SB 97-ATTY FEES: PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGANTS  CHAIR SEEKINS announced SB 97 to be up for consideration. This bill primarily provides that in a civil action contesting a decision of the Department of Environmental Conservation, attorney's fees may not be awarded to or against a public interest litigant as provided in Rule 82(g) in the Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure. This would be, in effect, on the floor a vote for a direct court rule amendment. SENATOR FRENCH said he noticed the small amount of money involved. He came up with $718,000 over the course of a decade for public interest litigants in the natural resources area and that's about enough to pay one person $70,000 per year to be the one member of the public who challenges the government on their public resources front. Another point is in the final paragraph of the fiscal note. The idea to somehow provide legal fees to these folks drives litigation and makes people file cases they wouldn't otherwise file. None of the cases have been found to be frivolous, which may not be the best measure. However, the fiscal note says they have not been able to find objective data to indicate whether or not the public interest exception is a primary motivation for parties to litigate public interest issues. CHAIR SEEKINS responded that the $70,000 is only one facet of what they are considering, because Senator French is looking only at the amounts that were awarded to public interest litigants, not the amount of money the state had to spend that the public interest litigants may have had to pay the state. Subjective data indicated and a number of people in the Department of Law felt that cases were being brought by public interest litigants to harass and delay, which cost the state a tremendous amount of money. Testimony from the companies that were delayed also indicated that they incurred millions of dollars in losses in terms of appreciation on equipment and additional time necessary to bring worthwhile and permitted projects to the extraction phases. SENATOR OGAN noted the cost to the treasury, as well, that comes from companies being discouraged to even do business here. CHAIR SEEKINS commented that Alaska is the only state with a Rule 82 type of provision, which causes higher insurance rates and he thought providing an exemption to the state in this category was reasonable. 2:50 p.m.  SENATOR OGAN moved to pass SB 97 from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. SENATOR ELLIS objected. Senators Therriault, Ogan and Seekins voted yea; Senators Ellis and French voted nay; and SB 97 moved from committee.