Tag Archive for: alaska resources

It’s baaaaack!

/in , , ,

Last week, we wrote about the approximately $5 Million that the Governor is requesting for the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to hire 32 full-time staff to take over and administer wetland dredge and fill permitting currently done by the federal government EPA. Ironically, at the same time that DEC is asking for more responsibility over permitting (to benefit large scale mining development); they are also trying to dodge their responsibility to administer protections for high ecological value waters under the federal Outstanding National Resource Waters. Instead, they have introduced HB 398, which would require that the Legislature take responsibility.

HB 398 is the 2022 version of a bill that has been around for many many years, and different legislative sessions – yet has never enjoyed enough support to pass. In essence, it would require that high-value water protection be determined by the state legislature instead of through DEC regulation. HB 398 seeks to make it impossible for Alaskans to protect waters of high ecological value as Tier III waters under the Clean Water Act. Right now, federal law requires states to craft a process for citizens to nominate pristine high-value (fish spawning, culturally critical, etc.) top Tier or Tier III waters for protection from pollution. DEC is legally authorized to protect waters under a Tier III status, but they don’t want to do it.

Instead of DEC simply taking legal responsibility to protect high-value waters nominated by Alaskans, they propose HB 398, which creates more bureaucracy, expense, and red tape that strips Alaskans of our right to protect our waters. This bill is bad.

It would remove Alaskan’s right to have a voice in protecting water in Alaska by putting the power in the hands of politicians instead of the experts with Indigenous, local, and scientific knowledge.

It would allow committee chairs in the House and Senate to prevent Tier III nominations from moving through the Legislature, creating a de facto ban on water protections.

It would take power away from Alaskans and give an upper hand to outside mining companies and big businesses with no interest in protecting our fisheries and the clean water.

It would create additional bureaucracy, expense, and political paralysis that leaves our most essential and vulnerable waterways unprotected.

It would put our $2 billion salmon industry at risk.

It would silence constituents from being a part of the decision-making process around the use of waters integral to our cultures, livelihoods, and survival.

Legislative attorneys have time and again concluded that DEC can already establish and administer a process for Alaskans to seek the protection of high-value water through agency regulation. DEC has time and time again sought to shirk its responsibility, hiding behind bogus legal interpretations and philosophical objections.

Why should the Legislature approve increasing the budget to give DEC the complex responsibility of permitting mining projects in wetlands that support our salmon when, simultaneously, DEC is telling everyone with HB 398 that it does not want to be the agency to protect salmon?

Keep an eye on this bad bill.

Wetland Permitting

/in , ,

The Dunleavy Administration is making a push in their budget proposal this year to take over wetland development permitting from the federal government. The proposed allocation of 4.9 million dollars in the Governor’s budget before the legislature would initiate a process where the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) would assume “primacy” from the federal Environmental Protection Agency over permitting development activities that impact wetlands protected under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

Well-functioning and intact wetlands are critical to the protection of salmon, especially in their early stages of life. Wetlands and peatlands also serve a climate-protecting function, a major force in earthly carbon sequestration. The Biden Administration will likely be expanding the protection of wetlands which was decreased under the Trump Administration.

There are downsides with the state primacy of wetland permitting. The cost and complexity of a wetland permitting program is the main factor why only three states out of fifty have assumed primacy. This year, Alaska’s fiscal situation, buoyed up by high oil prices and federal dollars, is not in the long-term position to attract and retain the 28 new full-time employees requested to administer the wetland permitting function or even ensure these positions have funding into the future. Indeed, DEC has seen some of the most aggressive budget cuts of all state agencies over the past decade. (None of this is to point out the blatant irony of our red-pen Governor proposing a budget growth to make the state pay for something that the Federal Government provides freely.)

The cozy relationship between industry and regulatory agencies in Alaska is another cause for concern. The current Commissioner of DEC used to lobby on behalf of the Pebble Mine project when he was a government relations staff for the Anglo-American mining company. Wetland permits are critical to large mining and other industrial operations, so putting this authority in a shop run by a mine promoter is, well, probably a pretty bad idea.

Under federal primacy, the EPA must conduct government-to-government consultation with Alaska Native Tribes regarding wetland permit decisions to seek input and mitigate impacts to the land and water on which Tribal members rely. Should the State of Alaska take over the wetland permitting program, Tribal consultation is not a legal requirement. For this reason alone, the legislature should scrap the state primacy proposal.

Our salmon runs are in a perilous state across much of Alaska. One outlier is Bristol Bay, where the rivers flow from millions of acres of intact wetlands, the beating heart of the largest and last greatest sockeye run on earth. The Dunleavy Administration, DEC, and mine promoters want state primacy over wetland permitting to streamline the industrialization of areas like the Bristol Bay watershed. Unable to prevail in the court of public opinion or with the Federal EPA, the Dunleavy Administration is now attempting an end-run around both to permit the Pebble Mine with a budget allocation that would put an enforcement agency in place more closely tied to big industrial concerns.

On Monday, March 14th, at 9 a.m., the Senate Finance Committee will hear from DEC on its wetland permitting primacy proposal. Tune in.

OPINION: When will Alaska’s youth finally be heard on the climate crisis?

/in

[cs_content][cs_element_section _id=”1″ ][cs_element_layout_row _id=”2″ ][cs_element_layout_column _id=”3″ ][cs_element_text _id=”4″ ][cs_content_seo]Young people across Alaska are bewildered. We are scared, exhausted and furious. We have watched with frustration and deep anxiety as our state government continues to put fossil fuels above our futures, actively making the climate crisis worse and inducing devastating harms like melting permafrost, worsening wildfires, coastal erosion, and loss of sea and river ice.
For more than two decades, we, alongside many other young people in Alaska, have been fighting for the health, safety and sustainable ways of life of our villages and cities in the halls of our government. Through the Alaska Youth for Environmental Action (AYEA) program, young Alaskans like us have been working tirelessly for climate justice.
Since AYEA’s founding in 1998, thousands of Alaska youths have engaged in efforts urging Alaska’s political branches to stop actively contributing to the growing climate crisis through policies, protections of our sacred lands and waters, and more. In 2005, youths collected 5,000 signatures in support of climate action from teenagers in 150 Alaska villages and cities. In 2017, teens petitioned the state to reduce Alaska’s fossil fuel emissions. In 2019 and 2020, young Alaskans held climate strikes across the state, joining more than four million other young people around the globe and demanding a transition to 100% renewable clean energy. In 2021, we met with Alaska’s leadership, asking for legislation to transition off of fossil fuels. Again and again, Alaska youth have urged our government to change course and treat the climate crisis like the emergency that it is. Despite these efforts over the years, the government of Alaska continues to put fossil fuels above our right to a liveable climate.
We are in a critical moment to protect our rights as young people to a safe climate in Alaska, and we cannot afford to wait any longer.
On Feb. 25, the Alaska Supreme Court denied a petition for a rehearing of the youth-led constitutional climate case, Sagoonick v. State of Alaska. Brought by 16 young Alaskans, the youth plaintiffs’ case challenged the state’s policies that promote fossil fuels for causing Alaska’s climate crisis and endangering our health, safety, communities, cultures and overall futures as Alaskans.
On Jan. 28, in a split decision, the Alaska Supreme Court shut the courthouse doors on these young Alaskans with three of the five justices ruling that the courts could not even hear evidence of how they have been harmed by the actions of their own government.
The majority also said that Alaska’s government had already considered the youths’ concerns when they met with AYEA in 2017 and encouraged us to continue advocating our cause to the executive and legislative branches. But today, the question still remains of what that meeting achieved and what actions were taken to demonstrate that the state of Alaska cares about what its young people have to say. Did our government reverse course and stop contributing to the climate crisis that threatens our very futures? Did they end their policies that actively cause us harm? No, instead it was all decidedly shallow lip service. It is clearer now more than ever that the legislative and executive branches will continue putting fossil fuels over our lives if the third branch of government — our courts — won’t even allow youths through the courthouse doors. It is the duty of our courts to protect our rights, but first they have to hear our claims.
But there is still hope. Two of the justices in the case dissented, and had even just one other justice joined them, the court would have established a constitutional right to a livable climate.
The dissent shows that the tide of climate justice in Alaska’s courts is turning, but first we need Alaska’s courts to open their doors to us now. With the Legislature and the executive branch continuing to make the climate crisis worse every day, we have no choice but to keep fighting in the courts to secure constitutional protection. Only the judicial branch can protect our rights. Our legal fight for climate justice is not over, but the question remains: when will Alaska’s courts allow our voices to be heard?
Shanelle Afcan is an AYEA graduate from Nunam Iqua
Cassidy Austin-Merlino is an AYEA graduate from McCarthy
AYEA is a program of The Alaska Center Education Fund.
Originally published 3/8/2022 in the Anchorage Daily News\n\n[/cs_content_seo][/cs_element_layout_column][/cs_element_layout_row][/cs_element_section][/cs_content]

Renewable Portfolio Standards drive innovation and economic development

/in , , , ,

The role of government in pushing different sectors of the economy to innovate through policy, tax incentives, and funding is well established. While some may oppose a mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard or RPS policy to push electric utilities to generate or purchase more renewable energy, there is at least a broad historical precedent for the success of the policy.

The benefits of an RPS include economic development and construction and maintenance jobs to create the new generation facilities. For customers, increased renewable energy will put (in the parlance of utility managers) “downward pressure” on the rates we pay per kilowatt-hour. The transmission constraints and bottlenecks will have to be addressed for Alaska’s railbelt to achieve the proposed 80% renewable energy by 2040, and that is a good thing. Transmission upgrades build a bigger freeway for electrons to travel on and build important resiliency in our Alaskan system that’s subject to the weather rigors we know and love, not to mention natural disasters.

Jobs, innovative technologies, likely lower electric rates, and increased transmission system efficiency are not bad things. Considering that transportation and industry are both likely to move toward electric power soon and increase the load on the system as a whole both day and night, and considering the rapid advancement of battery storage to levelize the peaks and valleys of some renewables (as well as old and proven storage technology option of pumped hydro) the concerns of utility managers about renewable energy load variability are surmountable.

Judging by the discussion in the first Senate hearing on the Governors RPS legislation, there seems to be an interest expressed by some committee members in adding micro-nuclear reactors as an option for utilities to meet their RPS goals. This is a non-starter and likely would be opposed even by the Governor. Adding an unproven technology like micro-nuclear reactors into a policy that puts utilities on a time-sensitive course for achieving renewable energy goals could be a hindrance, not to mention the other negatives associated with nuclear (security threat, waste storage, etc.) There is a stand-alone bill pertaining to small nuclear generators, and in a stand-alone bill, it should remain.

Next week, the House Energy Committee will hold two hearings on the RPS bill (HB 301). The first hearing is on Tuesday, March 8 at 10:15 a.m., and the second on Thursday at 10:15 a.m. These will be excellent opportunities for the public to learn more about the RPS. In addition, The Alaska Center will be hosting a webinar on March 10 at noon with House Energy Committee Chair, Representative Calvin Schrage as well as members of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to discuss what an RPS is, the outlook for the policy this session, and how you can be involved.

If you’re interested in attending here is the registration information!

It is an exciting week ahead for the future of Alaska. Plan to tune in!

Climate Rights

/in , , , , , ,

[cs_content][cs_element_section _id=”1″ ][cs_element_layout_row _id=”2″ ][cs_element_layout_column _id=”3″ ][cs_element_text _id=”4″ ][cs_content_seo]Do current and future generations have a constitutional right to a safe climate? Sixteen youth plaintiffs filed a constitutional climate lawsuit against their state government in 2017 to argue that we do have such a right. 
In Sagoonick v. State of Alaska, the young plaintiffs assert that Alaska’s fossil fuel energy policy and the State-authorized fossil fuel development and ensuing greenhouse gas emissions that result have caused and contributed to Alaska’s climate crisis. The policies have placed the youth plaintiffs in danger and are harming their health, safety, homes, culture, and Native villages in violation of Alaska’s Constitution.
On January 28, 2022, in a split 3-2 decision, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled against the young plaintiffs. On February 7, the youth plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing of their case, asking the Court to reconsider its decision and allow their case to go forward. The youth were disappointed about the February 25 denial of their petition, but the fight is far from over. 
State lawmakers have taken note of how close the decision in Sagoonick was. Representative Ben Carpenter, a Republican from the fossil-fuel embracing town of Nikiski, took to the House Floor to make a note of this. Representative Carpenter stated, “this isn’t going away” and that “the implication here…is that State…oil exploration policy…our energy policies…need to be adjusted for an individual’s right to have a safe climate.”  
While some lawmakers may take the close decision as a warning that the state’s petroleum industry is under attack by the youth, Carpenter’s words offered another assessment – sobering to some – that the courts are coming around to the idea of a right to a safe climate.   
Suppose an industry or a policy effectively uses our atmosphere as a dumping place for a chemical byproduct that is enough quantity can put into question the ability of mammals to survive on the planet. In that case, you bet today’s young people should try their level best to stop any additional inputs of that chemical byproduct. The courts are taking note of the danger ahead if we cannot radically decrease the emissions of CO2 and methane into the air. Too much is at stake for this issue to just go away. Expect future lawsuits, legislation, and petitions for rulemaking from the young people of our state and nation.  
Government regulations on industry are in place to protect our health and, ultimately, our individual freedom. The brave youth plaintiffs in Sagoonick v. State of Alaska are fighting for our individual health, individual freedom, and collective health and freedom. These youth are true patriots, and their actions resonate with other youth. Change is coming.
Yours,
The Alaska Center\n\n[/cs_content_seo][/cs_element_layout_column][/cs_element_layout_row][/cs_element_section][cs_element_section _id=”5″ ][cs_element_layout_row _id=”6″ ][cs_element_layout_column _id=”7″ ][cs_element_button _id=”8″ ][cs_content_seo]Voice Your Support on March 1st\n\n[/cs_content_seo][/cs_element_layout_column][/cs_element_layout_row][/cs_element_section][cs_element_section _id=”9″ ][cs_element_layout_row _id=”10″ ][cs_element_layout_column _id=”11″ ][cs_element_button _id=”12″ ][cs_content_seo]Bills To Watch This Week\n\n[/cs_content_seo][/cs_element_layout_column][cs_element_layout_column _id=”13″ ][cs_element_button _id=”14″ ][cs_content_seo]Learn More About Bills This Session\n\n[/cs_content_seo][/cs_element_layout_column][/cs_element_layout_row][/cs_element_section][/cs_content]