Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/31/1998 09:10 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 31 March, 1998 9:10 a.m. TAPES SFC 98 # 106, Side A (000-593) Side B (593-000) CALL TO ORDER Senator Bert Sharp, Co-chair, convened the meeting at approximately 9:10 a.m. PRESENT In addition to Co-chairman Sharp, Senators Pearce, Torgerson and Parnell were present when the meeting was convened. Senators Phillips, Donley and Adams arrived later. Also Attending: Senator LOREN LEMAN; AL EWING, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation; DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Labor; JOHN BITTNEY, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, Department of Revenue; STEVE DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division, Department of Law; KYLE PARKER, Member, International Association of Drilling Contractors; LAUREE HUGONIN, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; MIKE GREANY, Director, Division of Legislative Finance and aides to committee members and other members of the Legislature. via Teleconference: From Washington DC, BRIAN PETTY, Senior Vice President of Government Operations, International Association of Drilling Contractors; SUMMARY INFORMATION Co-Chair Sharp announced the committees intention to get to all the items on the day's calendar, in the order listed on the agenda with the exception of SB 233, which would be delayed until the next scheduled meeting. SENATE BILL NO. 299 "An Act relating to the treatment of well test flares, nonroad engines, and aggregated fuel burning equipment associated with nonroad engines under the state's air quality control program; defining 'stationary source' for purposes of the state's air quality program." SENATOR LOREN LEMAN was invited to join the committee to speak to this bill, which he was the sponsor. His testimony follows: "Mr. Chairman, committee members, SB 299 amends Alaska's air quality control statutes to clarify that non-road engines are mobile sources and are not to be regulated as though they are stationary facilities. In Section One, the bill also provides guidance on the treatment of well test flares, which is an event that occurs for a short time after the completion of each well. Section Two adds the EPA and state adopted regulatory definition of non-road engines to Alaskan statute. So operators and owners will have the same understanding at the state level that they do at the federal level of what a non-road engine is. In addition, the bill adds the federal definition of stationary source." "Some have asked why this bill is necessary and I would like to think that it wouldn't be necessary. I think back in history, five years ago, Mr. Chairman, I served with the Senate President and with former Senator Zharoff on a subcommittee where we worked through the Federal Clean Air Act and how implementation at the state level - what would be necessary to implement that act. We agreed with the department at that time that the issue of mobile sources was one that would need to be worked out. It has been five years since we had those subcommittee meetings and slightly over four years since the effective date of the statute that was passed by the Legislature. I believe that has been sufficient time to work things out. Unfortunately, although some issues have been worked out this issue is one that has not been. It appears now that the DEC intends to go beyond the minimum set under the Federal Clean Air Act." "I'll just note that at most there are 20 rigs working on the North Slope and Cook Inlet according to information that I have been given. Drilling rigs are in place an average of seven to ten days. I think one of the things - I know Mr. Chairman, that you were in the Resources Committee when we went through this - one of the things that this committee would be interested in looking at is the fiscal note, which I find interesting that they are projecting that it's going to cost $83,000 not to issue ten permits. I think the committee can conclude probably similarly to what I have that this is probably another attempt to add costs when the department doesn't agree with a bill." "They're already putting out regulations - in fact they have proposed regulation out now. They are suggesting this is going to cost them even more to not implement this bill." "I think I'll close at least with a simple analogy of what it is we're talking about. Let's say that I have my house, which is a stationary facility. It operates year round twenty-four hours a day. I have a furnace in the house that is operating at least most of the time, certainly most of the time in the winter. Let's say that because of that this house needs a permit because I heat my house with fuel. Then I go hire my neighbor's kid to mow the lawn with a lawnmower. According to the way the department is determining it, I have to include that lawnmower in the house permit as if it is mowing twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. In reality we all know that event is a very short event that takes place and is completed. Certainly that event of the lawnmowing doesn't impact the operation of my house. But it could, according to the permit and their interpretation of the impact of how warm I keep my house. That may be a simple analogy and its one that small compared to facilities on the slope, but its one that I think we can understand." "In questioning before the Resources Committee I asked the department if they have any hard evidence of ambient air quality problems on the North Slope. They said they may have some modeling but nothing in terms of evidence. We're not talking about a non-attainment area - an area that's not meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act. I believe that this bill - I would have liked to have dealt with this in a different way but since we have not yet been able to - this bill is necessary I believe to implement at least what our intentions were in 1993 when we passed the original bill." The committee had no questions or comments for Senator Leman. Co-Chair Sharp asked a representative from the Department of Environmental Conservation to respond and give the department's recommendation on the bill. AL EWING the Deputy Commissioner came to the table, introduced himself and testified as follows: "Governor Knowles has been very clear in word and deed, that Alaska is open for business. The area-wide oil and gas leases on the Kenai Peninsula, in Cook Inlet and on the North Slope, his actions to cause renewed leasing at the National Petroleum Reserve are illustrations of his commitment. It has been equally clear that development in Alaska must be done right from an environmental perspective. We have many illustrations of how that commitment is being kept as well. These two guiding principles, being open for business and doing it right, go hand in hand. Neither can endure for long without the other." "SB 299 is the exact opposite of doing it right. If enacted, it would prohibit regulation of oil drilling rigs, which are significant sources of air pollution. Additionally, because of the imprecise wording of the bill, it can be interpreted to prohibit regulation of a wide range of significant sources of air pollution throughout the state. Even if it's interpretation could be limited to oil drilling rigs, it would be unacceptable to the administration and I am confident it would also be unacceptable to the people living, working and playing on the Kenai Peninsula, in Cook Inlet, in the village of Nuiqsut and more generally on the North Slope." "Air pollution standards are designed to protect human health and the environment. They are not limited in their scope to protection of people who live in urban areas. All Alaskans have a right to clean air to breathe." "I would like to share with you a quote from a letter sent last year to Mr. Frank Brown, Vice President of Arco Alaska. The letter was from Benjamin Nageak, Mayor of the North Slope Borough." "A quote from this letter follows. 'There is significant concerns regarding air pollution impacts to the health of the Nuiqsut people. There is an increasing incidence of respiratory problems in Nuiqsut residents and the dark or yellow cloud often seen over Prudoe is now sometimes seen extending to Nuiqsut. In view of this, we are very worried that added air pollution from the alpine development (processing plants, various emissions, etc.) will cause even more problems.'" "The North Slope, the Kenai Peninsula and Cook Inlet are designated unclassifiable areas for the pollutants of particular concern (sulfur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen that are emitted by oil drilling rigs.) We believe that these areas do currently comply with air quality standards but we have no data to confirm that belief. However, state of the art air quality models tell us that if oil drilling rigs are allowed to operate unregulated, they will in many cases, cause violations of clean air standards." "The industry tells us we shouldn't regulate these rigs until we can confirm that there are air quality standard violations. The law tells us we have a responsibility to prevent violations of air quality standards. I think that is what the people who live, work and play in these areas expect as well. In my judgement, it would be very unwise to wait until the health and welfare of Alaskans is adversely impacted before taking action." "We understand that oil drilling rigs are mobile and that they need the flexibility to move quickly from site to site. We also understand that they need flexibility in how they operate. Commissioner Brown and I spent a day on the North Slope recently to get a first hand view of these rigs and how they operate." "We've been working with the industry for the past three years to design regulations that would provide flexibility and necessary air quality controls. Each proposal has been rejected by the drillers as being unsatisfactory. Now we understand why. Their solution is no regulation." "We are prepared to continue working with the industry to find a workable solution. But any solution must be acceptable not only to the industry, but also to the people who work, play and most importantly, live in and subsist off the natural resources of impacted areas. Any solution must also result in compliance with air quality standards." "We are given a variety of reasons why these rigs shouldn't be regulated. We are told they don't emit enough pollution to be a problem. The fact is a single rig can emit as much pollution as more than 100 city buses operating in a single very crowded intersection. That is not an insignificant amount of pollution as anyone who has gotten stuck behind a city bus can attest. Once again, state of the art air quality models not surprisingly predict violations on air quality standards if these rigs are allowed to operate without controls." "We are told federal rules don't require these sources to be regulated. Well, because the Arco Warthog project was offshore, it was permitted by the federal government. Let me assure you there has been no non-road engine in the State Of Alaska that has ever been regulated by the state to the degree the drilling rig on the Warthog project was regulated. They required use of .06 percent diesel fuel - that's sulfur content and established an exclusionary zone around the project to prevent public exposure to air pollutants expected to exceed air quality standards. And remember, this was an offshore project." "We are told that other drillers in other states aren't regulated. We've not gone and done a broad survey to see what other states are doing, because frankly we are not looking for the lowest common denominator. Our objective is to maintain clean air in ways that are consistent with the laws of the land and with common sense." "In conversation with air program managers of other states, we find that drilling rigs and other non-road engines are using low sulfur fuel of .05 percent because that is what is available in every other state except Alaska. If we were using .05 percent sulfur fuel in Alaska, drilling rigs would be insignificant sources of SO2 and would not require regulation for that pollutant. I believe that drilling rigs in other states are complying with best available technology - that's BAT standards. These BAT standards are designed to control NOx emissions. If drilling rigs were complying with BAT standards in Alaska, they would be insignificant sources of NOx also. I'm sure if we looked we could find drilling rigs in some states not using low sulfur fuel and not complying with BAT standards and not otherwise being regulated. But I would not find that a compelling reason to make that our standard in Alaska." "We are also told that rigs are constantly moving and consequently couldn't be much of a problem for very long even if standards were being violated. We understand that drilling rigs generally move around a lot. But we also note that some rigs remain on a site for extended periods of time, sometimes for a year or more. Mobility though doesn't seem like very good justification for allowing violations of air quality standards. We have all seen the beater car going down the road spewing clouds of blue smoke as it goes. I don't know about you, but while I'm glad to see it go, the fact that its moving doesn't make me feel a whole lot better." "We are told we use too many conservative functions and our models don't accurately predict what happens in the real world. Our models are the best available in the world. The assumptions we use are standard assumptions spelled out in law and used throughout the country. We hope to be able to do ambient air quality monitoring in the future to assess air quality conditions and trends on the North Slope and elsewhere in the state. That would cost money that we don't currently have. In the meantime, we will use the best tools we have - the model." "In summary, for all the reasons outlined, we are strongly opposed to SB 299. It is a major threat to the air quality of Alaska, it would put our citizens and our environment at risk, it is the opposite of doing it right and we believe it is correctly being labeled the dirty air bill. This concludes my testimony, I'll be happy to respond to questions." Senator Phillips looked in his packet of information for resolutions from the North Slope Borough, the Mat-Su Borough or the Kenai Peninsula Borough in support of the Administration's position. Had they passed any such resolutions, he asked. Mr. Ewing reminded the senator he just quoted a letter from the North Slope Borough. He doubted whether the boroughs were even aware the pending legislation was being considered. Senator Phillips countered that the deputy commissioner reported to be protecting their interests and he was interested in actual evidence that the boroughs agreed with the department's opinion. Mr. Ewing suggested the best way to get input would be to gather borough representatives at the committee table to hear first-hand. He said his office had not been out garnering support. Co-Chair Sharp had a question relating to the modeling. He asked if DEC had any indications that at the locations where oil drilling was occurring, air quality was anywhere close to non-attainment levels required by the state. Mr. Ewing believed that the areas where drilling would be taking place was complying with the standards. He warned, the models predicted that these areas would not be in attainment if the rigs were allowed to operate without some control of the sulfur content in the fuel. Co-Chair Sharp pointed out that the rigs already were operating and were in compliance. Mr. Ewing argued that was because the department was able to permit and regulate the operations. Under the new law, permitting and putting limitations on operations would no longer be allowed. Co-Chair Sharp again asked if the air quality standards were anywhere near non-attainment or did the department monitor to ensure they didn't reach those levels. Mr. Ewing replied there was no ambient monitoring being done in any of the areas at the time. Therefore, he could not answer the question, just offer his best professional judgement, which was that the standards were being met and could be met so long as the limitations were in place. Co-Chair Sharp wanted to know how the department knew the permitting was working if there was no monitoring. Mr. Ewing referred to the limitation of the sulfur content allowed in fuel. They were able to use models to predict the amount of emissions based on the amount of sulfur in the fuel. Co-Chair Sharp asked if low-sulfur fuel was available in the State Of Alaska or was it shipped in. Mr. Ewing said there was varying levels of sulfur content fuel within the state and some of it was shipped in. In the case of the Warthog project, the fuel was brought from the Northwest Territory. Senator Donley admitted environmental science was not an area of his expertise. He asked Mr. Ewing what was his background. Mr. Ewing spoke of his 25 years working in the environmental field in air and water quality and other related areas. Senator Donley wanted to know if he held a technical degree. Mr. Ewing responded that he did not possess such a degree, his qualifications were through his experience plus other departmental employees who did have specific degrees. Senator Donley asked what were the standards the department was trying to enforce. Mr. Ewing referred to the Federal Clean Air Act standards. Senator Donley wanted to know if Mr. Ewing knew and could explain those standards to him. Mr. Ewing offered other staff who could. Senator Donley asked if the standards were universally accepted as being necessary. Mr. Ewing qualified that there were probably no scientific standards that were accepted unanimously throughout the world. Generally, the standards being discussed here did have wide acceptance. They had gone through the rule-making process, were subjected to peer review and had the basis of the best information available, he stated. Senator Donley asked how large a group disagreed with these standards. Were there scientific articles claiming these particular standards may not be the best, not necessary or possibly overly restrictive, he wondered. Mr. Ewing responded that depended on what he was looking for. If he wanted to make a case for tighter standards, he could find support; if he wanted less restrictive standards he could find support for that also. What he was trying to say, was through the process, they had arrived at these standards, which were national standards set to protect human health. Senator Donley wanted to know how once the national standards were established by the federal government, how were the standards tested for compliance. He referred to carbon monoxide monitoring done in a busy intersection in Anchorage, which were to establish standards for the entire city. Wasn't there an issue with how the standards were administered, he questioned. Mr. Ewing admitted that had been the argument used by industry and others to grant the state the authority to oversee monitoring. This would allow flexibility. He reminded the committee of the federal oversight on the Warthog project and the tight controls placed on that project. He felt the federal government was more restrictive then necessary. What the state offered in recent years was more flexible approaches to regulating sulfur dioxide as related to the rigs. He emphasized they could provide flexibility but having no standard and ignoring pollution was not a solution. Senator Donley spoke of the Truckers Association and other business association complaints regarding air quality in the Anchorage area and asked why DEC hadn't responded to them. Mr. Ewing pointed out these were different situations. The current topic was non-road engines. He did say the department had proved flexible in the Anchorage and Fairbanks areas with regard to the automobile issues. While they may not have been far enough for some people, they did provide balance and worked within the federal guidelines. Senator Donley felt that the issues were related in that the claim of flexibility was in question. Mr. Ewing disagreed, saying DEC was very flexible, perhaps not to the degree the senator wanted for the trucking industry and again the oil drilling industry in this case, but overall balance was achieved. There was further debate on the air quality standards and the trucking industry. Mr. Ewing concluded that DEC could not swing entirely to meet the demands of one particular interest, leaving other interests unrepresented. Senator Donley agreed but felt Mr. Ewing was exaggerating. Mr. Ewing stated that the department in every case listened to all arguments and tried to make a reasonable judgement. He felt that in Senator Donley's case a fair judgement had been made, but if the senator disagreed, they could discuss the matter further at another time. Senator Parnell recalled intentions voiced several years ago by the state to conform to federal standards, but not go beyond. He then referred to Mr. Ewing's comment on regulating drilling rigs as a mobile source as required under federal law. He asked Mr. Ewing where that information came from. Mr. Ewing clarified non-road engines were not mobile sources under the Clean Air Act. Mobile sources were things like automobiles and things that moved around continually, he explained. Drilling rigs were non- road engines that did move around, but fell under a different definition under the Clean Air Act. He continued, telling the committee DEC was instructed they did not have to regulate drilling rigs as stationary sources, but they did have to maintain ambient air quality standards. This meant that when in an area with clean air, the requirements of prevention of deterioration came into play. Any source with the potential to emit pollution that could put the air quality over the standard, must be regulated, he finished. He conceded that people were often confused when they read they didn't need a Title 5 permit - or stationary source permit. Often they would assume that meant they did not have to comply with the clean air standards. That was not the case, he stressed. Senator Parnell inquired as to the classification of the North Slope area. Mr. Ewing responded the North Slope was a non-classifiable area according to the information they had available. They believed it to be in attainment, but could not confirm. Senator Parnell asked, if DEC were to classify the North Slope area emissions as coming from stationary sources versus non-road engines, what approximate percentages would be made up of non-road sources. Mr. Ewing reminded the senator he did not have any hard data. He outlined the process when an operator wished to permit a particular site. The department would compile a list of all the significant sources on that site and create a model, which would tell them what to expect as far as ambient air quality. This was a process they did on every site that was proposed for a permit. Senator Parnell again attempted to get an approximation of the percentage of non-road engine emissions. Would it be 50 percent or 90 percent, he wondered. Mr. Ewing responded that it depended on the site and the time. He estimated that some of the time the non-road engine percentage would be close to 100. Senator Parnell asked if the measurements were taken from the drilling rig or from the entire area. Mr. Ewing replied that they measured the particular site. He explained that if there were a drilling site where oil development was being done, close to 100 percent of emission would be coming from the drilling rig itself. Senator Parnell then referred to the North Slope Borough mayor's comments on the cloud over Nuiqsut and asked Mr. Ewing to explain. Mr. Ewing stipulated that the situation was not one DEC had documented, but it sounded like the classic cloud formation that would come from SO2 and similar types of emissions. He expanded saying, that type of formation would not be expected on the North Slope because it usually required intense sunlight for the chemical reaction to occur. However, even in the absence of the intense sunlight they were getting reports of observations of the cloud formations. He stated the department could not confirm the cloud was a result of activity on the North Slope or that it was blown in from Asia, he speculated it was probably from a combination of the two. Senator Parnell questioned if DEC had any hard data this phenomenon caused or could cause federal ambient standards violations. Mr. Ewing replied that the only way to evaluate future air quality conditions in a situation where a permit was being considered was to use a modeling technique. He stressed that an operation could not be measured before it began and the permitting stage took place before operations could begin. He said there was nothing unusual about this. Co-Chair Sharp opened the meeting to public testimony. First to testify was BRIAN PETTY, Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs for the International Association of Drilling Contractors via teleconference from Washington D.C. After a short introduction of himself and his organization, he spoke to the legislation. "...I am here today to support Senator Leman's well crafted bill, SB 299. IADC, as Deputy Commissioner Ewing properly pointed out, has been frustrated in coming to terms with ADEC on a rational approach to our problem. That problem being the business of regulating or not regulating drilling rigs working in Alaska." "IADC has been engaged here in Washington with the EPA from early days. After the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments were passed, we were invited in by the EPA to become part of their E&P oil and gas cluster - meeting as early as 1993 to discuss ways of defining properly, non-road engines, stationary sources and the whole gamut of issues that come up in oil and gas activities, especially from the exploration side. I might add that those meetings were attended widely by the EPA including their solid waste and water branches. Those discussions evolved further into active dialog with EPA contractors focusing on the air regulations in Annarbor, Michigan and in Research Triangle, North Carolina." "The culmination of that long process is represented in the direct final rule that EPA put out just at the end of December last entitled Control of Air Pollution Emission Standards for the New Non-road Compression Engines at or below 37 Kilowatts. We have, at IADC, been attempting to encourage ADEC to understand the dimension of the federal regulations and fact that those federal regulations do not require the inclusion of non-road engines or mobile sources under Title 5. And that the states in fact are totally authorized to exclude them as is the case with a number of oil patch states all over in this country including Colorado, which in matters environmental is no slouch as many of you know. Colorado expressly exempts drilling rig engines from its permitting requirements. That state takes a back seat to none in terms of considering its pristine environment because of its high value it accords its tourism industry. I would add that there are substantial number of rigs working there - quite a few more than are working in Alaska as a matter of fact." "This pattern follows in states Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Wyoming. In Texas there is a separate regime but it comes to the same result. Drilling rigs are not considered stationary sources for permitting purposes. So what is being ventured by ADEC, is absolutely unique and in ways radical because it deviates from established patterns in mature dialog and a mature regime that began with a process here in Washington after the Clean Air Act amendments were passed." "IADC, in its international dimension, has information drawn from environmental regulators all over the world. We've been an association for sixty years. We are very, very sensitive to the need for preserving safety and environmental mitigation in our operations. As a consequence we are very concerned and alarmed by the direction the ADEC is taking in Alaska because it threatens to be an eccentric result that could have the affect of shutting in a lot of production and certainly exploration in Alaska, which of course is a vital industry in that state. That is why I was asked to come in today to just point out the importance of this to the international association and to illustrate the depth and length of time we have been spending with our engineers and our company engineers engaged in active dialog with EPA engineers for example." "Our efforts at ADEC go back to about August of 1996 when our representatives met with representatives of ADEC in Juneau. At that time those ADEC representatives conceded the point that drilling rigs were in fact mobile sources in their use of non-road engines. We were dismayed when in early 1997; ADEC seemed to reverse itself. There was a request by ADEC for us to produce questions, which they agreed to answer promptly. That request was April. We did not get an answer until late October and that was only after another letter asking ADEC to come forward with some justification for their modeling and some explanation why the State Of Alaska should venture off into an entirely new area of what was an established national norm." "As a consequence IADC finds itself today completely frustrated moving any further with ADEC because ADEC seems predisposed to venturing a rule that would consider drilling rigs essentially stationary sources. As a consequence the Legislation as drafted is very carefully aligned with that of existing federal law and its interpretation judicially and we think its a prudent step that will not make one whit of difference in terms of damaging Alaska's environment but will have a lot to do with the preservation of a vital oil and gas industry in the state." There were no questions from committee members and Co-Chair Sharp called upon the next person to testify. RUSS DOUGLAS came to the table and introduced himself as a representative of the International Association of Drilling Contractors- Alaska Chapter. Accompanying Mr. Douglas was KYLE PARKER, also from the AK Chapter of IADC. Mr. Parker acted as the primary speaker and his testimony was as follows. "I'd like to start off today just by responding to three of the points which Deputy Commission Ewing stressed at some length here to the committee." "First off, I'd like to respond to his suggestion that for three years they have been actively pursuing a solution to this problem with us. That frankly is just not the case. We have a letter, and I believe it's in your committee packets, from July 24, 1997 signed by Michael Conway who's Acting Director of the Air Section down at DEC, wherein he says that the department is committed to working a longer term solution to this issue with all interested parties by establishing and leading a work group. Nothing - no work group was ever formed following that July 24th letter. As of March 12th of this year, nothing had been done by DEC to move forward in forming a work group to work with industry. So Deputy Commissioner Ewing's suggestion that there's been an active effort on their behalf to work with industry in solving this and that we've rejected their proposed solutions is just not the case." "Recently they did come out with a draft proposed regulations, which were presented to us. These proposed regulations are a form of the California Rig Registration Program. Industry did respond to him that we did not believe that was the right solution for Alaska. We are not opposed - we have not been opposed to sitting down and working with the department on developing a solution. We have, I believe been very open to working with them over the last three years and as recently as March 25th, we had sent this letter to Commissioner Brown, and I have a copy here for each of the committee members, wherein we take the position with this recently proposed workgroup that we would be pleased to have a opportunity to work in a workgroup format with the regulators in developing some form of a solution. But from our perspective, the DEC isn't willing to step back and take a look to see whether first of all there's a problem here. As a matter of fact, at that meeting, one of the representatives from industry suggested that DEC stand down from its aggressive regulation of drilling rigs and give industry the time to work with DEC to develop the facts so we know what the reality is on the North Slope. We will then develop an appropriate regulatory framework for mobile sources of emissions. But Deputy Commissioner Ewing at that point said no, we don't have the flexibility to do anything but regulate emissions from drilling rigs. That's all detailed in your letter." "So please note that industry has been very willing to work this issue. We've been working it for over three years now with them and frankly we've been frustrated at every turn in our negotiations with them." "So our solution, as the deputy commissioner said - he said that our solution is no regulation - that is not in fact the case. We have been willing to sit down and work with them on an appropriate regulatory framework. That's not happened." "The second point is that the deputy commission suggests that rigs are not regulated. In fact engines on drilling rigs - engines on all mobile sources are regulated. They are manufactured to standards that are established by the federal government. This is the point of our legislation. The federal government recognizes that you regulate stationary sources of emissions and mobile sources of emission differently. The appropriate places to regulate mobile sources of emissions is at the manufacturing stage where the engines are manufactured and you put appropriate technologies on at that point. Stationary sources, you can add things like scrubbers, higher stacks, pollution collectors - those types of technologies. Adding those to a mobile source, you lose mobility." "Finally, and Russ Douglas will address this at length a bit more, Deputy Commissioner Ewing started out by saying that rigs are a significant source of emissions on the North Slope. Well we in the industry have taken the time to develop some of the numbers and I'll let Mr. Douglas speak to that." Mr. Douglas began speaking. "My evaluation has been just to make essentially look at some of the permits on the North Slope and these are the stationary permits. The level of emissions from those bigger facilities - the production facilities, the central compression plant are normally much greater than the emissions from any drilling rig. There are a limited number of... Tape #106 Side B "...from my evaluation. I've looked at the comparison and most of them are in the range of ten percent or less in terms of the contribution of drilling rigs if a drilling rig were to be on the facility." "In addition those 20 rigs, not all of the 20 rigs are running totally on diesel. There are some that are run on gas - or there's one that is run on gas. Several have capability to be run electricity, if available can be powered by that electricity. That further reduces the amount of actual emissions from drilling rigs from measures that have been taken by the drilling industry." "Another point I would like to address is the question about ambient monitoring on the slope. There was a program begun in 1986 by the Prudo Bay unit operators to monitor air quality. They've established three stations at APAD, at the Gathering Center One and at the Central Compression Plant and they monitored emissions for quite a while. I believe this was in conjunction with the DEC. Then the program - or at least from the DEC standpoint, was discontinued but the Prudoe Bay unit operators decided they would proceed with it. So they are monitoring to date. The IADC is in the process of obtaining that data. But since it is by the Prudoe Bay unit operators now it has to be requested and approved by all the unit operators before they can release that data. I've been assured by my contact at BP who runs the program that the data show there is no increasing air quality detriment at this point in time." "I would also like to add that Alpine, Arco with their Alpine project, has agreed to a monitoring station at their facility in regard to the Nuiqsut concerns. So they have agreed to monitor the air out there as well." Senator Adams asked that with the passage of this legislation, could IADC guarantee there would be no pollution in the North Slope that could affect the safety of the workers in the North Slope. Would they be willing to share their data with the communities in the affected area, he inquired. Mr. Parker responded they would be happy to share the analysis that was still ongoing as well as the numbers that were in the current permits and how the drilling rigs compared in terms of the percentage of emissions. He assured the committee he would get a copy of that information to them. He admitted there could be no guarantee against emissions on the North Slope. That was part of the ongoing operations, both in the stationary facilities working to collect and separate the oil and the drilling rigs discussed at this meeting. Senator Adams suggested this was just a facade created by the oil companies. Mr. Parker responded saying that industry deserved credit in recent years for modifying power sources on the rigs. Rigs on the North Slope were turning to electrical generation and less diesel fuel was being burned. He spoke of other modifications to convert rigs to natural gas operation. He stressed that this bill was not a license to pollute. Senator Parnell referred to pollution in his district in Anchorage. He stated the issue at hand was not the emissions, but the permit. Mr. Parker testified in response to Mr. Ewing's earlier comments relating to federal compliance and DEC's failure to research other state's handling of the drilling rig emissions. Mr. Parker attested that DEC had actually looked at what California was doing to regulate the non-road engines. Mr. Parker alluded that California was not the ideal comparison for Alaska's situation. This concluded public testimony on the bill. Senator Phillips offered a motion to move from committee SB 299 with accompanying fiscal note. Senator Adams objected. Co-Chair Sharp voiced concerns with the fiscal note, saying he didn't understand why the department claimed to need more funds to not issue permits. He felt this bill should save them money. Senator Pearce joined the discussion on the fiscal note. She read accompanying comments on the note relating to no change in staff workload and pointed out the request for an additional staff position. She suggested that because the bill was in the Senate Finance Committee, they had the authority to change the fiscal note. She expressed a desire to write a new fiscal note eliminating the new staff position. Co-Chair Sharp supported this idea. He felt the department was already making regulation changes the way they wanted, so he didn't know how it would require more staff to not do those changes. He declared the personal service line item should be zero. Senator Pearce added the Department of Law review would be applicable. She stated for the record the changes to be made to the DEC fiscal note, eliminating the personal services monies and the travel expenses for the would-be created position. Senator Phillips amended his motion to accommodate, noting the total amount for the fiscal note would be $11,600. Senator Adams asked for clarification on what would be included in the revised fiscal note. Senator Phillips responded that what was left was funding for Department of Law review, advertising, public hearings and publication of new regulations. Senator Phillips asked Senator Adams if the North Slope Borough had passed a resolution opposing this legislation. Senator Adams noted the letter from the mayor. He maintained his objection. Senator Donley pointed out information in the file in support of the legislation. He wanted to know if there was a position paper from the department, stating their opinion in writing. Co-Chair Sharp was only aware of oral statements made in the Resources Committee and here. Senator Donley said he found the backup papers in the file supporting the bill to be very persuasive. Co-Chair Sharp asked for roll call to be taken on the motion. The vote was 6-1; Senator Adams cast the lone nay vote. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 218(JUD) "An Act relating to the crimes of murder, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide and to homicides of children." BRETT HUBER, staff to the bill's sponsor, Senator Rick Halford was invited to speak to this legislation. His testimony was as follows. "Death of a child is always amongst the greatest of situations. When a child's death results from the commission of a crime, or the failure to provide decent care, the consequences should be certain and the punishment should be severe." "Senator Halford introduced this legislation to give law enforcement, prosecutors and the court additional tools to address crime involving the murder of children." "CS for SB 218 Judiciary makes the following changes to our criminal statutes. It amends the current law by adding a new form of first-degree murder when the death of a child results from the commission or attempted commission of kidnapping or sexual abuse. It also expands the list of offenses constituting felony murder to include sexual abuse of a minor in the first and second degrees. It elevates criminally negligent homicide from a Class C to a Class B felony; establishes a 20 year mandatory minimum sentence for a person convicted of a murder of a child under the age of 16; it increases the mandatory minimum sentence from five to seven years for manslaughter when the victim is a child under the age of 16; and it establishes a new sentencing provision, which allows for a term of unsuspended imprisonment that exceeds the presumptive term for certain felony offenses if the victim is a child under the age of 16." "Our children, societies most vulnerable members, deserve a responsible level of care when entrusted to an adult. This legislation is intended to establish a level of punishment more commensurate with the crime and send a clear message of deterrence: If you kill a child, you're going to jail for a long time." "You'll note in your packet endorsement of this bill by the Alaska Peace Officers Association, The Victims for Justice, and AWAKE." "Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify, I believe you have an amendment for the committee's consideration. I could speak to it if you'd like or I'd be happy to answer questions." Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of the amendment - Amendment #1, to allow the sponsor's representative to speak to it while he was at the table. Senator Adams objected for the same purpose. Mr. Huber's comments on the amendment were as follows. "The amendment was brought to us - a problem that the Department of Law pointed out with our statutes governing Custodial Interference in the First Degree. Currently the custodial interference statutes reads, if you are sending a child away to the other parent on a visitation basis, during that visitation period if the other parent takes the child and removes him from the state and keeps the child past visitation, that's Custodial Interference in the First Degree, which is a felony, which gives the opportunity for our law enforcement agencies to work with other law enforcement agencies in other states and the federal government to find and bring back the child and the parent that took the child." However, currently if you're sending that child outside for visitation, then if past the visitation time that other parent keeps the child, you're in the same situation. But because of the way the statutes are drafted, that doesn't constitute felony first degree. It is a second degree and a misdemeanor. The Department of Law brought this forward." "There is an actual case sited that judge's ruling speaks to the amendment. It says, 'The state argues that the phrase includes any keeper of the child in any other state as the extent of the statute was to enlist the power of federal authorities and to have the power of extradition. The court fully appreciates the need to charge a felony as other states and the federal government will not assist in the return of misdemeanant offendants. However the clear language of AS 11.41.320 and its commentary require the allegation that the defendant caused the victim to be removed from the state. The state's request for a felony warrant is thus denied.'" "This amendment would take care of that situation." Senator Pearce had no problem with the amendment. She expressed surprise that the bill drafter, Jerry Luckhaupt felt that the addition of this amendment would not require a change of title for the bill. Mr. Huber responded that there was a greater degree of latitude of what fit in the title under single subject when dealing with criminal code than other areas of the law. The drafter is comfortable with the amendment, Mr. Huber attested. Senator Adams removed his objection to the adoption of the amendment. Without further objection, Amendment #1 was adopted. The committee began hearing public testimony on the bill. Co-Chair Sharp noted several people in the audience who signed up to answer questions if needed. LAUREE HUGONIN, Director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault wished to testify and was invited to the table to do so. After introducing herself she spoke to the legislation as follows. "Just a couple of brief comments. The Network is in favor and supports SB 218. We think it is important that people understand that if they are going to chose to commit this heinous act, then they're going to have a penalty to pay that hopefully would give them pause to think." "I don't know about the amendment you just passed. We have not had an opportunity to review that before. I think we would be generally supportive of it, my concern would be if a battered woman needed to flee the state with her child to protect her child, that would be keeping her child outside the state. I haven't had a chance to look at what AS 11.41.330 says so I can't comment on that but we're supportive of SB 218." There were no questions of the testifier and no further discussion by committee members. Senator Phillips moved CS SB 218 (FIN) from committee with the three accompanying zero fiscal notes. There was no objection and Co-Chair Sharp so ordered. SENATE BILL NO. 314 "An Act relating to the Alaska marine highway system and to municipal feeder vessel authorities." Senator Torgerson spoke to this bill, saying: "What this bill is attempting to do is to recognize if some municipalities, especially here in Southeast Alaska might want to own, construct, operate their own ferry vessels. Mr. Chairman, in fact several communities - I believe eight of them have voted to form a port authority mainly made up of Prince of Whales Island communities, Petersburg and Wrangell to establish their own authorities and to come to the State Of Alaska or to the federal government and ask for funding for these ferries as far to built them. Mr. Chairman, it is my belief this group has met with a lot of opposition from the administration on whether - on how to crank these things up and how to operate them. They basically went directly to Senator Stevens for some of the funding and Senator Stevens actually gave appropriation, which up until the budget came out this year they thought was going to come direct to them. But it does run through the STIP. We'll be taking that up as a capital appropriation a little later on." "Mr. Chairman, also all of the Southeast plans that I've reviewed starting from 1971, and there's been about six of them, have established the need for feeder vessels to give better service to the communities. This has been rejected by not only this administration but also every administration until now as far as starting these vessels. We know that if these vessels are operating that they would reduce the subsidy required through the Marine Highway System." "So it's my hope that these communities, when they come forward to establish the feeder vessels will be able to participate in the federal funding programs that are currently available for the rest of the state and the National Highway System. This bill sets that up." "So just to go through it, Section 4 is kind of the meat of the bill. It provides a mechanism for establishing the authority in Subsection A. Subsection B provides a mechanism for disolving authority in case the local government decides they don't want it. Subsection C describes the power of the authority; D, the liability of the authority; E, provides administration of the authority and F, establishes that feeder vessels can be a grant authority for the grant fund." "Basically, Mr. Chairman, we all know that Senator Stevens, Senator Murkowski and Representative Young were successful in getting more money that was going to be directly allocated to the State Of Alaska for the ferry system. It is my hope that by passing this bill we'll use that money to help build, construct and maintain vessels that are owned and operated by the municipal governments." Senator Torgerson then indicated that he had an amendment to offer. Senator Pearce assumed that although he referred to Southeast Alaska that the bill would in no way be limited to that area of the state. Senator Torgerson said any interested municipality would be able to participate, but that communities in Southeast were the most likely. He mentioned that Homer, Kodiak and Anchorage were others that may wish to establish feeder vessels. Senator Pearce questioned the insertion of the word "feeder". She felt it implied that the ferries would need to link up to the main Marine Highway System. She wondered if communities that weren't served by the main ferry system would be able to take advantage of this program if they chose to establish a ferry system. Because they were not strictly feeding into something that already existed, could they participate in the program, she asked. She wanted to ensure as much flexibility as possible. Senator Torgerson responded by saying the bill didn't really define feeder vessels. He said the other common term was "day boat" and he was told the correct terminology would be "feeder vessel". He felt the bill spoke to Senator Pearce's concerns, and referred to Section 1, which said the State Of Alaska was to operate the mainline ferries north and south and the feeder vessels would feed that mainline service. Therefore, Homer and Anchorage would qualify. Other communities might be precluded if their vessels wouldn't be feeding into the established routes. The Ketchikan Airport ferry wouldn't qualify, he noted, but he couldn't think of any others who wouldn't. He admitted someone could make that stretch. Senator Pearce said she didn't want the department to be able to make that stretch. Senator Adams pointed out that the language in Section 1 did not make it mandatory for municipal feeder authority. He had a question about page 3 line 31, the feeder vessel authority grant fund set-up. Could the Legislature still place the $30 million to subsidize the ferry system through the operating budget, he asked. Senator Torgerson said that was correct, this had nothing to do with the Marine Highway fund itself. This was just for feasibility studies and grants for construction, acquisition, and maintenance and so forth. Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of Amendment #1. Senator Adams objected. Senator Torgerson spoke to his amendment, saying the senator from Craig approached him and had concerns about the community of Craig being left out because of language in the bill relating to port authorities. Senator Torgerson said it was not his intention to exclude Craig, and he offered this amendment to correct that. He spoke more about the formation of the port authorities. Senator Adams removed his objection. Co-Chair Sharp ordered Amendment #1 adopted there being no objection. There was no further discussion on the legislation and Co- Chair Sharp noted there was no one signed up to testify. Senator Phillips offered a motion to move CS SB 314 (FIN) from committee with amended fiscal notes. The amount of the fiscal note would be lowered to $12,000, reducing the advertising costs to $8,000, which Co-Chair Sharp felt would be adequate. Senator Adams noted the Department of Law's expenses to ensure that the advertising be done properly. Co-Chair Sharp said he would leave that amount. There was no objection to the motion and the bill was reported out of committee. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 223(RLS) "An Act lowering the age requirement from 60 years to 55 years for purposes of senior housing programs; relating to the senior housing revolving fund; relating to bonds to fund senior housing loans; repealing provisions establishing the senior housing bond account of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation; and repealing a provision relating to the interest rate on senior housing loans made by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation." Co-Chair Sharp noted the committee had a Workdraft CS "P Version" before them. He wanted his staff member to speak to the CS. TOM WILLIAMS came to the table and testified as followed. "The principle changes to the bill - as you'll notice the title has lengthened to be very specific as to what we are doing and it is very descriptive of what is going on in the bill. The principle changes in the bill were on page 3 in lines 1-13. Basically, it added the language to say that what was left in the Senior Housing Bond Account was to include not only the amount of money appropriated to the account but to the interest earned on that money was appropriated to the account. As you may recall in previous testimony there was an appropriation of $10 million to the account and that the interest that had accrued on that over the years had amounted to about $4.2 million. So that was to remain in the account. Then on line 12 to make sure that the intent on those monies were only to be used in accordance with an appropriation of that money." "In addition, on page 4 lines 7 and 8 the repealer of AS 18.56.790(d) - that repealer was delayed until June 30, 1999 as opposed to being repealed immediately. Simply because there is that $14.2 million to be left in that account subject to appropriation and giving the opportunity for that money to be - for the Legislature to make a decision on how to appropriate those funds. That would ultimately go away on June 30, 1999." "The changes made by the bill would still allow the senior citizen revolving fund to receive and expend bond money and to move ahead as the original intent of the bill." Senator Adams referred to the issue of lowering the age eligibility and asked if there was a need to bring the age requirement down to 55. He wondered if there was not enough clientele to spend the money for senior citizen housing. He wanted to know if he would now qualify and would it be OK to build a house in Palm Springs since he plans to retire there. Mr. Williams deferred the questions to the sponsor of the bill. He pointed out that the changes made in the Workdraft did not affect the age requirements, only the bonds account. Senator Phillips moved for adoption of the CS, version "P". Without objection, it was adopted. The committee invited JOHN BITTNEY of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation to speak to the bill. His comments were as follows. "I'm not able to comment on the CS, I haven't seen it at this point. My only comment, Mr. Chairman, at our last meeting, there was a request before the AHFC's board to declare the funds within the bond account as available for appropriation by the Legislature or make them available to the state's general fund. The board did consider that request the same day as the meeting and passed a resolution opposed to making those funds available to appropriation for other capital projects or as a dividend. That's based upon our needs assessment report and requests of the corporation for some review of projects. Our indications are that we are getting requests for projects for seniors that don't qualify for low income housing that are either middle- moderate or upper income and this is the program that's intended for that use. It's their desire to see that these funds are made available through the loan program for those kinds of projects." Senator Adams said that under the present statutes, the intent was to take care of everybody up to 60 years old. Was the intention to take care of everybody up to 55 because there was adequate extra money for that, he asked. He wanted to know if there had been a study to show a need for those between the ages of 55 and 60. Mr. Bittney responded that AHFC had done a study in 1996, which was focused on age 60 and over. He did have indications there was some need for the younger age group and he gave widows as an example. Mr. Bittney told the committee some of the senior housing projects had problems filling up their units and came to AHFC in hopes of opening up the requirements to recruit more residents. The federal law threshold was age 55, and this would align the state's requirements and allow the expansion of the requirements and hopefully fill some of the vacant units. Senator Adams asked if the construction loan funds had to be spent in Alaska. Mr. Bittney reaffirmed that. Co-Chair Sharp inquired about the initial Legislative appropriation of $10 million that was not spent. The additional $4 million was interest that accumulated on the balance, he asked. Mr. Bittney agreed and noted AHFC separately accounted for that as noted in the new CS. Co- Chair Sharp said the only thing the CS would add, would be an assurance that the Legislature would be involved through appropriation of the $14.2 million in the future. He spoke further of the intention of getting the revolving and bond funds up and running and to start dispersing funds. He asked if the program would allow funding for middle and low income seniors, or would the funding for low-income senior house be part of the capital budget appropriations as in the past. Mr. Bittney replied he would need to get some input from his technical staff on the CS. He had concerns because he didn't know to what extent the assets of that account would be necessary to go out and bond. His understanding was that the intent of the original $10 million was not only to have immediate funds on hand for loans but to also have assets that could be pledged as collateral in order to do a dept issuance. Normally what they would do is have mortgage loans already in an account and go out and do a debt issuance to recapitalize the funds for new loans. This being a new program, there are no loans to use as collateral, he explained. In reference to the question on the capital projects, Mr. Bittney continued telling the committee those were usually just strait grants for a project. He called it the subsidy piece of a project. Usually on those projects they didn't pencil out as a full loan because of a desire to keep the rents down. What the parties would then do, is apply to AHFC for a grant for the difference of what could be financed and paid for with an affordable rent and the construction costs. The request for the grant would be made first, and once secured, the party would then request the loan for the remainder of the project costs. There were two separate stages of the funding, he summarized. Co-Chair Sharp held SB 223 in committee until the next Senate Finance Committee meeting. SENATE BILL NO. 334 "An Act relating to guidelines and standards for state training programs; and relating to the Alaska Human Resource Investment Council." Co-Chair Sharp noted this bill had been before the committee the week before. Senator Torgerson had prepared several amendments to offer. He assured the other members that most were technical changes. He shared that the program director had initially submitted many times the amount of amendments seen here and the senator had been able to whittle the number down. Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of the CS Workdraft version "K". Senator Adams objected to ask a question. He wanted to know how many of the amendments before the committee were included in the revised bill. Senator Torgerson replied that it included Amendments 1-7 that the committee had adopted during the other meeting. Senator Adams removed his objection. Without objections, Version "K" was adopted. Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of Amendment #8. It was pointed out there already existed another Amendment #8. Senator Torgerson's amendment was renumbered to be Amendment Senator Torgerson spoke to the amendment saying, it had been requested by Mike Andrews, the program director. It would identify ways for operating agencies to share resources and structures and curriculum through the collaboration of other public and private entities to increase opportunities and reduce costs. He detailed the specific changes, siting page and line items and which words would be deleted and inserted. Amendment #8A was adopted without objection. Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of Amendment #9 and spoke to the amendment. He told the committee it was also brought to him by Mr. Andrews and would define the term "program". Basically, their intention was to limit the activities of the Human Investment Resources Council to programs that are directly underneath its control, according to the senator. In many cases, the institutions did a lot more than just training programs and the sponsor didn't want them to come under the administrative cap and other provisions. Therefore, this amendment would define a program to include certificates for associate degree courses related to the employment offered by the institutions or contracted by the private sector. Senator Parnell tried to figure out how it fit into the referenced page 7, line 8. There was discussion as to the proper placement of the language. Senator Torgerson amended his amendment to ask the drafter to insert the conceptual language in the proper order in the bill. The intention of the amendment was to define the programs outlined in the section, according to Senator Torgerson. Co-Chair Sharp instructed the secretary and the bill drafter to work with Senator Torgerson to ensure his amendment was incorporated into the legislation. Without objection, Amendment #9 was adopted. Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of Amendment #10, saying they were all technical changes. He detailed the specific changes, and described each. There was no objection or further discussion and the amendment was adopted. Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of Amendment #11. He spoke to the changes it made, moving the Employment Services Division, Department of Labor language from Section F to Section G. Instead of coming under the direct responsibility of the AHRIC committee, the AHRIC committee would include assessor programs in their annual report, he explained. He stressed that this program was more broad- based that just job placement and training programs. The last part of the amendment inserted a new Section H, which read, "The University of Alaska shall evaluate the performance of its training program using the standards of E of this section and shall provide a report on the results to the council for inclusion in the council's annual report to the Legislature." That was language given to him by the university, who really like the efforts being made with this bill and wanted to be included, he attested. Without objection, Amendment #11 was adopted. Senator Torgerson spoke to Amendment #12 telling the committee it was an all-encompassing language that said if there were any new programs enacted by the federal government, AHRIC was to review each of those programs and make recommendations to the governor and the Legislature. He then moved for adoption of Amendment #12. There was no objection and it was adopted. Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of Amendment #13. He explained it would just delete a duplicated section in the bill. Without objection or discussion, Amendment #13 was adopted. Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of Amendment #14. In speaking to the amendment, he said the Office of Management and Budget came to him with an amendment that basically deleted the three-quarters language that was in the bill for the assessment of AHRIC. There was some concern the bill would create a different mechanism than what was currently in statutes. After double-checking with the drafter, the amendment would take out the assessment of one-half of one percent on the program that AHRIC was to just assess and review. It was determined the extra was not needed and the fiscal note was reduced by about half, according to Senator Torgerson. He detailed the new language. Amendment #14 was adopted without objection. Senator Torgerson moved for adoption of Amendment #15 and told the committee of another bill currently in the finance committee. SB 245 would extend the date of the State Training and Employment Program from 1998 to 2002. The language matched the amendment and would essentially roll that bill into this one. Senator Parnell asked if there was a Legislative Budget and Audit report on the STEP program. When told there was none, he commented that the committee usually relied on those audits when determining extensions. Senator Torgerson gave a background on the program sharing that when it was last before the Legislature, because the program had been spending well over 40 percent on administrative costs, they capped the administrative costs of the program at 20 percent and added the two-year sunset. The sunset was so the program would come back before the Legislature so they could see if the 20 percent cap was being observed. As this bill was written, the cap would drop down to 15 percent, he pointed out. Although there was not a report done by LB&A, he assured the committee he had looked at their accounting extensively. Senator Adams expressed a desire that SB 245 go to the Senate Rules Committee for review. Senator Torgerson hinted that this would ensure that the sunset bill would begin to move through the process, if attached to the training bill. Without objection, Amendment #15 was adopted. Co-Chair Sharp noted several individuals signed up to answer questions. He announced that unless he heard objections from any of them, he would assume concurrence with the actions taken by the committee today. DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant with the Department of Labor wished to comment. He expressed concerns similar to Senator Adam's regarding SB 245. He noted if the sunset provision were not adopted the training employment program would halt. He said there was a companion bill in the House, which may be adequate. Senator Torgerson offered to rescind action on Amendment #15 if that would help. Senator Adams suggested passing both bills from committee. Co-Chair Sharp agreed, saying they could take action on SB 245 later if necessary. Co-Chair Sharp assigned Senator Torgerson to work with the co-chairs on amending the fiscal notes because of the many changes made to the bill. He ordered the bill held in committee until new fiscal notes were prepared. Co-Chair Sharp announced upcoming subcommittee meetings to hear public testimony on SJR 42, Constitutional Amendment RE: Same Sex Marriage. He announced a full committee meeting scheduled for 9:00am the next morning. ADJOURNMENT Co-Chair Sharp adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:10 a.m. SFC-98 (28) 3/31/98 am
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|