Industry Stalls Oil Spill Reform Bills in Alaska

Regulatory reforms inspired by last spring’s Exxon Valdez disaster are being frustrated by what supporters attribute to unprecedented oil industry lobbying, and some Alaskan officials say their state may never take the steps necessary to prevent a repeat of that massive oil spill.

Of nine major oil-related reform bills introduced in the state Legislature after the supertanker Exxon Valdez spilled 10.9 million gallons of crude oil into Prince William Sound little more than a year ago, none has been sent to Gov. Steve Cowper for signature.

Supporters of the reforms--including the governor’s legislative leader on the issue, Environmental Conservation Commissioner Dennis Kelso--fear that no bill will emerge from the Legislature before it adjourns Tuesday unless the bill is significantly weakened to suit oil interests.

“It’s a pretty ugly manifestation of the (oil) industry’s continuing grip on the Legislature,” said one state worker, who asked not to be identified.

Leaders of the conservative Republican-run state Senate, where the “spill bills” are still in committee, counter that the legislation is moving slowly because many senators believe it “overreacts” to the Exxon Valdez incident. Oil company pressure is not a factor, they said.

“We feel there are some major constitutional problems with these bills,” said Sen. Jan Faiks, chairwoman of the important Senate Judiciary Committee, where the two key oil spill bills are stuck. “I’m interested in moving technically correct legislation, not just show pieces that look good.”

Oil companies argue that although the Exxon Valdez event was the worst oil spill in U.S. history, wildlife is rebounding and winter storms pounded clean many once-oil-soaked beaches. State officials and environmentalists disagree, saying it is too early to assess long-term impacts on wildlife and commercial fisheries, and oil still clings stubbornly to sediment beneath the surface of even the most heavily storm-battered shoreline.

Spill-inspired legislative fervor that moved the state to sharply increase certain oil taxes last fall has waned under the public-relations campaign to convince Alaskans that the Exxon Valdez spill caused no lasting damage to the state.

“What we have is a serious revisionist approach to the spill’s history,” said Hugh Malone, state revenue commissioner and former Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives. “They tell us that it wasn’t that big a deal--and they tell us day after day after day after day.

“Initially, it didn’t have that much impact,” he added, “but if you say something loud enough and often enough, people will tend to believe it. That’s the theory of the ‘big lie’ technique, and it’s at work here.”

Exxon resumed its cleanup effort in Alaska last Monday after a seven-month winter hiatus. Meanwhile, the U.S. Coast Guard announced that it will install a lighthouse on Bligh Reef, the rocky shallows on which the Exxon Valdez rent its hull.

Despite the unexpectedly difficult slog through the Legislature, the oil spill package, according to its advocates, may still go through Juneau largely intact. Walt Parker, for one, said he was “fairly pleased” by the bills’ progress.

“I think the senators are sincerely looking for a good spill bill package that would make them look good,” said Parker, chairman of the Governor’s Oil Spill Commission, which made the recommendations on which the legislation was based.

Others, such as Malone, are unconvinced.

“The Legislature will pass some bills--mainly increasing the penalty for spilling oil, but doing nothing to prevent a new spill--and it’ll go home,” he said. “People will think the problem was solved--until the next accident happens. And another spill will happen, because the only bills that will pass won’t really do anything to prevent it.”

To protect their interests, oil companies have mounted a major campaign to shape public and legislative opinion--in TV and newspaper advertisements and directly in the cramped Statehouse.

“There are more oil lobbyists in the halls of the Capitol today than I’ve ever seen--or ever heard anyone talk about,” said Tim Robertson, a citizens committee lobbyist from Seldovia.

They also have marshaled other resource-dependent industries--mining and logging--as well as oil products wholesalers and retailers to add their voices against key parts of the oil spill package.

“The testimony has been 10-1 against,” said Faiks, the committee chairwoman. “They say these laws presume you are guilty until proven innocent. . . . It could make it impossible to get fuel to rural areas.”

“Industry has fought this tooth and nail,” said Malone, “and it stirred up a real hornets’ nest among small fuel distributors from every part of the state. It’s important not to forget that the opposition’s representatives are professional, tireless and have virtually unlimited resources.”

Oil spill bills also lag because the 16th Alaska Legislature’s calendar is stuffed with controversial issues as it begins the final days of its two-year session. Legislation unratified as of midnight Tuesday will die and must be reintroduced next year.

Besides oil spills, the Legislature is contending with the state budget, a complex legislative ethics and campaign-reform package and the dilemma of who should enjoy the traditional Alaskan native rights of subsistence hunting and fishing in a time of limited wildlife resources.

However, the oil spill bills are of greatest national interest because the federal government and the California Legislature are dealing with those same questions. Many here say that if anything is to change, the Alaska Legislature must act this year, before fall elections replace the political leadership.

“The election will wash away all political memory of that spill,” Malone said. “If we don’t do something now, it won’t get done.”

The Alaskan bill package would improve spill-cleanup contingency planning, raise the financial liability limit for spillers, encourage better monitoring and control of vessels at sea, increase the penalty for spills and close some loopholes for small spills.

One bill would require people responsible for an oil spill to call police, remain at the scene and refrain from drinking alcoholic beverages for 12 hours. By drinking after his accident, the Exxon Valdez captain made it more difficult to determine if he was intoxicated at the time his ship ran aground.

The keystone bill would make it easier for the Department of Environmental Conservation to enforce existing state regulations. It would allow the agency to conduct surprise inspections of specifically defined private oil facilities and issue administrative orders and impose civil fines of up to $15,000 a day to stop illegal practices.

Now, strict privacy laws require the department to prearrange inspections, a requirement that Kelso said lets oil companies conceal illegal or hazardous practices from regulators. Even when found, such practices now continue until the department obtains a court order to stop them, he said.

Senate critics have characterized the legislation as the “Gestapo bill,” but Kelso responds that it would give Alaska officials only inspection authority already in place in 37 other states and penalty authority permitted in 22 states.

“It’s understandable for them to accompany us on inspections and read our notes and reports,” Kelso said. “But it’s not acceptable for them to decide when and where we will inspect.”

Faiks counters that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and various states may have authority similar to what Alaskan regulators are seeking, “but they have that authority with some stipulations (to protect privacy and property rights).”

Faiks said the Senate wants to protect those rights, not weaken the bills. She said Senate amendments to one bill would quintuple the fine for felonious oil spills and double the fine for the most serious misdemeanor spills.

However, Kelso noted that the same amendment cut by 75% the fine for Class B misdemeanors, the overwhelmingly most common class of charges filed against spillers.

Illustrating the controversy attending oil spill legislation in Alaska, 26 individual amendments were proposed for this bill on just one day last month. Three finally were adopted before the 40-member lower house approved the bill by a single vote and sent it to the Senate late last month.

Tim Kelly, president of the 20-member Senate, has assured that this spill bill, at least, will reach the Senate floor in time for a vote before Tuesday’s deadline.

That is only small comfort to Barnaby Dow, aide to the bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Mike Davis (D-Fairbanks). As Dow observed: “But he also said we may not recognize it when it finally gets there.”