Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/18/2001 01:30 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 18, 2001
1:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mary Kapsner
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 143
"An Act authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to enter
into agreements with a person or persons desiring to own an oil
or natural gas pipeline proposed to be located on state land for
the purposes of providing for payment of the reasonable costs
incurred in preparing for activities before receipt of an
application under the Alaska Right-of-Way Leasing Act and for
activities relating to the processing of an application under
that Act; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 143 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 156(RES)
"An Act amending the Alaska Land Act to clarify the requirement
of a single written best interest finding required for the sale,
lease, or other disposal of state land or resources or an
interest in them, and relating to certain disposals involving
multiphased development; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 156(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 159
"An Act relating to the management of state land."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Department of Natural Resources Commissioner
- CONFIRMATION HEARING POSTPONED TO 4/25
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 143
SHORT TITLE:RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASING:PREAPPLICATION COSTS
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/14/01 0659 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/14/01 0659 (S) RES, FIN
03/19/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/19/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/19/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/20/01 0733 (S) RES RPT 4DP 1NR
03/20/01 0733 (S) DP: TORGERSON, TAYLOR,
PEARCE, KELLY;
03/20/01 0733 (S) NR: ELTON
03/20/01 0733 (S) FN1: INDETERMINATE(DNR)
03/28/01 0837 (S) FIN RPT 6DP 2NR
03/28/01 0837 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, GREEN,
AUSTERMAN,
03/28/01 0837 (S) WILKEN, LEMAN; NR: HOFFMAN,
OLSON
03/28/01 0838 (S) FN1: INDETERMINATE(DNR)
03/28/01 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
03/28/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
03/28/01 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
03/30/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/30/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/02/01 0902 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/2/01
04/02/01 0904 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/02/01 0904 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/02/01 0904 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 143
04/02/01 0904 (S) PASSED Y18 N- A1 E1
04/02/01 0905 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/02/01 0908 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/02/01 0908 (S) VERSION: SB 143
04/03/01 0820 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/03/01 0820 (H) O&G, RES, FIN
04/10/01 (H) O&G AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/10/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/10/01 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
04/11/01 0956 (H) O&G RPT 4DP 2NR
04/11/01 0956 (H) DP: KOHRING, DYSON, CHENAULT,
FATE;
04/11/01 0956 (H) NR: GUESS, JOULE
04/11/01 0956 (H) FN1: INDETERMINATE(DNR)
04/18/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 156
SHORT TITLE:BEST INTEREST FINDING UNDER AK LAND ACT
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/21/01 0756 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/21/01 0756 (S) RES
03/28/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/28/01 (S) Moved CS(RES) Out of
Committee
03/28/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/01 0855 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP 2NR SAME TITLE
03/29/01 0855 (S) DP: TORGERSON, TAYLOR,
HALFORD, PEARCE,
03/29/01 0855 (S) KELLY; NR: LINCOLN, ELTON
03/29/01 0855 (S) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
03/30/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
03/30/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/02/01 0903 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/2/01
04/02/01 0905 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/02/01 0905 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/02/01 0905 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
04/02/01 0905 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
156(RES)
04/02/01 0906 (S) PASSED Y14 N4 A1 E1
04/02/01 0906 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/02/01 0906 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
04/03/01 0922 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/03/01 0923 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/03/01 0923 (S) VERSION: CSSB 156(RES)
04/04/01 0836 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/04/01 0836 (H) O&G, RES
04/10/01 (H) O&G AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/10/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/10/01 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
04/11/01 0956 (H) O&G RPT 4DP 2NR
04/11/01 0957 (H) DP: KOHRING, DYSON, CHENAULT,
FATE;
04/11/01 0957 (H) NR: JOULE, GUESS
04/11/01 0957 (H) FN1: ZERO(DNR)
04/18/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 427
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 143 on behalf of the Senate
Resources Committee, sponsor.
CHRISTY TIBBLES, Staff
to Senator Drue Pearce
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 119
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of the Senate Resources
Committee, sponsor of SB 156.
SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate
Alaska Conservation Alliance and
Alaska Conservation Voters (ACA/ACV)
PO Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of ACA/ACV in
opposition to SB 156.
MARK MEYERS, Director
Division of Oil & Gas
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
550 West Seventh Avenue, Suite 800
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3560
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 156.
JIM EASON
8611 Leeper Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Clarified issues regarding SB 156.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-36, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Representatives Fate,
Green, Stevens, Kerttula, Masek, and Scalzi were present at the
call to order. Representatives McGuire and Chenault arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
SB 143-RIGHT-OF-WAY LEASING:PREAPPLICATION COSTS
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 143, "An Act authorizing the Department of
Natural Resources to enter into agreements with a person or
persons desiring to own an oil or natural gas pipeline proposed
to be located on state land for the purposes of providing for
payment of the reasonable costs incurred in preparing for
activities before receipt of an application under the Alaska
Right-of-Way Leasing Act and for activities relating to the
processing of an application under that Act; and providing for
an effective date."
Number 0159
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, Alaska State Legislature, came before
the committee on behalf of the Senate Resources Committee,
sponsor, to give an overview of SB 143. He explained that the
bill would allow the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to
start collecting fees for its pre-application work regarding
pipeline [right-of-way leases]. Currently, people must have an
application on file before the department can enter into a
memorandum of agreement.
SENATOR TORGERSON mentioned looking at a $10 million fiscal note
from [Governor Knowles] for work the governor wants his
administration to do next year regarding the pipeline. Senator
Torgerson told the committee although a lot of that would still
be reimbursable after an application is filed, he believes it
would be better to authorize [DNR] to enter into agreements now
for pre-application work. He explained:
First of all, we're not going to be out spending money
on things that they don't want, because they're not
going to be willing to pay for something unless ...
it's work that they actually deem necessary to have
done, or, through our negotiations, we tell them it
needs to be done.
But in any event, it leads to an agreement of
understanding between the parties of what work will be
done. And then, the ... producers who ... happen to
have the application or route under consideration
would sign the agreement and write us a check for the
work that we're going to do.
SENATOR TORGERSON pointed out that the bill sunsets December 31,
2003. He said he doesn't necessarily want the administration
cutting deals on pipeline routes indefinitely. [Legislators]
know that the subject is gas lines and are familiar with the
[proposed] routes and the major players, so there won't be any
major surprises in the next couple of years; however, the issue
should be brought back before the legislature in order to have
better control over it, even in the pre-application stage.
SENATOR TORGERSON addressed the fiscal note, reporting that it
shows that DNR estimates at least 50 percent of the reimbursable
cost would be captured through this agreement; however, he
believes that number would actually be much higher when
negotiations are made regarding which duties the state will
perform and which studies are needed during the pre-application
stage.
Number 0435
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report SB 143 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, SB 143 was moved out of the House
Resources Standing Committee.
SB 156-BEST INTEREST FINDING UNDER AK LAND ACT
Number 0500
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 156(RES), "An Act amending the Alaska
Land Act to clarify the requirement of a single written best
interest finding required for the sale, lease, or other disposal
of state land or resources or an interest in them, and relating
to certain disposals involving multiphased development; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0531
CHRISTY TIBBLES, Staff to Senator Drue Pearce, Alaska State
Legislature, came before the committee on behalf of the Senate
Resources Committee, sponsor of SB 156, to give a brief
overview. She presented the sponsor statement [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows:
Senate Bill 156 amends the Alaska Land Act to clarify
the requirement that the Department of Natural
Resources prepare a single, written best interest
finding for multiphased development projects. In
1994, the legislature passed SB 308 to amend the
Alaska Land Act in response to several unfavorable
Alaska Supreme Court decisions that threatened the
state's leasing program.
The legislation explicitly allowed project phasing and
precisely defined the scope of the best interest
finding determination. Since its passage, recent
court decisions have continued to threaten the program
and have concluded that the department is "obliged, at
each phase of development, to issue a best interests
finding ... relating to that phase before the proposed
development may proceed."
Under SB 308, the original legislation, the
legislature intended that a Best Interest Finding
would be prepared for the first phase; the disposal,
and subsequent phases would be subject to the
"department's approval" and to separate reviews by
extensive permitting processes that include public
input and scrutiny of other agencies.
The legislature did not intend "approval" to be
defined as a best interest finding determination as
the courts have misinterpreted. The legislature
intended the department to exercise their discretion
to impose conditions in the best interest finding
determination, issued for the disposal, which would
minimize future impacts. Preparation of a Best
Interest Finding determination for every phase would
be a very costly and time-consuming process.
Senate Bill 156 elaborates the legislative findings
for phasing under the Alaska Land Act and amends AS
38.05.035 so that it is clear that the Department of
Natural Resources is required to issue a single
written best interest finding for the disposal of
state land. It also ensures the public the
opportunity to comment at the exploration, production,
and transportation phases of a project.
By clarifying the legislature's original intent, SB
156 will overturn the courts' erroneous
interpretation. Senate Bill 156 provides clear
guidance to the courts regarding the legislature's
policy and will result in the avoidance of protracted
litigation and associated delays or disruptions of the
state's leasing program and development of already
leased acreage.
MS. TIBBLES informed members she was available to answer
questions, as were people from the Division of Oil & Gas.
Number 0698
SUSAN SCHRADER, Conservation Advocate, Alaska Conservation
Alliance and Alaska Conservation Voters (ACA/ACV), paraphrased
her written testimony [included in the committee packet], which
read as follows:
Alaska Conservation Alliance and Alaska Conservation
Voters are sister nonprofit organizations dedicated to
protecting Alaska's environment through public
education and advocacy. Our 44 member organizations
and businesses represent over 35,000 registered
Alaskans, many of whom participate in public notice
and comment opportunities during the state's review of
development projects of all types. This ability of
concerned citizens to meaningfully express their
opinion about activities that involve the disposal of
state land or an interest in state land is a protected
right under our Alaska constitution.
In essence, CSSB 156, in an effort to avoid
inconvenience and cost for the oil and gas industry,
significantly limits the public's ability to evaluate
disposals of state land. Why shouldn't DNR be obliged
to take a "big picture" hard look and issue a best
interest finding at subsequent phases of a multiphase
project that may span six years or more?
This legislation provides for public notice and
comment on subsequent phases through the Alaska
Coastal Management Program (ACMP) process for projects
within coastal districts. For projects outside of a
coastal district, the bill is unclear whether or not
DNR will adopt new regulations. The ACMP process for
public participation is not a reasonable alternative
to a best interest finding process. The Byzantine
ACMP process is extremely difficult to navigate for
any Alaskan who is not familiar with the intricacies
of state law.
ACV encourages committee members, through amendments
to SB 156, to provide DNR some direction as to what to
include in the new public notice and comment
regulations the agency may adopt for projects not
covered by the ACMP. Unless SB 156 requires DNR to
adopt rules that truly allow Alaskans a meaningful
opportunity to evaluate subsequent phases of multiyear
projects both within and outside of coastal districts,
ACV urges you to oppose this legislation for the
simple reason that while it may be in the oil
industry's interests, it clearly is not in the
public's.
Number 0961
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said the timeline in the permitting process
has been shortened in [SB 156]. He asked Ms. Schrader if she
believes it is not in the public's best interest to shorten the
timeline of permitting. He gave a case-in-point of the gas
pipeline, which people having been awaiting for 20 years. He
said there are other situations in which thorough public input,
"accompanied by the rapidity of which permitting can take
place," is in the public's best interest.
MS. SCHRADER offered that if shortening a permitting process to
make it more efficient comes at the expense of public comment,
it would not be in Alaskans' best interest to do so. She
indicated many states, as well as Congress, have passed laws
that allow an opportunity for public comment, because history
has shown that many impacts of a project will be overlooked when
there is no pubic comment.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked Ms. Schrader if she was saying that
there is no opportunity for public input in this.
MS. SCHRADER clarified that she was suggesting the opportunities
outlined in SB 156, particularly in the beginning where required
permits are listed, do not substitute for the type of public
comment period that is included with the best interest finding.
Number 1101
CO-CHAIR SCALZI asked Ms. Schrader to clarify what "Byzantine"
means to her.
MS. SCHRADER answered, "Very complex and convoluted."
CO-CHAIR SCALZI read that section of her written statement,
substituting the word "complex" for "Byzantine." He said his
tendency would be to disagree. Having served on the Coastal
Policy Council "back when [SB] 308 first came through," Co-Chair
Scalzi said a lot of public comment inundated the system and
overwhelmed him as a member. He also stated his belief that the
people who testified were well informed. He asked Ms. Schrader
to cite an example that would specifically outline why [SB 156]
would be detrimental to the public process.
MS. SCHRADER responded that she has commented, mainly regarding
local and Southeast [Alaska] issues, through the ACMP process
"on consistency determination." Although not an attorney, she
is relatively well-versed in state law.
MS. SCHRADER said private citizens of Alaska who comment upon
developments that may impact their businesses and neighborhoods
shouldn't be required to quote statutes and regulations in their
testimony. Those who routinely comment through the ACMP process
typically are professionals familiar with the laws, or they are
attorneys. She said many of [ACA/ACV's] small volunteer
organizations have to seek the advice of an attorney to assist
with the comment process through the ACMP. She believes the
best interest finding process is much more user-friendly than
the ACMP process.
Number 1264
CO-CHAIR SCALZI noted the ACMP is made up of lay people. He
stated his belief that the input from the public was "pretty
much well-received by the council members." He said he
disagreed with Ms. Schrader's comment.
Number 1300
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that she had been the attorney for
the Coastal Policy Council at that time and had information
about how it all came about. She informed the committee that
she had just checked with the Office of the Attorney General to
see whether there was any ethical problem with her participating
in the hearing. She reported, "None of us believe that there
is." She then stated:
The way that I'm understanding the bill, if the
director only has to prepare a single written finding,
there still would have to be, before a next phase, ...
a chance of public notice and opportunity to comment,
and it looks like under regulations that are already
provided before the department, unless there's a
consistency review. Is that the way that you
understand ... the bill works?
MS. SCHRADER answered that she believed so. She stated her
belief that testimony in the Senate regarding this bill
suggested that there would be new regulations for public notice
and comments, adopted by DNR, for those projects outside of a
coastal district. In a coastal district, it would be covered by
the ACMP.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that since she and Co-Chair Scalzi
were involved with the Coastal Policy Council, there have been
some radical changes regarding how public comment is taken and
the ACMP. She asked Ms. Schrader to briefly describe how that
has changed.
MS. SCHRADER responded that she probably could not effectively
[describe the change], because "my frustration was trying to get
comments." She recounted one instance, before she served in her
present position, when she had submitted comments but had not
quoted the correct statutes or regulations; therefore, she was
told she would have to redo her comments before they could be
considered. She reiterated that she thought that was too much
to ask most Alaskans to do in their spare time.
Number 1501
MARK MEYERS, Director, Division of Oil & Gas, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), testified via teleconference:
Just a few comments: One is, the division understands
the need and the department understands the need to
promulgate regulations for dealing with the
development outside of the (indisc.) area. So, that's
truly our intention; that's our understanding that
that's the legislative intention of the bill ....
The second issue is, just in terms of implementation
of a program: If we were to do a best interest
finding at each stage of exploring the development and
transportation - if we took a quick look at some of
the costs involved, the issues involved, and looked at
progress going on this year that would qualify for
that - I come up with a list of a minimum of at least
12 projects, major projects that would involve that
best interest finding.
They're finding a significant increase in staffing
size. We estimate about eleven people. That would
include six best-interest writers; a couple [of]
vendors, one of them being a supervisor; a permitting
coordinator, to make sure things were in line with the
permitting processes that are listed out in the
legislation; and (indisc.).
So we'd have a ... significant expansion; in fact,
we're going to have a much larger staff than we
currently do, but that might near what the Minerals
Management Service has .... So, we would have to
significantly enlarge our staff ... if we were to
implement ... best interest findings at each of the
phases. And that, of course, ... is something that we
have not ... done at this point in time.
The other issue is: Could we do it in a timely
manner? It would be very difficult, in terms of the
exploration phase, because our exploration is
currently a very narrow window within the winter. To
come up with a multiple plan, even by area, we'd have
to really have contract workers, in addition to the
staff, ... to be able to do that.
[It's] the same thing with development projects: I
think we would see a significant slowdown of the
process of permitting and development because of this,
simply because it's an additional demand on our staff;
it's an additional review of the other committee
processes that would go on.
And I just mentioned some of the things that affect us
in the Division of Oil & Gas that also have an effect
on other organizations that input into the current
permitting processes, including DEC [the Department of
Environmental Conservation] and [the Alaska Department
of] Fish and Game.
Number 1669
MR. MEYERS, in response to a question from Representative Fate,
explained:
At the disposal phase, we ... have the best interest
finding currently. If we were to implement - as the
Kachemak Bay position suggests - one at each ... of
the major phases of development, that's what I was
discussing in terms of the additional personnel costs
and time and (indisc.) involved.
CO-CHAIR MASEK pointed out a copy of the Alaska Supreme Court
opinion in Kachemak Bay Conservation Society v. State [included
in the committee packet].
Number 1724
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how Mr. Meyers' review would work
at every stage as a safe process if he didn't have to do a best
interest finding. She also asked how he would deal with
cumulative impacts of a project and how the coastal management
program review would work if he were not doing it. She said she
wanted to clearly understand how he would take into account all
the court-ruled considerations regarding impacts and projects
being "phased."
MR. MEYERS responded that currently [DNR] doesn't do a best
interest finding at later phases, and the bill would add to what
[DNR] is currently doing regarding public input and process. He
mentioned a permitting process for gold exploration and
development projects. He said, "In addition, we have, of
course, the unitization processes, which do have, in fact, a
public comment period."
MR. MEYERS noted that much of [DNR's] information comes via its
permitting process. Additional information comes through the
typical requirement for environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement that goes along with the
development stage, "which does deal with issues like cumulative
impact that you had suggested." He added:
Again, I think part of our concern ... with not having
this clarification in the bill is the redundancy of
the other processes, as relating to what a best
interest finding would add in value. There probably
are some areas that you've mentioned in cumulative,
that if there were not an EA or EIS, or a noticeable
borough review of the process - which, again, occurs
on North Slope projects - there might be a few areas
there that we do not cover, that would be covered
under best interest finding. I think those areas are
relatively minimal, and the cost of implementing those
and the effort and delay [are] pretty severe.
Number 1887
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated that "we" know the lineup of the
cases, which originally stood at no phasing. Then phased
projects were allowed. She remarked, "The danger of that is
that if you're not looking at cumulative impact, you can miss
important things." She asked Mr. Meyers how [the department]
would ensure that it would be reviewing for those cumulative
impacts at the following stages. She asked if the EISs and EAs
would be reviewed, or other information would be relied upon.
She also asked if public testimony would be allowed.
MR. MEYERS stated his belief that Representative Kerttula had
answered the question. He said "we" rely heavily on the other
processes. He mentioned issuing permits for exploration wells,
for example. He said that is one of the time-consuming
challenges. That information is integrated into the permitting
process. In addition, any public information that is provided
is taken into account. He said it perhaps isn't as direct and
straightforward as it would be in terms of a separate best
interest finding, but in most areas it overlaps heavily the
(indisc.) committee process and DNR's review of those permits.
Number 1984
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Mr. Meyers about the coastal
management review and whether there would be just the one
written finding "and then continuing at each phase."
MR. MEYERS replied with the following:
Right now ... there's a single best interest finding
done after this whole (indisc.). ... Assuming there
[are] additional operations - seismic operations, as
well as drilling operations, development (indisc.),
that's for initial phase of development, unitization,
[and] participating areas - then in that process there
is ... another review. And in some of those processes
right now - not all of them - we have a public comment
period.
I think this bill requires us, especially when we're
outside the coastal zone, to add a number of
additional public comment periods, external to what we
currently have. So, again, I think we strengthen the
input that we get into the ... decisions that we then
write for units, or for (indisc.) areas for permits
for a well. I think, as far as the ... ACMP process,
it's best to have DGC [Division of Governmental
Coordination] describe it, since they're the real
drivers in that.
Number 2079
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, "Will you make more written
findings, after the public comment period, that you're going to
consider in the subsequent phases?"
MR. MEYERS stated his belief that at this point [DNR] doesn't
intend on doing additional written comments, but would integrate
[existing] written comments into the current processes.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how anyone would appeal if there
were no written decision.
Number 2113
MR. MEYERS indicated public input would go into the process of
deciding whether to issue the permit. In that process [DNR] is
reviewing additional information from all sources available, in
order to evaluate the following processes: permits, unit
applications, participating-area decisions, and exploration-well
permitting, for example.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA clarified that concerns would be brought
out at the end of the permit process.
MR. MEYERS concurred. He added that the public would always
have the ability to appeal a process or permit decision, for
example.
CO-CHAIR MASEK closed public comment.
Number 2185
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA stated concern that no one was present
to describe how the ACMP process, with which she has not been
involved in four years, would work if it were not done by DNR.
Number 2226
JIM EASON came before the committee, noting that he formerly was
the director of the Division of Oil & Gas during the period when
the initial legislation - SB 308 - was drafted. He stated his
understanding that [SB 165] will in no way affect the operation
of the ACMP; whatever review processes are underway or have been
underway, since the initial bill was passed, will continue.
MR. EASON explained that this only affects the court's
determination that DNR has to draft a separate best interest
finding for every phase. Based upon his experience at the time,
he said it was clear that the intent, as expressed in statute,
has always been that there be one best interest finding at the
disposal phase. He explained that the disposal phase of an oil
and gas lease bill is at [the time of] the decision to offer the
lease to a person.
MR. EASON told members that the series of court cases, which
triggered the need to come back to clarify or reinforce the
decision that the legislature made in passing SB 308, began to
graft onto the initial process of a disposal best interest
finding the requirement that separate findings be done in
separate phases. He stated his understanding that [SB 156] will
not affect the ACMP process. There will be an ACMP review of
the disposal and of the best interest finding process at the
lease sale. Additionally, there are ACMP reviews of permits for
exploration, as well as development, that will continue as
before.
Number 2339
REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSSB 156(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSB 156(RES) was
moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|