Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/09/2022 09:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB209 | |
| HB135 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 209 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 9, 2022
9:02 a.m.
9:02:27 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Steve Thompson (via teleconference)
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Sara Rasmussen
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Mike Cronk, Sponsor; Sue Stancliff, Staff,
Representative Mike Cronk; Sean Clifton, Policy and Program
Specialist, Division of Oil and Gas, Department of Natural
Resources; Norman McDonald, Chief of Fire and Aviation,
Division of Forestry, Department of Natural Resources.
SUMMARY
HB 135 GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
HB 135 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 209 EMERGENCY FIREFIGHTERS
CSHB 209(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
five "do pass" recommendations and two "no
recommendation" recommendations and with one
previously published zero fiscal note: FN1 (DNR).
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the meeting agenda.
HOUSE BILL NO. 209
"An Act relating to emergency firefighters."
9:03:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, SPONSOR, introduced the bill
with prepared remarks:
HB 209 authorizes the commissioner of the Department
of Natural Resources to hire emergency firefighter
personnel using general fund appropriations by
amending AS 41.15.030(b) allowing the use of general
funds to pay EFF personnel. They would be able to
perform nonemergency work such as hazardous fuel
reduction, fuel break development, fire prevention,
habitat restoration, or improvement activities in fire
prone areas. In addition, this would provide economic
opportunities for Alaskans to enhance public safety,
to empower rural Alaskans to responsibly manage the
state's natural resources, and to protect and save
human lives. Such nonemergency work could reduce the
likelihood, intensity, and damage of wildland fires
near populated areas and could bring significant
reductions in the state cost of fighting future fires.
Steady employment opportunities for mostly rural based
firefighting crews would strengthen local economy's
family life and enhance public safety. Employing EFFs
during nonemergency would provide training, fitness,
and readiness for when a wildfire does occur. The
number of EFF personnel that may be interested in
applying for permanent DNR jobs would increase, which
would help with recruitment. Based on legislative
history, amending AS 41.15.030(b)'s last sentence does
not appear to yield any constitutional or legal
problems. In 1996 the legislature added the last
sentence of AS 41.15.030(b) to address concerns about
conflicts with AS 39.25.195 of the Alaska Personnel
Act. Specifically, that short-term nonpermanent
employees would become full-time employees. However,
in 2000, the legislature amended AS.39.25.195 to allow
for long-term nonpermanent employees. Due to this
amendment, the apparent concerns expressed by the
legislature in 1996 warranting the inclusion of the
last sentence to AS 41.15.030(b) no longer exists.
Representative Cronk shared that he had been an emergency
firefighter in college. He detailed that in the early 1990s
there had been approximately 70 crews fighting fires in
rural Alaska. He elaborated that when the crews finished
fighting fires in Alaska, they were sent down to fight
fires in the Lower 48. He believed the number of crews was
down to about 20 at present. He reported that it had been a
concern of his for the past 10 years during which time he
had been fighting fires. He remarked on the large decline
in the number of crews. He recalled working with
crewmembers from Hooper Bay, Chevak, and Allakaket. He was
concerned the state had been importing a large number of
people from the Lower 48 to fight Alaska's fires. The bill
would get fire crews back in rural Alaska and would keep
the state's money in Alaska by using its residents as
firefighters.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked whether the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) did not currently have the resources or
authority to hire personnel with general funds.
Representative Cronk replied that DNR did not currently
have the authority. The bill would provide the department
with the needed authority [to hire personnel with general
funds].
Co-Chair Merrick noted the department was available online
to answer questions.
Vice-Chair Ortiz spoke about the past when there had been
many more people from Alaska doing the work. He asked if
DNR had possessed the authority in the past.
Representative Cronk deferred to his staff.
SUE STANCLIFF, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, replied
that the department had the authority in the past, but it
had been cut back in 1996. The department had decided to
use emergency firefighters only under high fire danger or
in incident related occurrences. The department had been
unable to hire emergency firefighters for mitigation. She
explained that when the authority had been lost, the
department started charging incidents or high fire
directly. She clarified if there had not been a high fire
danger and personnel had been brought on as high fire
responders, the department would have to let the
individuals go if there was not a high fire likelihood. She
elaborated the individuals could be working for a couple of
days and then released. She stated it was
counterproductive.
9:08:55 AM
Representative LeBon thought the bill would allow for the
utilization of fire crews to help prepare and prevent
wildfires. He stated there would be a fire season, but how
bad the fire season would be was unknown. He asked if the
hope was the bill would result in the prevention of some
fires and the cost associated with fighting those fires;
balancing the fiscal impact out as a result.
Representative Cronk answered that it was the hope. He
believed the prevention work would help. He shared that a
substantial amount of fire mitigation had been done around
his community of Tok. The bill would allow the state's
crews to be trained and it would mitigate the chance of
fire or serious fires that could result in the loss of
homes.
9:10:42 AM
NORMAN MCDONALD, CHIEF OF FIRE AND AVIATION, DIVISION OF
FORESTRY, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), read from prepared remarks in support of
the legislation:
I'm pleased to speak with you today about the
division's support of House Bill 209. This bill is a
manifestation of Alaska's need to build firefighting
capacity as we face a rapidly increasing wildland fire
challenge. House Bill 209 will help the division's
fire program achieve primary missions of protecting
Alaskans from wildland fire and preventing wildland
fires through hazardous fuels mitigation and fire
breaks. This bill also provides jobs and trainings for
rural Alaskans throughout fire-prone areas of the
state.
As Representative Cronk explained, removing the
funding impediment of Alaska Statute 41.15.030 will
allow DNR to use already allocated general funds to
pay emergency firefighters for nonemergency fire
prevention work during periods of low fire activity
and shoulder seasons both spring and fall.
We have two major benefits. The first is nonemergency
fire prevention work. For example, cutting trees and
creating fuel breaks will provide a training ground
for EFF employees to learn valuable crossover
firefighting skills and will also create consistent,
desirable jobs for rural Alaskans. Currently when fire
danger decreases, the crews are laid off and they go
away until we have high fire danger again. This
creates an unstable job and workforce. Most
firefighters from rural villages have chosen to find
other certain employment elsewhere. The second is we
can leverage this workforce to drastically improve our
ability to install fuel breaks throughout communities
and prevent and moderate fires when they occur, saving
potentially tens of millions of dollars in future fire
suppression costs.
Please note while this bill allows general funds to be
used for EFF and nonemergency tasks, we would use
funds already appropriated to fuels reduction and
prevention work, thus a zero fiscal note. In the last
two years DOF has received generous allocations for
hazard fuel reduction from the state, and additional
federal funds for fuels mitigation. Both sources of
funding could be used to pay for EFF work, which will
be limited to fire response and fire prevention
related activities.
The DOF firefighting mission had increased
dramatically as Alaska and the nation face more
intense and longer fire seasons, threatening Alaskans,
our home, and our property as more of us move into the
fire prone wildland urban interface. DOF currently
does not have sufficient personnel to staff for both
fire suppression and fuels reduction. In the past, EFF
crews supplemented our permanent workforce. The lack
of workforce and EFF crews, however, have led to
drastic declines in their number, from approximately
56 crews in 2010 to under 8 in 2021. The division is
now critically understaffed, and we rely on importing
Lower 48 crews to replace those important EFF
resources.
There are several problems with substituting EFF crews
for the imported resources. The first is Lower 48
crews are not readily available. We compete with every
other state for these crews and during high activity
in the Lower 48 we are not always able to receive that
help. Response times can be as long as 72 hours, a
quick aggressive initial attack with local forces is
what limits the fire site and duration and that's what
reduces the overall fire cost.
9:14:17 AM
Mr. McDonald continued to speak to the bill from prepared
remarks:
The cost to import firefighters and support staff, far
exceeds using Alaska resources. For example, on a fire
assignment, a 22-person Alaskan crew costs $6,500 per
day, while a 22-person Lower 48 crew costs twice that
at $13,500 a day. Lower 48 crews are not familiar with
Alaska fuel types and fire behavior. Alaska crews are
better able to fight our fires because they know the
most effective tactics for our landscape. So, House
Bill 209 will help us rebuild our EFF crews to help
create a self-sufficient Alaskan firefighting force
that will reduce the likelihood, intensity, and damage
of wildland fires near populated areas and will reduce
the state's firefighting cost. Where the EFF resources
are the most benefit will be in our rural communities
where access to contracted resources and heavy
equipment is limited. Without these EFF crews, our
rural communities may not receive the same level of
prevention work and fire protection as roadside
communities.
I would say that House Bill 209 dovetails perfectly
with the division's request in the governor's budget
to reinstate the wildland fire academy. Our intent
with this is to focus on workforce development and
building back Alaska's wildland fire capacity.
Training firefighters in rural communities will help
us build our pool of recruits to work on fuels
projects and fire suppression. In short, House Bill
209 provides secure jobs for rural-based firefighting
crews, it strengthens our local economies and enhances
public safety.
9:15:37 AM
Representative Wool referenced the department's zero fiscal
note. He observed the bill would add full-time crews to
perform mitigation work when they were not fighting fires.
He assumed the positions would be year-round. He surmised
the funds to pay for the mitigation work, including cutting
down fuel lines to protect populated areas from fires,
would come out of emergency funding. He thought it would
mean less funding would be available when there were fires
to fight. He remarked that in the past there had been
supplemental funds required for the emergency firefighting
budget due to fires. He commented on the unpredictability
of where wildland fires would occur as a result of
lightning strikes. He asked if the bill would take funds
away from the emergency firefighting budget. He asked for
verification that the mitigation work would not necessarily
prevent fires, but it would prevent damage to populated
areas.
Mr. McDonald answered that the emergency firefighting crews
were brought on when needed and would not operate year-
round. He detailed that the crews would be paid from two
sources. The first was a suppression component, which was
used when crews were assigned to a wildland fire. He
elaborated that the fund source would also be used if crews
were on standby during high fire danger to be ready to
respond to a fire. The second component was part of the
fuel CIP, which was provided two years ago. The funds had
already been allocated and were in place for fuels
reduction work. Additionally, there were several types of
federal grants allocated for fuels work. The department was
anticipating the availability of millions of additional
dollars available to states through the federal
infrastructure bill in the next couple of years.
Mr. McDonald clarified that crews would not work on the
suppression component unless they were on a fire. He
explained that the suppression component was only for
wildland firefighting. When crews operated on fuels, they
would be paid for with state funds via a pre-authorized CIP
or with two different federal grants.
Mr. McDonald addressed the second part of Representative
Wool's question related to the placement of the fuel breaks
that crews would work on. He confirmed that fuels projects
did not reduce the number of fire starts. He explained the
placement of fuel breaks in strategic locations around the
state saved the state money in the long run. For example, a
fuel break had been used in Fairbanks behind the Murphy
Dome subdivisions in 2019 to protect the subdivisions from
a wildland fire that originated in the drainage below. He
detailed that the cost would have been in the tens of
millions of dollars if the fire had reached the
subdivisions. He noted the number did not factor in the
cost associated with damage to homes and infrastructure. He
explained the placement of the fuel breaks was key and had
resulted in success from Fairbanks to Kenai. The division
planned to continue the successful model.
9:19:30 AM
Representative Wool recalled the 2019 Murphy Dome incident
and others. He observed that the current model had been
successful. He appreciated the desire to keep more people
employed for longer. He asked for detail on what the
workers' schedules would be.
Mr. McDonald answered that currently the emergency
firefighters were called when needed for wildland fire
only. He detailed the individuals worked on a crew
suppressing a fire or when there was high fire danger. He
explained the individuals were released once the weather
changed and it rained. The emergency firefighters were
considered an on call type of resource and the current
statute stated the department could only bring them on for
fire suppression or preparedness, which was limiting. The
intent of the bill was related to the fuels component,
which the department currently did not have. He stated that
the bill dovetailed very nicely with the division's
training program. He elaborated the division intended to
begin training crews in April to have them ready by May 1
when the fire season began. The individuals would not be
assigned to fires, they would work on fuels projects to
protect communities. Additionally, the individuals would
build skills that crossed over to wildland fires using
chainsaws, manual labor, and physical fitness. The
individuals would be ready and available for a fire;
therefore, if a fire began, the individuals would be
transition from a fuels project directly to an initial
attack or new start to quickly suppress the fire. He was
concerned that without the resources available, the state
had to rely on importing Lower 48 crews during the season.
He detailed that it resulted in a delay in getting
resources to fires, which caused larger, more expensive,
and complex incidents.
9:21:57 AM
Representative Wool stated his understanding of the work
the crew would do. He asked if the firefighters would stay
on full-time for an entire season instead of being on call
for fire emergencies only. He asked if the funding source
would switch when the individuals were working on fires and
fuel lines.
Mr. McDonald agreed. He relayed there was currently
substantial federal and state CIP funding available to
perform the work. He characterized it as an opportunity to
strike while the iron was hot. The intent was to have the
individuals working during spring and fall shoulder seasons
and working on fuels projects during fire season, meaning
they would be ready and available on short notice for an
initial response to a wildland fire. He furthered that
while the workers were on a fuels project they would be
funded and paid with allocated funding for the fuels
project via state CIP or federal funds. He expounded that
if the individuals were assigned to an incident, their
charge code would change.
Representative Wool began to ask about a scenario where
federal or fuel remediation funds ran out.
Co-Chair Merrick noted the committee would come back to Mr.
McDonald due to audio problems.
9:23:56 AM
Representative LeBon remarked there were a substantial
number of dead trees due to spruce beetle kill. He cited
locations in Kenai and Mat-Su as examples. He asked if part
of the program was aimed at reducing the fire risk caused
by dead trees. He understood there were too many to cut
down.
Representative Cronk replied that the question was best for
Mr. McDonald. He believed part of the goal of building fire
breaks was to remove fire hazards including dead trees. He
highlighted the bill would enable the departments to work
together. He detailed that Mat-Su was trying to get logging
companies to harvest the trees for use. He noted there was
an individual in the area who was milling the trees and
building homes with the lumber.
Representative LeBon recalled a supplemental budget request
four years earlier as a result of a substantial fire season
the prior summer. He remarked that it was not possible to
know what kind of fire season there would be. He thought
the work enabled by the bill was money well spent if it was
an insurance policy to prevent the extreme from happening.
9:25:58 AM
Representative LeBon restated his earlier question for Mr.
McDonald. He remarked there were a substantial number of
dead trees due to spruce beetle kill. He cited locations in
Kenai and Mat-Su as examples. He asked if part of the
program was aimed at reducing the fire risk caused by dead
trees.
Mr. McDonald answered that beetle kill was one of the
targets. The division used a couple of different types of
fuel breaks. He detailed crews cut traditional swaths
through trees and shaded fuel breaks, which was a
successful model for beetle kill around specific tactical
areas. For example, there was a project around the
university in Kenai where the dead and downed trees were
removed, and healthy trees were limbed up to provide a
healthy forest and reduce the fire hazard.
Representative LeBon asked for verification the program
would enable the department to get ahead of the work in an
effective way.
Mr. McDonald agreed.
9:27:52 AM
Representative Wool referenced Mr. McDonald's earlier
statement about striking while the iron was hot. He
highlighted the federal or state CIP funding available for
the fuel remediation work. He stated his understanding
there would still be funding for emergency firefighting
available if the funding sources dried up. He believed the
bill allowed for one kind of funding to pay for the crews
for non-firefighting purposes. He asked for verification
that a loss of the federal and state CIP funding would not
impact the funding source for firefighting itself.
Mr. McDonald agreed. He elaborated that if the fuels
funding was no longer available, it would not change the
firefighting component, which would still be allowed and
authorized.
Representative Wool asked who was currently doing the fuel
remediation.
Representative Cronk speculated that much of the work was
likely mechanical removal. He deferred the question to Mr.
McDonald.
Representative Wool restated his question for Mr. McDonald.
Mr. McDonald responded that the plan was to use a
multifaceted approach including private contracts and local
contractors for some of the work. The division had three
agency crews that did fuels work when they were not on
fires. He noted the time the agency crews were available to
perform fuels work was becoming less and less due to
lengthening fire seasons in Alaska and the Lower 48. The
division used two contract crews with TCC [Tanana Chiefs
Conference] and Chugachmiut for fires and fuels. He relayed
the aforementioned resources were not sufficient for the
fire seasons and fuels. The bill would augment the existing
resources.
9:32:04 AM
Co-Chair Merrick OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
9:32:27 AM
AT EASE
9:37:22 AM
RECONVENED
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS0929\A.1 (Bullard/Radford, 3/1/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 1, following "firefighters":
Insert "; and providing for an effective date"
Page 2, following line 1:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec.2. This Act takes effect immediately under AS
01.10.070(c)."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon explained the amendment provided for
an effective date, which would take effect immediately
after passage of the bill.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
9:38:06 AM
AT EASE
9:38:25 AM
RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Ortiz MOVED to REPORT CSHB 209(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 209(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with five "do
pass" recommendations and two "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1 (DNR).
9:38:59 AM
AT EASE
9:39:29 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 135
"An Act relating to geothermal resources; relating to
the definition of 'geothermal resources'; and
providing for an effective date."
9:39:33 AM
SEAN CLIFTON, POLICY AND PROGRAM SPECIALIST, DIVISION OF
OIL AND GAS, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled "HB 135 Geothermal
Resources: House Finance Committee," dated March 9, 2022
(copy on file). He began on slide 4 and explained the
bill's primary purpose was to modernize Alaska's geothermal
exploration program. He explained there had not been
significant interest and experience in geothermal leasing
and exploration on Alaska state lands. He highlighted that
the state had done substantial updating of statutes for oil
and gas, meanwhile the geothermal statutes had languished.
The bill would bring the geothermal statutes up to date,
which the administration hoped would encourage new
exploration and development of geothermal projects to get
new resources to rural communities and create jobs.
Mr. Clifton explained the bill would align the state's
geothermal licensing program with the existing oil and gas
exploration license program, which had been receiving
significant attention over the past several years. The
administration believed the model would be successful for
geothermal as well. He explained that the bill would
provide companies a bit more time to identify and prove
resources. Additionally, the bill would expand the acreage
a party would have to explore, secured within the license.
He highlighted the importance of the update because
geothermal systems typically covered very large areas. The
bill would revise the definition of geothermal resources to
focus on commercial use. He noted it had been implied in
the past, but the goal was to make it clear that the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) had no interest in
requiring the regulation of private users of geothermal
resources.
9:43:10 AM
Mr. Clifton turned to slide 5 and discussed DNR geothermal
leasing/permitting history. He relayed that DNR had not
given substantial attention to geothermal resources
historically. The department had held three lease sales
between 1983 and 2008 in the Mount Spur area. There had
been some leases issued. He noted there was information on
the department's website related to some drilling that took
place in 2008. He expounded that in 2013 a tract had been
issued in a lease sale for Augustine Island. There were
currently two geothermal prospecting permits issued for the
Mount Spur area in addition to an application for Augustine
Island under review. He explained that the bill would
extend the prospecting permits and include them in the
exploration licensing program enabled by the legislation.
Representative Josephson referenced the definitional reform
addressed on slide 4. He did not have a visual sense of
what it would take to stop regulating domestic, non-
commercial, or small scale industrial use. He asked for
detail.
Mr. Clifton answered that the state did not currently
regulate any geothermal activity on state lands. The
administration was seeking to make the commercial use
aspect explicit, but it was already implied under current
statutes. The goal was to make it clear that DNR did not
want to interfere with people trying to use hot springs or
ground source heat pumps to heat their cabins or
potentially generate electricity. The administration wanted
to clarify the focus was on commercial grade geothermal
resources that were typically much deeper and more
expensive to develop (in the range of many millions of
dollars). He noted the bill did not change anything for
existing development.
9:45:54 AM
Mr. Clifton turned to slide 6 and reviewed the DNR
leasing/permitting process. He detailed that when the
department received an application it issued a call for
competing proposals. He explained it was a typical public
notice to seek any other companies that may want to bid for
the same prospect. He elaborated that DNR was required to
issue a lease sale if any interest was received. He noted
the process was the same for oil and gas. He expounded that
if DNR did not receive any competing proposals, it issued a
best interest finding for the prospecting permit. The
information was put out for public notice throughout the
process. The department also conducted interagency reviews
in order for other state and federal agencies and boroughs
to participate in the process. He noted that DNR solicited
the participation before the preliminary finding was
issued. Once the finding was issued, DNR received comments
and revised the finding as needed, resulting in the
issuance of a final finding. After the final finding was
issued and the applicant was satisfied with the terms, DNR
would issue the permit.
9:47:08 AM
Representative Josephson asked about the notice and
opportunity to be heard by the public on lease sales. He
asked if the public had an opportunity to speak in
opposition to a proposed lease sale at a public hearing.
Mr. Clifton answered that public hearings were not held.
The department issued public notices and solicited for
written comment. He elaborated the comments could come in
the form of a letter, email, and via telephone.
Representative Josephson asked if it was the way DNR
typically dealt with other proposals and lease sales on
state land.
Mr. Clifton replied affirmatively. He noted that public
hearings were not required by statute or regulation. The
department provided public notice and opportunity for
comment.
Mr. Clifton briefly looked at a sectional summary on slide
7. He addressed Section 2, the private use exemption on
slide 9. He explained that a prospecting license or lease
was not required under the section to explore for, develop,
or use geothermal resources if the geothermal resource was
intended for domestic, noncommercial, or small-scale
industrial use. He pointed out that the definition
explicitly excluded private geothermal users from the
requirement to apply for a lease license.
Representative Wool asked how to differentiate between
commercial and small scale industrial.
Mr. Clifton answered that it was not currently defined. The
goal was to have the language vague for a reason. He
explained the need for flexibility in order to assess the
nuances of a situation. He provided a hypothetical scenario
where a fish processing plant or logging processing plant
had a remote operation and were able to tap into a hot
spring for the purpose of power generation for their
plants. He stated that perhaps the plants also had cabins
nearby. He detailed that perhaps the plants were generating
10 megawatts to fuel their operation and they sold 0.8
megawatts to the neighboring cabins. He explained that
under the scenario it would not be in the state's best
interest to try to regulate the plants and extract very
miniscule royalties. He classified the example as small
scale industrial and explained it would not be worth the
state's time.
9:52:37 AM
Representative Wool asked if the regulation of geothermal
purposes was primarily for situations where power was being
sold and not for situations where the resource was being
used for internal consumption by a user.
Mr. Clifton answered that part of the problem with trying
to develop a definition was due to the fact the state did
not have any experience in regulating geothermal resources.
There were not many examples of industrial or commercial
geothermal operations globally. He stated that most was
explicitly commercial (i.e., run by a power company or a
government such as Iceland). He explained that if the state
tried to minutely define the details, it would have to be
arbitrary simply because the information was not known. He
explained it was the reason the administration wanted to
leave it open for specifying in regulations later on or to
have the ability to handle nuances in the context of a best
interest finding where the commissioner could determine the
definition based on a situation.
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that the committee would hear from
the testifier at a future meeting.
HB 209 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
9:53:54 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 9:54 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 209 Letter of Support 2.9.22.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 209 |
| HB 209 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 209 |
| HB 135 Sectional Analysis, Version B 2.22.22.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Sponsor Statement 3.9.21.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Summary of Changes, Version B 2.22.22.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 135 |
| _HB 135 Geothermal Resources PP 2022-03-09_HFIN.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 letter GeoAlaska 030922.pdf |
HFIN 3/9/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 135 |