Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/09/2022 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR23 | |
| SB177 | |
| HB120 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SJR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 177 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 9, 2022
1:19 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Josiah Patkotak, Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Ronald Gillham
Representative Tom McKay
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23
Expressing the support of the Alaska State Legislature for
naming the mountain between Cedar Ridge and Hope Peak south of
Anchorage after Gail Phillips.
- MOVED SJR 23 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 177(RES)
"An Act relating to nuclear facility siting permits; and
relating to microreactors."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 120
"An Act relating to state land; relating to the authority of the
Department of Education and Early Development to dispose of
state land; relating to the authority of the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to dispose of state land;
relating to the authority of the Department of Natural Resources
over certain state land; relating to the state land disposal
income fund; relating to the leasing and sale of state land for
commercial development; repealing establishment of recreation
rivers and recreation river corridors; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 23
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORTING NAMING MTN AFTER GAIL PHILLIPS
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) OLSON
02/22/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (S) RES
03/18/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/18/22 (S) Moved SJR 23 Out of Committee
03/18/22 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/21/22 (S) RES RPT 4DP
03/21/22 (S) DP: MICCICHE, KIEHL, KAWASAKI, STEVENS
04/20/22 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/20/22 (S) VERSION: SJR 23
04/25/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/25/22 (H) RES
05/09/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: SB 177
SHORT TITLE: MICROREACTORS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/01/22 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/22 (S) CRA, RES
02/15/22 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/15/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/15/22 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
02/17/22 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
02/17/22 (S) Heard & Held
02/17/22 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/08/22 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/08/22 (S) Moved SB 177 Out of Committee
03/08/22 (S) MINUTE(CRA)
03/09/22 (S) CRA RPT 1DP 3NR
03/09/22 (S) DP: HUGHES
03/09/22 (S) NR: GRAY-JACKSON, MYERS, WILSON
03/21/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/21/22 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/22 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/06/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/06/22 (S) <Bill Hearing Rescheduled to 4/8/22>
04/08/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/08/22 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/11/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/11/22 (S) Heard & Held
04/11/22 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/20/22 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/20/22 (S) Moved CSSB 177(RES) Out of Committee
04/20/22 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/22/22 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 1NR 1AM NEW TITLE
04/22/22 (S) DP: REVAK, KIEHL, VON IMHOF, MICCICHE
04/22/22 (S) NR: STEVENS
04/22/22 (S) AM: KAWASAKI
05/04/22 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/04/22 (S) VERSION: CSSB 177(RES)
05/05/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/05/22 (H) RES
05/09/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 120
SHORT TITLE: STATE LAND SALES AND LEASES; RIVERS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/01/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/01/21 (H) RES, FIN
04/30/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/30/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/30/21 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/12/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/12/21 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/13/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/13/21 (H) Heard & Held
05/13/21 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/02/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/02/22 (H) Heard & Held
05/02/22 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/04/22 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM ADAMS 519
05/04/22 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/06/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/06/22 (H) Heard & Held
05/06/22 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/09/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
BRIX HAHN, Staff
Senator Donald Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SJR 23, on behalf of Senator
Olson, prime sponsor.
ROBIN PHILLIPS
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on SJR 23, provided
invited testimony.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced CSSB 177(RES) on behalf of the
Senate Rules Standing Committee, sponsor by request of the
governor.
TRAVIS MILLION, CEO
Copper Valley Electric Association
Glennallen, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on CSSB 177(RES),
provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "Looking into
Nuclear."
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 120, answered
questions.
KRISTIN "KRIS" HESS, Deputy Director
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 120, answered
questions.
HEATHER O'CLARAY, Statewide Right-of-Way Chief
Division of Statewide Design and Engineering Services
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 120, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:19:44 PM
CHAIR JOSIAH PATKOTAK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:19 p.m. Representatives Hannan,
Schrage, Gillham, Cronk, McKay, and Patkotak were present at the
call to order. Representatives Hopkins, Rauscher, and Fields
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SJR 23-SUPPORTING NAMING MTN AFTER GAIL PHILLIPS
1:20:39 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23, Expressing the support of the
Alaska State Legislature for naming the mountain between Cedar
Ridge and Hope Peak south of Anchorage after Gail Phillips.
1:21:13 PM
BRIX HAHN, Staff, Senator Donald Olson, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced SJR 23 on behalf of Senator Olson, prime
sponsor. She presented the sponsor statement [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Born in Juneau and raised in Nome, the late Speaker of
the House, Gail Phillips, was an Alaskan at heart. She
left an impression on the political minds and
philanthropic hearts of Alaskans.
In her lifetime, she spent years working for local
airlines, teaching, serving on the board of Iditarod
Trail Race Committee, owned a sporting goods shop,
lead the Homer Chamber of Commerce, was elected to
Homer's City Council, served on the board of the Kenai
Peninsula Borough Assembly, mined for gold on the
Seward Peninsula and, of course, served in the Alaska
House of Representatives.
She brought together urban republicans and rural
democrats to form a coalition that she led as Speaker
of the House for two consecutive terms. Following her
political career, Gail worked as executive director of
the Exxon-Valdez Oil Spill Trustees, and upon
retirement she mentored future politicians and
consulted for natural resource development in Alaska.
Upon her death, she was actively serving on the boards
of the Iditarod Trail Race Foundation and the Alaska
Aviation Museum. She was involved in her church,
Anchor Park United Methodist and all her grandsons'
activities.
She was a daughter, sister, wife, mother, aunt and
grandmother. Her leadership was not limited to
politics alone, her entire family benefitted from her
guidance that she learned at the knee of Alaska State
Territorial Representative, L.E. Ost, her grandfather.
Mountains are stable, strong and brave, Gail Phillips
lived her life with these defining attributes.
Her family and I are now advocating for one of her
favorite mountains on the Kenai Peninsula to be named
in her honor.
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the committee would hear invited
testimony on SJR 23.
1:23:51 PM
ROBIN PHILLIPS provided invited testimony on SJR 23. She stated
she is representing the family of Gail Phillips which hopes to
have this mountain named federally as well [as by the state].
1:24:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked why this mountain was one of Gail
Phillips' favorite mountains on the Kenai Peninsula.
MS. ROBIN PHILLIPS replied that Gail grew up loving mountains
and was a representative of the Kenai Peninsula. She said that
upon her retirement Gail moved to Anchorage and had a home built
that overlooked the mountains of the Kenai Peninsula. Gail
loved the drive between Homer and Anchorage, Ms. Phillips
continued, and the family looked for an unnamed peak on the
Kenai Peninsula that Gail would have been able to see from her
home in Anchorage.
1:26:16 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on SJR 23, then closed it
after ascertaining that no one wished to testify.
1:26:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated she has no objection to honoring
Ms. Gail Phillips but that she will be a no vote on SJR 23 on
the House floor because she is philosophically opposed to naming
natural features with human names. She further stated that
Alaska has returned to Indigenous names, such as Mount Denali.
1:28:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS related that a few years ago he had the
honor of talking with the former Speaker of the House at her
Anchorage home and he appreciates Senator Olson carrying this
joint resolution forward.
MS. HAHN offered her understanding of Representative Hannan's
statement. She noted that SJR 23 doesn't guarantee that the
mountain will be named, it just supports it.
1:28:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to report SJR 23 from committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being no objection, SJR 23 was reported out of the
House Resources Standing Committee.
SB 177-MICROREACTORS
1:29:17 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 177(RES), "An Act relating to nuclear
facility siting permits; and relating to microreactors."
CHAIR PATKOTAK noted that this is the committee's first time to
hear CSSB 177(RES) but that the committee has twice heard the
companion bill, HB 299, and taken public testimony on HB 299.
1:29:49 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), introduced CSSB
177(RES) on behalf of the Senate Rules Standing Committee,
sponsor by request of the governor. She explained that CSSB
177(RES) would define a microreactor according to the federal
definition and would create a specific carve-out from the
ongoing study and legislative siting requirements. She related
that Senator Jesse Kiehl worked with DEC on language for two
amendments that were incorporated into the bill by the Senate
Resources Standing Committee. She explained that in lieu of the
current ongoing study requirements for six state agencies, CSSB
177(RES) would direct DEC to coordinate and submit comments from
those agencies to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission when an
Alaska sited microreactor license application is put forward.
She said a second amendment added language to the bill that
explicitly obtains legislative siting approval for unorganized
boroughs.
MS. CARPENTER deferred to Mr. Travis Million of the Copper
Valley Electric Association (CFEA) to provide further testimony
on CSSB 177(RES). She noted that CVEA is an electrically
isolated electric cooperative in Interior and Southcentral
Alaska, serving Valdez, Glennallen, and the surrounding Copper
River Basin, a vast service territory of 160 miles north to
south and 100 miles east to west. She said CVEA is currently
conducting a feasibility study of micro modular reactor (MMR)
technology with the Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC).
1:32:37 PM
TRAVIS MILLION, CEO, Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA),
provided a PowerPoint presentation [hard copy included in the
committee packet], titled "Looking into Nuclear." He displayed
the second slide, "AGENDA," and said he will review why CVEA is
looking at nuclear, what MMR is and isn't, the environmental and
safety concerns, the feasibility study, and what CVEA is doing
thus far for stakeholder engagement.
MR. MILLION proceeded to the third slide, "WHY NUCLEAR." He
stated that in June [2021] the CVEA board developed a strategic
plan for the cooperative, with one of the five major goals being
to develop a plan to reduce the cooperative's use of diesel fuel
for power generation on its system. He related that CVEA is
nearly 100 percent hydropower in the summer, with an annual
average of 70 percent hydropower. In the winter, he continued,
CVEA must rely on diesel fuel at its generation plants that use
either diesel or a fossil fuel called light straight run (LSR),
which comes from the Petro Star Refinery, and which puts CVEA at
the whim of what fuel prices do. He pointed out that in January
2021 CVEA paid under $2 per gallon for fuel and that in March
2022 CVEA paid nearly $4.50 per gallon, plus at times the fuel
cost spiked to over $5 per gallon for delivery to CVEA's power
plants. Mr. Million noted that this year winter came early,
resulting in CVEA going from an average 30 percent hydro spread
over the winter to 20 percent hydro, causing some of the biggest
increases seen in CVEA's history; normally the rate is about
$0.19 per kilowatt hour in the summer when on hydropower, but it
spiked to over $0.42 per kilowatt hour this winter. He said the
CVEA board wants to develop a plan to get off diesel fuel and to
find ways to get rid of the fluctuation of fuel cost so that
long term energy cost is stable for many years to come. He also
noted that reducing emissions from fossil fuel power plants is a
major concern of the CVEA board. The CVEA board has considered
wind power, he continued, but the CVEA service territory has
marginal Class 2 winds with high turbulence, so wind doesn't
work. Mr. Million said solar power works great in the summer,
but CVEA is already 100 percent hydropower then and that doesn't
solve the cooperative's wintertime issues. He said CVEA has
looked at geothermal, biomass, every hydro asset that could be
available in its region, and interties like the Railbelt
Intertie project.
1:36:02 PM
MR. MILLION addressed the two photographs on the fourth slide,
"MICRO MODULAR REACTOR (MMR)?" He said the light water reactors
depicted in these photos are currently deployed throughout the
U.S. and the world and they are typical in the gigawatt or
thousands of megawatt range. But, he continued, these are not
what is being talked about with micro modular reactors.
MR. MILLION moved to the fifth slide, "MMR SIZE COMPARISON." He
explained that the upper left picture shows the footprint of a
standard light water reactor, typically about a gigawatt in size
and taking up 50-plus acres. The reactor building, he added, is
the red cylindrical building in the middle of the picture. He
then drew attention to the blue rectangle on the lower right and
explained that it is the footprint of a micro modular reactor
like the one CVEA is looking at through Ultra Safe Nuclear
Corporation (USNC) and which takes up approximately five acres.
He said the yellow square is the reactor building, which is
about the size of a 40-foot Conex buried vertically in the
ground. To provide a size comparison, he noted that the green
rectangle to the left of the MMR is a football field, and that
the MMR is essentially the size of two football fields.
MR. MILLION turned to the sixth slide, "What is a microreactor
and why?" He stated CVEA is looking at this technology because
it fits the cooperative's system very well, which is about a 20-
megawatt summertime load, peaking at about 15 megawatts in the
wintertime. With CVEA's little bit of hydro, he said, a 10-
megawatt reactor would be about the perfect size to take care of
wintertime needs. A second benefit in addition to producing
electricity, he noted, is the microreactor's process heat, which
could be utilized for industrial applications, specifically in
the Valdez area. He specified that a microreactor meets CVEA's
needs by reducing carbon emissions from its diesel power plants,
by addressing safety with this newer technology, and by having a
long-time stable cost because the design that CVEA is looking at
has between 20 and 40 years between needing to refuel.
1:38:54 PM
MR. MILLION continued to the seventh slide, "Ultra Safe Nuclear
FCM Fuel," and stated that this microreactor uses TRISO fuel.
He explained that the blue dots in the picture are the uranium
pellets, which are about the size of a poppy seed. These poppy
seed pieces of uranium are triple coated in silicon carbide, he
continued, and then they are set in an array as shown in the
picture where they are again coated in more silicon carbide and
graphite. He said this keeps all the radiation intact and
prevents it from leaking out and from thermally "running away";
it keeps the temperature from coming up. It is called "walkaway
safe," he continued, because if there is a failure to the
cooling system, personnel can walk away since by physics it is
going to keep its temperature regulated on its own and that is
one of the nice things with this fuel design. Mr. Million
further noted that this fuel design was implemented in the
1970s, so it's not new technology. What is new, he said, is the
manufacturing technologies and the three-dimensional printing
that now allow mass production of this fuel.
TM
MR. MILLION displayed the eighth slide, "MMR Energy System REM
2-Unit Layout for Remote Energy Management." He stated that the
diagrammatic represents a generic layout of a two-reactor plant
of about 10 megawatts, like what CVEA is currently considering.
Regarding water used for steam generation becoming radioactive,
he said it's a closed water system. He specified that the two
reactors depicted on the left are cooled with helium, and since
helium is an inert gas, it cannot absorb any radiation. Heat is
taken from the reactor to a heat exchanger where one side of the
heat exchanger has helium and the other has molten salt, he
continued. The molten salt heats up from that reaction, then it
goes through another heat exchanger where the other side has
water or steam. Through this process, Mr. Million stated, there
is no way for the radiation to propagate down and get into the
water source. This closed loop totally contained system, he
added, doesn't require a river or any body of water for cooling.
MR. MILLION discussed the ninth slide, "Projects in
Development." He advised that if CVEA's feasibility study goes
through, the cooperative will not be the first one given USNC is
currently working on a project set to come online in 2026 at
Chalk River in Canada. He said USNC also has a project in place
with the University of Illinois where a test reactor will be put
in the middle of campus where it will be utilized and tested
through the university's radiological engineering department.
So, he continued, if it pencils out for CVEA to move forward
with this project, the cooperative would be number three of the
USNC deployed reactors. However, he noted, the project would be
the first commercial reactor potentially within the nation and
within USNC's fleet.
1:42:53 PM
MR. MILLION moved to the tenth slide, "CVEA/USNC Joint
Feasibility Study." He related that the economics is a big
driver as to whether this will work; it won't be as cheap as
CVEA's hydropower, but it would be far less than what CVEA is
presently paying for diesel. So, he said, CVEA is shooting for
something in between that will balance generation costs
throughout the year to be the same rate year round. The
feasibility study is looking at potential locations to determine
whether there is a mix that could work well there, he continued.
The only downfall, he noted, is that there is presently no
industrial application for the heat in the Copper Basin. He
related that the feasibility study is looking at benefits,
concerns, and issues for the community. He explained that given
USNC is the manufacturer of this technology and involved with
the feasibility study, CVEA brought in an Anchorage engineering
firm, Electric Power Systems (EPS), a firm that works with every
utility in Alaska, primarily designing generation distribution
transmission as well as installing, operating, and commissioning
these things. He said EPS is doing most of the feasibility
study from the standpoint of integration and cost, as well as
some of the environmental impact, and USNC is looking primarily
at the nuclear side of the feasibility study. Mr. Million
estimated that the feasibility study would be completed by the
end of summer [2022], at which time the CVEA board will take
public comment and then decide whether to move forward.
MR. MILLION continued to the eleventh slide, "CVEA & USNC
Engagement," and discussed stakeholder engagement. He explained
that CVEA normally wouldn't start talking to the public until a
feasibility study had been conducted and the results were in
hand; however, given the word "nuclear" can be a trigger point
for people, he said CVEA wanted to get out front and hear the
concerns of communities and what opportunities CVEA might be
overlooking that could be integrated into the feasibility study.
In Valdez presentations have been given to the city council, he
stated, and open public meetings have been held in Valdez and
with the Greater Copper Basin Chamber of Commerce. One-on-one
meetings with individual stakeholders have also been undertaken,
he noted. He related that most of the questions are similar,
such as how CVEA is dealing with the safety concerns, the
environmental concerns, and getting rid of the hazardous waste.
MR. MILLION addressed the issue of waste. He said CVEA has been
given a guarantee by USNC. Refueling would occur once every 20-
40 years, he related, and when the fuel comes out it will be
stored in a cask that is safe to be around and which is how most
nuclear waste is stored in the U.S. today. The fuel would sit
on site anywhere from six months to two years to allow it to
cool, he said, and once cooled USNC would transport it out of
Alaska and at that point it is USNC's responsibility to dispose
of the [spent] fuel at either an interim USNC storage facility
or through the U.S. Government to dispose of it in a long-term
storage solution. Mr. Million explained that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission requires that funding be put in place when
licensing a nuclear reactor like this, such that if the company
were to go out of business there would already be funds in place
to get rid of the nuclear fuel waste at that point in time.
1:48:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER thanked Mr. Million for such an in-depth
presentation.
CHAIR PATKOTAK inquired about the dollar amount that would be
put aside at licensing for long-term fuel storage.
MR. MILLION replied that CVEA isn't far enough along into the
feasibility study to know what those costs might be.
1:49:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM offered his understanding that HB 199 is
the companion bill to SB 177. He recalled that there wasn't
much opposition to HB 199, but said he is getting lots of
opposition to CSSB 177(RES). He asked whether there is a
difference in the two bills that is creating the current
opposition that wasn't there before.
MR. MILLION responded he isn't sure why the opposition would be
different given the bills are identical except for the two
amendments on the Senate side. He said most of the opposition
he has heard has been consistent on both the House and Senate
sides, and he personally hasn't heard any additional opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM stated that most of the opposition has to
do with storage. He related that he didn't get this opposition
when discussing HB 199, so he is curious as to why he is now.
1:50:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether CVEA is negotiating a ramp
down in prices with USNC assuming that as the company deploys
more of these across the U.S. it can achieve profitability at a
lower price point than in the initial negotiation.
MR. MILLION answered that this will be coming up through the
feasibility study since CVEA is looking at different options,
such as whether CVEA owns and operates or whether USNC owns and
operates and CVEA buys the power. So, he continued, CVEA will
look at that for a long-term contract if it buys power through
USNC. He allowed that Representative Fields has a good point to
keep in mind.
1:51:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether anything in existing statute
prevents CVEA from applying for permission and siting.
MR. MILLION replied, "Not necessarily anything that precludes us
from being able to do it, but definitely some ... hurdles." He
said having to bring a siting requirement to the legislature and
trying to get that approved could be difficult depending on who
is in the legislature in any given year. So, he continued, the
amendments to the bill would make it easier and more attractive
for the manufacturers to want to look at Alaska for deploying
these, especially in remote communities. While he won't say it
is a hindrance, he added, it could be potentially more difficult
to get siting authority as the statute is written today.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether Mr. Million can point to
where those challenges are in the existing statute or whether it
is something that an agency has said will be problematic.
MR. MILLION responded he has heard it through agencies and
through his knowledge of the process anything coming through
the legislature versus keeping it more of a local control is
going to be more time consuming and burdensome. He said he is
answering the question on the standpoint that anytime siting the
land must go through the state or federal government it can be a
very time-consuming process [as opposed to going through an
agency] like DEC or U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether Mr. Million was led to
believe that CVEA's project could not go forward without a
change in statute.
MR. MILLION answered no, CVEA wasn't told one way or another
whether it could go through based on statute.
1:53:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN presumed that because CVEA's feasibility
study is not yet done, there is not an exact site where CVEA
would want the project. She offered her understanding, based on
current statute and what CSSB 177(RES) attempts to do, that if
Mr. Million were here today with a specific site, the committee
could approve it. She said much of the hesitation from
legislators and the opposition being heard is that it would
throw out a requirement that any specific nuclear projects come
before the legislature along with the ability for everyone in
the state to engage on a project and get answers to their
questions about where the waste will be stored and what the
local hazards are from tsunami to earthquake, as opposed to it
being up to a local government, a utility, and state agencies
that have had no previous regulatory oversight with nuclear and
no additional dollars through staffing according to their own
fiscal note. That is the hesitation for many people, she said,
not CVEA's individual project. She asked whether she is correct
in understanding that CVEA is five to seven years from needing
it and that CVEA's feasibility study this summer should lead to
a specific location.
MR. MILLION replied that the feasibility study should give CVEA
a couple different potential locations and CVEA would make its
decision on whether to go ahead based on that and economics, as
well as other considerations.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she looks forward to hearing about a
specific project next year.
1:56:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether the Municipality of
Anchorage would have local control oversighting of microreactors
should this bill pass. He further asked whether there are
differences among the different types of jurisdictions apart
from the unorganized boroughs.
MS. CARPENTER responded that under [CSSB 177(RES)], organized
boroughs would have the ability to make that siting authority,
and if a borough is unorganized then the legislature would
retain that siting authority.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS surmised that that means the Anchorage
Assembly would have the authority to say where such a facility
could be sited within the Municipality of Anchorage.
MS. CARPENTER answered that is correct, the Municipality of
Anchorage would be able to have that authority.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS requested that the committee chair obtain
confirmation that this is also the interpretation of Legislative
Legal Services because that might provide some assurance for
Anchorage residents that there is a degree of public review.
CHAIR PATKOTAK confirmed he would do so. He said he thinks it
is like any other situation that comes up that unorganized
boroughs don't have the authority to determine for themselves,
and it runs through the House and Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committees.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested that Legislative Legal Services
advise the committee on whether first-class boroughs without
planning and zoning authority and second-class cities can have
their city councils [issue] permits.
1:59:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked whether the reason behind
microreactors is for a more stable energy source or for cost.
MR. MILLION replied that the biggest thing for CVEA is lower
energy cost and long-term stability over at least a 40-year life
of the plant. He pointed out that a 40-year life of the plant
is the life of the license on a microreactor, and it can be
renewed after that, much like CVEA's hydropower plants typically
have a 40- or 50-year license and then CVEA renews the license
to extend it. Long-term, stable, lower-cost energy is the
primary driver, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked what CVEA will do with its
hydropower plants.
MR. MILLION responded that what is nice about this technology is
it doesn't have to come on and stay on, it can be turned off and
on as needed. He said CVEA would run 100 percent hydropower
when hydropower is available and bring the reactor down either
just to produce heat for industrial processes or shut it down
until it is needed at the beginning of winter, then ramp it up
with the wintertime generation. Doing that, he noted, would
extend the life of the fuel even longer, so if the fuel has a
10-year life when run at 100 percent for 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, 365 days a year, then running it at half the time would
get almost a 20-year life out of the fuel.
2:01:18 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on CSSB 177(RES), then
closed it after ascertaining that no one wished to testify.
2:01:40 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:01 p.m. to 2:02 p.m.
2:02:28 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that the committee would conduct potential
follow-up on CSSB 177(RES) on 5/10/22.
[CSSB 177(RES) was held over].
HB 120-STATE LAND SALES AND LEASES; RIVERS
2:02:38 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 120, "An Act relating to state land; relating
to the authority of the Department of Education and Early
Development to dispose of state land; relating to the authority
of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to
dispose of state land; relating to the authority of the
Department of Natural Resources over certain state land;
relating to the state land disposal income fund; relating to the
leasing and sale of state land for commercial development;
repealing establishment of recreation rivers and recreation
river corridors; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee was the proposed CS, Version 32-GH1634\G, Bullard,
4/22/22 ("Version G"), adopted as the working document on
5/2/22.]
2:03:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Version G of
HB 120, labeled 32-GH1634\G.2, Bullard, 5/5/22, which read:
Page 1, lines 1 - 7:
Delete "relating to access roads; relating to
state land; relating to contracts for the sale of
state land; relating to the authority of the
Department of Education and Early Development to
dispose of state land; relating to the authority of
the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
to dispose of state land; relating to the authority of
the Department of Natural Resources over certain state
land; relating to the state land disposal income fund;
relating to the leasing and sale of state land;
relating to covenants and restrictions on agricultural
land;"
Page 1, line 10, through page 13, line 19:
Delete all material.
Page 13, line 20:
Delete "Sec. 17"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 15, line 16:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:03:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained Amendment 1 would delete all the
land sale language in the bill, leaving intact the Alaska Native
Vietnam veteran land exchange provision, which has a sense of
urgency and a broad appeal. He maintained the bill is two bills
combined in one: a very broad land sale bill kind of tied to a
Vietnam veteran land exchange. One part of the bill is somewhat
controversial with lots of important policy questions, he
stated, which is very different in nature from the Vietnam
veteran land exchange. He said his preference is that the
Alaska Native Vietnam veterans land exchange be advanced rapidly
and to leave the thorny land sale issues for later
consideration.
2:04:58 PM
BRENT GOODRUM, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), responded that DNR
believes all the provisions within the bill are important issues
dealing with state land. He said DNR agrees that the Alaska
Native Vietnam veteran portion is an important part of this
bill, which is why the administration put it forward, but DNR
believes that all the provisions are appropriate to go forward.
2:04:54 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER [objected to Amendment 1].
2:06:11 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fields, Hopkins,
Hannan, and Schrage voted in favor of Amendment 1 to Version G
of HB 120. Representatives McKay, Cronk, Rauscher, Gillham, and
Patkotak voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be
adopted by a vote of 4-5.
2:06:54 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:06 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.
2:10:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 2 to Version G of
HB 120, labeled 32-GH1634\G.3, Bullard, 5/5/22, which read:
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "relating to access roads;"
Page 1, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "relating to the authority of the
Department of Education and Early Development to
dispose of state land;"
Page 1, line 10, through page 3, line 31:
Delete all material.
Page 4, line 1:
Delete "Sec. 3"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:10:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained Amendment 2. He recounted that
in a previous hearing the committee discussed the different land
disposal processes for the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF), and DNR. He said Version G would authorize
DEED, DOT&PF, and DNR to sell land through some new processes,
and he is concerned because these proposed processes are not the
same for each department and will not produce the same degree of
competitiveness in disposal of property and therefore return to
the state. He said the proposed processes also have differences
in terms of degree to which the public feels like it has notice
and input on disposal. The concept in Amendment 2, he
explained, is that if land is going to be disposed more quickly,
it should be via a consistent process through DNR. Under
Amendment 2, he continued, the expedited land disposal process
would remain the same for DNR as is contemplated in Version G;
however, land disposals for DEED and DOT&PF would be done
through DNR, which is consistent with what happens now. He said
it's important the public get a good return on the high value
parcels held by DEED and DOT&PF, and that is more likely to be
had through DNR. He stated that he doesn't want to have
inconsistent land disposal processes across departments.
2:12:33 PM
KRISTIN "KRIS" HESS, Deputy Director, Division of Mining, Land
and Water (DMLW), Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
responded that DEED has a written process, goes through a public
process, and gets the most value for its properties. She said
disposals must be evaluated and approved by the [Alaska State
Board of Education & Early Development]. So, she continued,
DEED has a process similar to DNR's process for selling or
disposing of land that is no longer necessary to meet their
needs. Regarding roads, she related that DNR worked with the
Alaska Municipal League (AML) and received support for that
process.
2:13:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS offered closing comments on Amendment 2.
He said he knows DNR manages a lot more land than do the other
agencies, but that the lands under DEED and DOT&PF could be very
high value parcels because of their proximity to roads and other
infrastructure. He stated he wants to ensure these lands are
used for the best public purpose and, if that is private
commercial development, then there should be public input and
best yield received for that asset.
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected to Amendment 2. He said there
are other moving pieces to the processes.
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested Ms. Hess to provide further detail
regarding AML's support and the provisions outlined on pages 1-3
regarding the DEED and DOT&PF disposal process.
2:15:16 PM
MS. HESS answered that DNR worked with AML to develop language
that was satisfactory regarding construction standards and
maintenance. She said DNR has two letters from AML in support
of Version G, Section 2, and what it does for DNR in terms of
having to construct roads for subdivisions. Regarding DEED's
ability to sell its own land, she stated that DEED would seek
the input of stakeholders and other agencies before going out to
the public, and then it would follow a public process. She
related that DEED is supportive of keeping the provision in the
bill that would allow DEED the flexibility to sell land that is
no longer necessary for the agency's purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asserted that local governments supporting
consistent construction and maintenance standards is different
from supporting a land disposal process within a specific
department. He offered his understanding that Ms. Hess was
speaking to the maintenance standards of access roads, not
whether DOT&PF can directly dispose of property.
MR. HESS agreed she was speaking to the construction standards
rather than DOT&PF being able to dispose of land by itself as
the state agency. She explained that DOT&PF already has that
ability for its roads under Title 19, but the agency's public
facilities are under Title 35 and this provision in Version G
makes it all consistent for DOT&PF to dispose of land that is no
longer necessary for road purposes as well as to dispose of land
that is no longer needed for public facilities.
2:17:56 PM
HEATHER O'CLARAY, Statewide Right-of-Way Chief, Division of
Statewide Design and Engineering Services, Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), confirmed DOT&PF
does have independent authority to dispose of land. She further
confirmed that DOT&PF's rules are different for properties that
are considered public works or facilities that were acquired
under AS 35, which this bill addresses, then they are for AS 19,
which this bill does not address, or AS 02 Aviation, which this
bill also does not address. She added that because of the way
AS 35 is currently written, DOT&PF does not have regulations to
do disposal under AS 35.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that, given this clarification, he
has less concern about this provision in Version G. He withdrew
Amendment 2.
2:19:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to adopt Amendment 3 to Version G of
HB 120, labeled 32-GH1634\G.7, Bullard, 5/8/22, which read:
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "relating to the leasing and sale of state
land;"
Page 7, line 20, through page 11, line 14:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
CHAIR PATKOTAK objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:19:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained Amendment 3 would remove the
entirety of Section 13, a provision which she believes sidesteps
nearly a half century of planning processes that have been in
law. She said Section 13 would allow de facto noncompetitive
sole source leasing on sales of state land without having to
comply with state area land management plans for processes,
which are painstakingly public, exhaustive, and a mainstay of
why Alaskans believe the state's land management is adequate.
Section 13, she added, would open the strong potential for
sweetheart deals. While the department has no intent to do
that, she continued, intent does not carry forward on that level
once someone has nominated a piece of land which he or she found
attractive for a business that may have previously been excluded
because of an extensive public process of a land management area
plan. She said deleting Section 13 relieves many of her
concerns with the bill and ensures that state land disposals go
through and comply with the area land management process, a
completely public process from start to finish so there is no
opportunity for a sweetheart deal and manipulation of what has
been a sound practice in Alaska.
MS. HESS responded that individuals could nominate land for
either lease or sale, but if it is not properly classified for
disposal, DNR would still have to go through that public process
and reclassify it so that it would be available for either lease
or sale. The bill as currently written, she said, also allows
the commissioner to consider those nominations but maybe not
take them up. So, she continued, DNR feels there is a public
process as it would consider the area plans and the planning
process, and it would go through that same public process if it
needs to be classified so that it would be available for
disposal.
2:23:00 PM
MS. HESS, responding further to Representative Hannan, stated
that in application, she is an attorney.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that Ms. Hess used the terms "can
consider" and "could." Previous explanations she has received
from the department, she related, were that the commissioner is
to "consider" the land management plan, but it is not restricted
to that, so the commissioner "could" decide to take an action
that is in direct conflict with an area land management plan
because the commissioner is to [consideration is not a mandate].
She expressed her concern that while this administration does
not have the intent to do that, a situation would be set up
where the mandate for an area land management plan becomes
subjective language of "may." She asked whether she is correct
that this would therefore mean a public process prescribed in
law would now say that the department and its commissioner could
decide to do something different, and the law would allow it.
MS. HESS answered that that is not the way the department
interprets this provision of Section 13. She said the
commissioner can consider a nomination to lease or sell the
land; the commissioner doesn't have to consider that, but if the
commissioner chooses to consider that nomination then it would
have to go through the area plan process for amending an area
plan if it's proper depending on weighing a bunch of factors.
That would go through a public process of classifying or
changing the classification if it's appropriate; there may be
times when it is not appropriate to change a classification,
such as for a highly mineralized area. So, Ms. Hess continued,
a nomination is what the commissioner "can consider." If the
commissioner chooses to consider that nomination for either a
lease or sale, she said, then the area plan is going to come
into play because it must be properly classified to move forward
with that lease or sale, and that would be a full public process
by DNR that takes in public comment.
2:26:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS agreed with Representative Hannan's
assessment that the department "could" ignore these plans. He
put forth the Hatcher Pass Land Use Plan as an example of a plan
that had years of public input from multiple user groups, and he
expressed his concern that under Section 13 a key piece of land
could be liquidated because this section would allow the
department to ignore all that public input. He maintained that
Section 13 would enable liquidation, for example, of a public
access that would be contrary to the public interest, which
troubles him. He said Section 13 is inconsistent with maximum
benefit from development of a resource.
2:28:25 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK requested a refresher on the mechanics of the
bill as it relates to sole sourcing versus competitively bid
lands put up for sale. He offered his understanding that when a
piece of land is appealed to be sold, the department is going to
consider the best return for the state. He inquired about what
triggers the determination that it is an outright sale versus a
competitively bid process.
MS. HESS replied that currently leases under 10 years do not
have to be competitive, but leases longer than 10 years must be
a competitive process. She said the area plan must properly
classify the land to be available for either lease or disposal.
She stated that DNR considers its area plans all the time and
there are many reasons why area plans are amended or changed for
a specific purpose. But, she continued, it would still follow
the public processes for changing that classification of an area
plan for a specific purpose for a specific need such as lease or
sale if it is not currently classified like that.
2:30:09 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK posed a scenario in which a sale has occurred
where an organized city or borough controls the permitting
process locally, and he offered his understanding that it would
still have to meet that bar. He related that during his time
serving on the North Slope Borough, the borough exercised Title
19 powers that everything is a conservation district, and anyone
interested in commercial aspects must come before the assembly
through a long and critical process to change the land use plan
for that area from a conservation district to a multi-use,
recreational, or industrial district. He surmised that this
bill would not undermine any municipal authorities or powers
that a potential private landowner would have to go through.
MS. HESS confirmed that that is correct. She said that once
land is sold from state ownership to private hands, if the now
private property is in a municipality or borough with zoning and
powers, the private landowner will have to follow that
municipality's rules and regulations regarding classification
needs for permitting for that borough or municipality.
2:32:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked how someone with a cabin on leased
state lands could buy that land.
MS. HESS answered that currently a person can nominate land to
be sold because the department has that ability under current
state statutes. She said the owner of a cabin on a state lease
could come to the department and nominate it for a sale, and the
area plan is going to have to allow for that to happen.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM related that this question was brought up
to him by cabin owners who want to buy the land. He said the
cabin owners are paying property taxes on land they don't own,
and they want to know how to buy that property and whether it is
DNR that they would approach.
MS. HESS responded that the cabin owners are probably paying
taxes to the local municipality on the improvements that they
own because the lease/permit holder doesn't own the underlying
land. If the cabin owners want to buy the underlying land, and
assuming it is not in a legislatively designated area, she
continued, they could nominate it and ask the department to sell
it to them. Like what is in Section 13, she added, anybody can
ask the state to sell a piece of land and then the department
evaluates and goes through that public process as to whether it
is appropriate to sell the underlying land. Responding further,
she confirmed the prospective purchaser would come to DNR.
CHAIR PATKOTAK thanked Ms. Hess for underlining Section 13
leases and sales of land on commercial developments.
2:34:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN, regarding Section 13, recalled that Ms.
Hess had earlier assured her that if a parcel was nominated for
commercial development, DNR couldn't just redo the process if
the area management plan didn't allow it. Representative Hannan
maintained, however, that Section 13 does allow the commissioner
to classify or reclassify the land and that that process of
classification is substantially less than what it takes to redo
a management plan to say that the parcel could be sold for
commercial development. She asked whether Ms. Hess knows what
the differences are between reclassifying something within the
management plan and redoing the management plan.
MS. HESS answered that AS 38.05.300 and AS 38.04.065 lay out the
processes for classifying land or reclassifying land, and either
way it must go through the public process. She said all the
factors that current state statutes require must be weighed in
terms of balancing those needs and determining whether it can be
properly classified to be sold out of state ownership.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said the description given to her is that
that reclassification public process is substantially less than
what a management plan process is. Although Ms. Hess is saying
that there is still a public process, Representative Hannan said
she presumes that the notification is not very extensive and can
be done in one meeting, one hearing. She asked how similar this
proposed process is to the extensive and exhaustive area
management plan process that involves all entities.
MS. HESS confirmed that DNR's area plans take considerable time
to develop from start to finish and include public input,
meetings, and talking with local landowners and stakeholders.
She said the same thing also happens with DNR's reclassification
process. She said DNR looks for public input and weighs a bunch
of factors that are required under state statutes. She stated
that it might be a discrete portion of the area plan that DNR is
looking to change but it doesn't de minimize the public process
that DNR must follow and the input that DNR receives before
determining if it's appropriate to reclassify those lands.
2:38:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed his concern about notice to
adjacent landowners in [Section 13]. He posited that a
significant piece of public property with public access and huge
public benefits that has been through a 10-year management plan
process could be disposed of through, say, a mailing to three
people, an online public notice during hunting season when no
one is paying attention, and notice in a local newspaper that
few people read, and therefore no one might notice. He stated
that important public lands need to go through a rigorous public
process. However, Section 13 is designed to dispose as quickly
as possible with minimal public input, and this public notice
issue gets at the problem with Section 13, he argued.
2:39:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY called the question.
2:40:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS opined that ensuring there is good and
proactive public notice is the right direction for making
certain that all the affected property owners and users know
what is happening in an area. He said he will be supporting
Amendment 3 to ensure Alaskans are not left out of the process.
CHAIR PATKOTAK removed his objection to Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER objected to Amendment 3. He stated that
the auction process isn't good for someone obtaining a loan.
2:41:00 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Schrage, Hannan,
Hopkins, and Fields voted in favor of Amendment 3 to Version G
of HB 120. Representatives Gillam, Rauscher, Cronk, McKay, and
Patkotak voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed to be
adopted by a vote of 4-5.
[HB 120 was held over.]
2:41:50 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The House Resources Standing Committee meeting was recessed to
8:00 a.m. on 5/10/22 [which was subsequently delayed to 3:00
p.m. and reconvened at 3:05 p.m. on 5/10/22].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 177 Presentation CVEA 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SJR 23 Image of Family With Mountain 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Image of Mountain Aerial 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Image of Mountain From Deck 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Image of Mountain Location 3.18.2022.jpg |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Cappelletti 03.16.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Judy Brady 03.14.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Kim Griffith 03.12.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Debardelaben 03.17.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support Ralph Samuels 03.16.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Sponsor Statement 3.18.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SJR 23 Letter of Support DeBardelaben 3.18.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM SRES 3/18/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SJR 23 |
| SB 177 Sectional Analysis 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| SB 177 Explanation of Changes Version B 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
SB 177 |
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.2 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Amendment Fields G.3 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Testimony Packet Three 5.9.2022.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |
| HB 120 Amendment Hannan G.7 5.9.22.pdf |
HRES 5/9/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 120 |