|
Best available technology fix in House Rules Senate Bill 343 response to Feb. 1 ruling by Alaska Supreme Court; clarifies Legislature’s intent Kristen Nelson PNA Editor-in-Chief
Senate Bill 343, the Legislature’s response to the Feb. 1 ruling by the Supreme Court invalidating the Department of Environmental Conservation’s regulatory interpretation of best available technology, moved rapidly through House committees in late March, and appeared headed for House approval as PNA went to press March 28.
The bill moved through the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas March 22 and through House Resources March 25.
The Department of Environmental Conservation and the Department of Law supported passage of the bill, as did the Alaska Oil and Gas Association.
The Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council had concerns about bill language, but was primarily concerned that DEC has yet to hold a five-year best available technology conference as required by its 1997 regulations.
Tom Lakosh, whose suit against DEC produced the court ruling, the Alaska Conservation Voters and the Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility opposed the bill, arguing that DEC needed to respond to the court’s ruling through changes it its regulations. Narrow question raised “The court has raised a rather narrow question regarding whether or not our regulatory interpretation meets the Legislature’s intent in dealing with this issue,” DEC Deputy Commissioner Kurt Fredriksson told the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas March 22. The court invited the Legislature to clarify its intent, he said, and SB 343 does that. Fredriksson also said the bill “does not reduce the rigor of existing contingency plan review or diminish the response readiness and capability of industry.”
The bill also has the support of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. AOGA Deputy Director Marilyn Crockett told House oil and gas that the court’s decision “has placed everyone — AOGA’s members, the department and the public — in a very tenuous position because we are unable to complete new plan approvals that are on the cusp at this time or C-plan renewals which are in the works.” BAT conference One of the issues raised in the hearings was that DEC’s 1997 regulations require a best available technology conference every five years and the department has not held a conference, although it is currently requesting money to do so.
AOGA’s Crockett said there’s been a question whether industry supports the conference: “we do support the conference; it’s required by the regulations,” she said.
Doug Mertz of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens Advisory Council said the council was concerned that “this bill, as written, gives DEC an enormous amount of discretion on how to implement the BAT requirement.”
But the council’s particular concern, he said, is that the best available technology conference has not been held: “What we would like to see the committee do in order to solidify a little bit these requirements and make them less discretionary, is to make a reference to that regulatory requirement (for the conference) in the bill.”
There was no move to incorporate the BAT conference into the bill in House oil and gas. Rep. Beth Kerttula, D-Juneau, did move to amend the bill to include a reference to the five-year conference in House Resources, but that amendment was defeated.
| 