Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/09/2003 08:10 AM 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
May 9, 2003
8:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Hugh Fate, Chair
Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Cheryll Heinze
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Kelly Wolf
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 277
"An Act relating to the powers of the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska in regard to intrastate pipeline transportation services
and pipeline facilities, to the rate of interest for funds to be
paid by pipeline shippers or carriers at the end of a suspension
of tariff filing, and to the prospective application of
increased standards on regulated pipeline utilities; allowing
the commission to accept rates set in conformity with a
settlement agreement between the state and one or more pipeline
carriers and to enforce the terms of a settlement agreement in
regard to intrastate rates; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 147
"An Act relating to control of nuisance wild animals; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED SB 147 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 155(RES)
"An Act relating to predator control programs; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 155(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 246
"An Act relating to the limitation on upland acreage that a
person may take or hold under oil and gas leases; and providing
for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 88
"An Act relating to standards for forest resources and
practices; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 196
"An Act relating to carbon sequestration; and providing for an
effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 277
SHORT TITLE:PIPELINE UTILITIES REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) DAHLSTROM
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/17/03 1026 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/17/03 1026 (H) O&G, L&C
04/22/03 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
04/22/03 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/23/03 1081 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
04/24/03 1108 (H) RES REFERRAL ADDED AFTER O&G
04/24/03 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
04/24/03 (H) Heard & Held
04/24/03 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
04/29/03 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
04/29/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/01/03 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
05/01/03 (H) Moved CSHB 277(O&G) Out of
Committee
05/01/03 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
05/02/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/02/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
<Mtg. Postponed to 4:00 PM>
05/02/03 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
05/02/03 (H) <Pending Referral> -- Meeting
Canceled --
05/05/03 1316 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) NT 1DP 6NR
05/05/03 1316 (H) DP: KOHRING; NR: HOLM,
ROKEBERG, FATE,
05/05/03 1316 (H) KERTTULA, CRAWFORD, MCGUIRE
05/05/03 1317 (H) FN(S): FORTHCOMING
05/06/03 1372 (H) FN1: ZERO(REV) RECEIVED
05/06/03 1372 (H) FN2: ZERO(DNR) RECEIVED
05/07/03 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
05/07/03 (H) Bill Postponed 1:30 PM --
05/07/03 (H) RES AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 124
05/07/03 (H) Heard & Held
05/07/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/09/03 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
05/09/03 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
05/09/03 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 147
SHORT TITLE:CONTROL OF NUISANCE WILD ANIMALS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) GREEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/17/03 0517 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/17/03 0517 (S) RES, FIN
04/16/03 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/16/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/16/03 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/17/03 0891 (S) RES RPT 5DP 2NR
04/17/03 0891 (S) DP: OGAN, SEEKINS, STEVENS B,
WAGONER,
04/17/03 0891 (S) DYSON; NR: LINCOLN, ELTON
04/17/03 0891 (S) FN1: (DFG)
04/23/03 (S) FIN AT 10:00 AM SENATE
FINANCE 532
04/23/03 (S) Heard & Held
04/23/03 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/25/03 0966 (S) FIN RPT 5DP 2NR
04/25/03 0966 (S) DP: GREEN, WILKEN, TAYLOR,
BUNDE;
04/25/03 0966 (S) STEVENS B; NR: HOFFMAN, OLSON
04/25/03 0966 (S) FN1: (DFG)
04/25/03 0976 (S) COSPONSOR(S): WILKEN, TAYLOR,
SEEKINS,
04/25/03 0976 (S) WAGONER, DYSON, BUNDE,
COWDERY, OGAN,
04/25/03 0976 (S) OLSON, STEVENS B
04/25/03 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/25/03 (S) Moved Out of Committee
04/25/03 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/29/03 1027 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 4/29/2003
04/29/03 1027 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/29/03 1028 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
4/30 CALENDAR
04/30/03 1051 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 147
04/30/03 1051 (S) PASSED Y18 N- E1 A1
04/30/03 1051 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
04/30/03 1051 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
05/01/03 1091 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
05/01/03 1091 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/01/03 1091 (S) VERSION: SB 147
05/02/03 1268 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/02/03 1268 (H) RES, FIN
05/09/03 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 155
SHORT TITLE:PREDATOR CONTROL/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SEEKINS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/20/03 0551 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/20/03 0551 (S) JUD, RES
03/31/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/31/03 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/02/03 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/04/03 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/04/03 (S) Heard & Held
04/04/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/16/03 (S) JUD AT 1:00 PM BELTZ 211
04/16/03 (S) Moved CSSB 155(JUD) Out of
Committee
04/16/03 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/17/03 0892 (S) JUD RPT CS 2DP 2DNP 1NR NEW
TITLE
04/17/03 0892 (S) DP: SEEKINS, THERRIAULT;
04/17/03 0892 (S) DNP: FRENCH, ELLIS; NR: OGAN
04/17/03 0892 (S) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
04/30/03 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/30/03 (S) Moved CSSB 155(RES) Out of
Committee
04/30/03 (S) MINUTE(RES)
05/01/03 1073 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP 1DNP NEW TITLE
05/01/03 1074 (S) DP: WAGONER, DYSON, LINCOLN,
STEVENS B,
05/01/03 1074 (S) SEEKINS; DNP: ELTON
05/01/03 1074 (S) FN1: ZERO(DFG)
05/02/03 1105 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 5/2/2003
05/02/03 1105 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
05/02/03 1105 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
05/02/03 1106 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING 5/3
CALENDAR
05/02/03 1106 (S) COSPONSOR(S): LINCOLN, OGAN,
COWDERY,
05/02/03 1106 (S) GREEN, DYSON, WAGONER,
STEVENS B,
05/02/03 1106 (S) THERRIAULT
05/03/03 1133 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB
155(RES)
05/03/03 1133 (S) COSPONSOR(S): HOFFMAN,
WILKEN, TAYLOR
05/03/03 1133 (S) PASSED Y14 N1 E5
05/03/03 1133 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS
PASSAGE
05/03/03 1133 (S) ELTON NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
05/04/03 1147 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
05/04/03 1148 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/04/03 1148 (S) VERSION: CSSB 155(RES)
05/05/03 1306 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
05/05/03 1306 (H) RES, CRA
05/08/03 1481 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): MORGAN
05/09/03 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY HOULE, General Manager
Alaska Support Industry Alliance
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of the proposed
committee substitute (CS) for HB 277 dated 5/6/2003.
ROBIN O. BRENA, Attorney at Law
Brena, Bell & Clarkson, PC
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Tesoro Alaska Company and
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, expressed concerns about HB 277
and asked that it be held to more carefully consider its
impacts.
BONNIE ROBSON, Deputy Director
Division of Oil & Gas
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 277.
JANICE GREGG LEVY, Assistant Attorney General
Oil, Gas & Mining Section
Civil Division (Juneau)
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 277.
DAVE HARBOUR, Commissioner, Chair
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns with HB 277 and the
regulatory void it would leave.
AL BOLEA, President
BP Pipelines Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 277.
RANDAL BUCKENDORF, Counsel
Anchorage Legal Department
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 277.
ROBERT DORAN
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 147 as someone
with a business that deals with problem wildlife or animal
damage control.
JACQUELINE TUPOU, Staff
to Senator Lyda Green
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 147 on behalf of Senator
Green, sponsor, and answered questions.
MATT ROBUS, Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 147 and answered questions;
testified on SB 155, saying the administration finds
CSSB 155(RES) unacceptable because the commissioner is entirely
removed from the process, and proposing an amendment as a
compromise between that and the original bill version.
KAREN DEATHERAGE
Defenders of Wildlife
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 147, noting that she hadn't
been aware of it; acknowledged it may be a positive bill, but
related some questions and concerns.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SB 155, explaining
changes in CSSB 155(RES) and answering questions.
JESSE VANDERZANDEN, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 155.
DICK BISHOP
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 155.
PAUL JOSLIN, Conservation Biologist
Alaska Wildlife Alliance (AWA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 155.
JENNA WHITE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 155, expressing concerns
and countering figures given as reasons for the legislation.
VIC VANBALLENBERGHE
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed concerns about SB 155.
ROBERT FITHIAN, Executive Director
Alaska Professional Hunter Association
Tonsina, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 155.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-40, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR HUGH FATE called the previously recessed House Resources
Standing Committee meeting of May 7, 2003, back to order at
8:10 a.m. Representatives Fate, Gatto, Heinze, Wolf,
Guttenberg, and Kerttula were present at the call to order.
Representatives Masek, Lynn, and Morgan arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 277-PIPELINE UTILITIES REGULATION
Number 0108
CHAIR FATE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 277, "An Act relating to the powers of the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska in regard to intrastate pipeline
transportation services and pipeline facilities, to the rate of
interest for funds to be paid by pipeline shippers or carriers
at the end of a suspension of tariff filing, and to the
prospective application of increased standards on regulated
pipeline utilities; allowing the commission to accept rates set
in conformity with a settlement agreement between the state and
one or more pipeline carriers and to enforce the terms of a
settlement agreement in regard to intrastate rates; and
providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee, adopted as a work draft on May 7, 2003,
was a proposed committee substitute (CS) labeled CSHB 277(RES)
bil.doc, 5/6/2003.]
CHAIR FATE informed members of his intention to try to perform
some cleanup based on testimony heard from both sides of the
issue.
Number 0280
LARRY HOULE, General Manager, Alaska Support Industry Alliance
("the Alliance"), began by explaining that the Alliance is a
statewide nonprofit trade association with chapters in
Fairbanks, Anchorage, and Kenai. He paraphrased the following
written testimony:
The Alliance trade association membership is comprised
of 420 member companies that provide support services
and products to Alaska's oil and gas industry. Our
member companies employ over 25,000 Alaskans working
in Alaska's oil patch. In short, Alliance member
companies perform contract services and sell products
to the entire oil patch from the exploration phase
through to the refining industry.
Initially, my 21-member board of directors looked at
HB 277 and reached no consensus in the position we
should take. However, now that the original bill has
been appropriately amended by the bill's sponsor,
Representative Dahlstrom, and the administration has
submitted their amendments, the 21-member board of the
Alliance, by majority vote, has elected to support the
amended version [Version CSHB 277(RES) bil.doc,
5/6/2003].
We believe the current CS provides clarity in the
regulatory arena. This legislation defines the
jurisdictional boundaries with regard to intrastate
transportation that is long overdue. The role of DNR
as the landowner is defined. The bill confirms the
jurisdiction of the FERC over interstate matters and
finally clarifies and defines the RCA's jurisdiction
over intrastate services rendered by common carrier
pipelines.
In summary, the bill tells us who the rule makers are.
It defines the rule makers' jurisdiction, which brings
the much needed certainty to the private sector,
certainty that is essential when making the huge long-
term capital investments required by oil and gas
companies to develop Alaska's natural resources for
the benefit of Alaskans.
MR. HOULE concluded by asking the committee to move the bill
forward.
Number 0643
ROBIN O. BRENA, Attorney at Law; Brena, Bell & Clarkson, PC,
explained that he had been retained by both Tesoro Alaska
Company ("Tesoro") and Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
("Anadarko") to assist them in reviewing HB 277. He began by
respectfully disagreeing with most of the testimony from the
proponents of HB 277. Mr. Brena said, "We are not here today
because the Alaska Pipeline Act is broken; we are here today
because the Alaska Pipeline Act worked exactly as it is supposed
to work and they would like to change that now."
MR. BRENA told members that for the past 25 years there has been
no economic regulation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System
(TAPS) by any regulatory body. Furthermore, there hasn't been a
just and reasonable rate on TAPS prior to the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska's (RCA's) Order 151. It's the first time
in 25 years that standard ratemaking practices and law have been
applied to set a just and reasonable rate. He said RCA
determined that in the past 25 years the TAPS owners have
overcharged their ratepayers $10 billion. The state's interest
in those overcharges is 25 percent. To date, the state has
forgone $2.5 billion and will forgo an additional $2.5 billion
between now and 2011.
MR. BRENA pointed out that RCA lowered the rate from Pump
Station No. 1 to Valdez by 70 percent, a large decline. Thus
TAPS owners were allowed to recover 100 percent of their
investment and every operating cost incurred, and earned a 14
percent return on their investment. Currently, the State of
Alaska is losing $120 million to 150 million a year due to
excessive charges. Mr. Brena highlighted that the Alaska
Pipeline Act is not about overlapping jurisdiction among state
agencies or regulatory certainty; rather, it's about excessive
rates. These are rates that the RCA has finally decided to set.
Number 1011
MR. BRENA noted that members' packets should contain his written
remarks and a sectional analysis. He emphasized that limiting
RCA's authority regarding intrastate matters isn't in the
[state's] interest. As the Act is currently written, there is
seamless jurisdictional authority between the state and federal
regulatory regimes. The Act currently says, "To the extent not
preempted by federal law, the state has the authority to
regulate." However, this legislation includes several
provisions that intend to pull back that authority.
MR. BRENA drew attention to the last page of his written
testimony, a chart entitled "Jurisdictional Gap." The top bar
graph illustrates seamless jurisdiction under the existing Act.
However, HB 277 redefines the RCA's authority to entail
intrastate matters only. He explained that the Act was written
to ensure proper resource development. The federal Acts don't
have certification facilities or abandonment jurisdiction.
Under the federal regime, [a state] with a pipeline in service
is only told how much can be charged. Therefore, all of the
things necessary for Alaska to control its future with regard to
its transportation infrastructure would fall in that gap.
Included in that gap are all interstate matters not subject to
federal regulation, which encompasses a lot.
MR. BRENA posed a situation in which [a company] discovers oil
in a new North Slope field and wants to transport it to the
Lower 48 market, where over 90 percent of the oil goes today.
He asked how [the company] would connect to the pipeline system,
because it would have no right to connect to existing pipeline
systems if HB 277 were passed. Under federal law, the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has no authority to require
a connection. However, under existing state law, the RCA can
require a connection. Under HB 277, however, RCA couldn't
because it would be an interstate movement of oil, and HB 277
restricts the RCA's authority to intrastate matters only.
Therefore, passing HB 277 would result in the state's forgoing
the power to require common carriers to connect to new fields.
Number 1308
MR. BRENA discussed a situation in which a producer discovers
oil but one of the common carriers needs to expand its capacity
in order to efficiently develop the resource. The federal law
doesn't require the carrier to expand capacity; under existing
state law, however, the state, through the RCA, could require
expanded capacity. Under HB 277, the state would forgo its
authority to order a common carrier pipeline to expand its
capacity to transport oil that's going to be transported out of
Alaska, which is where most of Alaska's resources go.
MR. BRENA turned to efficiency improvement. He pointed out that
RCA has the authority to require that the pipeline facilities
operate efficiently and at the lowest cost. However, FERC
doesn't have that authority. If HB 277 passes, the State of
Alaska will be forgoing its jurisdictional authority to require
a common carrier pipeline to operate efficiently.
MR. BRENA addressed abandonment. Under federal law, he said,
the federal government could turn off the spigot on TAPS today
and FERC would have no recourse. He emphasized that there is no
federal abandonment authority. If RCA's authority is restricted
to intrastate matters only, the state will be forgoing the
ability to require them to continue to operate facilities that
are necessary for interstate commerce.
Number 1421
MR. BRENA suggested HB 277 is really about money, specifically,
DR&R [dismantlement, removal, and restoration] money. Herein
lies the problem, he said; there hasn't been an explanation of
why this legislation should start to delve into the
jurisdictional limits of the RCA, and there hasn't been a single
example of abuse.
MR. BRENA turned attention to the page of his testimony entitled
"Jurisdictional Changes in HB 277." In the upper left box, a
portion of the quoted material reads, "No federal law, federal
regulation or federal order exists addressing post-collection
treatment of interstate DR&R allowances on TAPS." He explained
that DR&R funds will be overcollected. Originally, the life of
TAPS was projected to be to 2011. On the $1.6 billion collected
to date, such an amount has been earned that by 2011 there will
have been an overcollection for DR&R of $30 billion. If the
overcollections are refunded to ratepayers, the state should
gain 25 percent of $30 billion, which amounts to $7.5 billion.
The RCA's order said those funds could be required to be
escrowed, which is why HB 277 is before the committee with all
of its jurisdictional changes. "They" don't want the RCA to
exercise its intended authority, he said, which is to protect
the state's interest in the facilities, whether the oil flows in
interstate or intrastate commerce. Again, the commission held
that no federal regulation or order exists to address post-
collection treatment, he noted.
MR. BRENA then fast-forwarded to 2011, when TAPS carriers will
have collected $40 billion and it will cost $10 billion to clean
up. The question becomes where the state is going to get the
refunds. He related his understanding that the state agrees
overcollections are refundable. Furthermore, the state agrees
that 25 percent of those overcollections would come into the
state's treasury through additional royalty and severance taxes.
If one assumes the above and assumes that $7.5 billion is on the
table, he questioned where the money would come from.
Number 1715
MR. BRENA asserted that this legislation eliminates what may be
the only effective mechanism to ensure that the state has paid
that money. The changes made by this legislation have a direct
correlation [between the statutes]; rather than jurisdictional
overlap, HB 277 has to do with excessive collections that TAPS
carriers are trying to keep, while he is trying to obtain his
clients' share.
MR. BRENA continued with the possibilities of where the money
could come from. If RCA is taken out of the equation as
specified under HB 277, the $3.5-billion problem becomes a $3.2-
billion problem. He pointed out that FERC may or may not have
regulatory authority to order refunds or order those refunds to
be escrowed. The [RCA] held that there is no federal law,
order, or regulation that addresses that issue.
MR. BRENA questioned how the refund would occur, even if FERC
could order those refunds, because DR&R doesn't occur until
after the pipeline is out of service. Before DR&R is complete,
the pipeline is out of service for four years; therefore, the
pipeline carriers have no money or reserves because they have
been out of business for four years. Collecting from a company
that has been out of business for a while doesn't work.
Furthermore, the parent guarantees don't go to overcollection.
He emphasized that there is no collection mechanism possible,
that he is aware of, under federal law. If there is a
collection mechanism, the state hasn't exercised it or made it
clear. Therefore, Mr. Brena said he believes HB 277 will
foreclose the only mechanism possible for the state to collect
$7.5 billion.
MR. BRENA pointed out that HB 277 changes the concept of
retroactive ratemaking, the idea that rates can't be determined
and applied backwards. Retroactive ratemaking is a very well
established doctrine of law. This legislation changes the law
such that one can't obtain any reparations from the point of the
protest backwards. Mr. Brena requested, "If you're going to
change the rules of how to go back, please don't apply them
going back, because you foreclose people's rights."
Number 2094
MR. BRENA directed the committee to Section 7 of the
legislation, which correlates to page 11 of his written
analysis. The new language under Section 7 is, "An order
setting rates under this subsection may not affect rates in
effect before the date the protest or complaint was filed, or
the date of the commission action that initiated the
investigation or hearing, whichever is earliest." The
aforementioned is a redefinition of retroactive ratemaking.
Mr. Brena posed a situation in which a company doesn't comply
with its own tariff that specifies everyone will be charged $1;
however, the company charges affiliated shippers $.50 and
nonaffiliated shippers $1.50. This practice goes on for five
years, at which time the discovery of this noncompliance leads
to a investigation.
MR. BRENA questioned whether the foregoing company should be
able to keep the money if it had violated the terms of its own
tariff. This legislation says yes, no matter how the money is
obtained. Therefore, this legislation allows this company to
keep the money from discriminatory practices until caught. He
likened this to allowing a bank robber to keep all the money
until caught.
MR. BRENA informed the committee that RCA has 40 pending cases.
No one has analyzed the impact that Section 9 of HB 277, the
applicability provision, would have on all of the pending cases.
There are two problems, he said. If substantive rights of
ratepayers are going to be changed, do it so that there is an
opportunity to protect them. Hence he suggested that [changes
be implemented for the future as opposed to retroactively]. Mr.
Brena encouraged the committee to read through his written
remarks. He informed the committee that [his clients] have
problems with virtually every section of HB 277. This
legislation is poorly drafted, he said. He requested that the
committee not pass this legislation and hold it to more
carefully consider its impacts.
[There was an announcement that the previously recessed meeting
was adjourned and that the May 9 meeting was beginning; all
members were present. However, these minutes treat it as one
meeting, which is how it was scheduled.]
Number 2510
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE explained that she is looking at the
larger picture and the future of this state. She related her
belief that the future of the [oil] industry could be riding on
this. "It seems to me that we made a deal, and that we've
broken that deal," she said. She suggested that a large
"producer" thinking about building a pipeline in Alaska would
have to wonder whether it would stay connected with the state or
even engage in a pipeline. She asked if Mr. Brena's clients
would have the $20 billion to build a pipeline if one of the
large producers didn't do so.
MR. BRENA agreed that the state made a deal. The deal agreed
upon was that the state wouldn't contest a rate set at or below
a ceiling rate. The deal also specified that ratepayers had the
right to request that fair rates be set, and if that was done,
the RCA would have the right to set a fair rate. Mr. Brena
pointed out that his written remarks include a quotation from
the TAPS carriers and the state, in which those two represented
that the deal allowed that any ratepayer in the future could
file a protest and have a just and reasonable rate set. By the
terms of the agreement, it only applied to the signatory
parties.
MR. BRENA said HB 277 breaks the deal because it changes the
deal for the ratepayers. The only party that hasn't received
the deal is the ratepayers, who were told that they could file a
protest and receive a fair rate, a rate under the ceiling rate.
Mr. Brena explained that he's asking the legislature to keep the
deal made to the ratepayers when the deal between the state and
TAPS owners was passed.
MR. BRENA noted that regulatory certainty is very important for
everyone involved. Regulatory certainty is linked to the
concept that rates will be just and reasonable, and will allow
the collection of the investment and operating cost along with a
fair return. The aforementioned is all the ratepayers have
requested, and that's all RCA has done, he said. Mr. Brena
added that the deal [proposed in HB 277] is structured such that
it discourages investment in Alaska because it allows return on
a per-barrel basis, rather than on actual investment. Mr. Brena
concluded by requesting that the legislature honor the deal.
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE requested clarification about the original
deal.
Number 2753
BONNIE ROBSON, Deputy Director, Division of Oil & Gas,
Department of Natural Resources, said the Department of Law
would be a more appropriate agency to answer. However, she
related her understanding that the original settlement agreement
between the State of Alaska and the pipeline owners allowed for
other parties that didn't participate in the settlement to, at a
later time, raise an issue about whether the tariff rates were
just and reasonable. She offered her understanding that this is
what happened with Tesoro and Williams in the proceedings before
the RCA.
MR. BRENA pointed out that committee packets contain eight pages
of quotations from the TAPS carriers' briefs and presentations
to the RCA.
Number 2833
JANICE GREGG LEVY, Assistant Attorney General; Oil, Gas & Mining
Section; Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, responded
to Representative Heinze's question. She said from the
administration's standpoint, the representation that the state
will get billions of dollars if HB 277 doesn't pass isn't
accurate; the RCA isn't in a position to refund any money to the
state. Furthermore, this legislation doesn't prohibit any
shipper from seeking refunds from the RCA or the FERC for
overcollections of DR&R. Therefore, Ms. Levy said she believes
this is an attempt to shift the focus to another arena. She
said nothing in this bill, from her legal standpoint and the
policy standpoint, would preclude the determination of just and
reasonable rates, which is what she believes the legislature
created the RCA to do.
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF asked if there is a sunset date for this
agreement.
MS. LEVY answered that the TAPS settlement agreement will expire
by its own terms in 2011 if no party makes any changes. A
provision allows the parties to begin to renegotiate after
December 31, 2006.
TAPE 03-40, SIDE B
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked how, under the jurisdiction of
both FERC and RCA, the [state] can ensure the ability to fairly
allow access so as to ensure the [state's] independence while
maintaining a vital oil industry. She asked about the impacts
of this legislation.
Number 2879
MR. BRENA explained that under existing state law, the state's
power to regulate and manage facilities has two pillars: the
inherent police power of the state to regulate common carriers,
and the state's power to contract and develop its proprietary
resources. Mr. Brena pointed out that this legislation
eliminates the RCA's authority to exercise its power under the
contract power of the state because it deletes the phrase
"relating to leases". Furthermore, it eliminates all regulatory
power of the state to ensure access, sufficient capacity, and
nonpremature abandonment of the common carrier infrastructure
that's necessary for the interstate transportation of oil, which
is the vast majority of the oil today and into the future.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that the legislature doesn't have
authority over FERC or the federal government, and therefore
[HB 277] only affects the RCA. She inquired as to Tesoro's and
Anadarko's rights because they'd be the entities going to FERC
requesting access.
MR. BRENA replied, "None. The ... federal regulatory regime is
extremely limited. It doesn't require certification." The
federal regime is entirely silent on all of those
infrastructure-related questions; it only says those entities
that build a line have to charge a just and reasonable
nondiscriminatory rate. The federal regime doesn't specify that
the entity would have to provide capacity, allow connections,
and so forth. He said this legislation limits the state's
authority through the RCA to fill that regulatory gap because of
the state's concern. He pointed out that the Act was drafted
the way it was because the state was concerned with development
of its natural resources, while the federal regime isn't at all
concerned with that. Therefore, HB 277 would eliminate the
state's ability, through the RCA.
MR. BRENA pointed out that no other regulatory agency addresses
any of these issues to ensure sufficient infrastructure to
transport oil in interstate commerce out of Alaska. He
reiterated that the existing Act is seamless and says, "To the
degree not preempted by federal law, or to the degree that
federal law doesn't do it and preempt us, the state exercises
its full authority." As soon as [the state] backs off from
that, a gap is created that undermines the state's ability to
ensure that infrastructure is in place and adequate for the
development of the state's own natural resources. Mr. Brena
asked why one would delete the language which says that state
authority goes all the way up to federal authority.
Number 2681
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG turned attention to the RCA Order 116
[docket P-977] and inquired as to the situation that brought
this legislation to the table.
MR. BRENA answered that in 1977 Tesoro filed a protest
requesting that the commission initiate an investigation into
DR&R because it had been so dramatically overcollected. He
pointed out that DR&R is unique as a rate element because it's
collected today, but isn't spent for 40 or 50 years. Typically,
the regulatory contract is such that the DR&R money is collected
today and if there's money left over, it is returned to the
ratepayers. In Tesoro's calculation, $10 billion has been
overcollected. Therefore, Tesoro would like the RCA to
establish how much money has been collected and earned on what's
collected; how much DR&R is going to cost; what the life of the
line is; and if there are overcollections, how those are going
to be refunded. Tesoro does not want to leave [open] those
mechanisms until the last four years after the pipeline is out
of business. "They just collected too much from us, and we want
our money back," he concluded.
Number 2594
CHAIR FATE asked what RCA's Order 151 specified.
MR. BRENA explained that Order 151 determined how just and
reasonable rates should be set on TAPS, and then set those rates
for 1997 through 2000. Order 151 determined that the ceiling
rate methodology that the TAPS carriers proposed for setting
their rates, and had been charging, resulted in excessive rates.
Therefore, the commission adopted a different methodology, set
just and reasonable rates, and ordered refunds of the
overcollections to the shippers.
Number 2520
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her understanding that [the
state] can require DR&R, and hopefully obtain the overpayments,
if there are any, at the end. She asked if [the state] can
require that the interest [on those overpayments be repaid]. In
terms of the right-of-way agreements, it's more about the fact
that everything gets cleaned up at the end [that is important],
she suggested.
MR. BRENA first agreed [DR&R] and the right-of-way agreement
have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of overcollections;
so that just specifies what needs to be cleaned up with regard
to state lands, excluding Native lands, private lands, and
federal lands.
MR. BRENA then pointed out that [the issue of overcollections]
isn't addressed any other place. Furthermore, other pipelines
do have escrow accounts and funds. If the escrow of funds is
required, one can set them up so that there is no charge for
taxes. Therefore, one can actually collect about 40 percent
less from the ratepayers.
MR. BRENA related his belief that the correct calculation of
DR&R collection should be how much was collected. If [DR&R
collections] were escrowed, [then the calculation should be with
regard] to how much was earned on those escrowed funds. If
[DR&R collections] weren't escrowed, the internal rate of return
on the capital for which it was used [should be included in the
calculation].
MR. BRENA explained that in the case of TAPS, the internal rate
of return for a 10-year period for the TAPS owners was 16.5
percent. He views DR&R as a fund of money that is the
ratepayers' money until spent. If the [TAPS owners] use that
money and earn 16.5 percent on it, those are the earnings for
which the they should ultimately be responsible because those
earnings are based on the ratepayers' funds. Mr. Brena agreed
that earnings on DR&R is a major issue.
Number 2362
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA turned to the issue of retroactivity and
the impact it would have on the 40 pending cases. She asked if
the concern is as follows: if the rules change, the change
should be [effective] after those cases are finished; thus no
one would enter the game and then have it changed midstream.
MR. BRENA replied yes. He specified that the concern is
twofold: substantive and procedural. If this legislation
passes as it stands, it would affect both the substantive and
procedural rights of ratepayers and existing clients in existing
claims, and in some cases perhaps foreclose them altogether.
Mr. Brena added:
If you're going to change the rules on people, or if
you're going to change rights between stakeholders, it
hurts regulatory certainty to go backwards and do
that. It should only be done going forwards. And so
it should only be done with regard to new matters that
are filed before the commission.
MR. BRENA related that [retroactivity] goes to the
constitutional bar on ex post facto laws. Agreeing with
Representative Heinze that it isn't fair to change deals, he
said, "If you pass House Bill 277, it not only changes the deals
as they were represented to the commissions, but it also changes
them going backwards, and ... that just isn't fair.
Number 2226
DAVE HARBOUR, Commissioner, Chair, Regulatory Commission of
Alaska, Department of Community & Economic Development (DCED),
highlighted that the RCA is virtually always the lone decision
maker that bases decisions solely on the merits of the case, as
the legislature specifies. Therefore, he characterized the RCA
as more like the legislature's advisors and the governor's
advisors than one of two sides of an issue.
MR. HARBOUR turned to concerns raised regarding Section 9, which
addresses the applicability of pending matters. He related his
belief that every single one of the pipeline dockets now before
the RCA would be affected in either the DR&R, the interest rate,
or the facility issues. He clarified that there are about 30
[open] dockets, not 40, because some dockets have been combined.
MR. HARBOUR pointed out that the predecessors of this
legislature 30 years ago envisioned what has been discussed here
today: state regulatory jurisdiction would flow out to meet the
regulatory jurisdiction of the federal government, and thus
there would be no regulatory void. However, this legislation
creates a number of voids, specifically, at the end of Section 4
on page 5 of [the proposed CS dated 5/6/2003], the deletion of
the language, "except to the extent they are preempted by
federal law." He said the meaning is almost reversed. Although
he acknowledged that the aforementioned is within the purview of
the legislature to do, he suggested that the legislature would
want to do this mindfully.
CHAIR FATE turned to an earlier statement that [the TAPS owners]
have received a 14 percent return on investment. Recalling
testimony from the industry that around 13 percent is not high
because of the risk incurred by the companies, he inquired as to
Mr. Bolea's thoughts.
Number 2008
AL BOLEA, President, BP Pipelines Alaska, explained that the
rate of return when regulatory agencies review pipeline
investments is a judgment of the amount of risk undertaken by
the investor. He informed the committee that back in 1976, when
the $9-billion pipeline investment was being made, it was the
single largest private investment in the history of the United
States; furthermore, it was viewed as the highest-risk
investment ever made in the United States. During the
negotiations with the [Alaska] attorney general and the
Department of Law, he said, the appropriate rate of return was a
key issue. He explained that the TAPS [tariff] settlement
methodology (TSM) was structured in such a way to generate a
rate of return. He further explained that the rate of return
was generated by all the investment being recovered in the front
end. All costs [of the TAPS carriers], the $9 billion for the
pipeline, an estimate of DR&R, was all front-end-loaded.
Furthermore, TAPS carriers earned a rate of return as a level
amount over the entire life of the pipeline.
MR. BOLEA suggested that Mr. Brena is choosing a rate and
applying it to an amount of the asset that hasn't been
recovered. Moreover, the recovery in any year has declined.
Mr. Bolea said one can't choose a single number in a year, take
14 percent, for example, multiply it times the remaining rate
base, and say that's the appropriate amount of money TAPS
carriers should be earning, given the TSM model. Rather, one
must look over the entire life of the transaction and determine
whether the rate of return was excessive or not. Furthermore,
14 percent as a rate of return over the entire life of TAPS
falls within the range of reason relative to the risk, he
opined. He said, "We would've argued back in 1976 that a higher
rate of return was justified, and the state would've argued a
lower rate of return. But a 14 percent rate of return, within
the 14, 15, 16 range, would be reasonable."
Number 1820
CHAIR FATE turned to the issue of capacity and noted that the
oil pipeline is running half full. He asked how big an issue
capacity is in the future, relative not only to filling the
pipe, but also to the pump stations, the upgrading of the
pipeline, and new technologies. He asked Mr. Bolea if he could
foresee a situation in which the TAPS carriers could add
capacity to the present TAPS pipeline. Although gas is another
matter, one would begin to infringe on the Stranded Gas Act,
which moves into the area of capacity, he suggested.
MR. BOLEA informed the committee that currently the pipeline's
physical capacity is 2 million barrels a day. The pipeline is
running at about a million barrels a day; in order to do this
efficiently, many of the pump stations are shut down. The cost
of maintaining shutdown pump stations is incredibly high.
Therefore, [TAPS carriers] are incurring costs to hold capacity
in place, and all those costs are bearing on the rate that
everyone pays to move their barrels [of oil] through the line.
Furthermore, these pump stations are effectively 30 years old.
The opportunity to replace these old pump stations with new pump
stations is being evaluated. Although the TAPS owners haven't
decided what the right investment will be, they are generally
committed to trying to make the pipeline more efficient and to
last for a longer period of time.
MR. BOLEA said the intention of the TAPS owners is to use a
technology that is more modular, with smaller electric motor
units that can stack easily. For example, six units could be
stacked next to each other and connected to a header, and there
would be enough hydraulic capacity for 1.1 million to 1.3
million barrels a day, to four pump stations. If more capacity
is needed, given that this technology is largely off the shelf,
it's easy to order more pumping units and stack the units. The
intention, he explained, is to leave the manifolds in place on
the pump stations that are removed and have the flexibility
within perhaps 36 months, if another Prudhoe Bay is discovered,
to bring the pipeline capacity back up to 2 million barrels a
day. "It's ... in our best interests to move as many barrels as
possible. It's not in our intention to shut in barrels on the
North Slope," he said.
Number 1646
RANDAL BUCKENDORF, Counsel, Anchorage Legal Department,
ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc., returned to Chair Fate's question
regarding the 14 percent rate of return. Mr. Buckendorf said:
I presume that from portions of the testimony that I
was not present at - but I have heard that figure
before - the number that's used is used very
specifically, and it is a 14 percent return on equity,
which is different than the average weighted return.
You earn a different interest on equity versus debt,
so there's a weighted average. So they use that very
carefully. It's not the weighted average that was
earned. There's a big difference.
MR. BUCKENDORF said the actual rate of return in the TAPS
settlement agreement for those earlier years was 6.1 percent,
which was negotiated carefully by the state and the justice
department. Beyond those early years, an incentive-based return
was negotiated. He said no guaranteed return was even in the
settlement agreement; rather, as an incentive for the affiliates
of the pipeline owners to explore for and produce more oil,
there was essentially a zero return and an incentive-based per-
barrel allowance.
MR. BUCKENDORF turned to the issue of capacity and recalled that
Mr. Bolea has discussed "strategic reconfiguration," which will
be going through review. He noted that there have been many
meetings with the Joint Pipeline Office, including several
meetings with RCA. That process is underway and will [be
available] for approval in the near future, he said. However,
Mr. Buckendorf said he wasn't sure how this legislation will
come into play with that.
Number 1495
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if this legislation keeps
[smaller] companies like Tesoro and Williams from being able to
connect or use the facilities or to use TAPS in the future.
MR. BOLEA replied, "It is not our intent and it is completely
out of line with our economic interests to restrict access to
the TAPS line. The more barrels flowing through the line, it
averages down the cost, which benefits everybody."
MR. BUCKENDORF turned to the legal perspective. He said every
pipeline on the North Slope is jointly regulated under federal
and state law, and therefore subject to intra- and interstate
regulation; every pipeline is subject to being a common carrier,
since state and federal right-of-way leases require common
carriage; and [TAPS owners] are required to accept, as long as
there is capacity, every barrel that comes there. In the event
a barrel cannot be accepted, regardless of who brings it, [TAPS]
has to prorate every entity that's bringing those barrels.
MR. BUCKENDORF recalled that a lot of information has been given
regarding what HB 277 will or will not do regarding the ability
to force connections. Although Mr. Buckendorf said he hadn't
had time to fully analyze all that, at first glance he disagreed
with every statement. He related his understanding that Chair
Fate intends to hold this bill until Monday, and he offered to
go through the various statements made this morning. However,
he said he doesn't believe HB 277 will impact the ability of
anyone to connect to any of the pipelines in the state.
Number 1283
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO remarked that although Mr. Buckendorf
mentioned that it's not in the best interest of [TAPS owners] to
deny someone's putting oil in the pipeline, it wouldn't be in
the their best interest if it didn't produce more income than
needed to make the bottom line. Therefore, Representative Gatto
asked what would keep [TAPS owners] from gouging, since there
are no other pipelines.
MR. BOLEA answered that it's against the law; [TAPS owners]
aren't allowed to discriminate and every shipper must pay the
same rate.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if this would be so even if the
entity only had a hundred barrels a day. He asked if the entity
would have to deliver it to the pipeline or just tell the
pipeline that it had oil which [TAPS] should get and put into
the big line from the little line.
MR. BOLEA explained that the system works in such a way that
those who want to make a connection to TAPS, for example, have
to meet the standards prescribed in the TAPS agreement: they
have to meet certain pressure, temperature, safety, and
integrity standards. He noted that those who want to connect to
TAPS bear the cost to get connected to the line. Once
connected, they pay the same rate as everyone else on the line.
The common carrier can't discriminate in any way, shape, or form
among the carriers.
Number 1137
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA returned to DR&R, the interest rate, and
whether [the state] has the right to expect any certain rate of
return.
MR. BOLEA said he was going to answer from the TSM methodology
negotiated with the state. He explained that the state and TAPS
carriers in 1976 had to develop a methodology to define how the
costs and rate of return were going to be recovered, which is
the TSM. The methodology is fixed; it's just a formula. Every
year the actual numbers for the year or estimates for the
subsequent year are loaded into the formula, and the product of
that formula is the tariff.
MR. BOLEA said although the methodology is fixed, the tariff is
a function of actual costs during a year. At the time of the
settlement, no one knew what it was going to cost to dismantle,
recover, and restore TAPS. Furthermore, no one knows that now.
Although engineers do estimates, he said, "The reality is, what
it's going to cost is an enormous risk." He noted that there
isn't even a prescribed standard that the state and federal
government will define, a standard that they want to recover at
the time. Therefore, the TAPS owners have taken on the entire
risk of what it's going to cost to abandon, recover, and restore
TAPS. That is, as part of the negotiation, what the state
wanted; the state wanted certainty because it wanted some
predictable revenues.
MR. BOLEA said a fixed amount of money, $1,549,000,000, is
prescribed in the agreement; each year the TAPS owners were
permitted to recover a piece of that $1,549,000,000. He related
his belief that the TAPS owners are one or two years away from
recovering the balance of the $1,549,000,000. "Subsequent to
that, it is completely our risk," he said. Whatever happens
with rates of return and rates of inflation, the actual scope of
work is completely the TAPS owners' risk. Under the settlement
agreement, there is no prescribed rate of return, and there are
no refunds. "It was a settlement, deliberately, with the intent
of ensuring that the state had no exposure," he added.
Number 0889
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that the shippers have the right
to challenge these rates. She asked if that's part of what's
happening in docket [Order] 116.
MR. BUCKENDORF answered, "That is correct." Over the past
month, a lot of the testimony here has focused on the TAPS
settlement agreement and methodology, and what this legislation
will or will not do. Mr. Buckendorf related his belief that
needed clarifications are in the current CS. This legislation
doesn't validate or invalidate that agreement, he asserted; all
those rights still exist. However, the TAPS owners will be
dealing with Mr. Brena, on appeal or before the commission, for
a long time in the future. With regard to the current docket on
DR&R for the rates at issue in Order 151 for the years 1997-2000
and 2001 forward, that docket is in brief before the RCA.
MR. BUCKENDORF noted that a week ago Thursday the TAPS carriers
agreed to forgo those intrastate rates for DR&R under the
agreement for the years 1997 forward, simply to save the cost.
Basically, the TAPS owners will spend more litigating this than
they will collect. Yesterday the RCA requested further
verification and briefing around those questions in order to
determine whether or not that docket can be closed.
Number 0628
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if Ms. Levy had anything to add.
MS. LEVY turned to access and capacity. She said the state
would agree with the testimony of Mr. Buckendorf and Mr. Bolea
that there is a mechanism already in place that requires the
pipelines to have a certificate of public convenience and
necessity to operate a pipeline in the state. The RCA issues
that certificate, and one condition of the certificate is that
the [pipeline] be a common carrier. Furthermore, [one condition
is] to permit interconnections when another explorer or shipper
desires to connect to the main line. There could be additional
interconnection even with a feeder pipeline. Therefore, she
didn't believe there would be a regulatory gap there, she said;
furthermore, she didn't believe there would be any situation in
which there would be the inability to ship the state's
resources, which is what everyone here is concerned about.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA directed attention to Section 5, page 5,
of the proposed CS. She asked if that language is intended to
support the right to go to the RCA in terms of not allowing the
reduction of capacity or the reduction in transportation
services. Or is it just to deal with DR&R instead?
MS. LEVY explained that the new language - "reduced capacity"
and "reduction in transportation services" - was inserted to
assure people that the deleted language - "discontinue use of
all or any portion of a pipeline"- wouldn't permanently reduce
capacity or transportation services. She explained that the
deleted language is deleted to assure that the pipeline owner,
whether it be TAPS or any other pipeline in the state, retains
some flexibility in equipment used to provide efficient, cost-
effective transportation. This was addressed by Mr. Bolea
during his testimony regarding the need to reconfigure in a
circumstance where there is 30-year-old equipment, she noted.
Number 0330
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG drew attention to the new language,
"or reduction of transportation services", and inquired as to
the meaning of "services".
MS. LEVY answered that "services" isn't defined in the statute,
although it's used regularly within the statutes and the
regulations. Therefore, a definition certainly can be
understood from the language that's there, she said. The
transportation service is the function of the pipeline; it's to
transport the resource.
MS. LEVY moved to the topic of interest rates. She pointed out
that [the interest rates] are an issue that remains available
for litigation before the RCA or the FERC, and she didn't
believe the bill eliminated that concern. She recalled that Mr.
Brena had a concern that the FERC might not have jurisdiction by
the time the shipper got around to seeking refunds. However,
she said the administration would submit that these are
sophisticated entities that are already litigating that issue
before the RCA. Furthermore, nothing stops them from going to
the FERC today, next year, or in 10 years when TAPS is still in
full swing, and discussing the issue of whether too much has
been collected for DR&R. Therefore, she said, she didn't
believe the legislation prohibited any such action or left a
regulatory gap in that regard.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her understanding that someone
has to look at the life of the rates to be able to determine
whether the 14 percent is correct. Yet protests must be filed
within a certain amount of time. She asked how that can be done
properly.
MS. LEVY remarked that DR&R is a unique subset of costs
collected through the rates. As illustrated by decisions from
FERC and RCA, she said DR&R costs are viewed a little
differently from others. Thus it's always possible to go in and
discuss that component for which nothing has yet been spent.
TAPE 03-41, SIDE A
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA turned to retroactivity. She asked, if
this legislation will impact [30 RCA] cases, whether it would be
better to specify that it's prospective only.
MS. LEVY characterized the issue of retroactivity as a policy
question for the legislature to consider. From the
administration's perspective, she said, one should keep in mind
that rate proceedings go on for a long time. For example, there
are open dockets dating back to 1986. Therefore, if someone
wants to look prospectively, this action may not affect cases
for another 20 years.
MS. LEVY pointed out that on a regular basis, the legislature
passes laws that affect proceedings. She explained that the
administration was concerned about the original legislation's
having a retroactive provision with regard to the interest rate;
there was concern that it would affect potential refunds if
Order 151 were upheld by the courts. Although it wasn't
improper from a legal perspective, she said, from a fairness
standpoint the administration supported removing that
retroactive provision. She characterized the remaining
provisions as more "policy" because, in the administration's
view, they don't change the course of anything, but clarify and
provide guidance.
Number 0297
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that page 7, line 25,
seems to give the authority for tariffs and other things
affecting the state to the attorney general. Therefore, he
inquired as to how big a shift in policy that would be from the
RCA to the attorney general.
MS. LEVY replied that this isn't a significant shift at all, but
a clarification of what has been in practice ever since there
have been pipelines in this state. Years ago, she said, the
legislature made it clear in a pipeline Act that the attorney
general - the Department of Law, as the agency - was to handle
pipeline matters before the FERC. The aforementioned is also
the intent with regard to pipeline matters before the RCA,
although it's not as express, and this legislation would clarify
that. Additionally, the administration would submit that, in
any event, the authority over pipeline matters resides with the
attorney general because there is a statute that specifies that
when the authority isn't expressly given to other agencies, it
falls to the most logical agency. In the case of pipeline
matters, this has been the Department of Law in conjunction with
any of the affected agencies.
Number 0454
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked if the language "just and
reasonable" is a binding term.
MS. LEVY replied that it's a legal term of art defined through
court decisions and the regulatory bodies. Nothing in this bill
would change the RCA's ability to determine what just and
reasonable rates are on the pipelines it regulates, she said.
Number 0515
CHAIR FATE, upon determining there were no other questions,
closed public testimony.
CHAIR FATE indicated the committee would continue with HB 277 on
[May 12, 2003]. He said the next meeting will be for questions
only, and thus the Department of Law, the Division of Oil and
Gas, the industry, the Alliance, and others with expertise in
these matters may want to be available for questions. [HB 277
was held over.]
CHAIR FATE recessed the meeting at 9:56 a.m. [End of this
tape.]
TAPE 03-42, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR FATE called the meeting back to order at 1:10 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Fate,
Masek, Gatto, Guttenberg, Heinze, Lynn, and Cissna.
Representatives Morgan and Wolf arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
CHAIR FATE welcomed new member Representative Cissna to the
committee. [Committee assignments had changed during floor
session. Representative Kerttula was no longer a member, having
been assigned to the House Finance Committee.]
SB 147-CONTROL OF NUISANCE WILD ANIMALS
Number 0125
CHAIR FATE announced that the next order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 147, "An Act relating to control of nuisance
wild animals; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0224
ROBERT DORAN testified as follows:
We started a business approximately one year ago
dealing with problem wildlife or ... animal damage
control. And we would like to see this bill passed so
that we can greatly serve the public in Southcentral
Alaska.
We're seeing a tremendous amount of growth in this
area. We're also seeing more and more residential and
commercial developments constructed very near two
prime wildlife habitats. And ... anyone who's
traveled through Anchorage, I'm sure they can see that
even despite these changes, many of the species of
birds and animals continue using these developed areas
for protection and foraging.
These factors, along with little or no hunting or
trapping pressure, creates a potential for
confrontations to arise between people and wildlife.
And even if the location allowed for regular hunting
or trapping, many of these problems occur when the
regular season for several species of animals is
closed. And a provision in Alaska state law that
would allow a licensed individual specializing in the
control of problem wildlife to control nuisance
animals outside of the regular season would alleviate
this problem.
If properly regulated, many people in the public
service industry and different agencies would benefit.
Based upon conversations that I have had with state,
borough, and municipal agencies, including the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game [ADF&G], Anchorage, and
[Matanuska-Susitna] animal control shelters, as well
as the Alaska State Troopers, Division of Wildlife
Protection, I've found that these agencies often
either don't have the time or the personnel or
resources to ... adequately deal with these conflicts.
And with them being able to refer problem wildlife
calls to a licensed nuisance wildlife control operator
[NWCO], this would relieve these and other agencies
from this responsibility.
Number 0395
MR. DORAN suggested local agencies also could benefit by
gathering data from NWCOs to evaluate urban impacts on local
wildlife populations and surrounding habitats. He said the
evidence of these kinds of benefits can be seen in the Lower 48,
where animal damage control companies work in cooperation with
local game departments and offer a valuable service to the
public. This is a relatively new business nationwide, and very
new in Alaska. He emphasized that it is a "people service"
dedicated to serving the general public.
MR. DORAN, in response to a question from Representative Cissna,
explained that this business is similar to pest control. But
rather than dealing with insects, it deals with various wildlife
species. Examples are pigeons nesting atop a commercial
building where the droppings can become a hazard through
entering the building via the heating and/or air-conditioning
systems, squirrels living in somebody's attic, or beavers
causing problems by damming waterways and flooding highway
rights-of-way. He said it's difficult to anticipate every
situation, and situations he's responded to have been unique.
Number 0579
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE alluded to the sponsor statement and asked
how snow geese are a nuisance, other than perhaps to aircraft.
MR. DORAN answered that when first pursuing this he'd talked to
Phil Cole (ph), at that time in charge of special permits for
ADF&G, who'd suggested that Mr. Doran list every species he'd
want to or be able to deal with. Reiterating that it's
difficult to anticipate what types of calls would be received,
he said the desire was to include "just about every species that
is indigenous or migrates to the state of Alaska." He noted
that one call he'd received from ADF&G was about an alligator,
which he'd never thought he'd get a call about in Alaska.
Number 0751
JACQUELINE TUPOU, Staff to Senator Lyda Green, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SB 147 on behalf of Senator Green,
sponsor. She explained that it provides authority for the Board
of Game to deal with nuisance wild animals, specifically, small
mammals and wild birds. It does this in two ways. First, it
creates a professional license so people like Mr. Doran can
offer this service. Second, it gives authority to ADF&G so that
it can grant authority to people to deal with these animals in
their own homes. Thus the animals are protected from persons
who lack knowledge of their behavior patterns; people can call
ADF&G and be referred to a list of persons such as Mr. Doran who
offer this service.
MS. TUPOU informed members that the list of animals in the
sponsor statement isn't definitive. One provision of the bill
is that regulations don't go into effect until July 2004 [for
Sections 2, 3, and 5 of the Act]; this provides the department
ample time to determine what animals [should be included]. The
list hasn't been created because the regulations haven't been
written; that is something the department will do through its
process. She noted that department representatives were
available to testify.
Number 0900
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about procedures to date for doing
what this bill sets out for the future.
MS. TUPOU deferred to the department, which she said has
different rules and regulations for big game, for example. She
offered her understanding that this has been a loophole for
which the department doesn't have the specific authority unless
the animals are in season. Thus the department doesn't have a
list of referrals if a private citizen is worried about a
porcupine in the yard, for example.
Number 0979
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE said she grew up with people calling the
Cooperative Extension for answers to certain questions. She
asked whether people could call the Board of Game for answers on
to how to deal with bats in their homes, for example.
MS. TUPOU deferred to the department.
Number 1041
MATT ROBUS, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, addressing Representative Gatto's
question about how these situations have been handled before,
noted that it relates to testimony he was planning to give. He
said when [ADF&G's] permitting authorities were defined through
various legislation, "nuisance" was specifically left out the
last time. For example, ADF&G has authority to issue a permit
for people to take wildlife if something escalates to the point
of being a public safety problem or if it's for a scientific or
educational purpose. However, there have been situations in
which, when asked, the department has been unable to issue a
permit to allow somebody to deal with a nuisance situation.
MR. ROBUS reported that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
issued a permit, for instance, when a raven nest needed to be
removed from a crane boom in the springtime; however, the
department couldn't do so without somehow deeming it a public
safety problem. With this legislation, [ADF&G] will be able to
authorize commercial operators who get a license or individuals
who have a nuisance problem to try to deal with that problem
through one of the department's permits. Thus it adds a
capability that the department hasn't had.
MR. ROBUS noted that for beaver, the department has the
capability already to allow people to remove them under a
"depredation permit" under a special regulation. He offered his
belief that for porcupines, there are no limits, seasons, or
restrictions, but said the department often is called for
expertise on removal; he noted that a shovel and bag aren't as
good as a garbage bucket and a piece of plywood.
Number 1237
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO posed a scenario in which a person wants to
build a church and buys 20 acres of land, but there is a tree
with an eagle's nest. He asked whether that's a "nuisance".
MR. ROBUS answered that both a federal Act and state regulations
deal with that, but it wouldn't fall under the nuisance
regulations [under the bill]. He added:
Any migratory bird is under the umbrella jurisdiction
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. And, therefore, we can
only permit to the extent that the feds have already
decided to permit, on any migratory bird. So, for
instance, if we wanted to move a raven's nest or issue
a nuisance permit to deal with some geese that were
depredating somebody's grain field and that was
considered a nuisance, rather than a public safety
problem, we could go ahead and do it, but we could
only do it within the sideboards set by a federal
permit that has already been issued. And ... we do
lots of ... scientific educational permits under that
very scenario.
Number 1336
MR. ROBUS returned to Representative Heinze's earlier question
about seeking information similar to that from the Cooperative
Extension. He said that hadn't been considered in analyzing the
bill, but added, "If the Cooperative Extension had people who
wanted to be authorized to do that type of thing, we would now
have the authority to at least consider permitting doing that."
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked whether citizens could call [ADF&G]
for information about bats in the attic, for example.
MR. ROBUS answered:
One of the big jobs that our area management people
throughout the state in our 23 offices do is field
calls like that every year. ... I've been in that
position, ... caught between wanting to be of service
and wanting to get the rest of your work done. And so
we often give a whole lot of advice over the phone.
We try not to advise people to do things that we don't
have the authority to do or they don't have the
authority to do.
But yes, ... we issue a lot of Extension-type advice
as the wildlife experts for the state, and I'm sure
we'll always continue to do so. But now [with this
legislation] we can actually tell somebody, "You may
go ahead under this permit and take an animal." And
take ... means a wide variety of things, anything from
killing the animal to moving it to hazing it - scaring
it away. You can't do any of that legally unless we
authorize it. But now we'll be able to do that for
nuisance animals.
MR. ROBUS pointed out that this isn't defense of life and
property. When issuing these permits to private individuals and
commercial operators, [ADF&G] generally would take the approach
that nonlethal methods are preferable, escalating from there and
eventually getting into lethal take, if necessary. He also
noted that the effective date is a year from July 1 for the
commercial part, but recalled that the noncommercial part takes
effect July 1 of this year, so [ADF&G] could immediately begin
to issue permits to people who have problems with nuisance
animals.
Number 1510
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN recalled reading about an Alaskan university
where a [northern goshawk] attacked someone. He asked whether
this bill would apply in such a case.
MR. ROBUS said yes, if it were judged a nuisance. It might
already be judged a public safety problem, for example. He
pointed out, however, that northern goshawks are uncommon enough
that the department would look long and hard before disturbing
the nesting situation.
Number 1578
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA returned attention to Representative
Gatto's hypothetical situation involving an eagle's nest. She
asked what latitude [ADF&G] would have with this. She noted
that protection of eagles falls under federal law.
MR. ROBUS answered that he isn't sure that falls under the scope
of this Act and that he hadn't read up on the [federal Bald
Eagle Protection Act] lately. He noted that [ADF&G] advises
land-management agencies and other permitting agencies about
what can and cannot be done.
MS. TUPOU offered her interpretation that the word "small" would
preclude eagles' inclusion in the legislation.
Number 1669
MR. ROBUS, in response to a question from Representative Gatto
about nests, said:
If it's an inactive nest, I think we'd determine that
it's just a bunch of sticks. But if ... there has
been activity in the nest and there's eggs in the nest
or birds around the nest, then we'd probably treat
that ... as a nuisance.
CHAIR FATE remarked that he believes this legislation fills a
void in the statutes.
Number 1744
KAREN DEATHERAGE, Defenders of Wildlife, noting that she hadn't
been aware of the bill, told members she'd served three years on
the urban wildlife taskforce in Anchorage, which has clearly
defined a lot of "nuisance animals," mostly exotic species but
also some small mammals and birds like magpies. She said, "The
department up here has got another person working with the area
biologist to assist in some of these calls." Emphasizing the
importance of wildlife to people living in Anchorage, she
suggested the need for concern about any permitting system that
might endanger what people consider valuable, whether it is a
porcupine [or other animal].
MS. DEATHERAGE expressed concern, first, about whether the Board
of Game will have jurisdiction over the department in allowing
these permits; she offered her belief that any decision should
come from the department. Second, she expressed concern about
whether this will create a heavier burden for the department
with regard to enforcement and ensuring there is no abuse of a
permit system. She questioned whether this is a major issue out
there and causing stress on the department now, except for calls
relating to bears and moose. She told members:
I'm aware of bear calls and moose calls because I work
closely with ADF&G up here in Anchorage. And one of
the things we've done very successfully and
cooperatively is educate the public. And that has
created huge, huge differences in the number of calls
and even the number of bears, for example, that have
been killed as a result of being a nuisance, quite
frankly.
MS. DEATHERAGE acknowledged that this may be a positive bill,
but said she wanted to put forth those questions and concerns.
Number 1927
CHAIR FATE asked whether anyone else wished to testify. He then
closed public testimony.
Number 1931
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK moved to report SB 147 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes; she asked for unanimous consent.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Heinze, Lynn,
Morgan, Wolf, Masek, Gatto, and Fate voted in favor of reporting
SB 147 from committee. Representative Cissna voted against it.
Representative Guttenberg was absent for the vote. Therefore,
SB 147 was reported out of the House Resources Standing
Committee by a vote of 7-1.
SB 155-PREDATOR CONTROL/AIRBORNE SHOOTING
[Contains discussion of HB 208, the companion bill]
Number 2014
CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 155(RES), "An Act relating to predator
control programs; and providing for an effective date."
The committee took an at-ease from 1:40 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked the sponsor to explain changes from
the original bill version.
Number 2081
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
explained that wolverine had been included again at the
department's request. He told members, "We felt that it was
important that wolverine, who can be cumbersome and probably be
... at threat in the wild from any kind of airborne hunting,
should be protected."
SENATOR SEEKINS also said the process was changed around such
that the Board of Game would get input from scientists in the
division; would decide to make this an intensive management area
under current statute; and then would authorize a predator
control program that included airborne and same-day-airborne
shooting. The board would have the prerogative to determine who
the participants could be, and should establish the following:
predator-reduction objectives, limits, methods and means; who is
authorized to participate; and the conditions for participation
of individuals in the program.
SENATOR SEEKINS said this basically eliminates "the second bite
of the apple" by the commissioner. It is a Board of Game
process with the best scientific input coming from the
department. "And once the department provided that information,
it was not necessary for the commissioner to recertify the
information that his staff had already brought to the board in
order to make that decision," he explained. He opined that this
decision [under the bill] will be as apolitical as it can be,
done by the board members and based on sound science.
Number 2236
SENATOR SEEKINS elaborated in response to remarks from
Representative Wolf:
What we're trying to do here is, we do have a
statutorily appointed Board of Game. ... We, as
trustees, the members of these bodies, the trustees of
the resources of the state of Alaska, including wild
game, ... have set up a statutory process in the Board
of Game so that they can look at and have a public
process to take a look at all of the reasons ... for
having methods and means ... of harvest, et cetera,
for wild game in the state of Alaska, to comply with
our ... constitutional requirement to manage for
sustained yield.
What we've said was, those decisions should be made
based on the best available science, should not be
made based on politics. We should be managing this
resource scientifically. So what we have ... in our
process today is testimony that comes to the Board of
Game, including testimony from our own experts, our
scientists that tell us population objectives,
carrying capacities, bull-cow ratios - all these
things that can come into play to determine, "Are we
meeting the constitutional mandate for sustained yield
or not; if there's a problem, then help us to identify
the problem and show us" - and it has to be here -
that the board shall have had to have determined,
based on information provided by the department in
regard to ... an identified big-game population, ...
that they haven't met the objectives - that could be a
harvest objective; that could be ... a population
objective; it could be both on predators or on prey -
and that a cause for the failure is predation.
Number 2368
SENATOR SEEKINS continued:
It has to be an identified cause, scientifically, and
then that ... it's a reasonable expectation that ... a
predator control program could aid in the achievement
of those objectives that could get us there. ... Then
they have to design how the best possible way ... to
carry out that ... predator reduction would be.
There's some control all the way through. And we've
tried very hard to make sure, then, that the Board of
Game understands they just can't say, "Well, we need
to reduce predators here." They have to show why.
And they have to show what the result will be. And
then they have to establish how many. They have to
establish the methods and means to be able to do it,
because in different parts of the state, different
types of methods and means can be effective or not
effective. And then they have to determine who can
participate and then, on top of that, the conditions
for participation.
So we've said, "Along with you making this decision,
you have some responsibility to the people of the
state of Alaska to make sure you're doing it
properly." And so we're ... kind of expanding not
only the opportunity, but also the responsibility.
This does not preclude the department from being able
to handle their own parallel (indisc.--coughing) if
they so wish. This just allows them to say, "Here's a
problem, here's a solution, here's a way it can be
done," and to authorize private individuals ... to
assist, as [Governor Murkowski] has said; he'd like
local folks to be able to carry out ... the predator
control ... programs as much as possible. And I think
that this accomplishes that, and it ... keeps it out
of the political arena. Yes, [Board of Game members]
are somewhat-political appointees, but they're
confirmed ... by these bodies, and so they ... now
would have that decision-making authority.
Number 2474
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about the effect of the bill on the
bear population.
SENATOR SEEKINS answered, "If a bear is a predator, they have
the responsibility and the right to determine ... how to control
it. And I believe a bear is a predator. In fact, I think bears
have a greater effect in many areas on mortality rates for moose
calves than wolves do."
Number 2502
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE referred to page 2 [Section 2]. She asked
whether the Board of Game will have authority over all this,
including "who can shoot, who can fly," and what methods will be
used.
SENATOR SEEKINS answered in the affirmative. He said that's
consistent with [the board's] authority in statute now, and this
is a reiteration of other rights and responsibilities it has in
statute.
Number 2546
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked Senator Seekins for clarification
about the numbers relating to wolf and moose populations.
SENATOR SEEKINS offered an example from Game Management Unit 13.
Pointing to an area on a wall map, he mentioned the Parks
Highway, Denali Highway, Richardson Highway, and Glenn Highway,
saying it's basically contained within that boundary between the
two major population areas of Alaska. He said:
At one time in the late '80s, early '90s, the moose
population - the reproductive base of that population
- was about 27,000. Today it's less than 8,000. A
number of years ago, the Board of Game said, "This is
now an intensive management area," and authorized
predator control programs. But under the last
administration, for political reasons stated that way
- not assumed - they decided not to do any kind of
predator control program in there. ...
The harvest by humans has stayed below a thousand.
Something's killing those animals. And the biologists
say it's wolves and bears. ... And they say we need to
have a predator control program. The wolf population
is 900-plus roughly, depending on when you measure it.
The ceiling that's been established by the board is
around 200. The bear population exceeds 1,500-1,600
grizzly bears in that area. The population is way
over the net.
SENATOR SEEKINS referred to charts of wolf and moose population
trends for Unit 13. He indicated nothing has been done other
than private hunting to meet the department's population
objective of 200 wolves.
Number 2698
SENATOR SEEKINS expressed concern about failing in managing the
resources that are Alaskans' public-trust assets. He said 80
percent or more of moose calves born in this area are dead
before they're four weeks old. Highlighting the number of
predators, he said they can't even be counted and can't be
caught without a predator control program of some kind. He
offered his belief that the Board of Game has to authorize this
because the mandate is that the highest and best use, by
statute, is for human consumption. He added:
I submit to you that ... if we were just to take one-
third of what we could have produced out of there, we
would triple the harvest of moose in the state of
Alaska in the high years - triple it. And if those
people from Anchorage and Fairbanks and the highly
populated part of the state were able to have a
reasonable opportunity to harvest close to home, they
wouldn't be going to Ruby or to Rampart or other parts
of the state to hunt. Not only do we solve the
problem by controlling our populations of game close
to -- the problem of managing for sustained yield, we
take the pressure off the rural communities, which I
think is a secondary benefit of equal importance. So
give people a chance to harvest close to home - we'll
solve some of the other issues of the state as well.
SENATOR SEEKINS said it's a real problem and that nobody will
dispute these numbers from the department, which are taken from
their own reports. He noted that for some, the trend has been
"extended one year," but said they're straight-line trends, with
no reason to believe it won't continue.
Number 2900
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE asked about gestation periods for moose
and wolves, and how many young are born a year.
SENATOR SEEKINS answered that there is a high twinning rate in
moose, though he didn't have the figures, and said wolves can
have three to six or more pups up to twice a year. In Unit 13,
"from myself and other people who do hunt and travel in Unit
13," he said it is rare to see a moose calf that survives into
the fall.
TAPE 03-42, SIDE B
SENATOR SEEKINS said these populations are always either
declining or increasing.
Number 2940
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF voiced wholehearted support for the bill.
He said Alaska's constitution clearly states and explains the
sustained yield principle for maximum benefit of the residents
of Alaska. He remarked that this bill isn't a hunting
opportunity, but a predator control program.
SENATOR SEEKINS said by telling the Board of Game it has the
right to determine who participates, "we would believe that they
would have the responsibility to make sure that the people who
did it were responsible people, not just opening it up to
anybody." He reported that he'd met the day before with two
members of the department, another Senator, and a man from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Senator Seekins said the
USDA has a division or office that assists other states with
predator control, and that the man is a certified aerial gunner
who said other Western states use airborne-hunting predator
control programs. Citing the idea of taking care of the problem
efficiently, effectively, and humanely, Senator Seekins offered
his belief that this can be done with [SB 155].
Number 2815
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked why the governor doesn't do this
predator control now.
SENATOR SEEKINS answered that the current statute says predator
control can only be based on the prey population objective, and
then must be certified by the commissioner. This bill allows
the Board of Game to use all population objectives, including
harvest objectives. He explained:
You may have a population objective that's fairly
stable, but you're not able to harvest anything for
human use because it's being overharvested by
predators. But under the current law, you could not
do anything about that. The McGrath area, if you'll
recall, was (indisc.) down. It had ... a population
objective of, let's say, a unit of three, and they
reduced it to a unit of one so that they could meet
the population objective. So now you couldn't do
anything until you could show that the prey population
didn't meet the objectives. So we want to roll back
into that the ability to look at ... harvest
objectives as well as predator population objectives.
This now allows them to look at all their objectives
and come up with ... a harmonious program.
And now, the governor himself, I don't know why the
governor does not choose what he does not do. ... I
have not heard anyone from the Department of
Administration say that it was based on any kind of
scientific principle. And so, to take that kind of
political pressure off of any ... governor, no matter
who it is that's in office or what party they're from
in office, I think this should become an apolitical
and science-based decision. By doing that, we don't
put anyone in a position where they have to worry
about the headline in the paper related to their
activity; it's as this governor asked it to be, early,
to be science-based, and as he's asked it to be, to be
primarily carried out by people that live in the
communities where it's necessary.
Nowhere else in statute, on any fish or game
regulation, does a commissioner or a member of the
administration have any kind of veto power ... on a
program authorized by the board. And we're now making
this part of the statute consistent with every other
statute.
Number 2665
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested there had been a thought that
tourism tended to drive some decisions. He referred to a graph
relating to predator populations and noted that there is a
steady increase in the predator population in spite of a
declining prey population. He asked whether that reflects that
wolves can get along on other prey and wait.
SENATOR SEEKINS replied that if they're killing moose, they're
also killing caribou and will "eat them down until they're gone,
and then they'll start eating each other." He said 30 percent
of wolves killed in Alaska today are "killed by other wolves for
dinner."
SENATOR SEEKINS offered an editorial from that day's Fairbanks
Daily News-Miner, saying it gives a sense of how people from
Interior Alaska support "science-based control."
REPRESENTATIVE WOLF recalled from high school that wolves are
the only predators that will eat mud to survive, because of all
the nutrients.
Number 2530
MATT ROBUS, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Alaska
Department of Fish & Game, reminded members that he'd testified
on the original HB 208, companion bill to SB 155, and had said
the language originally proposed was a technical tweak to the
existing statute to overcome the issue that "high-centered" the
department and the Board of Game in trying to implement a
predation control program in the McGrath area this year. By
contrast, [CSSB 155(RES)] is now a fairly substantial change to
that statute. He offered the department's view of what it does.
MR. ROBUS addressed Section 1. He said it allows the Board of
Game to establish a predation control program that utilizes
nondepartment personnel. The existing statute has a fairly
cumbersome process whereby the Board of Game listens to the
department give its scientific information; crafts a draft
program; then must request that the commissioner of ADF&G make a
finding based on three criteria: whether predation is creating
a decline in the ungulate population; whether reversing or
reducing the predation will allow that ungulate population to
improve; and whether aerial methods are necessary to reduce
predation. Section 1 streamlines this process fairly
significantly in that it takes the commissioner finding out of
the process.
MR. ROBUS reported that much discussion and debate in Senate
committees related to whether the executive branch retains
authority to make decisions on whether programs are going to be
implemented. He told members:
We believe that there is still a significant role in
decision making within the department and the
administration because this bill does not affect the
fiscal authority of ... the commissioner to run the
department. And also there is a federal airborne-
hunting Act that disallows people from conducting this
type of activity unless the state issues a permit
certifying that they are engaged in an activity to
protect a wildlife population. So the state still
will have a significant role, no matter what is done
with this statute.
Number 2350
MR. ROBUS turned attention to Section 2, which also had received
quite a bit of discussion. He said the Department of Law has
advised [ADF&G] that the Board of Game already has the
authorities listed in Section 2. He said:
We asked [Senator Seekins], the sponsor on the Senate
side, to consider making the language more flexible in
that we didn't feel it was wise to have the board
mandated to establish all four of these things every
time there's a predation control program. We thought
that allowing some flexibility would make it more
likely that a program would actually be implemented by
the executive branch.
MR. ROBUS acknowledged that Senator Seekins and his staff had
worked with [ADF&G] quite a bit on Sections 1 and 2. He offered
the belief that some pretty significant improvements in the
language have been achieved through the committee process to
date.
Number 2306
MR. ROBUS advised members that the current version, on balance,
because the commissioner is entirely removed from the process,
is unacceptable to the administration. He noted that the
original bill left the commissioner in the process. With the
assistance of the Department of Law, therefore, [ADF&G] had
worked up a possible amendment that is intended to be a
"compromise position between those two poles"; he indicated this
proposed language had been given to the committee.
MR. ROBUS explained the intent of the proposed amendment: after
the Board of Game comes up with a predation control program and
submits it to the department, the commissioner would have a
finite, short period of time within which to justify why it
should not be carried out; if no response was forthcoming in
that short time, the program would go forward. He added, "We
think this addresses the pocket-veto issue that Senator Seekins
... has voiced, and which, I think, based upon the way the
statute's written, is a valid thing to be concerned about."
MR. ROBUS told members:
I want to emphasize that the situation at McGrath was
purely a technical inability for the commissioner to
make a finding, as requested by the Board of Game,
because the population objective for that particular
moose herd was reduced as part of a compromise during
[an] adaptive wildlife management team process that
was underway out there several years ago, in an
attempt to get some sort of redress for the wildlife
management situation in Unit 19D East, where the moose
population is at low levels and not recovering and we
judge the predation as a significant reason for it.
CHAIR FATE asked that questions be held if possible and that
testifiers speak for two minutes only.
Number 2175
JESSE VANDERZANDEN, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council
(AOC), began by saying AOC represents about 50 outdoor clubs -
approximately 12,000 hunters, fishers, trappers, and public
access advocates. Testifying in support of SB 155, one of AOC's
top priorities this session, he said the bill isn't about fair
chase or ethics, providing trophy moose hunters with bigger
moose racks, eliminating wolves, or being against predators. He
opined that these are myths perpetuated by people who seek to
"put wolves on a pedestal" and thereby create sympathy for them
at the expense of other wildlife species; he said this
undermines the integrity of wildlife management and every
Alaskan who wishes to utilize wild food for sustenance.
MR. VANDERZANDEN offered that the bill is about asserting the
state's right to manage wildlife in a scientific manner for the
benefit of its citizenry; helping the state meet its statutory
and constitutional obligations to manage wildlife for sustained
yield; and putting wildlife management "back into the hands of
professional managers who know it best - people in the field,
... close to the ground, who know what's going on day to day,
year in and year out." He cited population levels, predation
impacts, habitat conditions, other conditions, use patterns, and
"a myriad of factors that must be accounted for in managing
wildlife for sustained yield."
MR. VANDERZANDEN said the narrowly focused bill limits airborne
or same-day-airborne predation management to only areas where
big-game populations are depressed and predation has
conclusively been determined to be a factor; it requires Board
of Game authorization to conduct airborne or same-day-airborne
management within the context of an approved wildlife management
plan founded upon the recommendations of professional managers.
He said these plans are regularly scrutinized and commented on
by the public "in one of the most open and deliberative public
processes in the nation."
MR. VANDERZANDEN indicated this practice is available in most
states, and should be available in Alaska, given its challenging
topography. He said it ties predation management to population
objectives, which seek to establish how many moose and predators
exist in a long-term sustainable manner in a certain area. He
told members that predators are part of the management equation
- conserved for, accounted for, and managed for. They are not
managed against. It's not a question of how wolves are managed,
but how wildlife is managed. Noting that population objectives
also account for human harvest, he concluded, "We urge you to
put Alaskans who utilize wild food for sustenance, who share a
strong conservation ethic for nature's predators and prey, and
[who] rely on individual responsibility, back into the
management equation by passing this bill today."
Number 1958
DICK BISHOP testified on his own behalf in support of SB 155,
which he said makes clear, when allocating big-game prey for
various uses, that the buck stops at the Board of Game. The
board is bound by the same sideboards as ADF&G: wildlife must
be managed on the sustained yield or self-perpetuating
principle, and sustained yield includes hunting and trapping.
He said the board and department are obligated by law to provide
for "continued, important hunting opportunities"; the board is
obligated to make allocations among various uses, and relies on
the department's data and professional advice regarding the
condition of the particular population and what sort of
management would enable the board to meet its obligations.
MR. BISHOP said SB 155 provides authority for the board to use
more of the available management methods to fulfill its
responsibilities. Its decisions still must be based on
information and interpretation provided by the department;
implementation of predator-prey management through the use of
aircraft also requires ADF&G's cooperation in order to meet
conditions of the federal airborne-hunting Act. He said the
paradox in predator-prey management is that while Alaska is
huge, only 10-20 percent is available for active management of
predator-prey systems or even of habitat. He explained:
Federal nonmanagement on 50 to 60 percent of the
state, state-closed areas, urban areas, and barren
lands combined make up 80 to 90 percent of the state
lands. But then the 20 percent of Alaska where
management can be done has become critically important
to those who pursue the Alaskan tradition of hunting,
whether for food, for cultural values such as my own,
or as guides who make a living serving the interests
of our visitors.
MR. BISHOP concluded by saying SB 155 will help the state
fulfill its constitutional mandate of managing on the sustained
yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses,
for the maximum benefit of the people.
Number 1808
PAUL JOSLIN, Conservation Biologist, Alaska Wildlife Alliance,
expressed concern that SB 155 would allow members of the public
who can afford it to again be able to play "cowboys in the sky,
chasing wolves across the landscape." He said it is barbaric;
raises public safety issues; and is inexcusable, even if done in
the name of predator control. Noting that proponents of same-
day-airborne hunting of wolves argue that it's necessary, he
said the opposite is true. He told members:
We are now killing more wolves than ever. And I have
provided each of you with copies of the Alaska
Department of Fish & Game harvest summary records on
wolf take in Alaska over the past 25 years. From
these records, you can see for yourself that it has
been steadily increasing, from about 600 wolves a year
to now over 1,500 wolves a year, which is a whopping
increase of nearly 150 percent.
This trend appears to be continuing. In the winter of
2001-2002, 1,741 wolves were listed as killed. The
increase has come about largely because hunters have
better equipment in the way of semi-automatic weapons
and fast, reliable snow machines that can outpursue
any wolf on open ground. I attend a lot of Board of
Game meetings. And having personally heard the
testimony of many snowmachiners talking about the
number of wolves they take, I'm especially concerned.
In one individual case I'll never forget, ... the
fellow bragged about how he single-handedly chased
after and shot some 18 wolves. Pursuing wolves on a
snow machine is now legal on about 20 percent of state
land.
MR. JOSLIN said enacting legislation that returns Alaska to a
time in the past when there were "cowboys in the sky" is wrong.
If anything, legislation should be enacted to stop the legalized
but unfair chasing of wolves on the ground and the steady
increase of killing of wolves in Alaska until more is known
about its impact on Alaska's natural ecosystems.
MR. JOSLIN contended that this isn't about logic and science,
but about dealing with entrenched attitudes about wolves by
people in power. He disagreed that wolves reproduce twice a
year, and he said wolves aren't vermin. "The voters of Alaska
know that, and they have told you twice that they are not about
to support you when it comes to allowing the public to use
aircraft when it comes to killing them," he said. "Why isn't
that message getting through?"
MR. JOSLIN said Alaska has lost its preeminent position as the
wild-frontier state with the highest density of wolves in
America because of the antiquated attacks on predators. He told
members that Minnesota, for example, proudly proclaims that its
hunting industry is able to coexist with a population of wolves
that is 2.5 times Alaska's per square mile. He asked that more
wolf-related education and a whole lot less killing be done.
Number 1537
JENNA WHITE testified as follows:
The failure of a democratic government, when
representatives of the people vote in favor of
regulations that are in opposition to the will of the
people that elected them: the public already clearly
voted to disallow the practice of aerial and land-and-
shoot hunting of wolves by the public. One cannot be
an expert on all subjects, and the breadth of
information in the world today is overwhelming. And
the systems have been devised so that the most
qualified individuals make decisions pertinent to
their area of expertise.
Establishment of regulations that can have tremendous
impact on wildlife populations should be administered
by biological professionals. Nonetheless, certain
[legislators] and Board of Game members ... will
acquire personal gain by acting as wildlife management
professionals. These same individuals are active
members of a group which tells that [moose] numbers
are plummeting by astronomical accounts. For example,
it has been claimed in Unit 13 [that] the moose
population has dropped from 27,000 to 7,000 in a
decade, and that in Unit 19D the moose density has
fallen from 3 to 4 per square mile to 1 per square
mile, a 75 percent reduction.
It has further been stated that this is not a fair-
chase issue, but a scientific management issue. And
this is exactly the point: that science is being
manipulated to suit their own desires. The scientific
reality is that the true population estimates for
moose and many species are not known in most parts of
the state because these surveys are expensive and
time-demanding.
Previous high estimates of moose numbers in the 1980s
are pure speculation based on no scientific data, and
were the result of long-term state- and privately
sponsored wolf bounties, extensive aerial and land-
and-shoot killing, and poisoning. For example, in the
previously mentioned Unit 13, where intensive predator
control has been adopted, ADF&G biologists do not know
the extent of the moose population because this area
is very large and encompasses much topographical
variation. And the area simply has not been censused.
Number 1390
MS. WHITE continued:
But in a recent ADF&G discussion item concerning the
review of predator-prey status in Unit 13, it was
stated that, quote, there are about 22,000 moose in
Unit 13 and an overall density of 0.9 moose per square
mile, or a density of 1.4 moose per square [mile in
areas] below 4,000-foot ... elevation. And this is
considered a relatively high-density moose population
for Interior habitats.
This number certainly is not written in stone. But it
is nowhere near the "7,000" number purported by
supporters of this bill. The report goes on to state
that moose populations now appear comparable to levels
observed in the early 1980s. Simultaneously, the most
recent study showed that the wolf population has
decreased by some 27 percent in Unit 13, due to
extensive hunting and trapping. ...
The real problem is, ... localized hunting overhunting
has reduced bull ratios to as low as 9 bulls ... per
100 moose in certain areas. And this has reduced the
resiliency ... of the herd and the overall
availability of moose to take.
MS. WHITE concluded that overall, this is a scientific issue
that needs to be resolved by professionals who have integrity
and are looking out for the welfare of wildlife and habitat,
instead of "playing politics."
Number 1279
VIC VANBALLENBERGHE told the committee he is a former member of
the Board of Game appointed in 1985 by Governor Sheffield and in
1996 and 2002 by Governor Knowles. First discussing the
public's using airplanes to take wolves, he said that while he
was on the Board of Game in 1985-87, the board began to address
problems related to this issue; the board acted first in 1986 to
restrict land-and-shoot hunting because the practice had
numerous problems in relation to hunters' shooting directly from
the air or hazing and harassing wolves, both of which were
illegal under state and federal law. He said that led to a
series of well-publicized court cases in Alaska and public
outrage over the practice.
MR. VANBALLENBERGHE offered his belief that whether or not land-
and-shoot or same-day-airborne hunting is done as predator
control, it is a bad practice that the public still strongly
opposes. Highlighting the 1996 initiative and 2000 referendum
dealing with this issue, he said they demonstrated the strength
of that opposition. He opined that passage of this [SB 155] may
result in yet another referendum vote to overturn the
legislature's action.
MR. VANBALLENBERGHE said, second, the bill cuts the
commissioner, and hence the governor, out of decision making on
wolf control. Emphasizing that the Board of Game isn't an
elected body, he said only the governor, who is elected, can see
the broad public policy issues involved in controversial issues
like wolf control and can make the ultimate decision, through
the commissioner of ADF&G, as to whether these practices should
proceed.
MR. VANBALLENBERGHE referred to Mr. Robus's testimony and said
there is a legal problem in that Public Law 92-159, the
airborne-hunting Act passed by Congress, requires state fish and
game agencies, rather than boards of game, to issue permits for
aerial control. Thus [SB 155], by overriding that process,
generates some serious and perhaps intractable problems that
need to be rectified.
Number 1031
ROBERT FITHIAN, Executive Director, Alaska Professional Hunter
Association (APHA), who is a master guide and "eco-tour"
operator, said APHA represents Alaska's oldest tourism-related
industry, the guided sport-hunting industry, which contributes
more than $120 million "new" dollars to Alaska each year and
contributes to ADF&G's annual wildlife conservation budget.
Referring to the state constitution, Article I, Section 1, and
Article VIII, Sections 3 and 4, he told members:
During the past decade we have seen a steady and
continual decline in the cow moose populations in
Alaska of at least 55 percent. The annual calf-
survival rate is under 7 percent. Only 3.5 percent of
the surviving calves are female, and fewer of that
percentage are living to be of recruitment age to
replenish the declining populations.
The average annual harvest rate of moose statewide
currently is as follows: 86 percent die by predation,
10 percent die of natural mortality, and 4 percent by
human harvest. What these facts prove is that if we
stopped all human harvest of moose today, a year from
now we will still have fewer moose. Hunting and human
harvest is having no significant effect on the state's
moose population.
Let me advise you on another commonly overlooked fact
here. If the facts were known regarding our Dall
sheep and, in many areas, our caribou populations, and
they had ... an important role throughout the main
river corridor communities of Alaska as meat-and-
subsistence species, you would find that their plight
is as bad as our moose. It's a terrible
representation of the stewardship of these resources.
It's important for you to note that during the past 10
years the nonresident sportsman has lost opportunity
to hunt on over 50 million acres of public lands that
are open to sport hunting, due to the continual
reducing numbers of Alaska's moose, sheep, and caribou
populations and the mandate's of the state's
subsistence law.
Only two times in the history of our state have we
seen such detriment dealt to our precious wildlife
populations as we have in the past 15 years. These
two instances were the near-extinction of the sea
otter by the Russians and the demise of Alaska's wild
salmon during the territorial years. ...
Number 0846
MR. FITHIAN concluded:
The APHA warrants that what Alaska will gain by
passage of Senate Bill 155 and the administration's
mandates of management of Alaska's wildlife
populations for abundance will do far more benefit for
Alaska's tourism industries and ... the vision that
the world has of Alaska than any boycott can do us
harm. It's time for us to stand up for Alaska and the
vision that the world has of our state, a vision of
incomparable wildlands and bountiful populations of
wildlife. Our civil, constitutional, and moral
stewardship requirements need to be adhered to. The
APHA urges you, for the sake of our precious wildlife
resources and the people of rural Alaska, to support
this bill.
CHAIR FATE asked people on teleconference who had written
testimony to provide it to the committee.
Number 0772
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA pointed out that she didn't have the
handout Mr. Joslin said he'd provided.
Number 0750
CHAIR FATE closed public testimony, asking people to stay on
teleconference for questions. He announced his intention of
moving the bill from committee this day.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Robus to address a topic raised
in a letter in committee packets from Jenny Pursell [in
opposition to SB 155, dated May 8, 2003] that says under SB 155,
aerial predator control can be declared by the Board of Game
without the backing of ADF&G.
MR. ROBUS responded:
Our reading - and one thing that may not be clear - is
that under the existing statute, let alone what's
before you, the public can be involved in predation
control programs ... involving same-day-airborne or
airborne hunting if this complicated process is gone
through that I mentioned before.
The ... Board of Game, under the language in ...
SB 155, would be able to go ahead and put together a
predation control program and hand it to the executive
branch without the involvement of the commissioner.
But, as I said before, in two ways the department
still would have some authority and some say in
whether or not a program went forward. And one is
that the board does not have any fiscal authority over
the department, and the commissioner still controls
the purse strings for what happens and, therefore, can
direct that something either be done or not done.
And then, secondly, the provisions of the airborne-
hunting Act means that ... if nondepartment people are
involved in predation control activities involving
aerial methods, the state must, as we read it, issue a
permit to protect people from federal prosecution ...
under that law. People can be made legal if there's a
state permit that says that they're participating in a
program to protect a wildlife population. And in this
case it would either be moose or caribou or one of the
ungulate populations identified under the intensive-
management law.
MR. ROBUS added that he hadn't read the letter, but thought he'd
answered Representative Masek's question.
Number 0522
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK reiterated that the letter says the board
can declare aerial predator control without the backing of
ADF&G.
MR. ROBUS replied, "I think that's true. But, again, the
department and the administration would still retain the final
say as to whether or not to implement that program."
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK referred to oral testimony and to written
testimony to the Board of Game from the board's March 6 meeting
[in packets]. She paraphrased from a letter from Lewis F.
Egrass of McGrath that says [original punctuation provided]:
"Just last night March 5th on Alaska State news, Paul Joslin
stated that their survey showed that 75% of rural Alaskans
opposed predator control. I have contacted all the villages in
this area and none of them have any knowledge of this survey."
Representative Masek said she just wanted to put that on record.
Number 0362
CHAIR FATE asked about the allegation that the moose count isn't
accurate and has no scientific basis.
MR. ROBUS responded:
It's true that there's a lot of art in the science of
wildlife management. And it's true that these surveys
are expensive. And we have to try to hopscotch around
the state, and there are a lot of areas that we don't
survey every year. But we try to keep hopping around
and checking up on places from time to time. And the
department is among the leaders in the world in
developing aerial survey techniques, and we have done
what we can to try to develop ways to do the best job
we can of estimating - not directly counting every
last one, but estimating moose populations and other
wildlife populations in the state.
CHAIR FATE asked whether the figures are valid.
MR. ROBUS replied:
I believe they are, Mr. Chairman, although ...
depending on where you're looking specifically, we may
have less scientific data than in other places. But
in places where we've got significant management
problems, we try to allocate our resources so that we
do fly high-quality surveys and do the best job we can
under the conditions. ... We can still be foiled by
weather conditions or other anomalies, but we have, we
believe, valid results and estimates that are as good
as you can get under the circumstances.
Number 0187
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referred to one of the graphs in the
packet. He said some game management biologists and resource
managers have mentioned that the 1988 number was an anomaly,
that taking out the bottom and top numbers would give more of an
average, and that shooting for an all-time high isn't feasible.
MR. ROBUS responded:
You make a good point, and the department is on record
repeatedly as trying to make sure that population and
harvest objectives that are established are reasonable
and ... achievable. ... There's no doubt and no
argument from the department that we don't have a
management problem for ungulates in Unit 13 and
Unit 19D and several other places. But in trying to
correct those problems, we need to be careful that we
aim towards objectives that can be sustained, and ...
don't create more problems when we get there.
Anybody who knows the history of the Nelchina caribou
herd knows that populations do fluctuate the way ...
Senator Seekins mentioned. And we have to be careful,
when trends are going up, not to stimulate something
that gets so high that it creates damage.
TAPE 03-43, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. ROBUS noted that [the graph] has some error associated with
it; it's an estimate. He explained:
If you draw the type of error bars that we have around
our estimates, you might find that that line is a lot
less lumpy than it appears here. And if we had no
snow on the ground that winter, it would be very hard
to find moose during a survey anyway, so we'd get a
low estimate. So I think what you need to look at -
and what wildlife biologists get used to doing - is
instead of worrying too much about the absolute place
where that point is, you look at the general line.
And that general trend for moose in [Unit] 13 is
definitely down over the long term, and we agree that
we've got some serious management concerns there that
need to be addressed.
Number 0071
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA recalled that the environments in which
moose live must be specifically beneficial for them; they need
to be able to reach what they forage on, for example, and a
growing forest can actually outgrow the range which moose can
reach. She asked whether there has been any kind of change in
the environment [in the game management units being discussed].
MR. ROBUS replied:
One thing that is often forgotten is ... that the
habitat is constantly changing everywhere in the
state. And numbers of animals in the woods or tundra
or wherever are also constantly changing. And the
challenge of wildlife management is to try to keep
things in balance and at adequate levels so that
people can use the wildlife in the various ways they
do.
And, yes, our area biologists ... become very familiar
with the areas, and we know that there are situations
where habitat is the primary problem for ungulates.
But there's a whole variety of factors ... that affect
ungulate populations or any wildlife population,
predation being one of them, habitat quality and
quantity another, disease, parasites - you can on and
on; weather is a big one for moose.
And so that's why the current statute and the ...
bill in front of you talks about ... the board having
to making the judgment that predation is a significant
cause for a depressed ungulate population, because it
doesn't do any good to remove predation or reduce
predation if that's not what's causing the depressed
moose herd or caribou herd. So, obviously, we need to
look at make sure that predation is a problem, and ...
not something else controlling the situation.
Number 0329
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said this bill seems to want to take
authority from the governor and the commissioner, and give it to
the board. He asked whether that is a real situation, since the
governor, in the end, controls the purse strings of the board or
even the department. He surmised that if a governor didn't want
predator control, it wouldn't happen, regardless of this bill.
MR. ROBUS offered his belief that [Governor Murkowski] has
stated repeatedly that he's in favor of predator control; has
voiced a policy that certain techniques will not be employed at
this time; and is very interested in having predator-management
problems addressed by local people, as opposed to department
staff, in part because of the cost to the state involved in a
staff effort. In further reply, he reiterated that the
administration presently finds the bill unacceptable because of
the commissioner's diminished role in Section 1, which is the
process whereby the board produces the predation-control plan.
CHAIR FATE recalled that the governor, in a speech to the joint
session, had talked about active management, which Chair Fate
said connotes "active management including, if needed, predator
control."
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK commented that almost everyone in the
Senate had voted for this bill and urged moving it forward to
the House floor.
Number 0562
REPRESENTATIVE MORGAN told members he is from the Unit 19 area
and is very familiar with Unit 19D; he's been involved in
predator control since 1998 and pushed legislation at that time
for predator control. He said the moose population is going
down. Representative Morgan told how bears change their eating
habits as they become more expert, going from eating the entire
carcass in the spring to only eating the fattest parts.
Similarly, he said, elders have told him that wolves become very
persistent and expert at catching [moose], and know what parts
to eat. He recounted being told by someone that he'd run into
four moose [carcasses] for which the only parts eaten were the
nose; tongue, which has a lot of fat; heart and kidneys, which
have a lot of fat; and rump. Then they move on.
Number 0727
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN emphasized the responsibility of legislators
to be responsible stewards of the natural resources, including
animal populations. He said these [wolves] aren't mythical
Disneyland animals, but a "four-legged natural resource that
needs to be managed with the best scientific knowledge that we
have, in the most practical, commonsense way to do it, for the
benefit of all of us." He said he believes that active
management is required and that he will support the bill.
Number 0815
REPRESENTATIVE HEINZE moved to report CSSB 155(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG objected for discussion purposes. He
told members he believes in predator control, but said on this
issue he's been troubled because both sides seem to get stymied
in rhetoric and locked into positions. He said he looks for
good, scientific data and hears conflicting information from
both sides. Referring to the top of page 2, he indicated
concern that it seems to amend statute with regard to the
philosophy of predator control for objectives. He also
expressed concern about taking authority away from the governor
in theory in the bill, when the governor actually has it in the
end. He indicated that whether one agrees with a governor or
not, there are larger public policy issues involved in a lot of
what the legislature does.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG also noted that two ballot issues
which passed [relating to same-day-airborne hunting] were big
public policy calls. Indicating the need to further educate the
public, he said that all he's hearing is "bears and wolves
versus moose." Referring to Representative Cissna's discussion
of habitat issues, he said there are water issues and [effects
from fires] as well, and yet he never seems to hear dialogue
about what is happening out there on the ground. He explained
that he hasn't been satisfied that an answer has come forward,
and said he doesn't think [this bill] does it.
Number 1051
CHAIR FATE said he didn't presume to be an expert, but offered
his belief that ADF&G has ample evidence that in some areas -
though it may not be the total cause of diminution of the
ungulate population - "it has been the balance that has caused
the decrease." He said he knows of times when a deep snow
coupled with cold has probably been much more devastating than
wolves to the game population; however, wolves on top of that
can just about devastate an entire moose population in an area.
He agreed in part with Representative Guttenberg, but offered
his assessment that in some areas it really is predation that
has caused the diminution of the herd.
CHAIR FATE stressed the desire for active management, saying
there has been too much passive management where people have
just said to let nature take its course. He recalled hearing
from elders that there have been times of starvation as well as
times of plenty. "We're trying to keep away from those times of
starvation," he concluded.
Number 1171
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she'd talked to people in her area
and believes they understand that in some areas it's important
to have predator control, even though they'd voted strongly in
favor of banning aerial wolf control. However, they'd told her
it should be professional. She also expressed concern that she
hadn't seen the proposed amendment [mentioned by Mr. Robus], and
said she'd like to hear debate over the problem that the
administration has with the current version.
Number 1268
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG withdrew his objection.
CHAIR FATE asked whether there was any further objection. There
being no objection, CSSB 155(RES) 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 3:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|