Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/17/2014 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR22 | |
| HB325 | |
| HB367 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 367 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 325 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HCR 22-IN-STATE REFINERIES
1:03:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 22, Urging the governor to take
all action necessary to keep in-state oil refiners in operation
and to keep oil refining operations in the state competitive.
1:03:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, as the
sponsor, stated that HCR 22 urges the governor to take all
action necessary to keep in-state oil refiners in operation and
to keep oil refining operations in the state competitive. She
referenced the possibility for the closure of the Flint Hills
Refinery and its search for a buyer. She reported that the
Flint Hills Refinery was supplying clean drinking water to local
residents during the problems with contaminated water, and would
continue to do so throughout. She declared that currently it
was more affordable to import fuel than for in-state refining.
She said that, as this could change with time, the legislature
needed to determine the value for maintaining refineries in the
Interior and throughout the state. She stated "for right now we
aren't competitive globally." She questioned the results should
there be a disaster, noting that the State should be as self-
sufficient as possible. She emphasized that it was important
for the governor to move quickly in negotiating a royalty oil
contract with a potential new buyer and to ensure who was
responsible for the aforementioned contamination. She expressed
that her biggest concern was for closure of the refinery and the
necessity of new permits. She declared that the proposed
resolution addressed the need for maintenance of self-
sufficiency, an ability to refine other imports, and use for its
best capacity.
1:06:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referenced page 1, lines 14-16 of the
proposed bill, and inquired how a royalty-in-kind contract would
be negotiated that would help the in-state refineries.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied that the current contract was
$2.15 over the price of the North Slope, as the law states that
we get the most for the value. She explained that Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) would account for the import cost which
included many pieces, and not just the price. She said that
this was all "within the realm of the administration when
they're negotiating the contract." She suggested that there was
a possibility for contract negotiation to other uses at the
plant.
1:07:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI directed attention back to lines 14-16,
and referenced a recent royalty oil contract with Flint Hills
Resources. He asked if Representative T. Wilson was considering
a new contract with another party, and he asked, if there was
not another party, how this would be possible.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her understanding there were
"some other players at the table." She declared that, as Flint
Hills would no longer have this contract as of June 1, 2014,
this was not a re-negotiation of the contract for Flint Hills.
She stated that Flint Hills had made it quite clear that it
would not be the owner and operator. However, they did want to
ensure that this would be more economical for another party.
This contract would be for the potential buyer with which Flint
Hills was currently negotiating.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI suggested that, during contract
negotiation, "it's good to know who we're negotiating with." He
questioned the theory that the state would get a good deal from
this negotiation.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied that, although there was a lot
of concern to get the most money for a resource, there should
also be consideration for the other ancillary pieces. She said
that the proposed resolution asked for all these points to be
taken seriously, and that there should be some possible
negotiations.
1:09:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked whether the proposed resolution was
being sent to other individuals in addition to the governor.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied that "these kind of
negotiations is done by the administration and the governor is
the one who is in charge."
1:10:04 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER, acknowledging that the Interior refineries
were "a hot topic in the news," asked why the proposed
resolution did not include refineries in other areas of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied that the proposed resolution
focused on in-state refineries, as they had different issues and
a different mechanism. She pointed out that the Flint Hills
plant was being shut down. She acknowledged that it was
important to include all the refineries.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER expressed his agreement that there was no
attempt to disparage the other refineries in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER directed attention to page 1, line 14, and
asked if this should be a "Resolved" statement as opposed to a
"Whereas" statement.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON expressed her agreement.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked if she would accept a conceptual
amendment to make this change.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON expressed her agreement.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, which
would, on page 1, line 14, delete "Whereas" and insert "Be It
Resolved that" with conforming changes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked if this was a motion.
1:12:18 PM
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI directed attention to page 2, line 1,
and asked for the current timeline for the cleanup and how this
proposed resolution could impact the decisions made at
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
1:13:23 PM
LYNN KENT, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Environmental Conservation, explained that state
law made owners and operators of a contaminated property jointly
and separately liable for the contamination. She stated that
although DEC had been working primarily with Flint Hills as the
current owner, the Department of Law had recently initiated
action to bring both Williams and Flint Hills forward as
responsible parties to work out the allocation of cost. She
directed attention to the cleanup standards, acknowledging that
this standard had to be based on and supported by sound science.
She relayed that the level set by the Division of Spill
Prevention & Response was being appealed by Flint Hills, and
that it was unknown for how long this appeal process could take.
She returned attention to the question of liability, and she
offered her belief that not having the allocation of cost figure
would not have any impediment to sale of the facility, as the
state administration had offered to enter into a prospective
purchaser agreement with a new buyer, so the new buyer would not
have any liability for pre-existing contamination. She offered
her belief that neither the final clean up standard or the
allocation of costs was necessary to have clarified prior to the
purchase and operation of the facility.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification that reasonable
clean-up standards supported by science would not have an impact
on the decisions that were currently under appeal.
MS. KENT replied that the clean-up standard was under appeal,
although it did not have to hold up the sale of the refinery to
a new operator.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the language in the proposed
resolution to "expeditiously set up a reasonable cleanup
standard supported by science" would impact what DEC would look
at as the cleanup standard which it suggested.
MS. KENT deferred to the Department of Law, and opined that this
language would not influence any appeal.
1:16:42 PM
JOHN HUTCHINS, Assistant Attorney General, Oil, Gas & Mining
Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL),
expressed his agreement with the testimony from Ms. Kent.
1:17:58 PM
JOE BALASH, Commissioner Designee, Department of Natural
Resources, in response to Representative Seaton, pointed out
that restriction of the terms for a refinery to within the
boundaries of the North Star Borough would only include two
operations, and would exclude two others on the North Slope and
"two south of the range." He noted that further expansion
raised questions regarding the legislative intent for the
actions by the administration. He observed that there was the
ability to transfer the upcoming Flint Hills contract to a
prospective buyer, should a buyer be identified, as that
contract had already been reviewed and approved by the
legislature. He cautioned the committee about using price of a
royalty contract as the sole means to make any refinery
competitive in Alaska with other imported products. He opined
that there were other ways to achieve this, and that the
governor had convened a subset of his cabinet, including the
commissioners of DEC and DNR, as well as the Attorney General,
to consider ways to assist any prospective buyer of the Flint
Hills facility. They were also having extensive discussion for
the importance of maintaining the existing refineries. He noted
that there was a concern for losing other refineries. He
acknowledged that offering the royalty for sale at some discount
had been considered, although there was concern that discounting
a fraction of the royalty would lead to requests for discounts
to the remaining royalty. He noted that pricing of West Texas
Intermediate (WTI) versus Alaska North Slope (ANS) would realize
a difference of almost $150 million of royalty to the state. He
offered his belief that there were more efficient ways to ensure
Alaska based refining, and that the governor was considering
other recommendations. He noted that some of this $150 million
value would go to the producers of the royalty, whereas the
administration would prefer to find a solution to keep the
refineries healthy and keep the benefits to those refineries and
the consumers in Alaska.
1:23:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON stated that she had not intended to
preclude the other refineries, and that there were other issues,
as well, that needed to be resolved. She said "all refineries
are very important and I don't want to step on any, but I just
want it done fast." She requested to have the resolution
brought back to the committee in a short time. She stated that
she would talk with the committee members to ensure that any
other questions were answered.
1:24:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER held over HCR 22.
1:24:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER requested that the sponsor ensure that
Flint Hills concurred with the proposed resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON replied that, as she wanted to ensure
that no refineries would be closed, she would broaden the
proposed resolution, and make sure that Flint Hills and the
other refineries were in support.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER offered his desire to have formal
endorsements to the resolution from the refineries involved.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON expressed her agreement.
1:25:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested that the commissioner of DNR
report whether a new contract would delay the opening of the
Flint Hills refinery, as the legislature would not be available
to approve a royalty in-kind contract which was different than
the existing contract.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB325 AP Stories.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Conservation Surcharge on Oil Statutes.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 DEC Budget Sub Presentation.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 DEC Budget Sub Slide.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 DEC Oil & Haz Prev Account Report.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Version A.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325-DEC-RFA-03-14-14.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325-DOR-TAX-3-14-14.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB367 AVEC Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 367 |
| HB367 GVEA Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 367 |
| HB367 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 367 |
| HB367 Version C.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 367 |
| HB367-DOR-TAX-03-14-14.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 367 |
| HCR 22 ADN Article i.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 ADN Article ii.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 ASRC White Paper.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 Clarion Article i.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 EIA FAQ.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 Cook Email.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 Hazardous Substances Statutes.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 News-Miner Article i.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 News-Miner Article ii.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 News-Miner Article iii.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 News-Miner Article iv.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 Proposed Sale.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 Sulfolane Investigation.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR22-LEG-SESS-3-15-14.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 DNR Document i.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 DNR Document ii.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HCR 22 DNR Document iii.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 22 |
| HB325 Alaska Chamber Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 Version A.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 DEC Response 3.26.14, Doc 1.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 DEC Response 3.26.14, Doc 2.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |
| HB325 DEC Response 3.26.14, Doc 3.pdf |
HRES 3/17/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 325 |