Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/14/2003 01:05 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 14, 2003
1:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Hugh Fate, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19
Relating to the ultra low sulfur diesel fuel requirements of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency and their
application to Alaska.
- MOVED CSHJR 19(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 192
"An Act designating the Department of Natural Resources as lead
agency for resource development projects; making conforming
amendments; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 192 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 208
"An Act relating to hunting on the same day airborne; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 19
SHORT TITLE:FEDERAL DIESEL FUEL REQUIREMENTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)SAMUELS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/26/03 0640 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/26/03 0640 (H) RES
03/26/03 0640 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
04/11/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/11/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/14/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 192
SHORT TITLE:DNR LEAD RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/12/03 0515 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/12/03 0515 (H) RES, FIN
03/12/03 0515 (H) FN1: (DNR)
03/12/03 0515 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/12/03 0515 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
04/14/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HJR 19.
ERNESTA BALLARD, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 19; assisted in
presentation of HB 192 and answered questions.
TOM IRWIN, Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 192 and answered questions.
RICHARD LeFEBVRE, Deputy Commissioner
Anchorage Office
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 192.
CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 192.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-30, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR HUGH FATE called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. Representatives Fate, Gatto, and
Wolf were present at the call to order. Representatives Heinze,
Lynn, Morgan, Guttenberg, and Kerttula arrived as the meeting
was in progress. Representative Masek was excused.
CHAIR FATE informed members that HB 208 was not being heard that
day at the request of the sponsor.
The committee took an at-ease from 1:06 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.
HJR 19-FEDERAL DIESEL FUEL REQUIREMENTS
CHAIR FATE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19, Relating to the ultra low sulfur
diesel fuel requirements of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and their application to Alaska.
Number 0270
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SAMUELS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
characterized HJR 19 as a resolution that would address an
unfunded mandate from the federal Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). He explained that low sulfur diesel fuel is going
to be mandated regardless of the actions of the state, including
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) or other
state entities. He indicated low sulfur diesel fuel will be
used [more frequently] in mainly rural communities in Alaska,
where energy is mostly produced by diesel generators. Whether
this fuel will work remains to be seen; also unknown are the
kinds of retrofits required. It won't be this year or next
year, but there are going to be problems associated with it.
Engine manufacturers are going to have to start developing
engines that use this low sulfur fuel, if they have not already,
he suggested. He commented that if people did not use this type
of fuel, there would not be new engines on the road.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS cited two problems that the resolution
addresses. First, the state has authority to receive receipts
from the federal government to do a health study to see whether
there actually is a health risk involved in mostly rural
communities with the diesel generation; however, thus far
Congress hasn't funded the health study, and so the first phase
of the resolution asks that the federal government provide the
money to do the health study. Second, the resolution addresses
how this will affect the logistics and the economy of rural
Alaska and whether tanks need to be retrofitted or whether
someone needs to go to the Denali Commission to build new tanks.
Fuels cannot be mixed. Therefore, if a barge only delivered
fuel to rural communities once a year and tanks were half full
of the old type of fuel, the tanks would have to be emptied and
scrubbed before the low sulfur fuel could be added.
Number 0454
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said retrofits might be needed on the
generators themselves, but it was not known what exactly would
be involved. There's no way to predict what the cost of the
[low sulfur] fuel might be; market conditions are going to
determine that. Currently, he said, there's only one
manufacturer of the arctic-grade fuel, and it is in Canada;
assuming that this happens, there will probably be more.
Tankers will need to be scrubbed also. "If we go 50/50, you
could only take half the load; that's also going to affect the
prices of fuel," he said. He added that while the cost of fuel
cannot be determined, the logistical costs can be - the cost to
retrofit [equipment], the costs to scrub the tanks, and whether
new tanks need to be built are all things that can be
[determined].
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS explained that the resolution asks the
delegation to work with the EPA and to coordinate with DEC, the
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED), and
potentially the Denali Commission to pool their resources and
get the EPA to fund the health study and determine the costs.
He expressed concern if the costs and the health risks aren't
determined. He said there's absolutely no doubt that this is
going to happen, so [the legislature] should know about it and
[work] to get the congressional delegation to help [the state
with funding].
Number 0628
CHAIR FATE asked Representative Samuels if any timeline that he
knew of would compel [the legislature] to set dates.
Number 0665
ERNESTA BALLARD, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation, explained that low sulfur diesel requirements for
trucks and buses [become effective] in 2006, so before that date
it should be known what needs to be done. She said [DEC] wants
to have a good handle on the health issues, but that's not
really the subject of Representative Samuels' initiative; his is
far more an interest for the communities' sake in planning how
they will handle fuel management.
Number 0742
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Commissioner Ballard what health
issues would be involved in switching from using high sulfur
fuel to low sulfur fuel.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said that's what [DEC] would like to know.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if it would reasonable to expect that
there would be a [health risk].
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said regarding health information, the
[department] had recently come to understand a great deal more
than in the past about exposures to diesel fumes. For many
years, those exposures were considered to be comparable to the
exposures to dust. In the last five or six years, however,
national analysis has demonstrated that there's a far greater
risk associated with those exposures in chronic respiratory
diseases such as emphysema and asthma, and that there is clearly
an established link between exposure to diesel fumes and cancer,
she explained.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said it's that work and the exposures
associated with trucks and bus diesel-exhaust fumes that led EPA
to the national promulgation and the requirement for the low
sulfur diesel fuel. [The department] realized that although
Alaska doesn't have highway exposures comparable to those which
were the basis for that study, the state has very unusual rural
exposures to diesel from combustion in diesel generators. There
is no other place in the country that would have those
comparable kinds of exposures, she added.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD offered her belief that the department
should have a good handle on the health effects of high sulfur,
low sulfur, or any sulfur diesel fuel. She said this is because
[DEC] issues permits for all of those generators; if there is a
health issue that the department should be aware of, it needs to
build that into the permit conditions. The department's work is
independent of the issue that really is at the heart of
Representative Samuels' resolution, which is to find some way
for communities to better prepare themselves to manage the fuel,
she suggested. She said regardless of how communities manage
the fuel, [DEC] should know what health issue may pertain to
those exposures.
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if would there be a need for support
for this kind of resolution if the engine manufacturers
determine that they don't need any modification to switch to low
sulfur diesel fuel.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS offered his understanding that the engine
manufacturers have already made the modifications, and using
high sulfur diesel fuel in an engine would result in major
engine damage. He said it's a major modification and it's going
to happen, because once the engines change over, high sulfur
fuel cannot be used.
Number 0970
CHAIR FATE offered that it seems the unintended economic
consequences far outweigh the unknown health hazards [of low
sulfur fuel]. He mentioned the remanufacture of engines or
people going broke because they can't afford the new fuel.
REPRESENTATIVE SAMUELS said he agrees with Commissioner Ballard
that it is necessary to know the health risks, which is the
point of the resolution. He reiterated that [switching from
high to low sulfur diesel fuel] is going to happen in the future
whether the state likes it or not. The EPA has come down with a
ruling, and the manufacturers have been given the date [by which
compliance is required]. Representative Samuels suggested [it
is necessary] to find out about the health risks and address
them if they exist, and to find out the logistical problems that
are going to arise. For example, how much is it going to cost
to retrofit or to keep using the high sulfur fuel? If there are
no health problems and someone can't afford to retrofit, [using
the high sulfur fuel] would be an option, he said. He noted
that there were a lot of options available but didn't know what
they were. Representative Samuels told members it shouldn't be
too much to determine what would be required or what the choices
are going to be.
Number 1152
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF moved to adopt as the proposed committee
substitute (CS) an unofficial, unnumbered work draft labeled
"Conceptual CS for House Joint Resolution No. 19." There being
no objection, the proposed CS was before the committee.
[Tom Chapple, Acting Director, Division of Air and Water
Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation, offered to
answer questions.]
Number 1245
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF moved to report CSHJR 19 [the work draft
labeled "Conceptual CS for House Joint Resolution No. 19"] out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection,
CSHJR 19(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing
Committee.
HB 192-DNR LEAD RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
[Contains discussion of SB 142, the companion bill]]
Number 1294
CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 192, "An Act designating the Department of
Natural Resources as lead agency for resource development
projects; making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date." [HB 192 was sponsored by the House Rules
Standing Committee by request of the governor.]
CHAIR FATE invited Commissioner Irwin of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) and Commissioner Ballard of the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to explain the
legislation.
Number 1372
TOM IRWIN, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources,
explained that HB 192 designates DNR as the lead agency for
resource development projects. He emphasized how much he
supports the governor's priority to develop natural resources,
and said this provides the wealth for Alaska and the hope for
everyone's future. He told the committee:
The purpose of this bill is to help facilitate and
expedite resource development. This bill would
specifically provide the commissioner of the
Department of Natural Resources with statutory
authority under [AS] 38.05.020(b) [to] lead and
coordinate all matters relating to the state's review
and authorization of resource development projects.
... In no way do we ask for [or are] we wanting
authority to make decisions that are appropriate for
the other commissioner, such as Commissioner Ballard.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN emphasized that the bill provides needed
clarity, noting that although the department has served as the
lead for mining projects and will continue to do so, its
authority to serve as the lead agency for other resource
development projects isn't as explicit. He explained that the
primary responsibility within DNR for carrying out lead-agency
coordination functions will rest with the Office of Project
Management and Permitting; this new office includes both the
project-management function and the [Alaska Coastal Management
Program (ACMP)], which are being combined for efficiency.
Number 1570
COMMISSIONER IRWIN told members that large resource development
projects, because of their scope and complexity, are more
efficiently reviewed and authorized using a lead agency for the
coordination and integration, to the extent possible, of the
various permitting processes of the agencies involved, using the
project-team approach. Smaller projects, normally less complex
and requiring fewer permits, may benefit from lead-agency
coordination for review, but may not require the establishment
of a project team; he said they "may want to get into this type
of system just to get the information and get out - they will
have the right to proceed as a large project or they can be
readily funneled into the appropriate area where there's single
permits or simple permits, whichever the case."
Number 1656
COMMISSIONER IRWIN highlighted a three-phase approach for
resource development projects utilizing the lead-coordinating-
agency and project-review-team approach. Phase 1 will focus on
evaluating a proposed project to determine if the lead-agency
project-team approach would best address review and permitting
needs of the project, he noted. Indicating he was addressing
questions he'd been asked, he continued:
A company - large or small - individual, or large
group will come with their basic information. They
will sit down with the appropriate agencies assembled
for this review, and they will have the opportunity to
hear everyone around the table talk about which
permits are needed or not needed. But, equally, the
agencies will be able to have interchange: "Well, if
you need to get this, you're going to need this from
us," or, "Gee, if you get that, we don't need this."
We know there's multiple variables in this. But
that's where it gets started, and get a good, fair
chance up front to see what's happening; the agencies
get the communications that's needed, and then you
proceed.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN said Phase 2 results in establishment of the
project team, development of an integrated agency review
schedule, delineation of information requirements, and
completion of any necessary agreements among the agencies and
applicant. Phase 3 is the actual project review and
authorization process, including public participation tailored
specifically to the requirements for permitting the project. He
told members:
Additionally, this bill will assist in our efforts to
streamline project review and authorization. It will
facilitate 1) the state's ability to pull together ...
agencies to address project-specific concerns, and to
facilitate and expedite the review and authorization
process; 2) it will provide ... more cohesive working
relationships among agency representatives - I could
simply call this "teamwork"; and 3) better
communication, more efficient permitting, consolidated
public process where possible, and to assist in
integrating the state's process with that of the
federal agencies.
Number 1771
COMMISSIONER IRWIN concluded:
Speaking from personal experience, the laws governing
resource development have proliferated. And there are
now more agencies than ever with permitting authority
over resource development projects. Resource
development should not be held up by the sheer
complexity of government. The bill is intended to
help alleviate that problem, as this bill would
authorize DNR to lead and coordinate the permitting
activities of all agencies with jurisdiction over that
project. Thank you again for the opportunity to
present comments in support of this bill.
Number 1810
COMMISSIONER IRWIN, in response to a question from
Representative Gatto, said several groups are merging, including
the ACMP; although titles are being created for five positions,
they're merged with the other groups. He then remarked, "In the
large project concept, just as I've worked in ... on the mine
projects, the project managers and the support for that whole
process are paid for by the company themselves ... in the
agreement. It's a pay-as-you-go system."
Number 1851
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to Commissioner Irwin's mention of
a proliferation of agencies and groups that deal with DNR.
Saying there must be some value to that or some reason the
proliferation occurred, he suggested that if the intention is to
strike these out of the process, the legislature should know why
they were started to begin with and then should ensure that this
value is incorporated elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN responded:
The intent is not to strike them out. I appreciate
you asking that question, because that's why I'm
talking about "lead and coordinate." All these
functions remain, but the individual doesn't have to
go here, here, here, and here. And, as I've
experienced, through no fault of anyone, when you're
talking back here to Person 2, Person 5 doesn't know
you've talked with [Person] 2; you don't know to tell
them, "Well, they need this." And Person 5 says,
"Yeah, we can ... deal with it this way." But if you
have everybody at the same table in the same room, you
find out these two groups can really work together:
their timelines can match; their studies, if altered,
might take care of both situations.
So it's the getting the people - the functions - in
the same room, and then saying, "Here's what we need.
Does everybody around the table agree? Is it 20, 30,
40, 50 permits?" And that can be the case. As you go
through this, each individual entity that has
knowledge, decision-making authority, says, "We need
this. [Can] we supply this out of this data? We can
meet this timeline." ... As a group, you set up a
schedule and you can proceed.
So we're not eliminating. We're coordinating the
functions. If you can eliminate, I think that's the
job of us, with the legislature, to say, "We found an
area we can effectively eliminate." We're not
proposing that here.
CHAIR FATE said he would like to get Commissioner Ballard's
reaction, since DNR would be the lead agency. He asked whether
she sees any conflicts with that kind of an approach to
teamwork.
Number 1986
ERNESTA BALLARD, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation, asked instead to read her prepared remarks. She
told members that the bill is not about accumulating power or
responsibility in DNR, but about "critical path" planning and
the organization of responsibility among and between departments
of government; it directs DNR to lead and coordinate resource
development projects, and it directs all the permitting agencies
to sequence their actions and requirements so that timelines are
met. She further said:
In no way does it alter the specific statutory
requirements or ... regulatory programs in effect
among and within the separate departments of
government right now. You have heard from
Commissioner Irwin about our coordinated permitting on
large mine projects. The experience that we ... have
had over several years among the agencies in large-
mine permitting has made it clear that there are
tremendous efficiencies that can be gained in a
coordinated approach to permitting.
We, the permitting agencies, can identify our
regulatory requirements in a systematic way and
thereby ensure that the most critical needs and
timelines for the project are established and met.
Also, for their part, industry, through a
[coordinated] permitting process, can understand its
responsibilities and provide ... needed information on
time.
Key to this coordinated process: the key input is
also the key output, and it is the foundation of all
permitting, and that is data standards that are
acceptable to all and are common across permit lines.
One of the things that I think drives industry nuts,
and appropriately so, is a different data-quality
standard for each permit, a different monitoring
regime, a different monitoring cycle, a different
reporting period.
Number 2095
COMMISSIONER BALLARD continued:
We can work together and assure that the foundation of
resource protection is built into the resource
development from the get go, and that is, to know what
data we need, to what degree we need it, at what
quality level, at what level of protection, and how
will it be used to assure that the protections are
there. And that's really ... the principal benefit of
this whole program, is that instead of having ten
years of information here, two orders of magnitude
over there, three standard deviations over here, we're
able to sit together and get a common set of ... input
so we have a common set of information output at the
end.
The state's citizens benefit from this approach also.
In rural communities, where most of the state's
resource development occurs, it is more difficult to
track separate ... agency processes than it may be in
urban Alaska. With a coordinated process, we, the
agencies, will ... hold joint public meetings so that
concerned citizens can see the entire regulatory
picture.
In any regulatory decision, there is a certain amount
of discretion available to the permitting authority.
It's important to me that citizens see that where
discretion is used in one aspect of a project, it may
be offset by another permitting decision made
somewhere else. I think, for instance, of the
differences in outcome from recycling water versus
energy requirements: if we require a mine to do
recycling of water, we're expecting that diesel
generators will be on-site to drive pumps; that means
there may be more air impacts. We need the public to
see the whole picture, and not see the water permit
separate from the water resource permit, which may be
a DNR permit separate from the air permit, which would
be back to DEC.
Without this "critical path" planning, public
participation might happen based on public notice
requirements in our Administrative [Procedure] Act.
For individual permits, it could be months or years
separating individual permit presentations and public
opportunity to comment.
Number 2221
COMMISSIONER BALLARD continued:
I've talked with many members of this committee - and
talked before, before the committee - about the
efforts underway to review all of our regulations and
statutes to ensure that they are meaningful and ...
have not become the victims of "mission creep." As
part of that process, we at DEC propose deletion of
AS 46.35, permit coordination and extension. And I
understand there's [an assistant attorney general from
the Department of Law] on the phone that can help walk
us through the deletion of this Act.
This statute was enacted in 1977. In that same year,
the legislature established the coastal management
program, which became the permit coordinator.
AS 46.35 has become a relic. There is one small
section of that that is being relocated, and you'll
find those responsibilities in the new bill in
Sections 2 and 3. The net effect ... of that is an
improvement in the Department of Environmental
Conservation's authority to use our appeals process.
The DEC process is easier to use and well laid out in
understandable regulations.
It's also important to understand what Senate Bill 142
[or HB 192] does not do. Senate Bill 142 [or HB 192]
... does not change the protective standards that the
regulatory agencies have developed and fine-tuned over
the last decade. It does not change DEC's permitting
requirements, our regulatory discretion, our
responsibility for enforcement, or our appeal process.
The bill simply ensures "critical path" planning, and
I think it's a tremendous benefit to both the permit
applicant and to the public.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said she hoped this addressed some of the
issues raised by Representative Gatto.
Number 2326
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether the concept is that DNR
would be stepping into the role played by DGC [Division of
Governmental Coordination] for a project affecting the coastal
zone, for example.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN indicated the goal is consistency and added:
We know how well it worked on the mining project, and
if we want to get into it further, ... I'll ask Dick
LeFebvre because he was the project manager for the
large project teams. But we want to do it the same
for all these projects, to be able to have people come
together - and I'm talking about, first, the
individual or the company, like I said, and then the
various agencies. And an individual has a really hard
time getting the agencies together. ... To get
somebody together on the same date borders on the
impossible. But I know [Mr. LeFebvre] was able to get
the agencies together for our project, and it saved
innumerable meetings and adjustments that wouldn't
have been necessary.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN indicated it should be the same gathering [of
data] for the coastal zone as for the large mining or oil-
related projects. He suggested Mr. LeFebvre could elaborate.
Number 2436
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she doesn't disagree that having
teams and a set schedule is a great way to treat this. She also
agreed that [the current process] is confusing to individuals,
although perhaps not so much if the coastal zone [program] is
the framework or for a large company that is used to doing
permits. She expressed concern, however, about what will happen
if DEC or the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) is the
agency that is impacted, for example. She asked who will make
the final decisions and what happens if there is a disagreement
within the team. Will a regulatory system be set up to outline
this? She also asked whether only DNR staff will take on this
function of coordination and leading.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD replied that HB 192 doesn't alter the
responsibility that lies with the regulatory agencies to make
their own decisions, based on their own standards and following
their own regulations. She explained:
This bill does not require me to negotiate with
[Commissioner Irwin] about an air permit. It does
require my air-permitting staff to coordinate from the
outset on the development of a project to understand
the choices that the project manager has for
deployment of diesel generators.
And on any large project in the state of Alaska, there
are many choices for the deployment of power-
generating capability. And if we work at the outset,
hand in hand, our air staff can say, "Look, here are
two things that are going to be very difficult about
this project: it's near this site, or it's ... in the
shadow of a canyon and ... in the winter you might
have an accumulation of contaminated air, or it
doesn't vent well," or whatever. We're able to sit
down at the beginning and suggest, at the project-
design stage, what the major permitting issues and
hurdles will be so that the project can be developed
in a way that makes it permittable.
The opposite approach would be for [Commissioner
Irwin] and his staff to work merrily along on a
project that conforms well to the geology or the
hydrology or to the presence of the resource, and only
later find out from us that they have laid it out in a
way that makes it extremely difficult to permit, and
that if we could have been at the outset, we could
have suggested a different approach: move the road,
move the generation, handle the water differently.
Number 2589
COMMISSIONER BALLARD continued:
So it does not, in any way, require a brokering of the
standards of environmental protection or of habitat or
other resource protection. But it does put us all at
the table at the beginning to design a permittable
project. And in the end, on all of these projects, it
is ultimately the permitability of them that
determines the final project design, right,
[Commissioner Irwin]? They can't go forward if they
can't be permitted. So let's get that decision moving
along on the same track as the capital decisions, the
marketing decisions, the project-sizing decisions, the
timing decisions - 'cause in the end, if it can't be
permitted, it's not going to be built.
Number 2628
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF remarked that what he'd just heard sounds
fantastic, but asked "which gorilla you're going to get" to
bring all those folks together.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN deferred to Mr. LeFebvre.
Number 2658
RICHARD LeFEBVRE, Deputy Commissioner, Anchorage Office, Office
of the Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources, responded:
I'm not exactly a gorilla. But since 1992 I've
coordinated these projects, and I've found that most
of the agency personnel are very, very willing to
participate and actually quite thankful that we have
someone that's able to facilitate, coordinate, and
synchronize each of the portions of ... the integrated
schedule that we develop as a team. What that does is
allow them to focus on their actual permitting
requirements and review of the project, and ... let
the coordinator or project manager be responsible ...
to see that they get to ... meet the proper deadlines
and to attend the meetings and have the information
that they need to develop their decisions. ...
We do not have any authority-making power; that, as
Commissioner Ballard indicated, rests with the
permitting agencies themselves. But I've found the
process very successful. As far as how ... it's
integrated with the ACMP, as we did on other projects
in Point Thomson, we do an integrated schedule; ACMP
is a part of that schedule, and they carry out ...
their functions and responsibility just like the other
permitting agencies. ... The exception is that, as
project manager, I coordinate, then, in the
development of the schedule, but each of the agencies
..., what they do is helped to develop that actual
schedule, and then we all carried it out as a team.
Number 2736
COMMISSIONER BALLARD added:
There's another way to look at the gorilla. ... The
gorilla is really the resource to begin with. The
challenge to all of us in Alaska is to find a way to
get the resource to market, and it is a true challenge
because of the remoteness and the vastness of our
territory. And anything we can do, on the executive
side or on the legislative side, to focus our
attention on the resource, and to focus early enough.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD cited an example involving mining, the
detailed steps, and the ultimate pouring of a brick of gold.
Number 2794
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF said this idea is music to his ears, but
questioned the ability to get people from state agencies to work
together well. He said he wants to see who this "marshal" is
and how much weight that marshal will carry in order to be able
to get these folks to the table.
COMMISSIONER IRWIN responded that there can and will be a lot of
issues, but said he'd had the privilege of seeing how it worked,
because of Mr. LeFebvre and folks in the various agencies such
as [the habitat division in ADF&G] and DEC. He emphasized
building on that vision, and cited Mr. LeFebvre's work on Point
Thomson as an example. Commissioner Irwin said he himself [if
DNR is the lead agency] is ultimately responsible, and will have
to face the legislature a year from now; the legislature can
hold the department accountable as to how this is progressing
then, and the department should be able to bring forth examples.
Acknowledging that it won't be perfect, he expressed confidence
in taking the next step and holding on to this vision.
Number 2944
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE remarked that a few years ago state
government was pretty lean; because of budgetary constraints, it
has become more so. She asked, once this vision is attained and
working, that it not be lost over "not having a position."
Indicating she foresees this as a finely tuned machine that
works well, she said she feels comfortable because of the
background of the current commissioner; however, she asked [what
may happen under] another commissioner.
TAPE 03-30, SIDE B
Number 2982
COMMISSIONER IRWIN replied:
I understand the concern. I'm ... frankly not sure
how to answer down the road. But if we get something
in place and we know it's worked and it's starting to
work again, and we're starting to build on this, I
think the agencies themselves ... protect their turf
at times; we all probably want to - you all protect
your turf. But as they see this becoming more and
more efficient, if nothing else - and please don't
take this comment wrong - if nothing else, from the
lazy side, when people know they don't have to redo
work, if they don't have to go to other meetings, I
think we have an opportunity to get something rolling
where people won't want to let it go.
But what I've seen - and you talk about enough help
and cutbacks and all those things - I really think the
agencies I've been around are ... like you all: they
don't know when morning starts, and they don't know
when the end of the workday ends. I see people
working 16, 18 hours a day. I see people working on
the weekends, because they really do care about their
own areas. They want to make this work. They ... see
an excitement about the state. And we can't keep
doing that to people. And if we can get efficient, I
think that also should help. But I don't know how to
answer all the "what ifs," but we need to be aware of
them.
Number 2905
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA referred to the wording "lead and
coordinate all matters relating to the state's review and
authorization of resource development projects" [paragraph (9),
page 2, line 23], noting that it is a strong statement.
Acknowledging that it isn't the intent of the legislation, she
suggested that the commissioner's wouldn't want to share each
other's appeals, and asked Mr. Kennedy whether there is a need
to be clearer.
Number 2874
CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, answered
that it doesn't concern him a great deal, in part because this
is modeled after a statute that's been on the books for some
time, [AS] 27.05.010, which made DNR the lead agency in mining
matters; nobody has ever tried to interpret that to "marry all
the appeals together." He said it isn't the intent of the
legislation and suggested that there will be clear legislative
history with regard to that, as well as the prior model.
Number 2828
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG requested an overview of the effect of
Section 4, which repeals several portions of statute.
MR. KENNEDY answered that it's the environmental procedures
coordination Act, adopted in 1977 as an effort to bring all
kinds of environmental permitting under "one giant procedure,"
under which, to his belief, some joint appeals have been
possible. He said it was quickly, if not instantaneously,
supplanted by the coastal zone process in almost every instance,
so DGC became the coordinating body to bring permitting under
one roof in multipermit projects. He said as far as he has been
able to determine, although one or two instances may have been
missed, AS 46.35 has never been used in its entire history; it
never got off the ground and is a vestige in the statutes. He
went on to say that the purpose is simply to repeal it to avoid
any confusion over which agency is the coordinating agency when
permits span several agencies.
Number 2718
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, if there are permits from one
agency only, whether DNR will "basically shift to that agency."
MR. KENNEDY deferred to Mr. LeFebvre.
MR. LeFEBVRE answered, "If it's a single permit requirement,
normally they would go directly to the agency involved. ... We
wouldn't intend to coordinate that."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out that the language says it's
for all matters. She asked whether there should be
clarification. She suggested there could be an appeal later
down the road for not having provided coordination.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD offered that the enabling language is
"may", not "shall", and so the commissioner of DNR retains some
discretion. She said it clearly is a statute that enables
rather than directs the commissioner, and that organizes rather
than mandates the responsibility.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA agreed, but said there is a lot of case
law on the fact that when there are specific provisions like
this set out, [an agency] might wind up being responsible for
doing it, even though the [statutory] language says "may". She
suggested it may be worth thinking about.
Number 2606
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG expressed concern about what will
happen if one agency doesn't agree that a project should go
forward, for example.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD replied:
One of the reasons we have so many pages of
regulations is to make as clear to both the developing
community and the interested stakeholders what the
terms and conditions for protective development will
be. ... Individuals, whether they be employed at DNR
or DEC, are charged in their daily duties with
implementing the regulations, not with developing
their personal views about whether or not a project
should or should not proceed. A mixing zone either
can or cannot be permitted.
We have clearly stated regulations that we follow to
determine whether the impacts and where the point of
compliance will be, and so on. ... This bill does not
change, at all, the responsibility of DEC to follow
its own ... regulations, and those regulations make
crystal clear - whether it's air or water or
underground injection or whatever it may be - how that
will proceed.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD said employees and commissioners come and
go. She offered her belief that this is a bipartisan concept
developed in the previous administration and successfully
followed, and said this administration is proposing to broaden
it. She added that she sees it as "an issue that simply rises
above the beliefs of the individuals who are involved and
commits the employees to following a coordinated process."
Number 2446
CHAIR FATE asked whether anyone else wished to testify. He then
closed public testimony.
Number 2427
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report HB 192 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG [objected] to commend Representative
Kerttula's legislation relating to one-stop permitting, which he
indicated would mesh with this. He then withdrew his objection.
Number 2396
CHAIR FATE asked whether there was any further objection. There
being no objection, HB 192 was reported from the House Resources
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|