Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/19/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB414 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 414 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 414
"An Act making appropriations for the operating
expenses of state government and certain programs;
making capital appropriations and supplemental
appropriations; capitalizing funds; and providing for
an effective date."
1:42:03 PM
Co-Chair Merrick invited the presenter to continue his
presentation [note: HB 414 was previously heard on 4/7/22
at 1:00 p.m. See separate minutes for the first portion of
the presentation].
MILES BAKER, INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT COORDINATOR, OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNOR, reintroduced the PowerPoint presentation:
"Infrastructure Appropriation Bill: HB 414" (copy on file).
He continued on slide 15 regarding the coordination and
implementation of the bill, which is where he left off
during the previous bill hearing. He noted that
Representative Carpenter had questions about Department of
Environmental Conservation's (DEC) staffing. He indicated
that a response from the department had been supplied to
the committee.
Mr. Baker returned to slide 7 to provide a recap of the
presentation. He reminded members that the bill had been
organized by category, and that the categories were listed
on the slide. The last categories he would be covering
during the presentation were infrastructure coordination
and implementation and competitive opportunity investments.
1:44:40 PM
Mr. Baker returned to slide 15 regarding coordination and
implementation. He noted it had become very clear that the
coordination would take time. The governor had worked with
state agencies to prepare the bill and understand the
potential influx of monies. There was also significant
coordination needed outside of the state agencies and three
stakeholders were involved. There was $5 million
appropriated for the state infrastructure planning and
coordination. There was also $500,000 for local government
capacity building and technical assistance under the Alaska
Municipal League (AML). The Alaska Federation of Natives
(AFN) Navigator Program would receive funding in the amount
of $2.5 million that would help continue the efforts of the
program. He added that AML was also hosting
alaskafederalfunding.org as a repository for grant
opportunities and other additional information about the
bill.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if there was any direct community
outreach outside of AML and AFN.
Mr. Baker asked a clarifying question.
Co-Chair Merrick asked if there would be other measures
taken to communicate with Alaskans directly.
Mr. Baker indicated the Office of the Governor did not want
to initiate any taskforces or start working groups before
knowing where coordination was needed. He thought the
responsibility of the bill belonged in the Office of the
Governor for the time being. The process of outside
coordination had begun, and an infrastructure subcabinet
would likely be formed, which would include collaboration
from public corporations during regular meetings. The
broadband requirements were fairly prescriptive and
dictated that the state would collect regional input to
ensure there was a coordinated statewide plan. Many states
had a statewide infrastructure entity which allowed the
programing of new monies into the existing infrastructure
process. He was open to ideas and working with the
legislature.
1:51:32 PM
Representative Johnson asked about the possibility of
federal funds being "clawed-back."
Mr. Baker indicated there was a small amount of concern. He
expressed that the infrastructure bill was different than
what had been experienced with the COVID-19 related bills.
One of the questions asked by members of the Alaska State
Senate was whether Alaska was eligible for any other
federal funding, and the answer was no. He provided an
example that from year-to-year the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT) received monies
but did not always spend all of the monies. The federal DOT
reshuffled these monies every August to make unspent monies
available for other projects. He thought that something
similar could happen in this situation. He predicted that
the grant applications would indicate the appetite for
various projects. The state had received significant
funding for lead service line replacements, which had been
facilitated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
through a national distribution. There was not as much lead
service line in Alaska as in other states, so perhaps the
money would be redistributed and used in other areas.
1:54:08 PM
Mr. Baker turned to slide 16 to discuss the investments in
competitive opportunities. He indicated that Alaska was
uniquely positioned to take advantage of certain
circumstances and he thought it was beneficial to invest
some unrestricted general fund (UGF) monies into the
opportunities. He read from the list on the slide:
Electric Grid Modernization -AEA
?Grid reliability, resiliency and transmission
$6,000.0 ($1,000.0 UGF, $5,000.0 Fed)
Clean Hydrogen Technologies -AGDC
?Clean hydrogen research, development and
demonstration $6,000.0 ($1,000.0 UGF, $5,000.0
Fed)
Carbon Capture & Sequestration -DNR
?Carbon technology infrastructure research,
development and demonstration $6,000.0 ($1,000.0
UGF, $5,000.0 Fed)
Rare Earth & Critical Minerals -UA
?Rare Earth Elements (REE) Demonstration Facility
$500.0 UGF
?Critical Minerals Security Projects $9,500.0
($2,000.0 UGF, $7,500.0 Fed)
Mr. Baker indicated that there was a fairly significant
response to a host of questions that Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) had in the preparation of the funding
opportunities. He expected that funding opportunity notices
should be released soon. The legislation included $5
billion for reduced electrical outages and the hardening of
the grid against disruptive events. There was an additional
$5 billion for research development for innovative
approaches to grid resiliency, and $1 billion for
infrastructure in remote areas. There was a transportation
facility program for the funding of construction of grids.
He explained that AEA would coordinate the projects around
the large funding opportunities and it would be similar to
the structure of coordination in the bill as a whole. In
the area of clean hydrogen, there would be $8 billion made
available over the course of five years to support a
minimum of four regional clean hydrogen hubs. There was
also $1 billion for clean hydrogen electrolysis. He
suggested that it was important to get ahead of the initial
funding opportunity notices because the opportunities were
often limited. There could be a huge return in several
areas if the state took advantage of the opportunities.
1:59:42 PM
Representative Edgmon returned to slide 15. It appeared the
Office of the Governor would be increasing its
responsibilities. He wondered where all of the entities
would converge.
Mr. Baker anticipated the inception of a coordination
office within the Office of the Governor that would work
closely with the other organizations and with the broadband
office. He would want to formalize some coordination
efforts in terms of committees of coordination. He wanted
to have the ability to move quickly to assess the new
opportunities and go after them as prescribed. The grant
applications would be expensive, and the efforts would
focus on funding the applications. He thought the state
would want to be judicious with taskforces and working
groups that would help in areas such as oversight and
reporting. He wanted to be sure the state was aware of what
had value and what did not. He wanted to determine the
position of the legislature before deciding upon the
structure of the coordination.
Representative Edgmon remarked that there was significant
coordination. He thought the legislature would need to be
coordinated as well.
2:04:29 PM
AT EASE
2:04:51 PM
RECONVENED
Representative LeBon referred to slide 16 and asked if the
grants were competitive. He noted that the state would
invest money in order to seek grants, however the awarding
of the grants was not guaranteed. He thought it was a
worthy investment and asked whether the state was going to
pursue the grants.
Mr. Baker responded in the affirmative. He explained that
he was asking for the funding from the legislature to go
after the grants. The exact nature of the grants was
uncertain, and he was trying to capture the upside
potential. He stated that the grants were technical and
would require a multi-team effort. He thought it would cost
the state about $1 million to respond to the opportunities.
Representative Wool noted the investments detailed on slide
16 and wondered if the money would be used to apply for
grants for larger projects. He asked how the money would be
used specifically.
Mr. Baker clarified that UGF monies would be needed to
prepare the applications for the grants. If the efforts
were successful, he expected the federal money amounts to
be much higher. There would need to be some receipt
authority as well. The money was meant to pay for things
like content development, expertise, and technical writing.
If the state was successful in obtaining the grants, he
would have to come back to the committee with additional
details.
Representative Wool shared his understanding that the
federal numbers were hypothetical and acted as a
placeholder for the time being. He thought Mr. Baker was
asking for $1 million in UGF for grant coordination.
Mr. Baker responded in the affirmative and added that there
was one exception, which was the critical minerals security
projects. This was a partnership between the University of
Alaska and a number of other entities. He explained that
this was phase 2 of the project and expected there to be a
$7.5 million of federal monies and would require a $2
million match. Apart from this exception, he indicated that
Representative Wool was correct in that many of the federal
numbers were placeholders. He wanted to use the federal
numbers to illustrate the multiplier effect and the
potential.
Co-Chair Merrick thanked Mr. Baker and reviewed the agenda
for the following meeting.
HB 414 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 414 Public Testimony Rec'd by 041922.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 414 |
| HB 414 OMB Response to 04.07.22 HFIN IIJA.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 414 |