance of this, and that much of the leasing is a
fairly well-known public process within that competitive bid and
findings for leases, the administration thinks it is wise to
limit it to just oil and gas leases because the potential issue
here is that the administration wants to recognize the
importance of that issue to the state. The administration also
recognizes that this is, for the Department of Law, somewhat of
a limitation on the attorney general's authority. It is saying
in statute for the attorney general in a settlement negotiation,
and a settlement with typically very, very broad authority, to
take a pause and to really consider when entering these
settlements the three issues brought up in the bill.
2:41:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON concluded that in effect the governor
is asking to surrender some power here to other policy makers
and to the people.
MS. POLLARD responded she is not sure she would put it quite in
those [words], but that might be a conclusion that folks would
make. The way the administration has described it internally is
that it is just a pause, "just a recognition that in the oil and
gas world, ... particularly at the time this bill applies,
because ... the provisions of this bill don't come into effect
unless you are already in litigation, you are already in a civil
action by just trying to settle this and ... settlements
themselves are difficult anyway." The administration feels that
while this pause and consideration is being put in the statute
to emphasize the importance of oil and gas development, it does
so in a way that is not overly limiting or that would delay
projects in any way.
2:42:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER agreed the entire substance of the bill is
really involved in Section 3 which basically imposes three
findings. The word in in this section is "determine" that it is
limited to certain issues, does not include anything unrelated,
and does not alter constitutional, statutory, or regulatory
procedures required by law. He inquired whether these are the
only criteria that are relevant. He said he doesn't see
anything that says the attorney ought to determine that the
settlement is in the best interest of the state, and inquired
whether that is irrelevant.
MS. HUNTER GRAMLING replied it isn't an irrelevant consideration
but said that that general provision is probably found elsewhere
in AS 44.23.020. The attorney general is already to defend the
state constitution and the constitution of the U.S. The general
legal requirements for the attorney general to follow are laid
out in statute, this is just additional instruction particular
for oil and gas lease litigation.
2:44:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER opined that these are extremely broad and
are things already in statute. He asked whether this bill
really does anything that isn't already provided for as part of
the attorney general's responsibilities in reviewing state
settlements. He said he would be surprised to find that the
attorney general would not take into consideration whether
something alters constitutional, statutory, or regulatory
procedures, or looking to see that the settlement related to the
issues necessary to settle it, and didn't already make sure that
the settlement didn't go to things that had no nexus to the
settlement. He further asked whether he is missing something.
MS. POLLARD responded she doesn't believe Representative Hawker
is missing anything. She said the question is typical of the
few questions the administration has been getting about this
bill. In regard to Representative Hawker's earlier statement
about the best interest of the state, she said that the topic
sentence of what the chief legal officer of the state does is
always in the best interest of the state. The bill would then
bring it down to this subset of items that are not currently in
statute. The administration's desire is to have something that
is within the statute to make clear that in these particular
kinds of settlements in such an important area, that the
attorney make a determination. It doesn't say "written
determination," it's "determination" - a pause, a consideration,
a checking off of the boxes that all of these conditions are
considered in entering that settlement.
2:46:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER maintained that this legislation was
inspired by the administration's concern that the Point Thomsen
settlement had been entered into illegally, that it did not meet
all the necessary requirements for a proper settlement. Until
starting discussion on this bill, it had been the position of
the Department of Law that the Point Thomson settlement did not
violate the constitution or any state law. He asked whether the
Department of Law has changed any of its previous positions on
the legality of the Point Thomson settlement, given it is now
presenting this bill.
MS. POLLARD answered the department sees this bill as a going
forward bill for how potential settlements will be handled.
Regarding the aforementioned 2012 settlement, there is currently
no issue related to that settlement and the Department of Law
typically wouldn't comment on something like that if there were
litigation. She said the Department of Law did defend the
settlement and the Department of Law would defend settlements
entered in by the attorney general on behalf of state agencies.
2:48:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER stated there is no longer any challenge or
litigation related to that settlement so it seems to him there
would be the freedom to discuss it. He noted that Ms. Pollard
said the department defended the settlement, but didn't say the
department still held the position talking about going forward.
He again asked whether the Department of Law still believes that
the Point Thomson settlement was legitimate. He further asked
whether there is concern at the Department of Law that there has
been a practice of the attorney general entering into
settlements that violate the law and so this bill is needed.
MS. POLLARD replied yes, the administration believes there is a
need for this bill and it has been crafted in a way that
provides the protections and the indications in the statutes
that will help in future settlements assure that everything is
considered, and, in particular, when talking about these long-
term types of settlements or issues with oil and gas leases.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said, "We are talking circles here because
if you do believe that there was no problem with the Point
Thomson settlement and there has been no practice in the past of
the AG entering into settlements that violate state law, I fail
to see a need for the bill." However, he added, the legislature
often does things that it doesn't see a need for. He said the
House Judiciary Standing Committee will be able to sort this out
much better than he can.
2:50:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he sees circular logic in what the
administration is saying here. The administration is saying it
wants everything to be considered, but certain things are being
taken off the table to not be considered. The administration is
saying everything should be considered but then saying that this
is to limit the powers of the attorney general to some extent.
When talking in his office it was said that a settlement does
not set any type of precedent and so [the state] is not locked
into doing the same thing again in the future for any other
settlements. Settlements are agreements between two parties and
are not like a court case where there is a ruling. He asked
whether this is accurate.
MS. POLLARD responded that in describing the bill it is hard to
describe exactly because a balance is trying to be found between
recognizing the need for great care in entering into settlements
related to oil and gas matters. She said she realized as the
words came out of her mouth that limiting the attorney general
was incorrect; it isn't really limiting and she was trying to
find the best word for this. The administration is attempting
to strengthen the statutes in this oil and gas litigation area
so that future settlements related to oil and gas development on
state land don't bypass any legal obligation.
MS. HUNTER GRAMLING added that HB 109 recognizes there are
different approaches to settlement negotiation and that
generally the attorney general does have broad powers to settle
and, if needed, enter into more global-type settlement
agreements. However, HB 109 reflects policy decision that some
more sideboards are needed for civil litigation of oil and gas
lease issues. There is potential that it could speed up
negotiation when it is known ahead of time what the limits of
authority are.
2:53:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON remarked that when dealing with the
producers the state is dealing with the most "lawyered-up
companies on the planet" and he therefore doesn't understand why
the state would want to take anything off the table or put on
sideboards when negotiating. He said he would think the state
would want to be able to approach that with the full force of
law, the full power of the attorney general using every tool in
the state's toolbox, as opposed to putting sideboards on it. He
said the sideboards might have the opposite effect of slowing
down the process knowing there is only a narrow window for a
settlement as opposed to the state having all of its power to be
brought forward. He said he doesn't think there has been any
real justification for doing this, but he won't hold up the bill
because the House Judiciary Standing Committee is the best place
to handle the bill.
2:54:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON returned to Representative Josephson's
first comments, and said he can see situations where this could
apply to the telecommunications industry, the mineral industry,
fishery issues, and utilities. He inquired as to why not make
this applicable across the board.
MS. HUNTER GRAMLING answered the administration submitted this
bill to address a particular policy concern that it had. She
said she thinks the Department of Law would generally be opposed
to expanding it to apply to other areas, not that those other
areas aren't important but there may be unintended consequences.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON said another situation that comes to mind
is the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System balancing. He said he
doesn't feel comfortable with the bill in its current form. He
noted that some time ago the committee requested that one of the
attorney generals who had handled the state's defense come give
the committee a wrap-up, but a different person came who didn't
address the issues that the committee was looking for.
2:55:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that relative to Point Thomson,
constitutionality, and the governor's opinion, he understood
that the governor as a civilian opposed the settlement while the
previous administration found it acceptable. He surmised this
is well known.
MS. POLLARD replied that if Representative Josephson is saying
the governor did not support the settlement, she cannot speak
about the litigation.
MS. HUNTER GRAMLING stated she thinks it fair to say that
attorneys can have good faith differing interpretations. This
bill isn't to address that, it is to look at going forward. It
may be that going forward, if this bill were to pass, different
attorneys general would take different interpretations of when a
determination is required, but this is the particular policy
choice at this time.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he is reminded of Rule of Evidence
408 which talks about what is shared in settlement. He surmised
Rule 408 would apply relative to the question about whether a
current administration thinks something was proper or improper.
The nature of the settlement is immaterial at this point, the
settlement is over and any lawsuit has been withdrawn, and DOL
is looking to a new day.
MS. HUNTER GRAMLING believed Rule of Evidence 408 is more
targeted towards admitting settlement negotiations as evidence
in litigation, so HB 109 doesn't impact that court rule at all.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said the spirit of the rule is that
discussions in settlement are for the settling parties and, in
that sense, answering the merits or demerits of that settlement
is beyond the scope of this bill.
MS. POLLARD responded she would agree with that as a general
matter. As a specific matter, she noted that Ms. Gramling was
not with the Department of Law at the time of the settlement.
2:58:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that as a legislator he appreciates
HB 109 because he doesn't think that the attorney general, when
faced with a case, should reach out and change other statutes
because the settling party wanted to come in and change
something else. If the state does that in a settlement, that is
overriding the legislature's authority to create statutes. The
same applies to regulatory processes that weren't part of the
settlement, because then it would be having the attorney general
override legislative authority as well as the authorities of
regulatory bodies. However, he continued, he is more concerned
with broadening this out, given "the Ketchikan lawsuit," a
current civil suit. Unless the attorney general is constrained
to the portions of the lawsuit, the attorney general might get
in and determine to change the funding formula to make this
settlement work with this settling party. He said he wants to
ensure that this is more like a limited conference where it can
be settled between the two parties' positions and cannot reach
out beyond and pull in new things, which is what he thinks this
accomplishes for oil and gas. He offered his hope that the
House Judiciary Standing Committee will broaden this so that the
attorney general in settlements of lawsuits can only function
within the parameters of the state's position and the litigant's
position and cannot be leveraged or encouraged to change other
factors. While he thinks that should be the attorney general's
constraint right now, it isn't because a law doesn't have to be
violated in a settlement to change another law because the law
isn't being violated, it is just making the exception to that
law for that lawsuit. Therefore, these are extremely valuable
determinations for the legislature to ensure that this applies
to all settlements because otherwise the attorney general and
the administration could be preempting legislative authority.
He said he thinks the context of HB 109 is right in looking at
going forward and not looking back at past settlements. He
again urged that the House Judiciary Standing Committee broaden
this authority to look at other civil litigations and ensure
settlements do not go beyond the boundaries or sideboards of the
settlement. He said he does not look at the bill as
constraining the state's ability to settle but as a sideboard to
settle within the bounds of the lawsuit and not reach out and
change other statutes or regulatory processes. He inquired
whether there is anything in his aforementioned statements that
the Department of Law would like to dispute.
MS. POLLARD answered that often litigation is because people
have a disagreement over a statutory interpretation. So, care
must be taken about any kind of broadening because oftentimes
the parties are going to do the best they can within the
settlement so that everybody can go forward. The judgement in
there is that that's less of a risk than continuing on with the
settlement. She reiterated that the Department of Law doesn't
think this would be as manageable in other areas as is being
done here with the limiting to oil and gas lease issues that the
Department of Natural Resources is handling. This is in part
because going forward it is more predictable types of issues
happening for future settlements, where in other areas it is
very difficult to actually tell what is going to end up being
within litigation.
3:04:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON appreciated Ms. Pollard's answer, but said
in looking at the Ketchikan school lawsuit, if it would be
easier to settle by going over and changing things in the
foundation formula, that should be the legislature's prerogative
to create and change that and he would not like to see the state
get into the situation where those kinds of expansions are
allowed. He added he is not saying that the current attorney
general would do that, but it is a going forward thing that is
important and he is glad it is being brought forward.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON disagreed with Representative Seaton,
saying this is the appropriate committee to introduce the
amendment given that many of the leases are regarding land and
water. If the House Judiciary Standing Committee disagrees with
the amendment, he continued, it can take the amendment out. He
said he has a problem with singling out a single industry. If
the legislature is going to treat regulations and settlements,
the legislature should be consistent. He agreed with
Representative Seaton that the legislature doesn't want the
attorney general circumventing the statute or the constitution.
He urged the committee to make the amendment today or bring it
before the committee on another day.
3:06:47 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK opened public testimony on HB 109, then closed
it after ascertaining no one wished to testify.
3:08:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 29-
GH1126\A.1, Nauman, 3/5/15, which read:
Page 1, line 2:
Delete "directly related to oil and gas leases"
Page 1, lines 13 - 14:
Delete "directly related to an oil and gas lease
under AS 38.05.005 - 38.05.990 (Alaska Land Act)"
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "related to an oil and gas pipeline or
products pipeline"
Page 2, lines 9 - 10:
Delete all material.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON objected for purposes of discussion.
3:08:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER explained Amendment 1, saying he thinks
all of the committee members have the concern that the state
needs to treat all of its resource settlements similarly. He
said he is not comfortable with the sponsor's characterization
that the bill was being limited to oil and gas because of the
importance of the oil and gas industry and that the oil and gas
industry involves long-term relationships. He said long-term
relationships occur in the geothermal, mining, and timber
industries. Mining is an industry that has the potential for a
lot of settlements that could be very material to the State of
Alaska, the Pebble Mine being an example. The spirit of
Amendment 1 is that it leaves the same requirement that the
attorney general make findings. The amendment leaves Section 3
intact except it makes this legislation applicable to all
settlements that come under the purview of the attorney general.
He said this committee is making decisions based on resource
concerns and the House Judiciary Standing Committee is the
proper place for the discussion of the legal details.
3:11:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to lines 8-9 of Amendment 1
relating to page 2, line 7, of the bill. He pointed out that
this subsection of the bill is an exception that it does not
apply to certain things, and said he is therefore unsure that is
a deletion the committee really wants to make.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
3:12:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 1
to delete lines 8-9. There being no objection, Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:13:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested an explanation of lines 11-12 of
Amendment 1, which propose to delete all material on page 2,
lines 9-10, of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER replied that this is a new section of
statute and these lines in the bill state, "For the purpose of
this section, 'oil and gas lease' has the meaning given in AS
43.55.900." He explained that since the term "oil and gas
lease" is being eliminated from the bill it doesn't need to be
defined.
3:14:08 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK inquired whether there is any further
discussion. There being no further discussion, Co-Chair Nageak
stated that Amendment 1 has been amended.
3:14:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON noted that the Department of Law
earlier stated its position in this regard, but requested that
DOL be invited to comment on the amendment and again explain its
position.
MS. POLLARD stated DOL does not support Amendment 1 and believes
it is premature. When DOL drafted this bill it was done in
conjunction with discussions with the Department of Natural
Resources; it was felt that the bill was limited and spoken
about with the agency that it would affect. She suggested this
amendment could have unintended consequences and said it has not
been discussed in a general matter with anybody else in the
Department of Law.
3:16:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said he understands the concern of the
sponsor, but said the amendment is offered as a House Resources
Standing Committee jurisdictional item, one that is a matter of
policy statement. In supporting this amendment he said he wants
to make the policy statement that all resource settlements are
of equal concern and magnitude and deserve equal consideration
by the attorney general. For example, a mining settlement
related to Pebble Mine should not be less important than an oil
and gas settlement. He further noted that this should also be
looked at by the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
MS. POLLARD understood what Representative Hawker is saying, but
stated she has not been able to vet these potential changes and
therefore it is premature for her to say that this amendment
would be acceptable to the Department of Law.
3:18:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON drew attention to language in the bill on
page 1, lines 1-2, which states, "with respect to certain
settlements". He inquired whether the word "certain" should be
deleted now that "directly related to oil and gas leases" has
been removed.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER replied he is comfortable with leaving
that sort of detail to Representative Gruenberg [of the House
Judiciary Standing Committee].
3:19:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood, then, that as the bill is
being looked at now the specification to "certain" is not still
restrictive to oil and gas.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER responded that this is for settlements
that the attorney general is settling; certain settlements as
opposed to the universe of all settlements in the world. The
word "certain" here is not overly restrictive nor overly
permissive. He added that the bill would still retain the
concern that it does not involve settlements under the
jurisdiction of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, so
"certain" is a limitation indicating that it is not the entire
universe of all possible settlements that exist in the world.
3:20:19 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK announced the committee has dispensed with the
amendment. [Amendment 1, as amended, was treated as adopted.]
3:20:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER moved to report HB 109, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON objected, recalling that when the
governor came before the committee the governor said he was
going to file this bill. Although there is litigation on all
sorts of subjects, the Point Thomson matter lasted years, he
pointed out. There were 23 years when requests to develop the
field were made and ignored. Many Alaskans believed that what
was achieved was no different than what should have been
achieved decades before. Incorporated in that settlement was
tax and other issues that were arguably extraneous to developing
the field. He said he thinks this could be a step too far to
enable the attorney general the job he or she is allowed to do,
particularly in a strong governor model like Alaska's. For all
he knows, the state could need another 20 attorneys general if
HB 109 is passed. Therefore, given his uncertainty, he must
object.
3:22:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the meat of the bill on page 2 states
that a settlement: is to be limited to issues necessary to
settle the action, does not include matters unrelated to the
action, and does not alter constitutional, statutory, or
regulatory procedures required by law. He opined that all three
of those things need to be there for every settlement. If a
settlement is going to do any of those three, then it should be
a settlement that is proposed to the legislature and should get
legislative approval if it is altering statute or altering
constitutional or regulatory procedures. He said he doesn't
think it limits the authority of the attorney general to propose
a settlement, but if it is going beyond the confines of what the
action is, then it should have to come back to the legislature.
That is why, he continued, he will be supporting this.
3:25:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that if all of the settlements
were reviewed by a court of law he wouldn't be particularly
concerned because no court can adjust the rules of court up to a
point or the statutes or constitution. A court will come as
close as it can but it will not cross the line. He said he
thinks this will also impede the DNR commissioner's authority
because the DNR commissioner plays a pivotal role as essentially
an adjudicator of some of these disputes, and the committee has
not vetted what that means to the job of the attorney general
and to the DNR commissioner. He maintained his objection.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO agreed with Representative Seaton and said
rather than seeing more attorneys general he fears the
legislature would be doing legislation eventually for each and
every industry in the state to level this playing field and make
this consistent. This will provide a level of consistency that
would stretch throughout all of the industries in the state. He
said he therefore supports this amendment.
3:27:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said this conversation raises flags to
him because he is wondering what settlements have been contrary
to statute, constitution, or regulation given he didn't know
that could even be an option. He said this goes back to his
original statement that he is unsure this law is needed, but he
thinks this amendment is needed if this law is to go forward.
He offered his strong support for the amendment and the
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON maintained his objection.
3:27:46 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK requested a roll call vote on reporting HB 109,
as amended.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Hawker, Johnson,
Olson, Seaton, Talerico, and Nageak voted in favor of reporting
HB 109, as amended. Representative Josephson voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 109(RES) was reported out of the House Resources
Standing Committee by a vote of 6-1.