JUNEAU -- With the state House antsy to adjourn by Saturday, lawmakers worked to clear two of the special session's biggest obstacles: the capital budget and coastal management.
Their work was complicated Friday but what was described as a late Thursday night email from Gov. Sean Parnell. That letter, addressed to Senate Finance Committee co-chair Lyman Hoffman and copied to all lawmakers, detailed at least three problems he had with the Senate's coastal zone bill -- problems that many lawmakers said he didn't make clear until now -- and called on the Senate to pass the House version.
"There is still a path forward that will achieve a continuing and viable ACMP that serves Alaskans well," Parnell wrote, using the acronym for the Alaska Coastal Management Program.
The Senate Finance Committee responded by passing its version of the bill 13-5.
But the House failed to agree to the Senate changes, and the Senate wouldn't back down, forcing a conference committee.
Without a bill, the program lapses July 1. Some rural lawmakers have said they see no program as better than one that doesn't go far enough in their view to give coastal communities a say in resource development decisions.
The other still-unresolved major piece in the session is the capital budget. The House Finance Committee advanced its version Friday afternoon, and a vote by the full House was possible by evening. Senate President Gary Stevens said his bipartisan majority caucus was waiting to see what the bill ultimately looks like before deciding whether to take it to conference.
The budget plan, as it passed from committee, did not contain the Senate's language binding energy projects into an as-is, all-or-nothing deal. That's been a sticking point for weeks -- one that led to the special session -- but Senate leaders have given mixed signals about whether they'd keep fighting for it.
The Senate hadn't touched the other bill on the session call, establishing a long-term funding mechanism for student scholarships, and may not. Money for a student scholarship and aid endowment was included in the capital budget proposal.
The session is scheduled to end Tuesday.
"We have plenty of time," said Stevens, R-Kodiak. While he said the House wants to finish Saturday, the Senate "is willing to stay until the end."
If one chamber adjourns Saturday, it wouldn't be subject to being called back by the other chamber if that body didn't adjourn as well. At that point, if there remained unfinished work or further gridlock -- on, say, coastal management -- it would be up to the governor to decide whether to call lawmakers into another special session.
The coastal management bill the House passed last month was cast as a compromise that would give communities a voice but not allow them to impede oil, gas or mining projects that the state deemed to be in Alaska's interest. It passed unanimously, but a number of lawmakers expressed reservations and said they hoped some of their concerns would be addressed by the Senate.
There were worries, for example, that the bill was vaguely written and confusing and could lead to lawsuits or that it gave the state considerable sway.
Hoffman cast the changes made in the Senate as minor; in his view, they didn't go far enough to address coastal concerns.
Both bills have a coastal policy board. But the Senate version allows for a public member to be removed for cause. Public members remain appointed by the governor.
The Senate's bill also calls for board reports on the program or aspects of it. Hoffman said this was intended to do away with some of the chaos this year as the sunset approached. But Parnell said the review dates would "set up an adversarial life for a board that should be able to work more cooperatively."
The bill also deleted definitions for local knowledge and scientific evidence, defaulting to definitions in existing regulations. Hoffman said the administration would be able to change the definitions but would have to go through a public process to do so.
The bill called for the state is to consider local knowledge or scientific evidence in determining whether an enforceable policy called for by a coastal district uses "the least restrictive means to achieve its objective."
JOIN THE DISCUSSION | Register here
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules. A thorough explanation of rules of conduct can be found in our Terms of Service. If you have any questions, including why your comment may not be showing immediately after you submit it, be sure to visit the commenting FAQ.