Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
03/22/2019 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| Presentation(s): Alaska Lng Project Update | |
| HB16 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2019
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative Sara Rasmussen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative George Rauscher
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA LNG PROJECT UPDATE
- HEARD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 16
"An Act relating to shared animal ownership; and relating to the
sharing and sale of raw milk and raw milk products."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 16
SHORT TITLE: LOCAL FOOD PROCUREMENT; LABELING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) RES, FIN
03/20/19 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/19 (H) RES, FIN
03/22/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE DUBLER, Interim President
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Alaska LNG Project Update House Resources Committee,"
dated 3/22/19, and answered questions.
FRANK RICHARDS,P.E., Senior Vice President
Program Management
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during a PowerPoint
presentation entitled, "Alaska LNG Project Update House
Resources Committee," dated 3/22/19.
SUZY CROSBY, Co-Owner
Cottonwood Creek Farm
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Cottonwood Farm Before House Resources 3/22/19," and
answered questions during the hearing of SSHB 16.
PETE KENNEDY, Attorney
Westin Price Foundation
No city provided, Florida
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing of SSHB 16.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:33 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHN LINCOLN called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives
Hopkins, Hannan, Talerico, Tarr, and Lincoln were present at the
call to order. Representatives Spohnholz and Rasmussen arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): ALASKA LNG PROJECT UPDATE
PRESENTATION: ALASKA LNG PROJECT UPDATE
1:03:05 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHN LINCOLN announced the first order of business
would be a presentation on the Alaska LNG project by the Alaska
Gasline Development Corporation.
1:03:30 PM
JOE DUBLER, Interim President, Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC), Department of Commerce, Community & Economic
Development (DCCED), informed the committee he would present a
triannual update on the progress of two projects tasked to AGDC,
the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP) project, begun originally
in 2010, and aspects of the Alaska liquified natural gas
pipeline (AKLNG) project. Mr. Dubler said House Bill 4 [passed
in the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature] directed AGDC to
develop the ASAP project that would bring a supply of natural
gas from the North Slope to Cook Inlet, address the high cost of
energy in Fairbanks, and shortages of natural gas in areas of
Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) valley (slide 3).
The original plan was to build a 24-inch steel pipeline to ship
natural gas after it is treated to utility grade at a gas
treatment plant (GTP) on the North Slope. On 3/4/19, the
project was permitted in a joint record of decision issued by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), U.S. Department of Interior (DOI); however,
the project would cost $10 billion, which is uneconomic.
Although uneconomic, work on ASAP continued in order to obtain a
federal right of way and other permits that could affect AKLNG,
such as: approval to install a natural gas pipeline
underground; approval to install and maintain gravel pads and
roads; federal approval for the installation of a pipeline
through Denali National Park and Preserve, National Park
Service, DOI. At this time, ASAP will be put aside pending
changes in economic conditions (slide 3).
1:11:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how much core work, such as rights
of way, pads, gravel roads, and the bearing of the pipeline,
could be transferred to AKLNG.
MR. DUBLER deferred to Mr. Richards.
1:12:44 PM
FRANK RICHARDS, P.E., Senior Vice President, Program Management,
AGDC, DCCED, advised AGDC provided the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) all of the "regulatory efforts" that were
completed for ASAP; this work will be submitted into the federal
record which will be used by FERC to determine parameters of the
AKLNG environmental impact statement (EIS). The goal is that
FERC will not seek to duplicate the work of the federal
agencies, that is specific to AKLNG, because the ASAP pipeline
right of way followed approximately 80 percent of the AKLNG
route.
MR. DUBLER turned to AKLNG, established by Senate Bill 138
{passed in the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature], and gave
a brief history and description of the project (slides 4 and 5).
1:17:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for a description of a 3-train LNG
facility.
MR. DUBLER explained trains are modules; using modular
construction allows additions to be made, thus 3-trains are
three different modules that can add compression, and each train
is designed to deliver just under 700 million tonnes per annum
(MTPA). "Trains" are an industry term used to describe the
modular construction of certain facilities. In further response
to Representative Hannan, he said all of the trains are located
at the site in Nikiski, and there are eight compressor stations
located along the pipeline to keep the gas moving through the
pipeline.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether a train is a unit of size.
MR. DUBLER said yes, although trains can be designed in
different sizes. He continued to explain AKLNG Pre-Front-End
Engineering and Design (Pre-FEED) work has progressed to about
15 percent in engineering design, which means some of the
infrastructure, equipment, and costs are known and an economic
analysis was completed; at that point, the partners withdrew
from the project, however, the state has continued to advance
the project for the last three years in regulatory and
commercial aspects. In fact, the state has presented the
project to potential investors and has garnered 16 letters of
interest from natural gas buyers in Asia, but has not advanced
the engineering of the project.
1:22:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS questioned the current stance of the 16
companies that have submitted letters of interest.
MR. DUBLER said all 16 companies were contacted in February
[2019], and AGDC received positive responses from the largest
companies, as related to the present stage gate schedule for the
project, which is a more measured approach. Further, AGDC will
be meeting with most of the companies [in April 2019]. Mr.
Dubler returned attention to slide 5 and noted the pipeline will
have thicker walls in some areas, but is basically a one-inch
pipeline terminating at the facility in Nikiski.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN recalled there have been media reports
suggesting a method of exporting natural gas by icebreakers
directly from the North Slope.
MR. DUBLER acknowledged icebreaking LNG tankers are in use in
Russia; however, [to successfully market LNG], a reliable supply
of LNG must be guaranteed through long-term contracts with
buyers, and suppliers of natural gas need to have a proven track
record of delivery. He cautioned the icepack above the North
Slope could delay the delivery of LNG, but Nikiski has proven to
be a reliable shipping port for 40 years. In further response
to Co-Chair Lincoln, he noted a gas treatment plant necessary
for shipping from the North Slope would require an artificial
island that would affect the traditional lifestyle of North
Slope residents.
1:28:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how the processing capabilities of
a floating LNG plant would compare with the capabilities of
[AKLNG].
MR. DUBLER did not know.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked why the project now specifies 42-inch
pipeline and whether there are still constraints on the
availability of steel.
MR. DUBLER explained a six-inch increase in pipe diameter would
mean a significant increase in throughput; although the fixed
costs of the project remain the same, an increase in throughput
reduces the cost per unit. As to the availability of the steel,
he expressed his belief 42-inch pipe is not available in the
U.S., thus the source of the pipe would be Asia, Germany, or
India.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked several questions related to the
engineering of the pipe and questioned whether the pipeline
would be installed both under and above ground.
MR. DUBLER advised the pipeline would travel aboveground to
cross [earthquake] fault lines; however, the majority of the
pipeline would travel underground.
1:34:00 PM
MR. RICHARDS stated a 42-inch diameter has always been designed
for AKLNG and - after review - was determined to be the most
economic when compared to a 48-inch diameter. The proposed
thicknesses of the pipe are not unusual and are produced
worldwide. He observed there is potential that U.S.
manufacturers will begin to produce 42-inch pipe.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked for the difference in cost
between 36-inch diameter and 42-inch diameter pipe.
MR. RICHARDS estimated a difference in excess of $100 million.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired as to how long a lead time is
required for a U.S. manufacturer to produce 800 miles of 42-inch
steel pipe.
MR. RICHARDS clarified 42-inch pipe is not currently produced in
the U.S; however, AKLNG would seek multiple suppliers, from
around the world, that could produce what is required within one
to one and one-half years.
MR. DUBLER turned attention to slide 6 entitled "Alaska LNG
Investment" and said funding for AGDC was established by
appropriations into separate funds for capital expenditures on
each project, although AGDC sought operating appropriations for
each project annually. As shown on slide 6, the projected fund
balance for fiscal year 2019 (FY 19) is approximately $15,351
million to complete the FERC process.
1:40:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether the remaining funds would
be sufficient.
MR. DUBLER opined approximately $20 million is needed to finish
the FERC process.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN posited if the legislature appropriated
an additional $5 million, and the project were abandoned,
whether the state would recoup the assets of the project.
MR. DUBLER assured the committee the project has accumulated
significant assets to date in the form of data gleaned from
boreholes. Were AKLNG abandoned for economic reasons, the data
would be a valuable resource to future development on the North
Slope. In further response to Representative Rasmussen, he said
even changes to topography caused by earthquakes would not
significantly impact the value of the data.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS suggested the FERC license would be an
additional asset as the license would be helpful in future
endeavors.
MR. DUBLER agreed.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked for the average depth of the pipeline.
MR. DUBLER said three feet.
1:44:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for the source of the $5 million re-
appropriation shown on slide 6.
MR. DUBLER remarked [from figures provided on slide 6]:
... If you look at the $54 million [Fund Balance End
of Period FY2018 Actuals] and subtract the $33,900
[Totals FY2019 Projected] it would give you $20,300,
but the $5 million would come out, leaving you
[$15,351} [Fund Balance End of Period FY2019
Projected].
MR. DUBLER noted he was tasked with aligning AGDC to the state's
fiscal reality and accordingly has identified $5 million is
savings through staff reductions, the corporation's new focus on
one project instead of two, and reductions in marketing. He
said AGDC will continue to advance the FERC license and maintain
a limited commercial presence with customers. A satellite
office in Houston was closed and offices in Kenai and Tokyo have
been maintained (slide 7).
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked for the expected FERC process
timeline and whether additional information is needed after the
FERC process is complete.
MR. DUBLER stated the schedule for the FERC process has been
pushed back four months, which means a final decision is
expected June 2020.
1:51:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ recalled Mr. Dubler stated it was too
early to market the project, and questioned why the Tokyo office
was kept open.
MR. DUBLER clarified it is too early to market purchase
agreements; however, AGDC seeks to continue to build
relationships with potential LNG purchasers.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised the Tokyo marketer is marketing
primarily to Japan.
MR. DUBLER said the marketer is in contact with buyers all over
Asia, including new and emerging markets such as Vietnam.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN pointed out Japan represents one side of
established Asia markets; however, China represents new and
emerging markets.
MR. DUBLER agreed. He remarked:
... AGDC doesn't have any assets besides this project,
and we don't have a project yet. So, ... what we're
selling is this contract to sell gas to a company. If
that company is a, is a country that doesn't have a
rating or that is an emerging market, or that, you
know, doesn't have the financial where-with-all to ...
rise to a level where you could borrow against it,
then what you do is you get a country like Japan to
get a company that picks up all those little
contracts, and is willing to take that risk, and then
we contract with them to sell them the gas. We use
the credit of ... the very well-rated Japanese company
to sell to third parties that don't have a good
rating.
1:55:44 PM
MR. DUBLER turned to the following path forward for AKLNG (slide
8):
• return to a stage gate process which is a measured
approach: at given points in a project the project is
reviewed, and a decision is made to continue; this process
prevents the completion of a project that thereafter must
be subsidized; for example, at the end of pre-FEED, former
partners in the project withdrew
• the governor has given AGDC 60 days to review the
engineering and the commercial agreements in order to
determine whether the project is viable
• AGDC will provide sufficient information to the legislature
on a monthly basis through [board of directors] activities
• following a technical review of the project, there will be
a 60-day commercial review in conjunction with the
Department of Revenue
• pursue qualified third-party expertise to build, own, and
operate the project with the state as facilitator
• reevaluate the schedule for FEED, the Final Investment
Decision (FID), and construction on a more reasonable
schedule
2:01:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how much of the economic viability
of the project is based on the future international market for
LNG, as opposed to just considering the state's current fiscal
situation.
MR. DUBLER acknowledged there are three potential gas sellers in
the project's current memorandum of understanding (MOU): BP,
ExxonMobil Corporation, and AGDC [document not provided].
However, if the Department of Natural Resources agrees to accept
royalty-in-kind (RIK), rather than royalty-in-value (RIV), it
would become a gas marketer as well. Because of anti-trust
considerations, the parties cannot discuss the sale price of
their gas. All that can be discussed is AGDC's cost to take the
gas resource, convert natural gas to LNG, and deliver LNG free
on board (FOB) to a dock [in Nikiski] or in Asia. He concluded
each party, including AGDC, will make a determination on the
price delivered in Asia, and whether to continue the project.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired as to the predicted price range
for LNG.
MR. DUBLER said the price for LNG will indubitably depend on
many factors; for example, how many LNG projects that are in
various stages of development actually are built, and on
increases in demand for LNG from India, China, and other
emerging economies. At this time, there is a huge gap between
supply and demand.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for the role Russia plays in world
gas markets.
MR. DUBLER said Russia has completed, and is expanding, a large
LNG facility in the north, although he is unfamiliar with the
reserve capacity of said reservoir. Mr. Dubler returned to the
last item on slide 8:
• Complete FERC process with third-party participation; AGDC
will use contractors to augment its small staff
2:07:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recalled the previous AKLNG structure
included engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC)
contracts as an aspect of financing the project. She asked
whether this method of outside financing is included in the
current model.
MR. DUBLER explained EPC contracts are generally with a firm
that would build the project; for example, a large oil company
could invest, provide capital, and construct the project.
However, AGDC has no partners at this point beyond the MOU,
which directs the state and certain companies to work together
for 60 days on an assessment of the project. He suggested oil
producers on the North Slope may be interested [in an EPC
contract] because they own the gas.
2:10:06 PM
MR. DUBLER continued to slide 9 and explained the purpose of a
stage gate process is to remove risk; for example, if AGDC were
to make an FID decision after the completion of only 15 percent
of engineering, "you don't know what the risks are." Using a
stage gate process, in order to continue to a FEED decision,
AGDC must:
• demonstrate economics that would attract private equity
investment and debt financing; procure North Slope LNG
sales contracts
• engage qualified partners to construct and operate the
project
• meet AGDC's statutory objectives
MR. DUBLER said AGDC has been seeking partners in the project.
In March [2019], AGDC signed an MOU with BP and ExxonMobil to
review the project. In April [2019], a group will meet in
Houston to develop updated costs estimates on project design to
a point allowed by antitrust considerations, which will be
followed by a commercial review. If the project continues, AGDC
must incorporate partners to complete the project (slide 10).
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked when the review process will be
completed.
MR. DUBLER advised the review process will be completed by the
end of April, and will be further discussed prior to the AGDC
board meeting on May 9, [2019].
2:16:31 PM
MR. DUBLER turned to aspects that challenge the completion of
the project (slide 11):
• many projects in competition with AKLNG worldwide are built
at tidewater and thus do not require an 800-mile pipeline
to a port; were AKLNG to be built on the North Slope, LNG
would not be provided to Southcentral and Fairbanks
• many projects in competition with AKLNG, in the Gulf Coast
area of the Lower 48, have access to Henry Hub [pricing
point for lower natural gas futures traded on market
exchanges] lower-priced gas
• increased competition and Henry Hub prices are driving
price projections to approximately $8.00 per million
British thermal units (MMBtu) in Asia; AKLNG has not met
this threshold
MR. DUBLER advised a positive aspect for AKLNG is cheaper
transportation costs than shipping from the Gulf Coast, because
of the shorter distance to Asia, and also avoids shipping
congestion in the Panama Canal.
2:20:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for the volume of Henry Hub LNG
exports.
MR. DUBLER said he did not know. He recalled a shortage of LNG
was projected before fracking of shale oil increased the supply
to the point that it is now exported.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS encouraged AGDC to advance AKLNG to the
point of the FERC license. He pointed out the difference
between AKLNG and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) is
that the revenue for the state would be garnered from the
infrastructure, not from the content of the pipeline.
MR. DUBLER said he would share Representative Hopkins' comments
with the AGDC board and the administration. He agreed that if
the state fails to invest in the pipeline, there will be no
revenue to the state, unlike oil.
2:23:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO questioned whether other permit and
licensing deadlines would arise if the state chose to advance
AKLNG to the FERC permit stage gate phase in June 2020.
MR. RICHARDS said in addition to FERC [section 3 of the Natural
Gas Act] authorization and EIS, other agencies such as U.S. Fish
and Wildlife, DOI, the Environmental Protection Agency, BLM, and
the U.S. Coast Guard are proceeding with permitting. Under
[Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act (Fast-41)],
the federal authorizations for AKLNG must be identified and
scheduled thus the FERC date of June 2020 aligns with permitting
by other federal agencies. Mr. Richards said he will provide
timelines for permitting by the aforementioned agencies.
2:25:42 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:25 p.m. to 2:32 p.m.
HB 16-LOCAL FOOD PROCUREMENT; LABELING
2:32:17 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 16, "An Act relating to
shared animal ownership; and relating to the sharing and sale of
raw milk and raw milk products."
CO-CHAIR TARR provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled,
"House Bill 16 Raw Milk Sales." Speaking as the sponsor of SSHB
16, she informed the committee the bill was derived from a
desire to provide food security in Alaska. Her background in
botany and sustainable agriculture led her to address the issue
of food security: 95 percent of food for Alaska is imported at
a cost of over $2 billion; the Division of Agriculture, DNR,
reported Alaskans can produce more; the Alaska Grown $5
Challenge provides more economic development opportunity for
farmers in Alaska (slides 1 and 2).
CO-CHAIR TARR, in response to Representative Hannan, explained
the purpose of the Alaska Grown $5 Challenge is to generate $188
million into Alaska's economy. She provided a history of
farming in Alaska: at statehood there were 525 farms producing
almost one-half of the food consumed in Alaska and dairy farming
was well established. There is only one dairy left in Palmer,
but new dairies in Kodiak and Delta Junction are underway
(slides 3 and 4).
2:38:17 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR advised currently, raw milk products are sold
through a herd share program authorized by the Alaska
Administrative Code. In Alaska, the commissioner of the
Department of Environmental Conservation holds broad authority
over matters of food regulations thus the herd share program was
established by regulation and is not in statute: 18 AAC 32.010
- 18 ACC 32.060 restrict sales of raw milk products except for
personal use. She directed attention to a sample herd share
agreement included in the committee packet - noting the
agreement creates a contractual relationship between a producer
and consumer - and described features of the agreement. Co-
Chair Tarr pointed out the "closed loop system" nature of the
agreement provides safety because if an issue arose, consumers
are known and can be contacted quickly.
2:41:45 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR advised the first provision of SSHB 16 would put a
herd share program into the Alaska Statutes. Comparing the bill
to legislation in other states, she said 12 states allow raw
milk sales in retail stores; some allow raw milk sales at
farmers markets; some allow raw milk sales on the producing
farm; some allow herd share programs; some allow the sale of raw
goat milk only [supporting document provided by the National
Conference of State Legislatures entitled, "State Milk Laws"
included in the committee packet]. The second provision of SSHB
16 allows producers to include in the herd share program
additional value-added products such as cheese and butter (slide
7). This provision would help farmers increase the scale of
their businesses and increase shopping convenience to consumers.
She directed attention to a picture of raw milk cheese available
at a retail outlet due to federal legislation that allows the
sale of raw milk cheese that has been aged over 60 days. Co-
Chair Tarr concluded, noting pasteurization of milk became
necessary to address problems created by the improper handling
of milk and a population shift to urban living during the early
1900's; as it took longer to transport milk products from farms
to consumers, problems with illnesses arose.
2:47:42 PM
SUZY CROSBY, Co-Owner, Cottonwood Creek Farm, provided a
PowerPoint presentation entitled, "Cottonwood Farm Before House
Resources 3/22/19." She directed attention to a picture of
goats and explained herd share is legal in Alaska, helps the
goats "pay their way" and connects consumers with producers in
order to shorten the food chain, which is desired by "loca-
vores." She restated herd share is legal in Alaska and is
applicable to fluid milk only. Herd share is sustainable in
that consumers make a commitment to pick up their milk on a
schedule (slides 1-4). Through the herd share program, the farm
is not a grocery store and farmers do not sell milk, cheese, or
other dairy products (slide 5). Ms. Crosby noted the provision
of SSHB 16 that would allow farmers to make cheese and other
products is important because goats produce excess milk in the
summer, which could be made into chevre and frozen for use in
winter. She turned to aspects of safety and sanitation and
advised the milking location should be out of the barn and in a
clean space. Goats are cleaned before and after milking and fed
so they remain standing after milking; she further described
methods for safe handling and processing of the milk, for
complete recordkeeping, and for educating consumers on milk
safety (slides 6-8). Ms. Crosby stated SSHB 16 would allow the
herd share program to include value-added products such as Queso
Fresco, feta cheese, and chevre (slides 9-12).
2:53:32 PM
PETE KENNEDY, Attorney, Westin Price Foundation, informed the
committee the Westin Price Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit
and is the biggest raw milk advocate group in the U.S. He said
he also works for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund that
has a mission to protect the rights of farmers and consumers to
engage in direct commerce. Mr. Kennedy confirmed [herd share]
agreements are closed-loop transactions that create a higher
degree of transparency and traceability than any other
arrangement. He opined the majority of food-borne illness
outbreaks blamed on raw milk consumption are false; in two cases
where milk distributed through a herd share agreement was
responsible [for illness], affected parties were notified
without public notice. He referred to a report included in the
committee packet related to raw milk safety and said his
experience is that the demand for raw milk has increased, but
incidents of illness have not - or have decreased - due to the
better education of dairy farmers and consumers [document not
provided].
2:57:35 PM
MR. KENNEDY opined there are three built-in safety incentives
that ensure the safe production of raw milk: the milk is
consumed by the producer; the small herd share dairies cannot
afford an outbreak of illness; raw dairy products have a better
track record for safety than fluid raw milk. From an economic
standpoint, raw milks sales encourage consumers to visit the
farm and make other purchases. Finally, he advised there is
case law supporting herd share farmers who distribute raw dairy
products to their consumers.
[HB 16 was held over.]
3:01:57 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska LNG Project Update House Resources Committee 3.22.19.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM |
AGDC LNG Update |
| HB 16 Version U Sponsor Statement 3.20.19.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Version U 3.14.19.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Version U Sectional 3.20.19.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Fiscal Note DHSS 3.15.19.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Fiscal Note DEC 3.15.19.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Supporting Document - Tarr memo re Herdshare Property Rights.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Supporting Document - NCSL Milk Laws.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Supporting Document - Herdshare Agreement Sample.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Supporting Document - Existing Alaska AAC.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Supporting Document - CDC outbreak map.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Supporting Document - ADEC Raw Milk.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Letter of Support - Denise Statz.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/29/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |
| HB 16 Supporting Document - Suzy Crosby Testimony Slides.pdf |
HRES 3/22/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 16 |