Legislature(2009 - 2010)BUTROVICH 205
02/08/2010 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB195 | |
| SB208 | |
| SB228 | |
| SB203 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 208 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 203 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 228 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 203-COOK INLET GAS STORAGE FACILITIES
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI announced SB 203 to be up for
consideration.
5:06:59 PM
SENATOR FRENCH, sponsor of SB 203, said it is targeted at
solving a specific problem in Cook Inlet by creating an
emergency store house of natural gas for times of shortage
during peak demand winter months when the current gas
deliverability doesn't keep up with demand. Should there be a
valve or compressor problem, brown outs might be seen in
Anchorage and across the Anchorage Bowl.
About a week ago the Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) took
up the question of whether such a facility would be regulated by
itself, Senator French said. It was brought by a company known
as Sing's Cook Inlet Natural Gas storage, a subsidiary of
TransCanada. Sing's asked for a declaratory judgment that they
not be regulated by the RCA, who came back saying that their
statutes did not provide explicit authority to regulate natural
gas nor did they definitively set natural gas storage outside of
their jurisdiction. They were puzzled and said either the
Supreme Court would have to decide or the Legislature would have
to act. So, this bill has a provision that says, yes, those
facilities will be covered by the RCA just like practically
every other well or production facility is in the Southcentral
Basin.
He pointed out that on page 8 of the Order the commissioners
wrote that all interested persons agreed that storage in the
Cook Inlet area is a serious or even critical need even though
they didn't agree, 50/50, on the RCA's jurisdiction. They also
agreed that the time available to meet that need through
construction of a storage facility is short. The bill
essentially works with a tax credit much as the one they just
looked at, but at 20 percent against capital expenditures which
is smaller.
SENATOR FRENCH said he thought it was important to do something
although there wasn't any point in extending a 20-percent tax
credit to a company that is ready to push on through to the goal
line, but he is concerned that ideas like this get half way down
the field and then suddenly the industry loses interest and
wanders off.
5:10:39 PM
SENATOR WAGONER commented why give someone a tax credit when
they are already going forward with their project and they
haven't asked for one, yet. He wanted to know how the 20 percent
tax credit was different from the 20 mil levy on industrial
capital improvements and how that would affect the city and
borough's ability to get revenue.
5:12:35 PM
JIM GREELEY, State Petroleum Property Assessor, Department of
Revenue (DOR), explained that the bill has two incentive
provisions, one for corporate income tax and one for property
tax. The property tax incentive exempts state property tax by
defining gas storage property as not taxable. Therefore, he
suspects the local jurisdiction, in the case of the Kenai
Peninsula Borough, would still be able to tax locally up to the
1.4 percent; and the difference between the 1.4 percent and the
2 percent state levy would be the incentive.
5:13:17 PM
JOHANNA BALES, Deputy Director, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue (DOR), explained that the provision exempts the gas
storage facility from the oil and gas property tax, but the tax
credit itself in this bill is against the corporate income tax.
There is no effect on the state's property tax and no effect on
the borough's tax either.
SENATOR WAGONER asked to have that clarified in writing.
5:14:12 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said just in general, creating an incentive when
it's not clear that one is needed in all cases needs to be
looked at.
5:15:34 PM
BRADLEY EVANS, CEO, Chugach Electric Association, said the
association is heavily dependent on Cook Inlet natural gas to
fuel its thermal power plants; about 90 percent of the kilowatt
hours are produced from gas. They have approximately the same
usage level as Enstar. Through their own analysis and contract
negotiations they have concluded that storage is needed in Cook
Inlet for security of deliverability and reservoir enhancement -
where gas could be "parked" in the low usage months of the
summer to keep the wells at or above their minimum producing
level. He said they had been working with Enstar, Municipal
Light and Power, and Sing's for the gas storage facility and
they intend on executing a contract for that.
MR. EVANS said however, they need to get timely approval of
storage contracts. Delays in the regulatory process can
discourage people from doing business. He explained that as a
utility they need to ensure that they will be able to recover
their costs; that also needs to be addressed in the regulatory
environment. And if they do contract for volume of storage, they
need certainty that it will be there for the long-term.
He said the timeline for Sing's project is critical because they
may have winter deliverability problems as soon as 2012. They
are on record with the RCA saying that they think the gas
storage facility should be regulated under AS 42.05. Chugach
Electric doesn't like the disruption of the regulatory process,
but they like the protection that it provides.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI asked if he thought this incentive package
was needed or will they go ahead without it.
MR. EVANS replied that putting this facility into service is
relatively expensive, and maybe the subsidy should flow through
to the consumer rather than into the corporate end of the
arrangement. "It doesn't seem to make sense at this point." He
also said he would like to revisit that if it becomes apparent
that an incentive is the only way it will happen.
5:19:55 PM
SENATOR WAGONER said when he talked about Enstar being the
customer he meant for residential uses, but he also said "and
other industrial users." He asked if it was true that three
different places are being looked at for storage in Cook Inlet -
one of them being Cannery Loop.
MR. EVANS said he didn't know for sure, but very probably. The
problem is with the size of the facility and the risk of going
it alone. He has joined forces with Enstar and Municipal Light
and Power to share the risks, but they are all on a parallel
track to evaluate other places because it is a prudent thing to
do.
SENATOR WAGONER asked if one was Cannery Loop.
MR. EVAN answered no.
SENATOR WAGONER asked which storage facility he was talking
about.
MR. EVANS said he was bound by confidentiality agreements from
discussing that.
CO-CHAIR WIELECHOWSKI noted there were a lot of raised eyebrows
in the room. Finding no further comments, he closed public
testimony and adjourned at 5:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 203 Bill Packet - Part 1.pdf |
SRES 2/8/2010 3:30:00 PM |
SB 203 |
| SB 203 Bill Packet - Part 2.pdf |
SRES 2/8/2010 3:30:00 PM |
SB 203 |
| SB 228 Bill Packet - Part 1.pdf |
SRES 2/8/2010 3:30:00 PM |
SB 228 |
| SB 228 Bill Packet - Part 2.pdf |
SRES 2/8/2010 3:30:00 PM |
SB 228 |
| SB 195 - Bill Packet - Part 1.pdf |
SRES 2/8/2010 3:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |
| SB 195 - Bill Packet - Part 2.pdf |
SRES 2/8/2010 3:30:00 PM |
SB 195 |