Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
03/22/2013 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing | |
| SB59 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 2013
3:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Fred Dyson, Vice Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Anna Fairclough
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING:
Big Game Commercial Services Board
Gene Peltola - Bethel
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
SENATE BILL NO. 59
"An Act relating to approval for oil and gas or gas only
exploration and development in a geographical area; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 59 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6(RES)
Relating to legacy wells and legacy well sites; urging the
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, to open new areas of the National Petroleum Reserve
- Alaska for environmentally responsible oil and gas
development; and requesting the Office of the Governor to
increase nationwide awareness about legacy wells and well sites.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 59
SHORT TITLE: OIL & GAS EXPLORATION/DEVELOPMENT AREAS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/19/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/13 (S) TTP, RES, FIN
02/26/13 (S) TTP AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
02/26/13 (S) Heard & Held
02/26/13 (S) MINUTE(TTP)
03/05/13 (S) TTP AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/05/13 (S) Moved SB 59 Out of Committee
03/05/13 (S) MINUTE(TTP)
03/06/13 (S) TTP RPT 2DP 1NR
03/06/13 (S) DP: MICCICHE, MCGUIRE
03/06/13 (S) NR: GARDNER
03/15/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/15/13 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/13 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/20/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/20/13 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/22/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
GENE PELTOLA, SR., nominee
Big Game Commercial Services Board
Bethel, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on his qualifications and desire
to serve on the Big Game Commercial Services Board.
JOE BALASH, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about SB 59.
REBECCA KRUSE, Attorney
Civil Division
Oil, Gas & Mining Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered legal questions about SB 59.
WENDY WOOLF, Office Assistant
Division of Oil and Gas
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about how the process in
SB 59 would apply.
ASHLEY BROWN, Attorney
Civil Division
Oil, Gas & Mining Section
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on legal issues in SB 59.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:35:40 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:35 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Dyson, Micciche, French, and Chair Giessel.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Big Game Commercial Services Board
3:36:36 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the confirmation hearing of Mr. Peltola
for the Big Game Commercial Services Board to be the first order
of business. She asked why he wants to serve on the board and
what qualifications he had to offer for the job.
3:37:08 PM
GENE PELTOLA, SR., nominee, Big Game Commercial Services Board,
Bethel, Alaska, said he has had an interest in hunting, fishing
and trapping all his life. His knowledge and experience could be
an asset to the board.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if he had attended any of the Big Game
Commercial Services Board meetings.
MR. PELTOLA answered no.
SENATOR FRENCH asked how he would resolve conflicts when there
is a fair amount of evidence on both sides of an issue.
MR. PELTOLA said he would look at all the information and listen
to comments and then make an educated determination.
SENATOR FRENCH said sometimes Mr. Peltola would feel different
than other board members and asked him if he would hold firm in
those instances.
MR. PELTOLA said he would hold to his conclusions.
3:40:06 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if he was aware that the board was
considering implementing a guide concession area.
MR. PELTOLA said he felt strongly about preservation of the
resource foremost and didn't really have a concern.
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked him for calling in today.
MR. PELTOLA disclosed that he was related to Senator Hoffman and
Representative Herron.
3:41:51 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if anyone wanted to testify on Mr. Peltola;
finding no one she closed public testimony and announced that
his name would be forwarded to the full body. She said this does
not reflect intent of any of the members to vote for or against
the confirmation of this individual during any further sessions.
3:42:41 PM
At ease from 3:42 to 3:43 p.m.
SB 59-OIL & GAS EXPLORATION/DEVELOPMENT AREAS
3:43:42 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced SB 59 to be up for consideration.
JOE BALASH, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), Juneau, Alaska, said the department was glad the
committee could take its time with SB 59 and wait for testimony
and letters of support and opposition, one in particular from
the North Slope Borough. He said they had gone to great lengths
to work with the borough in a cooperative way and had been
meeting regularly with the mayor and her staff as the process
they seek to undertake is one that is going to be beneficial to
the local residents as well as the department and the wider
stakeholder network of interests.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if he had reviewed testimony from March 19,
2013 by Ms. Weissler for SB 59.
MR. BALASH answered that he had.
SENATOR FRENCH asked him to go through her points, because Ms.
Weissler is an attorney who used to work in the DNR and has an
extensive background in permitting.
3:46:12 PM
MR. BALASH said he would be able to speak generally about the
points.
SENATOR FRENCH said her first point was that a pending Supreme
Court decision, Commissioner Sullivan, DNR, versus Red Oil, the
Gwich'in Steering Committee, could affect the implementation of
this bill.
MR. BALASH responded that he didn't mean to be flip, but if DNR
waited for any and all litigation to be resolved before taking
action, they would be waiting a long time.
SENATOR FRENCH said he agreed with that general philosophy, but
he thought whether this case would overturn or impinge on some
aspect of the bill was a fair question.
MR. BALASH said he didn't disagree, but the issues are fairly
narrow with regard to the best interest finding for a leasing
decision, but he was talking about the subsequent stages of
activity: the exploration and development stages.
He was aware of the issues raised in the Red Oil litigation and
his understanding was that they were briefed, arguments were
held, and they are just waiting for a decision from the court -
but they don't know when to expect that. Some of the attorneys
from the Department of Law who were working on it, Becky Kruse
for one, were on line and they could comment on that.
3:48:22 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if Ms. Kruse heard the question.
REBECCA KRUSE, Attorney, Civil Division, Oil, Gas & Mining
Section, Department of Law (DOL), Anchorage, Alaska, explained
that the Red Oil decision deals with the substance of the
decision that occurs at various phases of development and this
bill doesn't deal with that; it just deals with how large of an
area is being looked at a time. So the outcome of the Red Oil
decision should not affect this bill.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Mr. Balash if he agreed with the second
sentence of point B:
DNR testified that they may decide there are
sufficient site specific public interest concerns
regarding a particular exploration or development
project to warrant providing for public notice and
comment on a project plan of operations. There is no
provision in the proposed statute to allow for such
public notice and comment in areas covered by a
general approval and no criteria to define the
circumstances under which such notice should occur.
MR. BALASH said he was familiar with Ms. Weissler's previous
written testimony, but there were some new points that he hadn't
seen and so he would asked if Wendy Woolf could comment. He
noted that the process they would undertake to develop the
program involves first a set of regulations governing how these
decisions will be made and language on page 1, line 11, in AS
35.05.945(b) describes the public notice and comment
opportunities. He said he was at a loss as to how to answer
somebody who was calling him a liar.
3:51:29 PM
SENATOR FRENCH responded that he didn't call Mr. Balash a liar,
but he just wanted to know if he agreed with Ms. Weissler
assertion that there is no provision in the proposed statute to
allow for such public notice and comment in areas covered by a
general approval.
MR. BALASH went back again to the words that started on line 9:
When authorizing exploration and development of this
subsection, the department will provide public notice
and the opportunity to comment using the methods
described in [AS]38.05.945(b) and (c).
SENATOR FRENCH asked if that would fall under the heading of a
"general approval."
MR. BALASH responded that his understanding and expectation was
that each of the specific decisions that get made -
authorizations made through this mechanism - will have to spell
out where they apply, when they apply, and under what
conditions.
3:53:35 PM
WENDY WOOLF, Office Assistant, Division of Oil and Gas,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Juneau, Alaska, explained
that she thought the comments meant that once they had done an
area-wide approval for a phase, there is nothing in this statute
that would require a site specific approval should they choose
to. This statute is a discretionary tool the department will
use; it also is not a general approval. When a site specific
plan comes in the department still has to approve the plan, but
they don't have to do the public notice if the plan that is
submitted meets all the criteria, parameters, mitigation
measures, and everything that is in place that has gone through
a public review process. If a plan were to come through that
didn't meet those criteria they would need to go out with a
public notice and all of those kinds of procedural activities
would be defined in regulation so that the public and the
operators would be very clear on how the process would be
implemented.
3:54:06 PM
SENATOR FRENCH said he wanted to know whether the department
agreed with the second paragraph of Ms. Weissler's subsection 4
that says:
With the elimination of public comment on plans of
operation as proposed by SB 59, it's possible that no
DNR project permit will be subject to public review
and comment.
MR. BALASH answered that the tool they were requesting in SB 59
in many ways is one that will take the specific concerns of a
given community into account in either the exploration stage or
the development stage, or both. Once that decision has been made
on the given stage of development, what would remain is - so
long as the site specific plan submitted to the department
complies with the terms and stipulations contained in the
decision that was publically noticed that did have an
opportunity for public comment - then the department would have
the ability to go ahead and approve that site specific plan
without further comment period. That would be a decision by the
department that is subject to appeal. But the scenario where
something happens that nobody knows about - there has to be a
decision that has been noticed and an opportunity for comment.
He noted that when asked how often the department even receives
comment on some of these decisions and site specific plans, he
responds that by and large they don't get comments at all. In
some ways they are trying to make this decision making process
more meaningful on the front end of the development activity
rather than in a situation that gets controversial in the midst
of development that requires conditions or changes to a given
project that costs not only time but also money - to rework a
particular project in a way that will address local concerns
that would be raised in that kind of a setting.
3:57:32 PM
MS. WOOLF expanded that there is no statutory or regulatory
requirement for the department to do a public notice for an
individual plan of operations, but it has just been their
practice. More important, it has been their practice because in
the past there used to be statutes and regulations in place that
dealt with that sort of thing and so their projects tended to
have more public notice and review because of other statutes and
regulations. She said there is a requirement to do a notice at
the beginning of an exploration phase or development phase.
3:58:30 PM
SENATOR BISHOP joined the committee.
SENATOR FRENCH asked how many permits receive no comments,
adding that he thought it would help alleviate their concerns
about restricting public comment if they knew that the vast
majority never get a single one.
MS. WOOLF answered that she didn't have the number but would get
it to him.
SENATOR MICCICHE asked if the appeals and the ability to comment
and the notice were unchanged.
MS. WOOLF deferred to the Department of Law.
4:00:15 PM
ASHLEY BROWN, Attorney, Civil Division, Oil, Gas & Mining
Section, Department of Law (DOL), Anchorage, Alaska, Attorney,
Civil Division, Oil, Gas & Mining Section, Department of Law
(DOL), Anchorage, Alaska, stated that currently there is no
statutory or regulatory requirement to notice an individual plan
of operations and this bill does not change that.
SENATOR MICCICHE pointed out a statement at the beginning of
section 4 in the letter that demonstrated "a little emotion." It
says the way things are going Alaska is going to be forced to
rely on federal and permitting processes to have their say on
oil and gas activities that impact their communities. And SB 59
doesn't change how Alaskans have their say.
4:02:23 PM
MR. BALASH highlighted that in exercising the discretion
outlined in the bill and looking at these geographic areas for
decision making, some common sense has to be applied to the
scope of a given area that gets set and the communities
involved. In reality this tool would be applied when considering
onshore exploration in the winter time on the North Slope,
Nuiksut being the community most impacted. Specific care and
thought will need to be given to the community needs and
activities that are undertaken there. Shifting gears to
exploration in the Cook Inlet area will have to take into
account a whole different set of things and that's going to be
true onshore and offshore, southern Kenai Peninsula, northern
Kenai Peninsula, west side Cook Inlet, east side Cook Inlet;
those are all things that they rely on the professionals in the
division to take into account and consider in making good
decisions.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he didn't remember why there is a fiscal
note, since they are delivering efficiency. Was it for the
initial efforts that are required to revise the program?
4:04:47 PM
MR. BALASH said yes; there is one-time funding for a position
and contractual services to outline the regulations that will
govern this process.
SENATOR MICCICHE said ultimately the goal is to streamline the
process and save money for the department and the applicants.
MR. BALASH said they absolutely believe that. If a resource play
presents itself and proves to be viable economically in Alaska -
the shale resource - that will require an intensity of
development that has not been seen before in Alaska and it will
be done on a lease by lease basis. Shale resources don't lend
themselves to unitization. So, this kind of tool will be very
helpful if that kind of an opportunity is in fact economic and
part of our future.
CHAIR GIESSEL found no further questions.
4:06:32 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to report SB 59 from committee with attached
fiscal notes and individual recommendations.
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that, without objection, SB 59 moved
from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
Finding no further business to come before the committee Chair
Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 4:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 6 ver. A.pdf |
SRES 3/22/2013 3:30:00 PM |
|
| HJR 6 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
SRES 3/22/2013 3:30:00 PM |
|
| HJR 6 LAA Fiscal Note.pdf |
SRES 3/22/2013 3:30:00 PM |
|
| HJR 6 Petroleum News on Legacy Wells.pdf |
SRES 3/22/2013 3:30:00 PM |
|
| HJR 6 Support Letter RDC.pdf |
SRES 3/22/2013 3:30:00 PM |
|
| HJR 6 BLM Cribley HRES Testimony 02272013.pdf |
SRES 3/22/2013 3:30:00 PM |
|
| HJR 6 Foerster presentation20130322.pdf |
SRES 3/22/2013 3:30:00 PM |
|
| SB 59 Opp Letter Wilderness Soc. 2013.03.20.pdf |
SRES 3/22/2013 3:30:00 PM |
SB 59 |
| Gov. Appt Gene Peltola Big Game Comm. Svcs Board.pdf |
SRES 3/22/2013 3:30:00 PM |
Gov. Appointment to Big Game Commercial Services Board |