04/08/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR16 | |
| SJR3 | |
| SJR8 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2013
1:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Hawker
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16
Relating to the National Ocean Council, the development of a
national ocean policy, and coastal and marine spatial planning.
- MOVED CSHJR 16(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 3
Urging the United States Congress to pass legislation to open
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil
and gas exploration, development, and production; urging the
United States Department of the Interior to recognize the
private property rights of owners of land in and adjacent to the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; relating to oil and gas
exploration, development, production, and royalties; and
relating to renewable and alternative energy technologies.
- MOVED HCS CSSSSJR 3(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 8
Supporting the continued and increased exploration, extraction,
processing, and production of rare earth elements in the state;
and urging the United States Congress to support efforts of the
state to develop rare earth elements in the state for the
benefit of the economic and national security of the United
States.
- MOVED HCS CSSJR 8(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 16
SHORT TITLE: NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SADDLER
04/01/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/01/13 (H) RES
04/08/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SJR 3
SHORT TITLE: ENDORSING ANWR LEASING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
01/23/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/13 (S) RES
02/04/13 (S) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS
02/04/13 (S) RES
02/20/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/20/13 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/27/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/27/13 (S) Moved CSSSSJR 3(RES) Out of Committee
02/27/13 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/28/13 (S) RES RPT CS 7DP SAME TITLE
02/28/13 (S) DP: GIESSEL, FRENCH, MICCICHE, BISHOP,
MCGUIRE, FAIRCLOUGH, DYSON
03/01/13 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/01/13 (S) VERSION: CSSSSJR 3(RES)
03/04/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/04/13 (H) RES
04/08/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SJR 8
SHORT TITLE: MINING/PROCESSING OF RARE EARTH ELEMENTS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MCGUIRE
01/30/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/13 (S) RES
02/13/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/13/13 (S) Moved CSSJR 8(RES) Out of Committee
02/13/13 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/15/13 (S) RES RPT CS 7DP SAME TITLE
02/15/13 (S) DP: GIESSEL, FRENCH, MICCICHE, BISHOP,
MCGUIRE, FAIRCLOUGH, DYSON
03/13/13 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/13/13 (S) VERSION: CSSJR 8(RES)
03/14/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/13 (H) RES
04/08/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
STEPHANIE MADSEN, Executive Director
At-Sea Processors Association (APA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 16.
RICK ROGERS, Executive Director
Resource Development Council for Alaska, Inc. (RDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 16.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HJR 16.
MINDY ROWLAND, Staff
Senator Peter Micciche
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced CSSSSJR 3 on behalf of Senator
Micciche, prime sponsor.
TREVOR FULTON, Staff
Representative Dan Saddler
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Saddler,
explained the differences between proposed House committee
substitute for CSSJR 8, Version P, and the previous version.
JESSE LOGAN, Staff
Senator Lesil McGuire
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SJR 8 on behalf of Senator
McGuire, prime sponsor.
KEN COLLISON, Chief Operating Officer
Ucore Rare Metals Inc.
Bedford, Nova Scotia, Canada
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing of SJR 8.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:36:57 PM
CO-CHAIR DAN SADDLER called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Tuck, P. Wilson, Seaton, Feige, and
Saddler. Representatives Johnson, Olson, and Tarr arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HJR 16-NATIONAL OCEAN POLICY
1:37:17 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16, Relating to national
ocean policy.
1:37:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER passed the gavel to Co-Chair Feige.
1:37:50 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, prime sponsor, introduced HJR 16, saying the
resolution urges an exemption for the State of Alaska from the
imminent and far-reaching federal policy to manage and zone
activities in marine and coastal areas. In 2010 President Obama
created the National Ocean Council (NOC) by executive fiat,
granting it broad authority to create a national ocean policy
(NOP) that would among other things, ensure the protection,
maintenance, and restoration of the health of ocean, coastal,
and Great Lakes ecosystems and resources, and also to respond to
climate change and ocean acidification. A key element of NOP is
to develop coastal and marine spatial plans which would
determine what, where, and when activities are allowed in marine
and coastal areas, and in inland wetlands and waterways.
Activities that could be subject to regulation include oil, gas,
and renewable energy development, fishing, mining, timber,
transportation, and tourism. Although this policy may benefit
the Lower 48 - where there is high density development - in
Alaska the need for additional layers of federal management is
not warranted. In January 2012 NOC released its National Ocean
Policy Draft Implementation Plan and the final plan is soon to
be released, thus now is the time for the Alaska State
Legislature to urge for an Alaska exemption to the NOP and
coastal and marine spatial planning, or at a minimum, ask for
voluntary state-by-state participation in the new federal
policies. Co-Chair Saddler acknowledged that the resolution
joins a long list of legislation addressing federal overreach;
however, this and similar resolutions are in response to the
ongoing unprecedented expansion of federal authority, and Alaska
must maintain its control over activities on its oceans, coasts,
and waterways.
1:41:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 16, Version 28-LS0683\C, Nauman, 4/6/13,
as the working document. There being no objection, Version C
was before the committee.
1:42:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony on HJR 16.
1:42:38 PM
STEPHANIE MADSEN, Executive Director, At-Sea Processors
Association (APA), informed the committee she has been an Alaska
resident involved with fisheries for approximately 40 years.
She said APA's written comments in support of HJR 16 are
provided in the committee packet, and stressed that the
commercial fishing industry has been participating in the ocean
policy process for over 10 years through the U. S. Commission on
Ocean Policy, H.R. 21 legislation, and now the NOP. The
industry's goal is to preserve the system of regional
stakeholder-driven fishery management that has met success in
Alaska. However, the draft implementation plan ignores the
industry's participation and proposes the creation of a new
ocean resource management system; in fact, the draft plan states
that the fisheries can be better managed, and that NOP will
improve future management decisions. This raises the question
of: Decisions made by whom? Ms. Madsen said APA suggests that
the regional fishery management council process should be
exempted from the program, or that NOP should be revised so that
it returns to a voluntary planning process. Previously, APA has
been told repeatedly that this is a collegial voluntary process,
and if so, it is pleased to participate, but if NOP is instead a
new federal bureaucracy with the aim to regulate all ocean
activities, APA recommends Alaska "opt-out." She restated APA's
support for the resolution.
1:45:15 PM
RICK ROGERS, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
for Alaska, Inc. (RDC), said RDC has been engaged in the issue
of NOP in marine spatial planning since July 2010. He noted a
copy of RDC's 4/3/12 testimony before the federal Subcommittee
on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, & Insular Affairs was provided
in the committee packet. Mr. Rogers said RDC and the National
Ocean Policy Coalition are concerned about NOP because it will
have a disproportionate impact on Alaska's resource dependent
industries. Alaska has over 34,000 miles of coastline and NOP
adds uncertainty and anxiety to an existing cumbersome and
complex regime of state and federal permitting and oversight.
The abovementioned organizations question whether increased
bureaucracy will benefit environmental protection; in fact,
coastal marine spatial planning is an unauthorized, regulatory
program with a federal top-down approach. For example, eco-
system based management sounds like a worthy goal, however,
RDC's concern is that it will lead to a paralysis/analysis
situation. Also, the NOP stated goal of reaching onshore
activities may lead to undue federal control of Alaska's land
and resource management. Marine spatial planning may result in
restrictions to marine waters and submerged lands that override
the needs of Alaskans, particularly if they affect the transport
and shipping of resources. Mr. Rogers pointed out that one
justification for NOP is to resolve conflicts, but all of the
competing industries in Alaska such as mining, tourism,
forestry, oil and gas, and fisheries are collectively concerned
about this policy. He summarized, and urged for the timely
passage of the resolution.
1:50:51 PM
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, summarized the
state's concerns on ocean policy. He read from an untitled
document as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Let me begin by stating that Alaska has a strong
interest in assuring the continued health and
productivity of its marine and coastal resources. We
rely on these areas for commercial and sport
fisheries, subsistence uses, recreation,
transportation, shipping, and a multitude of other
uses. Marine and coastal resources are vital to our
economy, supporting a vibrant fishing industry that
produces almost six billion dollars in economic
activity in our state annually, accounts for
approximately 60 percent of the nation's seafood
production, and is our largest private sector
employer. Coastal and marine areas also provide
abundant development opportunities, such as: offshore
oil and gas, renewable energy, shipping, and tourism.
With over 44,000 miles of shoreline - more mileage
than the other eight proposed planning areas combined
- and an expansive EEZ, Alaska's interest in managing
ocean and coastal resources cannot be overstated.
Implementation of the President's National Ocean
Policy institutes a new federal framework to govern
marine and coastal activities. Upon inspection, it
federalizes decision processes regarding marine and
coastal activities and embeds authority into regional
governance boards dominated by federal agencies and
federal decision processes.
Alaska's marine and coastal resources and their uses
are already tightly regulated by a vast and diverse
array of federal, state, and local authorities. This
existing oversight has a proven track record and is
fully capable of ensuring the long-term health and
viability of our marine and coastal resources. We do
not believe additional federal regulatory oversight is
needed and we oppose creation of additional federal
bureaucracy and regulation and view this as an
unnecessary threat to our sovereignty. We also do not
support use of this process for zoning or
alternatively termed regulated marine use planning
purposes. Instead, we support achieving efficiency by
relying on the effective proven processes and
authorities that are already in place. Any
establishment of further authority should be through
Congressional action. Congress has a keen awareness
of the current multi-jurisdictional structure and
respect for the traditional role of states in managing
their marine and coastal resources.
Jurisdiction and management decisions for marine
waters and submerged lands and responsibility for
marine and coastal activities and ecosystems is
divided between the states and the federal government.
Alaska's jurisdiction includes uplands, wetlands, tide
and submerged lands and extends out three nautical
miles to the territorial limit. Within these areas,
Alaska manages and leases lands, and with federal and
local agencies, permits or restricts activities on
them that could impact the environment. Alaska and
the federal government each have respective sovereign
responsibilities and authorities to maintain healthy,
resilient, and sustainable marine and coastal
resources. Any adopted program must recognize and
respect Alaska's jurisdiction and sovereign
authorities. Coastal states must be recognized as
equal partners with sovereign jurisdictions and
authorities, not relegated to stakeholder status in
marine and coastal policy development and
implementation.
Rather than development and implementation of new
regulatory programs, a better focus would be
investment in Arctic research, monitoring, and
infrastructure. In short, we need more resources, not
more rules, to ensure conservation of our coastal and
marine resources. It is unfortunate that the new
planning effort is draining agency resources at a time
when core agency functions are struggling for funding
due to declining federal budgets. We prefer to see
the federal government focus its resources on the many
needs in the Arctic and to focus on much needed
research and monitoring rather than expending
resources on an unnecessary and duplicative planning
effort.
Finally, to ensure an effective outcome, it is
important that any planning effort have clearly
defined expected outcomes, an appropriate timeline,
and provides both the states and the users of marine
and coastal resources with primary authority to
develop ocean and coastal policies. Despite numerous
requests by the state to provide such specifics, they
have yet to be provided by the federal government.
The health and management of our marine and coastal
resources is simply too critical to engage in a
process that does not provide meaningful dialogue
opportunities to address stated concerns.
In closing, this policy is simply not ready for
implementation in Alaska. Until requested details are
provided, especially with respect to governance and
regulated use, the State cannot support this effort as
currently described. We urge Congress to involve
itself in this process and for the National Ocean
Council to delay implementation of this policy to
allow more meaningful dialogue to address state and
other affected users concerns. We also urge a more
meaningful dialogue with the State that recognizes its
sovereign authorities and responsibilities.
We appreciate your resolution and the concern it
expresses.
1:56:31 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, after ascertaining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON observed that the transfer of authority
for permitting finfish aquaculture in offshore areas is of
concern. The state has prohibited pen-reared finfish farming
within state waters and if the federal government proceeds with
regulations to allow the permitting of finfish aquaculture it
could be very detrimental to fisheries in Alaska. He said he
supports the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK raised questions about the executive order
and read:
Final recommendations shall be made publically
available for which a notice of public availability
shall be published in a federal register ... the
establishment of a National Ocean Council ... this
order is not intended to or does not create any right
or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against ...
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if the findings of the [National Ocean
Council] are just recommendations or will become law and
regulation.
1:58:57 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER responded:
There is a disclaimer that would not be law but
federal regulation, and management practices of
federal agencies in Alaska carry tremendous amounts of
weight and effectiveness. So it may be a distinction,
not a difference, to say they're not law, but it would
still be effective. I don't think you can actually
create law by executive order.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised then that the findings of the
[Council] from the executive order will become recommendations.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER said no, they are policies.
1:59:42 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said:
Which would then mean, you could have regulations
written against those policies, and those regulations
would then have the force of law.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE added that he and Representative Saddler went to
a meeting with employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce, who would be
administering NOC, and his impression was that the federal
government does not have the assets to enforce, or research and
understand, a program managing Alaska's coastline, which exceeds
the total coastline of the rest of the country. In light of
federal budget concerns, he questioned whether the policy is
merely a way to arbitrarily impose the federal government's will
on U.S. waters surrounding Alaska. Co-Chair Feige doubted the
ability of the federal government to make educated, informed,
science-based decisions regarding the nation's oceans
surrounding Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON returned attention to the subsection
identified by Representative Tuck, found on page 7 of the
executive order which read:
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not,
create any right or benefit, substantive or
procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any
party against the United States, its departments,
agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
agents, or any other person.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON advised the subsection does not say this
will not be policy that will control actions at sea.
2:02:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON called attention to section 6, sub-
subparagraph (i) which read:
(i) take such action as necessary to implement the
policy set forth in section 2 of this order and the
stewardship principles and national priority
objectives as set for the in the Final Recommendations
and subsequent guidance from the Council; and
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined the above instructs the agencies
to basically implement the policy; previous to that, "it
instructs other agencies to fund it." He questioned whether the
phrase, "as applicable by law" is a regulation or an executive
order. Representative Johnson characterized the executive order
under discussion as "a very far-reaching and dangerous
document."
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified he is supporting HJR 16,
however, there are circumstances when certain restricted areas
on and off the coast that are identified by regional management,
are important and beneficial to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she will co-sponsor the
resolution.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER agreed with the previous comments, saying HJR
16 does not stand in the way of the policy, but Alaska's needs
are unique and the resolution urges the federal administration
to consider exempting Alaska.
2:05:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute for HJR 16, Version 28-LS0683\C, out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSHJR 16(RES) was reported
from the House Resources Standing Committee.
2:05:36 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:05 p.m. to 2:08 p.m.
SJR 3-ENDORSING ANWR LEASING
2:08:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO.
3(RES), Urging the United States Congress to pass legislation to
open the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to
oil and gas exploration, development, and production; relating
to oil and gas exploration, development, production, and
royalties; and relating to renewable and alternative energy
technologies.
2:08:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to adopt the proposed House committee
substitute (HCS) for CSSSSJR 3, Version 28-LS0331\P,
Nauman/Bullock, 4/1/12, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version P was before the committee.
2:09:03 PM
MINDY ROWLAND, Staff, Senator Peter Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, informed the committee the resolution carries on
the tradition begun after the passage of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980. Since then,
every legislature, governor, and member of the Alaska
Congressional Delegation have supported opening a portion of the
coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to
oil and gas development. The resolution reflects updated intent
of past resolutions; for example, SJR 3 points out the benefit
of linking oilfields at Point Thomson to the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS), and language specifying the amount of
acreage requested to be opened is eliminated to mirror recent
federal energy legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate. Ms.
Rowland observed proposed Version P adds Inupiat to the people
dependent upon the Porcupine Caribou Herd, and adds a resolve
stating the need to recognize and respect the rights of Native
landowners in ANWR. It is in the national interest to become
less dependent on foreign sources for energy, and it is in
Alaska's interest to have energy produced in the state. Senator
Micciche seeks to replace words with action, she said, and
opening ANWR facilitates the desire for the U.S. to become
energy independent from others. Further, today's
environmentally responsible oil and gas related activity in the
Arctic results in a significantly smaller impact on these valued
lands; in fact, oil and gas activities conducted in ANWR will be
monitored to ensure traditional lands and wildlife populations
remain pristine and productive. Ms. Rowland concluded that the
passage of SJR 3 continues the message conveyed by past
legislatures.
2:12:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony. After ascertaining no
one wished to testify, public testimony was closed.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK opined Alaska has clearly demonstrated
through its procedures, methods, and history on the North Slope
that development can be done right. He questioned why industry
would consider drilling in deep water offshore with the inherent
risks, when it is possible to drill safely onshore, within a
small footprint. He expressed his support for the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON read from a document provided by Arctic
Power, Anchorage, Alaska, entitled, "49 ANWR points from the
49th State," as follows:
1) The 10-02 Area has more conventional oil potential
in one spot than any single or collective regional
onshore location in North America.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER stated the importance for the state to continue
to make proclamations of the facts of oil and gas development on
the North Slope.
2:15:25 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to report the proposed House committee
substitute for CSSSSJR 3, Version 28-LS0331\P, Nauman/Bullock,
4/1/13, out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS
CSSSSJR 3(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
2:15:50 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:15 p.m. to 2:18 p.m.
SJR 8-MINING/PROCESSING OF RARE EARTH ELEMENTS
2:18:39 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced the next order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8(RES), Supporting the
continued and increased exploration, extraction, processing, and
production of rare earth elements in the state; and urging the
United States Congress to support efforts of the state to
develop rare earth elements in the state for the benefit of the
economic and national security of the United States.
2:18:48 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to adopt the proposed House committee
substitute (HCS) for CSSJR 8, Version 28-LS0324\P, Bullock,
4/8/13, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:19:19 PM
TREVOR FULTON, Staff, Representative Dan Saddler, Alaska State
Legislature, informed the committee the first change in Version
P is found on page 3, line 2, in that the word "state" was
deleted to imply that the Alaska State Legislature urges not
just state agencies, but all agencies, both state and federal.
Also on page 3, line 6, the FURTHER RESOLVED was rewritten so
that federal agencies are directed to work with state agencies.
Both of these changes were made to adhere to the guidelines of
joint resolutions, which are used to express the view or wish of
the legislature to the President, the Congress, U.S. government
agencies or other state governments, whereas concurrent
resolutions are used for the internal business of the
legislature and for requesting action of executive state
agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK removed his objection.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER would like the record to reflect that the
sponsor wished to include an additional Whereas that would urge
the following:
the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
(AIDEA) to expedite the review and due diligence
necessary to assess and finance participation in a
specific project, that being the Bokan Mountain [Rare
Earths Project] for rare earth elements.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER discouraged the addition of this clause because
a joint resolution is aimed at the President and the U.S.
government, and the aforementioned clause is more appropriate
for a concurrent resolution. However, he expressed his full
support of the sponsor's efforts to encourage AIDEA's rapid
review and due diligence of the Bokan Mountain project.
2:22:09 PM
JESSE LOGAN, Staff, Senator Lesil McGuire, Alaska State
Legislature, further explained the House committee substitute is
a result of the awareness of the differences between a joint
resolution and a concurrent resolution, and the changes in no
way imply a lessening of the sponsor's support for the
identified projects; in fact, SJR 3 passed in the Senate 20-0.
Mr. Logan paraphrased from the sponsor statement as follows:
SJR 8 is supporting the continued and increased
exploration, extraction, processing, and production of
rare earth elements in the state; and urging the
United States Congress to support efforts of the state
to develop rare earth elements in the state for the
benefit of the economic and national security of the
United States. Rare Earth Elements possess unique
chemical, electrical, and physical properties; they're
indispensable for national defense military equipment
such as night vision goggles, precision guided
weapons, drones, radar systems and satellites, and
clean energy technology, hybrid-electric cars,
vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, and consumer
goods such as portable communication devices.
Industrial uses include catalytics, phosphorus,
polishing compounds, pollution control devices,
illumination screens, and optical quality glass.
MR. LOGAN stated that the demand for rare earth elements (REEs)
has increased 100 percent in the last 20 years, and 95 percent
of the world's supply is controlled by China, which is currently
reducing its export quotas. This poses a national security and
energy security risk for the U.S. However, mineral resources
make up a majority of Alaska's economic assets, and Alaska has
several prospects for the production of REEs, the most promising
of which is the Bokan Mountain deposit, putting Alaska in
position to become the U.S. leading supplier of REEs. Increased
exploration for REEs, along with processing facilities, can
create new opportunities for Alaskans, in contrast to the
existing mining extraction in Alaska that does not provide for
the export of value-added products. Mr. Logan concluded, saying
the resolution supports increased exploration, extraction,
processing, and production of REEs, urges federal agencies to
expedite consideration of permits, and urges Congress to support
these efforts.
2:24:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how REE mining increases the
opportunity for Alaska to export value-added products.
MR. LOGAN said to do so the state would have to develop
manufacturing along with the extraction of elements. At Bokan
Mountain, there is the opportunity to develop a road to Craig
and access to a deepwater port. In further response to
Representative Tuck, he said manufacturing REEs in support of
nanotechnology is possible.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said the only processing plants for REEs
in the world are in China and Australia. Building a processing
plant in Alaska would require a source of natural gas and
electricity, which could be supplied by an in-state gas line.
He called attention to an application available on the Ucore
Rare Metals Inc. web site that is a source for information on
REEs, and quoted a price for a specific element. China is
trying to control the entire supply chain of REEs from
extraction to the export of a finished product.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE recalled the U.S. used to have REE mines, the
largest of which was in Mountain Pass, California, but they were
regulated out of existence. He cautioned that the traditional
manufacturing process of REEs encompasses significant
environmental impacts if improperly managed.
2:29:01 PM
KEN COLLISON, Chief Operating Officer, Ucore Rare Metals Inc.,
informed the committee the technology used today was developed
in Montana and from an environmental perspective, is a totally
different process than that used in China. The new process uses
a series of columns to separate the individual rare earths, thus
environmentally, there are not the issues raised by the solvent
extraction process. In addition, the reagents are recycled and
nitric acid is used instead of sulfuric acid. Further, a
sorting technology is used to sort the ore and all of the
tailings, with some of the waste rock, will go back underground.
As an aside, he said the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT) recently identified Ucore's project as an example of
sustainable mining. In response to Co-Chair Saddler, he advised
there are light and heavy REEs; in fact, light REEs are not
rare, and the mine at Mountain Pass is a light REE mine. Bokan
Mountain is unique in that 40 percent of the deposit is heavy
REEs, which are critical to the automotive and green energy
industries, Boeing, and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD).
In further response to Co-Chair Saddler, he said the Bokan
Mountain deposit could supply about one-half of the current U.S.
demand for dysprosium.
2:32:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked why the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) is interested in the project.
MR. COLLISON said the main interest is from DoD, which is
interested in the technology of the production of dysprosium,
and has agreed to fund Ucore's pilot plant. He was unaware of
interest from DHS.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony, and after ascertaining
no one wished to testify, closed public testimony.
2:34:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out China's REEs are mined on a
large plain, and the procedure is to remove two feet of surface,
process that, and return the earth. This procedure is very
disruptive environmentally, without protections for ground water
or air, and unhealthy for people and the environment. Because
REEs are very valuable and compact, a small shaft mine has very
little environmental impact and the tailings are mixed with
concrete for fill. He opined this type of mining is
environmentally as un-intrusive as possible. Representative
Johnson relayed his knowledge of REEs began several years ago at
a seminar on REEs that was focused on batteries and their use in
hybrid cars and micro-engines. He restated his support for the
resolution, saying "this is a totally different outlook on
mining than anything we've seen in Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON added that the refining process is a
new process and completely different than in the past. She said
the mine will expand economic activity in Southeast and can be
done in an environmentally safe manner.
2:37:14 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to report the House committee substitute
for CSSJR 8, Version 28-LS0324\P, Bullock, 4/8/13, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSJR 8(RES)
was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
2:37:39 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:37 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR16 Executive Order 13547.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 Fiscal Note - LAA.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 National Ocean Council.xps |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 NOP Draft Implementation Plan Comments.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 NOPC Comments on Draft Implementation Plan.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 RDC NOP Comments.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 Version N.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| HJR16 Work Draft (Version C).pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 16 |
| SJR3 113th Congress HR49.xps |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 ANWR Top Ten.xps |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 Arctic Power Fact Sheet.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 Fiscal Note - LAA.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 3 |
| SJR3 Version O.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SJR3 Work Draft (Version P).pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SJR8 DGGS REEs Overview.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 Fiscal Note - SRES.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 RDC Letter.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 SEC Resolution.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 Ucore Letter.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR8 Version U.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| LAA Legislative Resolutions.pdf |
HRES 4/8/2013 1:00:00 PM |