19.0936.04000 FISCAL NOTE Requested by Legislative Council 04/05/2019 Amendment to: SB 2261 1 A. State fiscal effect: Identify the state fiscal effect and the fiscal effect on agency appropriations compared to funding levels and appropriations anticipated under current law. 2017-2019 Biennium 2019-2021 Biennium 2021-2023 Biennium General Fund Other Funds General Fund Other Funds General Fund Other Funds Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Appropriations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 B. County, city, school district and township fiscal effect: Identify the fiscal effect on the appropriate political subdivision. 2017-2019 Biennium 2019-2021 Biennium 2021-2023 Biennium Counties $0 $0 $0 Cities $0 $0 $0 School Districts $0 $0 $0 Townships $0 $0 $0 2 A. Bill and fiscal impact summary: Provide a brief summary of the measure, including description of the provisions having fiscal impact (limited to 300 characters). Engrossed SB 2261 amends 49-22-08 to prohibit the commission from conditioning a permit or certificate on the applicant making a mitigation payment assessed or requested by another agency to offset a negative impact on wildlife habitat. B. Fiscal impact sections: Identify and provide a brief description of the sections of the measure which have fiscal impact. Include any assumptions and comments relevant to the analysis. SB 2261 should not have a fiscal impact on the PSC or any other state agency. 3. State fiscal effect detail: For information shown under state fiscal effect in 1A, please: A. Revenues: Explain the revenue amounts. Provide detail, when appropriate, for each revenue type and fund affected and any amounts included in the executive budget. There are no anticipated impacts on revenues. B. Expenditures: Explain the expenditure amounts. Provide detail, when appropriate, for each agency, line item, and fund affected and the number of FTE positions affected. See response to 2B. C. Appropriations: Explain the appropriation amounts. Provide detail, when appropriate, for each agency and fund affected. Explain the relationship between the amounts shown for expenditures and appropriations. Indicate whether the appropriation or a part of the appropriation is included in the executive budget or relates to a continuing appropriation. There are no anticipated impacts on appropriations. Name: Illona Jeffcoat-Sacco Agency: Public Service Commission Telephone: 7013282407 Date Prepared: 04/05/2019 19.0936.03000 FISCAL NOTE Requested by Legislative Council 02/14/2019 Amendment to: SB 2261 1 A. State fiscal effect: Identify the state fiscal effect and the fiscal effect on agency appropriations compared to funding levels and appropriations anticipated under current law. 2017-2019 Biennium 2019-2021 Biennium 2021-2023 Biennium General Fund Other Funds General Fund Other Funds General Fund Other Funds Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Appropriations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 B. County, city, school district and township fiscal effect: Identify the fiscal effect on the appropriate political subdivision. 2017-2019 Biennium 2019-2021 Biennium 2021-2023 Biennium Counties $0 $0 $0 Cities $0 $0 $0 School Districts $0 $0 $0 Townships $0 $0 $0 2 A. Bill and fiscal impact summary: Provide a brief summary of the measure, including description of the provisions having fiscal impact (limited to 300 characters). SB 2261 creates and enacts a new section to 49-22 and 49-22.1 relating to payments for mitigating adverse direct and indirect environmental or wildlife impacts of a proposed site, corridor, route, or facility. B. Fiscal impact sections: Identify and provide a brief description of the sections of the measure which have fiscal impact. Include any assumptions and comments relevant to the analysis. SB 2261 should not have a fiscal impact on the PSC. 3. State fiscal effect detail: For information shown under state fiscal effect in 1A, please: A. Revenues: Explain the revenue amounts. Provide detail, when appropriate, for each revenue type and fund affected and any amounts included in the executive budget. There are no anticipated impacts on revenues. B. Expenditures: Explain the expenditure amounts. Provide detail, when appropriate, for each agency, line item, and fund affected and the number of FTE positions affected. See response to 2B. C. Appropriations: Explain the appropriation amounts. Provide detail, when appropriate, for each agency and fund affected. Explain the relationship between the amounts shown for expenditures and appropriations. Indicate whether the appropriation or a part of the appropriation is included in the executive budget or relates to a continuing appropriation. There are no anticipated impacts on appropriations. Name: John Schuh Agency: Public Service Commission Telephone: 7013282421 Date Prepared: 01/15/2019 19.0936.02000 FISCAL NOTE Requested by Legislative Council 01/14/2019 Bill/Resolution No.: SB 2261 1 A. State fiscal effect: Identify the state fiscal effect and the fiscal effect on agency appropriations compared to funding levels and appropriations anticipated under current law. 2017-2019 Biennium 2019-2021 Biennium 2021-2023 Biennium General Fund Other Funds General Fund Other Funds General Fund Other Funds Revenues $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Expenditures $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Appropriations $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 1 B. County, city, school district and township fiscal effect: Identify the fiscal effect on the appropriate political subdivision. 2017-2019 Biennium 2019-2021 Biennium 2021-2023 Biennium Counties $0 $0 $0 Cities $0 $0 $0 School Districts $0 $0 $0 Townships $0 $0 $0 2 A. Bill and fiscal impact summary: Provide a brief summary of the measure, including description of the provisions having fiscal impact (limited to 300 characters). SB 2261 creates and enacts a new section to 49-22 and 49-22.1 relating to payments for mitigating adverse direct and indirect environmental impacts. B. Fiscal impact sections: Identify and provide a brief description of the sections of the measure which have fiscal impact. Include any assumptions and comments relevant to the analysis. SB 2261 should not have a fiscal impact on the PSC. There may be an impact on the North Dakota Outdoor Heritage Fund, governed by the Industrial Commission, to the extent that a payment is made by an applicant for any assessed adverse direct environmental or wildlife impact deposited in the Outdoor Heritage Fund. 3. State fiscal effect detail: For information shown under state fiscal effect in 1A, please: A. Revenues: Explain the revenue amounts. Provide detail, when appropriate, for each revenue type and fund affected and any amounts included in the executive budget. There are no anticipated impacts on revenues. B. Expenditures: Explain the expenditure amounts. Provide detail, when appropriate, for each agency, line item, and fund affected and the number of FTE positions affected. See response to 2B. C. Appropriations: Explain the appropriation amounts. Provide detail, when appropriate, for each agency and fund affected. Explain the relationship between the amounts shown for expenditures and appropriations. Indicate whether the appropriation or a part of the appropriation is included in the executive budget or relates to a continuing appropriation. There are no anticipated impacts on appropriations. Name: John Schuh Agency: Public Service Commission Telephone: 7013282421 Date Prepared: 01/15/2019 2019 SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES SB 2261 2019 SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE MINUTES Energy and Natural Resources Committee Fort Lincoln Room, State Capitol SB 2261 1/24/2019 Job Number 31365 ☐ Subcommittee ☐ Conference Committee Committee Clerk: Marne Johnson Explanation or reason for introduction of bill/resolution: A bill relating to mitigating adverse direct and indirect environmental impacts. Minutes: 6 Attachments Attendance was taken, a quorum was present, the hearing was opened. Chair Unruh, District 33: Introduced the bill. Please see attachment #1. (1:15-7:05) The conversation in the interim revolved around whether we should be requiring these payments in order for the Public Service Commission (PSC) to approve a project. The intent behind my bill was to make sure we were not requiring companies to pay indirect environmental impact mitigation payments. It is not something that has a scientific process behind it. The legislation attempts to disallow indirect payments for environmental impacts and directs the funds to the Outdoor Heritage Fund (OHF), whether or not that is the correct place to put those funds once they are required is something up for debate. This problem arose because I feel like the authority assumed by some of our agencies was overstepped. I do not think the solution to government intrusion is more government. Senator Schaible: These payments are vast amounts of money. Is that right? Chair Unruh: Yes, that third page list a payment of half a million dollars. Senator Schaible: I would agree that indirect mitigation is very tough to do and shouldn’t be allowed, but does your bill do that? Is indirect impact allowed in your bill? Chair Unruh: What I was hoping to do, and I think I have done is allow for PSC to still consider direct and indirect environmental impacts. The language in section 1 says that the Commission may not require payment to assess adverse indirect environmental or wildlife impacts. Just trying to disallow those indirect payments, but still allow a pathway for the direct payments. Senator Piepkorn: Please define or describe indirect environment impacts? Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee SB 2261 1/24/19 Page 2 Chair Unruh: That is what I was talking about in my testimony, they are a very difficult thing to quantify. We have some other folks that will be talking about those. Direct is easy, if you take out a tree, you put a tree back. But indirect outside that corridor can get you into things that are mostly regulated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, whether it’s the endangered Species Act, and the impacts of an activity here affecting some specific species over here.