Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
04/19/2007 03:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 19, 2007
3:42 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 104
"An Act relating to the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act;
establishing the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act matching
contribution fund; providing for an Alaska Gasline Inducement
Act coordinator; making conforming amendments; and providing for
an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 104(JUD) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 104
SHORT TITLE: NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PROJECT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/05/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/07 (S) RES, JUD, FIN
03/14/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/16/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/16/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/19/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/19/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/19/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/21/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/21/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/21/07 (S) RES AT 5:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/21/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/22/07 (S) RES AT 4:15 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
03/22/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/23/07 (S) RES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/24/07 (S) RES AT 1:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/24/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/24/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/24/07 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/24/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/24/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/26/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/26/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/26/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/27/07 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/27/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/27/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/28/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/28/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/07 (S) RES AT 5:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/30/07 (S) RES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/30/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/30/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/31/07 (S) RES AT 12:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/01/07 (S) RES AT 11:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/01/07 (S) Moved CSSB 104(RES) Out of Committee
04/01/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/02/07 (S) RES RPT CS 6AM SAME TITLE
04/02/07 (S) AM: HUGGINS, GREEN, STEVENS, STEDMAN,
WIELECHOWSKI, WAGONER
04/02/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/07 (S) Moved Out of Committee 4/1/07
04/02/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/04/07 (S) JUD AT 2:45 PM BELTZ 211
04/04/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/04/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/11/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/11/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/07 (S) JUD AT 5:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/11/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/11/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/12/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/12/07 (S) Public Testimony 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm
04/13/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/13/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/13/07 (S) JUD AT 5:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/13/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/07 (S) JUD AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/14/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/14/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/07 (S) JUD AT 11:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/15/07 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/16/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/16/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/16/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/17/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
04/17/07 (S) <Teleconference Listen Only>
04/18/07 (S) JUD AT 1:45 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/18/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/18/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/18/07 (S) JUD AT 5:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/18/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/18/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/19/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
MARCIA DAVIS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Revenue
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered perspective on amendments to
Version O CS for SB 104
DON BULLOCK, Attorney
Alaska Legal and Research Services Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered perspective on amendments to
Version O CS for SB 104
PATRICK GALVIN, Commissioner
Department of Revenue
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered perspective on amendments to
Version O CS for SB 104
SENATOR LYDA GREEN
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered perspective on legislative
confirmation of AGIA coordinator
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH called the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:42:52 PM. Present at the call to
order were Senator Wielechowski, Senator Therriault, Senator
Huggins, and Chair French. Senator McGuire arrived shortly
thereafter.
SB 104-NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PROJECT
3:43:05 PM
CHAIR FRENCH announced the consideration of SB 104. He noted the
amendment packet and asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 7,
labeled 25-GS1060\O.9.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved Amendment 7.
25-GS1060\O.9
Bullock
A M E N D M E N T 7
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI
TO: CSSB 104(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 15, line 15, following "project":
Insert "to the state, are necessary because of an
order issued by the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission,"
Page 15, line 19:
Following "and":
Insert ", except for a modification or amendment
required because of an order issued by the Alaska Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission,"
Delete "to the state"
Following "project":
Insert "to the state"
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that the amendment stems from the
discussion regarding the AOGCC and the concern that arose that
it's not clear what is the volume of gas that's available for
offtake on the North Slope. Last year the producers were ready
to agree to provide 4.3 bcf/day so it's reasonably certain that
there's at least that volume available for offtake, he said.
However, if a non-producer is going to apply for this license
there ought to be some provision for a modification in the
instance where there's an order issued by the AOGCC. That's what
this amendment does, he stated.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Ms. Davis to offer her perspective.
3:46:01 PM
MARCIA DAVIS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue, said
we're supportive of the amendment and believe it achieves the
purpose described. By the nature of gas offtake rates and the
fact that they can change over time, this would be an important
amendment because there isn't currently a mechanism in the
modification to take that fact pattern into account.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized this is another circumstance supporting
an amendment to the plan. Currently a plan may be modified to
improve the net present value of the project or because of
changed circumstances outside the licensee's control. The
amendment allows changes that are necessary because of an order
issued by AOGCC. He asked if that's the idea and if the second
insertion on page 15, line 19 is conforming language.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said yes.
3:47:57 PM
MR. BULLOCK, Attorney, Alaska Legal and Research Services
Division, clarified that the amendment makes the language "net
present value of the project to the state" parallel on lines 9
and 11.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection. Finding no further
objection, he announced that Amendment 7 is adopted.
3:48:24 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 8, labeled
25-GS1060\O.8.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved Amendment 8.
25-GS1060\O.8
Bullock
A M E N D M E N T 8
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI
TO: CSSB 104(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 18, line 7:
Delete "does not have"
Insert "cannot reasonably secure"
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that the amendment relates to
whether or not the project is uneconomic. It addresses the
circumstance where the project may not currently have credit
support but could reasonably secure it. He described the change
as technical but important.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Bullock how much difference this makes
when analyzing whether the project is uneconomic.
MR. BULLOCK described the change as good because it imposes a
standard and so there's effort imposed on the licensee. He
explained that a licensee that's alleging that the project is
uneconomic doesn't have great incentive to go out and show they
could get financing for the project.
CHAIR FRENCH posed the scenario of a failed open season where
the licensee says they don't have credit support because they
didn't get commitments at the open season. He asked if this
would make it easier or harder for a licensee to drop the
project in the face of a failed open season.
MR. BULLOCK replied it'd make it a bit harder because the issue
of reasonableness comes up.
3:51:21 PM
PATRICK GALVIN, Commissioner, Department of Revenue, expressed
concern that the amendment has an inherent conflict. He
explained that when the two part test was designed, the first
part was intended to evaluate whether or not the project has
credit support at that particular point. It was not intended to
be a prospective evaluation, he said. The second part of the
criteria is intended to basically do what the amendment seeks to
accomplish, which is to do a prospective evaluation to determine
whether the project could reasonably imagine getting credit
support at some point in the future. From an arbitrator's
perspective, it would be a challenge to determine what the
scenarios are beyond what's described in the second part where
that reasonable expectation of credit support would exist, he
said.
CHAIR FRENCH said it sounds like you're looking for a clear fork
in the road when it comes to credit support.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN explained that the second part of the test
is intended to be the determining factor of whether a project
can reasonably expect to obtain credit support at some future
point once gas has been secured. Adding the suggested
prospective evaluation to the first part muddies the water
between the two parts of the test, he said.
3:54:52 PM
MR. BULLOCK pointed out that credit supports are also an issue
of the certification by the regulatory authority and project
sanction. Page 14 has the two situations. Line 17 talks about
what happens if the licensee has sufficient credit support when
they get the license and line 23 talks about what happens if
they do not have credit support sufficient to finance the
project at the time. He opined that the issue of credit support
should probably be dealt with similarly between the requirements
in 43.90.200 on page 14 and the abandonment provision that's
under review on page 18.
MS. DAVIS explained that the phrases are purposefully different.
The administration eliminated possessing gas for shipment as a
basis for credit support because carrying that same definition
over into the abandonment section would result in a producer, by
definition, never being able to establish that a project was
uneconomic. The fact that the licensee has gas to commit to the
project does not satisfy the first prong of the test, she said.
SENATOR McGUIRE suggested there needs to be some objective
standard for having credit support that has a little wiggle room
at the bottom. It's a fair trade. Although she understands the
intent she said she does not support the amendment.
3:57:20 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed some surprise that the
administration did not support the amendment. He recapped the
two parts and asked if the second part of the test absolutely
assures that you will get credit.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said no; the second part basically says do
you have a project that would at this point in time have a
reasonable expectation of a positive netback. If the answer is
yes, the state could anticipate a good situation at some point
in the future. If the answer is no, then you'd have to question
whether the project should go forward.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said if the answer to the second part is
yes, that doesn't necessarily mean you have sufficient credit
support.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN responded that's not the driving force. The
two prong test asks if you've got credit support or if you have
a positive economic project. The amendment would require going
beyond that to ask if there's another situation where you would
potentially get credit even if you don't meet the second part of
the test.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there would be another source of
credit.
MS. DAVIS apologized if she gave him the wrong steer in terms of
comfort level. She believes the definition basically asks if
this project is economic. The only way it's going to be economic
is if you've got financing or if you've got the strong
likelihood that you're going to get shippers, which then gets
you the financing, she said. The test is a one two punch, she
said.
4:01:22 PM
CHAIR FRENCH recognized that Drue Pearce, former Senate
President and current Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects was present.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN asked that the amendment be set aside until
he could contact a commercial team member who was involved in
developing the two part test.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Senator Wielechowski if he would be willing
to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
4:02:12 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI withdrew Amendment 8.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 9, labeled 25-GS1060\O.1 and
objected for discussion purposes.
25-GS1060\O.1
Bullock
A M E N D M E N T 9
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FRENCH
TO: CSSB 104(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 14, lines 9 - 10:
Delete all material and insert:
"(d) If the legislature fails to approve the
issuance of the license, the commissioners
(1) may not issue the license that the
legislature failed to approve; and
(2) may request new applications for a
license under AS 43.90.120."
CHAIR FRENCH explained that the amendment pertains to page 14 on
the subject of legislative approval. It clarifies that if the
legislature fails to approve the issuance of a license, the
commissioners may not issue that license, but they may request
new applications for a license under the original authorizing
statute.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Ms. Davis to comment.
MS. DAVIS summarized the discussion yesterday centered on the
issue of comity and the concern that the provision is silent
regarding what happens if the legislature fails to approve the
issuance of a license. The bill only says if the legislature
fails to approve, the commissioners are authorized to restart
the process. Left unstated is exactly what that means relative
to the licensee that the administration put forward. But
regardless of whether the bill says may not issue the license or
if it stays silent, it does not change the constitutional debate
and it does not change what the administration could do in the
face of a disapproval by the legislature. Obviously, she said,
the first choice was to have legislative disapproval so that the
default of no action would result in the project being able to
proceed. That being said, her only comment is that this addition
doesn't change the playing field as far as the ultimate question
on constitutionality and comity.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection. Finding no further
objection, he announced that Amendment 9 is adopted.
4:05:12 PM
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 10, labeled 25-GS1060\O.2, and
objected for discussion purposes. The amendment relates to what
happens after a decision by the arbitration panel, he said.
25-GS1060\O.2
Bullock
A M E N D M E N T 10
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR FRENCH
TO: CSSB 104(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 17, line 19:
Delete "(e)"
Insert "(f)"
Page 18, line 1:
Delete "(e)"
Insert "(f)"
Page 18, following line 14:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) In an appeal of a final determination
rendered by the arbitrators under (b) of this section,
the person making the appeal has the burden of proving
that there was a prejudicial abuse of discretion by
the arbitrators."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reiterated the concern he expressed
yesterday and said he believes that if nothing is done an abuse
of discretion provision that's within the arbitration statutes
will apply. The amendment adds prejudicial abuse of discretion
and that might not be the same standard. We might be making it
more complicated than is necessary, he said.
SENATOR McGUIRE referenced a discussion about whether or not it
may be more expeditious to incorporate the Alaska Uniform
Arbitration Act as a whole rather than specifying the standard.
It's not quite as black and white as it may appear and there may
be reasons that one would want more flexibility. She asked Mr.
Bullock to go on record regarding what he thinks about it and
how it would be accomplished the most clearly.
4:07:54 PM
MR. BULLOCK advised that it's within legislative policy
discretion to decide which kind of standard to apply, but this
is similar to the standard in the Administrative Procedure Act
for appeals to court. What Senator McGuire was referring to is
on page 17, line 23 where it says that the arbitrations
administered by the American Arbitration Association under the
laws of the state, which is pretty general. Whether the intent
is to have both Alaska procedures and Alaska substantive law
apply and perhaps to address specific reference to Title 9,
Chapter 43, at this point-you could do it if you wanted, he
said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked what difference that would make to the
proposed amendment and if making an explicit reference to the
arbitration statutes would change the standard of review.
MR. BULLOCK replied the amendment specifically sets the standard
for reviewing an arbitration decision. There isn't a problem, he
said. You're establishing an issue that's going to be decided by
the arbitration panel and you're establishing the standard for a
court to review the outcome.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI acknowledged that the explanation gives him
increased comfort but his intent would be for any arbitration to
be administered both substantive and procedurally under the laws
of the state and that includes the existing arbitration laws.
SENATOR McGUIRE added that's why she mentioned it. It's a
question of whether we mean both substantive and procedural law
of the State of Alaska to apply. If it is the case that both are
to apply, it might be a good idea to make reference to our laws
regarding the process and not specifically set a standard. Leave
it to the process Senator Wielechowski has gone through as an
arbitrator, which does seem to follow a similar pattern of abuse
of discretion but with a bit of wiggle room.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Bullock if inserting the words
"substantive and procedural" before "laws" on page 17, line 23,
would incorporate the definition.
MR. BULLOCK replied it'd allow you to move the bill from
committee and if the language isn't changed, it'd give room for
interpretation.
CHAIR FRENCH added it gives fairly clear direction that we're
supposed to work under the substantive and procedural laws of
Alaska with respect to arbitration.
MR. BULLOCK said you're taking it out of the court and bringing
in an arbitration panel so the question is what law will be
applied and how will the panel take evidence and operate during
the proceeding.
SENATOR THERRIAULT posed a question. "Rather than have a very
specific standard written right into the AGIA law, that we make
reference to another section of statutes that could be changed
sometime-whether that is upsetting to the degree of certainty
that you're trying to get to?"
4:12:51 PM
COMMISSIONER GALVIN replied it's probably more consistent with
what's expected, which is to allow the arbitration provisions to
work like they would in any other commercial provision. If the
state changes the law dealing with the arbitration procedures,
we would probably want to follow that change, he added.
SENATOR McGUIRE said one thought is to withdraw Amendment 10 or
reaffirm it in both places by adding a reference to Title 9,
Section 43.
MR. BULLOCK offered the opinion that referring to Title 9,
Section 43 raises the issue as to what the appeal standard is in
that section. If it's different than what's in Amendment 10 then
the amendment should be changed to say not withstanding another
provision of law, this is the standard of review in this
circumstance. You need to see what the appeal standard is in the
arbitration provisions, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH explained the intent of the amendment is to make it
crystal clear that there is the opportunity of an appeal from an
arbitrator's decision. Dropping the amendment and adding
"substantive and procedural" wouldn't clarify that there's a
right of appeal.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN asked if that chapter has provisions with
regard to judicial appeal of an arbitrator's ruling and if so,
what the standard is.
CHAIR FRENCH said we'll recess and find out.
Recess from 4:16:59 PM to 4:25:28 PM.
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the meeting and moved an amendment to
Amendment 10. On page 17, line 23, after the first appearance of
the word "the" add "substantive and procedural". The line would
read: "American Arbitration Association, under the substantive
and procedural laws of this state…" Finding no objection, he
announced that the amendment to Amendment 10 is adopted and
Amendment 10 is again before the committee.
CHAIR FRENCH moved a second amendment to Amendment 10. On line
12 of the amendment, change the word "proving" to "proof." and
strike the rest of line 12 and all of line 13. He explained that
this is to make it clear that there's a right of appeal and that
the person who is making the appeal has the burden of proof.
This addresses his concern that there's a clear right to appeal
and language on the previous page clarifies what law applies. He
asked Mr. Bullock if he had any comment.
MR. BULLOCK summarized that this says that the person who
disagrees has to show why the decision was wrong so it
eliminates the possibility of the successful party having to
argue why the decision is right.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection and asked if there was
further objection to Amendment 10
SENATOR THERRIAULT questioned whether there had been a vote on
the second amendment to Amendment 10.
CHAIR FRENCH recapped his understanding that two amendments to
Amendment 10 had been adopted. Hearing and seeing no further
objection he announced that Amendment 10 is adopted.
4:28:29 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked for motion to adopt Amendment 11, labeled 25-
GS1060\O.7.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved Amendment 11.
25-GS1060\O.7
Bullock
A M E N D M E N T 11
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI
TO: CSSB 104(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 17, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "a list provided by the American
Arbitration Association"
Insert "the American Arbitration Association's
National Roster"
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that the way the statute is
currently written, each party selects an arbitrator from a list
of probably 11 that is provided by the American Arbitration
Association. The amendment expands that list so that each side
is able to select an arbitrator from the entire national roster
of the American Arbitration Association. This is appropriate
because this is an extremely difficult and complex area of law
and the arbitrators should have expertise in this area, he said.
SENATOR THERRIAULT questioned why he's concluded that the list
would consist of 11 arbitrators.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI answered that's normal procedure under
American Arbitration Law.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection. Finding no further
objection, he announced that Amendment 11 is adopted.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 12, labeled
25-GS1060\O.6.
4:30:03 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved Amendment 12.
25-GS1060\O.6
Bullock
A M E N D M E N T 12
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI
TO: CSSB 104(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 13, lines 30 - 31:
Delete all material.
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI conjectured that the language on lines 30
and 31 was inadvertently left in the bill. Directing attention
to page 9, lines 11-13, he pointed out that waiving the right to
appeal is a condition of applying for the license. One of the
things we've been trying to do in this bill is to limit the
rights of appeal so that we're not mired in endless litigation.
Maybe this is just cleaning it up, he said.
4:31:15 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said he thought the waiver on page 9 is with
respect to the decision to issue no license whereas…
MR. BULLOCK interjected it applies to both; it's if the license
is awarded to somebody else or if no license is awarded.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that the waiver on page 16 binds anybody who
submitted an application to the decision of the commissioners.
MR. BULLOCK replied that's his understanding based on the way
it's written.
CHAIR FRENCH pointed out that there may be others who object to
the decision of the commissioners. For example, the producers
may decide not to submit an application and then after the
license is issued they may decide it was a mistake and there
should be an appeal of that decision. They're not bound by page
9 because they didn't submit an application, but they may have a
point. Or maybe the All-Alaska gas line doesn't submit an
application and therefore isn't bound by page 9, but it has a
legitimate beef with the issuance of the license. If lines 30
and 31 are taken out, then all the other entities that didn't
submit an application are also losing their right to appeal, he
said.
MR. BULLOCK explained that it's the decision that can be
appealed. The question after that is when can that decision be
appealed. To answer that you need a start date. He believes the
initial intent of lines 30 and 31 was that if there was going to
be an appeal, it would start on that date even though it doesn't
exactly read that way. He reminded members that you can say
there aren't appeal rights or waivers, but if there is a
constitutional issue such as due process that arises in the
course of the consideration of the licenses, the appeal right
would continue regardless of how the right to appeal is
restricted. That being said, it wouldn't hurt to establish a
date that identifies some finality from which the appeal could
start, he stated.
CHAIR FRENCH stated that this is the flagpole to the legal
community and the world that announces that this is where you
mount your challenge. It's after the legislature has weighed in
and when the commissioners issue the license.
SENATOR THERRIAULT responded it not only establishes the date,
it also establishes what's left to appeal on. The legislature
has superceded the executive action, leaving only the
constitutional issues.
MR. BULLOCK said what's happened is the commissioners make the
decision to issue the license and it's suspended until the
legislature approves or disapproves. If they approve the
decision, then the administrative action of identifying the
license is sealed on that date. That's what was behind lines 30
and 31, he said. It's not an appeal of what the legislature
decided; it's an appeal of the state issuing the license.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said that's an important point because the
right to appeal that exists is for this being unconstitutional
and that's been addressed in Section 420 on page 24, lines 4-7.
He explained that the idea is to structure this so that there
can only be a constitutional challenge. He asked Mr. Bullock if
that's been accomplished.
MR. BULLOCK suggested that is should be clarified because the
way Section 420 is written, it's not clear whether the issue is
constitutionality of the license or if it's an issue relating to
a challenge to the license.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI read, "A person may not bring a judicial
action challenging the constitutionality of this chapter or a
license…".
MR. BULLOCK asked if it's the constitutionality of the license.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI interpreted the language as an either or.
MR. BULLOCK said the way it's written it could be interpreted
that way.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked to hear from the administration.
MS. DAVIS relayed the intent on Section 420 was that it would be
a constitutionality provision that would apply to both the
chapter itself and to the license. It would be an action
challenging the constitutionality of the chapter or an action
challenging the constitutionality of a license issued under this
section.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Bullock if the license could be found to
be unconstitutional.
MR. BULLOCK replied the license itself is just a license, but
the process for awarding of the license could be found
unconstitutional.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that the idea is to foreclose on the
endless right to appeal. We have the right to do that, he
emphasized, because we can decide who can and cannot sue us.
What this says is that someone that doesn't put in a bid can't
file an appeal unless there's something that's unconstitutional.
Other than that, there is no administrative right to file an
appeal.
MS. DAVIS observed that part of the debate around this issue and
the guidance that Mr. Ostrovsky gave to this committee is that
it's the right of a state as a sovereign to choose when it will
and will not be sued. The concept of due process rights is that
the government is doing some action and has failed to give due
process to an entity or an individual that is enmeshed in that
process. When you think of a third party that hasn't
participated but is complaining about the process, you have to
ask what sort of due process rights are being infringed on.
Certainly, constitutionality claims aren't affected by the
waiver provision, but when you think about what are due process
rights, I'm not sure who's in the game to complain about them,
she stated.
SENATOR McGUIRE stated support for the amendment. She recalled
that when U.S. Senator Ted Stevens was asked about things that
worked in terms of getting TAPS, he emphasized the ability as a
sovereign state to limit the rights of appeal. I think its in
our interest and incumbent upon us to have some method by which
people vet their concerns, but there is an appropriate point at
which you cut it off, she stated.
CHAIR FRENCH acknowledged that he's struggling with this because
he's reluctant to close off too many legal avenues. Noting that
there is at least some perception that AGIA is a setup to award
the license to a certain company, he said that to the extent
that all legal challenges are striped away, you could argue that
you're supporting that perspective. Certainly the environment
this year is much different than last year when it would have
been almost unthinkable to have taken this step. I'm glad it's
different, but I'm still reluctant, he stated.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he appreciates those concerns, but the
logical conclusion of allowing just anyone to file a lawsuit is
that multiple lawsuits challenging every item in here can be
expected. That's what we're trying to avoid because we need to
get this gas pipeline moving. This limitation does not take away
anyone's constitutional rights because if there were due process
violations or equal protection violations, then whoever suffered
those violations has the right to sue. All this says is we're
not going to get stuck in endless litigation over this matter,
he said.
4:43:27 PM
MR. BULLOCK reminded members that under AGIA this is a
contractual issue-the third person agrees to waive their appeal
rights. If they appeal anyway, it's a violation of the contract
as opposed to a statute that absolutely says this is a final
determination and not subject to appeal.
SENATOR THERRIAULT pointed out that the potential pool of people
appealing is far beyond those who made applications and bound
themselves.
MR. BULLOCK said there's a question of the issue and who has
standing. A person that didn't submit an application wouldn't
have standing to sue because they didn't come to the table. On
the other hand, a constitutional issue has other people that
would have standing to bring suit so there is the possibility of
two different pools of plaintiffs.
CHAIR FRENCH maintained his objection and asked for a roll call
vote.
Amendment 12 carried 4-1 with Senator Wielechowski, Senator
McGuire, Senator Huggins, and Senator Therriault voting yea and
Chair French voting nay.
4:45:25 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 13, labeled
25-GS1060\O.4.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved Amendment 13.
25-GS1060\O.4
Bullock
A M E N D M E N T 13
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR THERRIAULT
TO: CSSB 104(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 13, line 27:
Delete "60"
Insert "45"
Page 14, line 5:
Delete "60-day"
Insert "45-day"
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR THERRIAULT stated concern that a lengthy legislative
review could potentially cause problems for the successful 2008
field season. Referring to a timeline, he demonstrated that 60
days could be problematic. Although his personal preference
would be to have a shorter term than 45 days, the idea is to
reach some consensus, he said. Originally when 30 days was
expanded to 90 days there was some thought that the legislature
really wouldn't be able to evaluate anything until it was handed
to them, but since that time language was added to make it clear
that the legislature will have full access to the proposals
basically when the sealed bids are opened. This amendment is an
effort to strike a balance and yet not cause problems with that
2008 field season, he said.
4:48:10 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS asked when he visualizes the season beginning.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said somebody could certainly be out on the
ground or well on the way to having the teams go out by mid
April. In the House the time is still 90 days and he isn't sure
whether the difference will be split in a conference committee.
Clearly 90 days causes serious problems with regard to access to
the field season, he emphasized.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he hopes the review takes just two or three
weeks, but he wouldn't want to be limited to that.
SENATOR McGUIRE said she wants enough time to thoroughly vet the
issue because now the project relies on the legislative
approval. 90 days is too long but if a 60 day deadline is set,
she doesn't have any faith that it'd take just 22 days.
CHAIR FRENCH commented that the last action that was taken
forced attention on that debate. Now everyone who has a gripe
about how the license was issued will come to the legislature
for whatever period of time that's set to have their case heard.
The legislature has become the court and he said he is reluctant
to restrict that time any more than it is now. In deference to
Senator Therriault's suggestion that legislators will have
access to the material, he said we also know that people will
procrastinate so there's an issue there as well.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI recalled the same debate in the resources
committee and 60 days was the compromise. He said he doesn't
know if that's the right number, but he takes solace in the fact
that it could take less time. Also, if we want to finish early
we may want to start early, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH said that's a separate topic.
SENATOR THERRIAULT added there's also the issue of the suggested
90-day session and the suggestion that the session start later.
We're running a serious risk of causing problems and losing a
good chunk of the field season and that doesn't bode well for
the entire process, he stated.
CHAIR FRENCH said as a former North Slope production operator,
he spent many hours outside in a down suit and bunny boots and
he believes those are still issued to folks who work there. He
said he would concede that it's a little difficult to get a
stream sample in December.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a roll call vote.
Amendment 13 failed 2-3 with Senator McGuire, and Senator
Therriault voting yea and Senator Wielechowski, Senator Huggins,
and Chair French voting nay.
4:54:24 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 14, labeled
25-GS1060\O.3.
SENATOR THERRIAULT withdrew Amendment 14.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 15, labeled
25-GS1060\O.5.
SENATOR THERRIAULT moved Amendment 15.
25-GS1060\O.5
Bullock
A M E N D M E N T 15
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR THERRIAULT
TO: CSSB 104(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 19, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "The appointment is subject to
confirmation by the legislature."
CHAIR FRENCH objected for discussion purposes.
SENATOR THERRIAULT explained that the amendment deals with the
issue of the legislative confirmation of the AGIA coordinator.
Yesterday's discussion was that the legislature generally
confirms people who rise to the commissioner level or who are in
quasi-judicial bodies. This AGIA coordinator doesn't rise to
either of those levels, he said. It seems unwise for the
legislature to insert itself and potentially raise a
constitutional issue to argue about in the future. There isn't a
compelling reason to do that, he said.
4:55:49 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI opposed the amendment. Reading portions of
Section 260, he emphasized that the AGIA coordinator will have
tremendous power, more in fact than virtually any commissioner.
It's an important position and as a legislator I would have
questions about how they intend to use that power, he stated.
CHAIR FRENCH recognized that Senate President Green was present.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Bullock if his view on the subject is
that legislative confirmation of this appointment is probably
unconstitutional.
MR. BULLOCK answered he believes it probably is
unconstitutional. The position is placed in the governor's
office who is over the commissioners and could do the same
thing. The things that the coordinator can do under 43.90.260
relate to discretionary issues. You may have the power to do it
but you don't do it in this case because the project is primary.
SENATOR McGUIRE agreed adding that the other part is that this
might set precedent to require legislative confirmation for a
plethora of positions that you could argue have power. Second,
she doesn't want to set up a never ending battle with the
governor. She pointed out that the AGIA coordinator may be
removed at the discretion of the governor and that is a further
statement of that branch exerting its authority over that
position. It sets up an unneeded constitutional problem, she
stated.
SENATOR THERRIAULT expressed the view that it avoids squabbling
amongst the departments where one branch is trying to exert
itself when it doesn't have the power of law to do so. The
coordinator can bump heads together and force the departments to
get past their disagreements. Referring to the discussion from
yesterday, he advised that former Senator Drue Pearce was
selected for the federal coordinator position by the White House
and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. Her term of office is until
first gas flows. The AGIA coordinator is being selected and
serves at the pleasure of the governor so the two positions
aren't analogous. Because of the uniqueness of Ms. Pearce's
position, it did make sense that the U.S. Senate had to confirm
the selection but it doesn't seem like that's so here, he
stated.
5:00:47 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI raised the issue of constitutionality. The
governor has the ability to make important and critical
appointments that don't face legislative approval, but those
people don't directly make decisions that have huge impacts on
people, he said. In contrast the AGIA coordinator will have the
ability to overturn discretionary decisions made by
commissioners. This is a person who has tremendous policy-making
power. The legislature regularly holds confirmation hearings on
people who have much less power, such as the board of game and
the board of fish. Those are raucous, rancorous hearings and
they have nowhere near the power, he said. The AGIA coordinator
will have the power and ability to impact salmon streams and the
abilities of trappers and hunters and snow machiners. It would
be a grave mistake for the legislature not to have some review
over this person and I object to the amendment, he stated.
SENATOR THERRIAULT clarified the individual would not have the
power to impact salmon streams beyond the protection that is
placed in statute. If there's something that's required by law
that the legislature has put in statute, that has to be
followed.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked if the administration has an opinion.
MS. DAVIS stated that the administration is concerned any time
language is injected that has a specter of unconstitutionality.
We don't want to slow the ability of whoever is appointed and
confirmed to get out and start the job, she said. The role is
very important and the powers that are listed are all within the
boundaries of law. They basically push agencies to not require
more than what is required by law. The hope is that the AGIA
coordinator will accelerate the process by removing the
discretionary roadblocks that agencies can put in place. The
position does have a specter of power and it's for this body to
decide whether a legislative confirmation will make the exercise
of that power safer or better, notwithstanding the risk that it
might be viewed as unconstitutional, she said. It's a balance
between the importance and the risk.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the legislature has ever rejected a
governor's nominee and he learned that it's not uncommon at all.
CHAIR FRENCH recognized that Senator Wagoner was present.
SENATOR HUGGINS offered the view that the business of a
confirmation is an educational and healthy process that's good
for Alaska. The constitutionality issue doesn't worry him at
all.
5:06:25 PM
SENATOR LYDA GREEN, President, Alaska State Senate, informed the
committee that during the Knowles administration there was
legislation that required confirmation of agriculture board
members. All along the administration said it didn't have to
send it through and they never did, she said, but the board went
right on and functioned very well. Whether the language is in
there or not, if it's unconstitutional they won't be sending it
to you, she opined.
CHAIR FRENCH added they'll never submit the name.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN asked if they're missing something here that
puts this potentially in a black hole if there's just
appointment language.
MR. BULLOCK said he isn't familiar with that area.
CHAIR FRENCH relayed that he asked Tam Cook what happens in the
event that the legislature does not approve or is slow to
approve. His understanding is that an appointee has all the
power and authority of the position on the day the governor
makes the appointment. As Senator Green has indicated, if the
name is never submitted there would be nary a ripple in the
authority of the coordinator.
SENATOR McGUIRE expressed concern about litigation. She
questioned whether the coordinator's meaningful actions could be
subject to litigation if the legislature failed to confirm the
person who the governor nominated.
MR. BULLOCK opined that one example where the constitutional
issue of separation of powers would arise is if the governor
gives the legislature a name, the legislature fails to approve
the person, and the person continues. The separation of powers
issue would also arise if the name is never submitted and
somebody challenges a decision made by that person because they
weren't confirmed
SENATOR McGUIRE stated that her concern relates to whether or
not that would put the state farther from a gas line.
MR. BULLOCK said you have to look at the issue and ask how
likely it is that someone will challenge. Including things that
aren't needed and are more subject to challenge can't be a good
thing on a bill that you want to get through, he advised.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a roll call vote.
Amendment 15 carried by a vote of 3-2 with Senator Therriault,
Senator McGuire, and Chair French voting yea, and Senator
Wielechowski and Senator Huggins voting nay.
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 16 by Senator
Huggins.
5:11:08 PM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved Amendment 16. He directed attention to
pages 3 and 5 and explained that the amendment addresses the
certificate provision in the case of Trans Canada since they
already have a certificate of convenience. On page 3, line 2,
following the word "certificate" insert "or amended
certificate".
CHAIR FRENCH said for purposes of the record he doesn't see that
language on the proposed amendment. After further explanation
was provided by the administration, he called a short recess to
clean up the amendment.
At ease from 5:13:12 PM to 5:14:30 PM.
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the hearing and asked the sponsor to
restate the amendment.
SENATOR HUGGINS stated the following:
Amendment 16
Page 3, line 2 following "certificate":
Insert "or amended certificate".
Page 5, line 13 following "certificate":
Insert "or amended certificate".
Page 5, line 16 following "certificate":
Insert "or amended certificate".
SENATOR HUGGINS explained that if somebody already has a FERC
certificate, which Trans Canada does, then that certificate will
be amended.
CHAIR FRENCH found no objection and announced that Amendment 16
carries.
5:15:34 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked for a motion to adopt Amendment 17, labeled
25-GS1060\O.10.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved Amendment 17.
25-GS1060\O.10
Bullock
A M E N D M E N T 17
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI
TO: CSSB 104(JUD), Draft Version "O"
Page 22, line 30, through page 31, line 8:
Delete all material and insert:
"Sec. 43.90.330. Inducement vouchers. (a) A
person that acquires firm transportation capacity in
the first binding open season of the project, that
does not hold an oil and gas lease on the North Slope,
and that is not an affiliate of a person that holds an
oil and gas lease on the North Slope, may apply to the
commissioners for a voucher under this section. A
voucher issued by the commissioners must describe the
firm transportation capacity in the project to which
the voucher is applicable.
(b) A voucher issued by the commissioners under
this section entitles the holder of the voucher to the
resource inducements in AS 43.90.310 and 43.90.320 for
gas shipped in the firm transportation capacity
acquired by the person applying for the voucher during
the first binding open season of the project and
described in the voucher. The voucher may be
transferred to a gas producer that has a binding
obligation to sell gas to the person transferring the
voucher under a gas purchase agreement.
(c) A gas producer holding a voucher may claim
the resource inducements for gas shipped through the
firm transportation capacity described in the voucher
and only on gas that is produced and delivered to the
purchaser on the North Slope. A gas producer may claim
the resource inducements under this subsection until
the earlier of the termination of the binding gas
purchase agreement or the expiration of the
inducements by operation of law."
Page 25, line 31:
Delete "A"
Insert "Except for the transfer of a voucher to a
producer under AS 43.90.330(b), a"
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI reminded members of the discussion
yesterday related to the new inducement voucher section that was
added. Currently Section 330 talks about midstream, upstream,
and who it would apply to. He deferred to Mr. Bullock to explain
why he broke it down the way he did.
MR. BULLOCK explained that subsection (a) describes the
qualifications of a person applying for a voucher. First, they
must acquire firm transportation capacity during the first
binding open season. Also, the person may not hold or be an
affiliate of a person that holds an oil and gas lease on the
North Slope. Persons meeting those qualifications may apply to
the commissioners for a voucher, which must describe the firm
transportation capacity of the project to which the voucher is
applicable. The description is necessary for the subsequent
provisions, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH summarized the provision seems to say that anybody
except the producers can get a voucher.
MR. BULLOCK explained that subsection (b) says what the value of
the voucher is. It's issued by the commissioners and entitles
the holder to the resource inducements. The resource
inducements, the same as the other resource inducements not
related to the voucher, apply only to the gas that's shipped
through the firm capacity. The voucher may be transferred to a
gas producer that has a binding obligation to sell gas to the
person transferring the voucher. That limits the group of people
that can receive the transferred voucher. That section is
referred to later in the amendment, he added.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked how the value of voucher is determined.
MR. BULLOCK answered it's the value of the inducements. The
voucher basically says it gives the right to the resource
inducements to the voucher that can flow to a producer.
Otherwise a producer could only get the inducements if they were
among the group that committed during the initial binding open
season.
SENATOR McGUIRE asked who she would buy a voucher from and how
the price would be set.
MR. BULLOCK said first you would need to be planning to buy gas
from a producer. If you didn't commit to shipping capacity
during initial binding open season, then you would need to find
somebody that did commit and already has a voucher. As far as
price is concerned, you'd identify the value of the inducements
and that would pretty much determine the value.
5:19:59 PM
MR. BULLOCK explained that subsection (c) addresses the producer
once the voucher is in hand. At that point they're entitled to
claim the inducements for the gas that's shipped through that
firm capacity. The producer is able to claim the inducements
until the purchase agreement is terminated or the expiration of
the inducements by operation of law. It's written such that the
earlier of the two options would be the date of termination.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if "by operation of law" on the last line of
the amendment would include a decision on the constitutionality
of one of the inducements by the supreme court.
MR. BULLOCK replied the constitutionality issue relates to how
long the inducement would continue on the tax issue. If nothing
happens the law says it'll be 10 years, but if it is terminated
earlier then the certificate and the voucher would terminate
earlier.
CHAIR FRENCH noted that everyone was nodding in agreement.
MS. DAVIS added that was the purpose of using "by operation of
law" because many things could happen and obviously it only has
the potency of the inherent power of the state so the power of
the law is what controls the ultimate duration.
CHAIR FRENCH said he wanted to make it clear because it could
only happen by passage of a statute, but that might happen
subsequent to a decision by the supreme court.
MR. BULLOCK agreed adding that the statute says 10 years after
commercial operation commences. The inducement goes away if
nothing happens after 10 years.
5:22:13 PM
MR. BULLOCK explained that the last part of the amendment
applies to the assignment section. It says that the rules of the
assignment apply except as provided in subsection (b). It says
that between the person that has the voucher and the gas
producer from which the person with the voucher is going to buy
their gas, subsection (b) in 43.90.330 and the first part of the
amendment applies. If he is transferring the voucher he holds to
Senator McGuire under her scenario, then the assignment
provisions on page 25, line 31 would apply to that transfer, he
said. It's like a transfer between buyers as opposed to a
transfer between a buyer and a producer.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the administration supports the
amendment.
MS. DAVIS responded the administration very much supports the
amendment.
CHAIR FRENCH withdrew his objection. Finding no further
objection, he announced that Amendment 17 carries.
Recess from 5:24:04 PM to 5:31:06 PM.
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the meeting and asked Senator
Wielechowski his intention on Amendment 8.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI stated that he would not reintroduce
Amendment 8 because the issue had been largely addressed in a
prior amendment.
CHAIR FRENCH moved Amendment 18 and objected for discussion
purposes.
Amendment 18
Page 25, lines 8-9:
Delete (B) a statutory change or a change in
regulations relating to royalties or taxes after the
effective date of this section; or
Insert (B) the state's exercise of its right to
modify royalties as authorized by law in effect on the
effective date of this section; or
5:32:13 PM
MS. DAVIS explained that the administration had identified two
items it didn't want included as preferential tax or royalty
treatment. The first is what's listed in subparagraph (A), which
is the state's existing right to resolve disputes regarding
royalties and taxes. Those need to be settled but we did not
want a royalty settlement or a tax settlement agreement
interpreted as a preferential act, she said. Likewise,
subparagraph (B), which relates to the current statutes that
authorize DNR to change the royalty rates for lessees under
specific conditions were not intended to be interpreted as a
preferential royalty treatment for a competing project. When the
language was originally written it was less than clear so Mr.
Bullock wrote subparagraph (B). That is a clearer and narrower
statement of the intent with respect DNR's ability to modify
royalties, she said.
MR. BULLOCK, responding to a question from Chair French, said it
sounds reasonable.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection. Finding no further
objection, he announced that Amendment 18 carries.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Senator Wielechowski to present the final
matter, which was subsequently identified as Amendment 19.
5:34:42 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved the following:
Amendment 19
Page 3, lines 17-20 following "this chapter":
Delete ", but the commissioners shall adopt
regulations that provide administrative procedures for
a protest and appeal relating to the solicitation of
applications and award of a license that are
substantially similar to the procedures in AS
36.30.550-36.30.699."
Insert "."
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that the language is no longer
necessary because a provision had been added that says that by
filing an application there is a waiver.
5:35:55 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE asked for further clarification because she had
interpreted it as being at a different point in the process. She
didn't disagree that the language on lines 18-19 "and award of a
license" needed to be removed. And she also didn't disagree that
there might be confusion between this and the waiver provision.
However, she assumed that the administration intended this
language to be in and applicable to a separate point in the
process-that being the process by which you're soliciting
applications as opposed to after you've solicited them and then
ask for a waiver of rights. She said she supports the amendment
she just wants a wrap up on that thought process.
5:36:51 PM
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said she correctly articulated the
administration's rationalization, but it got into the bill when
a previous committee added paragraph 16. We're comfortable
relying upon that provision as opposed to this one, he said.
SENATOR McGUIRE accepted the explanation.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if the administration supports the amendment.
COMMISSIONER GALVIN said yes.
CHAIR FRENCH removed his objection. Finding no further
objection, he announced that Amendment 19 carries.
CHAIR FRENCH stated that the bill is back before the committee.
Finding no further amendments, he asked for a motion.
5:38:00 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE moved CSSB 104, Version O as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note(s).
CHAIR FRENCH announced that without objection CSSB 104(JUD)
moves from committee.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 5:38:36 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|