HB 132: EXTEND RESOURCE EXTRACTION PERMIT/LEASE REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 132, stated that the bill would allow for the extension of a resource extraction permit in cases in which the permit could not be exercised due to legal action enjoining the permitted activity and in which the final judgment was in the permittee's favor. Also, he said, HB 132 would allow an automatic extension, upon application by the permit holder, for the time lost on the permit due to the legal action. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that the House Resources Committee had made a couple of amendments which had questionable effects. He called the members' attention to a memorandum from Jerry Luckhaupt of the Legislative Affairs Agency's Division of Legal Services which addressed the effect of one of the House Resources Committee's amendments. On page 2, line 24 of CSHB 132 (RES), he said, the definition of permits would result in negating the bill, because it made reference to an obsolete statute. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE commented that members had in their bill packets an amendment which would delete that reference, and instead use the Department of Natural Resources' (DNR's) broad definition of "permit." CHAIRMAN PORTER identified that particular amendment as AMENDMENT NO. 1. Number 332 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that AMENDMENT NO. 2 pertained to page 2, line 2 of CSHB 132 (RES), and deleted the phrase "a substantial extent," which the House Resources Committee had added. Discussions with the Legislative Affairs Agency's Division of Legal Services attorneys and the DNR officials resulted in the recommendation that the phrase be deleted. He stated that the Alaska Miners' Association, the Department of Commerce and Economic Development, and the Usibelli Coal Mine had all endorsed HB 132. Number 338 EVANS MCMILLION, representing the Alaska Environmental Lobby, testified in opposition to HB 132. She said that the bill was overly broad and contained ambiguous language. She noted that the bill did not give credence to unforeseen consequences which could lead to additional court cases. Additionally, she said, the bill assumed clear-cut litigation outcomes by the use of the term "successful" on page 2, lines 5-6. She stated that courts often granted a plaintiff part, but not all, of what he or she wanted. MS. MCMILLION questioned who would decide if a permittee was in fact successful, and what criteria would be used to make that determination. Number 358 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the section to which Ms. McMillion was referring went on to say, "and the suit is dismissed with prejudice or judgment is granted to the holder of the permits..." Number 364 MS. MCMILLION replied that she was not an attorney, but noted that attorneys with whom she had spoken had informed her that the language was still troublesome. She expressed her opinion that HB 132 did not take into account external factors that could change during the time of litigation, including changes in federal laws or scientific information. Number 393 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that a quorum was not present. Number 398 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Ms. Horetski to comment on the language on page 2, line 5 of the bill. Number 405 MS. HORETSKI mentioned that Civil Rule 82 provided that courts should estimate attorneys' fees and award them to the prevailing party in a lawsuit. Many times, she said, it was difficult for a court to decide which party had prevailed. She commented that the bill's reference to a "successful" litigant made it a very high standard to meet. She did not have any language prepared which would tighten that provision, but stated that the drafting attorneys might be able to come up with some appropriate language. Number 434 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee would prepare language pertaining to "successful" litigants and bring HB 132 back before the committee at a time uncertain. He noted that the idea behind HB 132 was to prevent an existing situation in which suits designed solely to obstruct resource extraction could have the effect of requiring a permit holder to go through a time-consuming, expensive permit process more than once. He said that HB 132 could bar specious litigation and he expressed his support for the bill for that reason. CHAIRMAN PORTER thanked Representatives Kott and Nordlund for being present throughout the meeting. He stated that, due to time constraints, HB 187, Interception of Private Communications, would not be heard that day. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 5:25 p.m.