SCR 1-MOTORIZED OIL TRANSPORT TASK FORCE    CO-CHAIR SENATOR DRUE PEARCE called the Conference Committee on SCR 1 to order at 6:00 p.m. Present were Senators Pearce, Torgerson, and Ellis and Representatives Barnes, Phillips and Kerttula. CO-CHAIR PEARCE announced that a proposed conference committee substitute for SCR 1 (labeled Version M) was before conferees. CO-CHAIR Barnes moved to adopt Version M as the conference committee substitute. There being no objection, CO-CHAIR PEARCE announced that Version M was adopted. CO-CHAIR PEARCE explained the changes from the House version of SCR 1 as follows. On page 2, line 1, rather than designating a specified number of members, CCS SCR 1 creates a task force composed of an unspecified number of members. Subsection 12 was added which allows for other participants as may be agreed to by the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Senate and House members of the task force. Inadvertently, no representatives from the fishing industry or local governments were included. They may, or may not, wish to be a part of the group. Certain resolve clauses that referred to achieving response planning were deleted because those references were incorporated into SB 273. Subsection (1) was changed to give DEC the burden of showing why the response planning standard cannot be implemented using containment equipment that is readily available for purchase in the market. Subsection (2) was rewritten and now speaks to the practical measures used to implement the standard West of 157 degrees longitude or North of 62 degrees latitude. Alternative compliance measures will be necessary in far Western Alaska waters. Subsection (3) is new: it directs the task force to recommend and report on the use of fleet plans, vessel agents, generic contingency plans, etc., that will help meet the response planning standard. Subsection (4) requires that the task force report include inspections measures to be included in the regulations. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if drills and exercises need to be identified separately. CO-CHAIR PEARCE explained that the contingency planning process includes drills and exercises as part of the statute so a specific reference is unnecessary. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said the language in subsection (1) on page 3 is confusing but it is her understanding that the task force will be able to look at all of the ways that tankers and the railroad can achieve their contingency plans so that they will not be stuck trying to prove a negative. CO-CHAIR PEARCE agreed but noted the task force will not be revisiting contingency plans for tankers. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she meant non-tankers. CO-CHAIR PEARCE stated an ongoing concern has been expressed that as part of meeting the planning standards, the contingency plan holders are going to have to purchase a tremendous amount of new equipment. She disagrees and maintains that the amount of equipment in place is probably sufficient, if not overly so in some cases. She expects the costs to go down in terms of maintaining that equipment. For example, Cook Inlet shippers do not want to see a task force come back and recommend an escort vessel be used in Cook Inlet for the cargo carriers. She said she does not expect to see that happen. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested including a due date for the submittal of the task force report in the last "further resolved" clause. CO-CHAIR PEARCE noted the due date for the report is included in the bill on page 3, line 15. There being no further discussion, CO-CHAIR BARNES moved to adopt the conference committee report for SCR 1. CO-CHAIR PEARCE announced that, with no objection, the motion carried. She pointed out that a new zero fiscal note is forthcoming from the conference committee.