Statements On Introduced Bills And Joint Resolutions

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

By Ms. MURKOWSKI:

S. 766. A bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to issue right-of-way permits for natural gas pipeline transportation utility systems in non-wilderness areas within the boundary of Denali National Park and Preserve; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will authorize a right-of-way for Construction of an in-state natural gas pipeline to run along the State's main highway from Fairbanks to Anchorage. This bill would provide a right-of-way for a natural gas pipeline near the shoulder of the Parks Highway for the roughly 7 miles that the highway runs through Denali National Park.

I wish to explain I am introducing the bill now, and why, rather than being an infringement on Alaska's most visited Interior national park, the measure is actually the favored route by many in the environmental community to bring natural gas from the foothills of Alaska's North Slope to Southcentral Alaska.

While many in this body have heard about plans for a large-volume natural gas pipeline to run from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the Lower 48--the project for which many in this body voted to approve a loan guarantee, tax credits and permitting improvements in 2004--there is concern that the big pipeline will not be finished in time to get gas to Southcentral Alaska. That is 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 often generated by burning natural gas that has been produced since the 1960s from the gas fields in Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. But production from Cook Inlet, while the province theoretically holds far more gas, has been falling for years. A major fertilizer plant near Kenai, for example, had to close in 2007 because there was not enough natural gas being produced to allow it to obtain the raw product it needed for urea production.

While there are contract issues involving problems with getting sufficient gas quantities for Railbelt utilities starting as early as next year, there are serious concerns about the ability of the region to produce sufficient gas for electric generation and home heating for Alaska's most populated area as early as 2014.

To provide a new, reliable natural gas supply, one proposal, the so-called ``bullet'' gas pipeline, is to construct a small diameter natural gas line, 24 inches in size, to run from Alaska's North slope region, pass Fairbanks along the Parks Highway, and terminate near Wasilla, Alaska. This pipeline would tie into existing transmission systems and would bring 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. 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 now until 2018 or 2019, perhaps four or more years too late to aid Southcentral Alaska's growing need for natural gas. Further, any delays in solidifying a new gas supply could permanently end chances to reopen the Agrium fertilizer plant and to continue operations of the Kenai LNG export terminal, both key components of local Kenai Peninsula industry.

There are two potentially competing proposals for a small diameter, in-state gas pipeline. I have just described the ``bullet'' line proposal. The second proposal it to run a similarly sized pipeline along the Richardson and Glenn Highways to the east, also tying into existing transmission systems near Palmer, Alaska. There are advantages to both routes, the Parks route delivering gas to communities along the Parks Highway and providing clean natural gas to Denali National Park, while the Richardson/Glenn project would help provide economic activity to differing towns, such as Delta and Glennallen to the east.

It is not my desire to prejudge the outcome of which project or route should be selected, since that decision will be made by Alaska state regulators and financial markets. It is my desire, however, to introduce legislation that would clear the lone legal impediment to planning for the Parks route, that being how to get the gas economically through the mountainous central region of the State past Denali National Park and Preserve.

According to a recent analysis of routing options through this area, there are two feasible routes for a pipeline through or around the roughly 10-mile bottleneck of the Nenana River Canyon and Denali National Park and Preserve. The shortest and most logical route follows the existing highway through this entire area, 7 miles of which passes through Denali National
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. The other feasible pipeline route diverts from the highway to stay outside of the national park boundaries, but in so doing skirts across a steep hillside that dominates a park visitor's view to the east. Furthermore, the route that avoids the park will create a new disturbed corridor in a remote location, and will cause pipeline operations and reliability challenges due to the remoteness and the ruggedness of the route. The route that avoids the park is estimated to cost twice as much as the route along the highway and through the park.

Besides being less expensive to construct and operate, the pipeline along the existing, previously disturbed Parks Highway right-of-way, also permits electric generation for the park facilities at Denali to come from natural gas. And for the first time reasonably priced compressed natural gas, CNG, would be available to power park vehicles--another environmental benefit of the Parks Highway route. Currently National Park Service permitted diesel tour buses travel 1 million road miles annually. Converting the buses to operate on CNG would significantly reduce air emissions in the park. A third benefit is that for the pipe to cross the Nenana River, not far from the park's entrance, will require a new bridge to be built that could carry not just the pipe, but provide a new pedestrian access/bicycle path for visitors that today need to walk along the heavily traveled highway rather than on a separated, pedestrian path toward visitors attractions and hotels located just outside of the park's entrance. In all probability the installation work will be conducted in the shoulder seasons to make sure there are no visitor dislocations for tourists visiting the park.

For those reasons and others, a group of eight environmental groups: 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 have formally endorsed the granting of a gas line right-of-way through Denali Park, along the existing highway right of way.

The granting of a permanent 20-foot easement, and probably a 100-foot construction easement, is not precedent setting. The National Park Service already has granted a permit for an installed fiber-optic cable along the same basic alignment for an Alaska communications company. Obviously the exact right-of-way will have to be delineated to avoid the existing cable and to accommodate park goals, such as routing around a vernal pond viewing area located along the general right-of-way.

I am proposing this bill simply to authorize the right-of-way for a Parks Highway route soon so that the decision on which route is best for the state and its citizens--if the ``bullet'' line option is chosen--can be made based on greater certainty in the cost estimates for a Parks Highway project. Removing the uncertainty of permitting and regulatory delays will at least permit the Parks Highway route to be on a level playing field with the Richardson and Glenn Highway route when a routing decision is made. Then the decision on which project makes the most sense for all Alaskans can be made without fear that right-of-way acquisition delays could inflate project costs.

If the Parks route is chosen and the project proceeds, then the national park will benefit from the environmental benefits of natural gas and compressed natural gas being available for park activities, cutting air quality concerns, and improving pedestrian access. I truly believe there are no environmental issues with this legislation. I think anyone who has ever traveled on the Parks Highway in Alaska near the park would agree, and I hope it can be considered by Congress relatively soon.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source