Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/07/1998 02:10 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 7, 1998
2:10 P.M.
TAPE HFC 98 - 94, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 98 - 94, Side 2.
TAPE HFC 98 - 95, Side 1.
TAPE HFC 98 - 95, Side 2.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Therriault called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:10 P.M.
PRESENT
Co-Chair Hanley Representative Kelly
Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring
Representative J. Davies Representative Martin
Representative Grussendorf Representative Moses
Representative Foster Representative Mulder
Representative G. Davis was not present for the meeting.
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman; Annette Kreitzer, Staff, Senator
Leman; Diane Barrans, Executive Director, Postsecondary
Education, Department of Education; Mike Maher, Director,
Student Financial Aid, Postsecondary Education Commission,
Department of Education; Al Ewing, Deputy Commissioner,
Department of Environmental Conservation; John Stone, Air
Program Director, Department of Environmental Conservation;
Kyle Parker, Alaska Chapter, International Association of
Drilling Contractors (IADC); Russ Douglas, Alaska Chapter,
International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC);
Kirsten Shelton, Alaska Conservation Voice (ACV), Juneau;
John Shively, Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources; Representative Joe Green; Jeff Logan, Staff,
Representative Joe Green; Sam Trivette, Chief Probation
Officer, Southeast Region Probation, Department of
Corrections.
TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE:
Patti Saunders, Anchorage; Pamela Miller, Program Director
and Biologist, Alaska Community Action on Toxics,
Anchorage; Jay Hermanson, Program Director, American Lung
Association of Alaska, Anchorage; Cheryl Richardson, Clean
Air Coalition, Anchorage; Mike Coumbe, Self, Anchorage;
Brian Petty, Senior Vice President, International
Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC), Washington D.C.
SUMMARY
HB 272 An Act to permit a court to order a defendant who
receives a sentence of imprisonment for a
misdemeanor to serve the sentence by electronic
monitoring; and relating to the crime of unlawful
evasion.
HB 272 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
SB 299 An Act relating to the treatment of well test
flares, non-road engines, and aggregated fuel
burning equipment associated with non-road
engines under the state's air quality control
program; defining 'stationary source' for
purposes of the state's air quality program.
SB 299 was reported out of Committee with an
individuals recommendations and with a fiscal
note by the Senate Finance Committee dated
4/2/98.
HB 325 An Act making appropriations for the operating
and loan program expenses of state government,
for certain programs, and to capitalize funds;
making appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c),
Constitution of the State of Alaska, from the
constitutional budget reserve fund; and providing
for an effective date.
RESULTS BASED GOVERNMENT - Final Committee Action
Postsecondary Education
Water Quality
HB 325 was HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 325
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government, for certain
programs, and to capitalize funds; making
Appropriations under art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution
of the State of Alaska, from the constitutional budget
reserve fund; and providing for an effective date."
RESULTS BASED GOVERNMENT - Final Committee Action
Postsecondary Education
Water Quality
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
DIANE BARRANS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
COMMISSION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, stated that the
Commission had no problems with the proposed mission
statement.
Representative Foster MOVED to adopt the Postsecondary
mission statement. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
adopted.
WATER QUALITY
Representative Foster MOVED to adopt the proposed mission
statement for Air and Water Quality. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was adopted.
HB 325 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
SENATE BILL NO. 299
"An Act relating to the treatment of well test flares,
non-road engines, and aggregated fuel burning
equipment associated with non-road engines under the
state's air quality control program; defining
'stationary source' for purposes of the state's air
quality program."
ANETTE KREITZER, STAFF, SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, stated that SB
299 clarifies that Alaska's air quality control program as
it relates to the treatment of stationary and mobile
sources of emissions in air quality control permitting.
She stressed that the legislation would not create an
exemption from the Clear Air Act. It would simply codify
in statute, the federally recognized distinction between
mobile and stationary emission sources.
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
regulators do not distinguish between mobile and stationary
sources of emissions when determining whether an air
quality control permit is required. Although, State
regulations clearly require DEC to take into consideration
the mobility of emission sources when determining whether
to regulate them. She advised that DEC continues to treat
mobile and stationary sources alike.
Ms. Kreitzer commented that the federal program recognizes
that the same emission control technologies used for oil
and gas refineries and power plants are not suitable for
mobile applications like lawn mowers, snow machines,
bulldozers, and marine vessels. The cost as well as the
size and weight of emission control technologies limits
their use with mobile source emissions. All mobile
equipment must be manufactured to meet Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) established emission standards.
Appropriate emission control technologies are built into
the mobile equipment as opposed to requiring modification
of the equipment at the time of initiating operations.
Ms. Kreitzer commented that the current situation results in
confusion when applying laws regarding stationary and mobile
sources of emissions regulated under the same permitting
program.
PATTI SAUNDERS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF,
ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to SB 299. She stated
that the bill could effect the health of Alaskan citizens
and workers. She emphasized that it was unfair that
testimony in other committees was only heard and considered
by the industry.
Ms. Saunders noted that the Clean Air Act specifies two
divisions between mobile and stationary sources which have a
different set of regulations designed to take into account
the type and amount of solutions that come from the sources.
She suggested that this should be regulated in order to
protect human health. Ms. Saunders voiced concern that if
the legislation passes, there will be serious implications
for the State's regulatory program on air pollution. That
program would then go to the feds. She recommended that the
Committee require testimony from qualified scientists,
medical professionals and the people living in the areas
which will be affected by implementation of the bill.
PAMELA MILLER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PROGRAM
DIRECTOR AND BIOLOGIST, ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS,
ANCHORAGE, noted that Alaska Community Action on Toxics is a
program in the umbrella of the Alaska Conservation
Foundation. This group adamantly opposes SB 299.
Ms. Miller commented that the bill was moving through the
Legislature much too quickly to have appropriate public,
medical and scientific input. She reiterated that testimony
from the public had been excluded in most committee
hearings.
Ms. Miller stated that SB 299 exempts significant sources of
air pollution from permit requirements and regulatory
oversight. She added that there is no upper limit to the
amount of air pollution exempted by the bill. Facilities
proposed by the bill for exemption include some of the
largest producers of air pollutants in the State.
Ms. Miller continued, the bill also would have adverse
economic consequences including the imposition of a federal
highway fund station. Passage of the bill will cause
increased health care costs to the State, as health problems
become exasperated. Ms. Miller stressed that the bill does
not take into consideration science or public health.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned Ms. Miller's reference to a
federal take-over. Ms. Miller replied that SB 299 would
deregulate significant portions of air pollutants at which
time the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be
forced to take the program over. Co-Chair Therriault
believed that the Clean Air Act would regulate those
provisions at the time of production, suggesting that Ms.
Miller's assessment was unfair.
Representative Kelly understood that the bill would bring
the State into compliance by mirroring the federal act. Ms.
Miller replied that the bill was below the federal minimums
required in the Clean Air Act.
JAY HERMANSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PROGRAM
DIRECTOR, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE,
testified in opposition to SB 299. It will adversely affect
the health of lungs in the State, particularly for those
persons who currently suffer from lung disease. He noted
concern with the high level of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
dioxide emanating from non-road engines.
Representative Mulder inquired if Alaska currently
experiences non-road agent problems in relationship to lung
disease. Mr. Hermanson replied that he did not have
specific information on that problem, although, he knew that
exhaust from city buses could cause respiratory distress for
those predisposed to lung disease.
Representative Mulder suggested that the testimony was being
aggrandized. Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that the
federal government is taking steps to force manufactures to
move toward cleaner burner technology and that those
protections would continue to be in place.
CHERYL RICHARDSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CLEAN AIR
COALITION, ANCHORAGE, testified in opposition to SB 299.
She stressed that drilling rigs are pollutants and that one
drilling rig could equal the pollution of 100 city buses.
City buses emit the kind of pollution that causes
respiratory disease. She added that the Clean Air Coalition
most recently has been focusing on particle pollution. In
order to protect human health, the EPA regulates that
concern.
Ms. Richardson noted that current monitoring on the North
Slope has indicated an unhealthy level of particulents at 50
micrograms per cubic meter. The established federal
standard is 150. It has been found in Anchorage that 50
micrograms of particle matter cause respiratory disease and
bronchitis during inversion periods.
She pointed out that with passage of SB 299, Alaska would be
the only State in the Union which allows its refiners to
sell high sulfur fuel.
Representative Martin questioned the facts presented by Ms.
Richardson. Ms. Richardson responded that information
originated from the industry, as provided through DEC
permitting process. She reiterated that the numbers she
provided were accurate.
Representative Grussendorf requested further information
regarding the level of sulfur fuel burnt in oilrigs in
Alaska. Ms. Richardson commented that the Clean Air Act
amendments of 1990 required that tail-pipe standards be met.
That standard was followed by requests that fuel
manufacturers produce a lower sulfur gasoline. Alaska and
Hawaii were allowed to seek an exemption. Hawaii then
choose to produce the low sulfur diesel, whereas, Alaska
continued the exception.
MIKE COUMBE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SELF,
ANCHORAGE, spoke against SB 299. He stressed that he liked
to breathe clean air and questioned why the Legislature
would support legislation polluting it.
AL EWING, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION, advised that this Administration has been
clear that Alaska is "open" for business. The area-wide oil
and gas leases on the Kenai Peninsula, in Cook Inlet and on
the North Slope have caused renewed leasing which has
further indicated that commitment. The Governor has been
equally clear that development in the State must be done
correctly from an environmental perspective. Both these
concerns must be balanced in all legislation.
Mr. Ewing pointed out that passage of SB 299 would be the
exact opposite of doing it right. If enacted, it would
prohibit regulation of oil drilling rigs which are
significant sources of air pollution. Additionally, because
of the imprecise wording of the bill, it could be
interpreted to prohibit regulation of a wide range of
significant sources of air pollution throughout the State.
He stressed that the bill would authorize even "mandate"
significant backsliding in Alaska's air quality, resulting
in dirtier air for Alaska.
Mr. Ewing continued, even if the interpretation could be
limited to oil drilling rigs, it would be unacceptable to
the Administration and the people living, working and
playing on the Kenai Peninsula, Cook Inlet and in the
village of Nuiqsut. He added that the timing of the bill is
bad, having the potential to jeopardize the progress we are
making on National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) leasing
and the expectations the State has for other development.
Air pollution standards are designed to protect human health
and the environment. They are not limited in their scope to
protection of people who live in urban areas.
Mr. Ewing advised that state-of-the-art air quality models
tell us that if oil-drilling rigs are allowed to operate
unregulated, they will, and in many cases will cause
violations of clean air standards. The industry suggests
that DEC should not regulate the rigs until it is confirmed
that there are air quality standard violations. The law
states that DEC has a responsibility to prevent violations
of air quality standards. He emphasized that it would be
unwise to wait until the health and welfare of Alaskans is
adversely impacted before taking action.
Oil drilling rigs are mobile and need the flexibility to
move quickly from site to site. The Department understands
their need for flexibility in how they operate. The
Department has been working with the industry for the past
three years to design regulations that would provide
flexibility and necessary air quality controls. Several
alternative solutions have been submitted, although, each
has been rejected by the drillers as unsatisfactory. Their
solution is "no" regulation.
A single rig can emit as much pollution as more than a
hundred city buses operating in a single, very crowded
intersection. Mr. Ewing stressed that would not be an
insignificant amount of pollution. State of the art air
quality models predict violations of air quality standards
if the rigs are allowed to operate without controls. The
Department's objective is to maintain clean air in ways that
are consistent with the law and with common sense.
Mr. Ewing noted that in conversations with air program
managers in other states, the Department has found that
drilling rigs outside of Alaska and other non-road engines
use low sulfur fuel (.05%) because that is what is available
except in Alaska. He noted that if Alaska were using .05%
sulfur fuel, drilling rigs would be insignificant sources of
SO2, thus not requiring stringent pollutant regulations.
Mr. Ewing pointed out that Alaska's models are the best in
the world. They have a standard assumption used in law and
which is used throughout the country. He concluded, DEC
would like to do ambient air quality monitoring in the
future to assess air quality conditions of trends on the
North Slope and elsewhere in the State. That would cost
money which the Department does not have. At present time,
the State's best tools are the models.
Mr. Ewing concluded that the Department strongly opposes SB
299. He stated that it is a major threat to the air quality
of Alaska. It would put our citizens and our environment at
risk.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 94, Side 2).
Co-Chair Therriault asked if the proposed DEC regulations
would differentiate between mobile and non-mobile sources.
Mr. Ewing replied that the proposed regulations were focused
on drilling rigs with intent to provide flexibility which
the drilling industry needs to continue operation.
Following discussion between Mr. Ewing and Co-Chair
Therriault regarding regulations in other states, Mr. Ewing
pointed out that engines and drilling rigs in Alaska emit a
lot more pollution because they are using non-sulfur fuel.
The bill would remove the Department's authority to regulate
that concern.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned the reference to the "dark
cloud" hanging over Prudoe Bay. Mr. Ewing commented that he
had quoted a letter written by the North Slope Borough
Mayor. There is no current monitoring being done on the
North Slope Borough. Representative Mulder inquired why
there was no testing currently being done there. Mr. Ewing
explained that in areas that are meeting the standard,
regulations are approached so as to avoid violation. The
program is designed to minimize the amount of pollution
going into the area, and not to avoid the standards.
Representative Mulder asked if industry had been trying to
work with the Department for the past two years. Mr. Ewing
replied that the Department has been attempting to work with
the industry for the past three years to resolve this issue.
Representative Mulder asked for documentation verifying
correspondence between the industry and DEC.
Representative Grussendorf questioned if the Department had
received a letter from BP, notifying the drilling
contractors of their opposition to resolve this issue
through legislative action. Mr. Ewing responded that DEC
had received that letter. Representative Grussendorf
pointed out that "industry" as referenced in the proposed
legislation, is specifically the drilling contractors. He
noted that they are technically the subcontractors of the
oil industry.
In response to Representative Martin, Mr. Ewing replied that
the letter received from the North Slope Mayor's office was
dated May, 1997, a memo written to ARCO. He reiterated that
DEC actions are aimed at minimizing the effect. The
Department uses models to predict what is occurring.
Mr. Ewing noted that State laws are consistent with federal
laws. If the bill were passed, the Department's ability to
regulate a number of other sources would be removed; the
State would be subject to a federal government take-over of
the program. He emphasized that the feds would be inclined
to do that, since it is a moneymaking endeavor. He
emphasized that their fees would be higher.
Representative Kelly asked if the bill were adopted, would
the State be out of compliance with federal requirements.
Mr. Ewing stressed that we would absolutely be out of
compliance.
Representative J. Davies asked how big of a problem would it
be for drilling rigs to use low sulfur fuel in Alaska. Mr.
Ewing explained that low sulfur is not generally available
in Alaska because of the waiver for mobile source
automobiles. He stated that .15% would be adequate to meet
DEC standards. In order to provide that fuel, BP and ARCO
would have to upgrade their topping plants, a cost they
claim would be between a $500 thousand to $1 million-dollar
expenditure. They are willing to do that. For new engines,
it is mandatory that provisions be incorporated to address
that concern. The issue is that BACT needs to be applied to
older engines. The Department has proposed that there be a
check every five years verifying that the older engines do
comply.
Representative Foster requested a list of fines and
violations which had been issued by the Department regarding
this concern. Mr. Ewing explained that for both Fairbanks
and Anchorage, there has been a very specific plan worked
out between the State and local governments, approved by the
feds. He added, if a city is not in compliance, the federal
government then withholds their transportation funds.
Representative Grussendorf questioned why BP and ARCO were
not supporting the drilling contractors in the proposed
legislation. Mr. Ewing responded that the oil companies
have witnessed a practical example of how this is
accomplished through the "Wart hog" project; also, industry
knows that if the federal government runs the program, it
will cost three to four times the amount it does now. EPA's
regulations and fees are much higher than those issued by
the State.
Co-Chair Therriault asked the steps which the Department
would take when a group is out of compliance with air
quality standards. Mr. Ewing responded that if the
legislation were passed, the most likely scenario would be
the federal government taking over the administration of the
program. He emphasized that law is established to avoid
coming to a non-attainment situation. Co-Chair Therriault
questioned if there would be information indicating that the
State was out of compliance before EPA stepped in. Mr.
Ewing explained that the base decisions for EPA to delegate
or to leave a delegated program in place, is not the quality
of the air, but the quality of the legal structure in place
to maintain the quality of the air.
JOHN SHIVELY, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
reminded Committee members that Al Ewing previously ran EPA
for the federal government. He added that the Knowles
Administration has been very active in increasing oil
production in the State. He emphasized that the proposed
legislation sends the wrong message to the U.S. Department
of Interior and the Alaskan people.
Commissioner Shively pointed out that the legislation would
completely exempt one part of the industry from permitting
and regulation. He recommended that there are other options
to be considered which could resolve this issue. In
response to concerns noted by Co-Chair Therriault,
Commissioner Shively pointed out that there is increased
drilling activity on the North Slope.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 95, Side 1).
Representative J. Davies suggested that it would be less
expensive and more advantageous for industry to address
these concerns up front.
Representative Kelly inquired about the on site data used to
provide the modeling. Mr. Ewing explained that the modeling
checks the emissions coming from a vehicle which at that
time, predicts the type of mixing occurring in the air.
Based on that information, a conclusion is drawn.
Representative Mulder asked how many rigs were operating on
the North Slope.
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN replied, there are 18 drilling rigs in
operation at this time. Commissioner Shively pointed out
that the bill does not only address concerns in the North
Slope Borough. He noted that the legislation addressed
concerns in the entire State and that air quality problems
exist in Cook Inlet, also. The State is looking toward
expansion of the industry in that area.
Representative Mulder voiced resentment that DEC has not
been willing to work with the industry or the driller
contractors to create a workable scenario to address this
concern in Alaska.
Senator Leman countered comments made by Commissioner
Shively. He stressed that it was not his intent to send the
wrong message to the Alaskan people. He pointed out that
thirty other states define non-mobile engines in the way
proposed in this legislation. He admitted that he shared
concern with air quality, although, pointed out that there
is no hard evidence on ambient air quality. Senator Leman
added that it has been five years since he had worked on the
Clean Air Act amendments and that enough time had expired in
addressing that concern.
Representative Kohring noted for the record his concern with
a potential conflict of interest in Mr. Ewing's relationship
with EPA. Mr. Ewing replied that he was the Director of EPA
in Alaska for twelve years, prior to taking the position at
DEC. He noted that he is on "loan" to the Department which
does not tie him to EPA policy. He stressed that he now
works for the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental
Conservation.
KIRSTIN SHELTON, ALASKA CONSERVATION VOICE (ACV), JUNEAU,
stated that ACV opposes SB 299 and views the legislation as
one of the Sessions most threatening to the health of the
environment. She commented that the bill, in prohibiting
DEC from regulating oil drilling, compromises Alaska's
citizens right to breathe clean air. Ms. Shelton pointed
out that DEC has specified that unregulated drilling could
emit pollutants in quantities that exceed safe levels. Air
pollution standards are developed to prevent the pollutants
from adversely affecting public health. She urged the
Committee's opposition to the legislation.
Co-Chair Therriault spoke to the soil remediation plants in
his area and the odors resulting from those plants. He
asked if passage of the bill could eliminate that.
JOHN STONE, SECTION CHIEF, AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, stated that the
bill would be interpreted to apply to the exact operation as
referenced. The bill also includes the phrase "associated
fuel burning equipment". The soil remediation unit is an
example of something that burns fuel. The bill would not
eliminate the odor prohibition. It would need to be
enforced outside the permit program.
BRIAN PETTY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), SENIOR VICE
PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRILLING CONTRACTORS
(IADC), WASHINGTON D.C., spoke to concerns with current
regulations. He commented that IADC's membership includes
major and minor producers and services of the drilling
contracting community. He stressed that IADC is concerned
with the issues currently being addressed by Alaska as it
appears that DEC is assuming a direction radically different
from the the rest of the world.
Mr. Petty pointed out that IADC has been involved with EPA
over the years. In working with that agency, the industry
is trying to fashion an appropriate definition under law for
non-road engines and mobile sources. Over the last three
years, IADC has been involved with EPA processors in
Michigan and North Carolina to refine and elaborate the
definitions of concern. Mr. Petty commented that Colorado
excludes drilling rigs from the permitting requirements. He
believed that DEC was not operating in good faith. IADC has
been attempting to collaborate with DEC since 1986 in order
to establish a reasonable way to work these concerns out.
In April, 1997, questions were presented by the industry;
IADC then waited eight months for those decisions to be
released.
Mr. Petty noted frustration in dealing with DEC. IADC has
now carefully crafted, with the help of Senator Leman, SB
299, which would track federal definitions in order to help
DEC make the required distinctions. He reiterated that if
this bill were not passed, DEC would be establishing a
course different than exists in the rest of the country. He
believed that could threaten the Alaskan livelihood. IADC
International is paying close attention to the process
occurring in Alaska at this time.
Representative Mulder asked what the result would be if
Alaskan contractors were placed under the proposed regime.
Mr. Petty explained, that result has already been
demonstrated. There have been situations in which rigs have
had to discontinue work which creates severe problems with
Alaska's short drilling season.
Co-Chair Therriault questioned if this was a legitimate
concern since it is the producers that obtain the permit,
not the contractor. Mr. Petty advised that the producers
support what IADC is proposing in this legislation. The
intent of the legislation is to avoid conflict with DEC.
KYLE PARKER, ALASKA CHAPTER, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
DRILLING CONTRACTORS (IADC), JUNEAU, addressed a couple of
points of concern presented before the Committee. He
pointed out that DEC has not worked with IADC in following
through on commitments made. He added, the issue of
"primacy" looses in the State if the legislation is adopted,
and recommended that we look to what other states have
legislatively done to address the concern. At present time,
there are 12 rigs operating in Alaska, while in Texas 373
rigs are in operation.
RUSS DOUGLAS, ALASKA CHAPTER, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
DRILLING CONTRACTORS (IADC), JUNEAU, commented that he had
checked official records from 1985 through 1995 and that
the maximum time of well test flaring was approximately 20
days.
In response to Representative Grussendorf's query regarding
the sulfur content of the fuel used, Mr. Parker stated that
there had been suggestion that DEC provide regulations
stating that all industry burn low sulfur fuel. Industry
has contested that effort. He interjected that it had been
proven that the benefits gained by reducing the incremental
amount of sulfur to that level would not measure up in cost
terms. Mr. Parker agreed that there is a sulfur content
exemption in place in Alaska.
Ms. Kreitzer pointed out that the bill adopts the federal
definition of a "stationary" source. She clarified for the
record that the public has been allowed to testify in all
Committees in which the bill has been heard.
Representative Grussendorf noted that the fiscal note does
not indicate the entirety of the bill.
Representative J. Davies discussed Amendment #1. [Copy on
File]. The amendment would delete two subsections on Page
2. Ms. Kreitzer responded that the bill had been crafted to
follow the federal model as closely as possible. She
commented that the well test flare issue is minimal and
should be considered an insignificant source.
Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment #1.
Representative Mulder OBJECTED. Representative J. Davies
stated that the first section of the amendment would deal
with non-road engines and fuel burning equipment. An
unintended consequence of the legislation is that it would
bring in the possibility of asphalt plants and soil
remediation circumstances. He stressed that the issue of
the well test flares was a small piece of the air pollutant
situation.
In response to a question by Representative Mulder, Mr.
Douglas explained that the term "ambient quality analysis"
is usually modeled and input would be defined as "potential
to omit". It is modeled as if it were operating at full
tilt all the time. If that situation occurs, the well test
flare would then have large potential. Representative
Mulder asked if this were just a model, not an actual test.
Mr. Stone replied that the permit applicant provides DEC
with the rate at which they intent to operate. The
applicant is not forced to use a particular application and
that they are not the drilling contractors. Mr. Stone
added, a permit applicant generally would try to receive
authorization for as much of the operation that they need to
do under the Clean Air Act.
Representative J. Davies reiterated that the reason for
removing this section would include potential pollution into
the air as part of the ambient air quality analysis. He
emphasized that running to the maximum will cause pollution,
which exceeds hazardous standards.
Representative Kelly asked what the ambient air quality
analysis was used for. Mr. Stone stated that it was used by
the permit applicant in the Department to check to see if
the amount of pollution in an area complies with the clean
air standards. Each air quality standard is different.
(Tape Change HFC 98- 95, Side 2).
Representative J. Davies stressed that a standard threshold
must be established with standards at the minimum health
standard. Ms. Kreitzer reiterated that well testers are
treated this way in four other states with one specific
exemption. Representative Kelly questioned if EPA would not
allow using emissions as part of an ambient quality
analysis. Mr. Stone replied that there is no provision in
the Clean Air Act, which allows exempt pollution from any
source. There is flexibility within the act for a state to
decide how it wants to regulate the various sources of air
pollution in order to meet the Clean Air Act standards. Mr.
Parker pointed out that in the Committee's packet, there is
a letter summarizing how other states have addressed the
issue. [Copy on File].
Mr. Parker pointed out that California recently has
experienced a period in which they worked with industry
during a three-year course, to develop a drilling rig
regulation program. They have addressed serious air quality
problems in that state and have looked at all sources of
emissions including drilling rigs. EPA issued a final rule
acknowledging that the program developed by California is
appropriate. EPA then stated that if other states determine
that they have emission problems, those states could address
these concerns as long as they file the same framework
established by California. The legislation would provide
DEC, if they determine that there is an air quality problem,
to develop an appropriate framework.
Representative J. Davies asked what framework would be left
to DEC if they could not regulate the drillers. Mr. Parker
reiterated that California had created procedures, which the
proposed legislation would not eliminate. Representative J.
Davies questioned if California had used a regular air
quality analysis. Mr. Parker replied that the legislation
was intended to prevent DEC from regulating mobile source as
though they were stationary sources. It would not prevent
them from regulating it if there were a problem.
Representative J. Davies pointed out that the California
approach used a low sulfur fuel, a proposal put forward by
DEC, which was rejected by industry in Alaska. He
emphasized that now they want to be totally exempt.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, J. Davies
OPPOSED: Foster, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder,
Therriault
Representatives Moses, G. Davis and Hanley were not present
for the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (2-6).
Representative Mulder MOVED to report SB 299 out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. Representative J. Davies
OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Foster,
Therriault
OPPOSED: Moses, Hanley
Representatives Moses, G. Davis and Hanley were not present
for the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6-2).
SB 299 was reported out of Committee with individual
recommendations and with a fiscal note by the Senate Finance
Committee dated 4/2/98.
HB272
HOUSE BILL NO. 272
"An Act to permit a court to order a defendant who
receives a sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor
to serve the sentence by electronic monitoring; and
relating to the crime of unlawful evasion."
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN testified that HB 272 would
establish the parameters for an electronic monitoring
program in Alaska.
He noted that electronic monitoring (EM) is a system where
around-the-clock surveillance is provided for certain
convicted offenders as an alternative to incarceration.
The transmitter emits a signal to a field-monitoring
device, which receives and records various types of
information about the offender, from location to monitoring
alcohol consumption, depending on the degree of
sophistication.
He stated that as the number of criminal convictions in
Alaska continue to rise, the State is faced with only three
alternatives:
? Building more prisons to incarcerate offenders;
? Exacerbate already overcrowded prisons in
violation of the Cleary decree;
? Allow more offenders to avoid incarceration.
Representative Green pointed out that current estimates for
new prison construction has exceeded $100 thousand dollars
per bed, making construction of new prisons an oppressively
expensive proposition. At this time, the public is
requesting tougher treatment of criminals.
Representative Green suggested that EM is an alternative to
that dilemma. It is used widely throughout the U.S.,
Canada and Europe. Through an EM program, judges can
sentence certain, non-violent offenders to house arrest, or
other restrictive sanctions which leaves more room in our
correction facilities for the violent criminals. HB 272
does not require that judges sentence offenders to wear
electronic monitoring equipment; it simply grants authority
to the Judiciary Branch to consider EM in sentencing.
Co-Chair Therriault inquired about discussions with
Department of Corrections regarding the fiscal implication.
Representative Green pointed out that the new fiscal note
had been significantly reduced. The trial base would be a
half-year rather than a full fiscal year. He assumed that
if 50 beds were relieved with passage of the bill, costs
would be freed up. He reiterated the probable savings
given passage of the legislation.
SAM TRIVETTE, CHIEF PROBATION OFFICIER, SOUTHEAST REGION
PROBATION, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, spoke to the fiscal
note. With the number of new inmates steadily increasing,
even local jails are now being used. Considering all these
options, the Department does not anticipate a fiscal
savings as jails continue to work over capacity. Not until
the facilities operate below capacity, will there be a
change to the fiscal impact. Co-Chair Therriault stated
that there must be some costs reduced when not paying for
the inmate's three meals per day cost.
Mr. Trivette believed that the average daily food cost was
$3 dollars; not a significant portion of incarceration
costs. Co-Chair Therriault requested further information
including an estimate indicating that information.
HB 272 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 P.M.
H.F.C. 17 4/07/98
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|