Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/26/2022 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 | |
| HB170 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 170 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 170
"An Act establishing the Alaska energy independence
program and the Alaska energy independence fund in the
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority;
and providing for an effective date."
1:31:33 PM
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that the bill had eight amendments
to consider. She read a list of available testifiers.
1:32:05 PM
ALAN WEITZNER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY (via teleconference),
indicated he had no opening comments.
Co-Chair Merrick began the amendment process for HB 170.
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
GH1074\W.5 (Ambrose/Klein, 4/20/22) (copy on file):
Page 7, following line 15:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(2) prioritize programs for energy
efficiency and renewable energy for
residential, commercial and public buildings in
rural and urban areas;"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool read the amendment, which spelled out
the functions of the new program.
Representative LeBon noted that there was a reference to
public buildings in the amendment. He asked for the
definition of a public building.
Representative Wool responded that a public building was a
building that was available to the public. He did not know
the statutory definition. In rural Alaska, a community
center or a school might be considered a public building.
1:34:03 PM
Representative LeBon wanted to make sure buildings owned by
the government were not included in the definition. He
asked whether government buildings were intended to be
defined as public.
Representative Wool did not know if the bill would limit
access to government owned buildings. His focus was more on
communal buildings in rural communities. He did not want to
limit access, but also did not know if there was something
in statute already with a limiting definition.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated Representative Edgmon,
Representative Rasmussen, and Representative Carpenter had
joined the meeting.
Representative LeBon thought they might be splitting hairs.
He thought the amendment should be focused on community
facilities.
Representative Wool did not have a problem with making a
conceptual amendment. He thought Representative LeBon had
an amendment that would be discussed later in the meeting
that did the same thing. He was not sure how the other
amendments would be received and did not want to jump
ahead. He thought he and Representative LeBon wanted the
same result.
Representative LeBon agreed that he might be getting ahead
of himself. He suggested a conceptual amendment that would
strike the words "public buildings" and insert "community
facilities" in Amendment 1.
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 1.
Representative Wool OBJECTED. He did not oppose the
amendment change. He suggested rolling his amendment to the
bottom of the agenda because Representative LeBon's
amendment that had not been offered yet had similar
language.
1:38:03 PM
Representative Josephson indicated there was a clear
definition of a community facility. He relayed that the
definition was narrow and accomplished what Representative
LeBon intended. The list of valid community facilities was
as follows: water and sewer facilities, public outdoor
lighting, and charitable educational facilities or
community buildings that operated using monies that were
not from the state, federal government, or private
commercial interests.
Representative LeBon wondered about how outside lighting
was considered a community facility. He did not want to mix
state, federal, or other buildings in the language of the
bill.
Representative Wool appreciated the language defining a
community facility. He wondered if the bill would exclude
schools, particularly rural schools that might need an
energy upgrade. He did not want to eliminate public
buildings like schools from the bill.
Mr. Weitzner explained that he wrote the bill to be
interpreted as broadly as possible. It was conceivable that
schools would be part of the program laid out in the bill.
He would not preclude public facilities from the bill.
Representative Wool wondered if community buildings would
be covered as well if public buildings were left in the
bill. He thought the inclusion of the term "public" would
be less likely to exclude schools.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Mr. Weitzner whether he had a copy
of the amendments.
Representative Wool requested that Amendment 1 be rolled to
the bottom of the agenda.
Representative Wool WITHREW the OBJECTION.
Representative LeBon WITHDREW conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 1.
Representative Wool WITHDREW his MOTION to ADOPT
Amendment 1.
1:42:57 PM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32-
GH1074\W.11 (Klein, 4/20/22) (copy on file):
Page 9, following line 7:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) The authority may not use the Alaska clean
energy fund established in AS 44.88.452 for
construction or renovation of fossil fuel power
generation projects."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool read the amendment, which limited the
type of loans that would qualify for the fund. He did not
oppose renovation of fossil fuel but thought that there
were already enough funding opportunities in the field. He
thought the bill should be used for renewable or green
energy projects.
1:44:25 PM
Representative Carpenter asked whether the funding could be
used if an entity had a coal plant or a diesel plant and
wanted to renovate it into a natural gas plant.
Representative Wool thought there was other funding
available for such projects.
1:45:36 PM
AT EASE
1:46:00 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Rasmussen would be opposing the amendment.
She thought it was important to recognize the role of
fossil fuel in the effort to achieve cleaner and more
renewable energy. She thought the amendment could restrict
growth of renewable energy efforts.
Representative Wool commented that most all of the new
power generation projects in the continental United States
were renewable. There were some conversions to natural gas,
which he supported, but he thought that was enough funding
already.
1:47:28 PM
Representative Carpenter noted that Europe had a lot of
green energy plants and had scrubbed its coal producing
plants. He thought Europe was currently in a bind because
it could not sustain its energy. He did not think the
amendment would be wise.
Representative Rasmussen asked if the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) could be consulted on how the amendment
would impact power houses.
1:48:05 PM
CURTIS THAYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA ENERGY AUTHORITY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
(via teleconference), responded that the state had over 193
communities that were dependent on diesel power generation
for their power houses. He relayed that AEA had worked to
upgrade and improve the efficiencies of the power houses,
but even when there was wind and solar involved, many
communities still relied on power houses to run diesel. He
thought the amendment would prevent any rural diesel
facilities from receiving funds for necessary upgrades or
replacements.
Representative Wool argued that the amendment did not
enable the communities to receive funds; the communities
already received such funds. The amendment simply proposed
that the green bank fund was to be used for renewable
energy programs only. Power houses were already being
maintained with other funds.
1:49:48 PM
Representative Rasmussen asked if the amendment would ban a
community from applying to add solar or wind energy to an
existing diesel power house. She did not think they could
shift from one type of power to another without there being
overlap.
Representative Wool relayed that his intent was not to
inhibit green power generation projects. If a community
with a diesel power house wanted to augment its power
generation with renewable energy, it would not be inhibited
by the amendment.
1:51:31 PM
Representative Edgmon supported the amendment and was
familiar with AEA programs in rural Alaska. He asked if the
bill was a "pseudo bill" for fossil fuel development or
unconventional green energy entities. If this was the case,
he thought the composition of the advisory board should be
changed as well and the bill should be reconstructed. He
did not have a problem narrowing the intent of the bill and
did not want to dilute its purpose.
Representative LeBon asked whether Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) or AEA had an
opinion on the likelihood of regional villages requesting
financing through the green bank to subsidize oil for
natural gas and convert power generation to natural gas. He
wondered if the vision of the program would be to focus on
wind, solar, and other clean energies and exclude
communities reliant on diesel power houses from
eligibility.
Mr. Weitzner relayed that there was extensive discussion
about the creation of the program. A variety of individuals
contributed to the conversation, including people who had
helped develop green banks in other states. Much of the
conversation was about the ways in which each state
considered its unique requirements. For Alaska, it was
important to consider that many rural communities relied on
fossil fuels. The objective of the legislation was to
create ways to provide capital for clean energy and energy
efficiency technology. He explained that AEA was looking at
ways to lower the demand level of fossil fuels in rural
Alaska by supplementing power houses with clean energy.
1:57:12 PM
Representative LeBon suggested that his district was
benefiting from the interior energy project which involved
natural gas being delivered to commercial buildings and
residential homes. It was beneficial to convert properties
from diesel fuel to natural gas because it provided cleaner
air and cost savings. He was glad that the project was not
tied exclusively to a windmill.
Representative Thompson asked Mr. Thayer whether the fund
could be used for building bulk fuel containers or tank
upgrades that would reduce costs over time.
Mr. Thayer did not think so. Currently, there was an unmet
need of $300 million for powerhouses and $800 million in
deferred maintenance for bulk fuel. He thought these were
priorities but did not see how the legislation would help.
Representative Thompson commented that it was unfortunate.
Representative Wool agreed that the projects were definite
needs in the state. He wanted people to convert to clean
energy as well, but there were existing programs in place
already to provide grants to help with conversion. Bulk
fuel needs were substantial, but the bill could not solve
every energy problem in the state. He was not against other
energy sources like power houses, but the bill intended to
incentivize moving towards clean energy. He did not want to
see the monies go towards building new diesel plants.
Co-Chair Merrick relayed that someone from the Legislative
Legal Services online and available for questions.
2:00:51 PM
Representative Edgmon supported the concept of the bill,
however he did not think total energy independence was
possible. He commented that the rural communities that he
represented were not eligible for loan programs for energy
upgrades. He did not know how a commercial bank could craft
a viable loan for his communities. He asked Mr. Thayer to
provide an example of a community that already had a loan
program.
Mr. Thayer responded that there were several communities in
rural Alaska that had such loan programs. He offered that
AEA recently provided $2 million of funding to the
community of Galena for a power plant upgrade. He agreed
that on the whole, Representative Edgmon was correct in
that many communities were financially strapped. There were
about 50 communities that were not tied to a larger utility
or co-operative, and those were the more challenging
communities.
Representative Edgmon commented that he had asked for the
definition of "underserved" in a prior meeting and had not
received it. He hoped that the bill would be crafted in a
way that tied it to clean energy and did not prevent small
communities from competing. He supported the amendment.
Representative Rasmussen asked Legislative Legal Services
if the language as written would impact the ability of a
community with an existing diesel plant to move towards
renewable energy sources.
2:05:23 PM
NOAH KLEIN, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), explained that the amendment would
prohibit use of the funds for construction and renovation
of fossil fuel projects. He did not know if it would
preclude movement towards clean energy projects.
Representative Rasmussen asked if a project could be
financed through the green bank if a power plant wanted to
renovate an additional source of clean energy.
Mr. Klein responded that if the project was a fossil fuel
project, then the renovation would not qualify. However, if
it was a separate project or clean energy project, it would
not be prevented by the amendment.
Representative Rasmussen understood that if an existing
power plant was using fossil fuels and the power plant
wanted to add a renewable energy source, the language in
the amendment would not cause any problems.
Mr. Klein replied that it would come down to whether the
project was a fossil fuel generation project or a clean
energy project without the use of fossil fuels.
2:07:50 PM
Representative LeBon suggested following the money. He was
not sure what the motivation would be for villages that
wanted to move away from diesel fuel. He suggested the
motivation would be to seek out the best financing
available. He did not want to deny the villages access to a
variety of financing options. He thought excluding the
banking community from financing opportunities would be
short-sighted and he thought the banks would be interested
in investing. He was hesitant to take away options from the
villages.
2:09:30 PM
Representative Carpenter understood that fossil fuel power
generation plants could not be constructed due to the
language in the amendment. He thought that the addition of
clean energy to power generation plants would be precluded
by the amendment.
Mr. Klein responded that if it was renovation of a fossil
fuel generation plant, then it would be precluded under the
amendment.
Representative Carpenter asked if it would be precluded
even if the renovation involved clean energy.
Mr. Klein responded in the affirmative based on the
definition of "project" in statute.
Representative Wool could modify the language in the
amendment. The intent was to prevent the building of new
fossil fuel plants, but he did not want small communities
to be negatively impacted.
Representative Wool MOVED to roll Amendment 2 to the bottom
of the agenda. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:12:18 PM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 32-
GH1074\W.7 (Ambrose/Klein, 4/20/22) (copy on file):
Page 7, line 22, following "available":
Insert ";
(3) in consultation with the advisory board
established in AS 44.88.450, establish financing
programs and products the authority determines
necessary to encourage and promote sustainable
energy development in the state"
Page 7, lines 27 - 29:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool reviewed the amendment. He explained
that it was intended to be a guiding principle that moved
the language from a "may" section of the bill to a "shall"
section. He read the amendment.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
Representative Rasmussen OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, LeBon, Ortiz, Foster
OPPOSED: Rasmussen, Thompson, Carpenter, Johnson, Merrick
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
2:14:01 PM
Representative Josephson WITHDREW Amendment 4.
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, 32-
GH1074\W.8 (Klein, 4/20/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
SHORT TITLE. This Act may be known as the Alaska
Green Bank Act."
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 10, line 24:
Delete "sec.3"
Insert "sec.4"
Page 10, line 26:
Delete "sec.3"
Insert "sec.4"
Page 11, line 4:
Delete "sec.3"
Insert "sec.4"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson reviewed the amendment. He
explained that it was designed to insert into the
uncodified language clear reference to the bill as a green
bank bill. The bill had often been referred to as a green
bank bill, but the amendment would make it official.
Co-Chair Merrick WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
Representative Carpenter OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Thompson, Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, LeBon, Ortiz,
Rasmussen, Foster, Merrick
OPPOSED: Carpenter, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (9/2). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
2:16:24 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6, 32-
GH1074\W.10 (Klein, 4/20/22) (copy on file):
Page 9, line 24:
Delete "means"
Insert "includes"
Page 9, line 27, following "processes":
Insert ", but does not include a hydropower
project that produces more than 120 megawatts of
power"
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson reviewed the amendment. He
explained that it intended to constrain sustainable energy
projects to 120 megawatts of power. The largest existing
hydropower projects in Alaska produced no more than 120
megawatts. He was concerned that the state would dedicate
significant monies to hydropower projects as was projected
in the Susitna-Watana Dam project. The proposed $6 billion
project was highly controversial and would have
significantly altered the natural landscape. He thought
that the hydropower produced in the state should match the
need.
Representative Rasmussen would be opposing the amendment.
She argued that the state needed a comprehensive energy
plan which could include a hydropower project that produced
more than 120 megawatts of power. She thought the amendment
was too restrictive. She thought the state would need to
spend significant monies if it wanted to offer equitable
energy access in rural areas.
Representative Thompson would be opposing the amendment. He
commented that the project at Bradley Lake produced 120
megawatts. He did not want upgrades at Bradley Lake to be
prevented by the amendment. He asked for Mr. Thayer's
opinion.
Mr. Thayer responded that the Bradley Lake plant was in
consideration for an upgrade. He emphasized that the costs
of those upgrades were in the hundreds of millions of
dollars. He understood the desire to cap the production at
120 megawatts but thought that there would be other
financing options for upgrades than through the fund
proposed by the bill.
2:20:23 PM
Representative Edgmon wanted to point out scale-ability. He
thought that some of the upgrades were entirely different
projects unrelated to the fund. The proposed parameters
would help the fund develop slowly and appropriately. He
suggested the cap could change over time, but that it was a
fair place to start and restrictions were necessary based
on the amount of monies presently in the fund. He thought
the amendment was appropriate.
Representative Wool commented that the green bank fund was
for small-scale projects like putting solar panels on a
house. It was not intended for projects like the Susitna-
Watana Dam, which would require much more funding than was
proposed in the bill if the project was to go forward. He
supported the amendment.
Representative Rasmussen responded that everyone had seen
how difficult it was to change statutes from the 1970s and
she did not want there to be more laws that the legislature
did not follow.
Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, Ortiz, Foster
OPPOSED: Carpenter, Johnson, LeBon, Rasmussen, Thompson,
Merrick
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 6 FAILED (5/6).
2:24:04 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7, 32-
GH1074\W.9 (Klein, 4/21/22) [The body of the amendment has
been omitted due to length. A copy is available on file.]
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson reviewed the amendment. He
commented that he had lost his confidence in AIDEA due to
its managing of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) monies. He
thought thousands of Alaskans had lost confidence as well.
The amendment moved all of the authorities held by AIDEA to
AEA. The mission of AIDEA was to promote, develop, and
advance economic growth and diversification in Alaska by
promoting various means of financing and investment. The
mission of AEA was to reduce the cost of energy in Alaska.
While the two entities shared the same board, the
difference was that AEA had its own staff and leaders. The
committee had heard some compelling testimony that opposed
housing the green bank under AIDEA due to lack of trust. He
continued to express his concerns about housing the program
under AIDEA and thought that AEA was a stronger place to
house it.
2:27:19 PM
Representative Thompson thought there were confidentiality
issues that were not addressed in the amendment. He asked
for Mr. Thayer to comment on the effect of transferring the
duties from AIDEA to AEA.
Mr. Thayer responded that the amendment was a massive
restructuring of the bill and there was fiscal impact to
AEA that had not been fully addressed. He explained that
AEA statutes did not have the same confidentiality language
as AIDEA. A significant difference was that AEA's statutes
did not allow it to keep confidential financial
information, business plans, or other personal information.
He explained that AEA typically loaned monies to public
entities and it was therefore public information. The
inability of AEA to protect confidentiality was likely why
there was a suggestion to redistribute the duties to AIDEA.
He understood Representative Josephson's intent but thought
that AEA worked well with AIDEA. It was a policy call for
the legislature to make.
Representative LeBon asked how the amendment would change
the relationship between AEA and AIDEA and whether it would
be beneficial to AEA. He wondered if AEA would feel
comfortable administrating individual loans. He was more
comfortable with AIDEA being responsible for administering
loans.
Representative Rasmussen asked Mr. Thayer how long it would
take for AEA to implement the bill.
Mr. Thayer responded that the development of regulations
would take a minimum of a year. Also, AEA did not have the
loan servicing staff that AIDEA had. Recruiting and hiring
new employees would be a cumbersome task for AEA. He
thought at least six employees would be needed in order for
the program to begin and the program would still require a
relationship with AIDEA to provide training to the new
staff. He did not think the transition would be seamless.
Representative Rasmussen asked whether AEA could transfer a
couple of existing loan employees from AIDEA to help with
the transition in order to immediately implement the
legislation.
Mr. Thayer did not believe it would be as simple as
transferring employees due to regulations and other issues.
It would require substantial training and additional
employees.
Representative Thompson reiterated his opposition to the
amendment.
Representative Wool was hesitant to support the amendment
if it would burden the program. He asked Mr. Thayer what
the structural relationship was between AEA and AIDEA.
Mr. Thayer replied that both entities had their own boards
but with the same membership. All employees of both
entities were considered AIDEA employees, and the employees
of AEA were considered leased. The entities had many shared
services such as the financial and accounting teams, human
resources, and information technology. He added that AIDEA
had stand-alone programs that were its responsibly
exclusively.
2:36:12 PM
Representative Wool asked how long it would take to make
the change.
Mr. Thayer responded that regulations would take between
eight and 12 months to write.
Representative Josephson asked how many employees worked at
AEA when the government began to shrink in 2014 and 2015.
Mr. Thayer was hesitant to answer because the time frame
coincided with the proposed Susitna-Watana Dam project.
There were about 100 employees at AEA at that time. In
2022, there were 30 employees.
2:37:32 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked whether the green bank program made
more philosophical sense within AEA or within AIDEA.
Mr. Weitzner responded that philosophically, the green bank
made more sense to function within AIDEA. The bill would
help with job growth and the emergent green sector in the
state. He thought AIDEA would be better suited to manage
the program.
2:39:18 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked Mr. Thayer to comment on the same
question.
Mr. Thayer responded that AIDEA had loan officers whereas,
AEA had project managers, engineers, energy experts. The
employees at AEA helped identify and evaluate projects, but
not necessarily administrate the green bank.
Representative Edgmon understood there was a synergy
between AIDEA and AEA. He was hesitant to support the
amendment though he understood the intent of it.
Representative Rasmussen asked if there was someone who
could speak to the loan process. She wondered if there was
a loan underwriter at AIDEA.
Mr. Weitzner explained that part of the loan process was to
evaluate applications for various types of funding. In
every case, AIDEA had the obligation to evaluate a
financial plan for the loan. It was a similar process as
any financial institution would undertake when evaluating a
loan. Through the process, AIDEA was able to manage and
evaluate financial risks and create a financial plan for
the loan. The plan would then be presented to internal
investment committees, which would make recommendations for
the loan. He invited Mr. Thayer to comment.
Mr. Thayer responded that each entity had its specific role
and there was a working relationship between the two. Part
of the loan review process was to have AIDEA perform loan
evaluations. He believed he would still depend on AIDEA to
provide expertise on loans, just as AIDEA depended on AEA
for technical and energy related questions.
2:44:16 PM
Representative Rasmussen thought the only effect of the
amendment would be the changing of names, as the players
were essentially the same.
Representative Josephson provided wrap-up comments. He
argued that many people wanted the program to be housed
elsewhere. He understood the two entities had many shared
duties but thought the amendment was worthwhile.
Co-Chair Merrick MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Josephson
OPPOSED: Carpenter, Edgmon, LeBon, Ortiz, Rasmussen,
Thompson, Wool, Foster, Merrick
Representative Johnson was absent from the vote.
The MOTION to adopt Amendment 7 FAILED (1/9).
2:46:36 PM
AT EASE
2:47:50 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick recessed the meeting.
2:47:58 PM
AT EASE
[RECESSED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR]
4:51:20 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick reconvened the meeting.
Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8
Replacement, 32-GH1074\W.13 (Klein, 4/25/22) (copy on
file):
Page 7, line 13, following "AS 44.99.115":
Insert "and prioritize programs that support
energy efficiency and renewable energy projects for
residential buildings, commercial buildings, and
community facilities"
Page 7, line 19, following "loaned":
Insert "the amount loaned in communities that
receive, or have a resident who receives, power cost
equalization under AS 42.45.100 - 42.45.150,"
Page 9, lines 16 -19:
Delete all material.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative LeBon reviewed the amendment and read from
it. He explained that community facilities were defined in
the same terms as in the power cost equalization (PCE)
statutes. He relayed that the definition of community
facility in statute was, "water and sewer facility, public
outdoor lighting, charitable educational facility, or
community building whose operations are not paid for by the
state, the federal government, or private commercial
interests." The amendment would also add a loan disclosure
requirement for AIDEA.
4:53:26 PM
Representative Wool MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 8 Replacement (copy on file):
Page 1, line 3 of the Amendment
After "commercial buildings,"
Add
"public buildings,"
Page 1, lines 16-1 7 of the Amendment
Delete all material
Replace with
(e) At least 35 percent of any initial
appropriation to the Alaska Clean Energy Fund
authorized in the 2022 legislative session [THE FUNDS]
used for loans and other forms of financing for
sustainable energy development made [OVER A THREE-YEAR
PERIOD] under AS 44.88.450 - 44.88.456 must be made in
communities that receive, or that have residents who
receive, power cost equalization under AS 42.45.100 -
42.45.150.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Wool explained that the conceptual amendment
would add public buildings to the list of eligible
buildings. He noted that Amendment 8 Replacement deleted
all material on page 9, lines 16 -19 which mandated that 35
percent of loans would be designated for rural Alaska.
However, it was a loan program, not a grant program. The
program required people to apply for loans, and it was not
wise to attempt to determine or force people from
particular areas in the state to apply. He thought the
state could encourage applicants, but it could not force
people to apply. He read from the amendment. He summarized
that the amendment would ensure that 35 percent of initial
funding would go to communities in Alaska that received PCE
funding. He hoped the language encouraged applications
rather than attempting to force them.
4:56:09 PM
AT EASE
5:06:30 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Wool WITHDREW conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 8 Replacement.
Representative Wool had an additional conceptual amendment
that stripped much of the language. He reiterated his
intent to add public buildings to the list of buildings
eligible for loans. He asked if the intent of the bill was
to allow schools and public buildings in rural Alaska to
receive funds through loans to improve energy efficiency.
5:08:18 PM
MORGAN NEFF, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, ALASKA INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT AUTHORITY (AIDEA) (via
teleconference), replied that was not necessarily the
intent of the program. He thought public buildings would
fall under different types of financing arrangements.
5:08:41 PM
AT EASE
[RECESSED TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR]
5:23:56 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the next meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB172 Amendment Packet 1-4 042522.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |
| HB 170 Amendments 1`-8 042422.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB 170 Public Testimony Rec'd by 042622.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB 170 Amendment 8 Replacement LeBon 042622 W.13.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB 170 Conceptual Amendment 1 to Replacement 8 042622.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB 170 Amendment 9 Merrick 042622.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB 170 Conceptual Amendment 2 to Replacement 8 042622.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 170 |
| HB172 Public Testimony Rec'd BY 042622.pdf |
HFIN 4/26/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 172 |