Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/10/2013 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
SB37 | |
SB16 | |
SB38 | |
SB88 | |
SB38 | |
SB24 | |
SB2 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | SB 21 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | SB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 88 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 2 "An Act enacting the Interstate Mining Compact and relating to the compact; relating to the Interstate Mining Commission; and providing for an effective date." 8:01:15 PM SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL introduced her bill which would elevate Alaska from an associate member to full membership in the Interstate Mining Compact and Commission (IMCC). The change would allow Alaska's governor be an active voting member giving Alaska a voice on the national level. The compact was established in April 1971 and consisted of 20 member states and five associate member states. The powers of the commission were found on page four of the bill. The estimated cost included $40 thousand in dues, which was partially based on resource production. She mentioned a chart in the bill materials that illustrated the dues calculation. 8:05:01 PM ED FOGELS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, testified on the bill. He stated that Alaska now had seven operating mines that did well environmentally. He noted that the permitting and regulatory processes were improving. The bill's initiative was to strengthen the collaborative relationship with the federal agencies because permitting relied heavily on federal rules and regulations. He stated that IMCC brought together the environmental and mining programs from 26 states in the nation. In this forum, the states exchanged information about potential areas of improvement. Mr. Fogels explained that IMCC was instrumental in helping Alaska with the number of initiatives where the federal government was "over-reaching." He provided an example. He was the governor's designee for IMCC and he had seen the benefits of the collaboration first hand. 8:07:46 PM Representative Holmes asked about page 4 and the powers of the commission. She noted that the commission might make recommendations, which could be broadly read. Mr. Fogels replied that frequent IMCC actions included resolutions directed at federal agencies. Representative Costello appreciated the bill and she was disappointed that the previous version of the bill did not elevate Alaska to full membership. She asked if there were tangible benefits to full members. 8:09:08 PM Mr. Fogels replied that the most significant benefit was the ability for Alaska to take a leadership role and better guide the policy chosen by the commission. Initially the commission was an east-coast coal-centric organization. 8:10:10 PM Representative Costello asked about the committee structure of the meetings. She asked about his participation in the meetings. Mr. Fogels replied that the commission hosted multiple committees and he had participated in meetings, but was not allowed to vote as an associate member. Vice-Chair Neuman asked if IMCC had addressed Alaska's mining permits. He asked how the commission was able to help miners. Mr. Fogels replied that IMCC recently entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Mine Safety Health Administration. He commented that smaller rural mines were unable to abide by the strict federal guidelines set forth by the Mine Safety Health Administration. He was able to bring the concerns of the smaller Alaskan miners to the attention of IMCC. 8:12:41 PM Vice-Chair Neuman reviewed the travel costs on page 1 showing $20 thousand for two trips. Mr. Fogels replied that he traveled frugally. He explained that there were two IMCC meetings per year and the department sent two people to the meetings. Additional meetings were organized depending on the issues. He stated that mining symposiums for regulators were also hosted in western states. He hoped to incorporate staff from Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Department of Fish and Game (DF&G). 8:14:55 PM Representative Munoz asked about the 404 permitting legislation and how the IMCC could help. Mr. Fogels replied that the quest for Alaska state primacy was part of a broader effort to acquire more control over wetlands permitting in Alaska. Each piece of the issue involved negotiation with the federal government. He noticed that every mining state in the nation who participated in the meetings signaled a higher level of anxiety with federal overreach. 8:17:12 PM Senator Giessel added that the IMCC participated with other western states on issues related to mining royalties. Alaska did not participate in much mineral resource royalty sharing. 8:18:12 PM Mr. Fogels added that the federal government held back on royalties. The IMCC effort would also aid the broader resource development spectrum in Alaska. 8:18:48 PM Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. Representative Costello discussed the fiscal notes. She began with fiscal note 1, which showed a fiscal impact of $60 thousand for FY 14 through FY 19, while fiscal note 2 was a zero note. Representative Wilson asked about the second page of fiscal note 1. She stated that the fiscal note stated that Alaska would be the 20th state to join the compact as a full member. She understood that Alaska would be the second state to join as a full member. Mr. Fogels replied that Utah was the only western state that had joined as a full member. 8:21:40 PM Co-Chair Stoltze had an issue with travel for DNR. He asked Representative Costello if she was comfortable with the fiscal note. Representative Costello wondered about reducing the travel component by half. Mr. Fogels replied that the meeting opportunities would be fewer. He stated that the symposiums would not be attended. Representative Costello repeated the question to Senator Giessel. Senator Giessel stated that the attendance would be reduced for Alaska as a result. She hoped that the department would find other means. She preferred face-to- face attendance to teleconference. Co-Chair Stoltze stated that associated travel was introduced. 8:24:18 PM Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED that the travel portion of fiscal note 1 was reduced to $15 thousand. Representative Costello OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Costello understood that travel costs were great, but she had faith that the department would seek efficiencies. Representative Costello WITHDREW her OBJECTION. Co-Chair Stoltze AMENDED the fiscal note to show a $5 thousand reduction. Co-Chair Stoltze asked if the dues were structured on production or state revenues. 8:25:53 PM Mr. Fogels replied that the IMCC structured the dues calculation by developing a two-year budget, which was then projected out and divided in half. Half of the final number was prorated and divided evenly among member states. The other half was made up as a percentage of production. Co-Chair Stoltze understood that there was a cap to the dues. 8:27:12 PM Senator Giessel commented that when new stated join the compact as full members, the price of dues decreases. Representative Costello MOVED to REPORT SB 2 as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. SB 2 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with one new amended fiscal note from Department of Natural Resources and one previously published zero fiscal note: FN 2(ADM). 8:29:25 PM Representative Gara asked about Department of Revenue and the offer to answer questions regarding the modeling of HCS CSSB 21(RES). Co-Chair Stoltze concurred. 8:31:03 PM
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|