Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/26/2018 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio
and video
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB319 | |
| HB316 | |
| HB330 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 319 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 330 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 330-DNR: DISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFO
1:59:31 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 330, "An Act authorizing the commissioner of
natural resources to disclose confidential information in an
investigation or proceeding, including a lease royalty audit,
appeal, or request for reconsideration and issue a protective
order limiting the persons who have access to the confidential
information."
CHAIR CLAMAN advised that Legislative Legal and Research
Services has permission to make any technical amendments and
conforming changes to the bill.
2:00:12 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:00 p.m. to 2:01 p.m.
2:01:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 2, Version 30-
GH2820\A.2, Radford, 2/23/18, which read as follows:
Page 1, lines 2 - 3:
Delete "in an investigation or proceeding,
including a lease royalty audit, appeal, or request
for reconsideration"
Insert "during a royalty or net profit share
audit or appeal"
Page 3, lines 25 - 26:
Delete "in an investigation or proceeding of the
department, including a lease audit, appeal, or
request for reconsideration"
Insert "during a royalty or net profit share
audit or appeal"
Page 3, line 28:
Delete "lease"
Insert "royalty or net profit share audit or
appeal"
Page 4, line 1:
Delete "investigation or proceeding"
Insert "royalty or net profit share audit or
appeal"
Page 6, line 20:
Delete "lease"
Following "royalty"
Insert "or net profit share"
2:02:08 PM
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Alaska State
Legislature, advised that the intent of Amendment 2 is to
restrict the disclosures of confidential information made by the
commissioner of the Department of Nature Resources (DNR) to
"royalty or net profit share audits for appeals." This
amendment "kind of tightens in" the authority the department was
seeking because it strikes a balance between the concerns
expressed by the industry and the needs of DNR to efficiently
process these cases. This language will still allow DNR to
process the vast majority of its cases in which it needs to
disclose confidential information and create protective orders,
he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected to the adoption of
Amendment 2.
2:03:39 PM
ED KING, Legislative Liaison, Commissioner's Office, Department
of Natural Resources (DNR), advised that Amendment 2 would
further narrow the scope of the commissioner's authority rather
than being a general power to adjudicate and resolve issues and
resolve audits or appeals related to information that is held
confidential. This amendment would restrict that authority
solely to royalty issues and net profit share issues. Mr. King
advised that the vast majority of the issues requiring these
types of protective orders are, in fact, in the royalty audit
and net profit share. However, he pointed out, there are issues
outside of royalties and net profit share that DNR would prefer
to also adjudicate under the protective orders. The preference
of DNR is that Amendment 2 does not pass; however, if it is the
will of the committee, DNR appreciates the efforts being made.
2:04:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether it was Mr. King's
understanding that this would also protect the confidentiality
of geological data or sensitive data as to what a field might
contain.
MR. KING responded that with Amendment 2, DNR would no longer
have that authority to issue protective orders to resolve those
types of issues. He explained that without Amendment 2, it is
DNR's reading of the bill that it would have the ability to
resolve those issues through the commissioner's office without
going to the court system and obtaining a protective order.
2:05:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS noted Mr. King's statement
regarding the strong majority of instances in which a protective
order would be issued that would relate to royalties and net
profit share. He requested examples of those other issues that
could take advantage of this tool were it available to the
commissioner.
MR. KING answered that a specific example that DNR had to deal
with is related to private property owners with a mineral
interest surrounding a geologic structure. For example, a
resource specifically in oil and gas, is when DNR makes a
decision related to the extent of the resource and to what
extent it provides revenue to the resource owner, DNR's decision
could impact how much money that individual would earn from the
production of those resources. The department did have a fairly
rare issue in Cook Inlet approximately 10-years ago, and the
issue could not be resolved internally because DNR did not have
the ability to disclose that confidential data to the property
owner because the data was collected by the operator. In that
circumstance, that audit sat in the commissioner's office until
the appellant finally went to court and the court issued a
protective order, at that point, DNR was able to resolve the
case, he explained.
2:06:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKIN asked whether there are any other
examples.
MR. KING reiterated that one is currently being litigated, and
he is not aware of any other circumstances.
2:07:10 PM
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether the audit is being litigated or the
protective order.
MR. KING answered that that is a different and separate issue
related to the same (audio difficulties) but it is currently in
the superior court and the protective order in that case has not
yet been issued.
CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether that is the main issue being
litigated or was it being litigated over the audit as well.
MR. KING responded that the case is not related to an audit.
2:07:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD noted that the regional native
corporations own the minerals below the surface, and if
Amendment 2 does not pass, she asked whether that would allow
the state to also obtain information on the regional native
corporations.
MR. KING reiterated testimony from a previous hearing advising
that the department, under this bill, does not have the ability
to obtain any new information, the information is given to DNR
by the producer. The question is how can DNR use that
information to adjudicate when there is an appeal, and under
Representative Reinbold's circumstance, the mental health trust
or the native corporation would have a lease with the producer,
and they would have to administer and adjudicate their own
appeals around that issue. In the specific case being discussed
here, where DNR has this private landowner adjacent to a
resource, there may or may not be a lease issued that needs to
be resolved there. In those circumstances, the appellant is
bringing the appeal and has standing due to its financial
interest as an adjacent landowner. In those situations, DNR
cannot share the producer's information with this private third-
party without some protections over that confidential data, he
explained.
2:09:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN requested another example of how the
sponsor envisions Amendment 2 having a positive impact on a
particular situation.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that she believes the one
example being litigated today and another example from ten years
ago, does not provide a compelling circumstance. She related
that she is uncomfortable with the ability of DNR to release
what otherwise would be confidential information to someone
outside of the department. While she realizes the need for this
legislation, she would feel far more comfortable with the bill
if it was limited to the circumstances where it was actually
most needed, she said.
2:10:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD commented that she is supportive of this
amendment because the legislature does not need to chase
investment out of this state, she believes in private property
rights and understands there is a point where some information
is needed. She pointed out that Amendment 2 narrows the focus,
and during the previous hearing the department did not object to
the change. She said she would be a yes vote on the amendment.
CHAIR CLAMAN clarified for Representative Reinbold that DNR was
not in possession Amendment 2 until today.
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD responded that when people had testified
previously, "they said" the primary responsibility was being
even with this issue, and at the time there was no objection to
it, which is why she will be supporting the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS maintained his objection.
2:12:18 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Stutes,
Reinbold, Kopp, and LeDoux voted in favor of the adoption of
Amendment 2. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins and Claman voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-
2.
2::19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report HB 330, Version
30-GH2820\A, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objections, CSHB 330 moved out of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee.
2:13:53 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB330 ver A 2.16.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/23/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 Amendments #1-2 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB330 Amendments #1-2 HJUD Final Vote 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/12/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 330 |
| HB316 Work Draft Committee Substitute ver O 2.12.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Updated Sponsor Statement 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article #1 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Supporting Document-Washington Post Article #2 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Additional Document-Legislative Research Report Convicstions for Marijuana Possession 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Amendment #1 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Amendment #1 HJUD Final Votes 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.12.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB316 Fiscal Note JUD-ACS 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB319 ver D 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/5/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Sponsor Statement 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Summary of Changes 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document-AMIA Letter 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document-NCSL Report 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Supporting Document-Marijuana Control Board Minutes 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Updated Fiscal Note DCCED-AMCO 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |
| HB319 Updated Fiscal Note DPS-CJISP 2.26.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/26/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 319 |