Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/27/2006 08:30 AM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB307 | |
| SB316 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 414 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 316-COURT REVIEW OF STRANDED GAS DECISION
9:39:30 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 316 to be up for consideration.
Senator Charlie Huggins joined the meeting.
CHAIR SEEKINS reminded the committee that the previous day he
had asked the drafter to conform the language between Section
.310 of the SGDA and Section .435 of the bill. He asked Mr.
Ostrovsky whether he had a chance to look at the committee
substitute (CS) entitled 24-LS1842\I.
LARRY OSTROVSKY said he thought that .435(2) ought to look like
.410(2) and clarify the information that needs to stay
confidential.
9:41:49 AM
[The committee studied the existing law together
CHAIR SEEKINS said his intent was to get the same language in
.410(2) transferred over to .435(b)(1) so they would conform to
each other.
SENATOR FRENCH explained then (b)(1) would read, "submit to the
Legislature the commissioner's final findings and determination
and, to the extent the information is not required to be kept
confidential under AS 43.82.310, the supporting financial,
technical, and market data, including work papers, analyses, and
recommendation s of any independent contractors used, etcetera."
9:44:23 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS said the CS did not reflect what he wanted to
relay and that the committee would continue to work off version
Y.
SENATOR GUESS explained her proposed amendment that she referred
to as Y.2. The amendment would allow for the preliminary and
final findings to have the same language. Also "fiscal interest"
is implied but inconsistent throughout the statute.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he didn't think the contract could be
provided to the Legislature with any proposed amendments. There
is an impasse unless the contract absolutely meets the
requirements of the Chapter.
SENATOR GUESS said she didn't see the difference. For example,
one of the purposes of the Stranded Gas [Development] Act is a
new investment without altering the taxes and royalties in the
current gas infrastructure and production.
9:50:06 AM
SENATOR FRENCH noted the committee was discussing the mismatch
between current law and the contract that is being developed
right now. He reminded the committee that the governor has the
authority inherent in his position to release the contract no
matter what.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he would like to see everything spelled out
and in the open. He would like to see the contract and its
agreements as well as what exactly needs to be changed in
current law to get the contract moving.
SENATOR FRENCH said he thought the committee was in agreement on
that point. It would have been a better process to amend the
Stranded Gas Development Act before negotiating a contract.
CHAIR SEEKINS stated the public should know why the contract
doesn't meet the requirements.
9:52:58 AM at ease 9:53:25 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS reiterated his earlier comment that he wants the
entire contract process to be "out in the light of day."
SENATOR FRENCH said it was up to the committee to decide what
language the governor would have to overcome in order to
finalize a contract.
SENATOR GUESS said the question might be on the preliminary
findings and whether the contract meets the requirements of the
Chapter and that language probably shouldn't be in the final
findings. It seems like there may be a role in the preliminary
findings given the current timing.
SENATOR FRENCH agreed and said the preliminary findings are as
to "whether" the contract meets the requirements and the final
probably shouldn't even though the Legislature would be
considering the contract after the SGDA was amended.
9:56:57 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS opined there have always been two findings
contained in the final findings. One is an absolute finding in
430(b) that the contract is in the long-term financial interest
of the state. The other finding is in .410(a)(3), which is as to
whether the proposed contract and any proposed amendments meet
the requirements and purposes of the Chapter. In the past that
was executed by the administration. Now there is a further
approval on the part of the Legislature and they must be careful
to specify that the Legislature can't consider a proposed
contract until it meets those two provisions.
SENATOR GUESS argued that .430(b) was not a "final finding or
determination." That's a commissioner determination, not an
agency decision, she noted.
10:01:45 AM
MR. OSTROVSKY responded the change in .400 reflects the process
in terms of the amendments. In terms of changes in .430(a)(3),
the "as to whether" is preferable language partly due to the
issues of effective date. He speculated that the amendments to
the SGDA might not be effective until another 90 days.
SENATOR GUESS said the final findings should not be wishy-washy.
They should meet the requirements of the Chapter and comply with
the Act. She asked specifically what it would be that people
would take to court in a challenge.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the constitutional issue that remains is
whether or not the contract meets the requirements of the
Chapter.
10:05:09 AM
SENATOR GUESS said she would question again the reason for the
Stranded Gas Development Act and said that question was the
"Elephant in the Room." The other issue is a law review of 393
that asks whether the Legislature could approve the Act or not.
If someone takes that to court and the court finds that because
of "separation of powers" then the Legislature does not have the
authority to approve or disapprove an Act. That is why final
findings and determination should be kept whole in the bill.
10:07:12 AM
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked Chair Seekins whether it was his
opinion that the bill still leaves a snag in the system.
CHAIR SEEKINS said it leaves it open to one possibility and that
is that unless the contract absolutely complies with the Act it
would be improper to forward it to the Legislature for
consideration.
SENATOR THERRIAULT reminded the committee that the Act was
pending a handful of amendments.
10:10:38 AM
SENATOR GUESS responded that the debate brings the committee
back to her question of why even have the Stranded Gas
[Development] Act. If the Act is going to see more than 20
offered amendments and the Legislature only approves 10 of them,
the contract reflects the 20 amendments and so she questioned
the reason for wasting the public's time if there is not going
to be a requirement that the contract meet the Act.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked if the committee was in agreement of the
conceptual proposed language to the amendment Y.2.
10:13:03 AM
SENATOR FRENCH reread the language.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Ostrovsky to comment.
MR. OSTROVSKY said that language reflects the fact that the
commissioner would say if the proposed contract doesn't line up.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he would have the conceptual amendment
drafted up. He indicated he would also have the drafter work on
his proposed amendment of the previous day, which did not come
out right. He advised Senator Guess that the committee would no
longer need to consider her amendment in regards to .430(b).
SENATOR GUESS said .430 (b) addresses when the commissioner
gives the contract to the governor. It does not address the
long-term fiscal interest because that is not in the final
determination.
10:16:42 AM
MR. OSTROVSKY responded the language might be somewhat ambiguous
but the final findings support the conclusion that the contract
is in the long-term fiscal interest of the state. Even though
the statute separates them, for all practical purposes they are
linked.
CHAIR SEEKINS asked Mr. Ostrovsky whether there was any reason
not to add "and findings and determination that the proposed
contract is in the long-term fiscal interest of the state" to
page 4 paragraph 3.
MR. OSTROVSKY said that could be done.
10:19:21 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS referred to the content on determination and
findings regarding requirements and purposes of the Chapter. He
asked the committee whether they wanted to amend that part.
SENATOR GUESS said she was leaning towards clarity. She
questioned the reason a contract would be forwarded if it didn't
align with the statute.
MR. OSTROVSKY interjected that would raise a potential timing
issue.
SENATOR GUESS questioned why. The issue is whether or not the
contract is in alignment with the statute.
10:21:27 AM
MR. OSTROVSKY replied the timing issue is an effective date
issue. With that change it would say the contract meets the
requirements and purposes of the Chapter. If the legislature
changed the requirements of the chapter but it wasn't effective
at the time the commissioner submitted the final findings it
still wouldn't necessarily line up.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the bill could pass with an immediate
effective date.
MR. OSTROVSKY agreed that if that were to occur it would negate
the timing issue.
SENATOR FRENCH referred to his proposed amendment titled Y.1 and
spoke to it. He said it would maintain all the substantive
rights for the public to bring forth a challenge. Senator
Therriault brought up a good point in respect to the
constitutionality of the Legislature's authorization of the
contract. He speculated that there could be a real issue with
that in regards to a violation of the separation of powers and
whether or not the Legislature's review of the contract would be
intruding on an executive function.
If such legal argument were successfully made then the final
finding of the commissioner of revenue would be the end of the
contract negotiation process and would be the default place that
a person would bring about a challenge.
10:26:33 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS stated that was a good point. Most importantly the
committee has preserved the challenge on a constitutional issue
and limited the time that it can be brought forth.
10:27:59 AM
SENATOR GUESS explained the reason she was confused is because
she believed that the committee was trying to deal with
protecting a person's right to challenge a contract but without
affecting or creating a timing issue.
CHAIR SEEKINS advised the committee that he was going to draw up
a CS for members to consider at the next bill hearing.
SENATOR THERRIAULT informed members of an amendment that he was
prepared to introduce that would extend the public comment
period to 90 days.
10:32:27 AM
CHAIR SEEKINS held the bill in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|