Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/30/2003 09:00 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 142
"An Act designating the Department of Natural Resources as
lead agency for resource development projects; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 142(RES)
"An Act designating the Department of Natural Resources as
lead agency for resource development projects; making
conforming amendments; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-chair Wilken informed that the Senate Rules Committee at the
request of the Governor sponsors this legislation. He stated that
the intent of this legislation is to identify the Department of
Natural Resources as the lead agency for resource development
projects and to establish an Office of Project Management and
Permitting within the Department. He noted that "this office would
lead and coordinate all matters relating to the State's review and
authorization" of these projects.
Senator Bunde moved to adopt the original bill, SB 142, Version 23-
GS1070\A rather than the Senate Resources committee substitute.
Co-Chair Wilken asked that Members refrain from offering any
motions at this time. He specified that the Senate Resources
committee substitute is before the Committee.
Without objection, Senator Bunde WITHDREW the motion.
Co-Chair Wilken clarified that CS SB 142(RES) is before the
Committee for discussion.
TOM IRWIN, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources,
introduced Kurt Fredriksson, Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Environmental Conservation, Mary Siroky and Janet Burleson Baxter,
Legislative Liaisons for the Departments of Environmental
Conservation and Natural Resources, respectfully, and noted that
Richard LeFebvre, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources, and Cameron Leonard, Natural Resources Section,
Department of Law, were available via teleconference.
Commissioner Irwin voiced support of Governor Frank Murkowski's
efforts to develop and utilize the State's resources. He continued
that this bill would facilitate and expedite the use of State
resources by providing the Commissioner of the Department of
Natural Resources with statutory authority to lead and coordinate
all matters relating to the State's review and authorization of
resource development projects. He stated that in order to
accomplish this goal, the Department must have clear and explicit
authority. He noted that while the Department is currently the lead
agency for mining activities, this bill would provide "the explicit
authority" required for other resource development activities.
Commissioner Irwin continued that the establishment of the Office
of Project Management and Permitting would allow the Department to
efficiently review and authorize large projects and oversee the
Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program. He stated that where
possible, the permitting process would entail a project team
approach. He stressed that the intent of this legislation is to
coordinate and integrate projects and that this change would not
alter the decision-making authority from other entities such as the
Department of Environmental Conservation. He attested that the goal
of this legislation "is to get people together."
Commissioner Irwin continued that small, less complex projects that
require few permits could benefit from the establishment of a lead
agency coordination for review. He stated that these projects might
or might not require the establishment of a project team.
Commissioner Irwin specified that resource development projects
that utilize the lead coordinating agency and project review team
approach would have a three-phase process that would include
evaluation of the project to determine whether the lead agency
review project team approach would adequately address the review
and permitting needs of the project; would result in the
establishment of the project team, development of an integrated
review schedule, and the dissemination of information requirements
and completion of necessary agreements amongst the agencies and
applicants; and lastly the actual project review and authorization
process including public participation that adheres to the
requirements specific to that project. Additionally, he noted that
the bill would assist the Department's efforts to streamline
project review and authorization by facilitating the state's
ability to pull together agencies to address project specific
concerns and to facilitate and expedite the review and
authorization process; and to develop a more cohesive working
relationship among representatives of the agencies. He stated that
this is where the teamwork and communication develops. Thirdly, he
stated that through better communication, more efficient permitting
and consolidated public process, where possible, would assist in
integrating the State and federal agency process requirements.
Commissioner Irwin informed that the laws for resource development
have expanded and that more agencies with permitting authority are
involved in the process. He asserted that, "resource development
should not be held up by the sheer complexities of government." He
stated that this bill is intended to assist in alleviating that
problem.
Commissioner Irwin voiced that the provision relating to a repeal
of this statute that is included in the Senate Resources committee
substitute is a "sound concept" which is being expanded to other
State projects. He informed that rather than this being a new
concept, the Department currently utilizes the provision in its
large mining project permitting. He further announced that the
concern regarding the unintended consequences of the termination
date clause, or "what follows down the road" is a key element in
this discussion. He stated that by specifying that the lead agency
authority being granted to the Department of Natural Resources
would be repealed or sunset on July 1, 2007 would send the wrong
message to developers and investors because he stressed that
entities, which invest millions of dollars in a project, over as
much as a twenty-year period, would interpret "the message as that
the State will only stick with them for four years. This is not the
intent we want to give out there. The perception is bad enough
already." He avowed that the State is addressing this issue to
verify that Alaska "in this for the long haul… we're going to make
a program that works and that people are going to want to keep
going." He stated that this lead agency legislation is one of many
pieces of legislation that the Administration is furthering to
accomplish efficient permitting.
Senator Taylor voiced concern that other than establishing some
timelines and a lead agency that would conduct hearings, the only
thing accomplished by this legislation over the current process
established by the Office of Governmental Coordination is the
establishment of some firm timelines that would require entities to
state positions on projects "within a given period."
Sec. 46.35.071 (e) Each state agency having jurisdiction to
approve or deny an application for a permit shall have the
power vested in it by law to make such determinations. Nothing
in AS 46.35.031 - 46.35.071 lessens or reduces these powers,
and AS 46.35.031 - 46.35.071 modify only the procedures to be
followed in the carrying out of the powers.
Senator Taylor questioned why Section 46.35.071(e) provides each
agency with the independent authority to approve or deny a permit
as he attested that "if the Department of Natural Resources is
truly going to be the lead agency, then all other agencies in State
government should be advisory." He stated were this the case, the
Department of Natural Resources could make a decision and the
process could move forward. However, he asserted that "if every
agency is allowed to have the veto power that we have seen
exercised other the last several years, then I'm not sure that
we're really accomplishing much other than electing the cheerleader
for the committee and setting the timeframe for how long it would
take them to kill the project for you."
Commissioner Irwin responded that, while he understands Senator
Taylor's concern, the large project team approach "does work." He
stated that having a designated lead agency provides "the authority
to get individual agencies to the table and that's what's
critical." He stated efficiency is created by establishing
communication at the onset of a project as opposed to affected
agencies becoming involved as the project progresses and thereby
causing project delays. He stated that, in addition to involving
all agencies at the beginning of a project, the permittee is made
aware of the flow of communication and project requirements and
timelines. He stated that upon completion of the project team
meeting, the Department of Natural Resources, as the lead
authority, would establish timelines and the schedule of events and
responsibilities. He reiterated that the process would work.
Co-Chair Wilken questioned why the adoption of the sunset language
amendment enlarged the original two-page bill to a fourteen-page
bill as reflected in CS SB 142(RES), Version 23-GS1070\D.
CAMERSON LEONARD, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage to confirm that the bill was expanded
"purely" because of the sunset provision adopted by the Senate
Resources Committee. He informed the Committee that the Murkowski
Administration requests that the original version of the bill,
which does not contain the sunset provision, be adopted.
Co-Chair Wilken asked whether the Department of Natural Resources
is unable to support the sunset clause because "it sends the wrong
message to developers."
Commissioner Irwin responded that the four-year sunset clause does
send the wrong message to developers and that, instead, the State
should send a message to developers conveying that the State is
committed "to making this work." He expressed that the Legislature
could conduct an annual review of the process and require the
Department to be accountable for moving the process forward.
Co-Chair Wilken surmised that a future administration might possess
a different approach to the purpose of this legislation, and that
the approach might "be an automatic retreat from this type of
development in the State."
Commissioner Irwin noted that the "power of an Administration can
speed up or close down any process." He stated that the omission of
the sunset clause would assist this Administration's efforts; but
he voiced that, "it doesn't cure the problem of what future
administrations might do."
Amendment #1: This conceptual amendment transfers $36,200 from the
Department of Environmental Conservation personal services budget
to provide funding for Department of Natural Resources expenses
that would be generated by this bill.
Senator Olson offered a motion to adopt Amendment #1. He stated
that this bill appears to reduce the demand on services provided by
the Department of Environmental Conservation while increasing the
demand for services in the Department of Natural Resources.
Co-chair Wilken objected. He asked which of the two accompanying
fiscal notes would be affected.
Senator Olson identified the affected fiscal note as the Department
of Environmental Conservation fiscal note #1.
A roll call was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Senator Hoffman and Senator Olson
OPPOSED: Senator Bunde, Senator B. Stevens, Senator Taylor, Co-
chair Green, and Co-chair Wilken
The motion FAILED (2-5)
Amendment #1 FAILED to be adopted.
Senator Bunde moved to adopt the original bill, SB 142, Version 23-
GS1070\A as the working document.
[Note: Co-chair Wilken identified this motion as Amendment #2
during discussion on the bill.]
There being no objection, SB 142 was ADOPTED as the working
document.
Co-chair Wilken asked for confirmation that the Administration
supports this action.
Commissioner Irwin concurred.
AT EASE 9:22 AM / 9:24 AM
Senator Taylor moved to report the original bill from Committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SB 142 was REPORTED from Committee with
zero fiscal note #1 from the Department of Environmental
Conservation and zero fiscal note #2 from the Department of Natural
Resources.
AT EASE 9:26 AM / 9:27 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|