01/26/2005 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB32 | |
| SJR2 | |
| SB69 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 26, 2005
3:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Thomas Wagoner, Chair
Senator Ralph Seekins, Vice Chair
Senator Ben Stevens
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Kim Elton
Senator Gretchen Guess
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 32
"An Act permitting grants to certain regulated public utilities
for water quality enhancement projects and water supply and
wastewater systems."
MOVED CSSB 32(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Urging the United States Congress to pass legislation to open
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
Alaska, to oil and gas exploration, development, and production.
MOVED SJR 2 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 69
"An Act making special appropriations to promote the opening of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration
and development; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 32
SHORT TITLE: WATER/SEWER/WASTE GRANTS TO UTILITIES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THERRIAULT
01/11/05 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 12/30/04
01/11/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/05 (S) RES, FIN
01/26/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SJR 2
SHORT TITLE: ENDORSING ANWR LEASING
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
01/11/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/11/05 (S) RES
01/26/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 69
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: GRANT TO ARCTIC POWER FOR ANWR
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
01/21/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/21/05 (S) RES, FIN
01/26/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Gene Therriault
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 32.
Commissioner Jim Strandberg
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
701 W Eighth Ave Ste 300
Anchorage, AK 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 32.
Ms. Kara Moriarty, President and CEO
Fairbanks Greater Chamber of Commerce
Fairbanks, AK 99707
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 32.
Ms. Mary Jackson
Staff to Senator Wagoner
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SJR 2 and SB 69 for the
sponsor.
Ms. Debbie Miller
Fairbanks AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SJR 2 and SB 69.
Mr. Fran Mauer
Fairbanks AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SJR 2 and SB 69.
Ms. Luci Beach, Executive Director
Gwichen Steering Committee
Fairbanks AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposes SJR 2 and SB 69.
Mr. Al Adams, former Alaska State Senator
Volunteer, Arctic Power
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SJR 2.
Mr. Mike Navarre
Arctic Power Board
Fairbanks AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 69.
Mr. Joe Mathis
Montana Creek Campground
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 69.
Mr. Matt Fagnani
NANA Development Corporation
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supports SB 69.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:37:50 PM. Present were Senators
Elton, Dyson, Ben Stevens, Stedman and Chair Wagoner. The first
order of business to come before the committee was SB 32.
SB 32-WATER/SEWER/WASTE GRANTS TO UTILITIES
SENATOR THERRIAULT, sponsor of SB 32, said it was introduced to
correct a problem that manifested itself with the sale of the
Fairbanks Municipal Water System.
He said The State of Alaska provides a water system grant
program specifically to keep water utility rates affordable and
explained:
The program is authorized through AS 46.03.030 and
available funds are accessible through grant
applications. However, because of changing patterns of
ownership, not all state regulated public utilities
under the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) are
now eligible for those state grants. The Fairbanks
water utility became ineligible to apply for these
grants when it was sold to a private entity. SB 32
amends current law to accommodate the growing trend of
publicly regulated, privately-owned, utility systems
while remaining consistent with the law's original
intent of keeping safe water affordable to the public.
With the changes to AS 46.03.030 made in SB 32, all
public utilities subject to the burdens and associated
costs imposed by the state RCA regulations will now be
eligible to apply for grants as currently established
under AS 46.03.
3:39:13 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS arrived.
3:39:24 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT iterated that the Fairbanks water utility
sale into private ownership made the City of Fairbanks
ineligible to apply for the grants.
The policy question for us as legislators is if the
federal government makes money available to assure
that the broadest number of people possible have a
safe and affordable source of drinking water, then
should the ownership structure of the utility
determine whether the people can apply for those
grants or not. My contention to you is that the
ownership structure shouldn't automatically make that
group of citizens in the State of Alaska ineligible.
3:40:15 PM
I know there is some question with regard to 'Well, if
a privately held entity is able to seek a grant, get a
grant, expand facilities or update equipment, should
that private entity be able to enrich the pocketbooks
of its owners through the future sale of the entity,
then, to somebody else?' But the way that the rate
structure looks, RCA would not allow a rate that would
allow a new owner to recoup the cost of buying that
transparent asset. So, when a grant is given and the
money is invested into the system that is placed on
the books as a transparent asset. If the utility is
then sold to somebody else, the buyer is only going to
pay a price that he can then charge a rate to recoup
his money. If RCA does not allow you to charge a rate
for that part of the infrastructure that was put in
place through a grant, then the owner's not going to
pay that price. He is only going to pay for that
portion of the assets that he can actually charge a
rate for to recoup his purchase prices.
SENATOR THERRIAULT noted correspondence from Nan Thompson,
former RCA chairperson, that supported his statement.
CHAIR WAGONER asked how that would be tracked.
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied that he wasn't sure. Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) might be able to answer how
utilities indicate equity ownership on the books.
3:42:54 PM
He said an inadvertent problem with the wording was created for
the City of Ketchikan and that proposed Amendment 1 addresses
it.
3:43:12 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if there was an accounting when the
Fairbanks utilities were sold to a private entity that said it
couldn't sell the assets that were granted to it.
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied that he didn't know, but the rate the
purchasing entity applied for couldn't include repayment for any
money it used to buy the grant portion of the asset.
SENATOR SEEKINS mused, "So, if it goes from public to private,
they couldn't do it. So, we can assume that going from private
to public they couldn't, as well."
3:44:44 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied he understands that as ownership of
transparent assets float along, no one can put together a rate
that recoups money for infrastructure that has been paid for by
a grant.
3:45:07 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS responded that the grants are for the benefit of
the end users, the citizens of the state. He asked if Power
Equalization Program funds are channeled through private
utilities for the benefit of the end user.
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied that he didn't know how those grants
work.
SENATOR SEEKINS said it appears to him that the intent is to try
to lower the cost for the end user whether it is a public or a
private utility.
3:45:47 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN offered Amendment 1.
24-LS0290\A.1
Craver
3/3/05
A M E N D M E N T
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR THERRIAULT
TO: SB 32
Page 1, line 1:
Delete "regulated"
Page 2, line 17, following "if":
Insert "(1)"
Page 2, line 18, following "AS 42.05":
Insert "; or
(2) the utility is owned and operated by a
political subdivision of the state that is a municipality"
He explained that it doesn't modify the ability that
municipalities currently have from entering this program, but
keeps the playing field level by including private utilities
that were once public and then sold into the private sector.
3:47:19 PM
SENATOR ELTON objected to ask more about the Ketchikan
situation. He also asked if deleting "regulated" from the title
expanded the pool of potential applicants for the grant program.
3:48:06 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN responded that Ketchikan is included with other
municipalities that have enterprise funds. This bill would allow
a lot more communities to become eligible to apply for grants.
He thought Juneau has an enterprise fund for its utilities.
3:48:53 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he understands that the problem comes up
with the word "regulated" and asked if that meant just
regulation by the RCA. Ketchikan is regulated by its own
separate public utility board. He didn't intend for it to be
precluded and this legislation clarifies that.
3:49:40 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked if deleting "regulated" expands the pool of
new applicants who want access to the grant funds.
3:50:20 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied yes, the group that requests
regulation could expand, but this amendment was structured to
specifically take care of those entities that have their own
public utility board. Presently there are 23 water and
wastewater utilities in the state. That number could go up to
170, but he didn't expect that many real small utilities would
apply.
3:51:28 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked if adopting Amendment 1 would change the
fiscal note.
3:51:53 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied that Amendment 1 doesn't solve the
department's potential fiscal problem of having a flood of new
grant applications. He was willing to work with the
administration to control the fiscal impact.
3:52:34 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked how much money has been available through
the grant program over the years?
3:53:02 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied that the FY'06 budget appropriates
$11 million to the grant program. The bill doesn't guarantee
qualification for the funds, but it allows entities to turn in
an application, to have it scored and be evaluated with all
other applicants.
3:53:28 PM
SENATOR ELTON said the pie doesn't increase, but "You're going
to cut it into more slices is the likely result."
SENATOR THERRIAULT agreed that was correct.
3:53:59 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked if there was further discussion on Amendment
1. There were no further objections and Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:54:14 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked if there might be unintended consequences by
having one utility that serves multiple areas getting a
different reimbursement rate than if it was getting a grant for
one of its specific areas - in reference to language on page 2,
line 4.
3:54:53 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he didn't think a grant application
could be put in for a specific area - neither could he think of
a utility that would fall into the category of serving separate
and distinct areas.
3:55:07 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked if there was a reason language on page 1,
line 13, refers to municipalities and public utilities, but on
page 2, lines 4-11 "municipalities with" is deleted so that
language refers only to utilities. She was wondering if
"municipality or" should be deleted in (e) to be consistent with
language on page 2.
SENATOR THERRIAULT explained that language "municipality with"
means any ownership that was non-municipal would be excluded.
3:56:43 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS moved CSSB 32(RES) from committee with attached
fiscal notes and individual recommendations.
SENATOR ELTON objected to note that the city manager of
Petersburg, who has some experience with the program, opposes
the bill. He would be more comfortable with some kind of
communication from the Alaska Municipal League (AML) or a group
that recognizes organized municipalities on what the net effect
may be for them. He especially thought about the potential
diminishment of grants - their number and size - that may occur
across the board.
3:58:12 PM
CHAIR WAGONER responded that he discussed that letter with
Senator Therriault, but not with Senator Stedman, who represents
Petersburg. He pointed out that this bill goes to the Finance
Committee next and Senator Stedman has a seat on that committee.
The question could be asked there.
3:58:41 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT commented that he understands Petersburg's
concerns, which are twofold. One is whether a private entity
could make a profit at the state's expense by having access to
these grants; but the RCA has assured the Legislature it would
not allow a rate for an entity to repay itself for something
that was constructed using grant fund money.
The second issue is more entities will potentially be in the
pool to compete for the same size pie. He is proposing to just
go back to the kind of participants that existed a few years
ago. He feels if government money (mostly federal) is available
to make a safe and affordable source of drinking water, the
ownership structure shouldn't preclude some people from
qualifying and some not.
4:00:53 PM
CHAIR WAGONER recognized that James Keen, RCA, was on line to
answer questions.
4:01:06 PM
SENATOR ELTON said he understands adding the Fairbanks utility
back, but the fiscal note says there are 193 other potential
applicants. "Did they have access to the grant fund in the
past?"
4:01:38 PM
SENATOR THERRIAULT answered that the total pool of applicants
would be larger under the new structure. However, he seriously
questioned whether every small trailer park would want to live
under RCA regulation on the off-chance that it might get a
grant.
4:02:19 PM
SENATOR ELTON said he didn't have the comfort level to support
the bill at this point.
4:02:56 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said that the fiscal note would come under
scrutiny in the Finance Committee and the AML would have time to
have some input. He thought it would be impossible for entities
to profiteer off of the grants.
4:03:32 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked how transactions are accounted for and how
that cost would be avoided being passed on to the user of the
utility system at a future date.
4:04:27 PM
COMMISSIONER JIM STRANDBERG, RCA, replied sale of a utility is a
commercial agreement between two entities. The regulators will
only allow the new owner to have a rate at a certain level based
on the depreciated book value of the infrastructure, less
contributions in AIDA construction. If the entity that purchased
the utility wanted it bad enough and paid a lot more than what
the book value was, that's its business. That would not be
allowed in the rate to be charged to the future ratepayer.
4:06:40 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS commented that he would vote for this bill
because it appears that people from 96 additional utilities,
public or private, will benefit without discrimination in
getting public funding for safe water. If the goal is to get
safe water to as many people in Alaska as possible, that's a
good public purpose.
4:07:46 PM
MS. KARA MORIARTY, President and CEO, Fairbanks Greater Chamber
of Commerce, supported SB 32 and the concept that all utilities
should be on the same playing field and be eligible to receive
state grant funds.
Currently, the only utilities that are eligible for
the grants are publicly owned and are primarily used
for infrastructure development and upgrades. Based on
regulations set forward by the Regulatory Commission
of Alaska, the shareholders and privately owned
utilities cannot generate a return on investment or
receive depreciation expense credits for any grant
funds they receive. Because of those regulations, the
only beneficiaries, then, of a privately-owned utility
to receive these grants would be the ratepayers, the
citizens of a community.
All utilities in Fairbanks are either owned privately
or by a cooperative. In essence, Fairbanks businesses
and residents are at a disadvantage compared to other
Alaska residents. One of the first questions we often
field at the Chamber from perspective businesses that
want to locate to Fairbanks or even those businesses
that are here and want to expand, is what is the cost
of doing business and utility costs are certainly a
major component of a business's operating costs....
She concluded by urging the committee to allow privately owned
utilities to be eligible for grants like other utilities across
the state.
4:10:53 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS renewed his motion to pass CSSB 32(RES) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
note. Senators Stedman, Stevens, Dyson, Seekins and Chair
Wagoner voted yea; and Senator Elton voted nay. CSSB 32(RES)
moved from committee.
4:11:53 PM - 4:13:56 PM Recess
SJR 2-ENDORSING ANWR LEASING
CHAIR WAGONER announced SJR 2 to be up for consideration.
MS. MARY JACKSON, Staff to Senator Wagoner, said SJR 2 has a
companion bill in the House adding that opening ANWR has been
discussed for many years. She held up a commemorative metal
sculpture indicating support for ANWR opening this year.
4:15:56 PM
MS. DEBBIE MILLER, Fairbanks resident, said she has explored and
written about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and
even helped conduct a wilderness assessment of the 1002 area in
the 1980s. She said it is scenic and the wildlife values are
extraordinary. It is the only area in Alaska that is protected
for its wildlife while there is already a lot of oil development
in the central Arctic region and in the National Petroleum
Reserve Alaska (NPRA). "We have no business going into this
conservation area.... It was not established for oil and gas
development."
4:17:45 PM
MS. MILLER proposed amending line 6 by inserting "or not permit"
after "to permit" further oil and gas exploration.
4:18:43 PM
She also suggested inserting "some" before "residents" of the
North Slope Borough support development on page 1, line 14,
because some do not support development. The entire Gwichen
Nation is against opening up the Arctic Refuge for development.
Nearly half of Alaskans and Americans oppose it. The state
should not promote development on federally protected wildlife
refuges because "They were not set aside for that purpose."
Since 1964, there has been no new oil and gas drilling or
leasing on any wildlife refuge in the country.
4:20:55 PM
On page 2, she urged the committee to delete lines 1 - 4,
because they are not accurate. The estimated 3.2 billion barrels
of economically recoverable oil in the Arctic Refuge would not
significantly reduce our nations future need for imported oil or
increase oil or security.
4:21:46 PM
MS. MILLER suggested deleting "giant" on page 2, line 16,
because the United States Geological Survey (USGS) ruled out the
possibility of any super giant fields in the Arctic Refuge.
4:22:25 PM
Finally, she suggested deleting "2,000 to 7,000 acres" from line
23 saying that Congressman Don Young introduced a bill (HR 39)
that states 200,000 acres would be up for lease. She surmised
that the infrastructure would not be limited to just 2,000 to
7,000 acres and that pipelines would be all over the place.
4:23:54 PM
MR. FRAN MAUER, Fairbanks resident, said he worked for 24 years
as a wildlife biologist on ANWR and opposed SJR 2 or any effort
to open that area to drilling and development. He thinks it is
inappropriate for any state to pursue development that would
jeopardize the integrity of a national conservation area.
4:25:16 PM
He pointed out the inaccuracy in lines 27 through 29 where it
says that oil and gas activities can be conducted safely and
without adversely affecting the environment or wildlife
population saying, "This is largely not true."
The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for leasing in
the 1002 area found a strong probability that development would
have major effects on caribou, polar bears, musk ox, wilderness
and subsistence.
4:26:10 PM
MR. MAUER also said that page 2, lines 30 through 32, say the
state will ensure the continued health of Porcupine Caribou herd
and that is not true. Concentrations of calving caribou have
been displaced during the calving season in the Prudhoe Bay
area. Fortunately, those caribou have a broader coastal plain
that accommodates their displacement. The Porcupine herd in the
Arctic Refuge has five times as many caribou using one-fifth as
much area for calving. The consequences of displacement are far
greater.
4:27:33 PM
MS. LUCI BEACH, Executive Director, Gwichen Steering Committee,
opposed SJR 2. She also objected to language on page 2, line 30,
saying that protection of the herd and land is not possible. The
Coastal Plain is known as the Sacred Place Where Life Begins.
She explained that the Central Arctic Caribou herd has a range
of 100 miles from the Beaufort Sea to the foothills of the
Brooks Range, so it has some place to go. The Porcupine Caribou
herd has only a 40-mile range up to the foothills of the Brooks
Range and that's where predators live.
4:30:22 PM
MR. AL ADAMS, former Alaska State Senator, said he represents
Arctic Power that advocates opening ANWR. It would bring jobs to
Alaskans and energy for Americans.
People need to understand as far as the land is
concerned there is about 18.5 million acres of land in
ANWR. We do not want to touch 8 million acres of
wilderness or the 9 million acres of the Refuge. The
only area we're talking about is the 1.5 million acres
that is designated right here for oil and gas
development. You hear things that we're going to go
there and ruin the wilderness or the Refuge. You're
not touching any of those.... Basically, on that 1.5
million acres we will be touching areas 64% less than
Prudhoe Bay is. The footprint will be much smaller;
the technology for oil and gas development has
changed.... We're talking about maybe 2,000 acres in
this particular area.
You know, the oil operations of the North Slope is
probably the most regulated - efficient - and uses the
highest of technology....
We have caribou in the state of Alaska. We have over 1
million caribou. One of the largest western herds is
450,000 animals. The Porcupine herd is 129,000
animals. If you want to talk about polar bears,
there's 2,700 polar bear up in the district - bowheads
- over 9,000 animals up there. So, animals and
wildlife get along with that.
Somebody mentioned Prudhoe Bay. When we finally
finished that in 1979, we only had 3,000 animals
there. In Prudhoe Bay today - caribou - we have
32,000. So, the caribou with oil development is
flourishing.
MR. ADAMS said he understands the Gwichen Nation's concern about
caribou, but in 1984, it leased all of its land - 1.8 million
acres for $1.8 million. "Where was their concern in 1984 for
their caribou and the sacred land? We, the Alaskans, both
Inupiat people and Alaskans, would like to see that opened."
He said that 75% of Alaskans support the opening of ANWR; 78% of
Kaktovik supports it. He point out a small purple area on a map
of the area that indicates private land holdings of about 92,160
acres. He said development would bring money to the general fund
from royalties and bonuses; it will provide jobs in Alaska and
the U.S.
MR. ADAMS offered one amendment - to give the Native Village and
Kaktovik $50,000 a piece for one of the sections on their
property.
4:31:02 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked if the Gwichen lease was for oil and gas
exploration.
4:35:26 PM
MR. ADAMS replied yes. The consultant at the time was Donald R.
Wright. He offered to show the contract to the committee and
read the names of some people who signed it.
4:36:21 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked if the Arctic Slope Corporation is precluded
from development of oil or is the oil stranded.
4:36:41 PM
MR. ADAMS replied that under federal law, congressional approval
is needed before anything can be done in that section.
4:37:05 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked how close the Gwichens live to the 1002
area.
MR. ADAMS replied that they live approximately 150 miles away
from that particular area.
USGA estimates between 5.7 billion and 16 billion
barrels in that particular section. Remember when we
first estimated Prudhoe Bay? We estimated there would
only be 10 billion barrels coming from Prudhoe Bay and
as of last year we have already shipped through 14
billion. So, we estimate there's going to be a large
amount of oil in that particular section.
4:38:08 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if he is intimating there may be some
economic reason for the Gwichen people to keep the Inupiat lands
closed to oil exploration.
4:38:28 PM
MR.ADAMS replied no; each tribe has a right to its own opinion.
4:39:00 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to pass SJR 2 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached $0 fiscal note. Senators
Stevens, Dyson, Seekins, Stedman and Chair Wagoner voted yea;
and Senator Elton voted nay. SJR 2 moved from committee.
4:40:24 PM - 4:43:02 PM Recess
SB 69-APPROP: GRANT TO ARCTIC POWER FOR ANWR
CHAIR WAGONER announced SB 69 to be up for consideration.
MS. MARY JACKSON, staff to Senator Wagoner, sponsor of SB 69,
said that the House has a similar bill, HB 101, but the funding
was for $1.3 million. Funding in SB 69 is for $1.2 million; $1.1
million of which goes to Arctic Power. The remaining $100,000
goes to the Native Village of Kaktovik.
MS. JACKSON explained that Arctic Power is a private non-profit
entity that has been coordinating the effort on ANWR for many
years. Historically, the funding for promoting the opening of
ANWR is in the supplemental budget.
4:45:36 PM
MR. MIKE NAVARRE, Executive Board member, Arctic Power, urged
quick passage of SB 69. He said the opposition has tremendous
resources that it applies in many ways, like taking things out
of context and leaving out important information. Arctic Power
has done an extraordinary job of putting educational materials
together to help educate Congress, editorial boards, interest
groups and the general public.
4:46:56 PM
MR. NAVARRE said Arctic Power would like to coordinate with the
congressional delegation since they are the experts on the
ground regarding the efforts to be made. He said this can be
considered a long-term investment for the state and that some of
the members of Arctic Power have dropped out for a variety of
reasons, but not because they don't support it.
4:48:12 PM
He gave examples of the misinformation that has been propagated
- like the six months supply of gas.
It's ludicrous, but it continues to be used. In all of
their testimony, there is a failure to acknowledge the
Inupiat's from the village of Kaktovik that live
within the Refuge. They talk about the Gwichens who
live outside the Refuge, but not about the indigenous
people who live within the Refuge.... I believe that
we do oil development in Alaska better than any place
in the world and we need to carry that message to the
United States and to Congress....
He noted that regulations would be passed this year that would
need to be bird-dogged over the course; so, the lapse date is
appropriate.
4:49:59 PM
MR. JOE MATHIS, Montana Creek Campground in Anchorage, said he
is on the Arctic Power Board. He has personally traveled to ANWR
and agreed totally with Mr. Navarre's comments that SJR 2 needs
to have a speedy passage. He said that the Legislature should
look at its investment in Arctic Power as part of Alaska's long-
term fiscal plan.
4:51:49 PM
MR. MATT FAGNANI, NANA Development Corporation, said he has been
an active member of the Arctic Power Board of Directors since it
began. Each year it gets closer to meeting the goal of opening
the Coastal Plain to responsible oil and gas exploration. On the
expected lease sale, the state could earn $2 billion according
to a U.S. Department of Interior forecast. That represents a
222% return on investment, which would occur within 22 months
after signing of the bill. He said that Arctic Power's webpage
is receiving over 1 million hits a month. He thought it was
happening because of two constants - one is because President
Bush continues to make the opening of ANWR part of the solution
in addressing the nation's decline in oil. The second is Arctic
Power educating Congress and the public at large.
4:55:08 PM
MS. DEBBIE MILLER, testified again noting that all the people
who have testified in favor of Arctic Power are on its Board or
affiliated with it. She is a private citizen and thinks funding
Arctic Power is a misappropriation of state money and reiterated
that she would rather see alternative sources of energy
promoted.
4:57:54 PM
MR. FRAN MAUER opposed funding Arctic Power. Many other people
do not support Arctic Power. He said two of the major oil
companies that are active on the North Slope no longer support
Arctic Power and perhaps they know something that the state does
not. He thought Arctic Power funds would be better used by
investing them in alternative energy projects like wind
generators for remote villages.
4:59:10 PM
MS. LUCI BEACH, Executive Director, Gwichen Steering Committee,
also opposed SB 69. The Gwichen Nation has never opposed all
oil development, just some. Her suggestions for using Arctic
Power money to fund other worthwhile programs included
assistance to senior citizens who were adversely effected by
elimination of the Longevity Bonus Program, Village
Contamination Cleanup Fund, funding for Alaska Scholars Program
and funding to the University to enhance distance education so
remote site students can have better access.
5:02:07 PM
CHAIR WAGONER thanked her for her testimony and said that SB 69
would not be passed out of committee today.
5:02:36 PM
SENATOR ELTON requested having the annual Arctic Power reports
added to the committee's packets. Chair Wagoner acknowledged
that would happen. There being no further business to come
before the committee, he adjourned the meeting 5:03:07 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|