[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 55 (Wednesday, April 1, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4177-S4179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      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

[[Page S4178]]

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, as follows:

                                                  30 January 2009.
     Re Denali National Park & Preserve Title XI process.
     M. Colleen Starring,
     President, ENSTAR Natural Gas Company, Anchorage AK.

       Dear Ms. Starring, thank you and your staff for reaching 
     out to the Alaska conservation community early on in your 
     process to obtain permits to build a bullet gas pipeline from 
     either the Foothills or Prudhoe Bay into the existing 
     Southcentral gas pipeline system. In your presentation to us, 
     your identified immediate concern was location of the right-
     of-way either through or around the Nenana Canyon and Denali 
     National Park & Preserve. We appreciate the two briefings you 
     have provided to the community on the options at Denali.
       Based on the information you have provided to us at these 
     two briefings, the apparent logical environmentally 
     preferable choice for the gas pipeline through Denali 
     National Park & Preserve is the six miles along the Parks 
     Highway. This would seem to make the most sense from both an 
     engineering and an environmental perspective as going around 
     the park would necessitate construction in currently 
     undeveloped lands. While the signers of this letter agree 
     that bringing the gas pipeline along the Parks Highway 
     through Denali seems to be the environmentally preferable 
     alternative, we reserve final judgment until completion of 
     the environmental review.
       As mitigation for the pipeline through the park, we were 
     pleased to hear you discuss the opportunity for a pathway 
     constructed atop the pipeline ROW and a new pedestrian bridge 
     across the Nenana River at McKinley Village. We feel this 
     expansion of the existing front-country trail system would be 
     a benefit to park visitors and would link the many visitors 
     at McKinley village into the park entrance area by trail. We 
     strongly encourage continuation of this part of the plan. In 
     addition, we encourage you to work with the Park Service to 
     see if they would benefit from a lateral line into the park 
     to support both the energy needs of the park headquarters 
     complex and also possible use of natural gas for park buses.
       Assuming the preferred gas pipeline right-of-way is along 
     the Parks Highway, there will need to be a Title XI review 
     for the six miles through Denali, which we anticipate will be 
     included in your environmental review. Currently the National 
     Park Service is not authorized to issue a right-of-way permit 
     for gas pipelines anywhere in the country, which means final 
     approval of the Title XI permit would need to go to the 
     President and then to Congress. While our preference would be 
     to complete the environmental review and, assuming the Parks 
     Highway route is the best, follow the existing Title XI 
     process, we understand that Enstar is developing legislation 
     to give the National Park Service authority to issue a right-
     of-way permit for the six miles within Denali IF the 
     environmental review shows it to be the environmentally 
     preferable route.
       This would not negate the need for a Title XI review, but 
     it would allow the Park Service to make the decision without 
     any additional review by the administration or Congress. We 
     need to withhold any position on this proposed legislation 
     until we see specific language, In keeping with your pattern 
     of outreach early in the process, we would very much like to 
     be a part of crafting this legislation to ensure that it is 
     specific to this project only and it only provides authority 
     to the Park Service to issue the right-of-way should the 
     environmental review show it is the environmentally 
     preferable alternative.
       Furthermore, this letter should not be construed as 
     anything more than an understanding of how to get through the 
     six miles inside the boundaries of Denali National Park & 
     Preserve. There are many unanswered questions about the 
     routing and construction of the pipeline beyond these six 
     miles that remain of interest and concern to many 
     conservation groups in Alaska. We strongly urge you to expand 
     your right-of-way and source of gas discussions with many of 
     these same groups to cover the entire project.
       Signed:
     Jim Stratton,
       Alaska Regional Director, National Parks Conservation 
     Association.
     Kate Troll,
       Executive Director, Alaska Conservation Alliance.
     Nancy Bale,
       President, Denali Citizens Council.
     Eleanor Huffines,
       Alaska Regional Director The Wilderness Society.
     Toby Smith,
       Executive Director, Alaska Center for the Environment.
     Jeremy Pataky,
       Executive Director, Wrangell Mountains Center.
     Bob Shavelson,
       Executive Director Cook Inlet Keeper.
     John Toppenberg,
       Director, Alaska Wildlife Alliance.

[[Page S4179]]

                                 ______