HCRA-260507-0800

Good morning. I call the House Committee on Regional Affairs Committee meeting to order. Today is Thursday, May 7th, and the time is 8:04 a.m. Members present are Representative Kai Holland, Representative Carolyn Hall, Representative Steve St. Clair, Representative Representative Gene Nelson, Co-Chair Rebecca Himschute, and myself, Co-Chair Donna Mears. We have a quorum to conduct business. Just a reminder for folks, first thing in the morning, please silence your cell phones.

If you need to pass a note to committee members, please get the attention of my aide, Talia Ames. And thank you, Talia. And thanks also to Co-Chair Himschute's committee aide, Thatcher Brower. Before we get started, I would also like to thank our recording secretary, Sophia Tenney, and helping us from the Juneau LIO this morning is Jude Augustine. Today's agenda, we just have one item on our agenda today.

We will consider a committee substitute for House Bill 220, Easements and Rights of Way in State Parks, sponsored by Representative McCabe. Good morning, Representative McCabe. This is the bill's second hearing. So Representative McCabe and staff, Ms. Elashiva Almeida, please welcome to the committee this morning. Please approach the testifier, put yourself on the record, and provide us a quick recap of the bill.

Thank you, Co-chair Mears and Co-chair Himschute and members of the committee. For the record, I'm Representative Kevin McCabe from House District 30. Today I'd like to give an overview, brief overview, of HB 220, which addresses easements and rights-of-way on state park land. Alaska faces unique challenges. Private property, utility corridors, and state park lands are often intertwined in Across our state, homeowners, businesses, and utility companies depend on proper easements to access their land and maintain critical infrastructure.

Unfortunately, when approvals drag on or standards are applied inconsistently, the result is confusion, higher costs, and essential projects that can be slowed down, delayed, or stopped entirely.

HB 220 tackles these problems head-on by establishing clear rules, greater certainty, and stronger accountability. The bill directs the Department of Natural Resources to issue an easement once all statutory requirements are satisfied within a reasonable deadline. The bill also modernizes the process by accepting GPS-based surveys and scaling environmental reviews to match the actual scope and impact of each project. It removes redundant or unnecessary steps while fully preserving DNR's authority and ability to protect park resources and public safety. In short, this is a practical and fair solution.

It strengthens due process, improves government efficiency, supports responsible development, and maintains strong protections for our state parks, all while advancing simpler, more modern permitting practices. There have been several substantive changes to this bill since it was last heard. And with your indulgence, Madam Chair, I'd like to ask my staff member, El Shiva Almeida, to walk the committee through the summary of those changes, if that would be helpful. Why don't we go to make a motion to adopt the CS, and then we'll do that under discussion. Kachra Hemchute, got a motion for me?

I sure do.

I move that the Community and Regional Affairs Committee adopt the committee substitute for HB 220 work order number 34-LS0322/h as a working document. And I will object for purposes of discussion. Please walk us through the changes. Yes, thank you, Co-Chair Muñoz, Co-Chair Himchew, and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Ellie Cheva Almeida, staffed Representative Kevin McCabe.

Since our office worked closely with Co-chair Himshue on the development of this committee substitute, I will briefly walk through what changes were made in version H. Several of these amendments were combined to make this CS because we wanted the bill narrowed by limiting its application exclusively to state park units only, ensuring it does not change easement processes on any other state land, and clarifying that nothing in the bill authorizes large-scale development or the conversion of parkland to non-recreational uses. So since the bill was last heard, we've essentially made 6 major changes that are in the committee substitute. First, we added a new section of legislative intent and findings. The purpose is to provide timely access to private inholdings and public utility infrastructure inside state parks while protecting the primary recreational and conservation value to those areas. Second, we added a finding that minor, minimally invasive linear utility crossings and access routes are generally compatible with the purposes of state parks and do not prohibit recreational use.

Third, we restructured the core statute into a two-tiered system. First, that the department shall grant an easement for the operation, maintenance, upgrade, removal, or replacement of an existing public utility facilities and infrastructure, and that the department may grant an easement or access to private property or for the new public utility facilities and infrastructure, provided that the statutory criteria are met. Fourth, we extended the department's decision deadline to approve or decline a request from from 60 days to 90 days after receiving a completed application. Fifth, we added strong clarifying language on the compatibility with the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, confirming that reasonable use of an easement or utilities or private access does not itself convert park land to non-recreational use. And finally, we included precise definitions for utility facilities and infrastructure and public utility to remove any ambiguity.

And this— these 6 updates make the bill clearer and more narrowed in their purpose. So now I will pass it back to Representative McCabe. Thanks, uh, uh, Co-Chair Mears and, uh, committee. So I appreciate the opportunity to continue to move this bill forward. It's very important for at least 2 state parks right now and possibly others going forward.

So Right now, the Nancy Lake State Park and the Ketchumac Bay State Park have some aging infrastructure that was either not permitted under an easement properly or not given a proper easement that need to be replaced. And frankly, the Park Service, Director Geese, and I can't remember the guy's name, but there's an email from his representative in the valley that said this is going to have to be changed legislatively. So that's what we are attempting to do, is give them the ability to fix this and replace these cables because they are 40 to 50 years old. And I think I have invited testimony that will tell you when one of these cables gets a pinhole and it shuts off power to 40 or 50, particularly on the other side of Nancy Lake, when it gets a pinhole in it and it shuts power down, takes 5 hours to repair that power, longer if it's— if there's ice on the lake. And so you can imagine the house that is powered, it might even be a cabin or a seasonal home, and it's powered during the winter and then the power goes out and they can't replace it and all the damage that can be done from frozen pipes and that sort of thing.

So there's 40 or 50 homes that are affected behind Nancy Lake, I'm not real sure, Katchement Bay State Park that would be affected. So we're trying to solve this problem almost immediately and find a way to solve it for other folks in the future. And I believe there are some— I think MEA is on the line as well as DNR for any questions. So with that, I think I'll stop talking. And— MEA is not here quite yet, but we're on the motion to adopt the CS.

Do you have any— anyone have any questions on any of the changes?

Representative Prox and Representative Holland.

Thank you. Um, through the chair, in your summary changes, Section 1, page line 2, lines 1 through 3, finding that minimally invasive crossings do not prohibit recreational uses, generally compatible with the purposes of state parks. And that—.

Hmm. Well, I guess maybe I've answered my own question because this is just what we found. It doesn't do anything. My concern with the bill is that we don't address new right-of-ways. And we're thinking about going— these are bare or sunken, whatever, cross under the water lines.

This doesn't prevent or does this bill prevent either a transmission line— like there's a transmission line between Big Lake and the Intertie that goes through the state park, I believe.

Does this make it more difficult to get those approved, or is that just outside the scope of this bill? Are we restricting something by this bill? There was a substitute. Thanks. Through the chair, Representative Prock.

So the initial bill may, may have made it easier to do that, but we, in changing this to tighten up some of the language to sort of prevent a free-for-all in permitting, we limited it in scope, or attempted to limit it in scope, to a little bit more replacement of those that are already in there. The rest of the permitting will still be as usual. The issue in many cases appears to be that the state park portion of the DNR does not really have their own permitting section. They're reliant on the DNR, who also has DNR permitting things. So we are attempting to sort of decrease their workload by just doing what needs to be done right now in the, in the short term.

And if we want to address The larger issue of DNR permitting, that will have to probably be done in—. Okay. We're not going backwards on that, in other words. Okay. That's just good to know.

Thank you. Representative Holland. Great. Thank you, Chair Mears. I think this is a question for the bill sponsor or perhaps those that have helped with this CS.

And I'm supportive of the CS, but I would like some clarification. On page 2, starting at line 9, where we have the section on there that allows the Department and says, "May grant a public easement or right-of-way for the installation of new facilities and infrastructure," seems to be itself creating a fairly broad window for new projects. It could be a transmission line, as Representative Prox was just mentioning, and I think the intent of this CS is that that is somehow guided by the intent language on the bottom of page 1 in item 4 that says it should not be interpreted as large-scale development in a state park. And I'm just trying to reconcile what appears to be some language that essentially would say that a public utility that wants to come through with a major project can or and has the may option to be able to do that. And yet, I think the intent was to try and keep large-scale development that for some folks that own a cabin on a lake might be interpreted as a regional transmission line coming through.

I'm just trying to understand either how we constrain what is to be interpreted in Section 4 on the bottom of page 1. In light of the May grant language on page 2. Perhaps some clarification on where the boundaries are. What are we doing to capture the real intent that these are intended to be low-impact, modest public utility infrastructures? This language kind of leaves a lot of latitude with the May and some intent language that's trying to, but perhaps some discretion.

So I don't know.

If anyone could help me just kind of be a little clearer on what we're getting here. So we're going to start with Co-Chair Hemshoot, and then also online we've got Matt Wedeking, the Deputy Director for the Division of Outdoor Parks and Recreation with DNR. But we'll start with Representative Hemshoot. I am going to do my best here to, through the chair, from the cobwebs of my mind, it's a thing where State Parks does not have the authority now, and some of the infrastructure already existed, uh, when certain things were made into a park. And so those things cannot be dealt with.

And then the going forward may, um, right now State Parks has no authority. And I think we should turn to State Parks and not trust what I'm saying right now, but my understanding is they— within State Parks there is no authority to replace or to approve going forward. And so this is trying to clarify that they will have some discretion, but it cannot be an LNG pipeline, but it could be a small local project. So it's to give them the authority closest to the situation to make that decision. We should turn to State Parks.

Can I clarify my question first? Mr. May. Please do. Chairman, so thank you for that. And I'm crystal clear on what this does in terms of being able to maintain, upgrade, and fix existing sections.

That's not an issue. And I'm very clear on that this has this new May language and the benefit of that for doing some projects. I'm just curious how we're constraining how big a project this is. Language is allowing. The "may" seems to be— when it says, you know, "may allow a project for a public utility," seems to open up the door to a huge, large project, depending upon the eye of the beholder.

If I have a small cabin, what's large to me may be very different to somebody. And I get it that the intent language is saying that it's interpreted to not— not be interpreted to authorize a large-scale development, but I don't know what a large-scale development project is. So I understand what the bill is doing. I think I understand the CS and the authority that it's creating, and this is all good. I'm just looking for a little bit of clarity on how are we guiding how big a project is too big before the may that we're creating here all of a sudden becomes a door that's bigger than we meant it to be.

Mr. Wedekind, can you please speak to the DNR's scope of authority for project size?

Sure, thank you. Can you hear me okay? Yes.

For the record, this is Matt Wedeking, Division Operations Manager, Deputy Director for Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. Representative Hinchute was correct. Currently, we— the division only has authority for public easements to private inholdings within state parks. That would mean that if an individual owned a private residence in a park, they should have legal access to it. We would provide them the public easement, but that road through the park would be available for all public to use.

This bill amends that statute for what Representative McCabe is discussing. Do you have any follow-ups? Follow-ups, Representative Holland? Uh, no, I think I've tried, and I'll just have to leave it with a question mark in my mind right now. Thank you.

Okay, Representative McCabe. Thanks, and Chair— Co-chair Mears, and to Representative Holland once again. Representative Kevin McCabe from District 30. So the intent here is not to open up big projects that are— that are— it's not to allow the state park system to permit an LNG, 42-inch LNG line through the state park outside of what the DNR already does. Okay, so the DNR eventually or even throughout this has overarching authority on the permitting.

All this does is say it allows the parks to be part of that permitting authority, in my opinion. And the larger language is the shall grant an easement to the inholdings, as we just said. The may thing is permissive. And once again, the DNR always has overarching authority because the parks is sort of a subdivision. So that would be, I think, the limiting factor on a big project, would be the DNR stepping in and saying, "Wait a minute." So that's the intent.

It's not to give the Park Service some sort of greater authority than the DNR. [Speaker:MS. KELLY] I'm going to be a little bit of a smarty pants and clarify that we wouldn't be talking about an LNG line. LNG is liquefied, which intimates a coldness and pressure that we are not talking about, but perhaps a natural gas line. So as that lexicon is around the building quite a bit right now. So any further questions before adopting the CS?

With that, I will remove my objection. Any further objections?

Thank you. We have now adopted the CS. All right, we have further questions. So on the line, we have got a few folks. We do have— MEA has joined us.

We have Julie Esty, who has testified. I believe she was the one that came for our initial bill hearing. In addition to Matt Wedeking from DNR, we also have Christine O'Connor, the executive director of Alaska Telecommunications Association, and And Mike Claywater, president of the Nancy Lake Homeowners Association. Representative McCabe, do you have anyone that's on that list you'd like to speak to any portions of the bill? Thanks, Co-Chair Meyers.

So yeah, if you wouldn't mind, Mike Claywater, the president of the Nancy Lake Homeowners Association, maybe first. And then if you— I think that MEA and ATA are just on for questions unless you you want them to give their opinion of the new CS, that's your choice. We'll see what questions the committee has. So, Mr. Klawitter, could you please share with us for a few minutes your thoughts on the bill and perhaps any changes that we've made to it?

Yes, thank you and good morning. For the record, my name is Mike Klawitter, president of the Nancy Lake Association. Are you able to hear me okay? Yes. Apologies on the pronunciation.

Yeah, it's a bit of a tongue twister. Um, Nancy Lake Homeowners Association represents about 300 homeowners around Nancy Lake, which sits north of Wasilla, about half hour drive north. And we've got over 40 families that rely on MEA's underwater power grid, which is over 40 years old and beyond its service life. And current park regulations allow for repair of the existing lines but not replacement. And my understanding is HB 220 is designed to allow for replacement of those lines that are underwater and currently in service and have been for decades.

DNR area director Stuart Leadner, I've been communicating with him over the years, and he's indicated to me that there is no data that indicates any ill effect of the underwater power lines to the aquatic life in the lake. And then also, he has no money in his budget to replace those underwater lines with above-ground lines, which would be very expensive to the NEA co-op owners. As you can imagine, with a 40-year-old line, the frequency of outages has increased over the years. And as you can probably picture too, at breakup time, which we're going through now, freeze-up time in the fall, and with winter ice conditions over 50 inches thick, this winter, it's very difficult for line crews to try and repair underwater lines in those kind of circumstances, as well as typical summer outages. So HB 20 would allow power line replacement of the existing lines at no cost to the state of Alaska, and I would ask for your support of this bill and be happy to answer any questions that you might have at this point.

Thank you for sharing and being here this morning. Do we have any questions? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you. Through the co-chair, Mr. Klawitter— hope I'm saying that right—.

Yes. So can you clarify, the power line was placed there prior to Nancy Lake being included in a park? I believe that that's accurate. And it's been over 40 years since that line has been replaced, talking with the original cabin owners that utilized that line initially.

Quick follow-up. And do you have any history on why that line was placed there? Was it that— like, I don't know how decisions get made for where utilities, place lines, but somehow a cluster of—. I think MEA could, could answer that question clearer, but there were no roads on the west side of Nancy Lake, and the infrastructure for power on the east side of the lake where there is road access is quite a bit easier, uh, with right-of-ways along roads to install power lines above ground. With, um, no easements and no road access on the west side of the, of the lake to the homeowners there, Uh, underwater power lines, I believe, was the most economical way to deliver power to residents on the west side of the lake that have no road access and no power line easements, essentially, on the west side of the lake.

It was a matter of economics. Ms. Zesty, I'm confident that, uh, this happened, uh, far prior to your employment at MEA, but do you have any, uh, history or, uh, context for this construction.

Uh, thank you, Kater Mears. This is Julie Esty, for the record, Chief Strategy Officer of Matanuska Electric Association. And you are correct in that this happened far before my time, but in doing research for both our 75th and 85th anniversary, which we just celebrated, this was a common practice as MEA was growing, the valley was growing very, very quickly, and MEA's numbers were trying to keep up with the new growth that was desired on these, in this lake area. So in many lakes, as the previous speaker indicated, on many of those lakes, MEA went through the lake as the most cost-effective and direct and lowest impact way to get to serve members as that area of Big Lake and Willow and Meadow Lakes grew. So again, common practice during that time, and there are many lakes beyond Nancy Lake where this was common practice.

And so now, as those underwater cables are at the end of their useful life, life, or as weather shifts and changes. And we have seen a tremendous amount of erosion, and that's exposing our facilities now, and we have been unable to replace and make those safe. So we really are in support of this committee substitute, and we would love to have some clear direction to state parks that that we are able to, um, to make our facility safe and reliable for the members that count on it. Miss Essie, if this was a new construction, and let's take the complexity of being in a state park out of it, and all the land permissions were readily available, what would a construction standard be?

What would the construction standard as far as— would it be in-ground or or above ground. Serving folks across the lake. Is that the question? Ms. Essig, serving folks across the lake without road access.

Yes, co-chair Mears, it really depends on the specific situation. So those requests come into our engineering technicians and then they, depending on that specific situation, will look at the closest facilities and where they're located, and then the permitting requirements of whatever jurisdiction we're crossing. So, we have some that is borough, some that is in other jurisdictions, some on state land, some on federal land. So, depending on the specific needs, we may lay additional cable through the lake, or ideally, we go above ground.

On wooden poles, similar construction to the rest of our distribution system. Thank you. Are there further questions?

Oh, co-chair Maris, if I may just add to that. So that is if there's, say, a single service or maybe a small subdivision. So that is relating to our distribution system of the co-op. If there is perhaps a a large project, then those requirements from the permitting perspective increase exponentially as far as the public process, the process through whoever the local jurisdiction is. Those transmission requirements are much more significant than a small extension of our distribution line.

[Speaker:JESSICA] So, Miss Essie, I'm taking— there's two limiting factors. One is permitting and the other one is engineering. Sounds familiar.

Yes, and then also economics plays a role in there as well because typically, as we are now extending our lines, most of that burden falls to the either homeowners, businesses, the interested members in extending that line under the RCA's cost cos or cost payer. So they also have some input as far as the economics and, um, and what that looks like for them.

Thank you. Um, it looks like Representative McCabe wants to follow up on that, and then we've got a question from Kojirahamshute. Thanks, Co-Chair Mears. Representative McCabe, District 30, again. So a couple things.

I, I live off the grid, and they are starting to move power down my, um, down my road towards my house. They like to stay on wooden poles when they can because it is much easier to maintain and much cheaper, but they bury them when they can. So they did both on my, my lake. They put a wooden pole into just past, uh, Jeff Lanfield's property actually, and then they drilled under the road and got directional drilling and went all the way down because it was right inside of a lake. So to me, it's all situational.

Um, The other thing that I kind of failed to mention, and it was my fault, I didn't get anybody from Homer Electric on here to provide questions, but I'm not exactly sure of the Kachemak Bay Park issue, although I think the last time we talked about it, Homer Electric was on, and HEA has an issue in that park, like similar to what MEA has here, although it's not, I don't think it's as long, And I think there was a gentleman from Southeast that testified as well last time about issues that they have in the state park down here. So that's just a little sort of flesh this out a bit.

Thank you. Coach Amschuetz. Thank you, Coach Ramirez. Through the chair to Ms. Esty, Etsy, Esty, Esty. Thank you.

So how many situations within the MEA service area would this apply to? Is it strictly Nancy Lake, or do you have multiple places where you'll need to replace line that is now in a park?

Uh, Representative Hinchinck, through the chair, This is Julie Esty with Mattanuska Electric Association. We have several state parks within our jurisdiction. Nancy Lake is the one that is the most populated with residences, and so this— and it's the one that has been built out the longest. And, and again, to the question to the previous speaker, much of our build-out was before Nancy Lake was a State Park. We also have other state parks that abut, and some are within our service territory.

Denali State Park, there's also Hatcher Pass State Park area is within our service territory. We are working with SkiTalk Ski Area on upgrading our lines for their, for their new facilities as they're growing. So there are different areas within our service territory, but Nancy Lake is definitely the one that has existing facilities that need to be replaced.

Okay, just a follow-up comment— follow-up. Thank you. I, on page To lines 10 through 12, we— this bill, the CS, would allow parks may grant a public easement or right-of-way for the installation of new facilities and infrastructure owned, operated, managed, or otherwise controlled by a public utility. This would capture the situation from APT. It was Justin— Jason Custer who was talking about needing to put cable through a section of a marine park and they needed to go underwater.

But I do come back to the concerns that Representative Holland was talking about. How do we decide what's big and what's little? And I want to trust our state parks people to make those determinations and to be reasonable about it, but I I think we have to be really thoughtful. I think state parks have been placed in a little bit of a trap here where infrastructure existed and then we designated a park, and now what happens with that infrastructure? So I think we need to keep working towards a solution.

I do have a question for state parks if this is the right time for that. A couple housekeeping things. One, we also need to give state parks the tools in order to do it, which is what we're doing here. I'd also like to note we've been joined by Manny Lopez, the right-of-way manager for Matanuska Electric Association, and I am late in noting that Representative Prox joined us at 8:08.

Kuchah Hemshoot. Yeah, I guess I'd like to have— I have a question or two for, yeah, Matt Wedeking with the State Parks. And specifically— and I hope that he's able to speak to this, but I'm not interested in expanding government to have more permitting staff in state parks. I would like to use existing DNR staff. So my question is, there's 159 park units.

I don't know how many of those have existing infrastructure, and I don't know how many requests we're going to be getting. For not large installation of public utility infrastructure. So with all of that being somewhat unknown, can what I think would be— I think we heard there were something between 20 and 30 requests for access, but not all of those have to do with replacement of infrastructure. A lot of it is new access, I think. So we had a conversation with State Parks.

Bottom line is, could DNR, could existing DNR permitting staff take up these requests, and if so, can it be done within the 90 days suggested in the bill? [Speaker:MATT] Thank you. For the record, once again, this is Matt Wedegane, Deputy Director for Parks. Through the Chair, in reference to the next issue, Good question. I think the best thing I should do is talk with the department and get you that answer back in writing, if that's acceptable.

Sure. I think that'll be— that's going to have to be acceptable. I think it's an important question. It is. And Mr. Wedekind, along those lines, so the way the bill and the CS have been written is that there's an automatic grant granting of a permit after a timeline.

Are there other processes that you're involved with that have an automatic issuance of a permit?

To the Chair, I cannot think of one off the top of my head. But I will double-check for you. Thank you. I appreciate it. I appreciate that.

Are there further questions? I have another one. [SPEAKING GERMAN] Thank you. Through the chair, I'm trying to find the section of the bill, but— oh, here it is. It's on page 3, lines 15 through 18, talks about survey equipment and using a GPS instead.

I don't know if Mr. Wedekind can speak to that.

In my mind, if we are talking about existing infrastructure, we could perhaps get away with a lesser survey, but if we are looking at new infrastructure, it feels like we need to have the best possible survey available. So I don't know if you are able, Mr. Wedeking, to speak to that section of the bill that says a survey of the area affected by the easement or right-of-way for purposes of this subparagraph A, word I don't know, cadastral? Cadastral. Cadastral.

Cadastral. Cadastral. Cadastral. Thank you. Survey is not required and the survey may be performed by GPS in a format established in regulations adopted by the department.

Would— is that adequate?

Through the chair, Representative Himscheit, you're doing some good ones this morning. Surveying is a little out of my ballpark, but I will double-check with the DNR survey team just to make sure, you know, all of DNR is doing the same standards and get that back to you in writing as far as an appropriate answer. Representative McCabe. Thanks, Co-Chair Mears. I appreciate it.

Representative McCabe again. Manny from MEA is on the line and he might be a good one. He's been involved with rights-of-way and surveying through the MEA. Side of it for decades, and he might be a good one to sort of flesh out the difference between underwater for GPS and a cadastral survey on land and why they're different.

Thank you. We will ask that, but also I think what DNR surveying standards are is the topic at hand, but I think a little technical lesson for us this morning. We've got time. Mr. Lopez, could you give us a little 101 on surveying techniques?

Yes, this is Manny Lopez. Thank you, Representative. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Okay.

There's something— a cadastral survey is a wide— it's kind of a wide net. It's a very sophisticated type of survey, but it also gathers a lot of information. It gathers topography and a number of different things which are costly and take an extended time to, to gather that kind of information, probably way well beyond the 90 days that would be, that would be the permitting portion. The GPS survey is a very quick Survey, you can conduct that with the drone, for example, if you have a baseline already set up, and in most cases that's going to be, that's going to be true. So GPS survey gets you to, to the spot that you need to be, gets you the right information.

GPS is global positioning, and, and it is very accurate, just about almost as accurate as a cadastral survey. You don't have boots on the ground, which is time-saving and is also cost-saving.

Thank you very much. Follow-up for Representative Himschute. Thank you. I just want to point out that the section of the bill that talks about the cadastral—. Cadastral—.

The types of surveys. Starts with, a utility provider or property owner seeking an easement or right-of-way under A of this section shall submit an application on a form provided or in a format approved by the department that— so this is not the park's work, rather it is the utility provider or the property owner. So that may play into whether or not, you know, what level of survey we're looking for. But I think I would want to defer refer to DNR on that for sure. Thank you.

Representative Holland. Great, thank you, Chair Meyers. If I can just follow up on this current line of discussion, I was looking also at the GPS issue, and from my perspective, it's kind of a, a limited term in terms of the wide variety of digital measurement technologies that are available these days. We have LiDAR and other tools like— I think somebody just mentioned a drone. And I'm wondering if it would be more accurate and perhaps more helpful to refer to this being performed by digital surveying techniques in a format established by regulations so that we give the regulatory latitude to recognize whether this will be done with drones, GPS, LiDAR, future technologies, if they can figure out when that's appropriate.

Because GPS is kind of one little piece I think there are good digital techniques that given a particular circumstance, surveying a line going across a lake, that there probably is an appropriate use of a digital surveying method, but I'm not sure we need to specify which method and let the regulatory framework have a little latitude there. Just a suggestion. Chair Mears? That's a good perspective. Cadastral.

According to AI, it's cadastral. We've got that sorted. I appreciate that. Problem solved today. So I'll follow up with a couple of things.

So, you know, we're getting to two concerns that I have with this, and I'm going to put on, you know, like, the engineering hat. One is an automatic issuance of permits. I started off my career as a regulator, and, you know, things can happen. And that practice of automatic issuance of permits is not a path I want to go down at all, regardless of the type and scale of the project. And then the other one is getting into the surveying standards for DNR.

And I think— so I do have amendments to remove both of those sections from the bill, but I think having further discussions with the department to see if going that digital, you know, may do digital. You know, we'll have to work that out a little bit. But we're also in the spot where we're bumping up against time towards the end of session. Very practically and realistically, next week is our last week that we would have available to have community and regional affairs meetings this session. And with lots of stuff going on, I think it's important to, you know, do good work.

Sometimes you can do good work fast, but we also need to do good work and not just rush things along. But we have been working on this already. We already have questions out to DNR about both of those issues. So these— they didn't start today. We've already got those out and are awaiting those answers to those questions.

So if there's anything else in the bill that we have questions for, for DNR or anyone else, now's the time to ask them. Representative Holland. Great, Chair Muse, thanks. This is a question perhaps both for Parks but also perhaps for MEA, and getting back to the question of the size of the projects, and what I'm particularly interested in is the question of to what degree is this going to allow development to go through parks, large-scale, if you will. And I'm curious from the standpoint of Parks or MEA how you view the choice around going across park land for providing utility facilities that need to get to some distant point and there's a park in the middle.

Do you generally try and go around parks? When you see a park, or is the intent generally to go, you know, shortest distance path, lowest cost would make a lot of sense? And within the scope of this bill where we have the May do this work, I'm once again just kind of probing at the question of will this open up the opportunity to just start shooting across parks willy-nilly, to be a little flippant about it, or is there always generally either through Parks decision-making or through the utilities planning to generally steer around parks when possible to minimize the impact on parks. So kind of a Parks question, maybe an MEA question. So start with Mr. Wedekind, and I'll rephrase the question a little bit.

So if you've got an application that comes to you, do you only evaluate the route that's the application, or do you work with an applicant on alternatives to going through a park or minimizing encroachments on park lands?

Good question. For the record, this is Matt Wedeking, Deputy Director of Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. To the Chair, if we do get an application to shortcut a corner of the park a new line in, we do have to tell them we currently do not have authority for a utility easement.

Just an example I was going to point out for the larger scale, in 2015 the legislature recognized that Parks does not have this authority and rewrote certain park statutes to incorporate the LNG or the natural gas pipelines. And put it in the Denali State Park and put it in the statue of Nancy Lake. So that is one way that the legislature has described exactly how they want parkland to be used. Hence why we are here today. So I guess that kind of forecloses the question for MEA, that it's really not an option because there's no process.

Or do you want to—. Can I follow up with that? Yes, please do. That's the point of my My question is—. Yeah.

—I think this bill will open up the ability to start doing that. So now my question is, if we are creating this wide latitude, you know, what is the guiding structure around parks using this in the future or MEA and their planning? And are there other guiding structures or policies that would say, no, we are still going to go around parks when we can? Can, and that's going to be the exception that we're going to try and go through a park and cut the corner. This would seem to be creating the authority so that the prohibition that in the past required special exceptional policy work, as the two examples that were just pointed out with the pipeline project, this would now mean that they now have the latitude to do that internally, to do that.

And I'm just trying to understand where are the boundaries around that latitude. So that, you know, I'm just, again, I'm going back to the IAB holder. If I have a cabin and somebody wants to put just a transmission line in behind my cabin in a remote location, I'm not going to be thrilled about it. So I'm just curious how Parks and MEA view this new authority and how it could be used, and would they still be trying to go around Parks when they can, or now with this will they say, straight line, we have got the authority to do it, we will. So I think I will ask Ms.

Esty first on that one since the utility is more one that would be making the decision on where things go. Ms. Esty, do you think that the— this bill will change how MEA looks at providing service in the neighborhood of Parks?

Uh, thank you, Commissioner Mear. This is Julie Esty with Mattanuska Electric Association, and I will likely toss this to Manny Lopez, who's been doing this for decades and can probably answer this question better than I. Um, but I guess just from a high level, um, our top priority in this bill is the safety and reliability of our current, um, our current facilities that are in state parks and in desperate need of upgrade and repair. So from— if we're looking to maybe work harder on a portion of the bill, then I think simplifying it to take care of the existing issues would be our top priority. Because right now we're— I think we all see the issue and feel feel as though hands have been tied. So, um, that is, I think, one, one point of consideration.

As far as how MEA looks at placing our facilities, as I said, Manny spends all of his days doing that, so I'd love to toss that to him and let him explain MEA's process. Thank you very much. I appreciate your knowledge of what he's got expertise in. Mr. Lopez.

Okay, thank you. This is— thank you, Madam Chair. I think the way to answer this question is first to address the part where the state parks is restricted or where they have no ability to issue permanent permits. And this ties into a question that I heard earlier, a statement I heard earlier, and the reason that State Parks isn't able to review some of these applications that we sent to them is that at one point or another they've accepted federal funds. It's the Land and Water Conservation Funding Act that, that puts up restrictions.

So part of the problem is dealing with the Land and Water Conservation Funding Act, and I think that there's probably an easier way through that. Earlier, a comment was made made, and I think I'd like to offer that prior— there's a phrase, prior existing valid rights. There's section line easements, for example, across all state parks, all state lands in most locations. And with that prior existing valid right, there's already a way, a method to get across a state park. And then in particular, even across Stancy Lake.

The problem with that is, is that the Land Water Conservation Funding Act isn't adjudicating that section line easement, the existence of that section line easement, at the same time that it's also considering the LWCF, the Land Water Conservation Funding Act. The two are opposed, but the section line easement hasn't evaporated. It's still there and it's available. And I think that that's part of the misunderstanding in using a section line easement.

Thank you. You really do know this, getting into the federal laws that are having some impact on us.

I'm processing. Representative Holland is processing faster. Representative Holland? I wouldn't say that. Thank you, Chair Mears.

I guess I would just say for the moment that I think to the degree that this bill is addressing existing facilities and providing a clear path to being able to maintain, replace those existing facilities, Green light, let's do this. I am fully supportive and have no concerns at all about the intent of this for taking care of existing facilities and providing the utility the clear tools and the Parks Department the clear, simple way to deal with the existing stuff. Where things, I think, are still a little gray for me is the scope of what this new shall grant opportunity is and how that will be used in the future. And, you know, I am happy to just kind of, you know, leave it at that for now, but that is the concern I have. I do think the discussion we have had on the record is helpful for later understanding the intent of what we are trying to do in terms of understanding there should be some boundaries around that.

It would be simpler from my standpoint if we didn't have to necessarily encumber the immediate need for being able to do the maintenance work with this greater problem. Of what new opportunities it is creating. So I am okay at the moment. Like I said, I am crystal clear and fully supportive of Section 1 and this work on existing stuff. It is this Section 2 that is still a little gray for me.

Thank you. And I am realizing that I am delinquent in not having a written cue and going by memory and have forgotten Representative Nelson. Representative Nelson? Oh, it's perfect. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair.

I understand the concerns that are brought up, and I think that this is one tool that this bill— so I'm in support of the whole bill, and I think that some of the concerns that are brought up are actually addressed. You know, when— if you look at like the West where I grew up, like people settled where there was water. And Alaska has a ton of water and people settle in different places. And so maybe they settled someplace 40 years ago and now there's a state park that's come in in between them and they want power now. However, um, as, uh, was mentioned by the— by Miss Esty and also the gentleman from MEA, there are already existing restrictions in place, and I think this bill acknowledges that.

To the concern that we're just going to start willy-nilly installing, uh, you know, even like an LNG pipeline that was brought up, um, like that. I guess that is a legitimate concern. But on the flip side, if we go to page 3, line 28, if the commissioner disapproves an application, the department shall provide a reason for the disapproval in writing for the app— to the applicant. So like the concern on the other side too is that, look, like we want power to this cabin that we've had in our family forever, and they can just pencil whip it and say no. So I think that this provides adequate leeway to the departments that are actually like currently overseeing that.

And then when we go to page 4, um, line 3 and 4, where it talks about that the easement or right-of-way is considered approved if it goes through this process, unless otherwise prohibited by law. So I think that's where the federal restrictions or existing state restrictions come into play. So I, I don't, I don't see this as a, a blank slate that somebody can slip an application in and that's not addressed in 90 days. You know, it used to be 60, but now it's 90. And then all of a sudden there's going to be some, you know, massive power line going to some rich dude's place in the middle of Denali Park.

I, I, I understand that concern. I'm kind of characterizing it, but I don't, I don't see that as happening. I see this as a private property issue, and Alaska is a young state, and there are people who— the main point, as Miss Esty brought up, is that existing infrastructure wants to be— like, they want to update it and make it safer. There are also pieces of private property all throughout the state that, you know, maybe they didn't have the money to bring a power line in when they homesteaded, and now they do. And as was mentioned also by the gentleman from MEA, these right-of-ways already exist, and so I don't see this as an open door for mass power lines.

I understand the concern, but I think that those are already addressed and potentially, if they would be, precluded as the concerns or the items mentioned in page 3, line 31 through page 4, line So, um, I'm in support of the bill. I think that it does a good job of addressing the current concerns, but also moving us to a place that, uh, protects private property and allows people to use it in a way that the regulatory structure has changed in the state when parks have come— have become a, essentially a barrier right now, and they don't have tools neither the, the private landowner nor, um, the people who are running the parks to help people get, uh, utilities the way that they want. So I, I am in support of the bill. I think that the concerns that are brought up are actually addressed, um, and I think that, uh, you know, they have been used appropriately up till now, and I don't think that there's any reason to, um, I think that they, they wouldn't be, um, moving forward at this point. And if they are, then we can address that.

But right now it seems like there is a desire from both the private landowners and all parties involved to give this tool to the individuals that are overseeing like utility and infrastructure in state parks. And I think we should give it to Thank you, Representative Nelson, for the discussion. And it is important that we probe these questions on the record. And thanks for going through the bill with, with your thoughts and concerns on that. I did have something from Co-Chair Himschute.

She said, I would like to know what the standard DNR process is for public input. So Mr. Wedeking, could you share with us, I guess since this isn't an existing process, what other processes that might guide public process, public input?

Sure. For the record, this is Matt Wedeking, Deputy Director, Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation. To the Chair, I can only explain that what we have now For special use permits and commercial use permits, we do not have a public process portion of that to issue permits. So that would be something the legislature would have to consider. We do a lot of public process through the citizen advisory boards if there's issues.

Thank you. Representative McCabe. Thanks, co-chair Mayer. So I think what this last 10 minutes or so highlights is the fact that right now, and we heard it earlier, the state parks has no ability to issue any permits. We are giving them a may ability that will be restrained, if you will, by DNR, or maybe informed by the DNR process, which does include the public process.

The only shall language, and that's the meat of the bill, is they shall issue one that is already there based on the fact that we now have 40 years of data about, you know, that it's safe, that it's not, you know, not a public nuisance, in that it's in the right spot. So that's the difference. As I said, I think Mr. Lindauer said, hey, I can't issue that, you know, even if it's just cutting the corner of a state park to get around a mountain instead of going through a mountain that's on an easement. If it's just cutting the corner because it makes it easier, the parks can't do that right now, and we're just sort of giving them the ability to do that. That's the, that's the vision anyways.

So they would have to obviously establish the process via regulation, and our vision is that it would be the same as DNR—public input, public process, the whole thing. So Thank you very much. I think we are winding down to the end of our conversation here today, but I'm looking for other hands and questions where we're at. So before— okay.

Any final comments? Representative McCabe. Thanks, uh, Co-Chair Mears. Representative McCabe again. So I appreciate the, um, the ability to bring this forward and get this fleshed out, and I understand the time crunch we're in, and I'm just kind of doing, doing what we need to do to at least get this bill into the public eye and into the legislature's idea and move it forward as much as we can.

I hate that it takes more than 2 years, but it is what it is. Thank you. And, you know, that's some of the goals that we've had with some bills here in CNRA to get them to get some progress on them, even if their fate is— at least they're moving. Yeah. And it's important to do that work.

Regardless, regardless of timeline. So thank you very much for being here today. That concludes our business for today. We are looking to continue to do work on this. Like I said, you know, we have been working on a couple of amendments.

It seems like there's some refinement to work along with that, so we'll set an amendment deadline for Monday, May 11th, at noon. But please keep in touch with our office, with Ms. Ames. On amendments so that we can do our good work till the— to the end of our clock here. Seeing no further business before the committee, this meeting is adjourned. It is 9:07 AM.