Legislature(2011 - 2012)BUTROVICH 205
04/13/2011 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB185 | |
| HJR21 | |
| HJR23 | |
| HCR9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 185 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 13, 2011
3:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Joe Paskvan, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Hollis French
Senator Gary Stevens
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 185(RES)
"An Act relating to an exemption from authorizations that may be
required by the Department of Environmental Conservation for the
firing or other use of munitions on active ranges."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Urging the Secretary of the United States Department of the
Interior to withdraw a secretarial order that creates a wild
land classification and to administer federal lands in the state
in accordance with existing statutes and agency guidelines; and
urging the United States Congress to prohibit the use of
appropriated funds by the United States Department of the
Interior and the Bureau of Land Management to implement,
administer, or enforce the secretarial order.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 23 am
Urging the United States Congress to classify hydroelectric
power as a renewable and alternative energy source.
-HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Establishing in the Alaska State Legislature the Alaska Working
Group on Interstate Energy Production.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 185
SHORT TITLE: EXEMPT DISCHARGES FROM USE OF MUNITIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) T.WILSON
03/10/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/11 (H) RES
03/18/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/18/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/18/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/28/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/28/11 (H) Moved CSHB 185(RES) Out of Committee
03/28/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/11 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) 7DP 1NR
03/29/11 (H) DP: FOSTER, MUNOZ, P.WILSON, HERRON,
DICK, FEIGE, SEATON
03/29/11 (H) NR: GARDNER
04/01/11 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/01/11 (H) VERSION: CSHB 185(RES)
04/04/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/11 (S) RES
04/13/11 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HJR 21
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSING FEDERAL WILD LAND DESIGNATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FEIGE
03/10/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/11 (H) RES
03/21/11 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/21/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/21/11 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/23/11 (H) RES RPT 7DP
03/23/11 (H) DP: MUNOZ, GARDNER, DICK, HERRON,
P.WILSON, SEATON, FEIGE
04/01/11 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/01/11 (H) VERSION: HJR 21
04/04/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/11 (S) RES
04/13/11 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HJR 23
SHORT TITLE: HYDROELECTRIC POWER; RENEWABLE ENERGY
SPONSOR(s): ENERGY
03/16/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/11 (H) ENE
03/22/11 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
03/22/11 (H) Heard & Held
03/22/11 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
03/24/11 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
03/24/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/24/11 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
03/25/11 (H) ENE RPT 4DP 2NR
03/25/11 (H) DP: LYNN, SADDLER, PRUITT, FOSTER
03/25/11 (H) NR: TUCK, PETERSEN
04/06/11 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/06/11 (H) VERSION: HJR 23 AM
04/07/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/07/11 (S) RES
04/13/11 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: HCR 9
SHORT TITLE: STATE ENERGY PRODUCTION WORKING GROUP
SPONSOR(s): ENERGY
03/16/11 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/11 (H) ENE, FIN
03/22/11 (H) ENE AT 3:00 PM BARNES 124
03/22/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
03/22/11 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
03/23/11 (H) ENE RPT 5DP 1AM
03/23/11 (H) DP: TUCK, LYNN, SADDLER, PRUITT, FOSTER
03/23/11 (H) AM: PETERSEN
04/05/11 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/05/11 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/05/11 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
04/06/11 (H) FIN RPT 8DP 3NR
04/06/11 (H) DP: GUTTENBERG, FAIRCLOUGH, T.WILSON,
JOULE, COSTELLO, EDGMON, STOLTZE,
THOMAS
04/06/11 (H) NR: DOOGAN, GARA, HAWKER
04/08/11 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
04/08/11 (H) VERSION: HCR 9
04/11/11 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/11/11 (S) RES
04/13/11 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 185.
MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS H. KATKUS, Commissioner
Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA);
Adjutant General for the State of Alaska
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 185.
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA)
Fort Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 185.
LYNN KENT, Director
Water Division
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 185 will ensure that the
state program implemented under the Clean Water Act remains
consistent with the Act over time.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 185.
KEVIN WARD, Counsel
U.S. Army
Northern Regional Environmental Office
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 185
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of HJR 21.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 23 and HCR 9.
HAP SYMMONDS, Chair
Board of Directors
Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Cordova, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 23.
DIRK CRAFT, Staff
Representative Lance Pruitt; House Special Committee on Energy
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HCR 9 on behalf of the sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:36:33 PM
CO-CHAIR JOE PASKVAN called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:36 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators French, Stedman, Stevens, Wielechowski,
McGuire, and Paskvan.
HB 185-EXEMPT DISCHARGES FROM USE OF MUNITIONS
3:38:10 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN announced HB 185 to be up for consideration.
[CSHB 185(RES) 27-LS0506\X was before the committee.]
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, sponsor of HB 185, highlighted the
important technical changes that House Resources committee
substitute made to the original bill. On page 2, lines 19-20,
the phrase "or service" was added to clarify that the U.S. Coast
Guard is to be included in the provision. Also, the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act was referenced differently, but the
content was unchanged.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON explained that in 2008, the State of
Alaska sought Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval of
its Clean Water Act program. The exclusion for active military
ranges under Title 46 was amended so as to exclude the firing or
other use of munitions in training activities conducted on
active ranges, including those operated by the Department of
Defense or military agencies unless it results in a discharge
into U.S. waters. She pointed out that HB 185 was vetted by the
EPA, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
the Department of Defense, and the Alaska Department of Military
& Veterans Affairs (DMVA). AS 46.03.100(e)(7) clarifies that
military exercises on ranges are not restricted other than
instances where the Federal Water Pollution Control Act ("Clean
Water Act") would apply. This, she stated, reduces potential
litigation in trying to interpret waters within the U.S.
3:41:16 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked if the list in AS 46.03.100(e)(1)-(7)
describes instances for which a state water discharge permit is
not needed.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said that is correct.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if getting a state permit for firing
munitions only became an issue once the state assumed primacy
for water permits.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON said that is correct.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN clarified that version X was before the
committee.
MAJOR GENERAL THOMAS H. KATKUS, Commissioner, Department of
Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA) and Adjutant General for the
State of Alaska, stated that HB 185 is another step to show
support for the presence of the military in Alaska. The bill
attempts to clarify and offset potential challenges and double
permitting related to the development of ranges in Alaska. It is
not an effort to reduce constraints or lessen standards that
would in any way adversely affect the Alaska environment. HB 185
would not in any way reduce Alaska's primacy in how it
determines quality.
MCHUGH PIERRE, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military &
Veterans Affairs (DMVA) added that HB 185 is part of the overall
effort and intent to enhance the open working relationship with
the military and to keep the current military industrial complex
here in Alaska. He offered his understanding that the 2008
legislation changed that intent and potentially added to
bureaucracy associated with growing every sector of the business
world.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN thanked Commissioner Katkus for meeting earlier
to discuss the issue of state primacy. He noted that according
to the House Journal, the intent of the 2008 amendment was "an
essential component of the state's effort to receive primacy
from the Environmental Protection Agency." He said he wanted to
make sure that HB 185 didn't have unintended consequences that
would lessen the state's ability to regulate as necessary.
3:46:22 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that the debate in 2008 was that
the state really wanted primacy and this legislation appears to
back away from that and say, in this case, the state really
didn't want primacy. He asked Commissioner Katkus to talk about
levels of munitions and types of chemicals that would be used in
the ordnances.
COMMISSIONER KATKUS replied he couldn't talk to the types of
chemical compounds or the components, but the rounds would be
the current technology employed on the battlefield. This
includes everything from small arms munitions to artillery
rounds for aerial gunnery ranges to bombing ranges.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that over the years there have been
situations at Fort Richardson and Eagle River Flats in
particular where thousands of waterfowl died, and the probable
cause was chemicals from explosive ordnances. He said he
therefore wanted to make sure that this legislation in no way
lowers standards and increases the ability to put dangerous
substances into the water or air.
COMMISSIONER KATKUS replied the military has become a better
steward of the environment every year and is now almost a
renowned gold standard for environmental protection. He offered
his understanding that the white phosphorus issue on the Eagle
River Flats was a long-term problem that was not recognized
until waterfowl numbers began to drop. But once the problem was
identified, the military was quick to address and fix the
problem. He reiterated that HB 185 is not an effort to reduce
[water or air quality] standards. It's in everyone's best
interest to maintain and continue to meet those high standards.
He suggested that the DEC representative could specifically
address the white phosphorus issue on the impact area for Fort
Richardson.
3:49:15 PM
LYNN KENT, Director, Water Division, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), said she couldn't speak to the remediation
efforts at Eagle River Flats, but she could say that the bill
does not represent DEC backing off on primacy for its Clean
Water Act permitting program. What the bill does is ensure that
the state program implemented under the Clean Water Act remains
consistent with the Act over time.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if Alaska law was similar to the
federal Clean Water Act and if she could describe any
differences.
MS. KENT explained that in order for a state to have primacy to
implement a permitting program under the federal Clean Water
Act, the state program has to be as stringent as the federal
program. Thus, the Alaska program virtually mirrors the federal
Clean Water Act program, she said.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that when the debate on primacy took
place several years ago, one big concern was that the federal
government wasn't hearing cases quick enough. He asked if DEC
continued to have that concern.
MS. KENT replied there certainly has been delay in EPA review
and approval of water quality standards upon which DEC bases
permits, but that problem is nationwide and not specific to
Alaska.
SENATOR FRENCH asked who will be issuing permits to the U.S.
military for firing ranges under the bill.
MS. KENT replied the permitting authority has been delegated to
DEC if the use of the firing range requires a permit under the
Clean Water Act.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if the federal Clean Water Act will require
a permit for the ranges that are under consideration here. He
understands the range outside of Fairbanks is the primary
consideration.
MS. KENT explained that DEC is taking on the permitting
authority in phases and taking on munitions permitting is
scheduled for October 2011. She wasn't familiar with the range
he referenced, but DEC will be responsible for issuing a permit
for any facility that requires one under the Clean Water Act.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if DEC will be enforcing federal law,
which set the minimum standards.
MS. KENT answered yes.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked what process the state will follow if
this law passes and the state's interests weren't parallel with
the federal minimum standards.
MS. KENT replied this law, as proposed, will not interfere with
DEC meeting the minimum requirements under the Clean Water Act.
The bill will make sure that the state is consistent with the
Clean Water Act.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked how DEC would engage in the process under
the proposed law if the State of Alaska were to advance
standards that were higher than the federal minimum.
3:54:58 PM
MS. KENT said the Clean Water Act requires state programs to be
at least as stringent as the federal program and the provision
under consideration in HB 185 is neither more nor less stringent
than the Clean Water Act requires.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if the State of Alaska can determine that
its interests are such that greater protection would be
warranted.
MS. KENT replied the state can have a more stringent program
than is required by the federal Clean Water Act, but the bill
doesn't propose that at present.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if the state could impose more stringent
requirements than the federal requirements if this bill were to
pass.
MS. KENT replied HB 185 would not prevent the Legislature from
imposing more stringent requirements in the future.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if DEC could issue a permit if it wasn't
allowed under the federal government system.
MS. KENT answered no and added that the state already regulates
discharges that are not covered by the Clean Water Act. For
example, DEC has a program that regulates discharges to the land
surface and to ground water, neither of which is required by the
Clean Water Act.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if she was comfortable that the state
would remain primary with respect to the standards that will be
applied in the state.
MS. KENT answered yes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed confusion; his understanding of
the reason for the bill was so the military could bypass DEC and
instead go directly to the federal government for these permits.
He asked if this was incorrect.
MS. KENT replied she could understand the confusion if the bill
is considered by itself, but other statutes give DEC the
authority (and it has received approval) to implement the
federal program. HB 185 does not change the fact that the
military will have to both seek the application and get the
permit from DEC.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned the need for the bill.
MS. KENT responded DEC's perspective is that the proposed
language change makes the state's program consistent with the
Clean Water Act right now and as it may change in the future.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if she had learned anything that might
cause her to change her statement since she wrote to
Representative Paul Seaton and Representative Eric Feige on
March 21, 2011 stating:
CSHB 185 would only require the state to issue a
permit if it is required to do so under the CWA. It is
a subtle, but important change that will retain the
state policy to exempt ranges from permitting
requirements for munitions discharges to the land and
for discharges to waters that are not required to have
a permit under the CWA.
MS. KENT replied that's still accurate; the language in
subsection (e) has exemptions for a number of operations that do
not need a state permit. In 2008 DEC asked for an amendment to
AS 46.03.100 to make the statute consistent with the Clean Water
Act, which requires a permit for certain munitions discharges.
It was necessary for DEC to have the authority to issue those
permits under the terms of the Clean Water Act in order to have
primacy for the state program. It's been long-standing state
policy that munitions use and a few other things are exempt from
state permitting requirements and it was necessary to rectify
that in order to receive primacy to implement the permitting
program. HB 185 basically clarifies the language.
4:01:22 PM
SENATOR FRENCH said he too labored under a misconception, but he
now understands that the purpose of the bill is to retain
primacy and maintain the long-standing exemption for munitions
ranges. He added that it is his belief that if the bill were to
pass the military would not need a permit in order to conduct
training exercises in many areas of Alaska ranges.
MS. KENT reiterated that DEC has the permitting authority even
though the Clean Water Act is referenced.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked what DEC's original concerns were with
the law that was passed in 2008.
MS. KENT replied the changes were proposed by the Department of
Defense to clarify that when a permit is required under the
federal Clean Water Act, one will also be required under the
state permitting program.
4:03:25 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, speaking via teleconference,
introduced himself and said he was available to answer
questions.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if he followed the discussion on state
primacy and the state's ability to issue a standard that is
different than the federal minimum standard.
MR. BULLARD said yes.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked him to offer his thoughts.
MR. BULLARD said he didn't have thoughts on the primacy issue,
but was available to answer specific questions.
SENATOR FRENCH reviewed the proposed new language and asked if
he had reviewed 33 U.S.C. 1251-1376 of the Clean Water Act.
MR. BULLARD answered yes.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if anything in those federal statutes will
require issuance of a permit before firing or use of munitions
in training activities conducted on active ranges.
MR. BULLARD said the definition of "waters of the U.S." found in
regulation in 18 AAC 83.990(77) is the same as the definition
under the Clean Water Act. He offered his belief that changing
the language to read, "the discharge into waters regulated under
33 U.S.C." would clarify that the waters and the discharge into
the waters is the concern, not the firing or other use of
munitions. As the law stands now, his understanding is that what
would be regulated would be the same.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if he means without the passage of HB 185.
MR. BULLARD explained that the definition of the term "waters of
the U.S." is the same right now under both the Clean Water Act
and state regulations. However, it's very possible that the two
definitions will differ in the future.
4:07:06 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked, when he refers to the Clean Water
Act, if he is referring to the federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
MR. BULLARD answered yes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked Mr. Bullard to explain what the bill
does.
MR. BULLARD replied the effects and purpose of the legislation
were not clear to him.
4:08:31 PM
KEVIN WARD, Counsel, U.S. Army, Northern Regional Environmental
Office, stated support for HB 185 and advised that the
legislation was a collaborative effort between DEC, DMVA, the
Alaska Military Force Advocacy and Structure Team (AMFAST), and
the Office of the Attorney General. He said the bottom line is
that the proposed amendment provides that the Alaska Clean Water
Act would apply to military ranges only if otherwise required by
the federal Clean Water Act. The military believes this is
necessary. He explained that when DEC sought U.S. EPA approval
of its Clean Water Act program, EPA said the blanket exemption
needed to be changed and in 2008 the Legislature changed the
statute to its current form.
As previously noted, he said, the current statute provides an
exemption for military and other ranges unless there is a
discharge into waters of the U.S. The difficulty for the
military is that the phrase "waters of the United States" is the
subject of numerous ongoing debates and discussions as to its
meaning and scope, including a recent U.S. Supreme Court
decision. In addition, there may be an inconsistency between the
state Act and the federal Act if the federal law changes and the
state law continues to use the phrase "discharge into waters of
the United States" for purposes of determining whether a permit
is required for a military range.
MR. WARD stated that the question of whether or not a permit
would be required of a military or other range is not determined
by HB 185. What the bill does is provide comfort to the
Department of Defense that the issue will be decided pursuant to
and in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act. This will
give the military consistency in Alaska and other states as to
whether or not it needs to have permits for its ranges. He
emphasized that the bill does not affect primacy or EPA approval
of the state program, it does not decide whether a permit is or
is not required and if a permit is required it will not affect
what standards Alaska could impose pursuant to its Clean Water
Act program. The only thing the bill does is to say that whether
a permit is or is not required will be determined in accordance
with the federal Clean Water Act.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if the State of Alaska could require a
permit for a higher standard than under the current federal
process.
MR. WARD answered the state could ask the military to ask for
such a permit under existing law or pursuant to HB 185. Whether
or not that permit would be required under current statute would
be whether waters were discharged into U.S. waters.
4:14:22 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if Alaska's laws will be primary if there
is inconsistency between the state and federal acts.
MR. WARD replied, under HB 185, the question of whether or not a
permit is required would be determined in accordance with an
interpretation of the federal act.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked what the interpretation of the federal
law would be if there was an inconsistency and the state wanted
to require a permit.
MR. WARD replied that issue has been discussed and remains
unresolved with regard to military ranges.
4:16:03 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if the ultimate conclusion could be that
the state's voice in that process could potentially be
eliminated.
MR. WARD said no; Alaska's voice cannot be eliminated because it
retains primacy and would still be the permitting authority. He
offered the opinion that Alaska could assert whatever position
it deemed appropriate under the circumstances and seek to
require a permit.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked if he was using the word "primacy" in the
sense of the issuing agency being a state agency as opposed to a
federal agency.
MR. WARD replied he was using the term in the manner the Chair
summarized.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how current Alaska law and the
federal Clean Water Act differ with respect to "discharge into
waters of the United States.
MR. WARD explained that the phrase "waters of the United States"
is used in the federal Clean Water Act and the interpretations
of that phrase are not always consistent. The U.S. Supreme Court
examined the issue and came up with three different opinions.
The debate often involves whether or not a particular water body
is a water of the United States. The fact that there's an
ongoing debate as to what the phrase means is one reason the
military supports removing the phrase from the statute and
replacing it with the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act."
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN announced he would hold HB 185 in committee.
HJR 21-OPPOSING FEDERAL WILD LAND DESIGNATION
4:20:09 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN announced the consideration of HJR 21
4:20:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE, prime sponsor of HJR 21, stated that
this resolution opposes the creation of de facto wilderness in
the state without congressional oversight. On December 22, 2010,
U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar issued Secretarial
Order (S.O.) Number 3310 directing the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) to inventory and designate land with wilderness
characteristics as "wild lands," a new classification for which
there is no legal definition. He offered his belief that S.O.
No. 3310 may go so far as to seek wilderness status in an area
that is critical to the economies of Alaska and the nation, the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA).
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE asserted that S.O. No. 3310 is in conflict
with and superseded by both the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (ANCSA) and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (ANILCA) because it is only Congress that has the authority
to designate wilderness areas. Furthermore, S.O. No. 3310
directly conflicts with the "no more" clauses in ANILCA and the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE highlighted that several states have gone
on record opposing S.O. No. 3310 including Governor Parnell who
sent Secretary Salazar a letter outlining Alaska's concerns. HJR
21 urges the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw S.O. 3310 and
to direct the BLM to administer federal land in Alaska in
accordance with existing statutes and agency guidelines. If S.O.
No. 3310 is not withdrawn, HJR 21 asks Congress to prohibit the
use of appropriated funds by the Department of Interior to
implement, administer, or enforce S.O. No. 3310.
SENATOR FRENCH asked for help understanding the difference
between "wild lands" and "wilderness."
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE replied "wild lands" doesn't have a
definition and "wilderness" has a legal definition.
SENATOR FRENCH asked what S.O. No. 3310 says about wild lands.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE answered it establishes wild lands as a new
designation.
4:24:52 PM
SENATOR FRENCH directed attention to the "whereas" clause on
page 2, lines [8-10], that states "Secretary Salazar failed to
recognize that the policy expressed in the order will negatively
affect the state's cultural resources and economic prosperity;"
and asked if S.O. No. 3310 didn't make specific reference to
cultural resources.
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE replied he wasn't sure.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked Representative Feige if he was concerned
that the wild land designation may impact NPRA or the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE replied the concern centers on the fact
that no one knows exactly what that designation will mean.
Because of the uncertainty, the fear is that it will lead to
more wilderness designation and accompanying development
restrictions within the state.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN closed public testimony and announced he would
hold HJR 21 in committee.
HJR 23-HYDROELECTRIC POWER; RENEWABLE ENERGY
4:27:48 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN announced the consideration of HJR 23. [HJR 23
am was before the committee].
4:27:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT, sponsor of HJR 23, informed the
committee that HJR 23 urges Congress to classify hydroelectric
(hydro) power as a renewable [and alternative energy source].
Hydro power is the largest source of renewable energy in both
Alaska and the U.S., and has long been a vital aspect of the
energy solution. He advised that the U.S. has used targeted tax
incentives to spur investment and innovation in the energy
sector, both for fossil and renewable resources. In fact,
investment and production tax credits for renewable energy have
been highly successful.
The concern is that hydro power receives only one-half the tax
credits available to other renewable energy sources. Equalizing
the tax credits will give Alaskans the opportunity to replace a
large portion of the non-renewable power generation in the
state. For the most part, this tends to be diesel.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT told the committee that Alaska has about
50 hydropower projects, ranging in size from 126 megawatts to 7
kilowatts. They provide approximately 24 percent of Alaska's
electric power. He pointed out that 32 projects in Southeast are
either under construction or on the drawing board and more than
200 locations statewide have been identified as potential
hydropower sites.
He summarized that HJR 23 asks Congress to incentivize the
further production of hydroelectric power through both federal
programs and tax incentives. He noted that the resolution
dovetails with Senator Lisa Murkowski's recently introduced
federal legislation on the topic.
4:31:48 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this is the same resolution that
Representative Thomas introduced a couple of years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT replied it is modeled on previous
legislation.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if anyone paid attention to the previous
resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said Congress didn't take action, but then
Senator Lisa Murkowski hadn't introduced legislation either.
This is an effort to show support for her and the legislation
she recently introduced.
4:33:17 PM
HAP SYMMONDS, Chair, Board of Directors, Cordova Electric
Cooperative, Inc., stated support for HJR 23. Responding to
Senator Stedman's question, he explained that HJR 23 was amended
on the House floor to ask Congress to classify Alaska
hydroelectric power as renewable, whereas the resolution that
Representative Thomas introduced asked for all hydroelectric
power to be classified as renewable. HJR 23 specifically targets
Alaska hydropower. He further explained that Senator Lisa
Murkowski had three bills before the Senate right now; SB 629
gives grants for environmental analysis and mitigation, SB 630
makes grant money available for building new hydro projects, and
SB 631 ensures that generation of hydroelectric power is treated
as a renewable resource for purposes of any federal program or
standard. He urged the committee to send HJR 23 to Congress
without delay.
SENATOR MCGUIRE said she's always wondered if resolutions go
into the circular file and she recalled that U.S. Senator Lisa
Murkowski spoke to that question more than once when they served
together in the other body. In light of this, she urged
Representative Pruitt to make the resolution as effective as
possible, including testifying in person during hearings in
Washington D.C.
She referred to page 1, line 15, of the resolution and asked if
he had considered inserting the renewable energy goal the state
set for itself as matter of policy. Developing the hydroelectric
potential in the state is a critical part of attaining that
goal. She offered to help develop the language.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said he was open to any suggestions that
would decrease the likelihood of the resolution being put in the
circular file.
4:39:08 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN closed public testimony and told Representative
Pruitt he looked forward to working on the resolution with him.
He announced he would hold HJR 23 in committee.
HCR 9-STATE ENERGY PRODUCTION WORKING GROUP
4:39:58 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN announced the consideration of HCR 9.
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT introduced HCR 9 on behalf of the
House Special Committee on Energy saying that the resolution
seeks to establish a working group within the Alaska State
Legislature to work with other producing states on matters of
energy production.
DIRK CRAFT, Staff to Representative Pruitt and the House Special
Committee on Energy, explained that the goal of the working
group is to develop a proposal for an inter-legislature
agreement to facilitate collaboration in efforts to influence
federal energy-related law and policy and to discourage delay or
cancelation of economically viable energy projects in Alaska and
other states. The intent is to discuss issues of mutual concern,
share information, and identify areas for possible
collaboration.
He directed attention to page 2, line 10, and noted the
resolution states that the working group shall consist of four
members, two of which will be appointed by the President of the
Senate and two appointed by the Speaker of the House. On page 2,
line 14, the resolution states that the working group can meet
during and between regular legislative sessions and members may
travel to meetings, subject to approval by the presiding officer
of each body. On page 2, line 20, the resolution states that the
working group will terminate on January [18], 2013. On page 2,
line 22, the resolution directs that the working group shall
issue a report by January 17, 2012, and allow for additional
reports as the group sees fit.
4:42:20 PM
MR. CRAFT explained that this working group will be a little
different than others but the resolution is modeled after
legislation in other states. He said the majority leader from
the Wyoming State Legislature brought it to the sponsor's
attention that these issues were discussed during the Western
States Energy and Environment Symposium that was held in Wyoming
in 2009. Feedback from that symposium indicated that consumer
states dominated that discussion and had different missions for
resource development and extraction than states that align with
Alaska. Hopefully, he said, this working group will be more
specific for developing one voice to lead the discussion on a
national scale.
SENATOR STEDMAN observed that this appears to potentially
duplicate a lot of Energy Council efforts. He explained that
Energy Council is a group of energy-producing states, provinces,
Venezuela, and potentially Mexico; he didn't recall that Wyoming
was a member. The group meets four times a year on energy issues
and to help with the federal energy policy. The upcoming meeting
will be in Anchorage and one meeting is held every year in
Washington D.C. during which time the Alaska State Legislature
virtually pauses. He reiterated his belief that this will be a
duplication of effort.
4:45:09 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE suggested the sponsor take time to respond to
Senator Stedman to explain the need for the proposed working
group and how it differs from both the Energy Council and the
Pacific NorthWest Economic Region (PNWER). She said that when
she participated in the Wyoming project, her understanding was
that instead of the Venezuela model, the focus was on states and
how individual states could be a part of bringing energy
independence to the U.S.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said this group provides a unique
opportunity to focus solely on energy production within U.S.
states and what is being done at the federal level. By contrast,
the Energy Council consists of producing states within the U.S.
as well as provinces in Canada, the country of Venezuela, and
potentially Mexico. The proposed working group will limit the
discussion so that states can focus on specific issues with the
federal government. Wyoming and Utah have passed similar
resolutions and several other states are in the process of
proposing legislation.
4:48:39 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN clarified that Mexico isn't currently an Energy
Council member and Venezuela seldom attends the meetings. The
discussion from energy-producing states and provinces at Energy
Council relates to state and provincial issues and cross-border
relationships. He observed that some of the states that are
interested in the proposed working group are energy-consuming
states rather than energy-producing states, and stated his
belief that Alaska is better off working with producing states.
SENATOR STEDMAN pointed out that a lot of time is spent on
federal issues during Energy Council meetings. Federal agencies
are brought in at virtually every meeting and of course
provincial agencies are brought in when the meetings are in
Canada. This is appropriate because the oil and gas relationship
between the two countries runs very deep. Canada is probably the
U.S.'s largest trading partner in both gas and oil so it's not
possible to have a U.S. energy policy without working with
Canada and vice versa.
4:50:54 PM
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN asked what purpose the 2013 termination date
serves.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT replied the idea is to lay the foundation
for initial discussions with other states. The sunset limits the
state's involvement should the initial discussion prove to be
unsatisfactory. If the discussions are satisfactory the group
can decide if it wants to participate on a long-term basis.
SENATOR FRENCH noted that the enabling legislation from Utah
ensured that the group of four would have political diversity by
directing that no more than three of the four members shall be
from the same political party. He asked the sponsor if he would
entertain the idea of inserting a similar provision.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT replied he decided to leave the
appointments to the discretion of the leaders of the House and
Senate because he didn't want any hint that he was calling their
integrity into question.
4:53:39 PM
SENATOR FRENCH referred to the "whereas" clause on page 1, lines
13-16, and asked for an example in the energy arena of federal
law and federal law enforcement overreaching the federal
government's constitutional authority.
MR. CRAFT cited the Colville Bridge in Prudhoe Bay as a
potential example.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if he was suggesting that the federal
government doesn't have the constitutional authority to make a
decision about a bridge.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT responded the "wild lands" designation
that HJR 23 addresses is an example of the federal government
pushing the limit. That executive branch decision disregards the
legislative branch and is arguably unconstitutional.
SENATOR FRENCH pointed out that neither Wyoming nor Utah felt
the urge to claim that the federal government was acting
unconstitutionally when they passed their enabling legislation.
4:55:53 PM
SENATOR STEVENS highlighted that Alaska spends a lot of money to
belong to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL),
the Council of State Governments (CSG) and the Energy Council
when many states are cutting back and trying to decide which
organizations are most valuable. He asked if the proposed
working group would duplicate those efforts and potentially need
staff and perhaps see the need to impose membership dues.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT answered that is not his intent. There
will potentially be costs and some travel, but probably not for
staff. The costs wouldn't be anywhere near as much as for some
of the previously mentioned memberships.
4:57:48 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned how the group would travel and
pay for costs in light of the fact that the House Finance
Committee zeroed out the initial $20,000 fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said the House Finance Committee zeroed
the fiscal note after it determined that the costs and travel
fell within the cost of doing business day-to-day in the
Legislature.
CO-CHAIR PASKVAN announced he would hold HCR 9 in committee.
4:59:27 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Paskvan adjourned the Senate Resources Standing
Committee at 4:59 pm.