Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/03/2002 01:10 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 3, 2002
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 28(RES)
Establishing the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force.
- MOVED CSSCR 28(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 432
"An Act relating to the labeling of animal and poultry feeds and
to the agriculture program coordinator; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 47
Urging the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to provide
maximum possible flexibility in application of low-sulfur diesel
fuel requirements to Alaska.
- MOVED CSHJR 47(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 425
"An Act relating to wildfires and other natural disasters."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SCR 28
SHORT TITLE:JOINT LEGIS SALMON INDUSTRY TASK FORCE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) AUSTERMAN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2224 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2224 (S) RES, FIN
02/27/02 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/02 (S) Moved CSSCR 28(RES) Out of
Committee
02/27/02 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/01/02 2341 (S) RES RPT CS 7DP SAME TITLE
03/01/02 2341 (S) DP: TORGERSON, TAYLOR,
HALFORD, STEVENS
03/01/02 2341 (S) LINCOLN, ELTON, WILKEN
03/04/02 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/04/02 (S) Heard & Held
03/04/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/04/02 2365 (S) FN1: (LAA)
03/05/02 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/05/02 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/05/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/22/02 2500 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LINCOLN
03/27/02 2539 (S) FIN RPT CS(RES) 6DP 1NR
03/27/02 2539 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, HOFFMAN,
OLSON,
03/27/02 2539 (S) WILKEN, LEMAN; NR: GREEN
03/27/02 2539 (S) FN1: (LAA)
03/28/02 (S) RLS AT 8:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
03/28/02 (S) -- Time Change --
03/28/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/28/02 2556 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/28/02
03/28/02 2560 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/28/02 2560 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/28/02 2560 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR,
HALFORD, STEVENS,
03/28/02 2560 (S) LEMAN, ELLIS, ELTON, COWDERY,
DONLEY,
03/28/02 2560 (S) WARD, KELLY, THERRIAULT,
OLSON,
03/28/02 2560 (S) TORGERSON
03/28/02 2560 (S) PASSED Y17 N- E3
03/28/02 2563 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/28/02 2563 (S) VERSION: CSSCR 28(RES)
04/01/02 2732 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/01/02 2732 (H) RES, FIN
04/03/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 432
SHORT TITLE:AGRICULT. PROG.COORDINATOR/ANIMAL FEED
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)HARRIS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/15/02 2285 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/15/02 2285 (H) RES, FIN
04/03/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 47
SHORT TITLE:LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL REQUIREMENTS
SPONSOR(S): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/22/02 2643 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/22/02 2643 (H) RES
04/03/02 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CLIFF STONE, Staff
to Senator Alan Austerman
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSSCR 28(RES) on behalf of
Senator Austerman, sponsor.
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance
9369 North Douglas Highway
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SCR 28.
PETER FELLMAN, Staff
to Representative John Harris
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 513
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 432 on behalf of
Representative Harris, sponsor.
MARTA MUELLER
516 Auklet Place
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 432.
ROBERT WELLS, Director
Division of Agriculture
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
1800 Glenn Highway, Suite 12
Palmer, Alaska 99645-6736
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 432; expressed
some minor concerns regarding the organic inspection and
certification, but suggested those could be addressed before the
bill went to the House Finance Committee.
MICHAEL C. PURVIANCE, Owner
Granite Mountain Farms
P.O. Box 1656
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Requested committee's utmost consideration
of the program coordinator position created by HB 432.
LYALL BRASIER, Owner
Brasier Farms
P.O. Box 483
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 432; suggested
wording change to "invasive species" to include the spruce
[bark] beetle, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 434
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 47 as co-chair of the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee, the
resolution's sponsor.
STEVE CLEARY
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG)
P.O. Box 101093
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 47.
RANDY ROMANESKO, City Manager
City of Nome
P.O. Box 281
Nome, Alaska 99762
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 47.
RON KING, Program Manager
Air Non-Point and Mobile Sources
Division of Air and Water Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby, Suite 303
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HJR 47, reported on the
department's efforts to work with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to transition Alaskan diesel use to fit new EPA
requirements for low-sulfur diesel fuel.
FRANK DILLON, Executive Vice President
Alaska Trucking Association
3443 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 47.
KEN GATES, General Manager
Cordova Electric Cooperative
P.O. Box 20
Cordova, Alaska 99574
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 47.
SHANE CARTER, Vice President
Petroleum and Freight Services
Yukon Fuel
P.O. Box 89
Fort Yukon, Alaska 99740
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HJR 47, testified in
support of legislation promulgating homogenous fuel use.
MEERA KOHLER, President and Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative
4831 Eagle Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 47.
CHERYL RICHARDSON
Alaska Clean Air Coalition
P.O. Box 244265
Anchorage, Alaska 99524
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HJR 47, called for equal
protection for rural children from diesel emissions and for
affordable electricity for rural villages; highlighted the
health hazards of diesel emissions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-22, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10 p.m. Representatives Masek,
Fate, Green, Chenault, and Kerttula were present at the call to
order.
SCR 28-JOINT LEGIS SALMON INDUSTRY TASK FORCE
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the first order of business, CS FOR
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 28(RES), Establishing the Joint
Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force.
Number 0125
CLIFF STONE, Staff to Senator Alan Austerman, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SCR 28 on behalf Senator Austerman,
sponsor, noting that the committee packet included a sponsor
statement and fiscal note. Mr. Stone cited a list of issues the
task force may take up this interim in investigating public
policy options to assist the industry in marketing more of
[Alaska's] fish: transportation infrastructure and improvements
that may include better airports, roads, and shipping
facilities, as well as coordination of shipping to new markets;
efficiency in harvesting methods and the feasibility of
cooperatives such as the one recently started in Chignik to make
catching salmon more efficient; and improving quality and
developing new product forms.
MR. STONE told members the money spent on research produces
results that help [the state's] salmon fisheries. He indicated
hope that the task force could foster changes in statute or
policies to get this industry, which is in dire straits, back on
track. The industry provides the State of Alaska $50 million a
year in revenue from taxes and fees, he said, but that has been
declining.
Number 0370
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what the task force will do that
agencies such as the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
and the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) cannot.
MR. STONE answered that ASMI had been charged with marketing
Alaska's salmon, but has a limited budget. [The marketing of]
farmed salmon has had a big impact and has infringed upon
Alaska's salmon industry, he indicated; the Norwegians and
Chileans have had seemingly unlimited resources to market their
product, which looks good and is available year-round.
MR. STONE, in response to concern expressed by Representative
Green about the cost, explained that three salmon-related task
forces over the last seven and a half years have produced good
input but no concrete changes. Therefore, the cost reflected in
the fiscal note is for this task force to have enough money to
identify and contract with the University of Alaska, the
McDowell Group, or [other organizations] that could really help
pin down the problem. The task force will be charged with
changing how Alaska conducts business to compete with the world
market; otherwise, the markets [for Alaska's salmon] will
continue to decline.
Number 0678
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted the long list of cosponsors for SCR
28. He agreed with the need to educate people in the Lower 48
that wild salmon is far superior to farmed salmon, but
questioned the value of spending money to find out that more
needs to be spent.
MR. STONE agreed and told Representative Green he sympathized
that it seems to be "just going around in a vortex"; he
characterized some other approaches as uncoordinated and willy-
nilly. He emphasized, however, that this task force has the
support of state leadership; the hope is to have a forum and
staff to really get down to business, bring in experts to
identify the crux of the problem, and come up with concrete
answers and recommendations such as legislation or lobbying
Congress for import restrictions or funding.
MR. STONE pointed out that if the $.5 million were spent on
marketing, the marketers might not even know [where to use it
best]. The hope is to identify such questions so that if [the
legislature] gives $10 million for marketing through ASMI or
some contractor, for example, this task force will have
identified those areas. He reiterated that ASMI is limited by
its resources, although it certainly has the expertise; he
indicated ADF&G has some expertise as well.
Number 0966
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT noted that the task force includes two
[Senators] and two [Representatives], with nine public members.
He asked how the members will be determined.
MR. STONE characterized the original bill version as
"regionalized"; calls had been received from all over the state,
he said, with recommendations of certain individuals for the
task force, including people nominating themselves. The Senate
Resources Standing Committee, however, didn't want to
"Balkanize" this or limit it to six commercial fishermen from
the different areas as well as a small processor and large
processor; Senator Austerman had agreed that a better approach
is to have experts "from all over." They had felt that nine
public members at large would provide flexibility to find people
who can deal with commercial fish, Mr. Stone noted. In further
response, he specified that two members each of the Senate and
House will decide together [who will sit on the task force].
Number 1161
REPRESENTATIVE FATE voiced an unspecified concern about the
makeup of the taskforce. He then announced that he was
"absolutely in favor of this," although he shared Representative
Green's concern about the money. He remarked that usually when
there is a high-level forum such as this, the federal government
will take up part of the problem; the resulting task force is
much more effective than when "things are done piecemeal." He
offered his belief that this [allocation for the task force]
will be money well spent.
Number 1266
KATHY HANSEN, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Fishermen's
Alliance, testified in support of the resolution. Highlighting
the "huge" size of past summits and task forces on salmon, she
indicated the need for a small working group to determine what
research and follow-up needs to be done, and then to do what is
necessary to move forward. Although ASMI does a really good
job, she said there are marketing aspects ASMI isn't a part of,
and cannot answer; for example, direct marketers have some
problems relating to combinations of regulations and statutes
that conflict somewhat, and these individuals therefore have
trouble doing their own marketing. A task force could look at
that and perhaps come up with simple solutions. Furthermore,
processors and fishermen need to be able to talk together; she
indicated government sponsorship is necessary for that to be
successful. She concluded that this task force is a good way to
help move things forward.
Number 1390
CO-CHAIR MASEK, offering her understanding that there were no
further testifiers, closed public testimony and invited
committee discussion. She conveyed her support for the
resolution, but indicated she hoped the legislature wouldn't
have to provide a high level of funding in support of whatever
[the task force] came up with.
Number 1500
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report [CSSCR 28(RES)] from
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSCR 28(RES) was moved
out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
HB 432-AGRICULT. PROG.COORDINATOR/ANIMAL FEED
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 432, "An Act relating to the labeling of animal and poultry
feeds and to the agriculture program coordinator; and providing
for an effective date."
Number 1540
PETER FELLMAN, Staff to Representative John Harris, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 432 on behalf of Representative
Harris, sponsor. He informed members that because the Division
of Agriculture [Department of Natural Resources (DNR)] hasn't
received general funds in ten or twelve years, some problems
haven't been addressed because of lack of manpower and
financing. This bill creates a position in the Division of
Agriculture to address three existing problems before they
mushroom: "organics," feed labeling, and invasive weeds.
MR. FELLMAN referred to the proposed agriculture program
coordinator position. He suggested the "organic" issue is
fairly clear: somebody is needed to coordinate and get
qualified to inspect organic farms in Alaska to ensure that they
meet federal regulations. There have been some federal
regulation changes with which Alaska is out of step now; getting
in step with those would be one responsibility.
MR. FELLMAN turned attention to the responsibility of feed
labeling, explaining that some Alaskan businesses produce animal
feed and food for pets, for instance, but that nobody inspects
or utilizes a current federal system to guarantee the quality of
that feed. This comes into play with issues such as BSE [bovine
spongiform encephalopathy], [known as] "mad cow" syndrome, which
happens because certain products put into feed can spread this
disease.
MR. FELLMAN addressed the spread of invasive plants and weeds,
noting that this could affect the state quickly and be very
expensive to control. Currently in Alaska, some citizen groups
and farm groups have used a lot of their own money and time, as
well as a small amount of state money - $10,000 last year - to
begin setting up a system.
MR. FELLMAN cited the "Canadian sow-thistle" as an example of a
weed that has spread from Delta Junction to the Fairbanks area.
It not only has a rhizome root system - meaning that whenever
the roots are chopped up, it produces more plants - but also
reproduces from airborne seeds. In his fields, this weed took
hold the year before, in a small patch of ground, and killed
everything else there. He cautioned that when packhorses are
allowed into Denali [National Park and Preserve], the weed will
end up there as well. If it spreads throughout the state, it
will take over the native population of plants and dominate -
not unlike the dandelion, but even more aggressive.
Number 1830
MR. FELLMAN clarified that with good program coordination in
Delta Junction, there was success in eradicating the Canadian
thistle, a purple-topped plant that he indicated is different
from the sow-thistle; for that eradication effort, he indicated,
the State of Alaska spent $10,000. However, if the state
doesn't spend more than that now, in four or five years the
state will have to spend millions of dollars [on weed control],
as happens in other Western states. Therefore, [HB 432] is to
create this new position and hopefully get money to fund it.
MR. FELLMAN acknowledged that there wasn't a fiscal note yet,
but mentioned that perhaps $60,000 in GF [general fund] money
would cover the position. He indicated some federal grant money
could be obtained once [Alaska's] weeds are identified and the
program is set up. Then the hope is to control the spread of
these invasive plants.
Number 1944
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that this sounds as bad as the
spruce bark beetle.
MR. FELLMAN explained that if it gets into Denali [National Park
and Preserve], it will be a real battle logistically to control
because of the wind, for example. He reiterated how aggressive
the plant is. In further response, he said Alaska has become
more aggressive at the border, requiring that seeds coming into
the state are certified, for instance. There also is a
mechanism for inspecting hay that comes into Alaska. If there
were a feed coordinator to watch what is going into the feed, he
suggested, and if there were somebody to "target the areas and
really find out where this is at, and stop it now," it would
save the state a lot of money [in the long run].
Number 2029
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how one person can do this; he
surmised that travel all over the state would require a fairly
large travel budget, for example.
MR. FELLMAN conveyed the hope of having this [coordinator] be
the "center of the wheel." He reiterated that many farmer
groups are working on this, for instance, as well as the
[cooperative] extension service. He told members:
What we lack is the continuity. ... We need a person
who can get us in touch with the federal government,
with federal regulations - a person who can keep us in
touch with what's going on at the border; what ... the
[regulations] are and how that's affecting us; what's
going into the feed; where the stuff is coming in -
whether it's coming up on the barge or whatever; and
how clean is the corn that comes in, how clean is the
soybean that comes in, and so on. And then this
person would coordinate.
There's already an effort ... within the farmer
groups, who have put their own money into this. And
the soil and water conservation people have put money
into it. So we're hoping that by coordinating we can
target the problems and stop them before they become a
situation where we're spending a lot of money on it.
Number 2123
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled that a person raising cattle on
the Channel Islands off California would have every plane that
came in spray-cleaned because of the fear of mustard seed,
because California mustard does the same sort of thing.
MR. FELLMAN responded that other states are very aggressive
about this.
Number 2150
MARTA MUELLER testified via teleconference from Fairbanks,
noting that she is a lifelong Alaskan who grew up in the
Matanuska Valley on a "hobby farm" with "chickens and ducks and
plants," and graduated from Palmer High School. In addition,
she is a seasonal employee with the cooperative extension
service. Ms. Mueller said she understands what native plants
exist, as well as what is present in agricultural fields.
MS. MUELLER spoke in support of HB 432, suggesting that the
agriculture coordinator position will benefit development in
Alaska. First, by enforcing federally mandated organic-food
regulations, it will help Alaskan food producers to market
organic foods, because there will be standards that consumers
can follow and appreciate. Second, by enforcing existing state
noxious-weed codes and reviewing regulations, it can help ensure
that disturbed areas - including mineral leases, oil leases,
transportation corridors, public recreation areas, and farms -
remain weed-free.
MS. MUELLER pointed out that working towards this end now are
many organizations such as the "committee for noxious and
invasive plant management." However, they need state support,
and need that coordinator position to ensure that efforts aren't
duplicated, and perhaps to see what areas are being neglected or
need some help. She also suggested that tourists to Alaska
don't want to see the same old weeds here that grow along the
Iowa roadside; rather, they want to see Alaska's native plants.
Number 2255
ROBERT WELLS, Director, Division of Agriculture, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), came forward to testify, thanking Mr.
Fellman and Representative Harris for getting the bill before
the legislature. He spoke in support of the bill, saying it
covers three areas that the division needs to be more active in.
MR. WELLS expressed what he called minor concerns with regard to
the organic inspection and certification in the bill, but
suggested those could be addressed between the time the bill
moves out of this committee and when it goes to the House
Finance Committee. He characterized it as "a little bit of
getting our law into conformity with the federal rule that's
finally been adopted and will go into effect this October."
Number 2325
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked why Mr. Wells wasn't proposing
improving the bill in the current committee.
MR. WELLS answered that it was Mr. Fellman's preference that it
be handled "on down the line." Calling the concerns
"technical," he explained that current state law with regard to
"organic" doesn't reflect the rigorous standards included in the
new federal rule. He added, "So we've drafted up those changes,
and certainly would defer to your wishes about where ... those
changes are made."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested the bill should be corrected in
the current committee.
CO-CHAIR MASEK responded that she wasn't planning to move the
bill out that day, and was hoping the sponsor could return with
information on the necessary changes mentioned by Mr. Wells.
Number 2411
MICHAEL C. PURVIANCE, Owner, Granite Mountain Farms, testified
via teleconference, noting that he'd attended a state workshop
on invasive and noxious weeds. He asked members to give this
proposed program coordinator [position] the utmost
consideration; because of the federal financing, Mr. Purviance
said he didn't see why this can't be supported. He said he'd
only been farming here for a couple of years, and yet already
was seeing the invasion of foxtail barley and chickweed,
although fortunately not sow-thistle. "We are trying very hard,
as [an] organization here, to spearhead this and get this taken
care of before it becomes a real problem for the state," he
said. "And we've already demonstrated how we can do that. And
with a program coordinator, we're going to make sure ... that
the hub ... is there so that this program proceeds."
Number 2490
LYALL BRASIER, Owner, Brasier Farms, testified via
teleconference. A member of the "Delta farm bureau noxious weed
committee," he spoke in support of HB 432. Mr. Brasier
mentioned his seven-year fight against sow-thistle, which he
said hasn't been completely eradicated despite many thousands of
dollars spent in the effort. He cautioned that this weed is
continually spread to new areas by wind, wildlife, and vehicles.
MR. BRASIER suggested that the phrase "invasive plant species"
be modified. He pointed out that federal regulations say
"invasive species"; that includes not only plants but also
insects, for example. Under that scenario, this coordinator
could help with the fight against spruce [bark] beetles, he
noted.
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked whether anyone else wished to testify; she
then closed public testimony. She requested that Mr. Fellman
talk to Representative Harris and Mr. Wells and then come back
with a fiscal note and the necessary information. [HB 432 was
held over.]
HJR 47-LOW SULFUR DIESEL FUEL REQUIREMENTS
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the final order of business, HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 47, Urging the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation to provide maximum possible flexibility in
application of low sulfur diesel fuel requirements to Alaska.
[Additional information on this topic can be found in the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee minutes for
March 5, 2002, at 9:08 a.m.]
Number 2639
REPRESENTATIVE CARL MORGAN, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HJR 47 on behalf the House Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee, sponsor, which he co-chairs. He explained
that to his belief, the new requirements of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) pertaining to low-sulfur diesel are the
"tip of the iceberg." He likened this situation to the Steller
sea lion matter in the Aleutians: "We took it very
nonchalantly, but it came and [bit] us later," he said.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN expressed his understanding that
requirements would be in place to produce only low-sulfur diesel
by 2006. By 2007, all trucks, cars, and buses in the U.S. will
be required to burn low-sulfur diesel; trucks from the Lower 48
will be entering Alaska and requiring this fuel. The North Pole
refinery refines about 100 million gallons of diesel; 30 million
gallons of that total is jet fuel and [number] 1 diesel, and
5,000 a day is refined for transportation fuel. He said
retrofitting the refinery to produce low-sulfur [diesel] would
cost in excess of $100 million. Therefore, Alaska will have to
import low-sulfur diesel from either the Lower 48 or Canada.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN noted that these forthcoming requirements
will affect the Bush, but indicated uncertainty regarding how
they will affect marine [uses of diesel]. He also indicated his
belief that people in agencies such as the EPA don't understand
the conditions in Alaska, although they create regulations that
affect Alaska. He asserted that Alaska doesn't have the
pollution problems present in the [Lower 48], but will be under
the same requirements as New York City and Los Angeles. He
estimated that this imported fuel would cost 20 to 45 cents more
a gallon. He said he pays $2.85 a gallon for heating fuel in
Aniak, which has a tank farm. He offered his impression that
when an increase [occurs] with a minimum of 20 cents and a
maximum of 45 cents, it usually translates to at least a 45-cent
increase for [rural areas].
Number 2805
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN pointed out that much of the power in the
Bush is generated from diesel; heating-fuel consumption is in
addition to the diesel used for generating power. It will cost
more to purchase, and will require more low-sulfur diesel to
produce the same British thermal units (BTUs) as the current
type of diesel. He offered his opinion that the new low-sulfur
requirements will not affect airplanes in spite of their high
emissions. He said this is an issue that should be taken
seriously and that has the potential for dire effects statewide.
He also said freight costs will increase as a result of
increased fuel prices. He offered that Alaska is inextricably
linked with the Lower 48 by the Alaska Marine Highway System
(AMHS) and the traditional highway system. He noted that
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) personnel had
more information, and he commended DEC for effectively
communicating with rural Alaska about this matter.
Number 2894
STEVE CLEARY, Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG),
testified via teleconference in opposition to HJR 47, offering
the belief that it would be detrimental to public health in
Alaska. On behalf of AkPIRG, he commended DEC for its efforts
in traveling to rural areas and DEC's recent decision to switch
to ultra-low sulfur diesel in urban areas. He said the decision
for rural Alaska has been delayed one year. He offered AkPIRG's
position that when consumers weigh the public health costs
against the increased costs of electricity production and
heating, the choice will be clear: public health is valuable,
and protecting citizens should be "the price of doing business
in Alaska."
MR. CLEARY turned attention to the "whereas" clauses in HJR 47.
He referred to [page 1, lines 12-14], which says Alaskan
villages cannot import multiple grades of diesel fuel. He said
he believes this to be true, but offered that arctic Canada has
switched to solely low-sulfur fuel. He said [AkPIRG] views this
as the best option for rural Alaska; this would ameliorate the
problems of separate "tankage" and transportation. He turned
attention to [page 2, lines 4-6], which says emissions from
large trucks and buses are not a health or environmental problem
in rural Alaska.
TAPE 02-22, SIDE B
Number 2960
MR. CLEARY pointed out that there is no safe level of exposure
to diesel emissions. Diesel particulates enter the lung and are
very dangerous. He referenced an abstract faxed to the
committee from a [proposed] study of diesel exposure in rural
Alaska; study consortium members include personnel from the
University of Alaska Anchorage, the Institute for Circumpolar
Health, DEC, and the Alaska Native Health Board. Arctic areas
are subject to severe climatic inversions that prevent air
mixing and create severe air pollution conditions, he said.
Children in rural Alaska have been found to have a
disproportionate incidence of respiratory illness; this could be
created or exacerbated by diesel pollution.
MR. CLEARY reported that the EPA estimates switching to ultra-
low-sulfur diesel will save $70 billion a year; DEC has said
this will be a savings of $160 million a year [in the state].
When compared to the $100 million for refiners in the state to
switch to ultra-low-sulfur diesel, Alaskans would save more
money by valuing public health, he suggested. He again
indicated his support for DEC's efforts to travel around the
state. Expressing hope that information would be provided to
consumers to enable them to make a wise choice, he concluded, "I
think HJR 47 is flying in the face of that by calling for ...
more delays in implementing this important public health
standard."
Number 2880
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether the disproportionate
incidence of respiratory illness has been determined to be
attributable to diesel emissions. He asked whether it could be
related to confinement in homes with heavy smoking.
MR. CLEARY acknowledged this as a possible cause. The
aforementioned study, if funded, will seek to identify the
specific causes, he noted, pointing out that urinalysis can be
used to identify factors and determine the causes. He suggested
that confinement can also result in diesel exhaust [inhalation]
that might be due to a temperature inversion that keeps
pollution low to the ground.
Number 2800
RANDY ROMANESKO, City Manager, City of Nome, testified via
teleconference. He told members that the City of Nome supports
legislation that has a clear human health and environmental
benefit, but believes the new fuel regulations will impact Nome
and other remote communities [while providing] neither health
nor environmental benefits. The fuel needed to meet the
standards is an insignificant part of the total fuel required in
community like Nome.
MR. ROMANESKO expressed concern about the potential impacts to
residents of Nome and the Bering Straits region; the financial
impact will be so great that it will adversely affect every
aspect of community life, he suggested. Diesel fuel for
vehicles currently sells for $2.17 a gallon; home heating oil
costs $1.96 a gallon. He said local meetings with DEC provided
information indicating that fuel costs might increase between 15
and 30 cents a gallon; this is roughly 7 to 15 percent. He
added his opinion that this is a low estimate because it
minimizes the shoreside infrastructure costs such as "tankage"
pipelines required for separate handling.
MR. ROMANESKO explained that the need to have separate
infrastructure for the clean [low-sulfur diesel] would impact
the City of Nome, which operates the port and the fuel-delivery
system associated with it; this infrastructure could cost
hundreds of thousands of dollars. Fuel storage costs are very
high, he said, and the impact to private, bulk fuel storage
operators to supply this product is likely to be as significant;
these costs are passed on to consumers. Nome residents have
expressed concerns about commercial availability of this clean
fuel in remote locations, he told members; the demand [will be]
limited to the few trucks in Nome that require the fuel. He
asked who will supply the marketplace. If low-sulfur fuel were
the only fuel available to the community, the impact to
electrical costs would be significant because of the increased
cost of the product and the decreased BTUs that the cleaner fuel
provides.
MR. ROMANESKO commended DEC for its good-faith effort to solicit
input from communities early in the regulatory implementation
process; he noted the importance of this dialogue. He urged
members to adopt HJR 47 with provisions that require [DEC] to
request the EPA to reevaluate and address the ramifications to
remote Alaskan consumers, and that the regulations be adopted
with maximum flexibility for implementation.
Number 2635
RON KING, Program Manager, Air Non-Point and Mobile Sources,
Division of Air and Water Quality, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), testified that on April 1, 2002, DEC filed
with the EPA a transition plan for Alaska to address the
aforesaid issues. The transition focuses on requiring urban
Alaska - the contiguous road system and the major hubs on the
AMHS - to follow the national plan for implementation of ultra-
low-sulfur diesel fuel in the fall of 2006. He said this is
essential for health issues; recent studies link diesel-related
sulfur particulates to adverse health effects. The second
essential reason is that the vehicles produced will require this
fuel; this includes vehicles purchased and operated in Alaska.
Number 2550
MR. KING reported that DEC has requested additional time to work
with tribes and rural residents to assess the issues in rural
areas. In June 2003, DEC must submit a final recommendation for
rural Alaska to the EPA. He acknowledged that this assumes that
the EPA will agree with and accept the submitted plan. He added
that DEC has attempted to maintain flexibility for Alaskan
refineries; the decision is now in the EPA's hands. The EPA
will prepare and make public that decision within 12 months; it
must be adopted as a regulation and implemented to give
certainty to Alaskan refineries and others who wish to
participate in Alaska's fuel market.
Number 2506
MR. KING offered that the economic impacts to Alaska are
difficult to assess. The EPA has predicted a 5-cent increase in
the Lower 48; this is irrespective of transportation costs. He
noted that the increases referenced earlier were [calculated] as
a result of information given to DEC over the last year. He
referred to the presentation DEC gave to rural and urban
residents that focused on the history of [diesel regulations]
and the options for Alaska. He noted that the EPA does
recognize Alaska's differences; as a result, flexibility was
afforded to DEC to request the alternative transition plan.
Number 2457
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about distribution and the source of
diesel fuel in the state.
MR. KING replied that it is a mix of in-state and out-of-state
supply. Some fuel is imported from the Lower 48, particularly
from the West Coast; some is distributed from in-state
refineries. The main issue is that diesel fuel refined in the
Lower 48 will not necessarily meet Alaskan arctic specifications
for winter use. The pour point, the [temperature] at which the
fuel gels, is minus 60 degrees Fahrenheit for Interior and rural
Alaska; by contrast, the Seattle pour point is minus 27 degrees,
and Minnesota's pour point is minus 33 degrees. He said this
causes great concern, particularly when referring to Alaskan
locations not on the coast.
MR. KING told members that once the question of appropriate
arctic-grade fuel has been answered, the question of how the
fuel reaches the communities must be addressed. He pointed out
that fuel is either transported by road or barged and then moved
by pipeline or truck. He said this is similar to the Lower 48,
but more fuel in Alaska is moved by truck. Southeast Alaska and
some rural communities receive bulk fuel by barge; it is
offloaded to smaller barges to work its way up river systems.
Communities not on a river receive fuel shipments by air. Once
the fuel arrives in a rural community, it is put into a single
tank farm from which it is subsequently distributed.
MR. KING noted that fuel in Nome, for example, is used for
aircraft, home heating, the few trucks, and power generation.
The fuel for on-highway vehicles would have to be separated from
the rest of the fuel and handled differently. Some fuel
distributors limit the number of products they carry;
distributors will have to decide which type of diesel fuel to
haul. In Southeast Alaska, the market approach has been to
bring in 500 parts per million (ppm) sulfur fuel. Even though
this is not yet required, distributors are bringing it in to
limit the number of products they haul. This is the issue that
has the potential for significant impact to rural Alaska for
power generation and home heating.
Number 2270
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN observed that Mr. King is likely familiar
with the gas-to-liquids (GTL) aspect of clean-burning diesel.
He also noted that he'd traveled to South Africa several years
ago to visit a conversion plant. He then said BP's refinery in
the Nikiski area is a pilot site; he indicated that another
organization was proposing to convert gas on the North Slope and
"batch" it down the pipeline. He asked if either of these
solutions would be a practical way to [add low-sulfur diesel] to
Alaska's distribution system, and whether it could save in
transportation costs to rural areas.
MR. KING responded that the fuel would still require separate
handling. Additionally, there are issues in terms of
"lubricity" and combustion characteristics with the GTL fuel
produced; he indicated additives are available to address these
issues. He referred to the aforementioned BP plant and said it
isn't large enough to meet the on-road demand for fuel. It is
an alternative form of fuel that could be used; there are
additives that can be used [to make it usable], but it still
requires separation from other fuels. He pointed out that the
GTL has absolutely no sulfur in it, whereas the fuel currently
in the system ranges from 300 or 400 ppm to 3,000 ppm, allowed
under the specifications. He said it won't take much to
contaminate fuel with a 0- to 15-ppm sulfur content.
Number 2146
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied, "I was thinking the other way
around." He acknowledged that the pilot plant would not be
capable of meeting all the demand, but presuming the pilot is
found to be economically viable, the production might expand, as
BP has indicated, to meet Alaska's needs as well as to export to
the West Coast. He offered his impression that unless Alaska
converts completely [to low-sulfur fuel], rural Alaska will
still be impacted with high transportation costs in addition to
the more expensive fuel.
MR. KING concurred. He referenced a comment from a rural
resident who'd indicated that the best way to do this would be
to mandate it across the board. That, however, still has the
potential for economic impact. He acknowledged that in time,
this [low-sulfur fuel] likely will become the only product
available to meet the needs.
Number 2076
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA observed that there might not be enough
information to support the "whereas" clause that says emissions
from large trucks and buses are not a health or environmental
problem in off-road or rural Alaska. She suggested it might be
more accurate to say that "we just don't know", and that there
isn't enough information to show it is a health or environmental
problem.
MR. KING replied that it is currently not possible to state
unequivocally that there is a health issue. He noted that
diesel-exhaust pollutants have been linked to various cancers
and other health problems. The types of emissions in rural
Alaska are somewhat different due to the nature of the
combustion process. Nevertheless, DEC is concerned about those
emissions; that is why DEC is seeking funding with the Alaska
Native Health Board and other entities to design a study to
[ascertain the health impacts of diesel emissions in rural
Alaska]. He added that this study is not inexpensive to
undertake; the first step is to design the study, and the next
step is to conduct it. He said testimony received by DEC
indicated that bus and truck emissions were not believed to be a
health issue because of the vehicles' limited numbers. Specific
pollutants from these vehicles are a problem, he said.
Number 1963
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, "But right at the moment, they
haven't been shown to be; is that fair enough?" She again
indicated it would be better to say that, because it isn't known
that they aren't [hazardous].
MR. KING agreed that Representative Kerttula's statement is more
accurate: the emissions have not been shown to be [detrimental]
in the concentrations that exist in rural Alaska.
Number 1923
FRANK DILLON, Executive Vice President, Alaska Trucking
Association, testified via teleconference, noting that the 43-
year-old trade association has members in Annette, Tok, Barrow,
Dutch Harbor, and in between. The association has been involved
in the issue of low-sulfur fuel since 1992, when it recognized
that the introduction of low-sulfur fuel into Alaska presented a
conundrum fraught with myriad unknowns. "It remains that way
ten years later," he said.
MR. DILLON complimented DEC on its efforts to determine what
using low-sulfur fuel will mean in Alaska. He noted that the
Alaska Trucking Association has accepted the inevitability of
its use in order to power trucks; engines purchased after 2004
will most likely require 400-ppm fuel; by 2006, all the engines
available to purchase will require 15-ppm sulfur fuel to run at
all.
MR. DILLON indicated he takes exception to earlier statements
about the health hazards in Alaska. He offered his opinion that
a figure of $100 million in health costs attributed to diesel
smoke in Alaska is entirely "bogus science." This number was
derived from some national, "fuzzy science" wherein costs were
assigned to the United States and then divided by 50 - Alaska
being one-fiftieth of the total cost in the U.S., he suggested.
He said this is not representative, simply because Alaska
doesn't come close to burning in a year the amount that the
Seattle area burns in one month. He urged caution when
listening to health statistics related to diesel, and he added
that the suggestion that the health impacts are unknown is a
good way to word that "whereas" section.
MR. DILLON noted that he chairs the Citizens Air Quality
Advisory Committee in Anchorage, which is looking for diesel
particulates in Anchorage; so far, measurable concentrations
have not been found, he said. Furthermore, he offered his
belief that describing health impacts of non-measurable
emissions is not possible. He said what is known is that the
conversion to ultra-low-sulfur diesel will be expensive; it will
produce some miniscule effect toward cleaner air, he suggested,
a negligible effect in terms of a person's life-risk factors.
MR. DILLON concluded by saying the Alaska Trucking Association
supports HJR 47. He reiterated support for DEC's efforts. He
added that he was pleased with the EPA's attitude toward Alaska
over the years, and recently in expressing its concern about the
impacts on rural Alaska.
Number 1721
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Dillon whether he had any
objection to clarifying that health and environmental problems
have not [been shown to be linked to diesel emissions in rural
Alaska]. She acknowledged that the benefits of low-sulfur fuel
will probably be minimal; there are many other factors involved.
MR. DILLON replied, "I thinks it's safe to say that we, in fact,
don't know. What we are trying to determine is whether or not
there is a health risk associated in Alaska with diesel
emissions; that has not been determined." He acknowledged that
not burning diesel makes for cleaner air, but said Alaska does
burn diesel and will continue to need diesel for the foreseeable
future. Low-sulfur fuel might help reduce the number of
particulates, and may have some minor benefits for health. No
study in Alaska has proven a connection between diesel emissions
and illness, he said. He told members that he would be happy
with that sort of language change.
Number 1622
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked about the longevity of diesel
tractors and whether most of them stay in the state. He
observed that trailers are shipped up to the state, and that
tractors pick them up and distribute them.
MR. DILLON answered in the affirmative. He reported that the
truck fleet was redone ten years ago in response to changes in
air quality standards. He noted that discussions with the
Alaska [Trucking] Association and engine manufacturers have
offered ways in which they will bring themselves into compliance
with regard to fuel emissions. He pointed out that the problem
occurs when higher-sulfur-content fuel is used in newer engines;
one tank of fuel will ruin a $60,000 engine. He said that from
an economic standpoint, the trucking industry isn't going to
burn high-sulfur fuel in engines designed for low-sulfur fuel;
over the next eight to ten years, most of the distribution fleet
will switch over to engines that burn only low-sulfur fuel.
Number 1515
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired whether the engine changeover
would create a significant increase in the cost of delivery; he
asked if by the time [low-sulfur fuel is required], the fleet
will have already made the transition to low-sulfur-burning
engines.
MR. DILLON expressed his belief that the transition would be a
marketplace occurrence, and that low-sulfur fuel will become
available in Alaska. He noted that he had discussed this very
matter with a refiner in Edmonton [Alberta, Canada] that
produces fuel with a pour point consistent with arctic
[conditions]. This refinery is currently selling all of this
fuel to Canadian customers, Mr. Dillon reported, but is willing
to sell to Alaskan customers if they are willing to pay more.
It will cost significantly more to do business with diesel
engines in Alaska than it does now.
Number 1437
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Dillon if, given that the
changeover will occur in the next several years, he foresees a
problem with a resolution like this, for that time of transition
or until the conversion to low-sulfur fuel has occurred.
MR. DILLON replied, "I think this resolution is excellent, in
that it is asking for maximum flexibility and it is also trying
to address some of the questions we have with our unique
distribution system." He said some of these problems include
not being able to use a tank that was used for high-sulfur fuel
for years, until it is completely clean. The removal of
sedimentary sulfur from a large storage tank in a rural area
used for multiple purposes can cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
Number 1343
KEN GATES, General Manager, Cordova Electric Cooperative,
testified via teleconference. He encouraged members to support
HJR 47, and conveyed appreciation for others' comments and
concerns expressed about the low-sulfur-fuel issue. The Cordova
Electric Cooperative is approaching the issue from the diesel
generation perspective, he said. Recently, a hydroelectric
project was put online to help lower diesel emissions by burning
less fuel. He expressed his hope for consideration for
communities that have taken action to reduce diesel consumption.
MR. GATES cautioned that with regard to public health, it is
important to also consider emotional and economic health. He
offered his belief that when people cannot pay their bills and
their businesses suffer, there is an emotional impact due to the
economic impact.
MR. GATES suggested that communities on the Alaska Marine
Highway System don't have dense vehicular traffic when compared
with [more] urban areas. Consequently, air quality issues in
these coastal communities aren't necessarily the same as those
of larger communities. He noted that he was very concerned that
[this low-sulfur-diesel requirement] could increase the cost of
fuel by 20 to 30 cents a gallon. If this increase is passed to
the cooperative's small membership of 1,600, it will have a
significant cost impact to these customers. He pointed out that
Cordova has recently lost numerous businesses; the economy is
"on edge." He reiterated his request for members' support of
HJR 47.
Number 1107
SHANE CARTER, Vice President, Petroleum and Freight Services,
Yukon Fuel, testified via teleconference, noting that Yukon Fuel
sells and distributes fuel and offers freight services from
Kotzebue Sound to Bristol Bay, including the Yukon River to Fort
Yukon and the Kuskokwim River to Nikolai. He offered support
for any movement toward a homogenous product that will qualify
[as] heating fuel. One of the few efficiencies experienced by
Yukon Fuel is that everything sold for home heating and power
generation is actually downgraded jet fuel, he reported. This
allows the company flexibility when moving fuel from Cook Inlet
or down the Yukon River from Nenana. Should legislation require
further segregation of fuel types, the costs associated with
tanks clean enough to handle the low-sulfur fuel will result in
higher costs of transport.
MR. CARTER offered his belief that the Denali Commission is
moving toward building new tank farms and helping communities
build new power-generation facilities to enable sustainability.
The engines being used will be obsolete in the event that low-
sulfur fuel is mandated. He said he thinks that is an important
issue for consideration.
Number 0890
MEERA KOHLER, President and Chief Executive Officer, Alaska
Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), testified via
teleconference, noting that AVEC serves about 22,000 rural
Alaskans in 51 remote communities; it operates stand-alone
generating and distributing systems in 47 of those villages,
with tie lines connecting the remaining 4 villages.
Approximately 150 diesel generators and 500 fuel tanks are owned
by AVEC, and it buys more than 5 million gallons of diesel fuel
annually. This fuel is transported by small barges and
airplanes at an average cost of $1.37 a gallon. The retail cost
of electricity is about 40 cents a kilowatt-hour; 28 percent of
that is direct fuel cost.
MS. KOHLER related that she has heard of anticipated fuel
increases ranging from 10 cents to one dollar a gallon; she
offered he belief that an increase of approximately 25 cents a
gallon can reasonably be expected. For AVEC's consumers, most
of whom are well below national and state poverty levels, this
25-cent increase translates to more than 2 cents a kilowatt
hour, or $1.25 million annually. She reported that the BTU
value of ultra-low-sulfur diesel is approximately 15 percent
lower than regular diesel - more fuel is required for the same
energy; that adds 24 cents a gallon. Additional maintenance
costs will be incurred to change the seals and valves on the
entire generator fleet, to clean the tanks to accommodate the
new fuel, and to provide for other unidentified modifications.
She estimated that increases surpassing $2.5 million will be
incurred by AVEC consumers.
Number 0760
MS. KOHLER explained that diesel fuel is used in Alaskan
villages for space heating and electric generation; it is
therefore presumably exempt from the EPA's rules. However,
because a single transportation and storage system is used, it
is likely that non-transport diesel users will be inadvertently
impacted by any general requirement for a transition to ultra-
low-sulfur diesel.
MS. KOHLER expressed strong support for HJR 47, but suggested
some language changes. First, she suggested that on page 2,
line 15, the word "cooperatives" be changed to "utilities".
Many utilities serving rural communities are municipal, tribal,
or privately owned, she said. Regardless of ownership,
utilities face the same issues that cooperatives do. Second,
page 2, lines 18-19, speaks to the anticipated retail cost of
electricity. She offered her opinion that the range of increase
in the bill of 45 cents to 70 cents is not quite accurate. She
told members:
The reality is, the current cost of energy in rural
Alaska is anywhere from 40 to 60 cents a ... kilowatt-
hour. In those cases, you could see rises of up to 70
cents per kilowatt-hour. But, typically, I believe
that retail fuel prices will rise by 25 cents or more,
but the retail cost of electricity in each community
will depend on the utility's efficiency, and the rise
will be ... anywhere from 5 to 15 cents a kilowatt-
hour.
Number 0633
MS. KOHLER told members that she had read DEC's press release
regarding recommendations to the EPA; she is concerned that the
blanket applicability of the national plan to communities on the
road and on ferry routes is rather broad. Minto, for example,
is technically on the road, but is a remote, rural village upon
which this requirement would have a significant monetary impact,
with minimal, if any, health benefits. Marine highway
communities will also be greatly impacted monetarily by this
requirement, she suggested.
MS. KOHLER concluded by saying the EPA's rule for reducing
sulfur emissions was intended to apply only to heavy-duty trucks
and buses - not stationary fuel uses. Yet because of Alaska's
unique conditions, its needs will be unaccounted for, and the
state will perforce be swept under the rules. She urged members
to request DEC to reconsider its recommendation requiring
application of the ultra-low-sulfur diesel to all road and
marine highway communities. She added her support for the one-
year extension to study the impacts to rural Alaska so that the
rule can be applied in a sensible and practical manner. She
reiterated her support for HJR 47.
Number 0504
CHERYL RICHARDSON, Volunteer Director, Alaska Clean Air
Coalition, testified via teleconference, noting that she has
worked on this issue for ten years and that [clean air] is a
passion of hers. She recounted that she grew up in Anchorage
smelling very sweet air; over the years, however, the air has
become dirty from vehicles, and it doesn't smell good most of
the time - even in the summer.
MS. RICHARDSON concurred with testimony calling for affordable
home heating and electric generation, especially in rural
Alaska, where she has observed residents struggling to pay
electric bills that were equivalent to her Anchorage rent. She
also noted that she is pleased that the committee is
reconsidering [page 2, lines 4 to 6], which says emissions from
large trucks and buses are not a health or environmental problem
in rural Alaska; she conveyed her surprise at the inclusion of
that statement. Large amounts of documentation exist that there
is no safe level of exposure to diesel exhaust, she pointed out.
She highlighted the importance of protecting rural children from
unhealthy diesel as much as city children are protected.
Number 0278
MS. RICHARDSON indicated that ten years ago "we" were told it
would be unaffordable to bring in 500-ppm-sulfur diesel, which
has proven untrue. She pointed out that this 500-ppm-sulfur
diesel is cheaper out of Seattle than is "dirty" diesel. She
added that concerns still exist regarding how fuel is
manufactured and distributed in the state; the [coalition] is
unable to get numbers on that. This is a concern to her, she
told members. How can the state plan for cleaner fuel when it
cannot get what appears to be proprietary information from
refineries and distributors?
MS. RICHARDSON told members that the Office of the Attorney
General has been investigating Alaska's fuel companies for a
number of years for price fixing. The [coalition] is concerned
about the potential for windfall profits to be realized by
Alaskan fuel companies by charging higher rates for fuel without
having made the capital investments necessary to produce cleaner
fuel in the state; local companies might charge clean-fuel
prices for dirty fuel and profit from increased pollution, she
cautioned.
MS. RICHARDSON advised members that diesel has been documented
to cause respiratory diseases, increase mortality in
communities, retard lung development, and increase the incidence
of asthma. She said it is unfortunate that Alaska has not
measured its diesel [particulate] levels; the [coalition] has
been requesting those measurements for ten years. She indicated
the state is just now beginning to collect particles. She
pointed out that this doesn't substantiate the premise that
[diesel emissions] are not a problem. It is clearly a problem
in Anchorage, she stated, because one can smell and see it; the
public knows it is a noxious pollutant.
MS. RICHARDSON said the EPA chose to pursue the "biggest bang
for the buck" when [applying the low-sulfur diesel standard] to
on-road vehicles; the agency was looking out for the Lower 48
population. She suggested if the EPA had focused on rural
Alaska, it would have addressed home heating and electric
generation, but that Alaska has too small a population to garner
that type of focus. Therefore, it is up to DEC and the
legislature to protect rural villages the way the EPA is
protecting the rest of the nation, she said. She agreed that
the EPA has been doing a good job lately; the evaluation of the
regulation is moving the right direction. The EPA is
acknowledging that there are health problems associated with
diesel exhaust; this is a new position for the agency, she
added. She requested that the legislature work with DEC to make
the conversion [to low-sulfur diesel] affordable and to ensure
that rural children are protected as city children are.
TAPE 02-23, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that it has been a long time since
he was subjected to living in a place with poor air quality. He
noted that when he lived in California many years ago there were
many publications supporting the premise that gasoline fumes
were the culprit that created photochemical smog; diesel
emissions looked terrible, but were not considered as noxious or
as serious a respiratory hazard. He asked, "Has that been
changed?"
MS. RICHARDSON replied in the affirmative. She noted that she
is not a chemist, but became involved in these issues 20 years
ago, when the message was that carbon monoxide from gasoline
exhaust, but not diesel, was a hazard. However, evidence began
pouring in 10 or 12 years ago, and it is now irrefutable that
[diesel exhaust is harmful]. She offered that California, the
World Health Organization, and others are declaring diesel
exhaust a carcinogen; it has in excess of 40 toxic air
chemicals. She concluded that there is no safe threshold at
which diesel is okay to breathe.
Number 0186
CO-CHAIR MASEK closed public testimony on HJR 47.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN noted that he had not anticipated a great
deal of discussion of health issues. He pointed out that in the
1950s, when most rural villages had no electricity, the [health
standard was much lower]. He offered his belief that
electricity has increased the lifespan of every Native Alaskan
in [rural villages], saving many babies' lives and powering many
health clinics; he suggested its benefits far outweigh the
[potential hazards] of diesel emissions.
Number 0355
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN indicated his belief that dust from three-
and four-wheelers in the Bush is a greater respiratory hazard
than diesel emissions. He encouraged members to support HJR 47.
Number 0398
CO-CHAIR MASEK expressed her belief that urban residents also
breathe more dust than diesel [fumes]. She turned attention to
amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN stated that eliminating page 2, lines 4-6,
would be fine with him.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, Line 3. after "of" insert "ultra-.
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 0622
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt Amendment 2, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 15. strike "cooperatives" and add
"utilities"
There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 0687
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt Amendment 3, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, lines 18 and 19. strike "to approximately
$.70 per kilowatt hour" and add "approximately 10 per
cent or more."
There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR MASEK suggested a fourth amendment, to strike lines 4-6
on page 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to adopt the foregoing as Amendment
4. There being no objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
Number 0730
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved to report HJR 47, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 47(RES) was moved
out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|