Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/01/2010 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB369 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 369 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 2010
1:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 369
"An Act relating to an in-state natural gas pipeline, the office
of in-state gasline project manager, the Joint In-State Gasline
Development Team, and the In-State Gasline Steering Committee;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 22
Opposing litigation that seeks to eliminate the Kenai, Kasilof,
and Chitina sockeye salmon personal use dip net fisheries; and
requesting the governor to re-examine the disproportional
influence of the commercial fisheries industries on fisheries
management in the state.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 369
SHORT TITLE: IN-STATE PIPELINE/ MANAGER/TEAM
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CHENAULT
02/23/10 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/23/10 (H) RES, FIN
02/26/10 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/26/10 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/10 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/01/10 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions as sponsor of HB 369.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 369 on
behalf of Representative Chenault, sponsor.
HAROLD HEINZE, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority (ANGDA)
Department of Revenue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 308.
SCOTT HAMANN
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 369.
ROBERT SWENSON, Project Manager
In-State Gas Project
Alaska Mental Health Trust Land Office
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 369, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:11:30 PM
CO-CHAIR CRAIG JOHNSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:11 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Representatives Edgmon, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Tuck,
Seaton, Neuman, and Johnson. Representatives P. Wilson and
Olson arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 369-IN-STATE PIPELINE/ MANAGER/TEAM
1:11:41 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the only order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 369, "An Act relating to an in-state natural gas
pipeline, the office of in-state gasline project manager, the
Joint In-State Gasline Development Team, and the In-State
Gasline Steering Committee; and providing for an effective
date."
1:12:36 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN moved to adopt Amendment 8, labeled 26-
LS1527\R.4, Cook, 3/1/10, written as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 4, line 13, following the second occurrence of
"and":
Insert ", except for requests from the Alaska
Gasline Inducement Act coordinator (AS 43.90.250),"
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes. In response
to Representative Guttenberg, he clarified the committee is
still working on the original version of HB 369.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that Amendment 8 is in response to concerns previously
expressed by Representative Seaton regarding priority and
crossing the legal line with the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act
(AGIA) process. He related that the drafter was unsure there
was a problem, but she drafted an amendment that would take care
of the problem either way.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he appreciates the amendment.
1:14:34 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether the drafter believes this
would place a request by the AGIA coordinator above that of the
in-state gasline project manager, as opposed to equal footing.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT deferred to Mr. Tom Wright.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State
Legislature, related that the problem the drafter, Ms. Tam Cook,
had was that when she researched the AGIA statutes there was no
request for language that gave [the AGIA coordinator] a priority
over other requests. Therefore, from his conversation, this
would be on an equal footing with the AGIA coordinator.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated his concern that it be equal footing and
not subservient to requests from the AGIA coordinator.
1:15:38 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked Mr. Wright to talk about the relationship
between the AGIA coordinator and the Joint In-state Gasline
Development Team.
MR. WRIGHT responded that the coordinator for AGIA is a whole
separate entity from the in-state gasline [project manager];
they are two different people and two different projects. In
further response, he explained that any request from the Joint
In-state Gasline Development Team would go through the in-state
gasline [project manager] and not through the AGIA coordinator.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 8 was adopted.
1:17:32 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN pointed out the new fiscal notes for HB 369 and
presumed they would be explained after public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT, in response to Co-Chair Johnson, said
the fiscal notes are $350-$380 million.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON commented that this is a substantial amount of
money; however, he believes this is money that would be spent on
any in-state gas pipeline regardless of who does it. Therefore,
the fiscal note is not unique to HB 369, but unique to building
a pipeline.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT responded correct.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested that the people presenting this fiscal
note be ready to describe how they came up with the numbers.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said one of the things this legislation has
done is to spur people to provide these numbers because they
were not forthcoming prior to HB 369 being presented. He opened
public testimony.
1:19:41 PM
HAROLD HEINZE, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Natural Gas
Development Authority (ANGDA), Department of Revenue, first
qualified that while he is speaking in support of HB 369 as the
chief executive officer of ANGDA, he has not yet polled his
board on this legislation. However, a number of the things he
will comment on have been discussed with the ANGDA board within
the past year. He said ANGDA is pleased to be considered as
part of the team and believes it can be a significant
contributor to that team. His organization is happy to work in
this cooperative and collaborative environment of state
entities, and believes there will be a lot of synergy in
combining the public corporations and state agencies towards
achieving the expedited action desired. In the past year, ANGDA
has been very frustrated over the decisions on gasline route
selection and is therefore very anxious to participate in route
selection and alignment design for an in-state gas system as
directed under HB 369.
1:21:38 PM
MR. HEINZE offered his belief that HB 369 clearly allows the
ANGDA board to pursue other lawful activities as provided for
under AS 41.41 and that there is no contradiction of the ANGDA
statute that was approved as Proposition 3 in 1992. He said
ANGDA strongly endorses the much-needed public forum that would
be provided by the steering committee concept. Accomplishing
the tasks assigned to the team will require work efforts well
beyond the existing state employee capability. Use of
individual expert contractors and contractor companies will
require funding and ANGDA is anxious to avoid having an unfunded
mandate for action.
1:22:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether a fiscal note will be
forthcoming from Mr. Heinze.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON responded he is unsure whether ANGDA would be
in a position to submit a fiscal note because it is a quasi-
government agency.
MR. HEINZE replied that ANGDA is a public corporation of the
state and is a body of state government that administratively
reports to the Department of Revenue. He said he has not
submitted a fiscal note at this point because he does not know
how the development team is going to estimate the work effort
involved. It will take money to do this, and the work that
ANGDA could do as part of the total team effort would be in the
range of $1 million. He estimates that the total work would
probably measure in the range of $5-$10 million.
1:24:30 PM
MR. WRIGHT related that the sponsor asked the administration to
encompass agencies like the Alaska Railroad and ANGDA when it
prepared the fiscal note, although the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities submitted its own fiscal
note. The sponsor does not want duplication of effort and
staff, so the administration was charged to provide what it
envisions based upon the provisions of HB 369.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated that Mr. Bob Swenson, In-state Gas
Project Manager, probably put together the fiscal note.
1:25:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether there is money available for
ANGDA's participation on the team, or whether some other funding
mechanism is needed.
MR. HEINZE answered that the legislature's past funding of ANGDA
has allowed it to complete work for a route, a right-of-way, and
an environmental impact statement for a 460-mile right-of-way
extending from Beluga through Palmer through Glennallen through
Delta Junction to the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)
plant in Fairbanks. He presumes this work would become part of
the body of work that is looked at through HB 369, as this would
put the gasline halfway to the North Slope and would be of some
significance. Resources have been made available and
commitments made to contractors that exhaust ANGDA's funding at
this point. More funding would be needed if additional work is
defined for ANGDA as part of this team effort.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is raising this issue because it
would be difficult if one member of the development team does
not have funding.
1:28:21 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether there would be consequences to
an entity in the second open season if it does not participate
in the first open season.
MR. HEINZE responded that the group ANGDA has focused on is the
electric utilities, ranging from Golden Valley Electric
Association in Fairbanks, Copper Valley Electric Association in
Glennallen, and at least five of the major electric utilities in
the Cook Inlet area. He said ANGDA believes it very important
that some major portion of the in-state gas users put at least
some marker down to assure that people understand gas is wanted
from a big project delivered into Alaska. If that is not done,
he thinks substantial commercial advantage is lost in terms of
shipment as well as substantial loss of leverage in the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process. The in-state gas
use will always be a very minor percentage of the big project
and the state does not want to be that last few percent; rather,
it will want to be a few percent that speaks towards the middle
of the pack. While he will not tell members that they cannot
delay and wait, ANGDA believes there are fairly substantive
advantages that ultimately reflect in the consumer bill in
participating in the initial open season.
1:30:16 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked whether ANGDA has looked at other proposed
projects that could happen in the state that would create jobs,
such as the Donlin Creek Gold Mine.
MR. HEINZE replied he was specifically talking about that
portion of the market that ANGDA has been trying to work with to
put together a natural gas supply cooperative that would provide
the ability to bid the substantial financial commitments
required in the big project. ENSTAR is easily equivalent, if
not bigger than, the electric utilities; however, he does not
know what ENSTAR's intentions are for participating in the open
season. He said ANGDA has attempted to work with any parties
that have an interest in shipping gas within an in-state system
either to the Cook Inlet area for industrial uses or to Valdez
for liquefied natural gas (LNG) export. All of those activities
are extremely important in making the in-state system viable.
He believes it is important to put at least some marker on the
table for in-state delivery even if some entities are not
involved in this initial go-round.
1:32:17 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether ANGDA has looked at alternative
routes, such as a Parks Highway route and a spur line over to
Donlin Creek Gold Mine.
MR. HEINZE answered yes; ANGDA has looked at the route issue
several times over. All kinds of parameters come into play, of
which the most fundamental is consumer cost. What would be paid
on monthly utility bills is reflected best by looking at the
tariff, the cost of service for gas delivered on a unit basis
into consuming areas. In all cases, the work ANGDA has done
strongly favors going through Glennallen because it would allow
the option of going to Valdez. He said ANGDA believes that
eliminating the Valdez option at this point is a mistake and
that it should be given every chance to see if there are
interested shippers.
1:33:31 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN agreed that drawing an X through Valdez is a bad
idea, as is drawing an X down the Parks Highway. He reiterated
his question about whether ANGDA has done any work to identify
projects down the Parks Highway so energy can be taken over to
Donlin Creek Gold Mine.
MR. HEINZE responded that last April the legislature authorized
Mr. Harry Noah to exclusively undertake certain work. While
ANGDA provided some input to that work, it was not a participant
in any of the discussions or considerations that Mr. Noah used
to formulate his decision to work in more detail on the Parks
Highway. No attempt was made by ANGDA to duplicate Mr. Noah's
work and ANGDA presumes that at a proper time that work will
become publically available.
1:34:45 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN understood Mr. Heinze's answer to be no, ANGDA
has not done recent work on a Park's Highway route. He asked
how much money is currently in ANGDA's budget.
MR. HEINZE, recalling from memory, said ANGDA had about $4.2
million in appropriated money at the start of this fiscal year.
At this point ANGDA has spent $1.7 million of that money and
committed about $2.6 million. As of today, ANGDA has about
$300,000 that remains uncommitted for the rest of the year.
1:36:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI reviewed some of the purposes for which
ANGDA was established in 2002: acquisition and conditioning of
North Slope natural gas, design and construction of a pipeline
system, operations and maintenance, and acquisition of a natural
gas market share sufficient to ensure long term feasibility of
the pipeline system project. He inquired why ANGDA does not
just do that and why this bill is necessary for that process.
MR. HEINZE replied he believes ANGDA has done that over its six-
year history. The first couple of years were spent fully
understanding an LNG project to Valdez, which was specifically
referenced in Proposition 3 in the 2002 election. The
proposition also provided for a spur line from that pipeline to
the Cook Inlet area. Over the next couple of years ANGDA
progressed that pipeline and obtained a conditional right-of-way
from the state for a Glennallen to Palmer pipeline. When the
Alaska Gasline Port Authority began pursuing the LNG project
ANGDA stepped back and concentrated on the spur line. When the
AGIA process arose, ANGDA analyzed what was in the consumer
interest and determined that the best use of ANGDA's time was to
focus on utilizing as much of the big project as possible to
deliver gas in-state with a connector, lateral, or spur line off
the big line. It is hoped this will culminate in ANGDA's
participation in the open season this summer.
1:38:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that HB 369 proposes to have
several dozen members on an In-state Gasline Steering Committee
and to have ANGDA be a member of the Joint In-state Gasline
Development Team. He questioned why this would be the best way
to streamline a pipeline so that it can be done more quickly.
MR. HEINZE answered that ANGDA believes the steering committee
concept provides for advice and consultation and also allows for
public vetting and public involvement. One of ANGDA's biggest
concerns over the last nine months is that very little public
information has been put forward. In regard to composition of
the development team, ANGDA has many of the capabilities and
interests in doing some of the duties described there. However,
to move expeditiously, the combination of working with the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to use
the highway rights-of-way, bridges, and facilities is extremely
powerful. One of the biggest problems Alaska faces with any
development activity is the state's interaction with the federal
authorities. Use of the highway rights-of-way for a few hundred
miles of pipeline almost immediately goes a long way towards
advancing the project, so ANGDA sees the strengthening of that
relationship with DOT&PF as good.
1:41:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI observed that under existing statute the
DOT&PF commissioner has the authority to work with other
agencies to complete a gasline. Given this, he asked why ANGDA
has not worked with DOT&PF before. He said he is trying to
determine why HB 369 is needed because it seems like the bill
would just add another layer to the bureaucracy.
MR. HEINZE responded that in the past ANGDA has identified a
number of places where use of the highway right-of-way would be
attractive, and in particular ANGDA has attempted interaction
with DOT&PF in the area from Glennallen to Palmer and in some of
the areas between Delta Junction and Glennallen. However, ANGDA
has been unable to progress DOT&PF very far because the
department is stretched thin and its priorities are different.
Thus, HB 369 would strengthen that relationship and make it
clear to all parties that the desired result is a more expedited
preparation for an in-state pipeline and that all agencies can
and should be fully committed to this as one of their highest
priorities.
1:43:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he has questions in regard to
interpretation of the duties of the development team and how
they might conflict with ANGDA's authority under Title 41. For
example, the Joint In-state Gasline Development Team would be
directed to find the most economical route, and Co-Chair Neuman
has asked about bringing gas to the Donlin Creek Gold Mine. He
inquired what would happen if Mr. Heinze, as director of ANGDA
and following ANGDA's established rules under Title 41, were to
conflict with the duties of the development team as proposed by
HB 369.
MR. HEINZE replied he reads the language in AS 38.34.040(b) as
directing the team to focus on a specific project - an in-state
natural gas pipeline that runs from the North Slope to
tidewater. He said ANGDA is fully prepared to fully participate
and has information regarding a Valdez LNG connection and a spur
line to Cook Inlet that needs to be considered as part of
whatever decisions are made. Because those decisions will be
publically vetted, he does not believe there would be any
conflict with ANGDA's purpose. Additionally, nothing in that
language goes against ANGDA's board looking at a spur line off a
big project running from the North Slope. Propane is one of
numerous other projects that ANGDA has been working on, and
there is nothing in HB 369 that contradicts that either.
1:45:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI offered his appreciation for the work
Mr. Heinze has done on in-state gas. He added that it is
incumbent upon everyone to provide information to the public and
he hopes HB 369 will increase that information. However, while
an in-state gasline is everyone's priority, he is unsure HB 369
is the right way to get there.
MR. HEINZE agreed it is very important to talk to folks, to let
them know what is being done, and to put up with hard questions
for which there might not be an answer.
1:46:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that there is worry about how
political an in-state gasline becomes. He asked whether yet
more politics would be added to Mr. Heinze's job if ANGDA is
brought into the development team.
MR. HEINZE answered the statute is clear that he himself has no
power. The statutory authority lies with the ANGDA board and he
works for them at their direction. The board meets monthly or
every six weeks and these meetings are very public and allow the
public to speak. Funding through legislative appropriation
certainly involves political elements, but both he and ANGDA's
board members are always willing to listen to the direction and
suggestions of the legislature and the governor, and have done
so over all these years.
1:48:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised that from ANGDA's perspective
an in-state gasline would need to include gas export or the
moving of gas down to the Lower 48.
MR. HEINZE responded ANGDA's view has been that an LNG project
or an LNG export component from Valdez would provide the volume
and investor strength that is important for advancing the
project in a way that leads to the lowest consumer cost. The
open season process being undertaken by "TransCanada and
ExxonMobil" will provide some indication about interest in
Valdez. If there is no interest, discussion will become a moot
point and a lot of people's hopes will be dashed. However, if
there is interest, it would be unfortunate to have had the state
turn its back on that opportunity. Over the last year ANGDA's
focus has been on preparations for the open season
participation. It was ANGDA's impression that Mr. Noah's work,
funded by the legislature, was to look at a North Slope to
tidewater pipeline, so ANGDA avoided duplicating that effort.
He said he has requested Mr. Swenson, the person taking over for
Mr. Noah, to provide ANGDA with information about the elements
of that work that would be useful to ANGDA's work. He does not
see anything wrong with Alaska having the strength of a couple
different efforts. This bill visualizes that ANGDA would work
as part of the team and ANGDA is prepared to do that.
1:51:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired what Mr. Heinze sees as the
levels of in-state demand and export.
MR. HEINZE replied that Railbelt electric utilities currently
use a little over 100 million cubic feet per day for home
heating. A big pipeline through the Fairbanks area combined
with Golden Valley Electric Association and the refinery would
use about 50 million cubic feet per day. The historic high for
industrial use in Cook Inlet was about 250 million cubic feet
per day; right now it is about half that at 125-150 million
cubic feet per day for the Kenai LNG plant. A gas-to-liquid
industrial customer would likely use about 0.5-0.75 billion
cubic feet per day, and LNG export could easily be 1 billion
cubic feet per day.
1:52:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what particular activities ANGDA
would work on, assuming an in-state gasline is happening.
MR. HEINZE answered that ANGDA has put a lot of energy into, and
would continue looking into, a propane wholesale point and a
propane distribution system. Also, ANGDA would work with people
to advance lateral lines at a number of spots, such as the mine
mentioned earlier or the Nenana Basin. This work would not
include actually doing the projects, but helping to finance them
or apply other leverage. He offered his observation that if
there is a spur line off Delta Junction, ANGDA has advanced that
project pretty far along and would see that as a pre-build into
a big pipeline as ANGDA thinks there are advantages to that.
Should the open season be unsuccessful, ANGDA would then look at
what projects to do and would probably focus on Valdez LNG as a
project. When looking at participation in the open season, the
key is that there is basically unlimited volume for an in-state
gas system. He recalled that during the AGIA process
TransCanada clearly stipulated that if the state ships gas to
Delta Junction the state would be a customer, not a competitor.
In that case the state would not be limited to the 0.5 billion
cubic feet per day that would apply if the state were to go all
the way to the North Slope with a separate project.
1:55:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG requested Mr. Heinze to elaborate
further on taking gas to Delta Junction for ANGDA to then take
to tidewater.
MR. HEINZE related that the AGIA language placing a limit of 0.5
billion cubic feet per day was designed to assure TransCanada
that the state would not become a competitor to the very effort
the state and TransCanada are jointly working on. At the time
of the hearings to grant the license there was a great deal of
concern that an LNG project could be lost if it was limited by
that provision; therefore, TransCanada agreed to also solicit
commitments to Valdez as well as to the border and is holding a
separate and simultaneous open season for Valdez. At that time,
there was a clear understanding with TransCanada that
nominations in TransCanada's big pipeline to Delta Junction in
excess of 0.5 billion cubic feet per day were not a violation of
the AGIA non-compete provision because the state would be a
customer and not a competitive project.
1:57:45 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON disagreed with Mr. Heinze's interpretation.
MR. HEINZE clarified that ANGDA is not proposing to build a
project in competition with TransCanada; ANGDA is proposing to
participate in TransCanada's open season and take off gas at
Delta Junction. In further response, he said the spur pipeline
from the Delta Junction takeoff probably would be built by some
other company.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he will get a legal opinion on that.
1:58:36 PM
MR. HEINZE, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said ANGDA
was established by Proposition 3 in the 2002 election, and was
given its wings in the summer or fall of 2003 by then-Governor
Frank Murkowski. In further response, and speaking from memory,
he recalled that since its inception and until year-end 2010,
ANGDA has been appropriated a total of about $13 million. The
vast majority of that was in capital project money for specific
work that has resulted in the assets of conditional rights-of-
way, permits, preliminary engineering designs, and so forth. A
relatively minor amount of the money has been for the
traditional operating budget for staff of about $300,000 a year.
2:00:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised that the right-of-way and
everything ANGDA has worked on is from Delta Junction south.
MR. HEINZE responded that in its Beluga-to-Fairbanks project,
ANGDA has been working on right-of-way, wetlands determination,
and environmental impact associated with a project running from
Beluga on the west side of Cook Inlet to Palmer, Palmer to
Glennallen, Glennallen to Delta Junction, and then Delta
Junction to Fairbanks. That could provide, if appropriate, gas
to Fairbanks if there was a long delay in a pipeline.
2:01:34 PM
MR. HEINZE, in response to another question from Representative
P. Wilson, stated ANGDA has in hand a conditional right-of-way
from the State of Alaska that runs from Glennallen to Palmer.
Currently, ANGDA is in the process of working on state and
federal rights-of-way from Beluga to Fairbanks, and an
environmental impact statement (EIS) from Beluga to Fairbanks.
Additionally, ANGDA has completed the wetlands determination and
filed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the wetlands
permit, which is the major permit for a pipeline from Beluga to
Fairbanks. The draft EIS should be issued by mid-2010 and then
it will take another six months for that to be perfected. All
the right-of-way and permit conditions should be perfected by
year end. In further response, he explained that ANGDA applied
for these permits a long time ago and is in the process of
working through all the steps and documents that need to be done
and expects to have these permits by the end of 2010.
2:03:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON understood Alaska's North Slope gas to be
at roughly $2 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf) at the wellhead.
MR. HEINZE replied it has moved around, and at this time he has
no basis to argue that it is not $2 per Mcf.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON related that Qatar, which has at least as
much gas as Alaska, is receiving 15 cents at the wellhead and
the Gorgon Project [off Australia] is at 40-50 cents. He asked
how much gas, including gas for LNG, would have to be sold at $2
per Mcf to make it competitive with the rest of the gas that is
on the world market.
MR. HEINZE explained that the pricing of gas in the Far East,
Japan in particular, is based on an equivalency with oil price
and has nothing to do with cost structures in Qatar or other
places. However, it has everything to do with the delivered oil
price in those locales. Generally, the Japanese market is about
90 percent of the British Thermal Unit (BTU) equivalent of oil
price, which leaves a big margin between $2, $3, or even $4 on
the North Slope and the delivered price in Tokyo.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON inquired whether new contracts coming out
of Japan have been dropping significantly due to the high price
of oil and the low price of gas and the glut of gas on the
market.
MR. HEINZE answered that ANGDA's work suggests the cost to
deliver Alaska's gas is competitive in terms of the pricing
structures across the Pacific.
2:05:15 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON posed a scenario in which China wants to export
0.5 billion cubic feet of Alaska gas. He asked whether Mr.
Heinze would consider that a viable open season offer.
MR. HEINZE responded that, in the past, some explorers on the
North Slope have taken some interest in the in-state process.
In particular, one or two of them were involved in the AGIA
process up to the last week and had done a lot of work on the
Valdez connection. Based on conversations he has had, and the
general interest he has seen for trade and the ability of the
Chinese to invest in Alaska, he thinks there is a reasonable
chance of the Chinese showing up with 0.5-1.0 billion cubic feet
per day of interest in Valdez; if they do, he thinks that is a
substantial anchor for any in-state gas system, whether it is
built off the big pipeline or as a separate pipeline. He
reminded members that Sinopec submitted a bid during the AGIA
process that would have provided for 4.0 billion cubic feet per
delivered to Valdez. That may have been a bit much at the time,
he allowed, but Sinopec is one of the largest corporate entities
in the world.
2:07:42 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON remarked that he received calls from
Washington, DC, in opposition to the aforementioned gas export.
MR. HEINZE said he hopes the state is careful as to how
Washington, DC, is allowed to make policy for Alaska. He
reminded members that the open season process is open to folks
from Chicago as well as to people across the Pacific Ocean. In
further response, he explained that export licenses are granted
by the U.S. Department of Energy. There is currently one
license for LNG export in the U.S. and that is located at the
Kenai LNG plant. The general requirement is that export volumes
must be in excess of local needs, and right now Alaska would
probably use no more than 5-10 percent of the North Slope
reserve, which leaves a fair amount of room for an excess.
Additionally, the open season process is a federally monitored
and regulated open process for all parties to come forward and
provide a financial basis for the building of the pipeline. It
will be very interesting to see who shows up and what the level
of commitment is for all these different aspects, he added.
2:09:09 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired what would happen to the open season
for a spur line from Delta Junction should the electric
utilities and ENSTAR not bid and the pipeline under HB 369 is
built first and they bid their gas there. He presumed that open
seasons could not be offered in both places and would therefore
be mutually exclusive.
MR. HEINZE clarified that ANGDA is working only with the
electric utilities in regard to [TransCanada's] open season and
the commitments involved. As a gas company, ENSTAR must make
its own decisions as to whether to participate. All the
electric utilities, either in aggregate or individually, have
some need for gas. The volumes needed in Alaska are very small
compared to the total volumes involved in the pipeline - tens of
millions of cubic feet per day versus billions of cubic feet per
day. There must be participation in the process to enjoy the
benefits of the process and the benefit is fixing tariffs and
other conditions of delivery. The actual commitments here will
be conditioned and those conditions will put a time limit on
which time that commitment is open; if a project is not
developed, then those commitments are not binding and do not
carry forward. For example, if Golden Valley Electric
Association nominated 15 million cubic feet per day for delivery
to Fairbanks and then no pipeline is built to Fairbanks after a
period of review, GVEA would be released from that commitment of
its credit towards that gas.
2:12:03 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON posed a scenario of an Anchorage utility, a
stand-alone pipeline from the North Slope down the Richardson
Highway to Anchorage, and an offtake from a pipeline through
Delta Junction. He surmised that if the utility bid the
Richardson Highway route, it would not have the ability to bid
the other pipeline because it would not need the capacity.
MR. HEINZE cautioned solace not be taken that AGIA provides an
offtake because one of the two possible big pipelines is not
under AGIA and therefore not bound by the AGIA rules. Alaska
must deal with the realities of FERC, not AGIA as far as these
commitments. TransCanada and "ExxonMobil" have clearly said
there can be commitments tendered to both a pipeline going to
Valdez, in ANGDA's case that would be an offtake in Glennallen,
or to a pipeline to the border, in which case the offtake would
be in Delta Junction. At the same time, ANGDA is also free to
make a commitment into the "Denali pipeline" if those open
seasons overlap; each commitment would be contingent upon the
non-acceptance of the others.
2:13:53 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he is not talking about either of the big
lines; rather, he is talking about a small pipeline from Prudhoe
Bay down the Richardson Highway to Anchorage. He surmised that
bidding gas into that pipeline by Chugach Electric Association
would preclude the association, financially, from bidding
another pipeline because the association could theoretically be
on the hook for double the capacity.
MR. HEINZE replied if the open seasons associated with each of
those pipelines overlapped, then the bid in each case would be
contingent on non-acceptance of the bid in the other case. So,
yes, the utility can play in all the games at the same time.
2:14:40 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired what happens if both bids are
accepted.
MR. HEINZE answered that the utility would have a choice of
which one to proceed on.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON disagreed the utility would have a choice. In
his opinion, the utility would be on the hook for twice the
volume that it wants because it would be brought from two
pipelines.
MR. HEINZE reiterated the commitments made are contingent and
argued that there would be lots of legal help from the attorney
general's office to prevent becoming trapped.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he will be anxious to hear whether other
users share Mr. Heinze's view.
2:15:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that oftentimes the legislature is
perceived as moving too slowly and it is important to move
forward without any steps backward. A team effort would provide
more public vetting, strengthening of relationships, and better
commitments from the different agencies. He asked whether Mr.
Heinze believes this will speed up the timeline for getting a
gasline and whether this is the needed component for making a
gasline happen. For example, when ANGDA was established the
expectation was full production by 2007, and now it is 2011.
MR. HEINZE related that he has been asked in the past by
legislators as to what it would take to assure the timeliest
construction of an in-state gas system. His response has been
that at the top of his list is unfettered and full cooperative
access to the state highway right-of-way and full commitment of
the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) to
working on an in-state gas pipeline; HB 369 makes it clear to
both ANGDA and DOT&PF that that is the desired result.
2:18:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK understood Mr. Heinze to be saying that
ANGDA is currently receiving neither unfettered cooperation nor
full commitment and therefore HB 369 is necessary.
MR. HEINZE responded that, from ANGDA's knowledge, it is not
making much progress in that regard. He is aware of the
separate process under Mr. Noah, and now Mr. Swenson, that
involves the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities,
but he does not know what that progress has been. He said he is
trying to convey that he considers the involvement of DOT&PF a
good and key element in timely advancing of an in-state gasline
because DOT&PF already holds significant right-of-way that does
not require the state to deal with all the federal issues.
2:19:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK acknowledged that ANGDA had an aggressive
schedule put before it with trying to meet production by 2007.
He inquired how many meetings would need to take place to have a
project ready by 2011.
MR. HEINZE provided the following anecdote in this regard:
after passage of Proposition 3 it took nine months before ANGDA
was set up and another six to nine months to get funded; one
year was allocated for ANGDA to complete its chore, but it
actually took eighteen months; at that point, ANGDA's ideas ran
against what then-Governor Murkowski wanted and ANGDA found
itself in a backwater where it stayed for quite awhile working
on the spur line. Anyone working on a project that takes two to
four years to advance will occasionally have to regroup and look
at where progress can be made, he related, and ANGDA has done
that. Right now, ANGDA has an effort underway that would
significantly cut the frontend of any project, and that is what
HB 369 is emphasizing. The emphasis is not on building the
pipeline but on getting the frontend of the project reduced to
the point where a competent pipeline company could move fairly
rapidly towards construction.
2:21:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he thinks Mr. Heinze's expertise would
be heavily relied upon in this process. He asked Mr. Heinze to
state how much funding ANGDA would need to participate in the
team process that would be provided by HB 369.
MR. HEINZE replied that he has not made a detailed estimate of
the level of work that ANGDA would be involved in and how much
it would cost. Presuming there is already a fair amount of work
already done or already underway, some of which he may not know
about at this point, but making some allowance that all of it
has to be pulled together, he estimates ANGDA would need about
$500,000 for individual contractors who bring very specialized
expertise to the issue and probably $500,000 for contractors to
do analysis and design. While this would be minimal, he expects
that the others would have a lot more effort in this process.
2:24:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK understood that the U.S. Department of
Energy is the only one that can sign off on any type of export
licenses in the U.S. and that Alaska's need would only be for
five to ten percent of the gas produced. As far as exporting
the excess, he inquired whether the granting of an export
license would be dependent upon the needs of the other 48 states
in addition to Alaska's.
MR. HEINZE answered he is unable to project how this would be
handled by the U.S. Department of Energy. However, if during
the open season process the commitments indicate that there is a
desire and a need for that gas in the Lower 48, then he thinks
the U.S. Department of Energy would give that very heavy weight.
On the other hand, if not much interest is expressed, then he
thinks it would become a much more open question as to how to
deal with the other national needs.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON offered to ask that question directly to the
U.S. Department of Energy when he attends this year's national
energy conference.
2:26:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI understood that when the proposition
vote on ANGDA first occurred, quite a bit of the language
discussed the state's conflicts with North Slope producers, such
as the state maybe having to take back the gas because the
leaseholders were not doing their due diligence. The language
pushed for an all-Alaska gasline and state ownership of a
pipeline and the related facilities. He requested Mr. Heinze to
speak to that, given his testimony that the pipeline might be
privately held, which would conflict with ANGDA's mission.
MR. HEINZE responded that ANGDA's business strategy has been to
focus on the frontend of the process; ANGDA has never seen
itself as the pipeline builder. Rather, ANGDA sees itself as
somebody who can do the route selection issue, work on the
rights-of-way, do the environmental impact statements, get the
permits, and get the pipeline build-ready. The business
strategy has included contacting medium-size pipeline companies
in the Lower 48 and Canada. It has been ANGDA's intent to use
some sort of public-private partnership mechanism to work with
such a company where that company ultimately becomes the
builder-owner of the pipeline, but under terms that are
favorable to the consumer interest and the recovery of the
public investment that has been made in obtaining the rights-of-
way, environmental impact statements, and the permits. Thus,
ANGDA's exit strategy is to find a good pipeline company to
partner with and that company would be the execution phase of
building this pipeline.
2:29:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI read from the proposition establishing
the all-Alaska natural gas development authority for the
purposes of developing, constructing, managing, and operating a
gas pipeline from the North Slope and a spur line to
Southcentral Alaska. He said he is unclear where it changed
into something where ANGDA maybe does the bonding and a private
company ends up holding the pipeline itself. In regard to page
2 of HB 369 [lines 17-22], he asked what happens if ANGDA
decides on a project and the Joint In-state Gasline Development
Team project manager determines that project is not in the best
interest.
MR. HEINZE replied that as he remembers it, the language on page
2 of HB 369 relates to an agency adding a condition. Also, the
state process would have a high level of public review. In
obtaining the conditional right-of-way from Glennallen to
Palmer, ANGDA went through an 18-month review period of holding
hearings up and down the entire proposed route, so public review
is a very comfortable part of the process for ANGDA and it does
not see a potential for conflict there. Regarding the words of
the proposition calling for ANGDA to construct, Mr. Heinze said
the words of the statute are very clear that the board was
granted very broad authorities, including the ability to
construct the pipeline, if that was desired. In its business
plan, ANGDA has always formulated that there was a risk in the
state becoming the executor of a $1-$2 billion construction
project, and that that phase of the project was most properly
handled by a private sector partner.
2:33:15 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN offered his belief that ANGDA received a legal
opinion that stated ANGDA's authority. He requested Mr. Heinze
to provide a copy of this legal opinion to the committee.
MR. HEINZE answered that in early 2009 some questions were
raised as to whether some projects being undertaken by ANGDA
were within its authority. The attorney general's review of the
five specific contracts that were questioned, indicated that as
long as the projects had some relationship to North Slope gas at
some point in time, the ANGDA statute was broad enough that it
allowed those specific contracts to go forward. Basically,
ANGDA's mission is to work with North Slope gas in-state to the
benefit of consumers, and that is what ANGDA has tried to do.
In further response to Co-Chairs Neuman and Johnson, he agreed
to provide a copy of the legal opinion.
2:34:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether the scope of work that
ANGDA has going for the $13 million from Beluga to Fairbanks
includes the cost associated with contractual services to
perform the detailed pipeline engineering, facilities design,
field work, and permitting to get the project ready to begin
construction. In response to Co-Chair Johnson, Representative
Seaton clarified that he is reading from page 1 of 4 [of the
fiscal analysis accompanying the 1-page fiscal note prepared by
Linda Perez, Director, Division of Administrative Services, and
approved by Bob Swenson, Project Manager, Office of the
Governor, dated 3/1/10].
MR. HEINZE responded he does not have the fiscal note in front
of him, but he understands the thrust of the question. From his
perspective, generally all of the aforementioned are elements
ANGDA has worked on, with the exception of detailed design.
Generally, to lead to project sanction, one needs to have
obtained the major environmental clearances, permits, rights-of-
way, some level of design, project schedule, and cost estimate,
and solid arrangements with customers wanting to ship gas in the
pipeline. While ANGDA did not get all of that done for $13
million, he expects that it would not be too much more money to
get to the point where a decision could be made on whether to
proceed with the project. Once at the point of moving into the
very detailed aspects of design, construction, and material
ordering, the cost is measured in hundreds of millions of
dollars rather than tens of millions.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said it sounds like $13 million can be taken
off this fiscal note because the work has already been done.
2:37:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON inquired whether HB 369 would provide more
chance of getting gas to Fairbanks several years ahead of any
other projects the state is currently looking at for strictly
in-state use.
MR. HEINZE replied he thinks being able to concentrate on the
use of state right-of-way would significantly expedite the North
Slope to Fairbanks pipelining because this relates to the use of
bridges, yard facilities, gravel pits, and so forth.
Additionally, he thinks the introduction of the Alaska Railroad
represents an interesting element and there may be some aspects
of a more Fairbanks-centric view of how to do this project with
the Alaska Railroad involved.
2:39:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON surmised it could be as much as three to
four years sooner as opposed to a big pipeline or anything else
that is currently on the table.
MR. HEINZE answered that he does not think there can be an
improvement of three to four years for the plans that he has
seen presented as the result of a stand-alone pipeline.
2:39:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired whether ANGDA currently has the
authority that is outlined on page 4, lines 8-11, of HB 369,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
... the Joint In-state Gasline Development Team may
have access to information of a state entity,
including confidential information, that may relate to
the in-state natural gas pipeline or prove useful in
planning, design, construction, or operation of the
pipeline.
MR. HEINZE, in regard to subsections (a) and (b) [page 4, lines
7-16], explained that when ANGDA has requests for information
that it knows exists elsewhere, ANGDA does not undertake it.
For example, ANGDA knows that public money was used by
TransCanada to gather field information in some areas that are
of interest to ANGDA and ANGDA has therefore chosen not to spend
any public money to duplicate that effort and will wait until it
can see or use that information. As far as confidentiality, any
private sector information given to ANGDA is by definition
confidential under the ANGDA statute and will not be released
unless specifically authorized by the private sector company.
2:41:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether ANGDA already has the
aforementioned authority and, if not, is this the authority that
ANGDA is seeking.
MR. HEINZE answered that he is a bystander to this paragraph,
but it strikes him as reasonable. He said ANGDA has generally
been able to obtain public information by simply asking, and
ANGDA has no ability to demand information from the private
sector and is not privy to private sector information given to
other state agencies under a confidential heading.
2:42:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG posed a scenario in which ANGDA enters
into a contractual relationship with a private sector entity and
that entity gives ANGDA confidential information. He inquired
how that entity would feel if it understood that ANGDA had to
share its confidential information with someone else that has
already agreed to keep it confidential. Would that be spreading
it too far out, he inquired further, or is that a common thing
in the industry.
MR. HEINZE responded that that is not uncommon in the industry,
provided the people involved are bound by confidentiality and
are getting the information out of need and not curiosity.
2:43:27 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved public testimony to the next witness.
SCOTT HAMANN supported HB 369 and cautioned against talking this
issue to death. He said the point of the bill is to empower the
development team so it can get the job done. He has shown the
bill to people he knows and they have expressed hope that a
gasline can be built in-state for Alaskans on the state's terms
and not the oil companies' terms. This pipeline is just like
infrastructure and he thinks the State of Alaska should build it
and quit talking about it.
2:45:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Mr. Hamann thinks forming this
development team would make things go quicker rather than
further talking it to death.
MR. HAMANN replied yes because a timeline for getting the job
done would be in statute. The people who would be involved in
the development team are motivated to get this done and want to
get it done; therefore, he thinks it is the right way to go. In
further response, he confirmed that he sees a team approach as
being better than an individual agency approach, especially with
the power that would be given to the [project manager] to get
things done. He thinks Alaskans are acutely aware that the
longer this drags on, the more money it will cost, and that it
is time to get it done.
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON thanked Mr. Hamann for listening to today's
hearing as well as the hearing on 2/26/10.
2:47:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI commented that just because something is
written on paper does not mean it will happen that way. In
regard to the provision to take any action necessary for the
construction to begin during the provided dates, he inquired
whether Mr. Hamann would support putting out a bond or
instituting sales or income tax to build the gasline should the
state not have the money.
MR. HAMANN responded, "Absolutely." While he believes in small
government, he thinks this is such an important issue for the
state that people need to trust that the development team will
do what is best for Alaska. He thinks there is a lot of
opportunity for oversight and the proposed development team will
be a good one.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON left public testimony open.
2:49:49 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON requested Mr. Swenson to walk through the
fiscal note for HB 369. He asked whether the $13 million
already spent by ANGDA is included in the fiscal note and could
therefore be dropped off.
ROBERT SWENSON, Project Manager, In-State Gas Project, Alaska
Mental Health Trust Land Office, Department of Natural
Resources, began his discussion with the fiscal note labeled
page 1 of 1 [prepared by Linda Perez, signed by Mr. Swenson,
dated 3/1/10]. He explained that personal services expenditures
are related to additional personnel necessary to implement the
timeline associated with HB 369, and includes the project
manager, engineering manager, commercial manager, and permitting
and right-of-way manager, as well as a legislative and public
outreach officer, financial budget analyst, and schedule
coordinator.
MR. SWENSON, in response to Co-Chair Johnson, stated that the
paper entitled, "Stand Alone Gas Pipeline Project Alternative
Schedule" is a timeline associated with a mid-range estimate of
the process - the engineering process and permitting process to
the point of construction ready - for reference to what he will
talk about for the contractual portion of this fiscal note.
2:53:30 PM
MR. SWENSON returned to page 1 of 1 of the fiscal note. He said
the travel would be $116,000 for the first two years, $58,000 in
fiscal year 2012, and $36,000 in fiscal year 2013. This travel
is associated with both the development team and the scoping
group identified in the bill.
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN asked for clarification about which pipeline
route is being talked about.
MR. SWENSON replied that this fiscal note is specifically for a
stand-alone pipeline from the North Slope to tidewater in the
Cook Inlet. In response to further questions, he explained it
is a 24-inch pipeline that is in the process of cost estimation
associated with cost of transport. A number of different
scenarios are being looked at for a route essentially from
Prudhoe Bay, with an alternate route to the Gubik area, and from
there to the tidewater. The series of different scenarios
include facilities on the North Slope as well as compressor
stations along the route depending upon the throughput of the
pipeline. The throughputs being looked at are: 250 million,
500 million, 750 million, and 1 billion cubic feet per day.
Also ongoing are three major permits for the environmental
impact statement: the U.S. Army Corps 404 permit, state right-
of-way, and federal right-of-way.
2:56:48 PM
MR. SWENSON moved to page 1 of 4 of the backup information
attached to the aforementioned fiscal note. He said the first
two paragraphs help in understanding the basis for the
indeterminate portion of the fiscal note regarding contractual
expenditures. To have a pipeline construction ready by July 1,
2011, as directed by HB 369, would require increased amounts of
engineering, facilities design, field work, and permitting, and
this would be more than $350 million. However, the exact amount
of funding needed cannot be determined without significant
amount of additional engineering and estimation work. Work is
currently progressing on a Class 4 Cost of Transportation
estimate that will be finalized by July 1, 2010. These
estimates do not include the detail cost estimates to enable the
ordering of pipe or to work on facilities associated with
construction of such a pipeline. In addition, included costs,
such as pipe and commitment to facilities construction and the
initial camp development, are also not included, and these costs
would likely be greater than $500 million.
2:58:32 PM
MR. SWENSON, in response to Co-Chair Johnson, explained that a
Class 4 cost estimate means the estimate is plus or minus 30
percent of what the final cost estimation would be. It is used
as a general design and scoping mechanism. A key aspect of the
original appropriations for this project is to create this Class
4 Cost of Transportation estimate for inclusion with the three
major permits; this is to be used to attract a pipeline company,
as well as a producer and a consumer on each end of the pipe, to
move the next step in building of the pipeline. It is very
similar to the AGIA and "Denali" processes that are ongoing
right now.
2:59:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON inquired whether Class 4 is what is done
to have an open season.
MR. SWENSON answered no; Class 4 is the initial scoping, or
essentially the same work that was done to attract TransCanada
into the AGIA process.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked at what point this process would get
to an open season.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON pointed out that the committee is out of time
and requested Representative Seaton to bring up this question at
the next hearing.
[HB 369 was held over.]
3:00:52 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB369-OOG-EO-03-01-10.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 369 |
| HB369-DOT-SDES-2-26-10 .pdf |
HRES 3/1/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 369 |
| HB369-OOG-EO-03-01-10 fiscal note attachments.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 369 |
| HB369 - OOG-EO-03-01-10 fiscal analysis.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 369 |