“Jason, don’t you have any good news?”

This was my comment to RDC Executive Director Jason Brune in early May after a series of breaking developments which were less than encouraging for Alaska’s natural resource-dependant future.

It can get downright discouraging hearing the latest developments such as Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings; projects being litigated in mining, oil and gas and timber development; cruise ships reducing sailings to Alaska; the lack of long term fiscal planning in our state government and other policy initiatives that could spell doom to Alaska’s economic future. So I was recently encouraged with some good news from Washington regarding the polar bear 4(d) rule. Maybe the glass is half full.

The May 8 decision by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to retain a special 4(d) rule for the protection of the polar bear was a surprise and indeed good news. Section 4(d) of the ESA provides a process for the Department of Interior to tailor regulatory prohibitions for
threatened species as deemed necessary and advisable to provide conservation of the species.

In this case, the December 2008 rule under the leadership of then Secretary Dirk Kempthorne put in place some important side boards relative to the threatened status of the polar bear. Developed through a lengthy public process, the rule recognizes the existing protections under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and avoids the misuse of the ESA as a blunt instrument to tackle the broader issue of global warming and emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. Without the 4(d) rule, a new manufacturing plant in Ohio seeking a federal permit might be required to demonstrate how its carbon dioxide emission affects polar sea ice which in term may affect the future health of polar bear populations in Alaska.

Congressional mischief in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill gave Salazar the authority to revoke the 4(d) rule and ignore over six months of public process and rule making. To Salazar’s credit he left the rule alone. Salazar’s decision to uphold the December rule demonstrates that in spite of what must be incredible political pressure and expectations from those who use the ESA in every way imaginable to frustrate domestic energy production, cooler heads within the new administration prevailed.

Our Alaska congressional delegation did an outstanding job letting Secretary Salazar know how they stand on this issue. In his letter to the Secretary dated May 1, our freshman Senator Mark Begich wrote “While I am a strong supporter of aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I do not believe the ESA should be used as a back-door regulatory tool to achieve this goal.”

Senator Lisa Murkowski, pressed for answers on the 4(d) rule and other energy related issues from the Secretary, and exerted considerable leverage in putting a procedural hold on the nomination of the second in command at Interior, Deputy Secretary David Hayes.
Congressman Don Young has consistently opposed efforts to broaden the role and scope of the ESA.

By upholding the Bush administration’s 4(d) rule for polar bears, the new administration has demonstrated that it can make pragmatic and reasoned decisions on resource issues affecting Alaska. However the broader issues related to how climate change legislation might
impact our nation’s ability to increase or at least maintain domestic production of oil and gas haven’t gone away and Congress is currently drafting energy and climate legislation. The Interior Department’s recent cancelation of 77 oil and gas leases in Utah, the Department’s
six month delay on OCS leasing plans, and an unfavorable reversal of another ESA rule regarding agency consultation, suggest that future decisions by this administration may run counter to Alaska’s efforts to expand our contribution to oil and gas supplies.

The 4(d) decision demonstrates Secretary Salazar’s ability to listen. I hope the resounding participation by RDC members at the OCS hearing the Secretary held in Alaska in April helps him come to an equally-favorable decision with respect to exploration and development of Alaska’s offshore oil and gas resources. After all, onshore and offshore exploration is an essential element for a viable Alaska gas line to serve domestic energy needs, a stated priority for this administration. With a continued strong voice and participation in the public process, RDC, our elected leaders and other like-minded Alaskans can help keep the glass at least half full.

Return to newsletter headlines