Legislature(2015 - 2016)BARNES 124
03/09/2015 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR8 | |
| HB105 | |
| HB14 | |
| HB92 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 105 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 8-FEDS ALLOW STATE TO MAKE ENERGY CHOICES
1:03:50 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8, Urging the federal government to
empower the state to protect the state's access to affordable
and reliable electrical generation. [Before the committee was
CSHJR 8(ENE).]
1:05:27 PM
JOSHUA BANKS, Staff, Representative David Talerico, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced HJR on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Talerico. He said HJR 8 is in response to
opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean
Power Plan rule, which is intended to reduce carbon emissions in
the U.S. by 30 percent, and specifically in Alaska by 26 percent
by the year 2030. This rule will apply to all fossil fuel fired
plants greater than 25 megawatts, except for plants on military
bases and the university. While well intentioned, the sponsor
believes this plan will likely lead to higher electricity costs
without meeting the EPA's carbon reduction goals. The Clean
Power Plan is based on inaccurate assumptions that can have
major effects on the state of Alaska. The first assumption is
that the largest source of carbon emissions is from power
plants. While this may be the case in some areas of the Lower
48, power plants in Alaska only account for about 25 percent of
carbon emissions and the remaining 75 percent of stationary
sourced carbon comes from operations on the North Slope. The
sponsor believes that the Clean Power Plan puts unrealistic
expectations on Alaska's power plants. The second assumption is
that low cost natural gas and renewable energy is ready for use
for major energy consumption. While this may be available in
most of Southcentral Alaska and parts of Southeast Alaska, this
would not be feasible for Interior Alaska. He said EPA's claim
that Alaskans will save on energy costs will not be realized as
long as natural gas is not available at affordable prices in
Interior Alaska.
1:07:18 PM
MR. BANKS said the fundamental reason for bringing HJR 8 before
the committee is to protect Alaska's sovereignty. The Tenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states that
the powers not delegated to the United States by the
constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved
for the states respectively or to the people. He related that
in reading the constitution, he fails to find the enumerated
power with the Executive Branch to regulate carbon emissions.
If the constitution does not clearly say that the federal
government has the ability to regulate carbon emissions, then
the sponsor believes that this power resides with the state.
The sponsor believes that the State of Alaska has the means to
make effective decisions through the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA), as well as various state agencies, that not only
can deal with any problems relating to climate change, but also
do so in a way that does not hurt Alaskans. He said HJR 8 urges
the federal government to exempt Alaska from the Clean Power
Plan and to leave decisions about regulating energy production
to the State of Alaska in order to protect access to affordable
and reliable electrical generation.
MR. BANKS offered to address the changes made to HJR 8 that were
made by the House Special Committee on Energy if the committee
desires. He said the changes made in CSHJR 8(ENE) were made
based on feedback from the Alaska Power Association, Golden
Valley Electric Association, and the RCA.
1:08:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON offered his understanding that in July
2014 the [Supreme Court of the United States] cleared the way
for the EPA's announcement in Section 111(d). He asked whether
he is correct in this regard.
MR. BANKS replied he is not aware of that court decision, but
will look into it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated the Tenth Amendment debate is
something he has spent a lot of time looking at and teaching.
While he hears the sponsor's argument, he said the Tenth
Amendment also doesn't say that "we can have an air force, but
we have an air force." He inquired whether it is the sponsor's
position that if it isn't written there very specifically, that
there is no breadth of power under the Commerce Clause or the
Necessary and Proper Clause or any of the other clauses the
founders wrote.
MR. BANKS responded that while perhaps the Interstate Commerce
Clause could be applied for the Lower 48 because the electric
grid goes through various state lines, Alaska is completely
isolated and so he does not believe the Interstate Commerce
Clause would be in effect here.
1:10:49 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO said he appreciates Representative Josephson's
question because he thinks the representative is referring to
Title 42 of the U.S. Code, Section 111(d). He said his biggest
concern is that five power plants in Alaska have been
tentatively put on the list for carbon reductions of 26 percent:
Unit 1 in Healy; George M. Sullivan Generation Plant in
Anchorage, an Anchorage Municipal Light & Power's plant; Beluga
Power Plant, a Chugach Electric Association power plant;
Southcentral Power Plant, a Chugach Municipal Light & Power
combo-plant; and Nikiski Co-Generation Plant in Nikiski. To the
best of his knowledge, those plants are very well run. Hundreds
of thousands of Alaskans rely on those power plants. As those
prices go up, he is concerned because many of the people in his
district rely on overhead costs remaining consistent and
reasonably low in order for their goods and services to be
delivered. Even people not connected to the grid can be
impacted by those costs.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON inquired what the timeline is for these
requirements and what costs can be anticipated if the state
complies with the requirements.
CO-CHAIR TALERICO answered he is unsure there is anything in
concrete as far as the actual compliance to the plan. He
deferred to Mr. Banks in regard to the timeframe.
MR. BANKS offered his belief that the EPA will finalize its plan
by the end of summer 2016 and from there he believes the state
will have a year to create its plan. He said he is unaware of
any anticipated costs for compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON surmised there surely are some costs
and said he suspects they're likely in the millions.
1:14:42 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK opened public testimony, then closed it after
ascertaining no one wished to testify.
1:15:32 PM
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK inquired whether there is any objection to
reporting CSHJR 8(ENE) from committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated he will not object to reporting
the resolution because he thinks it will be moved by the
committee. However, he said, he comes from the school of
thought, "Is an Alaskan first, and I guess an American second?"
Alaska joined the union and has its representation. The state
has a clean air problem, a carbon footprint problem, and the
state must contribute to finding a solution. He said he has
respect for the concern and the uniqueness of Alaska and that
Alaska is obviously not the greatest contributor, but he will be
marking the resolution as "do not pass."
CO-CHAIR NAGEAK again asked whether there is any objection to
reporting the resolution from committee. There being no
objection, he said he will entertain a motion to move the
resolution.
1:18:13 PM
CO-CHAIR TALERICO moved to report CSHJR 8(ENE) out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero]
fiscal notes]. There being no objection, CSHJR 8(ENE) was
reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.