Lawmakers hear HB220 to speed easements for utilities in state parks; utilities urge swift action

Representative Kevin McCabe introduced House Bill 220 on Thursday, a first hearing that would clarify and tighten timelines for granting easements and rights-of-way in Alaska state parks when statutory criteria are met.

McCabe said utilities and property owners increasingly encounter inconsistent standards and long delays when seeking easements across park land. "The remedy is for a legislative fix," he said, recounting an example at Nancy Lake where an underwater power line serving adjacent properties is at the end of its useful life and DNR has denied or delayed replacement under a newer lake management plan.

The bill would require the Department of Natural Resources to grant park easements when statutory criteria are satisfied, allow GPS-based surveys, require environmental review proportional to project scope, establish a 60-day decision deadline and provide automatic approval if the department takes no action. McCabe said the changes are intended to preserve environmental protections while adding predictability for applicants.

Supporters testified that permitting delays add cost, risk and uncertainty. Julie Estes, chief strategy officer for Matanuska Electric Association, told the committee that delays have escalated costs, impacted reliability and could create safety issues, citing underwater cables and aging infrastructure that can be 50–60 years old. Rob Montgomery and Scott Huff of Homer Electric Association described an existing distribution line running inside Kachemak Bay State Park and said making easements recordable and time-limited would improve planning and construction in a short Arctic construction season.

Jason Custer of Alaska Power and Telephone said clearer permitting pathways are important ahead of about $629,000,000 in broadband projects the Alaska Broadband Grant Program is preparing to award; Christine O'Connor of the Alaska Telecom Association said the bill is timely to avoid delays that could push projects outside the federal funding window.

Members pressed the sponsor on scope, definitions and safeguards: how many parks and how many easement requests would be affected was not specified during the hearing; members asked for data on historical permit counts and average review times. Representative McCabe said DNR had reviewed the bill and that staff would seek additional information for the committee. No formal action was taken on HB220 during the hearing.