HB 306-STATE ENERGY POLICY  2:01:41 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the next order of business is HOUSE BILL NO. 306, "An Act declaring a state energy policy." [Before the committee was CSHB 306(ENE).] 2:03:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON noted that he and Representative Millett provided the history behind HB 306 on [3/8/10] and today's presentation will provide details of the bill itself. REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLETT, Alaska State Legislature, pointed out that the policy was drafted by both the resource development/consumer side and the conservation/environmental side. 2:04:44 PM CHRIS ROSE, Executive Director, Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP), began his PowerPoint presentation by noting that he was one of 15 stakeholders working with the House Special Committee on Energy from July through December 2009 to develop this state energy policy. To show the diversity of the people working on this issue, he listed the other members of the Stakeholder Advisory Panel [slide 2]: Gwen Holdman, Alaska Center for Energy & Power; Robert Venables, Southeast Conference; Scott Goldsmith, Institute of Social and Economic Research (ISER); Jason Brune, Resource Development Council, John Davies, Alaska Cold Climate Housing Research Center; Ralph Andersen, Bristol Bay Native Association; Bill Popp, Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (AEDC); Bob Pawlowski and Denali Daniels, Denali Commission; Caitlin Higgins, Alaska Conservation Alliance; Stacy Shubert, Municipality of Anchorage; Marilyn Leland, Alaska Power Authority; Meera Kohler, Alaska Village Electric Cooperative; Ron Miller, Energy Consultant; [and Kathy Wasserman, Alaska Municipal League (AMA)]. 2:06:24 PM MR. ROSE pointed out that most states have an energy policy, but Alaska does not [slide 3]. An energy policy is important for setting guidelines and sidebars on what goals Alaska wants to have for energy. The policy, as written, starts out with legislative intent language which is essentially five of the goals that the group decided, by consensus, could be included. The goals would be up to the legislature to promulgate. A part of the goals is recognizing that Alaska must first have a policy that sets a long-term vision to address its energy needs. The bill is also an attempt to align that policy with all the different units of government so that all of the units of government in the State of Alaska are working toward the same end. After the goals are set up, plans and projects can be implemented to reach those goals. MR. ROSE emphasized the hierarchy of what the stakeholder group saw as important [slide 4]. First is to establish an energy policy, second is to develop the strategic goals, third is to create the plan to achieve the goals, and fourth is to implement the projects. He noted there are currently a number of organizations and regions in the state that are all crafting energy plans. However, that planning is without the benefit of a statewide vision and HB 306 is the attempt to provide that statewide vision for everyone to work toward. 2:08:09 PM MR. ROSE said the guiding principle of the process the Stakeholder Advisory Panel worked on was that energy is the lifeblood of any economy - without energy security there is no economic security [slide 5]. The stakeholder group wanted to talk about energy as it applied to residential, commercial, and industrial users. Whether this should apply beyond electricity and heat to include transportation was discussed, and transportation is something the legislature may decide to include. The group also wanted a statement in the policy that anticipates what the group believes will be future reality. Some of that reality is that fossil fuel prices will continue to trend upward due to supply and demand and because there may be some kind of carbon regulation that will make it more expensive to use fossil fuels in the future. The group wanted to ensure this is taken into consideration as energy decisions are made and the state moves forward. MR. ROSE explained the starting point of this statewide policy was an energy policy that was put together by the Tri-Borough Commission, a commission established a few years ago by the mayors of the Kenai Peninsula and Matanuska-Susitna boroughs and the Municipality of Anchorage [slide 6]. Mr. Popp of AEDC staffed that effort for which the strategy included developing a policy first, and which is the same thing that is being said now for the state policy. When the effort with the House Special Committee on Energy was started last summer, the decision was made to not reinvent the wheel and to use elements of the Tri- Borough Commission energy policy as the starting point. 2:10:58 PM MR. ROSE stated that the fundamentals of the policy in HB 306, pages 2-3, Section 44.99.115, are to institute a comprehensive and coordinated approach of supporting energy efficiency and conservation [slide 7]. Everybody in the group agreed that investment in energy efficiency must happen first because it is always cheaper to save a unit of energy than to generate it. This investment would save the economy money and re-circulate those dollars in the state's economy rather than exporting them to purchase fuels. MR. ROSE said the second fundamental of the policy is to encourage economic development by promoting the development of both renewable and nonrenewable energy resources. One of the goals in the legislative intent language is that Alaska remains a leader in petroleum and natural gas production, as well as to become a leader in renewable energy development. Another fundamental is to support energy research, education, and workforce development, which are items addressed in HB 305 and SB 220, the House and Senate energy omnibus bills. Additionally, those bills would create an emerging energy technology fund. The last fundamental of the policy is to support coordination of governmental functions. Right now there are governmental functions on energy in many different departments around the state, but there is not necessarily any coordination on those. 2:12:40 PM MR. ROSE summarized that this diverse group of stakeholders, by consensus, agreed Alaska must have energy policy first, then have goals, plans, and projects in that descending order to get to where it is going [slide 8]. To provide an idea of how the consensus process worked, he explained that at one point the bill was about seven pages long because each stakeholder wanted to include his or her group's pet goal. However, a decision was made to tighten things up by agreeing on only a few goals that would be sent to the legislature for passage and use as a vision to coordinate the goals that the legislature might consider most important. 2:14:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT pointed out that this would be a statewide policy and the House Special Committee on Energy tasked the stakeholders group to make a policy that would overarch the entire state and apply to both rural and urban residents. It required a lot of compromise between stakeholders that have parallel lines, but much different philosophies on energy, to come up with a policy that serves a purpose in every corner of the state. She noted that the stakeholder group had long debates about many of the topics that are in the amendments she is aware will be proposed. 2:15:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the promotion of energy efficiency for transportation was intentionally omitted from the bill. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT responded yes, because one community's version of transportation may be much different than another's. For example, bicycles and public bus systems may be appropriate forms of transportation in Anchorage, but not in Dillingham or Aleganek. The group had a long discussion about there being no such thing as energy efficient airplanes and most of the transportation in rural Alaska is by airplane. The stakeholders wanted to be aware of the fundamental differences between rural and urban when it comes to transportation, and they were passionate about ensuring nothing be put in state policy that would negate a community or be unattainable by a community. 2:18:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON added that it can be seen from looking at the policy that the major themes are conservation, efficiency, economic development, education, and training. During committee discussions with the stakeholder group, it was felt that transportation might better serve as a subset of those major themes that would go into statute. There were a number of other items that could have also been included in the policy to provide more detail, and at one point this two-and-a-half-page bill ballooned to seven pages. It was felt that decisions needed to be made to make the bill short and concise with appropriate emphasis. The stakeholder group decided that transportation, and the unfunded mandate that might be carried with it, would be better served by the strategic work products that will follow once the policy is put in place. 2:20:20 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that, on an energy policy basis, it seems a large chunk of policy is being left out by omitting transportation. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON encouraged Representatives Edgmon and Millett to continue working on transportation issues. 2:22:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK related that the House Special Committee on Energy discussed not wanting to strap the state and ensuring that the overall energy policy is a fit for all communities. A big part of conservation, efficiency, and economic development is infrastructure, whether that is power, gas, or transportation infrastructure. He said he is a proponent of electromagnetic trains as one of the best ways of conserving and protecting the environment. He asked whether Representatives Edgmon and Millett see how potential transportation systems could be a part of building conservation, efficiency, and economic development in communities by having some fit-for-all direction to work towards, but not necessarily policy plans that would be implemented now. For example, building efficiency is included as an overall statement of goal, but it is not defined. 2:24:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON replied this is a policy call that committee members will likely want to consider as there is an amendment that speaks to this somewhat. He directed attention to page 2, lines 29-31, which state, "working to identify and assist with development of the most cost-effective, long-term sources of energy for each community statewide". He said his recollection of stakeholder discussion about including a transportation element in the policy is that there is room in this language for any community to develop its own transportation policy or plan. There was great concern that by putting it into the overall policy, some of the smaller communities could be disenfranchised. It is a policy call, and he and Representative Millett are simply reporting to members what the very diverse stakeholder group came up with. 2:25:50 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, in regard to the goals listed on page 1, lines 5-15, inquired whether action items with dates for reaching those goals were developed to act as measuring sticks. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT answered that that is exactly what was done. The group started out with these goals in the legislative intent; Alaska has already reached 24 percent of its electric generation from the renewable energy source of hydropower, so it has 26 percent to go. The House Special Committee on Energy debated whether to raise that renewable energy goal from 50 percent to 75 percent; however, she said she was comfortable with the goal of 50 percent, knowing that it was attainable. When applying for grants or loans from the state, these goals let folks know that this is a priority. 2:27:48 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted that under federal guidelines hydropower is not considered renewable. He asked whether hydropower is considered renewable by the State of Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT responded that hydropower is defined as renewable on page 2, line 22, as are hydrokinetic and tidal. The intent is to go around the federal government and continue considering hydropower as renewable energy. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, in response to Co-Chair Johnson, pointed out that nuclear energy is included under efficient development of nonrenewable resources on page 2, lines 26-28. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT added that nuclear energy was a point of contention with the stakeholder group, as was coal. She said she must give the conservation community credit for understanding that nuclear is a possibility and that coal is a necessary resource for serving as a bridge while Alaska moves forward to renewable and alternative energy sources. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON offered his belief that nuclear energy may be a viable alternative in the not-too-distant future. 2:30:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG observed that however a person feels about nuclear, it is appropriate for nuclear to be in the document as something to be considered under this broad policy. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he is a supporter of each community being able to determine on its own what it wants. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that his district includes the only nuclear-free city in Alaska and the only city that is currently working on a nuclear plant, those cities being Homer and Seward, respectively. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out his district has the only non-city that is a nuclear-free zone and there was once a plan to put a nuclear plant there. 2:31:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked where the sponsors think it would be most appropriate to insert something about encouraging energy efficiency for transportation. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT replied that transportation needs are included under the declaration of state energy policy on page 2. Lines 4-5 talk about taking a broad approach to transportation needs, but it is not specified in the body of the bill exactly what that means. She said she thinks the transportation portion is covered, and the bill was put together with the idea that transportation is included. She added that it is Representative Seaton's call on the policy, but she wanted to point out that the bill already addresses the transportation question in the declaration. 2:33:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON, in further response to Representative Seaton, said it seems to him the most appropriate location for a transportation amendment would be somewhere in Section 2 on page 2, should the committee decide to put transportation into the policy. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON offered his opinion that the intent language might be a more appropriate location than the statute itself. 2:36:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 26-LS1049\T.1, Kane, 2/18/10, and written as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 3, following line 2: Insert a new subparagraph to read: "(E) making available to affected communities residential solid fuel burning device change out programs that meet Environmental Protection Agency emission requirements and implement energy efficiency standards that conserve the use of the state's timber resources used in space heating;" CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG explained that his intention is not to persuade members to adopt the amendment, but to persuade members to do larger things. He said his community clearly needs to address emission standards through the more efficient burning of solid wood. He withdrew Amendment 1 in the spirit of the work done by the House Special Committee on Energy to remain focused on overall state energy policy, even though it would be more efficient for his community to have Amendment 1 in policy now. If members keep adding things on to this policy it would likely not survive by sheer weight. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN pointed out that wood pellet stoves are very efficient and pellets could be shipped to Western Alaska where fuel costs are very high. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said his point is that Amendment 1 is a specific program as compared with an overall energy policy. 2:39:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 26- LS1049\T.3, Kane, 3/5/10, and written as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 16: Delete the second occurrence of "and" Page 2, line 20, following "efficiency;": Insert "and (D) encouraging and empowering communities to adopt community-appropriate measures to reduce motor vehicle fuel use and other energy use, including measures encouraging the use of public transportation, if appropriate for the community;" CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes. 2:39:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK explained the House Special Committee on Energy discussed an amendment that would have assisted communities in developing public transportation options. However, the committee did not want the state to play such an in-depth role in communities and was unsure of the definition of assisting. In taking this amendment back for a re-draft, he wanted to ensure it met the criteria under the declaration of state energy policy. He further noted that Amendment 2 is not just about transportation within a community, but also transportation that would link communities in the most energy efficient ways. 2:43:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he supports the intent of the amendment, but it gives him pause because the diverse group of stakeholders felt it would be better to address this after the policy's adoption. The word empowering on line 6 carries more connotation than what the policy itself would want to carry, the amendment has more detail than the stakeholders envisioned for HB 306, and each community already has ability to adopt vehicle emission ordinances. The stakeholder group put a lot of effort into winnowing the policy down to a generic energy policy that addresses all the components of a resource development state. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON maintained his objection to Amendment 2. 2:45:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 as follows: Line 6: Delete "and empowering" Line 8, following "energy": Insert "transportation" Lines 8-9: Delete "including measures encouraging the use of public transportation, if appropriate for the community" Thus, lines 6-9 of Amendment 2 would read: (D) encouraging communities to adopt community- appropriate measures to reduce motor vehicle fuel use and other energy transportation use; CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes. 2:48:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired what "other energy transportation use" means. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded he wants the focus to specifically be on energy transportation uses and not all the energy uses that are out there. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he would recognize an amendment that adds something that cannot be read into the policy. The amendment is unnecessary because this can already be read inside the policy as currently written. 2:50:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether public transportation is included under "other energy transportation use". REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE OLSON commented that Amendment 2 would give one of the stakeholders another bite at the apple, so it would then be necessary to open it up to everyone. He will therefore vote no on the amendment even though he is not opposed to the intent. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether Amendment 2 was brought up in the House Special Committee on Energy. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT responded yes. While she understood the maker's intent, she said it is covered in the broad policy and is a second bite at the apple. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON maintained his objection. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK withdrew Amendment 2 and offered his appreciation for the hard work of the stakeholders. 2:52:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved Conceptual Amendment 3, written as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 27 move reference to "coal" to Page 2, line 28 after "nuclear energy," insert "and coal if utilized with carbon capture technology," Thus, page 2, lines 26-28, of CSHB 306(ENE) would read: (B) promoting the development, transport, and efficient use of nonrenewable energy resources, including natural gas, oil, gas hydrates, heavy oil, and nuclear energy, and coal if utilized with carbon capture technology, for use by Alaskans and for export; CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes. 2:53:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Co-Chair Johnson, explained that with carbon capture technology the carbon dioxide would be captured when the coal is burned. In further response, he agreed that it is a form of carbon sequestration. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN offered his belief that Alaska has a 300-year supply of coal and said he thinks the use of carbon capture technology is already covered under the current language. 2:55:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that the word "coal" should be deleted from line 27, not moved. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the intent is to move the reference to coal from line 27 to line 28. He added that the first "and" on line 28 should be deleted. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG recalled Representative Joule stating that one of his communities has coal nearby and use of that coal would be more efficient and affordable than flying in diesel. 2:56:53 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON maintained his objection, saying he fears that putting carbon capture technology into statute could result in a community being unable to use its coal even if that was the most efficient source of energy available to the community. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN objected to Conceptual Amendment 3 because much work is being done at the Healy plant. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON contended the amendment is not restrictive and is a policy that would encourage economic development by promoting development. He said he does not think the export of coal should be promoted without using clean coal technology or carbon capture technology. He clarified it is not his intent to close a generation facility. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton, Edgmon, and P. Wilson voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 3. Representatives Olson, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Neuman, and Johnson voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-5. 2:59:51 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to adopt Amendment 4, written as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 2, line 12, following "by" Delete lines 13, 14 Renumber section accordingly CO-CHAIR NEUMAN objected for discussion purposes. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON explained he does not want to codify the creation and establishing of efficiency codes for new and renovated residential, commercial, and public buildings because the codes might cause problems, increase costs, and stymie development. He is not prepared to have the administration develop energy efficiency codes until further down the line. 3:01:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON supported the state having efficiency codes because while living in Tok she saw houses that were just being thrown together. Given the state is currently paying to winterize [existing] homes, there should be some kind of a basis for new construction so the state is not paying for something that could have been done to begin with. Therefore, she said she would like to leave this provision in the bill. 3:02:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON agreed with Representative Wilson. He said this is a very important part of the overall policy, which is reflected in omnibus legislation that is making its way through both the House and Senate. He pointed out that there are over 1,000 public facility buildings in the state with each agency using a different energy efficiency code for its buildings. Energy efficiency is the best and quickest way to reduce the consumption of energy. The legislature has put almost $400 million into the weatherization program, with much of that designed to go after sub-standard private sector homes. Under HB 296 the governor is proposing to use $18 million of Alaska's $30 million in federal stimulus monies to allow for performance contracting for public facilities. Thus, including efficiency codes in the energy policy is only appropriate. 3:04:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG AHFC noted that the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC) already has codes for weatherization and energy efficiencies and is going to great length to ensure the money is being used to meet certain standards. Banks want codes so they know what they are loaning on. So, in many ways the state is already there. The bill does not say adopt codes, it just says establish energy efficiency codes. If the state does not establish codes for itself, someone else might, such as an insurance agency requiring that certain building standards be met before it will provide insurance. However, he added, codes should not apply to the cabin in the middle of the woods. 3:06:27 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN supported Amendment 4 for all the aforementioned reasons because he sees the word establishing as meaning it will become mandated building code statewide. Many people need to build their own home because there are no contractors in their area, codes would also increase the cost of construction. Promoting the most efficient way is hard to do because the most efficient fuel for a home, such as natural gas, may not be available in all areas of the state. He said his biggest issue is that this would mean state government is telling local governments and citizens what to do when it should instead be encouraged at the local level. The committee took an at-ease from 3:09 p.m. to 3:10 p.m. The meeting was recessed at 3:10 p.m. to a call of the chair. 6:02:03 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON called the meeting back to order at 6:02 p.m. Present at the call back to order were Representatives Seaton, P. Wilson, Edgmon, Tuck, and Johnson. Representatives Olson, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, and Neuman arrived as the meeting was in progress. Discussion resumed on Amendment 4. 6:02:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 4 as follows: page 2, re-insert lines 13 and 14; line 13 replace "establishing" with "encouraging". Thus, page 2, lines 13-14, would read: (A) encouraging statewide energy efficiency codes for new and renovated residential, commercial, and public buildings; REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON explained that encouraging would better fit the intent of the overall policy statement and would not be a mandate that requires something. 6:05:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK objected. He pointed out that the AHFC is currently using the 1998 international building code, and although that code has been updated the AHFC is still using the 1998 version. Should the AHFC ever be challenged, he feared that it would be required to use the revised international codes, which is something the State of Alaska would not like to do. It is important that Alaska have its own codes that meet its needs rather than an international code. Alaskans could use the state's code as a guideline even if it is not implemented. He related that the [Cold Climate Housing Research Center] in Fairbanks is looking for the best method of construction in Alaska and learning what does and does not work so the state can have proper codes to meet its needs. 6:07:02 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that establishing has a stronger meaning to it and is a mandate that could mean there will not be enough support for the policy. Encouraging accomplishes the same result by providing basically the same direction in that energy efficiency codes are coming Alaska's way, whether through the marketplace, federal designation, or lenders. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT added that the word encouraging better fits the document because the policy's recommendations were drafted to be guidelines, not mandates. She said she is comfortable with the amendment to the amendment and in continuing forward with the theme of the policy, which is encouraging the state to do certain things and one is to adopt some energy efficiency codes. 6:09:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that regardless of which word is used, no codes are being adopted by this bill. The AHFC is already doing quite a bit of this and there are already codes or guidelines. While encouraging is not quite as good to him as establishing, it is acceptable and will work for getting the policy through the legislature. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK withdrew his objection. He offered his appreciation for Representative Guttenberg's comments and said it will be up to local communities whether to adopt any codes that are established. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 4 was passed. There being no objection, Amendment 4, as amended, was passed. 6:11:02 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON withdrew Amendment 5 without offering it. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 6, written as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 3, line 3, Insert: "(E) promoting energy efficiency utilized for transportation" REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. The committee took an at-ease from 6:11 p.m. to 6:12 p.m. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG removed his objection. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected. 6:13:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained that the energy policy outlines what is wanted to take place throughout the state. Conceptual Amendment 6 would promote economic development by promoting energy efficiency utilized for transportation and, as suggested by Representatives Edgmon and Millett, would be inserted under Section 2 which promotes economic development. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT stated the amendment is a good compromise for putting in transportation without mandating anything and she does not think it would alienate any of the rural communities. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he is fine with the amendment and noted it would accomplish what the earlier amendment had wanted to accomplish. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON removed his objection. There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 6 was passed. 6:14:51 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 7 as follows: Page 1, line 15, after "renewable": Insert "and alternative" CO-CHAIR NEUMAN explained he would like to include this language because alternative fuel sources can be created from methane, a clean fuel that would provide a great opportunity for Alaska. The amendment would tie in with the other parts of the policy, such as page 2, line 26. He added that alternative energy would also provide jobs. 6:17:43 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes. He inquired whether alternative is defined in the bill. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN stated that alternative energy can be gas-to- liquids, coal-to-liquids, or biomass to liquids. Alternative fuels are an evolving culture as far as what will be the fuels of the future. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON understood, but said his question is whether alternative is defined. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she believes alternative is defined in the omnibus bill, but she is unsure whether it is defined in the policy bill. She offered her belief that alternative energy is a defined term in statute so a definition may not be needed. 6:19:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that an inventory book published by the Alaska Energy Authority includes nuclear as alternative energy, and he therefore thinks alternative energy is anything that is not defined under renewable and that is not currently being utilized. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted he is not opposed to including the alternative language, but he wants to be clear that at some point coal is not considered alternative. Additionally, he wants to ensure that what the bill is trying to accomplish is clearly defined. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that a year or so ago the title for the renewable energy fund was changed at the last minute from renewable to alternative, which would have meant that the funds could have been spent on coal gasification. Thus, he understands the point of needing clarity. However, this policy deals with all the energies and the amendment would not mean that alternative energy would be defined as renewable, thus he does not have a problem with the amendment. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON agreed. 6:21:24 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out that page 2, lines 22-25, promote the development of renewable energy resources, and page 2, lines 26-28, promote the development of nonrenewable energy resources. He agreed that "and alternative" would apply because it would help to emphasize lines 26-28. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON removed his objection. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected. He inquired whether this amendment would require that another section be added to the bill to define what is renewable, nonrenewable, and alternative. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she thinks that including alternative is forward thinking. While it might be thought that energy sources can be defined, new sources of energy may come up that may not be defined; thus, alternative might provide a broad enough scope. While she thinks that gas-to-liquids would be covered under fossil fuel and hydrates, she said she is not opposed to alternative because every energy is encompassed that can be defined at this point in time. 6:24:08 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON supported adding alternative. He noted that fish waste is being changed into diesel, something that is not technically covered in the bill; however, alternative would bring that in. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK added that alternative would cover all the bases because Alaska's definition of renewable might not be the federal government's definition, hydropower being one example. 6:24:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON agreed with adding the word alternative to the intent section and suggested that it also be included in the codified section. He moved Amendment 1 to Amendment 7 as follows: Page 2, line 27, after "nonrenewable": Insert "and alternative" There being no objection, Amendment 1 to Amendment 7 was passed. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 7. There being no further objection, Amendment 7, as amended, was passed. 6:26:21 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opened public testimony. CAITLIN HIGGINS, Executive Director, Alaska Conservation Alliance and Alaska Conservation Voters, supported HB 306 and urged its passage on behalf of her organization's 40 member groups. She thanked Representatives Edgmon and Millett and stated it was a pleasure to work as part of the stakeholders group. She said HB 306 is a policy that creates the first step in reaching a longer-term vision of the energy goals that the state wants to achieve. The energy policy would put Alaska on an economically viable, sustainable, stable energy path that supports energy efficiency first and foremost. Further, the energy policy would support renewable energy development, workforce training, and coordinating efforts among government entities focused on energy. The Alaska Conservation Alliance has identified energy efficiency as a priority issue for this legislative session and supports the policy to encourage the establishment of statewide energy efficiency codes, decrease energy use in public buildings through efficiency, and educate the public about becoming more energy efficient. The bill sets Alaska on a path to a cleaner, brighter, and more economically stable future. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony after ascertaining no one else wished to testify. 6:28:51 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK thanked the House Special Committee on Energy co-chairs for partnering with the stakeholders and giving all of them the opportunity to weigh in and refine the bill. It is a good piece of legislation with buy-in from all parties and is a great example of government bodies reaching out to the public to come up with policies that benefit both the people and the state. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON also recognized the hard work done by the co- chairs of the House Special Committee on Energy. He related that the Obama Administration stated in a meeting that natural gas is the bridge to the future, although it might take 100 years to cross that bridge to renewable energy. He said it will therefore be important to continue to develop fossil fuels in the immediate future. 6:31:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that HB 306 is a remarkable piece of legislation because it truly is the work of an ad-hoc group of Alaskans representing every sector of the energy industry and advocacy. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he is looking for the same type of cooperation from the people and user groups that put the policy together to help develop Alaska's fossil fuels. REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON moved to report CSHB 306(ENE), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 306(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.