Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124

02/24/2012 01:00 PM RESOURCES

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Heard & Held
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
        HB 289-NATURAL GAS STORAGE TAX CREDIT/REGULATION                                                                    
1:09:23 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the  first order of business would                                                               
be  HOUSE  BILL NO.  289,  "An  Act  relating  to a  gas  storage                                                               
facility; relating to the tax  credit for a gas storage facility;                                                               
relating  to the  powers and  duties of  the Alaska  Oil and  Gas                                                               
Conservation Commission;  relating to  the regulation  of natural                                                               
gas storage  as a utility; relating  to the powers and  duties of                                                               
the director  of the division  of lands and  to lease fees  for a                                                               
gas  storage  facility  on  state  land;  and  providing  for  an                                                               
effective date."                                                                                                                
1:10:12 PM                                                                                                                    
JANE PIERSON, Staff, Representative  Steve Thompson, Alaska State                                                               
Legislature, introduced  HB 289 on  behalf of the  prime sponsor,                                                               
Representative  Thompson.    She  said  the  cost  of  energy  is                                                               
crippling  a  good  portion  of Alaska's  residents.    The  ever                                                               
increasing  expense of  heating  homes  and operating  businesses                                                               
during the  long cold winter  is hurting the ability  of Alaskans                                                               
to put food on the table and  plan for the future.  The Fairbanks                                                               
community  alone  spends over  $600  million  per year  on  space                                                               
heating and  is unable to expand  its business district due  to a                                                               
lack of affordable natural gas.   An infusion of gas in Fairbanks                                                               
would reduce the cost to end  users and would restore the ability                                                               
of Fairbanks to grow its economic base.                                                                                         
MS.  PIERSON  said  HB  289 would  incent  the  private  sector's                                                               
delivery  of  lower  cost  natural  gas  to  Interior  Alaska  by                                                               
extending the  tax credits  for a  liquefied natural  gas storage                                                               
facility, which is  necessary for a natural  gas trucking project                                                               
and something  that Fairbanks is  considering.  A new  credit for                                                               
construction of  above-ground liquefied  gas storage  tanks would                                                               
make  this program  flexible  to  fit the  varying  needs of  gas                                                               
delivery in  Fairbanks and  possibly throughout  the state.   The                                                               
bill  would  apply  to  a  liquefied  natural  gas  storage  tank                                                               
facility  with a  minimum volume  of  1 million  gallons and  the                                                               
amount  of the  credit  would be  limited to  50  percent of  the                                                               
construction  costs up  to  $15 million.    Additionally, HB  289                                                               
would allow  eligible above-ground liquefied natural  gas storage                                                               
facilities  sited on  state lands  to request  an exemption  from                                                               
rental payments.   The exemption could extend for up  to 10 years                                                               
following the  commencement of commercial  operations.   The bill                                                               
defines how credits  should be distributed, both as  a tax credit                                                               
and as payments to non-taxable entities.                                                                                        
MS. PIERSON  pointed out that  HB 289  also has safeguards.   The                                                               
liquefied natural gas storage facility  would be regulated by the                                                               
Regulatory Commission  of Alaska  (RCA) to ensure  incentives are                                                               
passed on  to customers.   The  bill would also  set forth  how a                                                               
person receiving  a credit or  a payment shall repay  the credits                                                               
or payment  if the facility  ceases commercial  operations within                                                               
the nine  calendar years immediately following  the calendar year                                                               
in which the facility commenced  commercial operations.  Further,                                                               
HB  289 would  define "liquefied  natural gas  storage facility,"                                                               
"ceases   commercial  operations,"   and  "commences   commercial                                                               
operations" for a liquefied natural gas facility.                                                                               
1:12:48 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR SEATON  noted for the  record that before  the committee                                                               
was Version I, the proposed  committee substitute (CS) for HB 289                                                               
[labeled 27-LS1216\I,  Bullock, 2/20/12].   He  said this  is the                                                               
first  hearing on  HB 289  and therefore  Version I  is the  bill                                                               
before the committee.                                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON,  in regard  to  the  $15 million  and  50                                                               
percent credit,  inquired what  the estimated  total construction                                                               
cost would be for a 1 million gallon facility.                                                                                  
MS. PIERSON  replied that the  sponsor has been hearing  it would                                                               
be around $40 million.                                                                                                          
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked  what percentage of daily use,  or how many                                                               
days of  use, would  1 million gallons  of liquefied  natural gas                                                               
(LNG) represent.                                                                                                                
MS. PIERSON  responded that according  to Golden  Valley Electric                                                               
Association (GVEA), 1 million gallons  would be approximately one                                                               
week of use.   For the amount of usage  by Fairbanks Natural Gas,                                                               
another company that would like to  use this, she deferred to the                                                               
company's representative online [Dan Britton].                                                                                  
1:14:18 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  SEATON   inquired  whether  1  million   gallons  would                                                               
constrain  communities [that  are  smaller  than Fairbanks]  from                                                               
being  able  to use  this  proposed  credit.   He  further  asked                                                               
whether  Representative  Thompson would  have  a  problem if  the                                                               
amount was half a million gallons rather than a million gallons.                                                                
MS. PIERSON  did not believe  that that  would be a  problem, but                                                               
said she would  research what other communities  think they might                                                               
need so that there would be a basis for the number.                                                                             
CO-CHAIR SEATON related that in  Norway, small inner-port tankers                                                               
go from  coastal village to  coastal village delivering  LNG into                                                               
tanks.   He said it seems  that this could also  be applicable to                                                               
coastal communities  in Alaska  provided the  quantity is  not so                                                               
large that only the largest communities could use it.                                                                           
[CO-CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony.]                                                                                      
1:16:33 PM                                                                                                                    
GENE  THERRIAULT, Vice  President,  Resource Development,  Golden                                                               
Valley Electric  Association (GVEA),  noted that GVEA  is working                                                               
on  projects  that will  move  the  utility away  from  oil-fired                                                               
electric generation.   He offered appreciation  to Representative                                                               
Thompson for  introducing HB  289 on GVEA's  behalf.   He pointed                                                               
out that the 2010 [Cook Inlet  Recovery Act, House Bill 280,] was                                                               
related  to the  need of  putting  a storage  mechanism into  the                                                               
natural  gas supply  stream  in Cook  Inlet.   In  that bill  the                                                               
legislature decided  to assist with  lowering or  controlling the                                                               
cost of  that storage component  as it  was added to  that supply                                                               
stream.   A  policy  call was  made that  the  state would  offer                                                               
assistance  up  to $15  million  with  the construction  of  that                                                               
1:18:11 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. THERRIAULT explained  that, at the time,  the language talked                                                               
about storage of  gas in a depleted reservoir or  pool as well as                                                               
a tank, a  tank denoting a mechanical storage facility  on top of                                                               
the ground.  Because  the focus at that time was  on the needs of                                                               
Cook Inlet,  the threshold for  what size tank would  qualify was                                                               
geared toward  geologic storage  and storage  in a  gaseous state                                                               
rather  than a  liquid  state.   Because  gas  needs  to come  to                                                               
Interior communities  in a liquid  state, that section  of [House                                                               
Bill 280]  was looked at  for applicability to the  Interior and,                                                               
if  so,  determining any  needed  modifications.   One  potential                                                               
problem is  that threshold for how  big the tank needs  to be for                                                               
storing  liquid  methane;  therefore,  primary  for  HB  289,  is                                                               
defining how big the liquid tank  needs to be.  He explained that                                                               
concern has  been expressed  by the backers  of [House  Bill 280]                                                               
about modifying  that section  of statute.   They  have requested                                                               
that  the problem  be addressed  by creating  a separate,  almost                                                               
identical, section of statute that  is geared towards natural gas                                                               
in a  liquefied state.   The difference  between the two  is that                                                               
when  LNG is  turned into  gas its  volume multiplies  by 600-620                                                               
times, so the difference in quantity  that is being dealt with is                                                               
tremendous.   Expressing  GVEA's thanks  for the  policy call  to                                                               
provide  some state  assistance for  putting a  storage component                                                               
into the  supply stream,  he said  GVEA is  now trying  to ensure                                                               
that it is workable for the anticipated project in the Interior.                                                                
1:20:26 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  THERRIAULT outlined  the  four major  components  of HB  289                                                               
[Version I].   One  component would provide  a 10-year  waiver of                                                               
lease payments  for qualifying storage facilities  on state land,                                                               
as was done  in the Cook Inlet Recovery Act  and which would help                                                               
reduce the cost to consumers.   A second component would create a                                                               
separate mechanism for providing a  tax credit for the storage of                                                               
methane in a liquefied form.   In response to Co-Chair Seaton, he                                                               
elaborated that  Section 3 of  HB 289 deals with  an above-ground                                                               
natural  gas  storage facility  tax  credit  patterned after  the                                                               
storage  tax  credit that  was  granted  in  the Cook  Inlet  for                                                               
gaseous  methane.   This  part of  the bill  would  create a  new                                                               
section [in statute]  that mirrors the Cook  Inlet mechanism, but                                                               
is for methane in a liquid form.                                                                                                
1:22:24 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  THERRIAULT  said  a  third  component  would  add  the  word                                                               
payment.   Testimony at  the time  [of House  Bill 280]  said the                                                               
credit  would be  available for  utilities, but  it may  not have                                                               
been  anticipated  that  the  utility  constructing  the  storage                                                               
facility would be a not-for-profit,  and a not-for-profit utility                                                               
does not pay tax.   In regard to the use of  tax credit or refund                                                               
in the  existing language, legislative drafters  pointed out that                                                               
use of the word  refund does not fit for an  entity that does not                                                               
pay  tax and  said that  also  including the  word payment  would                                                               
solve that problem.  This  way, a non-taxpaying entity building a                                                               
storage facility would qualify for  repayment of a portion of the                                                               
expense rather  than a  tax refund.   The fourth  component would                                                               
establish mechanisms for  the state to get back a  portion of the                                                               
refund  or payment  if  the storage  facility  ceases to  operate                                                               
within 10  years.  It would  also provide for a  cessation of the                                                               
waiver of the  lease payments for utilization of  the state land.                                                               
He specified that,  primarily, Version I would  create a separate                                                               
section of  statute that  mimics the structure  put in  place for                                                               
geologic  storage in  the Cook  Inlet, but  that is  workable for                                                               
above-ground storage as is anticipated in Interior Alaska.                                                                      
1:24:20 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. THERRIAULT  stated that GVEA  is partnering with  Flint Hills                                                               
Resources for the  project that it is currently working  on.  The                                                               
preliminary design anticipates a  one million gallon tank located                                                               
on the  North Slope and  a two million  gallon tank in  the North                                                               
Pole area.  A two million  gallon tank would supply about 10 days                                                               
of need for both the Flint  Hills refinery and GVEA's 60 megawatt                                                               
generation plant in North Pole.   While it does not supply a huge                                                               
amount,  it  takes  into  account  any  possible  disruptions  in                                                               
trucking operations.  In working  with the design consultants, it                                                               
may  be possible  to decrease  the size  of the  North Pole  tank                                                               
because both the Flint Hills  and GVEA industrial operations will                                                               
have  the capability  of switching  back to  a liquid,  oil-fired                                                               
generation;  it must  be determined  how quickly  and efficiently                                                               
that could be  done should there be a disruption  in the trucking                                                               
1:25:31 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. THERRIAULT said GVEA believes  that the most immediate way of                                                               
giving some energy  assistance to the largest  number of Interior                                                               
residents  is to  reduce the  cost of  the fuel  that fires  that                                                               
particular generator.   The association serves  residents all the                                                               
way down the  Richardson Highway to Delta  Junction and residents                                                               
all the  way down the  Parks Highways  to Cantwell, and  GVEA has                                                               
notified  other potential  users  in this  service  area that  it                                                               
would like to  sign them up as customers once  the liquid product                                                               
is flowing.   Product would  be delivered to  them at cost  or as                                                               
near to cost as  possible so that it could be put  to use as seen                                                               
fit to  help with energy  costs.  For  example, the LNG  could be                                                               
used for a  power generator that is connected on  the road system                                                               
but  not  part of  the  GVEA  system, or  it  could  be used  for                                                               
industrial  use  or  industrial  space  heat.    If  the  overall                                                               
capacity is  increased, everybody's per  unit cost will  go down,                                                               
but getting  the storage  in place  will be  an integral  part of                                                               
1:27:12 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked whether  the North Slope tank will                                                               
be located on state land.                                                                                                       
MR. THERRIAULT  replied that  GVEA has not  yet decided  where to                                                               
site the  tank, but said  it would  likely be state  land because                                                               
most of  the land in that  area that would provide  access to the                                                               
gas  is state  land.   In  further response,  he  said GVEA  owns                                                               
outright the property  in North Pole that is located  next to the                                                               
Flint Hills refinery  and GVEA's generator.  The  North Pole tank                                                               
could also  be sited on  some of the  land owned by  Flint Hills,                                                               
but the choice  has yet to be  made as to which piece  of land is                                                               
the most optimum location.  He  said GVEA is keeping in mind that                                                               
both  its generation  plant and  the refinery  have a  waste heat                                                               
stream that  can be  used for re-gasification  and GVEA  wants to                                                               
use that as efficiently as possible.                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired  whether the Cook Inlet project                                                               
is located on state land.                                                                                                       
MR.  THERRIAULT  offered  his  belief   that  the  project  is  a                                                               
combination of  oil and  gas leases  that are  on state  land and                                                               
possibly some private land.                                                                                                     
1:28:43 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE P.  WILSON observed that the  proposed fiscal note                                                               
is zero,  but asked  how much  lease revenue  the state  would be                                                               
foregoing if an exemption in lease payments was granted.                                                                        
MR. THERRIAULT answered that the leases  are let on a fair market                                                               
value  and it  is a  fairly modest  amount, but  deferred to  the                                                               
Department  of  Natural Resources  (DNR)  to  provide an  average                                                               
rental amount  for the North  Slope.   He noted that  GVEA leases                                                               
land  for its  Eva Creek  wind turbines  and pays  about $33,000-                                                               
$40,000 per  year for about  40 acres.   In further  response, he                                                               
said the Eva Creek turbines are  in the Healy area, not the North                                                               
1:30:31 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE P.  WILSON asked what the  differences are between                                                               
the Cook Inlet  statute and the provisions being  asked for under                                                               
HB 289 [Version I].                                                                                                             
MR. THERRIAULT replied  that, primarily, the total  volume of gas                                                               
is different.   To contain the threshold of gas  that is workable                                                               
for geologic  storage in Cook Inlet,  GVEA would have to  build a                                                               
tank that  holds in excess of  six million gallons of  LNG.  That                                                               
would be  far bigger  than what makes  sense for  GVEA's economic                                                               
activity, so  any benefit to  the consumer would be  lost through                                                               
very inefficient operation.  Also,  the credit for the Cook Inlet                                                               
area is calculated on 25 percent  of the construction cost or $15                                                               
million, whichever  is less.   [Version I]  would provide  for 50                                                               
percent of  the construction  cost or  $15 million,  whichever is                                                               
less.  This takes into  consideration that reservoirs in the Cook                                                               
Inlet can  be used as the  tankage, but in the  Interior a vessel                                                               
must be built and therefore the construction costs are higher.                                                                  
1:32:06 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR FEIGE observed  that Version I, page 3,  line 28, states                                                               
that the liquefied  natural gas storage volume must  be "not less                                                               
than 1,000,000 gallons".   He surmised that LNG  trucked from the                                                               
North Slope to  the Interior could be delivered  far cheaper than                                                               
diesel   and  therefore   communities  on   their  own   separate                                                               
electrical grids, such as Tok,  Northway, Valdez, and Glennallen,                                                               
would benefit  from this cheaper energy  in the form of  LNG.  He                                                               
asked why [a  minimum tank size of] 1 million  gallons was chosen                                                               
as the limitation under HB 289.                                                                                                 
MR. THERRIAULT responded that debate  [during House Bill 280] was                                                               
that the storage be of a certain  size to qualify so as to incent                                                               
big enough  storage.   He explained that  for possible  uses down                                                               
the highway  system, a  part of the  actual North  Slope resource                                                               
production requires some  tankage.  If GVEA signed  up a customer                                                               
that was  down the highway  so that  the trucks never  stopped at                                                               
GVEA's North  Pole plant,  those users would  get the  benefit of                                                               
the million gallon  storage tank constructed on  the North Slope.                                                               
He said  he is unsure,  however, whether those  communities would                                                               
think  that  a  million  gallon   tank  would  be  warranted  for                                                               
receiving  and utilizing  the resource  in  their own  situation.                                                               
Therefore, GVEA  would be open  to the  committee's consideration                                                               
of  less storage.   He  said GVEA  designed something  that would                                                               
work for it, keeping in mind  that when the debate took place two                                                               
or three  years ago a  certain threshold was required  before the                                                               
state credit was available.                                                                                                     
1:34:36 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR FEIGE  inquired how  many thousand  cubic feet  (MCF) of                                                               
gas are in one million gallons of LNG.                                                                                          
MR.  THERRIAULT answered  that it  takes 12.1  gallons of  LNG to                                                               
make 1 MCF of gas.                                                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE  HERRON  asked what  the  life  expectancy of  the                                                               
infrastructure would be under the business model being used.                                                                    
MR. THERRIAULT replied  that GVEA is going after a  life of 20-30                                                               
years for  the infrastructure and  is hoping that  an alternative                                                               
access to natural gas will come  along before then.  The trucking                                                               
component, which  would not  qualify for this,  would have  to be                                                               
swapped out because the life of  the trucks would be shorter than                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON  inquired how  many trucks would  be needed                                                               
for the 10-day supply at the Flint Hills location.                                                                              
MR. THERRIAULT responded that for  serving Flint Hills' needs and                                                               
GVEA's needs in  North Pole, the expectation is 40  trucks on the                                                               
road  every  day:   20  going  north and  20  coming  south in  a                                                               
continuous cycle.                                                                                                               
1:37:02 PM                                                                                                                    
DAN BRITTON,  President/CEO, Fairbanks  Natural Gas  (FNG), noted                                                               
that FNG  has been  serving the  Fairbanks market  with liquefied                                                               
natural   gas  (LNG)   since  1998   and  currently   operates  a                                                               
liquefaction  facility   in  the  Cook  Inlet   and  two  storage                                                               
facilities  in  Fairbanks,  with  a  total  capacity  of  350,000                                                               
gallons of storage.   He said FNG supports HB  289 and would look                                                               
to install additional storage at  one of its existing facilities,                                                               
which could be  used as quickly as the tank  is built.  Fairbanks                                                               
Natural  Gas  has  excess liquefaction  capacity  in  the  summer                                                               
months that could  be used to fill the larger  storage volume and                                                               
this volume could  be used for peaking in the  winter when higher                                                               
gas volumes  are being sold.   This would  allow FNG to  begin to                                                               
expand its  distribution system as  quickly as the tank  could be                                                               
in service.                                                                                                                     
MR. BRITTON  added that the  tankage would provide for  backup in                                                               
the event  a pipeline is  built.  A  pipeline would be  a single-                                                               
source energy supply,  so if a large earthquake  stopped the flow                                                               
of supply that  tankage could provide a backup source.   Based on                                                               
FNG's current  sales in Fairbanks,  a million gallons  of storage                                                               
would provide 15 days of LNG.   Regarding the limitation that the                                                               
storage be  at least 1 million  gallons, he said FNG  would favor                                                               
making that  a smaller  number for any  of the  other communities                                                               
that might benefit.                                                                                                             
1:39:05 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  SEATON  requested  Mr.  Britton  to  get  back  to  the                                                               
committee in regard  to the size of tankage that  would be needed                                                               
for smaller communities.                                                                                                        
CO-CHAIR SEATON held  over HB 289 and noted that  the public will                                                               
be able to add further comment when the bill is next brought up.                                                                

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB 9 Version U.pdf HRES 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/10/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
HB 9 Sectional, version U.pdf HRES 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/10/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
HB 9 Sponsor Statement- version U.pdf HRES 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/10/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
HB 9.pdf HRES 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/10/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
HB 9 Fact Sheet.docx HRES 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/10/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
CSHB289 version I 2 21.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 289
HB289 version A.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 289
Explanation of Changes version A to Version I 2.22.12.docx HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 289
HB 289 Sponsor Statement.docx HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 289
Sectional Analysis for HB 289.I 2.21.12.docx HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 289
HB289-DOA-AOGCC-2-3-12.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 289
HB289-DOR-TAX-02-20-12.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 289
HB289-DCCED-RCA-02-03-12.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 289
SB 154 - Fuel Price Comparison.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 289
U.12.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
U.15.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
U.16.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
U.19.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
U.20.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
U.21.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
U.24.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
U.25.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
Shipper vs. Pipeline Builder Conflicts material from ANGDA.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
Additional ANGDA - AGDC conflict material.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
Southwest Alaska Pilots Assn Navigational Comparison LNG Cook Inlet Valdez.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
AGDC response to request for analysis from Pedro van Meurs.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
Gov Letter to ANGDA.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
HB 9 Adopted Amendments.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
ANGTL comment.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
HB 9 public comment.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
U.27.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
HB289-DNR-MLW-02-18-2012.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 289
HB289-DNR-DOG-02-18-2012.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 289
U.28.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9
HB009CS-DOR-AHFC-02-08-12.pdf HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM
HB 9