Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/08/2010 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR49 | |
| SJR22 | |
| HB306 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 306 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 49-OPPOSING EPA CLEAN AIR ACT REGULATIONS
1:05:14 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 49, Urging the United States Congress
to enact S.J. Res. 26, a resolution disapproving the
Environmental Protection Agency's imposition of climate
regulations that would harm Alaska's economy and the livelihoods
of the state's citizens.
1:05:47 PM
JOHN COAN, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State
Legislature, began by noting that the sponsor has worked closely
with U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski on the issue of climate
regulations. He said HJR 49 is a resolution disapproving the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) intention to use
the Clean Air Act to impose backdoor climate regulations. Such
regulations would be hurtful to all economic areas of Alaska and
would include any areas that produce greenhouse gases, such as
Alaska's refineries, pipelines, hospitals, and other entities.
In response to Co-Chair Neuman, he said the sponsor is worried
that many of the major economic drivers of the state would be
severely impacted by any greenhouse gas and environmental
regulations imposed by the EPA. Over 80 percent of Alaska's
unrestricted general fund revenue comes directly from oil and
gas.
1:07:33 PM
MR. COAN pointed out that a November 3, 2009, letter from
Governor Parnell to U.S. Senators Boxer and Inhofe states that
Alaska produces approximately 13 percent of the nation's oil
supply. Alaska's economy relies heavily upon responsible
development of natural resources, unburdened by superfluous
regulations; the sponsor therefore feels this message to stop
the EPA from commencing on this path must be sent to Alaska's
congressional delegation as well as the rest of the U.S.
Congress. He said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
in the position now of using its endangerment finding, which is
a scientific study based on six greenhouse gas emissions, to
create economy-wide command and control regulations that would
stifle the economic development of Alaska. The climate
regulations would be fundamentally detrimental to Alaska's
economy, stifle the state's economic development, and
potentially create enormous job losses within the state.
1:09:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked who the sponsor seeks to
influence with this resolution.
MR. COAN responded that HJR 49 urges the U.S. Congress to enact
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski's Senate Joint Resolution 26, a
resolution that would disapprove the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's rule relating to the endangerment finding
and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under
section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether there is an upside to
changing the carbons emissions.
MR. COAN replied the upsides are very minimal and most of the
literature seen by the sponsor has been to the negative. He
said he will get back to Representative Guttenberg in this
regard.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON interjected he is unsure he could ever see an
upside to having a non-elected bureaucracy making decisions.
The resolution says this issue should be put in the hands of
elected officials who go home to face their constituents.
1:12:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI requested an explanation of section 202
of the Clean Air Act.
MR. COAN answered that section 202 deals specifically with motor
vehicle emissions and fuel standards and the curtailing of
emissions from the tailpipes of passenger cars, buses, trucks,
off-road vehicles, and construction equipment. It is a
progressive limitation.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested Mr. Coan to provide copies of section
202 to committee members.
1:13:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired how long section 202 has been
around and why it is impacting the state today as opposed to 10
or 20 years ago.
MR. COAN responded he does not know, but he believes section 202
has been around since the act went through and, if not, then it
was part of the amendment in the 1970s.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON offered his belief that there has been a real
reluctance by previous administrations to enact such wide-
sweeping changes through an agency rather than the U.S.
Congress. However, this administration's policy is different as
it is exhibiting the willingness to enact laws and to inflict
great pain on states through regulations and not through laws.
1:15:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON stated that the underlying research [on
climate change] is flawed to an unknown degree and for that
reason he supports HJR 49.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether someone will be
testifying to that effect instead of just making statements
about it being flawed.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN suggested the sponsor could be asked to find
someone to look into that.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested Mr. Coan to talk about what other
countries are doing in regard to carbon emissions.
MR. COAN answered that his research was specifically on the two
vehicles in the U.S. Senate - House Resolution 2454 and Senate
Bill 1733. However, the sponsor believes that the Kyoto
Protocol is the wrong vehicle to pursue these standards; rather,
it should be taken care of by the U.S. Congress. While he is
not up on the latest globally, he believes that the push is for
some measure to control greenhouse gas emissions. He is unsure
of the most common or best vehicle out there, but he is sure
U.S. Senator Murkowski's office has looked into that more
thoroughly than he has.
1:17:31 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency would be imposing taxes on carbon emissions.
MR. COAN responded the sponsor feels that could very well be the
case. If the "cap and trade" tax goes into effect, federal
revenues would go into the billions of dollars and there would
be detriments throughout the economy due to industries having to
be curtailed. In further response, he explained that if House
Resolution 2454 and Senate Bill 1733 are enacted the nation
would be allotted to produce only so much in greenhouse gases
and this would also go back into the endangerment finding
because it might become a more severe imposition of these
restrictions. The nation's allotment would have to be divided
amongst all its industries and the industries would have to pay
to get their share; this tax is where the federal revenues would
come in. The sponsor feels this would be especially unfair for
Alaska due to the state's size, population, arctic climate, and
so forth, and would unfairly hamper the state.
1:19:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether a senate joint
resolution by the U.S. Congress has the full effect of law.
MR. COAN replied he is unsure, but he does know from a recent
conversation with the National Federation of Independent
Business (NFIB) that Senate Joint Resolution 26 would have to be
heard on the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised that Senate Joint Resolution
26 has not yet been heard.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether the Alaska State
Legislature is being asked to weigh in on a congressional
resolution even though it is unknown what a congressional
resolution does. In response to Co-Chair Neuman, he clarified
that he is asking what Senate Joint Resolution 26 actually does
and whether it is the sponsor's intent with HJR 49 to support a
resolution in Congress that has no effect of law.
MR. COAN said the question is out of his realm of expertise.
However, he could say for sure that as a disapproval resolution,
HJR 49 has a place to go.
1:21:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, in regard to the whereas clause on
page 3, line 17, offered his belief that development of an
Alaska gas pipeline would be promoted, not made harder, should
high carbon emission fuels become detrimental. In response to
several questions from Co-Chair Neuman, he stated that if oil
cannot be used there would be pressure to find a replacement,
and gas would be one of the main replacement fuels. While the
intent is to keep the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from
doing things that committee members think it should not be
doing, he thinks members need to have a better understanding
given that gas development in Alaska is the committee's main
concern. He thinks that rather than hampering development of an
Alaska gas pipeline, it would be enhanced, and therefore this
whereas clause should not be included in HJR 49.
MR. COAN responded that this whereas clause is specifically
about the construction of a gas pipeline. If the EPA gets its
hands around this specific regulatory ability, it might be able
to stymie the actual construction of the pipeline due to the
greenhouse gas that would be produced by the bulldozers and
other construction equipment.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG added that if greenhouse gases become
the important thing, then alternative fuels will need to be
developed and he thinks gas is it. Thus, he does not think the
proposed gasline would be hurt and Alaska would be hurting
itself by including this whereas.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN opened public testimony.
1:27:09 PM
MARY SHIELDS requested each committee member to state whether he
or she thinks climate change has positive or negative effects on
Alaska.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN replied that committees do not generally answer
questions from the public. He asked whether Ms. Shields is
representing herself.
MS. SHIELDS said she is representing herself and believes that
Congress will not be passing any legislation to decrease
greenhouse emissions because its members are pre-occupied with
getting re-elected, not finding solutions. Solutions require
people to change behavior and she recognizes that changing
behavior is uncomfortable. Fairbanks has a serious air quality
problem, yet people are unwilling to trade in their old wood
stoves for cleaner, more efficient new ones. Congress is not
composed of scientists, while the EPA employs professional
scientists who understand the problems and create scientific
solutions. Alaska is probably being impacted by climate change
more than any other place in the world. For example, Fairbanks
has had very warm weather this winter and things are thawing
early. People who live on permafrost are having severe problems
and repair of roads and infrastructures will be much more
expensive in 10 years than dealing with the problem now. She
urged that U.S. Senator Murkowski's resolution not be endorsed
and instead the EPA's scientists should be relied upon and their
suggestions be followed on how Alaska can be a part of solving
the problem rather than contributing to the problem.
1:30:38 PM
MS. SHIELDS related that the first paragraph of Alaska's
constitution states dedication to the principles that all
persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of
happiness, and the enjoyment of rewards of their own industry,
and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the
people and to the state. Thus, even if businesses lose a little
money on this, they have an obligation to provide that natural
right to life, and life is in trouble in Interior Alaska.
Cooling off the environment would help keep the permafrost from
thawing and would help the Interior's trees from becoming even
more infected with insects, which in turn increases the tinder
problem for wildfires. She asked committee members to be brave
enough to stand up for what really needs to be done.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN urged Ms. Shields to visit the legislature's
website should she wish to ask questions of legislators or
submit her viewpoints via public opinion messages.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that Ms. Shields lives in his
district and runs a recreational dog mushing facility.
1:32:27 PM
CARL STRALEY (ph) stated he believes HJR 49 is misguided and
shortsighted, as is Senate Joint Resolution 26. The world is
coming to grips with carbon emissions being a problem for the
climate as well as the acidity of the oceans, something that may
already be impacting Alaska's fisheries. Scientists in the
Environmental Protection Agency formulate the regulations based
on science. Elected officials have an important role, but they
are not scientists and do not necessarily understand the
subtleties of atmospheric and oceanic chemistry; therefore, he
does not think it is their place to step in and make short-
sighted decisions to inhibit the ability of the EPA to do its
job. He said HJR 49 is an inappropriate resolution and
discouraged its passage.
1:35:01 PM
JOE GELDHOF, Alaska Climate Action Network, said his
organization is interested in energy policy and the impacts of
climate change on Alaska. No other state in the U.S. needs
energy legislation more than Alaska. While Alaska is a huge oil
producer, the high cost of diesel is literally destroying the
state's communities and needs to be addressed. He related that
there is federal legislation companion to legislation now being
considered by Alaska's legislators and that that federal
legislation is critical to the success of Alaska in terms of
economy and environment. He urged committee members to work
with their colleagues to come up with a better, more positive
resolution that is oriented to the actual needs of Alaska and
the nation. Alaska's legislators know the building blocks that
are needed to move forward with a coherent national energy
policy; for example, Alaska needs federal loan guarantees of
approximately $40 billion to move Alaska's gas to market.
Alaska clearly needs the federal resources that go with the
adaptation and mitigation of issues; one issue being communities
that are literally falling into the ocean and rivers.
1:38:17 PM
MR. GELDHOF further noted that Alaska is directly involved with
troop deployments that are intimately related with national
security and energy policy. All the polling data in Alaska and
most of the polling data in the U.S. indicate that citizens want
to reduce the nation's almost suicidal dependence on foreign
energy sources. He urged members to step back and re-calibrate
this, and in a positive way give U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski
and Mark Begich what Alaska wants to see in an energy bill.
Alaska's legislators are like President Obama and the
administrator of EPA in that no one wants to have to do any of
this.
1:40:15 PM
MR. GELDHOF stated that, according to discussions he has had
with U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski and her staff, the likelihood
of Senate Joint Resolution 26 passing the U.S. Senate is close
to zero and signing by the president is zero. Alaskans should
not get balled up in the politics of Washington, DC. Instead,
Alaska should provide the building blocks that are necessary to
move forward, be it loan guarantees or anything else. The cap
and trade bill is essentially dead. Alaska's legislators can
contribute to a decent energy bill. He noted that when
confronted with the ozone layer issue 25 years ago, then-
President Ronald Reagan took the advice of the scientists and
worked off the Montreal Protocol. Alaska can come up with
something positive by working on this rather than reducing
itself to partisan bickering and being against everything.
1:43:06 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN disagreed that it is all politics because
resolutions coming before Alaska's legislators drive discussion
and that is a positive step. Policy makers put forth much
effort to be informed when making decisions. Legislators are
working on an in-state gasline as well as getting gas to
America, which would reduce carbon emissions. He asked whether
the Alaska Climate Change Network supports the Alaska gas
pipeline and getting gas to the Lower 48.
MR. GELDHOF responded, "Absolutely." He said he thinks most
everyone who has looked at the use of energy believes that gas,
particularly Alaska gas, holds great potential as a bridge fuel.
He is not saying that legislators have not been working on this
issue arduously; rather, his plea is that legislators take their
knowledge about what is needed to unlock Alaska's gas potential
and unlocking hydropower to solve the debilitating use of diesel
in the Bush. That would become part of the punch list for a
resolution about what Alaska wants and how to build a federal
plan via the U.S. Congress.
1:48:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether Mr. Geldhof considers
HJR 49 to be a partisan resolution.
MR. GELDOF replied it depends upon the glasses one is wearing as
to whether it is partisan. He said his guess is that all of the
committee members agree on the substance of what is needed. For
example, would there be any disagreement that $40 billion in
federal loan guarantees is needed to move Alaska's gas?
Agreement on that would not be partisan and would be useful to
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI pointed out that the very first line of
HJR 49 says it is the President of the United States and members
of the President's party that are trying to enact this climate
legislation; therefore, to him, the resolution has a partisan
tinge.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN closed public testimony after ascertaining no
one else wished to testify.
1:50:53 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he wholeheartedly supports HJR 49. He
said that when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency shuts
down the ability of the Fairbanks witnesses to use wood or
pellet stoves to generate heat, they will be calling Alaska's
congressional delegation and their state legislator. In turn,
since the congressional delegation did not make the policy, the
witnesses will be told to call a nameless, faceless bureaucrat
that made this policy. He said HJR 49 would affix
accountability to the local officials elected by the state's
citizens.
1:52:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON supported HJR 49 and related that U.S.
Senator Lisa Murkowski is eager to receive this resolution.
While he concurs about the larger issue of setting energy
policy, scientific analysis does not take into account the
economic effects. Sometimes a forceful message must be sent and
he agrees with the resolution's intent.
1:54:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that if the climate issue was
cut and dried, members would not have to be talking about it.
She wants to listen to what the researchers and scientists say,
but they are divided about what needs to be done. Actions could
be taken that cost the state billions of dollars in the long run
for things that do not even happen in the long run. She said
that for those reasons she believes every angle must be looked
at. Legislators care and are trying to be careful in their
deliberations. People have put faith in their legislators and
hold legislators accountable and this resolution expresses
legislators' concerns. Given this, and that a lot of questions
remain unanswered, she supports HJR 49.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON related that according to a text message he
just received from the counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on
Energy, Senate Joint Resolution 26 would have the force of law.
In response to Representative Guttenberg, he agreed that it does
have to pass the U.S. House of Representatives as well.
1:57:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed with the previous witness that
opportunities to direct change should be taken and that it not
be jabs at people or situations. Such opportunities allow
Alaska to lay out its energy needs; for example, renewable
energy should include hydropower. He said he does not want to
debate whether climate is manmade or natural, but care must be
taken to not make jabs at people. In this regard, he offered
Conceptual Amendment 1 to remove on page 1, line 5, the words
"the President's party in".
MR. COAN, in response to Co-Chair Neuman, stated that Conceptual
Amendment 1 would be fine with the sponsor.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:01:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that he agrees with the
language on page 4, [lines 8-10], regarding support of measures
by the U.S. Congress for encouraging investments in technology
to reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. However,
he said it appears to him that the second, third, and fourth
whereas clauses on page 1 oppose the legislation that is before
the U.S. Congress. He said he is just pointing out this
apparent conflict and not offering an amendment. He added that
HJR 49 does not include anything about ocean acidification,
which he thinks should be included. He suggested it also be
said that this legislature has looked at dealing with carbon
emissions because the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA)
requires that the pipeline builder identify how it will handle
the carbon emission that will be used in the transmission of
that gas. He said today's public testimony makes it sound like
the legislature has not dealt with carbon emissions when it has.
2:03:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that he still does not know what
House Resolution 2454 actually does.
MR. COAN responded that House Resolution 2454, the American
Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, and Senate Bill 1733, the
Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, are both vehicles that
institute the ability for these EPA mandates to come about.
These measures open it up for "cap and trade" and they are
brought up in HJR 49 because they are in Congress and will allow
this to happen.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that the committee is debating HJR 49,
not the bills in Congress.
2:05:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested Mr. Coan to address the apparent
conflict that he brought up earlier.
MR. COAN replied the purpose is to stop this vehicle of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, through the Clean Air Act, to
regulate greenhouse gases; the sponsor wants to keep this in the
hands of elected officials who have some accountability to
constituents. The first whereas clause on page 1 states that
[House Resolution 2545 and Senate Bill 1733] are improper
vehicles for this to come about. While the sponsor believes
that greenhouse gases are a real thing and are having an effect,
the sponsor does not want the control to come from an outside
entity that has the ability to come in and take over everything.
2:08:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he does not have a problem with that;
however, it seems incongruous to oppose bills that are currently
in Congress [page 1] while asking that Congress pass measures
[on page 4]. He asked Mr. Coan to explain why those two are not
incongruous.
MR. COAN answered that House Resolution 2454 and Senate Bill
1733 are setting out the ability for the "cap and trade"
requirements to come into effect as well as the EPA to take over
the greenhouse gas emissions. The bills are included in HJR 49
to illustrate where they are currently at in Congress. The two
bills would result in unnecessary regulation and economic
interference by the federal government. It goes back to the
issue of nameless, faceless bureaucrats rather than to
constituent accountability.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN urged Representative Seaton to discuss this
further with Representative Stoltze.
2:10:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented to Co-Chair Johnson that if
the Fairbanks North Star Borough, by a vote of the people, takes
the authority away from EPA to come up with a solution to the
wood stove and clean air issue, and if the people come back to
the legislature, then it is because the legislature did not act
and not because the EPA over-reacted. He offered his hope that
the borough does come up with a solution to that problem.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG continued, noting that a lot of things
in HJR 49 are troubling in regard to policy and how they are
said. It would have been much easier to make the one small
amendment and support the resolution unanimously. Based upon
his conversations with people who have observed Congress, he
thinks the Alaska legislature deals more with energy issues than
does Congress, as well as all national issues such as salmon and
ocean policy. Therefore, Alaska legislators have a better
understanding than most members of Congress. Regardless of the
administration, when people from Washington, DC, come to Alaska
they always say how they had not really known what Alaska was
actually like until seeing it personally. In a resolution like
HJR 49, the legislature could have taken the high road and laid
it out for them instead of complaining about things. It is a
given that the desire is for the elected officials to make the
policy. He agreed there are conflicts with some of the
resolution's statements and some of the things the legislature
is working on. He said he does not think HJR 49, in its current
form, "gets us there."
2:14:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 2 to remove
the second, third, and fourth whereas clauses on page 1, lines
8-15, continuing to line 1 on page 2.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained he is offering Conceptual
Amendment 2 because he thinks there is another resolution before
the legislature that opposes House Resolution 2454 and Senate
Bill 1733, and that other resolution has not come before this
committee. Therefore, incorporating this language into HJR 49
is like members are presuming to oppose a resolution that they
have not passed. He reiterated his earlier opinion that the
second resolve language on page 4 is incongruous with the
second, third, and fourth whereas clauses on page 1. In
response to Co-Chair Johnson, he stated that Conceptual
Amendment 2 would take out all of the references to House
Resolution 2454 and Senate Bill 1733 for which there is no
factual information available to committee members.
2:17:58 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON understood the sponsor worked closely with U.S.
Senator Lisa Murkowski's office on drafting HJR 49.
MR. COAN nodded yes.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether the third whereas on line 14,
page 1, specifically came from the senator's office and that it
is her opinion that support in the U.S. Congress for House
Resolution 2454 and Senate Bill 1733 has weakened.
MR. COAN responded correct.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether the first and second whereas
clauses on page 1 also came from U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski.
MR. COAN replied these two were run through the senator's
office, but were part of the sponsor's original draft. They are
more to paint the big picture of where the congressional
legislation is, are they are dealt with more in HJR 45, the "cap
and trade" resolution.
2:19:00 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON expressed his support for deleting the first
two whereas clauses, but not the third. He offered a friendly
amendment to exclude deletion of the third whereas. Therefore,
Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, would only delete lines 8-13
on page 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON accepted the friendly amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 2.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN objected to Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON removed his objection to the amendment.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN reiterated his objection the amendment.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, in response to Representative P. Wilson,
confirmed that the friendly amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2
had passed.
2:21:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether deletion of the second and
third whereas clauses on page 1 would make some of the whereas
clauses on pages 2 and 3 not fit anymore, given that Senate
Joint Resolution 26 is the underlying part of HJR 49.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied no; he believes the other whereas
clauses are talking about the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's initiation of these processes through the Clean Air
Act. The two whereas clause that would be removed by Conceptual
Amendment 2, as amended, are directed at [proposed]
congressional statutes and all the other whereas clauses are
asking the U.S. Congress to develop responsible policy.
Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, would just take out the
presumption that the proposed laws currently before Congress are
not responsible policy.
2:23:30 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN maintained his objection to the amendment.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kawasaki, Tuck, P.
Wilson, Olson, Seaton, Edgmon, Guttenberg, and Johnson voted in
favor of Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended. Representative
Neuman voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2, as
amended, was adopted by a vote of 8-1.
2:25:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, in regard to Co-Chair Neuman's earlier
question about what other nations are doing, related that during
a recent visit to France he learned that a goal was established
in the 1960s to go to nuclear power. France now produces all of
its electric base load, as well as a significant portion of the
electricity of adjoining countries, by nuclear power. Some of
the countries that are anti-nuclear are using the nuclear
electricity produced by France. He also visited Poland, a cold
weather country that reminded him of Fairbanks, and learned that
80 percent of Poland's electric base load is from coal. While
Poland was worried about the upcoming "Copenhagen talks," it had
a lot to look forward to because of the incredible amount of air
pollution due to the coal. While Poland does not support some
of the European Union initiatives, it was promising for him to
see that many of Poland's young political leaders and emerging
leaders have adopted the idea of getting away from fossil fuels.
It was interesting to see that Poland is looking toward
hydropower and geothermal power, as well as other technologies
that have less impact on the environment.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI added that during his recent visit to
Washington, DC, with other Alaska legislators, there was no
visible way to tell whether a person walking down the halls of
Congress was a Democrat or a Republican. He said he does not
know what section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act does and whether
he wants an outright repeal of that section, and the problem is
that neither does anyone else on the committee. Therefore, he
thinks it is disingenuous to say that a statement needs to be
made when it is unknown what statement is trying to be made. He
said he thinks HJR 49 is another resolution in a line of silly
resolutions that are being sent to Congress to object to
something that Congress is doing. Along with having no teeth,
HJR 49 fans a lot of flames with the people in his district and
across the state about the things the legislature is not doing
while it is in session. An hour and a half has now been spent
on something that the sponsors of HJR 49 could have included in
a letter to Congress.
2:30:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he will object to HJR 49 until he
knows what it actually says. It is a waste of time to do these
partisan joint resolutions, he continued, and he would prefer to
be working on something like state energy policy.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to call the question.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tuck, P. Wilson,
Olson, Seaton, Edgmon, Neuman, and Johnson voted in favor of
calling the question. Representatives Guttenberg and Kawasaki
voted against calling the question. Therefore, the motion
passed by a vote of 7-2.
2:32:30 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report HJR 49, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives P. Wilson, Olson,
Seaton, Edgmon, Neuman, and Johnson voted in favor of HJR 49, as
amended. Representatives Guttenberg, Kawasaki, and Tuck voted
against it. Therefore, CSHJR 49(RES) was reported out of the
House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of [6-3].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|