Legislature(1995 - 1996)
1995-05-13 Senate Journal
Full Journal pdf1995-05-13 Senate Journal Page 1815 HB 207 CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 207(FIN) am "An Act relating to adjustments to royalty reserved to the state to encourage otherwise uneconomic production of oil and gas; and providing for an effective date" was read the second time. Senator Halford moved and asked unanimous consent for the adoption of the Finance Senate Committee Substitute offered on page 1741. Senator Duncan objected, then withdrew his objection. There being no further objections, SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 207(FIN) was adopted and read the second time. Senator Salo offered Amendment No. 1 : 1995-05-13 Senate Journal Page 1816 HB 207 Page 2, lines 8 and 9: Delete "after the effective date of this Act and not later than July1, 2000," Senator Salo moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 1. Senator Sharp objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 207(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 8 NAYS: 12 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Hoffman, Lincoln, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Green, Halford, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, R.Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson and so, Amendment No. 1 failed. Amendment No. 2 was not offered. Senator Rieger offered Amendment No. 3 : Page 2, line 9: Delete "2000" Insert "2015, so long as the authority to modify royalty under this subparagraph has been authorized or reauthorized by law within the five years preceding the commissioner's action to modify the royalty," Senator Rieger moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 3. Senator Duncan objected. Senators Lincoln, Pearce, Rieger moved and asked unanimous consent that they be allowed to abstain from voting due to a conflict of interest. Objections were heard. 1995-05-13 Senate Journal Page 1817 HB 207 Senator Duncan offered the following amendment to Amendment No. 3: Line 3, after 2015: Delete all remaining language. Senator Duncan moved for the adoption of the amendment to Amendment No. 3. Senator Halford objected. The question being: "Shall the amendment to Amendment No. 3 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 207(FIN) Second Reading Amendment to Amendment No. 3 YEAS: 8 NAYS: 12 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Hoffman, Lincoln, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Green, Halford, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, R.Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson and so, the amendment to Amendment No. 3 was not adopted. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 3 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 207(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 3 YEAS: 12 NAYS: 8 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Frank, Green, Halford, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, R.Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson Nays: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Hoffman, Lincoln, Salo, Zharoff and so, Amendment No. 3 was adopted. 1995-05-13 Senate Journal Page 1818 HB 207 Senator Taylor offered Amendment No. 4 : Page 7, lines 3 and 4: Delete ", as to the lessee or lessees applying for the royalty modification," Senator Taylor moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 4. Senator Ellis objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 4 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 207(FIN) am S Second Reading Amendment No. 4 YEAS: 10 NAYS: 10 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Duncan, Kelly, Lincoln, Miller, Salo, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson, Zharoff Nays: Donley, Ellis, Frank, Green, Halford, Hoffman, Leman, Pearce, R.Phillips, Rieger Green changed from "Yea" to "Nay". Hoffman changed from "Yea" to "Nay". and so, Amendment No. 4 failed. Senators Leman, Rieger offered Amendment No. 5 : Page 3, lines 13 and 14: Delete "negative risks" Insert "potential revenue losses" Senator Leman moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 5. Without objection, Amendment No. 5 was adopted. Senator Leman, Lincoln offered Amendment No. 6 : 1995-05-13 Senate Journal Page 1819 HB 207 Page 2, line 4: After "royalty" Insert ", to allow for production that would not otherwise be economically feasible," Page 2, lines 16 - 17: After "increase" Delete [such that ... feasible] Page 2, line 18 - 19: After "gas" Delete [that would ... feasible] Senator Lincoln moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 6. Without objection, Amendment No. 6 was adopted. Senator Lincoln offered Amendment No. 7 : Page 4, line 16, after "data": Delete "shall" Insert "may" Senator Lincoln moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 7. Objections were heard. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 7 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 207(FIN) am S Second Reading Amendment No. 7 YEAS: 6 NAYS: 14 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Duncan, Hoffman, Lincoln, Salo, Zharoff Nays: Donley, Ellis, Frank, Green, Halford, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, R.Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson and so, Amendment No. 7 failed. 1995-05-13 Senate Journal Page 1820 HB 207 Senator Leman offered Amendment No. 8 : Page 8, line 11: Delete "communication" Insert "communization" Senator Leman moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 8. Senator Duncan objected, then withdrew his objection. There being no further objections, Amendment No. 8 was adopted. Senator Phillips offered Amendment No. 9 : Page 4, following line 1: Insert a new subparagraph to read: "(C) under this subsection unless the commissioner and the lessee or lessees applying for the royalty modification agree that the modification may take effect only if approved by the legislature under (12)(C) of this subsection and the commissioner first submits the modification under that provision;" Page 7, following line 4: Insert a new subparagraph to read: "(C) submit a final findings and determination approved by the governor under (B) of this paragraph to the legislature; the commissioner may not modify the royalty as set out in the final findings and determination without the prior approval of the legislature; the legislature may approve a royalty modification only by enacting legislation;" Reletter the following subparagraphs accordingly. Page 7, line 6: Delete "prepared under (B)" Insert "issued under (C)" Senator Phillips moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 9. Senator Kelly objected. 1995-05-13 Senate Journal Page 1821 HB 207 The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 9 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 207(FIN) am S Second Reading Amendment No. 9 YEAS: 4 NAYS: 16 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Frank, Halford, Miller, R.Phillips Nays: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Green, Hoffman, Kelly, Leman, Lincoln, Pearce, Rieger, Salo, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson, Zharoff and so, Amendment No. 9 failed. Senator Salo offered Amendment No. 10 : Page 4, lines 16 - 22: Delete "the confidential data shall be disclosed by the commissioner to legislators who sign an appropriate confidentiality agreement, to the legislative auditor, the director of the division of legislative finance, and the permanent employees of their respective divisions, and to agents or contractors of the legislative auditor or the legislative finance division director who are engaged under contract to evaluate the royalty modification;" Page 5, line 10, through line 19: Delete "concurrently with the issuance of the public notice, unless directed by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee to do otherwise, make available copies of the commissioner's preliminary findings and determination on the royalty modification application and the supporting financial and technical data, including the work papers, analyses, and recommendations of any contractors retained under (7) of this subsection, to persons authorized under (6)(B) of this subsection to review the data; and (iii)" 1995-05-13 Senate Journal Page 1822 HB 207 Page 6, lines 2 - 10: Delete all material and insert: "(10) shall offer to appear before the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee to provide the committee a review of the commissioner's preliminary findings and determination on the royalty modification application; if the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee accepts the commissioner's offer, the committee shall give notice of the committee's meeting to all members of the legislature;" Senator Salo moved for the adoption of Amendment No. 10. Senator Sharp objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 10 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 207(FIN) am S Second Reading Amendment No. 10 YEAS: 9 NAYS: 11 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Hoffman, Lincoln, Salo, Taylor, Zharoff Nays: Frank, Green, Halford, Kelly, Leman, Miller, Pearce, R.Phillips, Rieger, Sharp, Torgerson and so, Amendment No. 10 failed. Senator Taylor moved and asked unanimous consent that the Senate rescind its previous action in failing to adopt Amendment No. 4. Senator Duncan objected, then withdrew his objection. Senator Ellis objected. The question being: "Shall the Senate rescind its previous action in failing to adopt Amendment No. 4?" The roll was taken with the following result: 1995-05-13 Senate Journal Page 1823 HB 207 SCS CSHB 207(FIN) am S Second Reading Rescind previous action in failing to adopt Amendment No. 4 YEAS: 14 NAYS: 6 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Duncan, Green, Halford, Hoffman, Kelly, Lincoln, Miller, Rieger, Salo, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson, Zharoff Nays: Donley, Ellis, Frank, Leman, Pearce, R.Phillips and so, the Senate rescinded its previous action. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 4 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 207(FIN) am S Second Reading Amendment No. 4 YEAS: 11 NAYS: 9 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Duncan, Hoffman, Kelly, Lincoln, Miller, Salo, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson, Zharoff Nays: Donley, Ellis, Frank, Green, Halford, Leman, Pearce, R.Phillips, Rieger and so, Amendment No. 4 was adopted. Senator Halford moved and asked unanimous consent that the bill be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading and placed on final passage. Without objection, it was so ordered. SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 207(FIN) am S was read the third time. Senator Leman offered the following Letter of Intent: 1995-05-13 Senate Journal Page 1824 HB 207 Letter of Intent for SENATE CS for CS for HOUSE BILL NO. 207(FIN) am S It is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Natural Resources evaluate in the findings and determination required for a royalty modification under AS 38.05.180(j), the following: a) the likelihood that the proposed royalty modification will result in incremental capital investment or other expenditures within the state, and the steps taken in conditioning the royalty modification to assure that anticipated investments or other expenditures within the state occur; b) the reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed royalty modification on the employment of Alaskans and the use of in-state contractors and suppliers; and c) the reasonably foreseeable effects of the proposed royalty modification upon existing and potential new oil and gas exploration and development. The Governor's decision to approve a modification under AS 38.05.180(j) shall not be based on a consideration of these factors. However, the evaluation of these factors is to be made available to the public and to the Legislature. Senator Leman moved for the adoption of the Letter of Intent. Senator Salo objected. The question being: "Shall the Letter of Intent be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 207(FIN) am S Third Reading - Final Passage Adopt Letter of Intent? YEAS: 7 NAYS: 13 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Green, Halford, Leman, Miller, Pearce, R.Phillips, Rieger Nays: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Ellis, Frank, Hoffman, Kelly, Lincoln, Salo, Sharp, Taylor, Torgerson, Zharoff 1995-05-13 Senate Journal Page 1825 HB 207 and so, the Letter of Intent failed. The question being: "Shall SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 207(FIN) am S "An Act relating to adjustments to royalty reserved to the state to encourage otherwise uneconomic production of oil and gas; and providing for an effective date" pass the Senate?" The roll was taken with the following result: SCS CSHB 207(FIN) am S Third Reading - Final Passage Effective Date YEAS: 15 NAYS: 5 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Adams, Donley, Duncan, Green, Hoffman, Kelly, Leman, Lincoln, Miller, Pearce, Rieger, Salo, Taylor, Torgerson, Zharoff Nays: Ellis, Frank, Halford, R.Phillips, Sharp Halford changed from "Yea" to "Nay". and so, SENATE CS FOR CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 207(FIN) am S passed the Senate. Senator Halford moved and asked unanimous consent that the vote on the passage of the bill be considered the vote on the effective date clause. Without objection, it was so ordered. Senator Frank gave notice of reconsideration.