Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
03/04/2022 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| Presentation: Alaska's Competitive Position by Gaffney Cline | |
| HB347 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HCR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 347 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 4, 2022
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Josiah Patkotak, Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Ronald Gillham
Representative Tom McKay
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Zack Fields
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: ALASKA'S COMPETITIVE POSITION BY GAFFNEY CLINE
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 347
"An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain state records
relating to animals; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 347
SHORT TITLE: CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
02/22/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (H) RES
03/02/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/02/22 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/04/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE CLINE, Strategy Advisor/Legal Counsel
Gaffney, Cline & Associates
Houston, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-provided a PowerPoint presentation,
titled "Alaska's Competitive Position."
NICK FULFORD, Senior Director
Gas/LNG-Carbon Management-Energy Transition-Americas
Gaffney, Cline & Associates
Houston, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-provided a PowerPoint presentation,
titled "Alaska's Competitive Position."
RYAN MCKEE, Staff
Representative George Rauscher
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB
347, Version I, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime
sponsor.
AMY SEITZ, Executive Director
Alaska Farm Bureau
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
347.
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
347.
MIKE CLINE, Strategy Advisor/Legal Counsel
Gaffney, Cline & Associates
Houston, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-provided a PowerPoint presentation,
titled "Alaska's Competitive Position."
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:37 PM
CHAIR JOSIAH PATKOTAK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives McKay,
Cronk, Hopkins, Rauscher, Hannan, Gillham, and Patkotak were
present at the call to order. Representative Schrage arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
^Presentation: Alaska's Competitive Position by Gaffney Cline
Presentation: Alaska's Competitive Position by Gaffney Cline
1:04:19 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be a presentation on Alaska's Competitive Position by Gaffney
Cline Consultants.
1:04:48 PM
MIKE CLINE, Strategy Advisor/Legal Counsel, Gaffney, Cline &
Associates, co-provided a PowerPoint presentation [hard copy
included in the committee packet], titled "Alaska's Competitive
Position." He presented slide 3, "Volatility, Disruption &
Supply in the Oil & Gas Industry," which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
• The oil & gas industry has been battered by deeply
disruptive events in recent years leading to
volatility.
Oil price collapse of 2014-2016 and Covid-19.
Deep cost cutting, project delays and
cancellations will have long term supply
implications.
The impact of energy transition on the energy
mix and related shift in the long-term prospects
of the industry.
Most recently dramatic price increases as the
global economy emerges from Covid-19 against a
backdrop of geopolitical concerns in Eastern
Europe and the Middle East.
• Oil and gas companies have generally performed
poorly and investors have demanded better capital
discipline, improved financial performance and action
on climate change.
1:08:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the information in the
PowerPoint accounted for the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine.
MR. CLINE replied that the slides were prepared before the
invasion, but at a time when the situation was looking "dire."
He said he would comment on the demand for oil resulting from
sanctions, as well as from the decreased demand in Ukraine.
1:11:07 PM
MR. CLINE presented slide 4, "Energy Demand Outlook," which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• World energy demand is expected to grow but many
different scenarios are being discussed with key
differentiators being:
Costs of energy supply particularly fossil
fuels vs renewables/low carbon.
The nature of governmental and private
initiatives to decarbonise.
The pace of change.
• Under all scenarios significant investment is needed
to meet demand and offset existing oil & gas decline.
1:13:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether the drop in demand in 2020
was due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
MR. CLINE confirmed Representative Rauscher's understanding was
correct.
1:14:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN pointed out the differentiation between
hydroelectric power and renewable energy. She asked whether
hydroelectric power is considered renewable energy.
MR. CLINE answered that hydroelectric projects were considered
renewable and added that he saw no reason not to consider small
scale hydroelectric projects as viable.
1:15:35 PM
MR. CLINE presented slide 5, "Energy Transition," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
• The global energy mix is decarbonizing and the pace
of change is accelerating.
COP26 UN Climate Change Conference more than
140 nations committed to eliminate 90% of GHG
emissions.
2050 Net Zero GHG Targets: US net zero no later
than 2050 with a 50-52% reduction from 2005
levels by 2030.
2030 Methane Reduction Target: Over 100
countries commit to reduce methane emissions by
30% by 2030.
• Investment dollars will flow disproportionately into
clean energy.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal includes
US$6.5 Bn for national network of EV chargers and
US$65 Bn in clean energy transmission and
electric grid in support of a 100% pollution-free
power sector by 2035.
International finance: 25 countries, including
the US, and 5 financial institutions pledged to
end new international finance for unabated fossil
fuel energy by the end of 2022.
• Hydrocarbon producers with the highest cost and the
highest carbon emission intensity products will be the
first to be impacted.
1:20:05 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked how much access infrastructure would be
necessary to reach Alaska's natural resources.
MR. CLINE emphasized the importance of developing Alaska's
resource infrastructure and explained how easier access to its
resources would be beneficial to the state.
1:24:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked is other countries with natural
resources were facing similar issues with regard to a lack of
resource infrastructure.
MR. CLINE explained that Alaska's technically challenging, high
cost developments were really only comparable to places like
Norway. He said that he used Norway as an example due to its
similarly high cost of development.
1:28:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for a more detailed explanation of
the term "supermajor" company.
MR. CLINE pointed to Chevron, British Petroleum, Shell, and
Total as examples of supermajor gas companies.
1:29:37 PM
MR. CLINE resumed the presentation on slide 7, which detailed
how various countries worked to respond to changing global gas
market conditions. He emphasized Alaska's capacity to adapt to
changing global markets due to its underdeveloped position.
1:37:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked why Canada was different than Norway
with regard to the operation of its oil and gas investment.
MR. CLINE said that oil and gas investment in arctic regions is
generally disfavored if it can be avoided, therefore Canada has
invested mainly in its heartland region.
1:41:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE shared his understanding that instability
in Alaska's oil and gas industry was influenced by federal
legislation.
MR. CLINE confirmed Representative Schrage's understanding and
explained that tax stability would be a net-positive for
Alaska's oil and gas industry.
1:44:02 PM
MR. CLINE resumed the presentation on slide 9, which gave a
detailed outlook on the future of the oil and gas industry in
Alaska. He moved to slide 10, which compared Alaska's natural
resource infrastructure to the "Lower 48" natural resource
infrastructure and continued to slide 11, which outlined the
state revenues achieved by oil and gas production.
1:48:07 PM
MR. FULFORD picked up the presentation on slide 13, which gave a
broad overview of the volatility of the price of natural gas
between 2020 and 2022.
1:54:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how the price of natural gas had
behaved in the previous 4 months.
MR. FULFORD answered that the price of natural gas had
stabilized in the previous 4 months.
1:56:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how long it generally took natural
gas to hit the market once it was extracted.
MR. FULFORD answered that it might take up to five years to sell
gas after it had been extracted.
2:00:13 PM
MR. FULFORD resumed the presentation on slide 14, which detailed
the global marked context of Liquified Natural Gas (LNG)
development.
2:03:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked if there were any "non traditional
ways" that states had advertised their oil and gas programs.
MR. FULFORD pointed to the importance and social power of
advertising gas processing and the conversion to more
environmentally friendly fuels as a way to push forward a
conventional LNG project.
2:10:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what the cost of developing gas at
an LNG plant would be.
MR. FULFORD explained that the price of gas would be similar to
most other LNG.
2:13:03 PM
MR. FULFORD resumed the presentation on slide 15, which
displayed a graph that gave a complex comparison of high level
guideline project economics in Alaska versus China.
2:16:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked if it could be possible to avoid
constructing an LNG pipeline by utilizing icebreaker ships.
MR. FULFORD answered that both the literal and metaphorical
climate for shipping LNG has greatly improved in the last 10
years.
2:19:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked about the viability of an LNG
project in Alaska's arctic if it were to be such an
environmentally challenging project to move forward.
MR. FULFORD explained that an LNG plant could produce as much as
1 gigawatt of waste energy in the form of heat and pointed to
regasification as a potential antidote to the concern.
2:21:10 PM
MR. FULFORD continued the presentation on slide 16, which
compared the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
of LNG investment in Alaska.
2:23:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked why Alaska is considered to have
different geopolitical stability compared to the Lower 48.
MR. FULFORD replied that Alaska is in a more vulnerable position
geopolitically than the contiguous United States.
2:24:12 PM
MR. CLINE proceeded to the next part of the presentation with
slide 17, "Alaska's Competitive Factors," and presented slide
18, "OPEX/CAPEX Comparison," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• Alaska is a relatively high cost environment:
Most development statements and data suggests
US$8-15/Bbl of development costs, which is
comparable to other high cost developments
(ongoing unconventional developments &
deepwater).
Operating costs are dependent on existing
facilities, remoteness, weather and accessibility
but broadly observed to be between US$7-12/Bbl.
Significant transport costs of US$8-$10/Bbl,
which is higher than most other upstream
opportunities. Unit costs further challenged
due to gas and NGL monetization limitations.
MR. CLINE presented slide 19, "Fiscal Comparison," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Chart illustrates general $/bbl cash breakdown and
tax burden for select jurisdictions over an oil & gas
development's life cycle
Assumes characteristics with new development in
Alaska, including constant cost environment
• In reality each jurisdiction will have
numerous unique characteristics (development
timeframe, cost environment,
infrastructure/market proximity etc.)
• Alaska has relatively high government take compared
to select jurisdictions
• Worth noting that some fiscal elements are
considered more burdensome than others
Non-Income based taxes, such as royalty, carry
elevated risk to investors because of timing and
it is not responsive to development/operating
costs
• Many other competing jurisdictions, particularly
non-western, implement asset level contracts
Popular for oil and gas dependent governments
Allows for fiscal terms specific to assets and
reflecting current economic conditions
Often contains various risk mitigations
including fiscal stabilization
2:29:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked about Australia's "government take."
MR. CLINE explained that the oil and gas tax rate was close to
60 percent.
2:30:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE commented that there is a great need to
look at the federal regulatory environment that governs oil and
gas development in Alaska.
2:31:12 PM
MR. CLINE presented slide 20, "Alaska Competitiveness Globally,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Alaska's upstream investment has faired reasonably
in line with global trends:
Some major Alaska operators, such as Conoco and
Hillcorp, have clearly increased Alaska exposure
as a percentage of total capital budgets in
recent years.
Exploration has been healthy in last 10-12
years.
• A key challenge for Alaska and the companies will be
maturing discoveries into developments.
• The projects take years to progress to the
investment decision and years from that decision to
reach production.
• Alaska is entering a critical phase that will be
decisive in long-term production trends.
2:35:22 PM
MR. CLINE proceeded to the section of the presentation titled
"Alaska Oil Moving Forward," and he presented slide 22, "Alaska
Development Scenarios," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
• There is strong potential for major new
developments, as well as smaller incremental
developments built around existing or new
infrastructure hubs.
• To understand the potential contribution of new
investments to Alaska state revenues and to gauge the
downside risk if new investments are curtailed,
indicative profiles have been developed representative
of Alaska new investment opportunities:
A significant new development justifying a new
infrastructure hub, similar to the Pikka or
Willow developments.
A smaller incremental development tying into an
existing infrastructure or infrastructure
associated with a new development.
• The evaluation summarizes the estimated 'investor
return' and generated 'state revenue' under the
current and proposed tax changes as well as under a
variety of sensitivities.
MR. CLINE presented slide 23, "Pikka Scale Development," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Material new developments could create new
infrastructure hubs with numerous benefits
Development generates material new state
revenue, US$6-7 Billion over 20 years.
Enables numerous additional incremental
developments (in this example Pikka Phase 2 and
Quokka) detailed on following slide.
Potentially extend TAPS infrastructure life.
• However, developments are more challenging due to:
Significant development risks, capital and time
during the development period.
Up to 20-year time horizon to realize expected
economic returns means perceptions of market,
fiscal and regulatory risk heightened.
2:41:13 PM
MR. CLINE presented slide 24, "Incremental Developments," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Incremental developments tie into existing
infrastructure and benefit from shorter development
periods.
• The returns on the assumed incremental development
are attractive under current prices.
• Each development of this size could add over US$150
MM+ per year in peak years and US$1.5 Bn of total
state revenue.
MR. CLINE concluded the presentation on slide 25, "Concluding
Remarks," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Alaska oil & gas faces many challenges going forward
but it remains an attractive oil & gas province.
• New developments are required to offset the historic
downward trend in production and revenues.
• Without new developments there is also a risk
of reaching TAPS minimum production threshold
• New developments will generate jobs and
economic activity throughout value chain
• New developments will be costly and challenging and
operators, investors and lenders need regulatory
visibility and fiscal stability to support financial
decisions for these long-term projects.
• Giant projects are unlikely but new material
developments with numerous smaller tie-backs to
infrastructure hubs offer a path to reversing the
decline.
• The global competition for new investment is fierce
and maintaining an attractive fiscal, regulatory and
administrative environment will be key.
2:44:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked about the choice of words on slide
25.
MR. CLINE responded that specific wording was used in concern
for specific detail to Alaska's oil and gas development.
2:46:20 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK thanked the presenters for their time and
commented his belief that Alaska must "do what it can" to make
itself more attractive to foreign oil and gas development.
2:47:22 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:47 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.
HB 347-CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL RECORDS
2:51:29 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 347, "An Act relating to the confidentiality
of certain state records relating to animals; and providing for
an effective date."
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that the sponsor has requested the
committee to adopt a proposed committee substitute.
2:51:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 347, Version 32-LS1471\I, Bullard,
2/28/22, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version I was before the committee.
2:52:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, as prime sponsor of HB 347, paraphrased
from the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet],
which read [original punctuation provided]:
HB 347 is an act allowing confidentiality to all
owner's quadruped animals when getting their animals
tested for things like contagious viruses.
The bill allows information on the results of those
tests to be made available to those that ask, however,
the owner's name and location is redacted for safety's
sake. It allows the data needed to make accurate
assessments from DEC [Department of Environmental
Conservation] and or the State Veterinarian to move
forward in case of an outbreak but keeps the name of
the owner from being made public.
The bill has taken 5 years to get this far, and the
current version is accepted by most hunting groups and
farmers alike.
Groups such as the Farm Bureau, SCI [Safari Club
International], the Alaskan Sheep Foundation, and the
Department of Environmental Conservation all support
its passing.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that HB 347 also allows the public
to give consultation or opinion on the collected data as it
pertains to moving forward.
2:54:29 PM
RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor
of HB 347, gave the sectional analysis for Version I [included
in the committee packet], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Section 1: AS 03.05
It is amended by adding a new section, AS 03.05.084,
Confidentiality of Certain Information, Exceptions. It
states that a record containing information about an
animal that is maintained by the Department of
Environmental Conservation will carry out the
requirements of this chapter including the record of
sale, movement, unique identification number, or owner
of an animal is confidential and not subject to
disclosure under AS 40.25.100-40.25.295, if the record
identifies a particular animal, breed of an animal,
business, or individual; contains test results, or a
record of test samples, for a particular animal; or
contains trade secrets or proprietary business or
financial information. It also states the Department
of Environmental Conservation may disclose this
information to state, federal, local government, or
regional health corporation if the department feels
there is a health or safety threat of an animal or to
the public. The Department of Environmental
Conservation shall, upon request, publicly disclose
records subject to this section in a manner that
prevents identification of a particular animal,
individual, or business.
Section 2: The uncodified law of the State of Alaska,
Transition: Regulations
This is amended by adding a new section. The
Department of Environmental Conservation may adopt
regulations necessary to implement this Act and takes
effect under AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act),
but not before the effective date.
Section 3: Section 2 of this act takes effect
immediately under AS 01.10.070(c).
CHAIR PATKOTAK [opened invited testimony on HB 347, Version I.]
2:57:07 PM
AMY SEITZ, Executive Director, Alaska Farm Bureau, provided
invited testimony in support of HB 347. She said the Alaska
Farm Bureau's mission is to ensure the economic wellbeing and
expansion of agriculture and to enrich the quality of life for
all Alaskans. She noted that the bureau's 400 farming and
ranching members drive the bureau's positions on policy issues,
and today she is speaking in support of HB 347.
MS. SEITZ related that for each of the last five years the
bureau's members have said it is important to protect the
personal, business, and individual animal information housed
within DEC from release to the public. Because this information
is currently subject to the Public Records Act, many farmers are
reluctant to have the information go through the state. In some
situations, state or federal law requires specific information;
for example, importing animals [to Alaska] and running tests in
Grade A dairies [in Alaska] must go through DEC. There are
situations where it is voluntary as to what information goes
through, but it would be helpful to have the information, like
participating in disease surveillance programs. These programs
are designed to be pro-active in identifying a disease and being
able to take steps to mitigate before there becomes an outbreak.
The bureau wants its farmers to feel comfortable working with
state agencies and having security in knowing their personal,
business, or financial information isn't going to be released to
the public, or information identifying specific animals.
MS. SEITZ said that in this time when Alaska needs to be
increasing its food production it's important to have these
protections in place. Having more farmers participating in
testing can help produce a higher quality product and increase
efficiency in production. Also, it could help with early
detection of a possible outbreak, which would give agencies time
to respond appropriately. There would still be access to
general information and people would still know what's being
imported and whether any diseases, pathogens, or parasites are
being found. It would be like COVID-19 reporting - the number
of positives in a region is known but who has it is unknown.
MS. SEITZ addressed why it is important to protect this
information. She said livestock farmers in other states have
sometimes been harassed by anti-livestock organizations. During
COVID-19 some states had problems with pilfering on the farms.
Some Alaska farms have had issues with people stealing their
animals. There have also been situations where someone has a
grudge against a farmer and can access testing information and
spread a rumor that a certain farmer has an unclean farm because
the farmer is testing for a certain pathogen. Ms. Seitz further
noted that in addition to farmers and ranchers being impacted by
this, kennels have testing that goes through DEC.
3:03:34 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, provided invited
testimony in support of HB 347. She noted that the Division of
Environmental Health includes the Office of the State
Veterinarian (OSV) which is tasked with oversight of the animal
records impacted by this legislation. She stated that HB 347
strikes a perfect balance by allowing DEC to keep its animal
owner information confidential while keeping the public informed
about known animal disease outbreaks. The bill will strengthen
the agriculture community by encouraging increased surveillance
testing which will in turn protect Alaska's wildlife resources.
She thanked the sponsor for bringing forth the bill.
3:04:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether the volume of documents
would be large enough to result in a fiscal note for the
redacting process that will be needed for keeping some of this
information confidential.
MS. CARPENTER replied that the fiscal note for HB 347 is zero as
DEC doesn't anticipate increased needs for its staff since it is
a relatively small number of documents. She drew attention to
the Certificate of Export provided to the committee, which
includes the shipper's information, receiver's information, and
specific information about the animal and test results. She
explained that if HB 347 were passed, DEC would be able to
provide general information to the public along the lines of
"nine reindeer were exported from Alaska in 2021 and all tested
negative for tuberculosis prior to movement."
3:06:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether other states have
confidentiality like that proposed in HB 347, especially those
states with much higher livestock management.
MS. CARPENTER responded that most states do have confidentiality
legislation or allowances in statute. When researching this
previously, DEC looked to the statutes of Oregon and Washington.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised Alaska has far more kennels with
veterinary needs than cattle with veterinary needs, yet HB 347
was drafted in terms of agriculture and farming. She recalled
Ms. Seitz stating that the bill would lead to more voluntary
testing. She inquired about which tests are mandated in statute
and which are optional and further asked whether the sharing of
data is mandatory or voluntary for transmissible diseases like
kennel cough and rabies.
MS. CARPENTER answered that the only testing currently mandated
through statute or regulation is when importing an animal into
the state; DEC has requirements for several species. When there
is a known or suspected disease outbreak throughout the state or
in a certain region, the state veterinarian, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) veterinarian, and the Health
and Social Services veterinarian work with animal owners and
private veterinarians. The department believes that HB 347 will
encourage more surveillance testing so that when a dog or
livestock already in the state display symptoms the proper
actions can be taken to get that animal tested and respond
appropriately. The department has a list of reportable diseases
in statute and in regulation so that an animal testing positive
through a private veterinarian is reportable to the state
veterinarian. She offered to provide those details to members.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated she would like to receive this
information because she is curious about what the state's
reporting requirements are. She said she isn't opposed to the
idea of confidentiality but wants to ensure there are no
unintended ripple effects.
3:12:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK offered his understanding that the main
purpose of HB 347 is to ensure that Alaska's wild game
populations don't get these diseases.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded that the worry in Alaska for
five-plus years has been over keeping [Mycoplasma ovipneumoniae
(Movi)] away from Dall sheep and mountain goats. An outbreak
occurred in the Lower 48 where there is free range farming.
Since that cannot be done in Alaska due to wild predators,
farmers put up fencing but contact between domestic and wild
animals is still a possibility. Given that Movi is a life-
threatening disease for these wild animals, farmers are probably
going to want to get their herds tested, but currently farmers
are afraid to test because the information about their farms may
become public and then there could be a reaction against the
farmer, the farm, or the animals themselves. So, what is trying
to be done with HB 347 is encourage the testing for every one of
these because the most important part is to get this data
recorded, who the farmer is isn't important. The information
that needs to be acquired is the location and whether an animal
has contracted the disease. This bill entices the farmer
because he/she won't be found out and the information is as
important to the farmer as it is to the herd in the wild. What
comes across the border is already being taken care of because
they must be tested, HB 347 makes sure that the herds within the
state are taken care of. He offered his understanding that
about 2,000 [domestic] animals are in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if testing for Movi is currently
required or whether that will be contemplated once there is
confidentiality of records. If testing is voluntary, she said,
there is no guarantee that testing will be done.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER replied that current regulation requires
an animal be tested before being brought into the state. A
regulation is done by DEC, so it is a possibility that when this
bill passes the answer to the question may be yes.
MS. CARPENTER responded that, currently, once an animal is in
Alaska, surveillance testing is completely voluntary. At this
time, she continued, there are no plans to implement mandatory
testing for Movi or any other pathogen.
3:17:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE thanked the sponsor for bringing forth
the legislation.
3:18:04 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that HB 347 was held over.
3:18:47 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:19 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 347 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 Sectional Analysis Version I 3.2.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 Proposed CS Version I 3.2.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 Letter of Support Farm Bureau 3.2.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 Supporting Document DEC Certificate of Veterinary Inspection 3.2.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| HB 347 Draft Fiscal Note DEC EH 3.2.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/2/2022 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 347 |
| Presentation FINAL Gaffney Cline Oil Gas Competitiveness 3.4.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/4/2022 1:00:00 PM |