Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that I first offered in 2009 to authorize a right-of-way for construction of an Alaska in-state natural gas pipeline. The bill is being…
Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that I first offered in 2009 to authorize a right-of-way for construction of an Alaska in-state natural gas pipeline. The bill is being co-sponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Sen. Mark Begich. The pipeline would run along the State's main highway from Fairbanks to Anchorage, including 7 miles of highway through Denali National Park and Preserve.
While many in this body are familiar with plans for a large-volume natural gas pipeline to run from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the Lower 48 States, there is concern that the large-diameter pipeline will not be finished in time to provide needed gas to Southcentral Alaska-- gas that is vital for electric generation in Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough, and Kenai Peninsula.
Currently, electricity in Alaska's southern Railbelt, as it is called, is largely generated by burning natural gas produced from the gas fields in Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. Cook Inlet production has been falling for years and businesses have been forced to close as a result.
Serious concerns exist regarding the region's ability to produce sufficient gas for electric generation and home heating for Alaska's most populated area as early as the winter of 2014-15.
Given the pace of planning for construction of the main line, it is unlikely that a larger Alaska natural gas pipeline will be able to deliver gas until 2020 or later--6 or more years too late to aid Southcentral Alaska's growing need for natural gas. Thus, to provide a reliable natural gas supply, Alaska is considering investing in a smaller pipeline to meet medium term demand.
There are two proposals for small-diameter, 24-inch, in-state pipelines. One would run along the Richardson and Glenn Highways to the east, tying into existing transmission systems near Palmer, Alaska.
The other ``bullet'' line, is the pipeline of concern in this legislation. It would run from Alaska's North Slope region, past Fairbanks, along the Parks Highway to the Mat-Su Valley near Anchorage, bringing about 500 million cubic feet of gas a day to Southcentral Alaska. This project would be completed well in advance of when a larger-diameter pipeline might be in service to deliver 4 to 4.5 billion cubic feet a day to Lower 48 markets.
The shortest and most logical route for a pipeline through or around the roughly 10-mile bottleneck of the Nenana River Canyon and Denali National Park and Preserve follows the existing highway, 7 miles of which pass through the Park. This route causes the least environmental and visual impact due to its location in an existing corridor, and provides a route that is easily accessible for routine pipeline maintenance.
This route would be the least expensive to construct and operate. Moreover, it would offer several environmental advantages. Building the pipeline along the existing, previously disturbed Parks Highway right- of-way, would allow for electricity generation from natural gas in the park facilities at Denali. For the first time, reasonably priced compressed natural gas, CNG, would be available to power park vehicles. Currently, National Park Service permitted diesel tour buses travel 1 million road miles annually. Converting the buses to CNG would significantly reduce air emissions in the park.
Another benefit is that in order for the pipe to cross the Nenana River, a new bridge will need to be built. The bridge would provide a pedestrian access/bicycle path for visitors who otherwise must walk along the heavily traveled highway.
For these reasons, 8 environmental groups have expressed support for pipeline construction along the existing highway right-of-way through Denali Park. These groups are the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Alaska Conservation Alliance, the Denali Citizens Council, The Wilderness Society, Cook Inlet Keeper, the Alaska Center for the Environment, the Wrangell Mountain Center, and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance.
Last year, the State of Alaska finished a preliminary study of the project. It continues to consider whether to permit and facilitate a ``bullet'' line project, compared to other options, in order to meet future Southcentral power needs. Alaska state regulators and financial markets will ultimately decide which pipeline projects will go forward. It is my desire, however, to introduce legislation that would clear legal impediments to planning for the Parks Highway route.
Approval of the right-of-way would remove a key unknown and provide greater certainty in the cost estimates and the timing for a project. Eliminating the uncertainty of permitting and regulatory delays will enable the Parks Highway route to compete on a level playing field with other pipeline projects.
In 2009, this bill was modified to meet concerns voiced by the environmental community, congressional staff, and the National Park Service. The version reintroduced today was approved unanimously by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and added to the American Clean Energy Leadership Act that passed from the Committee on June 17, 2009. The provision, according to the Congressional Budget Office, had nominal fiscal impacts when scored as part of the larger bill--S. 1462.
With the pressing need of Southcentral Alaskans in mind for natural gas, I implore this body to quickly approve this legislation in the 112th Session.
Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation, being cosponsored by my colleague Senator Mark Begich from Alaska, to clarify Federal mining law and remedy a problem that has arisen from the extension process for ``small'' miner land claims.
Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f), holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $125 per claim. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the claim, Dec. 31st each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee due for such a period.''
Since the last revision to the law last decade, there have been a series of incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by BLM staff, mailing delays or for unexplained reasons, the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion--and that BLM has then moved to terminate the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM or mail issues resulted in loss or the late recording of claim extension applications.
There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case, and claims in another incident were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States. Legislation similar to this provision actually cleared the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law.
This bill is intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should their submittals not be received and processed by BLM officials on time. If all defects are not cured within 60 days--the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act--then claims still are subject to voidance.
The transition rule included in this measure will solve two pending cases in Alaska, one where a holder of nine claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska, has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. In this case, John Trautner had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years and the local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline, but just not a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived. In the second case Don and Judy Mullikin of Homer, Alaska, lost title to nine claims on the Seward Peninsula outside of Nome in Alaska because the Anchorage BLM office has no record of them receiving the paperwork, even though the owners have computer time stamps of them having completed the paperwork 5 months before the deadline, but no other evidence
of filing to meet BLM regulations. They lost their appeal in late 2009. These are claims that have been worked in Alaska yearly since 1937 and are the main livelihood for the Mullikins.
This legislation, supported by the Alaska Miners Association--S. 3175 in the 111th Congress--clearly is intended to remedy a simple drafting error in congressional crafting of the small miner claim defect process. While only a few cases of potential clerical errors have occurred over the past decade, it still makes sense for Congress to clarify that claim holders have a right to know that their applications have not been processed, in time for them to cure application-claim defects prior to being informed of the loss of the claim rights forever. Simple equity and due process requires no less.
Given the minute cost of this administrative change to the Department of the Interior, but its big impact on affected small mineral claim holders, I hope this bill can be considered and approved promptly this year.
Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make a minor technical change to a provision that this Congress approved in 2004 to further construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline system to move Alaska's conventional gas to market.
In 2004 Congress approved two pieces of legislation to help facilitate construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline. In Public Law 108-324 Congress approved a Federal loan guarantee program, streamlined regulatory processes and approved a worker training program to guarantee a domestic labor supply for construction of the largest private-sector capital infrastructure project in the world's history. In a separate bill, Public Law 108-357, Congress also approved tax changes to provide accelerated depreciation for the pipe and a related gas conditioning plant needed for the project. A pipeline to move Alaska's 35 trillion cubic feet of known gas reserves, and its likely 315 trillion cubic feet of additional Arctic gas reserves from lands and Arctic waters would have a host of benefits to the Nation.
Being able to market only the known gas reserves at the Prudhoe Bay field will involve construction of a pipeline system estimated to cost between $26 and $40 billion. It is expected to produce 38,000 direct job-years of labor in Alaska and up to 31,000 direct jobs at the peak of construction. According to the National Defense Foundation it will produce direct employment of 172,369 jobs nationwide when related steel, pipe, valve and equipment jobs are included, not counting many more indirect jobs. At current prices it will generate about $100 billion in Federal tax revenues, not counting $40 billion in Alaska State revenues and $30 billion in Canadian tax revenues over its first 20 years of operation. Recent estimates, however, indicate that development of gas from the offshore Arctic that a gas line will permit to occur, would add an average of an additional 54,700 new jobs in the U.S.--91,500 at peak employment. That would provide $145 billion in total payroll--$82 billion to workers in the Lower 48--and provide $167 billion in tax and royalty revenues to the Federal Government, $15 billion to the State of Alaska and total revenues of $193 billion at forecast gas prices.
In the intervening 7 years since the gas line loan-permitting package became law, it has become clear that changes are needed. While those changes include revisions in the loan guarantee program, they also involve changes in the construction worker training provisions.
In the 2004 act, Sect. 113, the bill authorized $20 million for worker training programs, with at least 15 percent of those funds going to pay for ``design and construction of a training facility to be located in Fairbanks, Alaska.'' But language in the bill has prevented that training center from moving forward. This proposed bill would authorize Federal funding to be released immediately upon the request of the Governor of Alaska, to fund construction of the training center, and to broaden the center to permit it also to train oil, besides gas field workers, and environmental response employees.
According to the Alaska Department of Labor, the demand for skilled workers for gas and oil line projects on Alaska's North Slope grew by 50 percent from 2005 to 2009 to nearly 12,000 workers. At the same time, the average age of Alaska's skilled workforce is now 53, meaning that Alaska needs to train 1,000 new construction and pipeline workers annually simply to maintain the State's existing skilled workforce. Since it takes roughly 5 years to train a skilled construction/ pipefitter, it is imperative that such training begin far in advance of estimated pipeline construction. According to State data, there are only about 2,130 plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters working in Alaska and another 1,004 welders, solderers, brazers, and machine setters. Past estimates by one of the two consortia proposing to build an Alaska gas pipeline are that the gas line alone will require 1,650 welders/helpers, 2,000 equipment operators, 418 inspectors and 90 UT technicians, just to build the Alaska sections of the pipeline. That means there is an urgent need for the pipeline training center now.
The Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center's core mission is to provide a highly trained workforce that will meet the needs of the entire oil/ gas/pipeline/refining industry; which is a significant component of Alaska's economy, providing 80 percent of the State's industrial tax base, 74 percent of all resources produced in the State, and 85 percent of State revenues) and a crucial component of the Nation's domestic energy supply, currently 13 percent of all domestically produced oil, while the proposed overland gas line will produce 7 percent of the Nation's total estimated gas demand in 2020. The necessity for this workforce is further emphasized because it is clear that an aging infrastructure will require an accelerated repair, replacement, and maintenance regime if production requirements and safety standard are to be met.
The training center is an innovative statewide collaboration between labor, industry, and local, State, and Federal Governments. Additionally, it is understood that as alternative fuel technologies emerge and are commercialize, a highly skilled, highly trained, highly motivated workforce will be required. Again, through collaboration with others: the University of Alaska, the Cold Climate Housing Research Center, United Technologies Corporation, General Electric, and Alaskan commercial interests, requisite evolving workforce needs are understood and can be met.
The facility needs to be located in Interior Alaska, because the climate will permit workers to be fully trained in the real-world conditions they will face on the job. In order to complete the training center and thereby meet anticipated labor demand in a timely manner, funds must be secured in the upcoming budget cycle. Federal funding needed includes: $5.5 million for Central Facility classrooms and shops, $1.5 million for a Construction Camp Facility, $1.0 million for a Pipeline Coating Training Facility and for corrosion control training, $0.5 million for civil work improvements to the Field Training Site, and $1.5 million for pipeline and transportation/ logistical equipment.
The bill's changes will permit the creation of a domestic energy workforce that is stable, productive, and encourages safe working practices that will help to protect Alaska's environment and wildlife, while producing the energy that America needs. The proposal does not expand the size of the funding authorization approved in 2004. It simply makes it more likely that American workers will benefit from a gas line project when it proceeds--an important fact when the national unemployment rate remains at 9.4 percent. I hope that this Congress will consider this bill for quick consideration and passage.
