03/13/2023 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR5 | |
| SB67 | |
| SB49 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2023
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Cathy Giessel, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Matt Claman
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5(FSH)
Urging the United States Secretary of Commerce, the National
Marine Fisheries Service, the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, and other federal and state agencies to defend the state's
fisheries, including the Southeast Alaska troll fishery.
- MOVED CSHJR 5(FSH) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 67
"An Act relating to firefighting substances; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 49
"An Act relating to the geologic storage of carbon dioxide; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 5
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA FISHERIES; TROLL FISHERIES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HIMSCHOOT
02/10/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/10/23 (H) FSH
02/14/23 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
02/14/23 (H) Moved CSHJR 5(FSH) Out of Committee
02/14/23 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
02/15/23 (H) FSH RPT CS(FSH) 7DP
02/15/23 (H) DP: C.JOHNSON, MCCORMICK, CARPENTER,
MCCABE, STUTES, HIMSCHOOT, VANCE
03/01/23 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/01/23 (H) VERSION: CSHJR 5(FSH)
03/06/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/06/23 (S) RES
03/13/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 67
SHORT TITLE: PFAS USE FIREFIGHTING
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) KIEHL
02/10/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/10/23 (S) RES, FIN
03/01/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/01/23 (S) Heard & Held
03/01/23 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/13/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 49
SHORT TITLE: CARBON STORAGE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/27/23 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/27/23 (S) RES, FIN
03/10/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/23 (S) Heard & Held
03/10/23 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/13/23 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE REBECCA HIMSCHOOT, District 2
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 5.
THATCHER BROUWER, Staff
Representative Rebecca Himschoot
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 5 and presented
the sectional analysis.
AMY DAUGHERTY, Executive Director
Alaska Trollers Association
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 5.
TIM O'CONNOR, Mayor of Craig and Vice President
Alaska Trollers Association
Craig, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 5.
DANI EVENSON, Extended Jurisdiction Program Manager
Alaska Department of Fish and Game
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided supporting information for HJR 5.
JOE LALLY, Staff
Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council
Valdez, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 6.
MICHELLE MEYER
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 67.
ADAM ORTEGA
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 67.
PATRICE LEE
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 67.
PAM MILLER
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 67.
TIM SHESTEK, Senior Director
State Affairs
American Chemistry Council
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided supporting testimony for SB 67.
HALEY PAINE, Deputy Director
Division of Oil and Gas
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented Sections 14 through 39 of the
sectional analysis for SB 49.
JOHN CROWTHER, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions and provided information
during the hearing on SB 49.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:52 PM
CO-CHAIR CLICK BISHOP called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kawasaki, Claman, Dunbar, Kaufman, Co-Chair
Bishop, and Co-Chair Giessel. Senator Wielechowski arrived
during the course of the meeting.
HJR 5-ALASKA FISHERIES; TROLL FISHERIES
3:32:09 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP announced the consideration of CS FOR HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5(FSH) Urging the United States Secretary
of Commerce, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, and other federal and state
agencies to defend the state's fisheries, including the
Southeast Alaska troll fishery.
He stated the intention to hear the bill and look to the will of
the committee.
3:32:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REBECCA HIMSCHOOT, District 2, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HJR 5, introduced the
legislation speaking to the following prepared statement:
HJRS urges federal and state agencies to continue to
defend Alaska's fisheries, including the Southeast
Alaska troll fishery.
This is important because the lawsuit filed by the
Seattle-based Wild Fish Conservancy that targets the
local Southeast Alaska salmon troll fishery is a
threat to a way of life. Southeast households rely on
salmon as a food source, communities depend on salmon
to support the salmon and tourism sectors that are
pillars of the economy. There is every reason to
protect these fish.
The fear is that this is an attack on one that may
become an attack on all. . Rather than examining the
pollution, vessel traffic, dams in salmon streams and
other pressures on the areas in their area, the Wild
Fish Conservancy has attacked the local troll fleet of
Southeast Alaska, 1,000 miles away. I'd like to
explain who the trollers are and what the lawsuit
contends.
Data from the last 100 years shows that trolling is
one of the most sustainable fisheries there is. It
involves about 1,500 fishermen who bring about $85
million into the local economy. Each fish is caught
with a hook and line. The bycatch is the most limited
of any fishery. Trolling is a low barrier fishery, so
almost all Southeast communities, including Meyers
Chuck, have at least one troller. Each trolling vessel
is a family business, and each family business
supports local schools and local economies.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT deferred to Thatcher Brower to provide
additional information.
3:35:15 PM
THATCHER BROUWER, Staff, Representative Rebecca Himschoot,
Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, stated that he is a
commercial troller who fishes in the summer and he also serves
on the Alaska Trollers Association Board of Directors. He
conveyed the following in support of HJR 5:
• In 2019, the National Marine Fisheries Service
conducted a consultation and issued a Biological
Opinion under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that
considers what effect implementing the fishing
regimes, negotiated by the Pacific Salmon Commission
(Treaty), will have on species listed as threatened
or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
These species include Chinook salmon and Southern
Resident Killer Whales. An Incidental Take Statement
was issued, which allows the fisheries to be
conducted under State of Alaska authority using
measures which are believed necessary to minimize
impacts on listed stocks.
• On March 18, 2020, the Wild Fish Conservancy, a
Washington-based organization, filed a complaint
against the National Marine Fisheries Service
seeking to invalidate the 2019 Biological Opinion.
• Wild Fish Conservancy sought to halt the production
of Chinook salmon by Columbia River hatcheries that
were intended to increase prey availability to the
Southern Resident Killer Whales. Wild Fish
Conservancy also sought to invalidate the Incidental
Take Statement that covered the Southeast Alaska
troll fishery.
• In September 2021, Magistrate Judge Michelle
Peterson issued a Report and Recommendation finding
that the analysis governing the Columbia River prey
increase program was flawed under federal law, and
that the Incidental Take Statement governing the
Southeast Alaska troll fishery was therefor also
legally deficient. Judge Richard Jones adopted
Magistrate Peterson's Report and Recommendation on
August 8, 2022.
• National Marine Fisheries Service is rewriting the
Biological Opinion, but it will probably [take] some
time.
• Since the adoption of the magistrate's Report and
Recommendation, the parties engaged in briefing on
what the remedy for National Marine Fisheries
Service's violations should be. Judge Peterson
issued a second Report and Recommendation on
December 13, 2022. That Report and Recommendation
would invalidate the Incidental Take Statement for
the Southeast Alaska troll fishery with respect to
the winter and summer fisheries, putting those
seasons in jeopardy.
• U.S. District Court Judge Jones is now deliberating
on the U.S. Magistrate Judge Peterson's Report and
Recommendations for the remedy and will likely make
a decision in the near future.
• If the judge rules in the plaintiff's favor, there
is an opportunity for the case to be appealed to the
th
9 Circuit Court of Appeals.
3:38:24 PM
At ease
3:38:42 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP reconvened the meeting and opened public
testimony on HJR 5.
3:39:05 PM
AMY DAUGHERTY, Executive Director, Alaska Trollers Association,
Juneau, Alaska, testified in support of HJR 5. She stated that
the Southeast troll fishery predates any data keeping by the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) and during
Territorial Days. She said this fishery is subject to the treaty
allocation and the Board of Fisheries and it was doing well
until the Wild Fish Conservancy filed a lawsuit. Since then, ATA
has been doing everything possible to keep Southeast trollers
fishing. She noted that the congressional delegation filed an
amicus brief based on the economic importance of the troll
fishery to the entire Southeast region that includes Yakutat.
3:41:22 PM
TIM O'CONNOR, Mayor of Craig and Vice President, Alaska Trollers
Association, Craig, Alaska, testified in support of HJR 5. He
stated that Craig is the main port on Prince of Wales Island,
which has a total population of just under 4,000. The commercial
seafood landings at the port total 21 million pounds and have a
value of $22.7 million. The port is ranked 30th in the nation
for poundage and 52nd for valuation based on the top 137 ports
in the US. Since logging has all but disappeared on Prince of
Wales Island, commercial and sport fishing are mainstays of
Craig's economy. The Wild Fish Conservancy lawsuit targets the
troll industry, but if it's successful all gear groups are at
risk. He said the Alaska Trollers Association and the City of
Craig need the state to commit resources to help stop the
lawsuit and protect the state's right to manage its fish
resources. That right is in jeopardy. He highlighted that the
City of Craig recently passed Resolution 23-03 supporting ATA's
defense against the WFC lawsuit. He urged the committee to
support HJR 5.
3:43:42 PM
DANI EVENSON, Extended Jurisdiction Program Manager, Alaska
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), Juneau, Alaska, stated that
she also serves as the Pacific Salmon Treaty Coordinator. This
makes her the department's point person on the Wild Fish
Conservancy lawsuit alongside Aaron Peterson from the Department
of Law. She continued her testimony speaking to the following
prepared remarks:
This case is a challenge to the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) Biological Opinion for the
Southeast Alaska salmon fishery the document that
gives Alaska Endangered Species Act (ESA) "incidental
take" coverage and allows our Pacific Salmon Treaty
salmon fisheries to operate. The State of Alaska and
Alaska Trollers Association (ATA) intervened in the
case to defend Alaska's fisheries and interests.
The lawsuit was brought by the Wild Fish Conservancy,
a conservation organization based in Washington State.
The suit specifically attacks Alaska's management of
its Chinook salmon troll fisheries under the Pacific
Salmon Treaty. The lawsuit argues that the Southeast
Alaska Chinook troll fishery threatens the survival of
several ESA-listed Chinook salmon stocks in Washington
and Oregon, and the endangered Southern Resident
Killer Whales that depend on Chinook salmon for food.
The Federal Court in the Western District of
Washington ruled in favor of the Wild Fish Conservancy
supporting their claims.
3:48:59 PM
The Wild Fish Conservancy disputed the provision of
the BiOp [Biological Opinion] that required $118
million of federal funding be provided for mitigation
actions to support Chinook salmon hatchery production
to increase prey for killer whales, Puget Sound
habitat restoration, and Puget Sound conservation
hatcheries. These actions not only allow Alaska
fisheries to continue in the face of ESA concerns, but
also provide mitigation to allow salmon fisheries in
the lower 48 to proceed. This lawsuit does not attack
similar fisheries that occur off the coasts of
Washington and Oregon, despite similar impacts.
The District Court Judge ruled on behalf of the
Plaintiff Wild Fish Conservancy citing that NMFS
violated its obligations under the ESA [Endangered
Species Act] and NEPA [National Environmental Policy
Act] in issuing its incidental take statement.
Key Points from the Judge's order on summary judgment
11included:
1. NMFS's actions require certain mitigation
2. NMFS failed to create a binding mitigation
measure that described "in detail the action
agency's plan to offset the environmental damage
caused by the project" for the prey increase
program.
3. NMFS's failure to make a jeopardy determination
on the prey increase program for the Chinook
salmon ESUs violated its obligations under the
ESA
4. NMFS violated NEPA requirements in issuing the
ITS.
Present Situation
The lawsuit is currently in the "remedy" phase. U.S.
Magistrate Judge Michelle Peterson issued a report and
recommendation (R&R) and proposed order mid-December.
The magistrate recommends:
(1) the Biological Opinion be remanded to NMFS to
remedy ESA and NEPA violations,
(2) portions of the 2019 SEAK BiOp that authorize
"take" of SRKW and ESA-listed Chinook salmon
resulting from commercial harvests of Chinook salmon
during the winter and summer seasons (excluding the
spring season) of the troll fisheries be VACATED.
In other words, removing ESA coverage for these
fisheries while NMFS fixes the flawed BiOp. The
magistrate judge denied Plaintiff's requests to vacate
the portion of the BiOp on the prey increase program
and to enjoin implementation of that program. The
parties have completed briefings on their objections
to the magistrate's report and recommendation
regarding the appropriate remedy, and last week,
Alaska's congressional delegation filed an amicus
curae brief to provide support to the troll fleet.
This portion of the case will be under consideration
by the District Judge in the near future.
3:51:36 PM
This litigation is still active and what happens next
is in the hands of the judge. In the meantime,
fisheries are proceeding as normal and ADF&G staff
have offered assistance to NMFS to help re-write the
BiOp since time is of the essence.
Viewpoint
The State of Alaska abides by the terms of the Pacific
Salmon Treaty and the Biological Opinion that is tied
to it and it is troubling that this ruling singles out
our fisheries. We have a responsibility to look out
for our fisheries and the Southeast coastal
communities and families that rely on them. We will
defend the right for our fisheries to operate while
the NMFS addresses the rewrite of their Biological
Opinion and that includes appealing any adverse
decision that unjustly only targets our fisheries.
Further, Alaska will not tolerate the suspension of
its fisheries while other west coast fisheries equally
impactful to killer whales and dependent upon the
hatchery mitigation actions contained in the Southeast
Alaska Biological Opinion, but not the target of this
lawsuit, are allowed to proceed. If this decision
sticks, we will be looking at having all fisheries
that affect these salmon being treated equally under
the law.
3:54:03 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN said he wasn't clear about what the judge ruled
on in favor of the plaintiff and the remedy that was sought.
3:54:14 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee.
MS. EVANSON said key points on summary judgement included that
part of the $118 million mitigation package was the annual
requirement to provide NMFS with no less than $5.6 million per
year for hatchery production. The judge said this couldn't be
guaranteed because congressional appropriations are annual. NMFS
also failed to create binding mitigation measures that provided
a detailed description of the action agency's plan to offset the
environmental damage caused by the project for the prey increase
program. The question was whether ESA listed species in the area
were impacted by the increase in hatchery fish. NMFS is
addressing this in separate biological opinions for each
hatchery. She said NMFS's failure to make a jeopardy
determination on the prey increase program for the listed
Chinook salmon violated its obligations under the Endangered
Species Act and that NMFS violated the National Environmental
Policy Act requirements in issuing its incidental take
statement.
SENATOR CLAMAN said he'd continue the conversation offline.
3:57:10 PM
At ease
3:57:21 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP reconvened the meeting.
3:57:32 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked whether other fisheries were impacted by
the ruling.
MS. EVANSON answered no; the ruling only targets the troll
Chinook salmon fisheries in Southeast Alaska that take place in
the summer and winter months.
3:58:11 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR commented that if the troll fishery can be a
target, there is no question that other gear types will be
challenged in the future.
He asked how the Wild Fish Conservancy justified targeting the
Alaska troll fishery and not the troll fisheries in Washington
and Oregon.
MS. EVANSON replied that the Wild Fish Conservancy targeted the
Southeast Chinook troll fisheries because the state's biological
opinion had the $118 mitigation package; $56 million went to
prey production and that troll fishery was tied to it. She
speculated that the reasons included that that's where the
lion's share of the harvest is and that the WFC board is largely
comprised of sport fishermen. The thought process could be that
without the Chinook troll fishery, the hatchery production from
the Lower 48 wasn't necessary; one would offset the other. She
said the reality is that all fisheries on the western seaboard
rely on the mitigation measure; a foregone harvest in Southeast,
doesn't equal a commensurate level of fish available to killer
whales.
4:00:55 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP opened public testimony on HJR 5; finding none,
he closed public testimony. Finding no further questions or
comments, he solicited a motion.
4:01:17 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL moved to report the CS for HJR 5, work order
33-LS0338\U, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s).
4:01:30 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP found no objection and CSHJR 5(FSH) was reported
from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
4:01:37 PM
At ease
SB 67-PFAS USE FIREFIGHTING
4:03:28 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 67 "An Act relating to
firefighting substances; and providing for an effective date."
4:03:45 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP opened public testimony on SB 67.
4:04:03 PM
JOE LALLY, Staff, Prince William Sound Regional Citizens
Advisory Council, Valdez, Alaska, testified in support of SB 67.
He paraphrased the following prepared statement:
The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory
Council (PWSRCAC or Council) would like to express our
support for Senate Bill 67 PFAS Use & Remediation;
Fire/Water Safety. Because of the relatively narrow
focus of PWSRCAC's mission, our interest in SB 67 is
limited to the Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) that
is stored at the Valdez Marine Terminal, and on some
of the related vessels, for the purpose of suppressing
fires.
The Council is an independent nonprofit corporation
whose mission is to promote the environmentally safe
operation of the Valdez Marine Terminal and associated
tankers. Our work is guided by the Oil Pollution Act
of 1990, and our contract with Alyeska Pipeline
Service Company. PWSRCAC's 19 member organizations are
communities in the region affected by the 1989 Exxon
Valdez oil spill, as well as commercial fishing,
aquaculture, Alaska Native, recreation, tourism, and
environmental groups.
AFFF contains perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) that are known for their persistence
in the environment and harmful effects to people and
animals. Any release of AFFF could result in the
contamination of drinking water and state waters,
including Prince William Sound. PWSRCAC is aware of
PFAS-containing firefighting substances that are
available and used to fight fires at oil and gas-
related facilities in Alaska, including the Valdez
Marine Terminal.
While we are mindful of pollution impacts that could
result from a catastrophic fire, we are also concerned
about environmental harm that could result from fire
suppression, or the testing of suppression systems,
using PFAS-containing substances. In 2021, there were
two spills of AFFF at the Valdez Marine Terminal,
associated with maintenance and fire-system testing
activities, but thankfully neither spill reached the
marine waters of Port Valdez and Alyeska was able to
detect, respond, and mitigate both spills expediently.
Therefore, the Council supports proposed language that
would empower the Alaska State Fire Marshal to
restrict the use of firefighting substances that
contain PFAS in the state if he or she determines an
alternative non-PFAS substance is available. Such a
determination would be based on an alternative
firefighting substance being approved by the federal
Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
A secondary matter of concern that could be mitigated
by the passage of SB 67 stems from the past
appropriation of $9,425,000 from the Oil and Hazardous
Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund
(Response Fund or Fund) for the purpose of responding
to releases of PFAS statewide. It is proper for the
State to respond and deal with such hazardous
substance releases. However, while the statutes do
allow the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation to use the Response Fund to assess the
releases of PFAS that pose an imminent and substantial
threat to the public health or welfare, or to the
environment, it was never intended to pay all the
long-term costs of remediation after the initial
emergency has passed.
A danger of using the Response Fund for long-term PFAS
remediation is that every dollar spent on such
activity reduces the amount available for swift
response to an oil spill or other hazardous substance
release disaster. The overarching purpose of the Fund
is to allow for a speedy and full response to an acute
disaster such as an oil spill. However, using the Fund
for long-term PFAS remediation could easily drain the
Fund to zero and could result in the State being less
able to respond immediately to an oil spill or
chemical release.
The language contained in SB 67 that proposes a new
section of Alaska law (46.03.350) could lead to a
complete ban on the use of PFAS-containing substances
in Alaska. This would reduce future budgetary pressure
on the Response Fund and make the State better
prepared to deploy the Fund to respond to non-PFAS
spill disasters.
4:07:56 PM
MICHELLE MEYER, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Juneau,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 67. She stated that she grew
up in Yakutat and was a cancer survivor. Yakutat was a large
military base during World War II and it has residual PCB and
dioxin that continues to cause concern. The water is
contaminated by PFAS resulting from the use of the firefighting
foam used at the airport. PFAS is known to cause cancers such as
testicular, kidney, bladder, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in
children. The latter was her cancer diagnosis as an adult, which
is rare. She believes the cancer was caused by PFAS exposure
from drinking well water at the school that was near the Yakutat
airport. She said her father, brother, husband, and son have
been volunteer firefighters in Yakutat and she worries about
their exposure to PFAS. It is in their turnout gear and the foam
that is used to suppress fires, even though nontoxic
biodegradable alternatives are available. She thanked the
committee for supporting SB 67.
4:11:20 PM
ADAM ORTEGA, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Juneau, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 67, which would phase out the use of
PFAS firefighting foams. He identified military bases and
airports throughout the state as the largest source of PFAS,
which has contaminated the drinking water for thousands of
Alaskans. Passing SB 67 will help to phase out these forever
chemicals.
4:12:20 PM
PATRICE LEE, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Fairbanks,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 67. She reported that the
Golden Heart City has four kinds of PFAS in the municipal water
source. Combined, it exceeds the far too lenient standard of 70
parts per trillion. She said there are scores of lakes that are
too contaminated with PFAS to be fished. She cited contamination
in Pile Driver Slough and the Rolling Stone gravel pit, both of
which are well documented by DEC. She said the plume is moving
toward the Salcha River and Harding Lake.
MS. LEE asked how the state expects to prevail in the lawsuit it
filed against DuPont if it doesn't even pass a law to ban the
further use of PFAS. She also suggested the committee expand the
bill to include a safe drinking water standard.
4:14:44 PM
PAM MILLER, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, Anchorage,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 67. She described the
legislation as an important first step to turn off the tap of
pollution that is contaminating the drinking water for people
from the North Slope through Southeast. These forever chemicals
continue to be used dispersively, even when there are safe,
effective, and certified alternatives.
MR. MILLER stated that in 2019 Alaska Community Action on Toxics
identified about 100 sites throughout Alaska that were
contaminated with PFAS. Today, DEC has identified 469 sites that
have PFAS contamination in soil and/or water. This is a serious
public health issue because exposure to these toxic forever
chemicals can cause health problems at levels of less than 1
part per trillion. She emphasized the need to protect all
Alaskans by ensuring they have safe water to drink. She urged
the committee to pass SB 67.
4:18:27 PM
TIM SHESTEK, Senior Director of State Affairs, American
Chemistry Council, Sacramento, California, testified in support
of SB 67. He stated that his organization has supported similar
legislation in other states to restrict the use of PFAS
firefighting foam for training and testing purposes. He said SB
67 recognizes that the oil and gas industry may need to use PFAS
foams to combat large quantity flammable liquid fires, and ACC
would encourage the committee to consider whether there may be
other facilities that need the same accommodation in a real-
world emergency. He offered to work with the committee on this
issue.
4:19:46 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP closed public testimony on SB 67 and held the
bill in committee awaiting an updated fiscal note.
4:19:58 PM
At ease
SB 49-CARBON STORAGE
4:21:00 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 49 "An Act relating to the
geologic storage of carbon dioxide; and providing for an
effective date."
She stated the intention to continue the 3/10/23 review of the
sectional analysis for SB 49.
4:21:43 PM
HALEY PAINE, Deputy Director, Division of Oil and Gas,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Anchorage, Alaska,
continued the sectional analysis for SB 49, starting with
Section 14 on slide 22.
Section 14 (DNR/DOG)
Adds new sections to AS 38.05 Alaska Land Act as
Article 15A Carbon Storage Exploration Licenses;
Leases (proposed AS 38.05.700795); detailed summary
on next slide
MS. PAINE directed attention to the theoretical timeline for a
CCUS project on slide 23 that overlays the different components
of the bill. It notes the points that a carbon storage
exploration license and a carbon storage lease come into play.
The yellow arrow highlights that Section 14 applies after the
initial screening and at the start of the feasibility phase.
Section 14 Detail:
AS 38.05.700
Policy statement that it is in the public interest to
promote geologic storage of carbon dioxide
AS 38.05.705
Provision for applicability carbon storage statutes
and authority for DNR to adopt regulations to
implement these statute
AS 38.05.710
Allows the commissioner to issue carbon storage
exploration licenses on state land and establishes
work commitment obligations, minimum economic terms,
bonding requirements, default provisions, renewal
provisions, and the escalation of minimum economic
terms.
• 5-year exploration license term
• Conversion of the license to a lease upon
fulfillment of work commitment, acquiring storage
facility permit from AOGCC, ability to meet
commercial terms
AS 38.05.715
Procedures for issuance of a carbon storage
exploration license. These are modeled after existing
procedures for oil and gas exploration licensing under
AS 38.05.133.
• Identify land, minimum work commitment, economic
terms, 90 days for competing proposals
• Written finding including competitive process if
competing proposals are submitted
• Subsection 715(h) provides a right-of-first-
refusal opportunity for existing lessees under AS
38.05.135181 (i.e., mineral lessees for coal,
oil and gas, geothermal, or other exploitable
minerals).
4:26:30 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP referenced section .710 and asked what the
duration of the lease would be after the license is converted to
a lease.
MS. PAINE answered that the lease is good for as long as the
carbon storage facility is in operation, from construction
through post-closure activities. She added that it's similar to
the oil and gas lease model; there's a primary term that allows
exploration work, but to hold the lease after that the company
has to be engaged in actual production.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL asked her to speak to subsection .710(h) which
says dollar amounts shall change every five years.
MS. PAINE explained that subsection (h) provides an opportunity
to reevaluate the statutory minimums for per acre and per ton
injection charges and increases them in line with the consumer
price index.
SENATOR CLAMAN questioned whether this wasn't an overly simple
solution to price indexing.
MS. PAINE offered her belief and hope that it would be as
functionally simple as outlined.
4:27:37 PM
JOHN CROWTHER, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources, Anchorage, Alaska, added that, similar to other floor
provisions in oil and gas leasing, it was conceivable that the
department would pass regulation or negotiate leases that were
higher than the statutory floor.
4:28:19 PM
MS. PAINE continued to describe the provisions in Section 14.
Section 14 - (DNR/DOG)
AS 38.05.720
Provision allowing conversion of an AS 38.05.715
carbon storage exploration license to a carbon storage
lease.
AS 38.05.725
An oil and gas lessee converting from enhanced oil
recovery to carbon storage must apply for a carbon
storage lease.
AS 38.05.730
Requirements for plans of development and operations,
and provision for unitization, as with oil and gas
leasing.
AS 38.05.735
Payments from carbon storage licenses and leases are
to be deposited in the general fund except for the
amount allocated to the Permanent Fund under art. IX,
sec. 15, of the Alaska Constitution.
AS 38.05.795
Definitions for specific terms used in the proposed
Article 15A Carbon Storage Exploration Licenses;
Leases
4:29:50 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP referenced the payment provision in section .735
and asked what percentage will go to the Permanent Fund.
MS. PAINE answered that for older leases 25 percent of mineral
interests are allocated to the Permanent Fund and a newer
generation of leases allocate 50 percent to the Permanent Fund.
She deferred to the Department of Law to say where these leases
would fall.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP said he'd like that information and Co-Chair
Giessel agreed.
4:30:40 PM
MS. PAINE continued to slide 25, Sectional Summary: Secs. 15-31.
Section 15 (DNR/DOG)
Amends AS 38.35.020(a) to include carbon dioxide for
pipeline transportation right-of-way (ROW) leasing
purposes
Section 16 (DNR/DOG)
Amends AS 38.35.020(b) to allow the DNR commissioner
to exempt pipelines from ROW leasing when transporting
carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery or pressure
support
Section 17 (DNR/DOG)
Conforming amendment to AS 38.35.122 to bring some
carbon dioxide pipelines under the same title as
"product" pipelines
Section 1820 (DNR/DOG)
Amends AS 38.35.230 definition of "lease," "pipeline"
or "pipeline facility," and "transportation" to
include provisions for carbon dioxide
Section 21 (DNR/DOG)
Amends AS 38.35.230 to add a definition for "carbon
dioxide" cross referencing the definition used in AS
38.05.795
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL asked if these sections were provisional and
whether it was more likely that the storage would be located
where the carbon was produced.
MR. CROWTHER responded that these sections conform carbon
dioxide pipelines to the existing long and short-distance oil
and gas pipeline regulatory system. DNR anticipates these carbon
dioxide pipelines initially would be very short, but the
provisions in these sections provide the authority to manage all
the different pipeline scenarios.
4:32:51 PM
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked if AS 38.35.020(a) in Section 15 was for a
new standalone pipeline.
MS. PAINE said yes; the provision authorizes new rights-of-way
leases for constructing a pipeline.
CO-CHAIR BISHOP asked how it would work if the new pipeline was
within an existing right-of-way for an in-use petroleum
pipeline.
MS. PAINE answered that DNR's rights-of-way are for non-
exclusive access.
4:34:15 PM
MS. PAINE continued to Sections 22-30 on slide 25
Sections 2230 (AOGCC)
Conforming amendments separate AS 41.06 into two
articles one for geothermal and one for carbon
storage (AS 41.06.005060).
4:34:45 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned the reason for the new paragraph
(b)(2) in Section 16 that exempts the construction or operation
of a pipeline transporting carbon dioxide within a field for the
purpose of an enhanced oil recovery project or field
pressurization measures.
MR. CROWTHER explained that AS 38.35.020(b) exempts those
pipelines from the requirement to acquire a specific right-of-
way lease, but it does not exempt the pipeline from the
regulation associated with operations within a development site.
MS. PAINE added that infield gathering lines within a unit
currently are exempted from the requirement to obtain a right-
of-way lease.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if this was limited to operations
within a unit or field.
MR. CROWTHER said he would follow up with specifics about the
jurisdiction, but in practice most those operations have been in
the context of an existing development or authorization.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he was curious about whether this
could affect private property rights.
MR. CROWTHER clarified that the authorities under discussion are
for the purpose of leasing out state lands for the purpose of
siting infrastructure associated with a project. This does not
authorize placing infrastructure on private lands, although
there are processes for an operator to seek such an
authorization and for adjudication.
4:37:44 PM
MS. PAINE continued to Section 31 on slide 25.
Section 31 (AOGCC)
Adds new sections to AS 41.06 as Article 2. Carbon
Dioxide Injection and Storage beginning at AS
41.06.105. Detailed summary on slide after next.
MS. PAINE directed attention to slide 26 that shows the same
theoretical timeline for a CCUS project but with a yellow arrow
that points to where the AOGCC carbon storage permit fits. That
authority is detailed in section 31.
4:38:33 PM
MS. PAINE advanced to slides 27-28, Section Detail: Section 31
(AOGCC).
Section 31 Detail:
AS 41.06.105
Contains a policy statement that it is in the public
interest to inject carbon dioxide into oil and gas
reservoirs in a manner protective of waters and
reservoir integrity; recognizes that in the event
cooperation of mineral interest holders in an area
cannot be obtained, regulatory procedures that enable
cooperative management are required
AS 41.06.110
Provides AOGCC jurisdiction over carbon dioxide
storage facilities to prevent waste, protect
correlative rights, and ensure public health and
safety; "waste" is defined in AS 41.06.210
AS 41.06.115
Concerns AOGCC's authority to carry out the purposes
and intent of AS 41.06.105210 (a) contains an
expansive statement of AOGCC's jurisdiction over
persons and property necessary to carry out the
purposes and intent of AS 41.06.105210 the state's
police power (b) allows AOGCC to suspend its statutes
as to lands committed to federal units, provided the
conservation of resources is provided for (c) contains
a list of specific AOGCC regulatory authorities (d)
wells drilled for carbon dioxide are subject to
AOGCC's jurisdiction under AS 31.05 unless
specifically covered by AS 41.06.105210 (e) AS
41.06.105210 do not limit DNR's authority over (1)
carbon storage exploration licensing or leasing; or
(2) approval and management of carbon storage units or
operations that include state land
AS 41.06.120
Provides that waste is prohibited in a carbon storage
facility or reservoir
4:40:04 PM
AS 41.06.125
Provides permit requirements for storage facilities
AS 41.06.130
Creates a public hearing requirement for storage
facility permits issued by AOGCC notice is given to
property owners within ½ mile
AS 41.06.135
Specifies the criteria for the AOGCC to approve a
carbon storage facility permit
AS 41.06.140
Allows AOGCC to include parameters, limitations, or
restrictions in a permit and to protect and adjust
rights and obligations of persons affected by geologic
storage
AS 41.06.145
Concerns amalgamation of property interests for
storage facilities
CO-CHAIR BISHOP requested additional explanation of the
provision in section .145.
MS. PAINE explained that if a property owner does not consent to
a storage facility, AOGCC has the authority to amalgamate the
subsurface property interests and allow the use of the storage
facility as long as the nonconsenting owner is properly
compensated. The oil and gas statutes have a similar provision.
MS. PAINE continued to review the details of Section 31.
AS 41.06.150
Creates specifications for recording a carbon storage
facility certificate to put future property purchasers
on notice
AS 41.06.155
Creates statutory requirements for AOGCC to ensure
environmental protection and reservoir integrity in
storage facilities and reservoirs
AS 41.06.160
Clarifies preservation of rights, including
deconfliction of development of other minerals by
drilling through or near a storage reservoir
AS 41.06.165
Provides authority for AOGCC to collect fees and
establishes the "carbon dioxide storage facility
administrative fund" under the general fund
AS 41.06.170
Specifies that storage operators hold title to
injected carbon dioxide until a certificate is issued
under AS 41.06.175, including liability for damage
associated with injected carbon dioxide
AS 41.06.175
Specifies the eight factor criteria for certificate of
completion a transfer of title of CO2
4:43:45 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked her to speak to 1) the state's liability if
a storage facility is wrongly certified as complete and 2) what
happens if the company has gone bankrupt.
MS. PAINE answered that the state would have the ability to hold
the company liable, just as it can today. If the company is no
longer in business, the funds that are paid into the carbon
storage trust fund over the life of the project would provide
protection.
SENATOR DUNBAR observed that the difference in the carbon
storage context, is that the state has title to the CO2 that is
both an asset and a liability. The liability is that the state
has to make sure it doesn't leak.
4:46:32 PM
MS. PAINE advanced to slide 29 and continued to review the
details of Section 31
AS 41.06.180
Provides authority for AOGCC to collect a "carbon
storage facility injection surcharge" for post-closure
administration to be deposited in the "carbon storage
closure trust fund" established in AS 37.14.850 (bill
Sec. 4)
AS 41.06.185
Provision for AOGCC to impose civil penalties for
violations of its carbon storage statutes
AS 41.06.190
Excludes AOGCC's carbon storage statues from enhanced
oil recovery (EOR), except for when an EOR-related
reservoir is converted to a storage reservoir
AS 41.06.195
Authority for AOGCC to enter into agreements with
other government entities and agencies for carbon
storage purposes
AS 41.06.200
Authority for AOGCC to determine amounts for injection
and storage, including EOR; provides for fees and
applicability for credits and other carbon management
goals
AS 41.06.210
Definitions for terms used in AOGCC's carbon storage
statutes
4:48:01 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI questioned the reasoning for using the term
"carbon dioxide" in the definition of "carbon dioxide."
MR. CROWTHER said a certain quality and composition of carbon
dioxide is necessary for the safe administration of an injection
and storage project, so the definition tries to indicate that it
is a technical term that is used throughout the statute.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the definition was standard within
the industry.
MR. CROWTHER answered that the program is modeled on the
standard recognition that carbon dioxide must be of a suitable
quality and purity to be safely managed in these storage
facilities. He offered to follow up with how other states have
defined the compound.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he'd be curious to hear about other
states, because the definition in the bill seemed very unusual.
MR. CROWTHER restated that he would follow up with information
from other states and DNR's thoughts on conforming the
definition to the intent.
4:50:42 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether the bill, as currently drafted,
could be used to inject and store any other kind of gas.
MR. CROWTHER said there are efforts to manage other byproducts
from industrial activities, but the only focus for geologic
sequestration is carbon dioxide.
SENATOR CLAMAN commented that these leases are the reverse of a
typical oil and gas lease because those leases only last as long
as it's economic to get the product out of the ground. For
carbon storage, the company is obligated to manage the storage
facility indefinitely. He asked what in the legislation
addresses the lessee that decides to go home after 10 years.
MS. PAINE responded that while there isn't an end date for the
project, the model is able to predict how much CO2 a reservoir is
able to take over a certain number of years. If the operator is
able to demonstrate that the plume is no longer migrating and
there's no danger of a leak 10 years after injection has ceased,
AOGCC may grant a site closure certificate. There is no
requirement to do so; 10 years is just the earliest in the post
injection period that the operator could apply for a title
transfer.
SENATOR CLAMAN summarized that before a company goes home after
it has injected CO2 to the capacity of the storage reservoir, it
must apply and show AOGCC convincing evidence that the gas is
fully contained and won't migrate.
MS. PAINE agreed.
SENATOR CLAMAN continued that if there were a problem after
that, any corrective action would be the state's responsibility.
MS. PAINE answered the state is ultimately responsible as the
landowner, but the idea is that the regulatory and statutory
requirements for inspections, monitoring, and the post closure
trust fund would avoid that sort of problem.
4:55:17 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that the bill talks about carbon,
carbon storage, and carbon dioxide; he asked if those terms are
intended to be used interchangeably.
MR. CROWTHER agreed that the terms were used interchangeably,
and conveyed that the House version of the bill was amended to
make the terminology consistent.
4:55:57 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if he had an explanation for the zero
fiscal note from the Department of Revenue (DOR).
MR. CROWTHER asked whether he was talking about revenues or
expenses.
SENATOR DUNBAR said he thought it was expenses.
MR. CROWTHER said DNR and DOR believe the program can be managed
with the existing staff. However, that could change in years to
come, and if that happened a request would be forthcoming at
that time.
4:57:21 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked about enhanced oil recovery wells, the
difference between Class II and Class VI wells, and how that
determination is made.
MS. PAINE answered that, at present, an enhanced oil recovery
well is dedicated to that purpose. But when that well is used
for geologic storage, it has to be a Class VI well because the
concentration of CO2 will be very different. The EPA currently is
working on the rules that govern the transition from one well
class to the other, but right now there is just the statement
that when the safety and protections designed for the well are
no longer applicable for Class II, it's necessary to transition
to Class VI.
SENATOR KAWASAKI noted that the language says the commission
will adopt the regulations even though the federal government
hasn't said what it will do on Class VI wells, so the AOGCC will
have to take that up at some point.
MS. PAINE agreed.
4:58:59 PM
MS. PAINE continued to slide 30 to describe Sections 32-39.
Sections 3235 (DNR/Parks)
Conforming amendments to parks and recreational
facilities laws (AS 41.21)
• Wood-Tichik excluded
• Willow Creek permitted
• Kenai River Management Area permitted
• Alaska Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve excluded
Section 36 (DNR/DOG)
Adds new subsection AS 44.37.020(d) for DNR to
administer storage facilities and stored carbon after
certificate of completion is issued under proposed AS
41.06.175 (bill Sec. 31)
Section 3739 (DNR/AOGCC)
General provisions for authority to adopt regulations,
title change for chapter AS 41.06, and effective date
of the legislation
5:00:12 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL noted that the committee would work with DNR to
reschedule the individuals who had been invited to testify.
5:01:00 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting at 5:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 67 Sponsor Responses to Committee Questions 03.01.23.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 67 |
| SB 67 - Testimony received as of 3.11.23.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2023 3:30:00 PM |
SB 67 |
| HJR 05 CS(FSH) Version U 2.15.23.PDF |
SRES 3/13/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 05 Explanation of Changes Version S to U 2.15.23.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 05 Sponsor Statement Version U 2.24.23.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 05 Fiscal Note One - House Special Committee on Fisheries 2.15.23.PDF |
SRES 3/13/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 05 Research - KCAW Article 2.1.23.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 05 Research - ATA and ALFA Orca White Paper Handout 12.7.22.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 05 Research - ADFG Press Release 8.8.22.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 5 |
| HJR 05 Testimony - Received as of 3.13.23.pdf |
SRES 3/13/2023 3:30:00 PM |
HJR 5 |