ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 28, 2008
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Co-Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mike Kelly
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 267
"An Act relating to authorizing the state to join with other
states entering into the Wildlife Violator Compact and
authorizing the compact to supersede existing statutes by
approving standards, rules, or other action under the terms of
the compact; and directing the initiation of civil actions to
revoke appropriate licenses in this state based on a resident
licensee's violation of or failure to comply with the terms of a
wildlife resource citation issued in another state that is a
party to the compact."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 336
"An Act directing the Alaska Energy Authority to conduct a study
of and to prepare a proposal for an appropriately sized Susitna
River hydroelectric power project; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 267
SHORT TITLE: WILDLIFE VIOLATOR COMPACT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
01/04/08 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/08
01/15/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/15/08 (H) RES, FIN
01/18/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
01/18/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/18/08 (H) MINUTE(RES)
01/28/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 336
SHORT TITLE: SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
01/22/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/08 (H) RES, FIN
01/28/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff
to Representative Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis on HB 267,
Version O.
BURKE WALDRON, Captain
Central Office
Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
on HB 267.
AL CAIN, Criminal Justice Planner
Statewide Law Enforcement Specialist
Division of Sport Fish
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 267.
MIKE FOWLKS, Law Enforcement Chief
Division of Wildlife Resources
Utah Department of Natural Resources
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 267, answered
questions regarding Utah's experience as a member of the
Wildlife Violator's Compact.
ROB BUONAMICI, Chief Game Warden
Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW)
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 267, answered
questions regarding Nevada's experience as a member of the
Wildlife Violator's Compact.
BRIAN KANE, Attorney
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 267.
ALLEN BARRETTE
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 267.
DICK BISHOP
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 267, supported better
enforcement of Alaska's fish and game laws, and supported a
better means of enforcing such laws.
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff
to Representative Johnson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 336 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Johnson.
SARA FISHER-GOAD, Acting Executive Director
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during hearing on HB 336.
JIM STRANDBERG, Project Manager
Alaska Energy Authority
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information and answered questions
during hearing on HB 336.
NICHOLAS GOODMAN, Chief Executive Officer
TDX Power
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 336, urged that Alaska
diversify its sources of power generation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CRAIG JOHNSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03:46 PM. Representatives
Roses, Guttenberg, Edgmon, Kawasaki, Fairclough, Wilson, Gatto,
and Johnson were present at the call to order. Representative
Seaton arrived as the meeting was in progress. Also present was
Representative Kelly.
HB 267-WILDLIFE VIOLATOR COMPACT
1:04:56 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 267, "An Act relating to authorizing the
state to join with other states entering into the Wildlife
Violator Compact and authorizing the compact to supersede
existing statutes by approving standards, rules, or other action
under the terms of the compact; and directing the initiation of
civil actions to revoke appropriate licenses in this state based
on a resident licensee's violation of or failure to comply with
the terms of a wildlife resource citation issued in another
state that is a party to the compact."
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated his intention to take public testimony
and answer questions on HB 267, then move the bill during a
future meeting.
1:07:16 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO moved to adopt HB 267, Version O, labeled 25-
LS0864\O, Kane, 1/24/08, as the working document. There being
no objection, Version O was before the committee.
1:07:41 PM
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff to Representative Johnson, Alaska State
Legislature, directed the committee's attention to the sectional
analysis for Version O. She explained that Section 1 of the
bill sets out the provisions of the Wildlife Violator Compact.
Article I of the compact states the policy and purpose behind
the compact and what member states aim to achieve by joining the
compact. Article II sets out the definitions of terms used in
the compact. Ms. Ostnes noted that on page 5 of Version O,
lines 21-24 provide the compact's definition for wildlife, and
that Brian Kane, attorney for Legislative Legal and Research
Services, added lines 24-27 as follows:
Species included in the definition of wildlife vary
from state to state and a determination of whether a
species is wildlife for the purposes of this compact
must be based on local law. In this state, "wildlife"
means all species of fish and game as these terms are
defined in AS 16.05.940.
MS. OSTNES said Article III describes the procedures to be
followed by a state issuing a citation to a person for a
wildlife violation. Article IV outlines the procedures for the
home state of a person issued a wildlife violation in another
compact state. Article V declares that all states that are
parties to the compact will recognize a suspension of license
privileges as if it happened in their states. Article VI
provides that the compact shall not affect the right of a member
state to apply its own local laws or practices in wildlife
enforcement.
1:10:53 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON, in response to Representative Guttenberg,
stated that Al Cain, Captain Waldron, members of other wildlife
compact states, and Brian Kane are present.
MS. OSTNES continued reviewing the sectional analysis. Article
VII describes the board of compact administrators and the role
of the board. Article VIII provides for entry into and
withdrawal from the compact. Article IX states that amendments
may be made to the compact. Article X states that the compact
should be liberally construed to carry out its purpose, and that
the provisions of the compact are severable in order to keep
remaining provisions in effect. Article XI states the title of
the compact.
MS. OSTNES explained that Section 2 is the portion of HB 267
that is specifically for the state of Alaska. She related that
a [conceptual] amendment was previously brought forward by
Representative Seaton regarding commercial fishing activities
and this is included in Version O on page 10, line 23, paragraph
(1). In drafting the bill, Mr. Kane also included commercial
activities of providers of services to big game hunters [page
10, lines 24-26]. However, this was not what the sponsor had
indicated, so Mr. Kane will have an amendment to the committee
within the hour.
MS. OSTNES noted that Section 3 of the bill provides the
procedure for peace officers in the state of Alaska to file an
action for revocation of a fishing or hunting license to comply
with the terms of the compact. She noted that trapping is
included along with fishing and hunting.
1:14:06 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired as to whether "peace officer" is
defined.
MS. OSTNES replied that it is defined in statute, but she did
not know the specific citation.
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether "peace officer" would apply to a
Village Public Safety Officer (VPSO).
BURKE WALDRON, Captain, Central Office, Division of Alaska
Wildlife Troopers, said he believes it would apply, but is
looking it up right now.
1:15:18 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether it is intentional that Section 2
not apply to commercial fishing and commercial hunting
activities.
MS. OSTNES explained that the committee wanted it to apply only
to commercial fishing, which was Representative Seaton's
amendment passed at the [January 18, 2008,] hearing. However,
the drafter also included commercial hunting which was not the
committee's desire.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said the committee wished to exclude commercial
fishing but not big game guides and outfitters, thus the
forthcoming amendment will delete the big game guides and
outfitters.
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked why one but not the other.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON explained that the existing compact is related
to sport hunting and fishing activities and expanding it into
commercial fishing goes beyond the bounds of intent of the
original compact. Commercial fishing has a separate body of law
with a whole separate set of statutes and punishments. He said
it was easier to clarify that this excludes commercial fishing
than to be the only member of the compact that includes it.
1:16:50 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether running a guide service for
fishing is considered commercial fishing.
CAPTAIN WALDRON said no. In response to Co-Chair Gatto's
earlier question, Captain Waldron cited AS 16.05.150 and said
that VPSOs would have limited enforcement authorities from the
commissioner; thus, in his opinion, they would be considered
peace officers.
1:17:58 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether "designated by the commissioner" is
a variable opportunity for the commissioner or something that is
well established by the commissioner as to who qualifies for
peace officer. He asked whether peace officer is a certain
level of authority.
CAPTAIN WALDRON answered that to enforce laws in Alaska, a
person must be a commissioned law enforcement officer or a
commissioned peace officer and that those terms are kind of used
interchangeably. Commissioned means that the person has a
commission from the commissioner of the Department of Public
Safety. Some authorized commissions are limited or restricted
commissions; for example, VPSOs are limited for the most part to
misdemeanors only, they do not have enforcement authority for
felonies. Another example would be federal department officers
that have limited commissions to enforce state laws on federal
lands.
1:19:44 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether peace officers are allowed or
obligated to carry weapons.
CAPTAIN WALDRON replied that some peace officers are allowed,
but he did not believe there is any obligation.
1:20:07 PM
MS. OSTNES noted that the following language was deleted from
the title: "and authorizing the compact to supersede existing
statutes by approving standards, rules, or other action under
the terms of the compact".
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG requested further clarification
regarding Articles V and VI of Section 1.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said the intent was to clarify that Alaska is
not subjugating its statutes and its ability to make laws to
this compact, that Alaska still has the ultimate authority over
what is legal and illegal within the state.
1:22:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON advised that if the commercial activities
for big game hunters is deleted from page 10, it will also need
to do be deleted in the title.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said that is the intention.
AL CAIN, Criminal Justice Planner, Statewide Law Enforcement
Specialist, Division of Sport Fish, Alaska Department of Fish &
Game (ADF&G), stated that he will be happy to answer any
questions.
1:23:40 PM
MIKE FOWLKS, Law Enforcement Chief, Division of Wildlife
Resources, Utah Department of Natural Resources, informed the
committee that Utah has been a member of the compact for 14
years. He said Utah has enjoyed the benefit of its officers not
having to arrest people or haul them to the local magistrate for
bail collection or adjudication in cases involving nonresidents
from compact states. He said there are lots of folks from other
states who like to hunt Utah who have been convicted in their
home states or other states in the compact, and Utah has honored
those suspensions and kept the violators from partaking in
Utah's recreational opportunities. That provides a benefit to
the legitimate sportsmen, resident and nonresident alike,
because it takes the violators out of the pool for the limited
permits that are available.
1:25:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether Utah, since joining the
compact, has seen an increase in the number of violations for
people hunting without a license that are nonresidents.
CHIEF FOWLKS replied no, there has been no appreciable change in
the percentage of those violations.
1:25:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired as to who is the appointed
compact administrator in Utah under Article VII.
CHIEF FOWLKS answered that the director of the Division of
Wildlife Resources appoints the compact administrator and that
he is currently the administrator. In further response to
Representative Guttenberg, Chief Fowlks explained that the
compact administrators from the current 26 member states meet to
conduct business once a year at the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies meetings. He said a President, Vice
President, and Secretary are nominated and elected by the 26
member states.
1:27:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked how often the compact has been
amended.
CHIEF FOWLKS responded that the compact was updated at the last
meeting to reflect the changes in the manual that occurred in
the database. He said this is the first time it has been
changed in the four years that he has been compact
administrator.
1:27:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG said he understands changes in how to
deal with the database, but inquired as to the ability to amend
the compact itself and how that would work.
CHIEF FOWLKS explained that if a state wants to amend the
process as far as the compact is concerned and the compact
manual, the state would have to make a proposal at the meeting
with all 26 members and a majority of the states would have to
agree to the change.
1:29:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH recalled reading that all states had
to agree for a change to occur, not a majority. She noted that
Article IX, subsection (b), page 10 of Version O, reads ["all
party states"]
CHIEF FOWLKS said he is speaking from memory and so may have
misspoken because there have not been any changes and he
therefore does not know if amendments require all or a majority.
He deferred to the other compact representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH understood that it must be unanimous,
so what Chief Fowlks was talking about was updating the manual
and the process that the manual and database use, a procedural
step and a compact change which is an administrative change.
She said any other changes to the compact itself require the
support of all states, so one state could hold out and there
would not be a change.
1:31:13 PM
ROB BUONAMICI, Chief Game Warden, Nevada Department of Wildlife
(NDOW), informed the committee that Nevada was one of the first
three states to form the nucleus of the compact. He was present
at that time and has been personally involved in the entire
process, including chairman for 10 years. In addition to the
benefits pointed out by Mr. Fowlks, he noted that another
benefit is helping to stop the poaching of species that require
the purchase of special tags for hunting. For example, out-of-
state hunters would poach in Nevada and then put a Colorado tag
on the animal to make it look legitimate. The compact makes it
difficult for a convicted poacher to purchase tags for this type
of illegal use. He said that soon after the compact was first
established he received phone calls from hunters asking if it
was true that their hunting privileges would be revoked in all
compact states if they were convicted in one compact state.
This shows that the poachers have taken notice and the compact
has an impact, he advised.
1:34:14 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether any state has applied and been
rejected from the compact.
CHIEF BUONAMICI responded no.
1:34:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired whether any of the other
compact states noticed a decrease in the number of in-state
violations after joining the compact.
CHIEF BUONAMICI answered that Nevada saw a small initial
decrease, but mainly what has been seen is a shift in methods of
operation by the poachers. The poachers realize what is at
stake and are much more secretive and are trying to avoid being
caught. However, he said, poachers like to brag and that is how
they end up being caught eventually.
CHIEF FOWLKS agreed with Chief Buonamici.
1:36:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH asked whether Alaska's proposal to
exempt commercial fishing will affect the other compact states.
CHIEF BUONAMICI replied that it does not affect Nevada; it is
left to the individual states. Commercial fishing has not been
addressed at this point, he said, but there has been discussion
at compact meetings to look at addressing this aspect,
particularly with coastal states.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said she questioned [Alaska's
commercial fishing] exemption.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said [the committee] wanted to limit this to
sport fishing and hunting, but if the compact was to make a
decision on commercial fishing it would be up to each individual
state to decide whether to include it.
1:38:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that Representative Seaton's
amendment would exclude commercial fishing from the compact.
Could commercial fishing include someone in Utah with a guide
service, he asked. He also asked whether Alaska can amend the
compact itself.
BRIAN KANE, Attorney, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, responded that substantive changes
could not be made by Alaska to alter the compact, but states
have the option to exclude certain things from the compact, such
as commercial fishing that is particular to a state.
1:39:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON directed attention to page 4 of Version O
[line 28, subsection (f)] which defines home state as "the state
of primary residence of a person". He posed a situation in
which a California resident moves to Alaska and has been in the
state for six months. He inquired whether the person's primary
residence under the terms of the compact would still be
California.
MR. KANE said he is not sure. He noted that the definition for
obtaining a resident fish or game license in Alaska is 12
months. In further response to Representative Edgmon, Mr. Kane
said he would have to research further as to whether Alaska
would be considered the person's home state during this time
period.
1:41:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired as to how Alaska would withdraw
from the compact since it is the legislative branch that is
enabling the state to participate. Who within the state would
be responsible for making the withdrawal, he asked, the
executive branch, the compact administrator, or the state
agency.
MR. KANE said he is unsure what would happen if someone not in
the legislature decided to withdraw the state, but taking the
compact out of Alaska statute would likely require legislative
action to repeal statute.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether it is necessary to include
in the bill that it requires legislative action to take the
statutes off the book, or is that implicit.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he did not believe it would be necessary
to include because it would take an act of the legislature to
remove it from the books and any legislature can override a
previous legislature. He did not think it could be removed
administratively.
MR. KANE responded it would go hand-in-hand that the statutes
would be repealed by the legislature prior to any notice of
withdrawal from the compact.
1:44:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether the compact administrator
would be required to obtain permission from the legislature
prior to withdrawing the state from the compact.
MR. KANE said other documents have the rules and duties of the
compact administrator and he is not familiar with what the rule
is between the administrator and the legislature as far as the
compact goes.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opined that it would not be an issue because it
would be a substantive act if someone attempted to withdraw the
state without the legislature's approval.
1:45:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES advised that active-duty military personnel
under a permanent change of station to Alaska are immediately
qualified to purchase a resident fishing and small game hunting
license and therefore do not have to wait the 12 months. Thus,
he said, there is a difference between being a resident and
having a resident hunting and fishing license.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said this is exclusive to military personnel.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES reiterated that it is active-duty military.
He noted that he is researching whether this would also apply to
active-duty National Guard personnel because it is not
specified. He said some states in the compact may have this and
some may not.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON understood that military personnel would fall
under the compact as Alaska residents as soon as they obtained a
resident license.
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES noted that this is what Representative
Edgmon was bringing up. Does having a resident hunting and
fishing license therefore constitute the definition of home
state? The bill says primary residence and in most places a
person cannot get a resident license until he or she has been a
resident. Everyone needs to understand the distinction between
the two definitions, he said.
1:47:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON pointed out that there are four different
definitions of state in this legislation. He said he would like
to add to Representative Roses' suggestion about clarifying
party state, home state, issuing state, and state.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said clarification can be made for Alaska,
but that the definition of home state in the compact under
Article II cannot be changed. The main issue is that a citation
or license revocation will be in the compact database.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted that there will be pittance regardless of
the state. He then opened the hearing to public testimony.
1:49:06 PM
ALLEN BARRETTE stated that Alaska is not prepared at this time
to be a part of the compact. He noted licenses can be purchased
in Alaska in a variety of locations from guides to gas stations
to grocery stores. Thus, there is no way to prevent a purchase
because there would be no database set up in these locations.
Alaska already has a statute barring a person with a license
revocation in his or her home state from hunting in Alaska, and
if such a person is caught purchasing a license there is an
additional charge by the enforcement people. He said the
compact is cumbersome and could be made simpler by just making
the list and keeping all this language out. Alaska has a very
public process through its various boards as to how regulations
and ordinances are passed and accepted. He said he had not seen
the compact manual. He inquired as to how much of a poaching
problem there is in Alaska. Alaska's system must be working
because poachers get caught, he said. It will not reduce the
Department of Public Safety's workload because troopers will
still be out in the field looking for violators. He said
violators are given a citation with a bond and the violator must
either pay the bond or appear before a judge. Mr. Barrette said
he is speaking on behalf of himself and the majority of the
Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee, but that he had not
yet talked to all of the members of the committee. He pointed
out that Alaska residents with a hunting license are provided a
harvest ticket and not a tag, so the problem of misusing tags is
moot. Many issues do not impact Alaska because of the state's
remoteness from the Lower 48. He said he does not feel the
compact will benefit the state of Alaska any further than the
rules and regulations that are already in place and that if the
state does not want to prosecute out-of-state violators it can
go to the federal government for prosecution under the Lacey
Act.
1:54:08 PM
DICK BISHOP, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), thanked Co-Chair
Johnson for introducing the bill. He said AOC has consistently
supported better law enforcement in fish and wildlife matters
and the compact appears to help in this regard. He noted that
he did not learn of the committee substitute (CS) until this
morning, so neither he nor the AOC board has reviewed the CS.
He expressed concern with regard to the use of the term
"preservation" because it may confuse matters in regard to the
consumptive uses of fish and wildlife. He will put his other
technical concerns in writing, he said. Of substantive concern
in the CS is the exclusion of commercial fishing and commercial
guiding operations, although he understood that the exclusion is
now only for commercial fishing. A historical review of fish
and game law violations shows that some of the most important
and largest violations have occurred in commercial operations
such as fishing and guiding, he advised, and the legislature
should carefully review this. The language of the compact is
very detailed and requires considerable attention to understand
how it works, thus it warrants careful attention by the
legislature. He said AOC supports better enforcement and the
means to better enforcement, and AOC would like to see the bill
undergo additional review.
1:59:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON suggested that the CS be made available on
the Internet so people can comment.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON urged interested people to contact his office
for a copy of Version O. Upon determining that no one else
wished to testify, he closed public testimony and set aside HB
267.
2:01:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH related her understanding that the
compact administrator would have to come to the legislature to
request withdrawal of the state from the compact.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said this can be clarified in the legislation,
if it is deemed necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed with Representative Fairclough and
the need for clarification in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH pointed out that the committee
received an email challenging the constitutionality of Alaska's
ability to enter into a compact with another state. She related
that the subsequent legal opinion requested by the committee
says that Congress allows this type of compact between states
and allows the compact to not be in violation of the United
States Constitution.
[HB 267 was held over.]
HB 336-SUSITNA HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
2:04:35 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 336, "An Act directing the Alaska Energy
Authority to conduct a study of and to prepare a proposal for an
appropriately sized Susitna River hydroelectric power project;
and providing for an effective date."
2:04:54 PM
JEANNE OSTNES, Staff to Representative Johnson, Alaska State
Legislature, drew attention to the April 13, 2005, Legislative
Research Report on this project and noted that the project has
been studied for many years. The bill would allow the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) to work
cooperatively with utilities along the Railbelt to look at those
older studies and determine what it would take to construct a
hydroelectric dam. She said the bill's fiscal note is $1
million.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON informed the committee that there is a separate
appropriations bill for $1 million in the House Finance
Committee.
2:07:26 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether hydroelectric means building a
dam or can electricity be generated without a dam.
MS. OSTNES said she did not know.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said there is a project, the Chakachamna
Hydropower Project, that is a tunnel and not a dam. However, he
noted, it is not the intention of HB 336 to specify whether a
dam or other method would be best. The intention is to "brush
off" the $300 million study done in the 1980s and have AIDEA
determine what would still be pertinent to today for generating
electricity to the Railbelt or statewide.
2:09:35 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that HB 336 refers to the Susitna River
Hydroelectric Power Project and surmised that the Chakachamna
Hydropower Project is not for the Susitna River.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he is just pointing out that it does not
necessarily have to be a dam.
CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that there is a proposal to build a bridge
that includes in its structure underwater propellers to generate
energy from tidal power.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said that is an accurate assessment, but that
it is not part of HB 336 which deals only with previous studies.
2:10:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether "brushing off" the study
means starting another Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
laying out what must be done from the 1980 EIS. What is the
goal of this proposal, he asked.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said the EIS would not be updated and that
AIDEA can speak to the question. He understood that originally
there was not enough demand for power from the Susitna River,
but that power consumption in the Railbelt has changed
considerably since 1984 and this would be looked at by the new
study.
2:12:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON surmised that HB 336 would not go back and
add in the costs of the intertie to get the power to the
appropriate size for the Railbelt.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON replied that the intertie, the four-dam pool,
and the Railbelt Energy Fund all came out of the original
Susitna study. This legislation is to bring the existing study
up-to-date as much as is possible with $1 million so the
legislature can review what is needed.
2:13:57 PM
SARA FISHER-GOAD, Acting Executive Director, Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA), noted that AEA is a functioning corporation of
the state of Alaska, but has no staff. Therefore, AEA contracts
with AIDEA to carry out the duties of AEA's programs. She said
she is an AIDEA staff person with AEA duties. This is not an
AIDEA project, she explained, it is an AEA project. She
understood the purpose of HB 336 is to have AEA conduct a study
and prepare a proposal for a hydroelectric power project on the
Susitna River that is appropriately sized for the Railbelt. She
related that the project proposed in the 1980s was for 1600
megawatts and AEA's understanding is that it is being asked to
evaluate whether that is an appropriate size or whether it
should be sized down to meet the needs of the Railbelt. While
the fiscal note is for $1 million, there is an indeterminate
placeholder for 2010 and AEA expects that it can refine the
estimate once it is known how far the legislature would like AEA
to go in evaluating this project.
2:16:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether the report could be
completed earlier than 2010, given today's cost of energy.
JIM STRANDBERG, Project Manager, Alaska Energy Authority, noted
that the $1 million budget will allow an initial review of the
existing project reports and consider potential concepts for a
re-sized power project that would reflect the needs of the
Railbelt. The aforementioned could be performed in a year.
2:18:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether it would be better to
be more proactive and get more research done at the same time
that the study is going on, not a full EIS but a jump start.
MR. STRANDBERG said he believes the review should proceed with
deliberate speed. He recommended a hard look at the project as
fast as possible, prior to spending any significant money on
renewed EIS's or permits because the project must be defined
before it can be permitted.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG expressed his concern that other state
departments are being left out while AEA moves forward. He
related that getting off of an oil economy would result in an
energy cost savings of $186 million per year in Fairbanks alone,
and it would be considerably more in the Anchorage and
Matanuska-Susitna areas.
2:20:51 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether he is correct in hearing that AEA
could complete the review by June 2009.
MR. STRANDBERG answered that the $1 million would allow the hire
of a contractor to generally review the project and take a
preliminary look at the needs of the Railbelt, as well as do a
very preliminary concept discussion of what a project ought to
be. A more detailed review would require more time and more
budget. In further response to Co-Chair Johnson, Mr. Strandberg
confirmed that the review could be completed by June 2009, but
said it would be a very preliminary review of the project. He
said AEA would not recommend that the legislature base its
decision to fund or move ahead on the project in lieu of other
potential energy futures with this sort of product.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said that was not the intention. He agreed
that getting the information sooner is better than later.
2:23:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether there is any estimate of
what constitutes an appropriately sized Susitna project.
MR. STRANDBERG replied that it is likely the project could be
smaller than 1200 megawatts, bearing in mind that the megawatt
rating is only one part of the energy rating for the project.
There is the capacity to generate power, he said, but storage
capabilities and the amount of energy that can be produced must
also be considered. The other aspect is whether to enter into a
project where construction would be phased such that basic
support and storage infrastructure is built and then
incrementally add generation units that are correctly sized for
the reliability needs of the network. Under those scenarios, it
is possible to initially enter the water with 100-300 megawatts
in initial construction and have a more phased approach that
reflects the Railbelt needs. It is likely that viable projects
can be created that are economically feasible where the initial
capacities are significantly less than 1200 megawatts. Sizing
and phasing of the project is highly complex, he advised.
2:26:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that a fault line was identified
through the Susitna area.
MR. STRANDBERG suggested that AEA should review that
immediately, as well as any other potential deal killer. He
assured the committee that there are significant seismic
considerations associated with the project. It might be best to
do an interim report within a year and then conclude the report
at a later date depending on the actual size of the study and
when AEA confirms with the legislature exactly what it is being
asked to do. He said he is unclear as to what product is needed
from this process.
2:28:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented that there is only one small
area of the state that is not seismically active.
MR. STRANDBERG said correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG understood the original plan was for
two dams totaling 1200 megawatts.
MR. STRANDBERG replied that according to a white paper provided
to AEA by Ms. Ostnes, a number of options were considered. The
last option was a "run of the river hydro plant" that had
generators taking water and energy from the river using very
little containment, along with a single larger Devils Canyon
dam. They needed to work together in order to provide power
output, he said, and there were significantly different
capacities between the upper and lower power plants.
2:30:31 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO related that Mount Spurr erupts every few decades
and one eruption backed up Lake Chakachamna water for five miles
until the water overpowered the mud and went through it.
Additionally, there are a couple of glaciers in the area, as
well as the 300-mile-long Castle Mountain fault. The Susitna
project would deliver power to a substation 40 miles away that
is already delivering power and might not be able to handle
increased power without additional construction. Perhaps a
different alternative than this should be considered, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON agreed.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said the Railbelt is faced with a real crisis
for energy. A natural gas pipeline is 10-12 years away and
there is no spur planned for that pipeline. Alternatives need
to be reviewed and the issue needs to be addressed, he opined.
This project may not be the solution, but it is a way to look to
the future for solving some of the problems.
2:33:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked what is being received for the $1
million given the statements and questions made so far: this is
dusting off the old study to take another look, should the
project be downsized or something different, can the review be
done faster, the review is just preliminary, the review should
not be used to make a decision on whether to move forward on the
project. He supported looking for alternative sources of energy
and providing electricity to the Railbelt so that the natural
gas could be used for things other than power plants, such as
getting the Agrium plant running again, but questioned what the
$1 million would accomplish.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON requested Mr. Strandberg to further qualify
what will be received for the $1 million.
MR. STRANDBERG understood that AEA is being asked to review this
project and make progress on its re-evaluation in light of the
new realities of the Railbelt and the fuel futures environment.
He said AEA would commit to making an interim report at the end
of a year and conclude the work within two years. As to the
question of whether this review is correctly sized for advancing
this project to a point where decisions can be made, he said the
answer is no. Useful information could be provided and early
concepts could be developed on what the configuration of the
project might be to satisfy the needs of the Railbelt. But, for
$1 million and a one-year timeline, AEA could not provide a
project analysis, a detailed construction cost estimate, a
project schedule, and a project feasibility in enough detail
that the legislature would be able to make a decision to commit
funds to construct this project. This is a very large project,
he said, possibly one of the largest tried in the state and the
budget will be in the billions.
2:37:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES surmised that this is a huge and important
project, but said the review is being sized to the cost of $1
million rather than determining what needs to be done and how
much that would cost.
MR. STRANDBERG said that is accurate. Some budgeting work with
regard to the necessary size of the project for moving forward
has been done by AEA, but it was believed that this could not be
brought up until the project was first addressed as configured
with the $1 million.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON related that the $1 million figure came from
some utilities that said the study could be done for that
amount. He suggested that if this is not the case, then perhaps
AEA can be charged with coming up with an appropriate amount for
accomplishing what needs to be done.
2:40:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES reiterated his support of the concept, but
said he wants a useful end product.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said that is the goal.
MS. FISHER-GOAD proposed that AEA develop a more detailed budget
with some deliverables on what AEA would provide at certain
points and possibly give the legislature some decision points on
funding to go forward. In further response to Co-Chair Johnson,
Ms. FISHER-GOAD said she could possibly have something by
Monday, February 4th, and come to Juneau to present a detailed
budget in person.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested that AEA also provide a review
of competing projects in the state.
2:44:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH said that before any money is invested
she would like to know what the "drop dead issues" were for why
the project did not go forward before. She agreed with
Representative Roses' concern about spending $1 million for a
product that is not tangible or usable. She also requested
AEA's annual report regarding what investments it has made to
reach its missions and measures. Additionally, she said she
would like to discuss the criteria that are used for selecting
contractors and the outputs from those contractors in the form
of deliverable goods when looking at projects and associations.
MR. STRANDBERG asked for further clarification.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated his belief that Representative
Fairclough's questions are outside the scope of HB 336. He
requested Ms. FISHER-GOAD to meet one-on-one with Representative
Fairclough next week to answer her questions.
2:46:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH stated she will be a no vote if she
does not know the criteria that AEA will use to contract. She
said she wants to know AEA's success rate in using money for
research. In further response to Co-Chair Johnson,
Representative Fairclough confirmed that what she wants to know
is how AEA will let the contract for this study.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON agreed that that is appropriate.
2:46:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON requested a review of the area in which
the project would be located.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON directed attention to a map at the back of the
committee packet.
2:48:23 PM
NICHOLAS GOODMAN, Chief Executive Officer, TDX Power, informed
the committee that TDX Power is an independently owned power
generation holding company, a wholly owned subsidiary of
Tanadgusix Corporation, the Alaska Native Village Corporation
from St. Paul Island. He said TDX owns and operates electric
utilities around the state and that it builds power plants. He
said the Chakachamna Hydropower Project should not be confused
with the Susitna project. From a corporate perspective, TDX
Power's support of HB 336 is hinged on getting away from such
dramatic reliance on natural gas for power generation. History
shows that a diversified portfolio is necessary for doing well
in generating power, he said, and right now Alaska is almost
completely reliant on generating electricity from natural gas.
It is important to review alternatives to generation of natural
gas. He said TDX Power began looking at hydropower options
several years ago and that it is currently looking at the
Chakachamna Hydropower Project. He said TDX Power deemed the
Susitna project too large for a privately owned company to
pursue, but that is not to say the project does not have merits.
At 330 megawatts Chakachamna is appropriately sized for the
Railbelt right now, would appropriately diversify the portfolio,
and would not overwhelm the state. It is not without its
challenges, he cautioned, as is the case with all hydropower
projects. He agreed with Co-Chair Gatto as to what the
challenges are and that those are the challenges TDX Power is
currently looking at. One of the benefits of the Chakachamna
project, he said, is that the environmental impact is relatively
small. A very minor dam would be built and essentially the
bottom of the lake would be tapped and the water would be run
through an underground tunnel into a neighboring basin. The
eruption of Mount Spurr would have had little impact to the
Chakachamna project and would actually have added more head to
the drain from the raised lake level. He said TDX Power will be
continuing its analysis of the Chakachamna project for the next
two years and hopes to proceed forward with a plan if it looks
economic and if utilities are interested in purchasing the
power. There are other hydropower alternatives to the Susitna
project, he said. The tidal power concepts for Cook Inlet have
good merit, as does tapping Mount Spurr's geothermal resource,
because they are renewable and help diversify TDX Power's
portfolio. He said there are other privately owned companies
that are also interested in looking at these projects and
developing them without reliance on public funding to make them
go forward.
2:53:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether 300 megawatts is
considered the appropriate size.
MR. GOODMAN pointed out that every utility in the Railbelt has
its own opinion in this regard. As an independent company, TDX
Power has tried to stay neutral to all of the utilities and add
something that benefits all of them. He said TDX Power thinks a
300 megawatt project is appropriately sized and would provide a
good benefit to the Railbelt grid from Fairbanks on down to
Homer and Seward by replacing the dependence on dwindling
natural gas supplies.
2:55:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that Bradley Lake on the Kenai
Peninsula is about 135 megawatts but the output is about 50
megawatts. He asked if this same principle would apply to the
Chakachamna project.
MR. GOODMAN confirmed that for the Chakachamna project the
capacity factor - the amount of energy put out compared to how
much is installed - is predicted to be in the 50 percent range,
thus it would be 300 megawatts with an output of 150 megawatts.
2:56:33 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO highlighted the proposal to build a bullet line
through Fairbanks and into Anchorage which depends upon the
following four things happening: Agrium is a buyer, gas is
liquefied in Kenai, utility demand is there for the gas, and
consumer demand is there. He said he is concerned the whole
proposal might fall if the utility demand is taken away.
MR. GOODMAN responded that this in no way replaces the
utilities' need for additional generation. He said the
Chakachamna project would provide one-third or less of what any
utility would need to provide power to its customers. He said
he did not know whether this could result in the axing of the
aforementioned project. Speaking from the perspective of a
ratepayer, he said that if the project described by Co-Chair
Gatto makes sense, then the state should do it and Chakachamna
should not be done. Power project development comes down to two
things: is it economic and is it wanted. He said he did not
disagree with Co-Chair Gatto, but advised that a diversified
portfolio should be looked at for power generation over the
long-run of 20-30 years.
2:59:26 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO commented that proposals for coal-fired base
loads were destructive to the gas project.
MR. GOODMAN agreed. He said TDX Power is technology neutral and
has looked at coal but found that coal is not permittable and is
not wanted in the state of Alaska even if it is economic.
3:00:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that he would hate to see
renewable hydropower not be developed because the state wants to
burn more carbon dioxide.
MR. GOODMAN pointed out that unlike 2-3 years ago, there is now
the economics of carbon taxes and other taxes becoming very real
for fossil fuels.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON encouraged making decisions based on
determining what is the best product, and that decisions not be
based on whether there is a gas line because then nothing will
ever get done.
[HB 336 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:02 p.m.