Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/25/1997 01:30 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 25, 1997
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Joe Green
Representative Irene Nicholia
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 128
"An Act relating to water quality; directing the Department of
Environmental Conservation to conduct water quality research;
establishing the Water Science Oversight Board; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32
Relating to the Tongass Land Management Plan and to continued
Congressional oversight of that plan.
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
OVERVIEW: Oil and Gas Field Technology
- HEARD
* HOUSE BILL NO. 144
"An Act authorizing the Department of Environmental Conservation to
charge certain fees relating to registration of pesticides and
broadcast chemicals; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
OVERVIEW: Nerox
- OVERVIEW CANCELLED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 128
SHORT TITLE: WATER QUALITY; WATER SCIENCE OVERSIGHT BD
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HUDSON
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/97 318 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/97 318 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/18/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/18/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/27/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/27/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/18/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/18/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/19/97 756 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED -
REFERRALS
03/19/97 756 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/19/97 756 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/25/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 32
SHORT TITLE: TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/20/97 772 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/20/97 772 (H) RESOURCES
03/25/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID STONE, President
Council of Alaska Producers
P.O. Box 22653
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-5704
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 128.
McKIE CAMPBELL, Consultant for the
Council of Alaska Producers
416 Harris Street, Suite 206
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3171
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 128.
MICHELE BROWN, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
Telephone: (907) 465-5065
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding SSHB 128.
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General
Governmental Affairs Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department's position and answered
questions regarding SSHB 128.
JIM BACON
P.O. Box 210383
Auke Bay, Alaska 99821
Telephone: (907) 789-2405
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 128.
SUSAN SCHRADER, Executive Director
Alaska Environmental Lobby
P.O. Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-3366
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 128.
WALT SHERIDAN, Principal
Walt Sheridan and Associates
124 West Fifth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6367
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 32.
BERNE MILLER, Executive Director
Southeast Conference
124 West Fifth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3445
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 32.
BUCK LINDEKUGEL, Conservation Director
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
419 Sixth Street, Suite 328
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6942
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 32.
MARC WHEELER, Grass Roots Organizer
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
419 Sixth Street, Suite 328
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-6942
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 32.
ELAINE PRICE, Mayor
City of Coffman Cove
P.O. Box 18135
Coffman Cove, Alaska 99918
Telephone: (907) 329-2233
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 32.
DAVE McNAUGHTON, Support Manager
Mincom, Incorporated
14811 Saint Mary's Lane, Suite 152
Houston, Texas 77079
Telephone: (281) 497-4600
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented overview on oil and gas field
technology.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-32, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Hudson, Ogan, Dyson, Green and
Joule. Representative Nicholia arrived at 1:42 p.m. Absent were
Representatives Masek, Barnes and Williams.
SSHB 128 - WATER QUALITY; WATER SCIENCE OVERSIGHT BD
[Contains considerable discussion of HB 51 at tape numbers 1006-
1189 and 1871-2263]
Number 0058
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the first order of business was
Sponsor Substitute for House Bill No. 128, "An Act relating to
water quality; directing the Department of Environmental
Conservation to conduct water quality research; establishing the
Water Science Oversight Board; and providing for an effective
date."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON, sponsor, explained that SSHB 128 provides a
means to improve and Alaskanize water quality standards in the
state. He believes standards are often predicated on scientific
research from other states or countries, with little or no
relationship to Arctic and sub-Arctic conditions. The bill allows
the Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) to form
partnerships with interested parties to seek funding for water
quality research, with a goal of substituting science and certainty
for emotion and politics where possible.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said without Alaska-specific research, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will not accept specific
Alaska changes to water quality regulations. He expressed
confidence that all parties will agree to the concept of forming a
partnership to seek funding for five years of technical research.
Number 0313
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON reported that the Alaska Science and Technology
Foundation (ASTF) has expressed interest in funding this research.
However, it will only accept an application from a public agency if
that agency is in partnership with a private organization. He
advised that the ASTF may not exist soon. However, if that is not
a source, he believes there are others.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that SSHB 128 sets up a process and an
organization that can try to obtain ASTF or federal funds. He does
not intend to request general funds for this research.
Number 0378
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON explained that the sponsor substitute removed
interim regulations. At the beginning of session, permit holders
from the mining community had approached him, expressing concerns
about the permitting process in Alaska. He had worked with them
and the ADEC to agree on specific interim regulations, included in
the original bill. Now, he is working closely with the
Administration, who are moving rapidly and deliberately to address
many interim standards on their own. As long as he sees that
progress, he sees no need for the legislature to place its own
standards.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON generally believes regulation should not be
micromanaged. However, frustration on all sides makes legislative
oversight necessary. To that end, he had formally urged swift
consideration of technical matters by the ADEC and cooperation of
the industry. He had not treated one differently from the other,
and he believes they both depend and rely upon each other.
Number 0559
DAVID STONE, President, Council of Alaska Producers, came forward
to testify. The council is a nonprofit corporation composed of all
the major mining companies doing business in Alaska: Alaska Gold
Company; American Copper and Nickel Company, Incorporated/INCO;
Coeur Alaska, Incorporated; Cominco Alaska, Incorporated; Echo Bay
Mines; Fairbanks Gold Mining, Incorporated; Greens Creek Mining
Company; Kennecott Exploration; Nevada Goldfields, Incorporated;
Newmont Mining Corporation; North Pacific Mining Company/CIRI;
Placer Dome, U.S., Incorporated; and USMX, Incorporated.
MR. STONE urged support for SSHB 128, saying mining is a bright
growth industry in Alaska. He read the last paragraph of an
article on mining by Tim Bradner, from the November 10, 1996,
Anchorage Daily News, which says it is comforting to see expansion
of an industry that will require a skilled, highly paid work force.
MR. STONE said they agree but believe Alaska's future can be bright
for many natural resource industries. However, it depends on
environmental regulations that protect Alaska's air and water while
allowing responsible development. He believes SSHB 128 helps
achieve that. He deferred to McKie Campbell.
Number 0756
McKIE CAMPBELL, Consultant for the Council of Alaska Producers,
addressed questions that had arisen. He said if there is no
funding, nothing will happen. The law would exist, and efforts to
work with the ADEC to obtain other funding could continue. He
emphasized that this type of research is necessary before the EPA
will consider changing water quality regulations.
MR. CAMPBELL cited Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing as an
example of appropriate research. Even if individual discharge
levels are met, there may be synergistic reactions. However,
present WET testing gives "flukey" results. While the council does
not believe those tests should be either more stringent or more
liberal, they do believe the testing should be evaluated.
Number 0896
MR. CAMPBELL explained that similarly, the Water Science Oversight
Board would only be active if there is funding. He noted that
committee packets contain two legal opinions regarding board
appointments. The first, dated March 4, 1996, by James Baldwin,
Assistant Attorney General, states there may be a constitutional
issue. Mr. Campbell said he believes the Department of Law, in
defense of the governor's powers, has always tried to have the
least restrictions upon the governor's ability to appoint.
MR. CAMPBELL referred to the second opinion, dated March 14, 1997,
from Terri Lauterbach, Legislative Counsel, Division of Legal and
Research Services. Mr. Campbell said Ms. Lauterbach does not
believe this would be a constitutional problem.
MR. CAMPBELL expressed appreciation for the cooperative
relationship established with Commissioner Brown and the ADEC,
regardless of whether parties agreed or disagreed on particular
points. He concluded by urging passage of SSHB 128.
Number 1006
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN referred to HB 51, currently being debated
on the House floor. He asked how the two bills differ and whether
there are areas where they will compete.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied that SSHB 128 will produce scientific
data that will legitimize some concerns expressed in HB 51. He
believes it complements HB 51.
Number 1070
MR. CAMPBELL indicated the council does not see a conflict.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for clarification.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON elaborated, saying SSHB 128 provides scientific
research that will be the basis for the ultimate Alaska water
quality standards on most of the major contentious issues, such as
mixing zones and WET testing, over which the ADEC has been battling
with federal agencies. The industry tells him they are prepared to
live with standards arrived at under SSHB 128 because those will be
based on scientific research, not politics.
Number 1129
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said SSHB 128 tries to establish standards,
then, rather than be a testing mechanism for standards that might
be approved if HB 51 goes through. From that standpoint, it
appears they may be in competition.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested that Commissioner Brown respond. He
restated his belief that there is no conflict.
Number 1189
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked who opposes SSHB 128.
MR. CAMPBELL said they may hear concerns about components of the
bill, including whether the governor will have unfettered
appointment ability for the board. The council believes SSHB 128
provides a balanced approach, and appointees are required to have
academic and professional expertise in water quality science.
Although there may be discussion that somehow the board should be
totally removed from politics, he does not know how that is done.
He is unaware of anyone opposing SSHB 128 outright.
Number 1277
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated his understanding that there is concern
the board may be tilted in one direction.
MR. CAMPBELL believes there is a feeling that the board is fairly
balanced but should be appointed by a nonpolitical entity. He
pointed out that the board's role is advisory, which he believes is
important as far as constitutionality.
Number 1370
MICHELE BROWN, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation, came forward to testify. She said the Administration
is pleased by the change in the sponsor substitute. They are also
heartened by the caliber of discussion. She thanked Co-Chairman
Hudson and the council for that approach in a time of growing and
needless polarization over environmental management.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said Alaskans' well-being is inextricably tied
to water quality. Maintaining it begins with setting good water
quality standards, which must protect public health, value
resources and foster and respect all water users. To that extent,
the ADEC shares SSHB 128's vision of seeking to Alaskanize
standards. The bill will supplement their efforts, which include
using sound science, good resource management principles and full
public participation in setting standards.
Number 1434
COMMISSIONER BROWN said equally important is the application of
standards. In applying standards, the ADEC considers specific
information on water bodies and contaminants. They use those
specifics to permit discharge; create mixing zones, which are
variances wherein standards can be exceeded; create site-specific
criteria to handle the exceeding of standards for specified water
bodies where it will not cause harm; and classify and reclassify
water bodies for specified uses. These tools allow them to
accommodate particular activities without downgrading standards
statewide.
COMMISSIONER BROWN discussed roles of the EPA and the state. The
federal Clean Water Act gives states the duty to set standards.
The EPA retains four functions. First, it develops effluent
technology requirements, equipment that certain kinds of processes
must use to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged. Second, it
develops scientific guidelines on pollutants. States frequently do
not have money for necessary research. The EPA does that research
and makes it available as guidance for the states, which may use it
as they choose in setting standards. If states have their own
research, they may use that.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said third, the EPA reviews and approves state
standards to ensure consistency with the Clean Water Act. Fourth,
it takes over and writes standards when it believes a state has not
properly done so. She believes in avoiding that at all costs. The
one time it occurred in Alaska, the National Toxics Rule (NTR) was
imposed, leading to problems with arsenic levels, for instance.
Number 1545
COMMISSIONER BROWN explained that a standard is defined as the
maximum pollutant concentration that a water body can absorb yet
still maintain the water uses for which it has been used or could
be used. These include drinking water, industrial usage,
agriculture, aquaculture, fishing and other uses.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said when the ADEC works on setting standards,
they start with a thorough scientific review. They do independent
research, use the EPA's research, and look at what other states and
Canada do. They then carefully look at Alaska's multiple water
uses and consult with users to ensure everyone's interests are
considered.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said that kind of detailed process is currently
underway for 13 standards, 12 of which were identified by industry
and the public as most in need of review and update. She pointed
out that scientific information is constantly changing, and it is
appropriate to constantly review standards to ensure they are up-
to-date. The 13th standard, the mixing zone standard, is currently
out for public review.
Number 1604
COMMISSIONER BROWN referred to two charts. The first, dated
2/18/97, addresses the 12 standards currently under review. Some
issues are resolved, and others are underway.
COMMISSIONER BROWN briefly discussed the second chart, entitled
"WQS Review Process." She believes SSHB 128 will complement the
ADEC's efforts and enable them, should they gain funding, to tackle
difficult issues requiring Alaska-specific research. When
necessary, it will also enable them to convince the EPA a suggested
standard is inappropriate and that Alaska has a sound scientific
basis for its own.
Number 1699
COMMISSIONER BROWN concurred with Co-Chairman Hudson that water
quality issues are highly volatile and emotional. There are
competing livelihood demands and serious health issues. The more
science and rationality brought to this process, the better.
COMMISSIONER BROWN discussed mixing zones. Variances from existing
standards, they are highly controversial. The ADEC has been
revising standards to more clearly demonstrate how the department
will exercise its discretion and balance views on mixing zones.
They have held six public hearings and workshops, factored in over
500 comments and spent hundreds of hours in research and individual
conversations "on just about every word in this proposed reg."
Those standards are out for final public comment.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said as painful as that process has been, she
believes it is necessary. Because the subject is so complex, there
must be painstaking research and analysis to ensure that a standard
is not created that inadvertently creates a problem for someone
else. The ADEC is convinced this type of negotiated stakeholder
rule-making is the way to build certainty, common sense and
rationality in the process. A science board and the kind of
research in SSHB 128 will certainly further that effort.
Number 1781
COMMISSIONER BROWN expressed concern that the board is set up in a
way that politicizes it. Most boards are set up with the governor
making the appointment, because they work with the executive
branch. She noted that the Attorney General's office believes
there is a constitutional separation of powers issue.
COMMISSIONER BROWN stated concern that the board is not simply
advisory because the bill mandates the ADEC to adopt regulations
when the board tells them to. It also says the board is to direct
and oversee.
COMMISSIONER BROWN suggested appointments be made by the governor.
Beefing up the required scientific credentials would also be
acceptable to ensure board members are focused on the science.
Number 1835
COMMISSIONER BROWN advised that the ADEC has a few minor technical
changes, clarifications of language, that she has spoken to McKie
Campbell about and that can be worked out in the future. The board
composition is the only issue outstanding. "When we resolve that,
we'd like to join with you to move this quickly through," she
stated.
Number 1871
COMMISSIONER BROWN addressed HB 51. She does not believe the two
bills contradict each other, although they differ in methodology.
While SSHB 128 seeks to Alaskanize standards, HB 51, for reasons
that baffle her, defers to the federal government.
COMMISSIONER BROWN emphasized that the federal government does not
set standards for Alaska. "And when they did, we hated it," she
said. "Why we would turn over our standards to them is beyond me.
We don't want them to manage our fish and wildlife. We can't stand
the way they manage our forests. They're driving us crazy with
their interpretation of RS 2477. Why we would turn over something
as important as water quality standards to them, when they base
them on what's going on in New Jersey, I just cannot understand."
COMMISSIONER BROWN advised that she has spent a lot of time trying
to convince the EPA that Alaska has very different conditions. She
said SSHB 128 provides the tools to convince the EPA that Alaska is
different and needs to set its own standards that make sense for
Alaska.
COMMISSIONER BROWN pointed out that Alaska has more competing
resource users than most states. She believes there can be mining
next to fishing. It's a question of good management and of being
good neighbors to each other. However, HB 51 does not encourage
that kind of multiple use. It says the first user on the block
gets to use up the water body, and if the rest are cut out, so be
it. She believes that is not in Alaska's best economic or "good
neighbor" interests.
Number 1941
COMMISSIONER BROWN said while SSHB 128 emphasizes good science
before making decisions, HB 51 says it wants good science but
proceeds to adopt standards without having looked at any science.
She believes SSHB 128 provides a good long-term approach and
protects all users.
COMMISSIONER BROWN stated, "I think HB 51 is a tempting quick-fix,
although I'm not quite sure for whom, because I've yet to hear any
industry say they really support it. It's an attempt to paint with
a broad brush, to say if one industrial discharger needs a standard
to be lowered in a certain area, then the standard for the whole
state should lower, as opposed to, you keep the standard and the
protective basis, but if you need to change it on a site-specific
basis and you can show it doesn't do harm, as we've done in a
number of sites, then you change that. So it's a difference in
approach."
Number 2002
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN discussed the possibility of an increased
standard if, for example, multiple uses occur where previously
someone else operated in compliance with the EPA standard.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said she did not follow. She advised that the
Clean Air Act sets national standards. In contrast, under the
Clean Water Act, the federal government only sets standards when a
state does not. They offer scientific guidelines, but not for
everything. For example, they have no mixing zones.
Number 2120
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that he hesitated to get too deep into
HB 51 without the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he was trying to make sure there is no
conflict. He recalled a discussion the previous year about federal
levels.
COMMISSIONER BROWN replied that she does not believe this is a
direct conflict. The only place where there could conceivably be
a conflict is if the state does research and finds that a stricter
standard than the federal government's criteria is necessary to
protect Alaska's water resources. Under HB 51, Alaska would not be
allowed to use its research, even if it showed a stricter standard
was needed. Commissioner Brown cited the example of turbidity
standards.
Number 2209
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said SSHB 128 tries to develop scientific
standards that could be used, if necessary, to change the statutes
modified by HB 51.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to Commissioner Brown's indication
that there are no federal standards and asked for clarification.
Number 2263
COMMISSIONER BROWN explained it is federal criteria guidance. The
criterion is a scientific basis, such as maximum pollutant load,
which when applied to water uses becomes a standard. Although both
are loosely called "standards," they are different.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested that using the EPA criteria and
Alaska's uses, there is a way to establish some limit based on the
EPA criteria.
COMMISSIONER BROWN responded, "If they have criteria. There's a
number that they don't have criteria for."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said evidently there were some, though.
COMMISSIONER BROWN agreed.
Number 2347
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked: If Alaska goes through this type of
research group and discovers a lower level of pollutants should be
allowed, would the state tell the EPA they believe it should be
more stringent and show them why? And until that could be shown,
would there be no change?
COMMISSIONER BROWN said where the federal government has criteria,
and the scientific research for it, the state would have to prove
alternative scientific research to justify a different standard,
which could be either less or more stringent.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether at that point, the EPA must go
along with it.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said the EPA must approve the state's standards.
For example, the federal government had just approved a change in
Alaska's arsenic standards.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he believes that intermediate step is
important.
TAPE 97-32, SIDE B
Number 0006
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he had been concerned that an operator
complying with state standards would be subject to rapid change in
standards. He believes this would be more detrimental than slower
or more gradual changes by the EPA.
COMMISSIONER BROWN replied that she believes both federal standards
and criteria change more quickly than Alaska's because they have
the research tools. Any change by the ADEC goes through a full
public process under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the
board would not be empowered to pass standards or regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said this is advisory to another action.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said it is a precursor to another action.
Number 0103
JAMES BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Governmental Affairs
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, came forward
to testify. Although his written opinion of March 4, 1997,
addressed the original version of the bill, the applicable section
relating to composition of the Water Science Oversight Board is
basically unchanged.
MR. BALDWIN said the proposed statute may violate the separation of
powers doctrine inherent in the state constitution. First, it
leaves appointment of executive branch officials largely in the
hands of someone other than the governor. It also provides an
overly restrictive, limited list for those members whom the
governor may appoint.
MR. BALDWIN expressed interest in ensuring the most legally
defensible set of regulations. He stated concern that regulations
relating to water quality would be highly litigious.
Number 0210
MR. BALDWIN said he respects the opinions of Ms. Lauterbach.
However, he believes the correct way to look at whether a board is
advisory or not is by who listens to the advice. If the board
gives fairly important advice to fairly important people, such as
the commissioner of a principal department of state government, and
it is a necessary step in the adoption process of regulations, then
those factors together mean "that we have to be very careful."
This is an important board, and the fact that it is advisory in
nature is not going to carry the day.
MR. BALDWIN noted that Ms. Lauterbach had not cited a case
supporting her conclusion. He referred to Bradner v. Hammond,
cited in his opinion, which indicates the legislature only has a
role in the appointment process when the constitution specifically
provides for it. That case arose from the legislature's desire to
confirm executive officials not specifically named in the
constitution. Mr. Baldwin takes the reasoning in that case to say
there really is not much of a role in the appointment process,
other than confirmation, for legislators.
MR. BALDWIN said since this is not a principal department head or
quasi-judicial or regulatory board, there would be no confirmation.
Therefore, it would be a noticeable legal issue that may get wound
up in any litigation resulting over the regulations. He said the
ultimate point to worry about is defending these regulations and
making them carry the day when they are adopted.
Number 0305
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON responded that he would be more inclined to
agree if just the Speaker of the House or President of the Senate
presented candidates. This requires a list of three, all of whom
could be struck by the governor, who could then request another
list. The intent is to depoliticize it. The governor chooses, but
from a list managed or developed by the House and Senate.
Number 0376
MR. BALDWIN said on a continuum, it is not as bad as it could be.
However, the effect is that the legislative officers make the
appointment. He suggested a scheme that would pass constitutional
muster. The bill could specify the desired qualifications of
appointees, then require the governor to consult with presiding
officers of the legislature. The bill could also require, for
example, that appointees be recognized in their fields.
MR. BALDWIN commended the sponsor for providing real compensation
for private members of the board. He believes that is extremely
important for getting good people.
Number 0426
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON pointed out that the bill specifies, at least
generally, that candidates have academic credentials and Alaska-
based expertise in the field of water quality. He acknowledged
perhaps there could be a deeper definition.
Number 0442
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN posed a hypothetical situation where the board
is established, recommends a change, and that change occurs. If a
court decided that board was not properly constituted, he wondered
whether litigation or other legal action could affect the change
made on the board's recommendation.
MR. BALDWIN replied that it is highly possible since the board's
recommendation is a necessary step in the enactment process, as he
reads it. He is less sure whether someone could contest the
validity of scientific information provided by the board. However,
one could contend the board's influence is so pervasive over the
ADEC's decision-making that there is a defect possibly emanating
from the composition of the board itself.
MR. BALDWIN explained one reason for the separation of powers
doctrine is so each branch of government acts within its own
sphere, without one predominating over another. He stated, "And if
someone were to say, `Well, what happened here is that really this
wasn't an executive act at all, it was really a legislative act
when the power was given to the commissioner,' then that's a
serious legal defect ...."
Number 0518
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to subsection (c), beginning on page 3,
line 15, and pointed out that the board shall review and comment;
meet at the request of the commissioner; provide advice to the
department; and report annually to the governor, the House and the
Senate. These are constructive, important elements in order to
come up with bipartisan, scientifically-based standards. He
believes both the industry and the environmental community want
that. He said the action defined in SSHB 128 is all advisory, and
he believes it is a well-crafted mechanism to establish standards.
Number 0598
MR. BALDWIN pointed out that this board is a necessary element. If
science becomes the basis of regulations, when the regulations are
tested, the basis will also be tested, as well as composition of
the board and every other element that smart, well-paid lawyers can
bring into litigation.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said the board, as he sees it, gets scientists
together and tries to put the research together in the kind of
language that legislators and the administration will understand.
He is not inclined to accept that change.
Number 0661
CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN referred to separation of powers and said
the legislature had already delegated a great deal of authority to
the ADEC, which regulates and adjudicates the regulations. He
suggested bureaucracy is currently a fourth branch of government.
Number 0723
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether other boards were made of a
composite.
MR. BALDWIN said yes, there are other boards where the legislature
has charted its own course. "I wouldn't cite them as reasons why
we should do it again," he cautioned.
Number 0772
JIM BACON came forward to testify. A commercial fisherman, he
supports SSHB 128. He expressed appreciation for the good-faith
effort to address concerns about the original version.
MR. BACON believes the bill seeks to establish good, sound
scientific findings that can address unique situations in Alaska
and bring about a system whereby the seafood industry can work in
concert with other industries in the state and move forward. "And
that is something that we would very much like to do," he
concluded.
Number 0863
SUSAN SCHRADER, Executive Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby
(AEL), came forward to testify. She advised that member groups
represent over 10,000 Alaskans, united in the belief that there is
ample room in Alaska for both a strong state economy and strong
environmental protection. They also believe there cannot be one
without the other.
MS. SCHRADER said resource-extracting industries must be able and
willing to expend funds to conduct activities with the utmost care
for the resources. They must also recognize and respect other
water resource users who depend on its purity for their livelihood
and enjoyment. Under the public trust doctrine, the legislature
has an affirmative duty to manage water resources for the public
good, not just for private gain of individual interests.
MS. SCHRADER expressed appreciation for the sponsor's efforts in
working with the ADEC and in keeping the AEL briefed. The AEL is
pleased the interim standards have been deleted, which goes a long
way towards making the bill more balanced.
Number 0971
MS. SCHRADER cautioned that a couple of concerns prevent the AEL
from fully endorsing SSHB 128. First, as discussed by others, is
the board composition. Whether or not it will be politicized, it
will certainly have that appearance. For that reason, the AEL
believes it would be difficult for the board to gain the confidence
of the many stakeholders involved in water quality issues.
MS. SCHRADER said the AEL foresees that SSHB 128 will result in
good science and the adoption of improved regulations that industry
will feel more comfortable with. However, the ADEC's funding is
inadequate to implement these regulations. The AEL supports
continued dialogue along the lines that SSHB 128 has initiated.
They suggest additional funding for the ADEC, so that department
can continue to fulfill its mission of protecting water quality.
Number 1088
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked how Ms. Schrader would propose that the
board members be selected to meet the objectivity criteria.
MS. SCHRADER indicated she is not familiar with water quality
research in particular. In medical research, her own background,
the research itself is removed from political influences.
Number 1152
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said someone must make a choice. He asked
whether Ms. Schrader believes it would be more objective if the
governor chose.
MS. SCHRADER said she does not know because she lacks real
knowledge of water quality research.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON questioned whether it would be perceived as
more objective if the AEL or industrial users selected the board.
Number 1218
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that there is a fiscal note from the
ADEC. He said there is a fairly strong indication that substantial
funds may be available from federal sources or others. He believes
the ASTF was ultimately designed to participate in producing
scientific standards that both the environmental and developmental
communities can agree upon.
Number 1258
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to Representative Dyson's questions. He
commented that the logical conclusion is to have a diverse group
select the board. He believes SSHB 128 reflects that.
MS. SCHRADER responded that the AEL does not believes the bill
reflects the diversity of input with which they would feel
comfortable.
Number 1325
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE suggested a highly politicized board
may be positive because it places participants under intense
scrutiny. He expressed concern over funding and suggested passing
a fiscal note reflecting support, rather than just having the
legislation sit on the books. If for some reason other funding
were unavailable, perhaps the fiscal note could kick in.
Number 1460
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON replied that he would be diligently searching
for funding. He prefers to stick with the mode in place, which is
to create the board, establish the process, embark on a search for
scientific funds and "go for it."
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that in his district, there has been
some mining development, and there will be more in other areas.
This provides an avenue in rural Alaska for people to obtain work.
But it also provides a safety net for ensuring development occurs
in an environmentally sound manner.
Number 1594
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON advised that SSHB 128 next goes to the House
Finance Committee. He stated his intention, as it moves from one
committee to the next, to discuss again with the commissioner and
others whether fine tuning is necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he has several questions. He offered to
talk with the sponsor about them privately.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced he would hold SSHB 128 until the next
meeting.
HJR 32 - TONGASS LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN
Number 1720
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced the next order of business was House
Joint Resolution No. 32, relating to the Tongass Land Management
Plan (TLMP) and to continued Congressional oversight of that plan.
He said HJR 32 is fairly straightforward and resulted from findings
of the Governor's Timber Task Force.
Number 1857
WALT SHERIDAN, Principal, Walt Sheridan and Associates (consulting
firm), came forward to testify. He said HJR 32 encourages the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) to bring the decade-long TLMP process to a
close. It also puts the Alaska legislature on record as supporting
an annual timber harvest level of at least 300 million board feet.
MR. SHERIDAN asked: Why the rush? And why 300 million? The USFS
has worked on the TLMP for over a decade, during which time more
than half of the direct timber industry employment has been lost.
Furthermore, failure to produce a revised plan has put the economic
lives of people in Southeast Alaska communities on hold. The
revised plan will let these people know what resources from the
Tongass National Forest will be available in the next 10 to 15
years. It will also provide a degree of certainty and
predictability, necessary to attract investment in new plants and
equipment.
MR. SHERIDAN said there are indications the USFS is under intense
pressure from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to drastically
reduce harvest levels in the Tongass National Forest in response to
concerns about goshawks and wolves. He does not believe those
concerns justify further delay. There has been no new science
since the previous year, when the USFS issued a draft plan allowing
a harvest level of 297 million board feet, and when the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service issued its finding that goshawks and wolves
were not endangered.
Number 1009
MR. SHERIDAN explained that an annual harvest of 300 million board
feet is the amount recently endorsed by the Governor's Timber Task
Force. He said we can and should restructure the timber industry
around value-added processing. However, that is only possible if
a way is found to deal with low-quality material and if there is
sufficient infrastructure, as well as primary manufacturing
equipment, to efficiently log, transport and process the raw
materials needed by the value-added segment of the industry.
MR. SHERIDAN said according to industry exports and the Governor's
Timber Task Force, that requires a minimum annual harvest level of
300 million board feet. He noted that "value-added processing" is
not a precise term.
Number 2122
MR. SHERIDAN discussed the need to process low-quality material,
which accounts for up to half of the Tongass stand. He said
logging around low-quality material, taking only the best, would
leave a legacy of degraded forest stands made up primarily of
defective material.
MR. SHERIDAN noted that on April 5, 1996, the USFS came out with a
draft plan for a harvest level of 297 million board feet. He
concluded that HJR 32 sends a message to the USFS and to the
Administration that Alaskans want to get on with their personal and
economic lives, including the opportunity to establish a value-
added timber industry that is economically viable and
environmentally sound.
Number 2244
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that he supports this 1,000 percent.
He reported that Co-Chairman Ogan and Representative Williams had
arranged for them to go to Southeast communities to observe what
had happened. They had also held a hearing in Ketchikan. "And at
that time, it was heart-rending to see what was going on down there
without an adequate harvest," he noted.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that the Administration had failed
to be present for this extremely important issue.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON noted that they had invited the Administration.
Number 2356
BERNE MILLER, Executive Director, Southeast Conference, came
forward to testify, summarizing his written statement. For the
past year and a half, the conference has actively participated in
the USFS TLMP revision process.
MR. MILLER said they have repeatedly urged the Regional Forester to
select a TLMP alternative that does no unnecessary economic or
social harm to Southeast Alaska's people or communities. In the
past, they were critical of the USFS's TLMP work, and last August,
they advocated that the USFS delay completion of TLMP until
analysis defects were corrected. However, that was before
Ketchikan Pulp Company announced their mill would close.
TAPE 97-33, SIDE A
Number 0006
MR. MILLER said they recently urged that the Regional Forester make
a decision, based on what his supervisors have already placed
before him, and publish a TLMP revision now. They believe that is
necessary to rebuild a strong, diversified economy.
Number 0081
BUCK LINDEKUGEL, Conservation Director, Southeast Alaska
Conservation Council (SEACC), came forward to testify. He advised
that SEACC is a regional coalition of 15 volunteer citizen
conservation groups in 12 Southeast communities.
MR. LINDEKUGEL stated, "We all want a Tongass plan completed. But
the new plan must ensure the logging occurs only at a sustainable
rate that is consistent with maintaining current and future demand
for fish, wildlife and the other renewable resources that local
communities here in Southeast depend on. We believe that 300
million board feet is too high to sustain the long-term use of all
those resources. Therefore, we oppose this resolution, and we urge
that the legislature shift its effort to helping support
communities' efforts to make a transition to high-value-added
timber industry that produces the most number of jobs per board
foot cut here in Southeast."
MR. LINDEKUGEL reported that 59 percent of comments from Alaska on
the TLMP opposed the forest supervisor's preferred alternative. He
said 52 percent of those comments request significantly more
protection for fish and wildlife resources.
MR. LINDEKUGEL pointed out that of the 11 communities represented
on the Governor's Timber Task Force, eight opposed the resolution
calling for a 300-million-board-foot minimum. These included
Petersburg, Sitka and six small Southeast communities, represented
in a coalition called the Tongass Community Alliance.
MR. LINDEKUGEL restated SEACC's opposition to HJR 32 and urged the
legislature to use resources to help Alaskan communities stabilize
their economies.
Number 0293
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked which six small communities
opposed that minimum.
MR. LINDEKUGEL deferred to Mark Wheeler.
Number 0335
MARC WHEELER, Grass Roots Organizer, Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council, answered that the six communities are: Gustavus, Elfin
Cove, Pelican, Tenakee Springs, Port Alexander and the City of
Kupreanof.
Number 0350
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE requested copies of documents relating to the
59 percent and 52 percent figures quoted by Mr. Lindekugel.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked what criteria were used as a basis for the
assertion that communities opposed it.
MR. LINDEKUGEL replied that the mayors of Sitka and Petersburg, as
well as a representative from the six communities, had been
empowered to vote for those communities on the TLMP. He stated
that numerous communities had opposed the preferred alternative
and offered to provide information to the committee.
Number 0545
ELAINE PRICE, Mayor, City of Coffman Cove, testified via
teleconference in support of HJR 32. They support both completion
of the TLMP and the 300-million-board-feet annual minimum. They
believe the latter is essential for the existence of any timber
industry. She said the 100 million board feet suggested by
environmental groups does not allow for lawsuits and set-asides,
for example. Nor does it leave room for growth in the timber
industry.
MS. PRICE indicated waiting for the TLMP has caused great stress in
her area on Prince of Wales Island. Without knowing the allowable
sales level, people have been unable to start new businesses, for
example, by obtaining financing or drawing up business plans.
Number 0672
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN made a motion to move HJR 32 from committee with
individual recommendations and the attached zero fiscal note.
There being no objection, HJR 32 moved from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON called an at-ease at 3:13 p.m. He called the
meeting back to order at 3:15 p.m.
OVERVIEW: Oil and Gas Field Technology
Number 0737
DAVE McNAUGHTON, Support Manager, Mincom, Incorporated, presented
an overview on oil and gas field technology via teleconference. He
is a petroleum engineer for "Mincom USA" of Houston, Texas, which
provides resource evaluation and engineering planning software for
the mining and petroleum industries. He worked in Alaska 16 of his
23 years in the oil industry, much of that time for ARCO.
MR. McNAUGHTON said while Mincom originally developed resource
planning tools for the mining industry, it has diversified into the
petroleum industry over the last ten years. He stated, "The
software we provide is used by a number of clients, including ARCO,
BP and Marathon there in Alaska. And as we continue to expand our
client base, we are providing engineering and geoscience consulting
services, in addition to the software, in order to support newer
clients who don't have the large population of engineers and
geoscientists on staff that the major oil companies typically
include."
MR. McNAUGHTON asked whether committee members had received
Mincom's brochure packet.
Number 0852
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said yes, it was in front of them.
MR. McNAUGHTON referred to the folded brochure entitled "Geolog"
and said that contains an overview of the product line. Back-up
material includes details on the seven product lines offered. He
said Mincom's philosophy is to provide basic engineering software
tools, from a powerful data base through the entire tool kit that
the engineer and/or geoscientist would need to model reservoir
performance and predict resource sales volumes at various stages of
a project. He advised that it was premature to go into specific
products.
Number 0975
MR. McNAUGHTON said the reason for discussing Mincom software
products was because he, Representative Green and Robert Trent,
Dean of the School of Mineral Engineering at the University of
Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), had been discussing aspects of the proposed
pipeline for transporting Prudhoe Bay and other North Slope gas to
Valdez. They recognize that there does not appear to be an active
valuation and planning effort for the gas project from the state's
perspective.
MR. McNAUGHTON said as far as he can tell, all subsurface reservoir
productivity projections and pipeline deliverability planning is
being provided by the operators, who are appropriately maximizing
their interests in the project. He suggested as a business
partner, the state should ask how it knows its interests are being
protected. He said discussions with Dean Trent indicate the UAF
Petroleum Engineering Department has the technical expertise to
conduct such studies on behalf of the state but not all of the
technical tools. "And that's where we enter the picture," he
stated.
MR. McNAUGHTON explained that basic data used by engineers and
geoscientists to evaluate hydrocarbon reservoirs are subsurface
geophysical surveys, well test data and core sample analyses. He
compared evaluating a resource on the North Slope to looking at a
beehive honeycomb with thousands of small holes. To figure out
what is happening in the beehive, the beekeeper inspects as many
holes as possible to obtain adequate information. Similarly, there
are more than 3,000 wells across the North Slope, with 1,200 in
Prudhoe Bay, and these have an abundance of geological, geophysical
and engineering data. They would study the gas resource by looking
at a subpopulation of key wells, with extra focus towards the gas
area.
MR. McNAUGHTON explained, "The kind of project we're discussing on
a preliminary basis would provide a high-level overview of the
total resource value by describing the reservoir volumetrics and
fluid contents. ... That first step is the geophysicist and
geologist activity. Then we would pass these descriptions on to a
reservoir performance modeling module - that would be `Resnet' -
and then on to a gas delivery planning tool. So then we would be
able to evaluate and analyze optimal gas delivery windows. The
goal of the whole exercise would be to supply impartial information
to the state that would allow appropriate discussion of optimal
timing for beginning gas production."
Number 1173
MR. McNAUGHTON said a critical side issue is to evaluate the impact
of accelerating gas production on continuing oil production in the
years 2000 to 2010. If early gas production would negatively
impact oil production, it is important to identify the extent and
timing of the impact. He said there is a high likelihood the
optimal timing will only become apparent after analyzing multiple
scenarios, which is nearly impossible without proper software tools
in place. Mr. McNaughton said the foregoing was a thumbnail sketch
of the project he, Representative Green and Dean Trent have been
discussing.
Number 1233
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON commented that this is an extremely important
area for the state. He indicated he, for one, has too little
information on the amount of reserves and the economics involved.
This technology brings science to determining the level of reserves
and what the potential is.
Number 1268
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN advised that 20 years before, he himself had
performed a reservoir analysis. He said Mr. McNaughton was doing
this overview as a courtesy and would probably be a bidder should
they decide to go this route. He indicated Mr. McNaughton could
take the history, match that history to date and then project into
the future under various scenarios.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked: Do we start selling gas as soon as we
can build a pipeline, sometime around the Yukon-Pacific
Corporation's window of 2001 to 2003? Or is it better to wait? He
noted that the operators indicate the window has slipped from 2005
back to 2008 or 2009. He further asked: Is that window predicated
on the market or on ultimate recovery of oil or ultimate
profitability? He stated, "Those are three significant questions
that they will be answering in their board room quarterly,
certainly semi-annually. And we as a state are kind of left
handcuffed, because as Dave said, the only information we get is
what they give us."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN continued, "That's not necessary. We have
access to all the same information they do, and we can certainly
get as high-powered as they get." He suggested the state could
make choices, and this would provide a bargaining chip. As it is,
they must accept whatever the operators say is best.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN had asked Mr. McNaughton to come up with an
estimated cost and was certain there would be a wide spectrum. For
example, UAF students could study it. Whether or not "technical
people" load the program and then experts crank out the variables,
the state can provide hypothetical scenarios; although each run
costs money, the more cases, the better the answer. He had wanted
Mr. McNaughton to talk to the committee to see whether there is
enough interest in the state's well-being to "start to push this
thing and probably have to run it over the interim." He asked
whether Mr. McNaughton estimated a six-month study was appropriate.
Number 1470
MR. McNAUGHTON replied, "I think a minimum of six months' study in
order to do anything that is reasonably good in terms of quality.
Less time than that and all you do is just scratch the surface."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled that 20 years before, legislator Chat
Chatterton, a retired Chevron oil company executive, had felt it
was so important that the legislature got emergency funding to
conduct this study, which Representative Green said he was
fortunate enough to do as a state employee. He stated, "My point
is now that perhaps it's time to upgrade, especially so while we're
trying to make decisions on the gas line."
Number 1515
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested they were thinking out loud.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concurred.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated, "It strikes me that we've been pushing
hard for a resolution bringing all of the big players together to
ultimately lead to a gas pipeline, which is of major importance to
our state." He said he was hearing that the state has no current
information on its holdings and what aspects might affect the
window of opportunity. He said as a committee member, he would
certainly entertain a proposal for consideration. He said they
need more information, including specifics on time lines, costs and
so forth. Noting that Co-Chairman Ogan is responsible for oil and
gas issues in committee, he asked for his opinion.
Number 1582
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN responded that it is difficult to come to a
conclusion from one presentation. Questions that came to mind
include what information is proprietary; the need for a capital
appropriation even if UAF does the study, as they would need
equipment; and timing. He noted there is no commitment from the
oil producers other than a nonbinding memorandum of understanding.
He questioned whether it would be money wisely spent at this point
until they know that petroleum companies are making appropriate
moves forward.
Number 1646
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said using UAF students and a relatively lean
analysis - effective but not covering every possibility - he
believes this could probably be done for around $100,000; he had
talked with Mr. McNaughton briefly about it. He said this is
"peanuts" even compared to Alaska's tourism marketing. They are
possibly risking a window of opportunity that may not come again
for 15 or 20 years. However, the operators and Yukon-Pacific
Corporation indicate there are widely different views.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN recalled a presentation in Anchorage at a
Chamber of Commerce meeting; he said for worldwide potential gas
production, Alaska is a small player. He expressed concern that
"if we don't get our oar in the water, the boat ain't gonna move."
He agreed timing is important.
Number 1715
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Representative Green, from his past
experience, what happens to the natural gas when an oil field runs
out of oil or becomes uneconomic to operate.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said normally, in fields where there is a
pipeline connection, they can do a "blow-down." They blow the gas
down and sell it. However, from all indications he has seen, blow-
down, but not gas sales, would not occur until 2015 or 2020. He
said, "That's about the time Prudhoe, unless there's some new
technology that's developed, would be reaching pretty close to its
economic limit. I don't know how many thousands of barrels a day
that would be, because it's such a big field, but if we wait that
long, we would minimize - absolutely minimize - any adverse affect
on oil production."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested even the major operators will say if
they wait until 2015, there will be no market; they will have
missed the Asian market. "So we can't wait till it's absolutely
safe," he said. "So we've got to start now determining where do
the lines cross between `let's get the gas on the market' and
`we're going to start losing some oil production.'" He emphasized
the importance of this kind of study.
Number 1780
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated, "I would urge you, on an informal basis,
at any rate, to follow through and at least give the committee
something to consider. And it may be an expanded hearing or
something, Mr. Chair, or something like that?"
Number 1791
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that the House Special Committee on Oil
and Gas was taking the lead on some of these issues. He suggested
talking to Representative Hodgins, chair of that committee. He
suggested they could find out what data is available and what
studies have been done that the legislature can review, then
ascertain whether further work is needed.
Number 1823
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he did not fault the logic but the time
schedule. If they lost a year, it could be a critical one. He
suggested a special hearing, for example. He noted Mr.
McNaughton's willingness to return for a more detailed presentation
of the capabilities.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked who would oversee the study.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN replied the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked whether that was for scientific research.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it was for running a model. He suggested
it was so technical, they did not want the legislature to even
touch it. However, once it was done, results could be used to
weigh options. He cited examples. He said it may even turn out to
be less sensitive, this late in the field development life, than he
is concerned it may be. However, if it is sensitive, the
legislature should know that.
Number 1930
MR. McNAUGHTON offered to provide more information later.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised that it would be weeks before it could be
scheduled in committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON pointed out that it is a capital issue, and the
capital budget is usually the last to come through. He encouraged
Representative Green and Co-Chairman Ogan to work on this with him.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN suggested the House Special Committee on Oil and
Gas could do preliminary work.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON suggested a joint meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN concurred, saying that was what he was hoping.
CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said it could be worked out.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON and REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thanked Mr. McNaughton
for the presentation.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 3:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|