Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/11/2013 01:30 PM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB 129 | |
| SB90 | |
| HB71 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 90 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 129 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 129(FIN)
"An Act relating to approval for oil and gas or gas
only exploration and development in a geographical
area; and providing for an effective date."
1:48:32 PM
AT EASE
1:48:51 PM
RECONVENED
CHRISTINE MARASIGAN, STAFF, SENATOR KEVIN MEYER, explained
HB 129. She stated that the committee had previously heard
SB 59, and Section O of that bill was included in HB 129.
She explained that the bill had the same material as SB 59,
with the addition of Section 1 of HB 129.
JOE BALASH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, announced that HB 129 will consolidate the
Department of Natural Resources' exploration and
development approvals, while still protecting the
environment and providing for public participation. The
right to explore and develop oil and gas is granted through
a lease that has been through an extensive public disposal
process. A lease is subject to mitigation measures,
multiple agency permits, and plans of operations approval.
Exploration and development approvals are made in
conjunction with individual plans of operations for a lease
or project and include a separate public notice for each
approval. Many approvals are repetitive, subject to the
same mitigation measures, and within the same geographical
area. He explained that HB 129 will allow the department to
comprehensively evaluate oil and gas exploration and
development in a geographical area, without regard to lease
boundaries, and define the criteria by which specific
projects are evaluated and approved. The initial
comprehensive review of a geographical area gives the
public, government agencies and industry an opportunity to
participate and identify exploration and development
considerations for all subsequent projects. Projects may
then move forward within the defined parameters and subject
to the lease mitigation measures without additional public
review following the geographical area approval process,
saving time and resources for both the state and lessee
when approving subsequent plans of operations.
Approvals covering a broader area would both create
efficiencies in the exploration and development review
process and provide for the department to look at the
overall effects of exploration and development across
multiple leases. This bill will still protect the public
interest by requiring public notice and an opportunity to
comment under AS 38.05.945. Further, it provides certainty
to the oil and gas industry that exploration and
development projects may proceed within defined parameters.
1:53:43 PM
ROSEMARY AUTUANGARUAK, SELF, BARROW (via teleconference),
testified against HB 129. She felt that the legislation
would restrict her ability to participate in the
communication regarding decisions related to oil and gas
access. She stressed that activity in the Arctic was very
expensive, so it took effort to communicate with various
layers in the process to effectively place the concerns.
She remarked that if effective participation was
restricted, the daily lives of members of the surrounding
communities would be negatively impacted. She remarked that
traditional cultural activities were often occurring at the
same time as oil and gas exploration activities. She
stressed the importance of community involvement.
1:58:52 PM
LISA WEISSLAR, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke against HB 129. She
looked at the findings section of the bill. She remarked
that the section was added on the previous Sunday, with
limited testimony and no public comment. She remarked that
the section was added as a result to the court case that
submitted a decision on March 29, 2013. She explained that
the Supreme Court issued a decision that examined the
constitutional principle that the state's natural resources
were to be made available for maximum use consistent the
public interest. She remarked that prior court decisions
stated that DNR was required to examine new information
that became available for a project. She felt that DNR
still had a responsibility to analyze, and consider the
cumulative impacts through every phase of an oil and gas
project; and provide timely and meaningful public notice of
DNR's cumulative impact analysis. She continued to discuss
a possible amendment to the bill.
Co-Chair Meyer shared that Mr. Shine would address the
legislative findings.
Senator Hoffman asked to receive the amendment that Ms.
Weisslar discussed.
2:04:53 PM
JAMES SULLIVAN, SOUTHEAST ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL,
JUNEAU, testified against HB 129. He remarked that he had
already testified against the senate version of the bill.
He felt that the problems were apparent in the geographic
areas. He pointed out that the areas were not defined in
statute, and were very nebulous. He remarked that there had
been testimony regarding the size of the areas, which gave
the impression that the areas could be as small as a unit.
He stressed that there was no specific definition as to the
size of the area in the bill, and felt that the allowance
gave undue pressure on the public, because they would be
unable to provide the needed accurate testimony.
Senator Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Meyer asked for more information regarding the
findings section.
Mr. Balash shared that the findings and intent section was
put together by DNR and Department of Law (DOL) in
consultation with the Attorney General. He felt that DNR
had no reason to question the additions, and shared that
DNR was happy with the language in that section. He pointed
out that the Supreme Court decision used the verbiage in
two places, and remarked that there may be focus on two
separate instances within that decision.
2:10:18 PM
Co-Chair Meyer shared that there were various testifiers
available for more information.
Senator Bishop wondered if the bill would slow down
development on the North Slope. Mr. Balash replied that he
did not believe that the bill would slow down development
on the North Slope.
Vice-Chair Fairclough did not know of the Supreme Court
ruling, and it had been implied that the Attorney General
had turned the case around. She felt that there should be
an examination of cumulative impact, and sharing that
impact with the public. She asked for more information
regarding that proposal. Mr. Balash replied that when DNR
considers offering state land for lease, a best interest
finding is initially required. The best interest finding
was required for a disposal of interest for any property
that DNR manages. He furthered that the best interest
finding was conducted for each sale area, every ten years.
He stated that it was a comprehensive document that
requires a substantial amount of public notice, public
hearing, and decision making. Once the document is
completed, the finding is used for the next ten years. For
each of the next ten years, there is an annual call for new
information to see if there are any additional studies or
developments that may change the evaluation.
2:15:15 PM
AT EASE
2:16:50 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Fairclough looked at page 10 of the Supreme
Court decision, and wondered if it references the public
notice process. Mr. Balash responded that DNR relied on
that statute to serve the best interest of Alaskans.
Senator Hoffman queried the differences between the
statutes. Mr. Balash responded that the referenced statute
were the factors to consider. He remarked that the methods
were outlined in a separate statute.
Senator Hoffman wondered if there would concern if the
cumulative impact analysis were included. He felt that
there was a concern regarding public participation in the
process.
Vice-Chair Fairclough referenced the Alaska Statutes, and
stressed that there was required notice for the outlining
communities regarding land use.
CS HB 129(FIN) was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:22:24 PM
AT EASE
2:24:35 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 90 Copper River Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 Copper River2 Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 Cordova Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 Opposition Northern Economics2.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 Sitka Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 Sitka2 Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 Sopport - MacManus.doc |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 St Marys Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 Unalaska Opposition.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| SB 90 Yukon Koyukuk Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| HB 129 CSHB 129 Weissler Testimony.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 129 |
| HB71 Work Draft Version P 041113.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 71 |
| SB 90 Opposition Letter Packet 2.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |
| 12102013 SFC Hay Report.pdf |
SFIN 4/11/2013 1:30:00 PM |
SB 90 |