The Alaska Legislature’s top lawyer, Doug Gardner, used the City and Borough of Juneau’s Snettisham Hydroelectric Project to describe the constitutional question facing the state’s leaders.
Senators worried Gov. Sean Parnell will retaliate against them for failing to pass the oil tax cut he badly wants have tried to bind $450 million in energy projects together with contingency language. That would stop Parnell from vetoing a single one of those projects with out eliminating all of them.
Parnell’s attorney general told the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday the Senate’s linking the projects together was an attempt to get around the governor’s constitutional authority to veto individual items.
“The Senate clearly intended to constrain the power of the executive branch,” he said.
Gardner, though, said the Legislature did have that authority in some circumstances, and used the Snettisham example.
“Imagine the Snettisham Hydroelectric Project,” said Gardner, the director of the Legislative Affairs Agency’s Division of Legal and Research Services.
Suppose the Legislature wanted to fund the Snettisham power plant, transmission lines, undersea cable and distribution system.
Under that hypothetical, he said, the Legislature wouldn’t want to fund any of that unless it was all funded because it couldn’t be used unless it was all built.
“It would be hard to conceive of a situation where the Legislature would want to approve the dam and substation, without the undersea cable,” Gardner said.
During the administration of former Gov. Tony Knowles, the governor and Legislature wound up having a similar debate, he said.
The Alaska Supreme Court upheld the use of contingency provisions in appropriation bills, he said.
“The Supreme Court suggested contingency would be appropriate if the projects were closely related,” Gardner said.
He did not say he was absolutely certain the current language would be upheld, however. It is difficult for lawyers to solve a political conundrum, he said.
“I recognize there is an alternative view,” he said.
That came from Burns, who said that to him it was clear the Legislature couldn’t limit the governor’s veto power.
It’s clear that’s what the language put in by the Senate does, he said, and that’s not appropriate.
“Politics must always yield to the constitutional provisions and principles that govern the administration of our state,” Burns said.
House leaders who will craft its version of the operating budget were allied with the governor on oil taxes and in the debate over contingency language. After this week’s approval by the Senate of the capital budget, the House will now draft its version.
House Finance Committee Co-chairman Bill Stoltze, R-Chugiak, said he expects that budget to be released this afternoon.
• Contact reporter Pat Forgey at 586-4816 or at patrick.forgey@juneauempire.com.





Comments (5)
Add commentHear that folks the House
Hear that folks the House leaders support Sean Parnells tax breaks to the oil companies that has made billions in profits while we are all paying over $4 bucks per gallon at the pump
Oil Companies do NOT need tax breaks, this is absurd!
utimately its all of us that holds the real power here and so lets all use it come election day. Take note NOW just who in the legislature votes in favor of giving this billion dollar tax break to the oil industry and vote these jokers out of office.
Sean Parnell needs to go!
Parnell is a stooge
Parnell is an oil company stooge.
closly related
Using the prior court decision of things needing to be closely related makes a lot of practical sense as the author indicates. You can not use part of a complete project. However the Senate now is proposing the budget as the end product which contains individual unrelated projects. Therein lies the difference.
Oil and capitalism
In capitalist countries a rise in price is used by corporations to cover expenses such as taxes, or the price they have to pay for their raw materials. I wonder if the oil companies which extract Alaska oil have ever considered raising prices instead of lowering the amount they pay us for the oil we have in the ground? Think that might work for them? Oh - they're already doing that? Maybe if Alaskans paid less for gas at the pump than anywhere else in the country, we might consider giving the oil companies a break! As it is, it looks like we are giving the oil companies all the breaks they need and more.
Good point Hailey..
Alaskans should take note of those lawmakers that support Parnell's HUGE giveaway to the oil industry, and vote against each and every one of them.