Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124

04/04/2018 01:00 PM RESOURCES

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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as
Download Video part 2. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
01:37:23 PM Start
01:37:59 PM HB331
06:36:05 PM HB27
06:49:18 PM HB399
06:54:11 PM HB260
07:16:13 PM HB397
07:33:35 PM Presentation(s): Bp Energy Outlook 2018 Edition
08:29:54 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Recessed to 6:30 pm --
+= HB 331 TAX CREDIT CERT. BOND CORP; ROYALTIES TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Presentation: BP World Energy Outlook 2018 by TELECONFERENCED
Mr. Mark J. Finley, General Manager, Global
Markets & U.S. Economics, BP America
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
*+ HB 397 SURCHARGE ON CRUDE OIL;ARCTIC TRANS. FUND TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 27 HIGH-RISK CHEMICALS FOR CHILD EXPOSURE TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 27(RES) Out of Committee
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+= HB 399 CORP. TAX: REMOVE EXEMPTIONS/CREDITS TELECONFERENCED
Moved HB 399 Out of Committee
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+= HB 260 FISH & GAME LICENSES;ELECTRONIC FORM TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 260(RES) Out of Committee
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
          HB 331-TAX CREDIT CERT. BOND CORP; ROYALTIES                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:37:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON announced  that the  first order  of business                                                               
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 331,  "An Act establishing the Alaska Tax                                                               
Credit  Certificate Bond  Corporation; relating  to purchases  of                                                               
tax credit certificates; relating  to overriding royalty interest                                                               
agreements; and providing for an effective date."                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:39:44 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
THOMAS  RYAN, Managing  Director, Structured  Finance Group,  ING                                                               
Capital, LLC,  recapped ING  business interests  in Alaska.   The                                                               
company  financed two  large borrowers  in  Alaska and  monetized                                                               
their tax credits  in 2014 and 2015; the outstanding  loans as of                                                               
2016  have now  been  in default  because of  the  delays in  the                                                               
monetization of the  tax credits; and the  transactions have been                                                               
transferred  to   the  credit   restructuring  department.     He                                                               
emphasized that  ING has  not foreclosed on  the loans  but stays                                                               
committed to  the original transactions that  proved liquidity to                                                               
the  projects.   He said  that both  projects are  very close  to                                                               
being profitable:  one is  generating cash; the other is expected                                                               
to generate  cash next  year.  The  company remains  committed to                                                               
the  two  projects; it  has  not  foreclosed  and taken  the  tax                                                               
credits, even though  it would be entitled to do  under the terms                                                               
of the transaction.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. RYAN relayed that ING  personnel recognize that circumstances                                                               
have changed; the fall in oil  prices had a significant effect on                                                               
Alaska;  and ING  has been  committed to  remaining patient.   He                                                               
offered  that the  company's request  in the  last two  years has                                                               
been for  some certainty and for  restructuring of the debt.   He                                                               
claimed that  certainty in knowing  how much the company  will be                                                               
paid  and when  to  expect  the payment  would  allow  for it  to                                                               
restart the  lending process.   The company is very  committed to                                                               
the  state.   The four  largest sectors  to which  it lends  are:                                                               
natural resources  - metals and mining,  infrastructure projects;                                                               
agriculture   and   fisheries;   and  telecommunications.      He                                                               
maintained that HB 331 would  create the certainty concerning the                                                               
future of the tax credit program that ING welcomes.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:42:12 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
PETER  CLINTON,  Managing  Director,  Credit  Restructuring,  ING                                                               
Capital, LLC,  relayed that when  the loans were made,  they were                                                               
given  serious underwriting  considerations,  and ING  understood                                                               
[state] appropriation  of the funds was  one of the risks  of the                                                               
transactions.  He  maintained that at the time ING  made the loan                                                               
and at  the time the state  developed the programs, no  one could                                                               
have foreseen that the price of  oil would fall so far so rapidly                                                               
as  it  did,   leaving  numerous  parts  of   the  energy  sector                                                               
throughout  the U.S.  in  great  distress.   He  stated that  ING                                                               
invested  about $2.5  billion in  the exploration  and production                                                               
(E&P) sector in Houston; that  sector has seen 60-70 bankruptcies                                                               
of energy sector companies since the start of the energy crisis.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLINTON  maintained that the  difference between  Houston and                                                               
Alaska is  that in Houston,  there was a predictable  process for                                                               
how  the effects  [of the  energy crisis]  would play  out, which                                                               
allowed for  significant capital  to be  available as  the energy                                                               
prices rebounded.  The capital  was available for investments and                                                               
acquisitions, both on  the debt and equity sides.   He maintained                                                               
that ING, which  had 12 clients file for  bankruptcy, still lends                                                               
to every  one of those clients  and still looks for  new business                                                               
in that segment.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLINTON reiterated  that those  at ING  understand that  not                                                               
everything  included in  a contract  plays out  as intended,  and                                                               
credit restructuring  may be  warranted.   He reiterated  that in                                                               
resolving   situations  such   as   described,   ING  looks   for                                                               
predictability  in future  cash  flows and  participation in  the                                                               
solution by all constituents affected  by the situation.  He said                                                               
that  in the  current situation,  the entities  impacted are  the                                                               
state, the  small E&P  companies relying on  the tax  credits for                                                               
further  investments, and  ING, looking  for repayment  of loans.                                                               
He conceded  that it is  the nature of  the business at  ING that                                                               
not every penny that is lent out is repaid.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
MR.   CLINTON   maintained   that    as   ING   personnel   value                                                               
predictability,  the  proposed  legislation  would  allow  ING  a                                                               
discounted  payout  in  exchange   for  that  predictability;  it                                                               
represents  a  classic restructuring  and  it  makes sense.    He                                                               
offered that the  alternative - paying out "to the  formula" - is                                                               
not a viable option because it  lacks dependability.  It would be                                                               
subject to  the political ramifications of  state appropriations.                                                               
He opined  that investors of the  future will look for  that kind                                                               
of  predictability as  well.   He offered  ING's support  for the                                                               
proposed legislation  and maintained that  it is a  good proposal                                                               
and should be given serious consideration.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
1:47:00 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  related that he was  initially skeptical of                                                               
the proposed  legislation; however,  after considering it  in the                                                               
context  of the  rate of  return and  the borrowing  rate of  the                                                               
Alaska Permanent  Fund, he maintained  that he now  considers the                                                               
proposal reasonable.  He stated  his belief that the Alaska State                                                               
Legislature has  a duty and  responsibility to settle  its debts.                                                               
He  opined that  HB 331  offers a  reasonable solution,  provides                                                               
predictability,  and gives  closure to  small operators  who were                                                               
invited to  Alaska to work  but now find themselves  in financial                                                               
constraints.  He offered his support for HB 331.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:48:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  requested  to  know the  value  of  ING's                                                               
assets and debts.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
1:48:42 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR. RYAN responded  that ING's total outstanding  debts are about                                                               
$100 million, and it has $140  million in credits.  He added that                                                               
if ING  were to  foreclose and  sell its  credits to  a secondary                                                               
market, it  would probably recoup  its money, but there  would be                                                               
nothing left  for the projects.   He  maintained that as  of now,                                                               
there is still value for  the projects.  The proposed legislation                                                               
would  allow  ING   to  recoup  most  of  its   money  and  leave                                                               
significant  value   for  the   projects  themselves,   which  is                                                               
desperately needed to comply with the contracts.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:49:30 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLINTON  added  that  in  addition  to  providing  liquidity                                                               
directly,  the  proposal  would  "clean  up"  companies'  balance                                                               
sheets in  an audit  opinion, allowing  them go  back out  to the                                                               
capital  markets.     The  capital  markets   are  currently  not                                                               
welcoming the companies due to the defaulted loans.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
1:49:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  asked for clarification that  $140 million                                                               
in  outstanding credits  could  cancel out  the  $100 million  in                                                               
outstanding debt, if ING resold them.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. RYAN  answered that the  amount represents an  aggregation so                                                               
cannot be  described quite that way.   He added that  if ING sold                                                               
all  the credits,  the entire  proceeds would  pay off  the loan,                                                               
more or  less, and there would  be nothing left.   He stated that                                                               
since  ING  personnel  have  not   been  actively  canvasing  the                                                               
secondary market, it is difficult to say for sure.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
1:50:51 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH asked  whether at  the time  ING made  the                                                               
loans,  ING  and  the  lawyers  of the  borrowers  of  the  loans                                                               
contemplated the pertinent statute.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. RYAN responded yes.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  asked whether it was  reasonable to assume                                                               
than  no party  entered  into the  agreements  with ignorance  or                                                               
illusions regarding the responsibilities of the state.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. RYAN answered, that's right.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
1:51:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON asked  Mr. Clinton  if  he is  at liberty  to                                                               
reveal  the  penalties  that   the  independents  are  incurring,                                                               
assuming the loans are in forbearance.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR.  CLINTON  responded that  the  penalties  are standard.    He                                                               
clarified that  the agreements are not  in forbearance; initially                                                               
they  were for  the  short  term, but  those  have  expired.   He                                                               
explained that  both loans are in  default, can be called  at any                                                               
time,  and there  is no  existing  agreement with  either of  the                                                               
borrowers.   He  offered  that there  is excellent  communication                                                               
between  ING  and the  borrowers;  ING  has communicated  to  the                                                               
borrowers  its desire  to  "see this  through"  in a  cooperative                                                               
manner and in a manner that  will return some of the liquidity to                                                               
them.   He added  that the  only penalty  that the  borrowers are                                                               
incurring today is the default  interest rate - usually 2 percent                                                               
higher than  would be charged on  the loan - which  is typical of                                                               
any transaction.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLINTON  related that there  are other remedies  available to                                                               
ING, such as foreclosing on  the certificates, which is an option                                                               
at  any time.    He explained  that  ING has  not  done that  for                                                               
several  reasons; first  and  foremost, ING  has  faith that  the                                                               
situation will be and should be  remedied by the legislature.  He                                                               
stated that  the spirit  of the original  agreement was  that ING                                                               
was to be paid  by the State of Alaska; to  the extent that there                                                               
were  excess tax  credits,  ING  would return  the  money to  the                                                               
investors.  One of the  investors currently is depending on these                                                               
funds for further  investment; the money is not  available to the                                                               
investor.  Because of the  uncertainty, the investor is unable to                                                               
access the  additional equity  and risks  losing upwards  of $350                                                               
million of  equity that  has been  invested in  the project.   He                                                               
added  that  the project  will  continue  with another  investor;                                                               
however,  that   investor  will  not  offer   the  money  without                                                               
penalties to the existing investors.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLINTON  reiterated that ING  has not pursued the  rights and                                                               
remedies available  to it; if  there was a very  active secondary                                                               
market, it  is possible ING might  have pursued that option.   He                                                               
said that ING prefers a solution  that would allow it to continue                                                               
relationships with its clients.   He maintained that just because                                                               
a  company  has  financial  issues, that  doesn't  mean  it  will                                                               
forever have  financial issues.   If one has faith  in management                                                               
teams  and faith  in the  projects, there  is nothing  wrong with                                                               
reexamining the opportunity to work with the company again.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
1:55:36 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON offered  that the  2 percent  on some  of the                                                               
accounts may date back to the summer of 2015.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. RYAN agreed  that ING incorporated some  extension periods to                                                               
cover eventualities  such as appropriation delay;  therefore, the                                                               
percent does not  date back quite that  far.  He said  that to be                                                               
clear,  the real  value for  the risk  for the  projects is  that                                                               
there  are some  credits  that  were not  lent  against and  were                                                               
reserved by  ING as  extra collateral; ING  would like  to either                                                               
lend against [the  credits] or release them back  to the company.                                                               
He offered that the beauty of HB  331 is that there would be some                                                               
cash  against those  credits  as well,  which  would be  released                                                               
directly back to the company.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:56:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH asked  for  clarification:   ING has  lent                                                               
against  $140  million  in  cashable   tax  credits,  upon  which                                                               
approximately $100 million  has been loaned; ING  has another set                                                               
of tax credit against which it has not needed to borrow.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  RYAN responded  that the  $140 million  has two  components:                                                               
the  portion that  ING lent  against, which  amounts to  about 85                                                               
percent;  and  the  portion that  came  after  the  appropriation                                                               
issues began,  at which  time ING  stopped advancing  against the                                                               
funds.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH commented, "That covers your risk."                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. RYAN concurred.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLINTON added that as  more time passes without any principle                                                               
reduction, the interest accrual "eats into it."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
1:57:35 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked  if given $100 million,  ING would be                                                               
able to eliminate the companies' debts.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. RYAN answered that if the  loan were paid off in exchange for                                                               
all  the credits,  ING would  be  satisfied; however,  ING has  a                                                               
philosophical obligation to  the borrowers.  He  offered that ING                                                               
has worked hard  with the borrowers to keep them  solvent, and it                                                               
would not want to see their $40 million gone.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
1:58:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  stated that the [tax  credit] program began                                                               
in 2011; it was not unreasonable  to expect a full payment of the                                                               
tax credits.   He mentioned that the payment  occurred every year                                                               
for several years;  the governor vetoed two  successive years [of                                                               
payment]  due to  financial  shortfalls.   He  said  that it  was                                                               
reasonable to  expect predictability; the tax  credits were fully                                                               
paid as obligated over five to six years.                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MR. CLINTON  responded that ING  appreciated the credit  and came                                                               
into the agreement  with "eyes wide open."  The  personnel at ING                                                               
expected  the   credits  to  be   paid  off  as  they   had  been                                                               
historically and as had been promoted.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
1:59:41 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
SHELDON  FISHER,  Commissioner  Designee, Department  of  Revenue                                                               
(DOR), continued the PowerPoint  presentation entitled, "State of                                                               
Alaska Department  of Revenue HB331:   Oil & Gas Tax  Credit Bond                                                               
Proposal" dated  3/30/18, which was  begun during the  hearing of                                                               
HB 331  on 3/30/18.  He  returned attention to slide  9, entitled                                                               
"Oil  & Gas  Tax Credit  Background: The  Challenge."   He stated                                                               
that  the  revised estimated  statutory  payment  for the  spring                                                               
forecast was elevated  slightly in fiscal year 2019  (FY 19); the                                                               
levels in the following years were lower and more consistent.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER  FISHER  turned  to  slide  10,  entitled  "Proposed                                                               
Solution:  Issue Bonds and use  proceeds to pay off Tax Credits."                                                               
He related  the example  on the  slide, involving  the assumption                                                               
that  the  credit holder  has  $100  million in  credits  payable                                                               
equally over four  years, or $25 million per year.   He discussed                                                               
that the program  would have two discount rates -  10 percent and                                                               
5.1 percent.   He directed attention  to the charts on  the right                                                               
of  the slide.   Under  the 10  percent discount  rate, year  one                                                               
shows  no discount;  there is  a 10  percent annual  discount for                                                               
future years;  and the  buyout offer  is $87.17  million.   The 5                                                               
percent  scenario shows  similar  logic with  a  buyout offer  of                                                               
$92.95 million.  He explained  that someone would agree to accept                                                               
$87 million  for $100 million  of debt  because money has  a time                                                               
value associated with it.  The belief  is that even at the 10 per                                                               
cent discount rate, the cost  is lower compared with the weighted                                                               
average cost of  capital (WACC); that is, the rate  is lower than                                                               
the  rate at  which the  credit  holder could  secure money  from                                                               
other sources.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER FISHER further explained  the difference between the                                                               
two rates.   All credit holders would be eligible  to utilize the                                                               
10  percent rate.   To  achieve the  5 percent  rate, the  credit                                                               
holder would  be required to make  one of four commitments.   The                                                               
first  is agreeing  to give  the state  an additional  overriding                                                               
royalty  interest, and  the value  of the  royalty interest  over                                                               
time would  be structured to  be equal to the  difference between                                                               
the  two discounts.    In the  example shown  on  slide 10,  that                                                               
difference  would be  approximately  $6  million; therefore,  the                                                               
overriding  royalty interest  would have  a present  value of  $6                                                               
million.  The  second option is committing to  reinvest the money                                                               
in  Alaska.    The  third is  agreeing  to  waive  confidentially                                                               
associated with  seismic data as it  relates to the credit.   The                                                               
fourth involves  certain refinery  or gas storage  credits, which                                                               
would allow  the credit holder  to qualify automatically  for the                                                               
lower rate.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER FISHER mentioned that the  5.1 percent is based on a                                                               
formula that  is the true  cost of  interest, and in  the current                                                               
example, that  would be about  3.6 percent, or what  DOR believed                                                               
to  be the  market rate  for  the debt  at  the time  it goes  to                                                               
market.   It may  turn out  to be slightly  higher or  lower, but                                                               
this is  the percentage chosen as  a conservative estimate.    An                                                               
additional 1.5 percent  was added by DOR as  a cushion, resulting                                                               
in 5.1  percent, which  DOR represents  as the  state's borrowing                                                               
cost.   He added that  even under  the state's borrowing  cost in                                                               
the scenario  demonstrated on  the slide,  the discount  will pay                                                               
for the cost of interest.  The  10 percent rate was chosen by DOR                                                               
arbitrarily; it was  intended to be roughly  the midpoint between                                                               
the state's  borrowing cost of  5 percent and what  DOR perceives                                                               
to be  the market  rate for  the companies,  which is  a weighted                                                               
average cost of capital in the high- to mid-teens.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
COMMISSIONER FISHER  related that the important  concept from the                                                               
state's perspective  is that  the state had  a commitment  to the                                                               
credit  holders  to  pay  them  over  time;  under  the  proposed                                                               
legislation, the  credit holders  would accept a  reduced payment                                                               
so that  the state  can commit  to pay a  bond holder  over time.                                                               
Under either the  5 percent or the 10 percent  discount rate, the                                                               
state is  modestly better  off.  He  maintained that  the state's                                                               
goal is not to try to make money  on this program but to create a                                                               
structure  in  which  the  state  is  neutral  in  the  different                                                               
scenarios.                                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
2:05:54 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON  referred to  the second  bullet under  the 10                                                               
percent rate  on slide 10 -  committing to reinvest the  money in                                                               
Alaska.   He offered that  if the money  is owed to  ING, meeting                                                               
that condition  would be difficult.   He suggested that  doing so                                                               
would depend on what was borrowed  and how it was borrowed during                                                               
the exploration phase; it would be an individual exercise.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER conceded  that much of the  money likely would                                                               
be  used to  pay the  debts; however,  doing so  would allow  the                                                               
companies to  "clean up" their  balance sheets.   The elimination                                                               
of outstanding  debt would enable  them to receive  clean audits.                                                               
Consequently,  they could  access other  sources of  capital that                                                               
they would reinvest.  It would  not necessarily be the exact same                                                               
money coming  back into  the Alaska economy,  but it  would allow                                                               
the companies to attract  money.  He said that the  way HB 331 is                                                               
structured,  to qualify  for that  condition,  the company  would                                                               
have to  present a  plan satisfactory to  DOR that  evidences the                                                               
ability to reinvest the money over a three-year period.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
2:07:32 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  referred  to the  commitments  needed  to                                                               
qualify for the  lower rate and mentioned that  the discount rate                                                               
would  represent  approximately  a  7 percent  reduction  in  the                                                               
asking price  relative to  the total base  value of  the credits.                                                               
He asked  if the commitment to  reinvesting in Alaska must  be an                                                               
amount equivalent to the overall amount purchased.                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER answered, "That is correct."                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:08:22 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  referred to  the commitment  regarding the                                                               
early waiver  of confidential  seismic data  and asked  whether a                                                               
company  having one  small shoot  of low  monetary value  that is                                                               
about to  expire could use  it against  any amount of  credits to                                                               
reduce the rate.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:08:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KEN ALPER,  Director, Tax Division, Department  of Revenue (DOR),                                                               
explained that  seismic data  goes to  the Department  of Natural                                                               
Resources  (DNR)  and becomes  public  after  a ten-year  period.                                                               
Currently DNR is  going through the process  of releasing seismic                                                               
data that it  received nine and ten years ago.   The credits that                                                               
are unpaid are all based on work  that was done for the most part                                                               
in 2015 and  2016; there is nothing "ripe" for  publication.  The                                                               
companies would  be authentically  giving up nine-  or ten-years'                                                               
worth  of  confidentiality  in exchange  for  an  incremental  $6                                                               
million.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
MR.  ALPER mentioned  that Representative  Parish raised  another                                                               
question not  addressed by HB 331:   What happens when  a company                                                               
has  some  seismic  credits  and  some  non-seismic  credits  for                                                               
drilling an  exploration well?   He said that according  to DOR's                                                               
interpretation, DOR would only allow  the company to buy down the                                                               
discount rate  for the seismic  credits by giving up  the seismic                                                               
data.  Another commitment would have  to be made for a lower rate                                                               
on the drilling credits, such as the reinvestment commitment.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:10:26 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  asked   whether  that  interpretation  is                                                               
included explicitly in the proposed legislation.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
MR. ALPER  responded that it  is a detail  that would need  to be                                                               
put into  regulation; it is  DOR's interpretation, and  DOR would                                                               
support including information to clarify that point.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:10:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH asked  for  an explanation  of the  fourth                                                               
condition  for a  lower  rate, as  shown on  the  slide as  "Have                                                               
Refinery or Gas Storage Credits".                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  ALPER replied  that most  of  the credits  have been  sunset                                                               
through legislation  passed [in 2017 during  the Thirtieth Alaska                                                               
State Legislature].   Several  smaller programs  had pre-existing                                                               
sunsets -  in 2020 and 2021  - which represent credits  not under                                                               
the  oil and  gas statutes  but  under the  corporate income  tax                                                               
statutes.   The gas  storage credit  is a  one-off; it  has never                                                               
been  used but  was  put  into statute  for  the  benefit of  the                                                               
Interior Gas Utility (IGU).  Once  the main storage tank is built                                                               
in Fairbanks and if is  completed before the deadline, there will                                                               
be a tax credit due from the state to contribute to the cost.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. ALPER  mentioned that the  impacted entities have  nothing to                                                               
offer:  they have no royalties  to give; the projects are finite;                                                               
the credits  are capped; and the  dollar amount is fixed  so that                                                               
there is a limit on what they earn.   The work that has been done                                                               
to earn  the refinery  credits has already  been put  to economic                                                               
use by  the State of  Alaska.  He gave  as an example  Petro Star                                                               
Inc.,  which  built  an  asphalt  plant as  an  addition  to  its                                                               
refinery in North  Pole.  Asphalt is now  manufactured in Alaska,                                                               
and  the   Department  of  Transportation  &   Public  Facilities                                                               
(DOT&PF)  and other  large consumers  of asphalt  now can  obtain                                                               
cheaper asphalt  than that from  the Lower  48.  He  offered that                                                               
the  state  decided to  default  these  entities into  the  lower                                                               
discount rate because of the benefits they offer.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
2:13:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   PARISH    asked   whether   the    credits   are                                                               
transferable.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. ALPER expressed his belief that  the credits could be sold to                                                               
a tax  payer; however, he conceded  that he was not  sure if this                                                               
was true of refinery credits.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:13:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH also asked if  there is a threshold for how                                                               
many credits could be bought and used for a discount.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR.  ALPER   agreed  to  research  Representative   Parish's  two                                                               
questions.  He  added that in drafting  the proposed legislation,                                                               
DOR  contemplated many  scenarios for  "gaming" the  system.   He                                                               
gave as  an example:   when a  company offers their  credits into                                                               
the program,  it must offer all  of them; there is  no ability to                                                               
pick and  choose which credits  it will  offer.  The  concern was                                                               
that  companies  would  hold  out   for  a  better  buyout.    He                                                               
reiterated that  DOR does not  want to create the  opportunity to                                                               
game  the  system.   He  offered  that  DOR supports  creating  a                                                               
"bullet-proof" system to protect the state's interest.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
2:14:59 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER  referred to slide  11, a continuation  of the                                                               
proposed solution,  and explained  the process  as follows.   The                                                               
first  step  would  be  to  provide the  credit  holders  with  a                                                               
definitive  statement  of the  proceeds  that  will be  available                                                               
under the  program and secure  irrevocable commitments  from them                                                               
to participate.   He  mentioned that this  contact would  occur a                                                               
couple weeks  before the actual issuance  of the bond.   Staff at                                                               
DOR have already  reached out to the credit holders  twice - with                                                               
an  estimate based  on  the fall  forecast  and updated  estimate                                                               
based on the spring forecast;  DOR has been in communication with                                                               
them regarding their interest and view of the program.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER  relayed that  if and when  HB 331  passes and                                                               
once DOR  receives the irrevocable commitment,  it will determine                                                               
if a credit  holder qualifies for the 10 percent  discount or the                                                               
5 percent discount.  He said that  DOR will then go to market and                                                               
issue the  bonds.  He added  that the reason for  the irrevocable                                                               
commitment is  that DOR does not  want to borrow more  money than                                                               
necessary in order to pay off the debt.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER  referred to "Step  2:  Issue Bonds"  on slide                                                               
11  and  reported  that  there  is  just  over  $800  million  in                                                               
outstanding credits  presently.  For  the purpose of  the current                                                               
analysis, DOR assumed that no credits  would be sold to the major                                                               
producers to offset taxes.  He  added that there is a possibility                                                               
that some credits  may be sold to producers between  now and when                                                               
this program is launched.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER stated that the  resulting bond issuance would                                                               
be between  $683 million and  $738 million;  DOR could be  in the                                                               
market  place as  soon  as August,  if  the proposed  legislation                                                               
passes in May.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER related that  DOR anticipates future issuances                                                               
for certificates issued between August  2019 and August 2021; the                                                               
additional issuances are expected to  be between $130 million and                                                               
$180 million in the aggregate.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER  FISHER referred  to "Step  3"  on slide  12, also  a                                                               
continuation of the proposed solution.   He relayed that the next                                                               
step  would be  to  purchase the  tax credits.    He referred  to                                                               
"Option 1"  under Step  3 and  said that  the standard  rate, for                                                               
which all credit holders would qualify,  would be 10 percent.  He                                                               
offered  that this  rate represents  a balance  between both  the                                                               
state's and  the credit  holders' interests;  it would  cover the                                                               
cost of capital  as well as the state's financing  cost and offer                                                               
a modest  benefit to  the state.   Under  "Option 2,"  the credit                                                               
holders would  qualify for a lower  interest rate of just  over 5                                                               
percent;  that percentage  is  based on  today's  market of  3.62                                                               
percent true interest rate cost plus  1.5 percent.  He added that                                                               
as the time of issuance  approaches, the percentage rate may vary                                                               
and  DOR would  notify the  credit  holders based  on the  market                                                               
conditions  at  the  time.     He  restated  the  four  scenarios                                                               
qualifying a credit  holder for the 5.12 percent  rate, as listed                                                               
under Option 2 on slide 12.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:19:07 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER referred  to slide 13, also  a continuation of                                                               
the proposed  solution.   He relayed that  the state  would issue                                                               
bonds, and  the bonds would  have a  ten-year term for  the first                                                               
issuance.   He  stated that  the bonds  would have  a back-loaded                                                               
debt  service,   meaning  that  in   the  first  two   years  DOR                                                               
anticipates interest  only, years  three to five  increasing debt                                                               
service, and  years six through ten  a flat payment to  fully pay                                                               
off  the debt.   He  mentioned that  future bond  issuances would                                                               
consist of interest only in years  one through nine and a balloon                                                               
payment in  year ten.   It  is expected  that the  discount would                                                               
cover the cost of debt service.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:19:52 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH asked  what  protections  the bond  holders                                                               
would have for being reimbursed by the state.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER  replied that  the bonds  would be  subject to                                                               
appropriation;  each legislature  would have  the opportunity  to                                                               
appropriate the  money to repay the  debt.  He opined  that there                                                               
is  a   general  appreciation  for  the   state's  obligation  to                                                               
incurring  and repaying  debt.   He maintained  there is  a moral                                                               
obligation and a strong presumption  for the state's repayment of                                                               
the debt.   He added  that the interest  rate is a  little higher                                                               
than  one with  a general  obligation  (GO) bond;  it reflects  a                                                               
modest amount of appropriation risk for these debts.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:21:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  asked  what the  bond  holder's  recourse                                                               
would be if future legislatures failed to appropriate the money.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER deferred the question to his DOR colleague.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:22:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
DEVEN MITCHELL,  Debt Manager,  Treasury Division,  Department of                                                               
Revenue (DOR), responded  that there would be no  ability for the                                                               
lenders to  extract funds  from the  State of  Alaska.   He added                                                               
that  this situation  would be  different than  other subject-to-                                                               
appropriation commitments.   He mentioned that the  lease for the                                                               
controversial [Anchorage Legislative  Information (LIO)] building                                                               
was  subject  to  appropriation;  however,  that  lease  was  not                                                               
authorized by  law.  The  bond commitment would be  authorized by                                                               
stand-alone law; therefore, would  represent a different level of                                                               
commitment by the  legislature.  He said that  the municipal bond                                                               
market  is  recognized as  a  form  of  commitment that  has  the                                                               
state's good word  behind it; a failure to pay  would result in a                                                               
downgrading  of  the  state's  GO bond  credit  rating;  and  the                                                               
state's   ability  to   access  the   capital  market   would  be                                                               
restricted.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
2:23:47 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked  for the current bond  rating and the                                                               
expected decline  of that rating  should the  legislature decline                                                               
to repay the debt.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MITCHELL   replied  that  the  state   has  had  subject-to-                                                               
appropriation  commitments for  many years,  and there  have been                                                               
many   tough    times;   however,   there   have    always   been                                                               
appropriations.    He maintained  that  the  expectation is  that                                                               
there will  be payment on  these bonds.   He emphasized  that the                                                               
bonds  will  not be  issued  if  there  isn't an  expectation  of                                                               
payment.   He  said that  the  state's current  credit rating  is                                                               
"double a,  double a,  double a three"  from Standard  and Poor's                                                               
Financial  Services  LLC  (S&P)   and  Moody's  Investor  Service                                                               
(Moody's) respectively.  If there  is a failure of repayment, one                                                               
might expect  a significant downgrade  of the three ratings  to a                                                               
low  A category.   He  stated that,  more importantly,  the state                                                               
would  be locked  out  of  the capital  markets.    He said  that                                                               
examples of that are Puerto Rico and Detroit.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
2:25:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH asked  what  the security  was behind  the                                                               
[Anchorage LIO]  building and whether  the security  consisted of                                                               
the state's "good name" only.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITCHELL  replied that the  legislature entered  an operating                                                               
lease  agreement regarding  that  building.   He  stated that  to                                                               
acquire   real  property,   the   statutes  require   stand-alone                                                               
legislation  that  identifies   the  anticipated  expenditure  to                                                               
acquire the real property, the  estimated annual payment, and the                                                               
total  payment  for  the  acquisition.    With  that  stand-alone                                                               
legislation,  comes  the  authorization  to  pledge  the  state's                                                               
credit.  In  this case, the loan would  include information about                                                               
the state's  balance sheet, the  state's forecast, and  such; the                                                               
lease would be one into which  the State of Alaska would enter on                                                               
a  more regular  basis on  an  operating level,  and it  wouldn't                                                               
carry the  same credit commitment [as  for the bonds.]   He added                                                               
that there are several reasons why  the lease failed, but that is                                                               
the reason from DOR's perspective.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
2:26:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked what  recourse the creditors had when                                                               
the lease failed.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
MR.  MITCHELL offered  his  belief that  the  creditors sued  the                                                               
state.  He added that he did not  know the outcome.  He said that                                                               
he recently  read an  article in the  Anchorage Daily  News (ADN)                                                               
about a  bank in Florida  now owning  the building and  Alaska no                                                               
longer having an interest in the building.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITCHELL  offered that there  are layers of  commitments that                                                               
the  state can  make,  and  the credit  commitment,  as is  being                                                               
discussed  in the  present hearing,  is very  different from  the                                                               
example  of the  building in  Anchorage  or default  due to  non-                                                               
renewal of a lease.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
2:28:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  asked whether  the state  has made  such a                                                               
credit commitment in the past.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITCHELL replied  yes.  He said that the  state has made many                                                               
credit  commitments on  a subject-to-appropriation  basis through                                                               
law.   He added  that most  recently in  2015, the  Alaska Native                                                               
Tribal   Health   Consortium's  (ANTHC's)   residential   housing                                                               
facility  in  Anchorage  was  funded  through  a  certificate  of                                                               
participation via a stand-alone law.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:28:49 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON  referred  to  the letter  to  Senator  Cathy                                                               
Giessel  from Mr.  Mitchell and  Assistant Attorney  General Bill                                                               
Milks, dated  3/2/18 and  included in the  committee packet.   He                                                               
asked for DOR's  position on the appropriateness  of the proposed                                                               
legislation considering Article  9, Section 8 and  Section 11, of                                                               
the Alaska State Constitution.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. MITCHELL  restated that  the question  for discussion  is the                                                               
constitutionality of  the use of certificate  of participation of                                                               
lease revenue bonds or  subject-to-appropriation commitments.  He                                                               
referred to the case, Carr-Gottstein  Properties v. State [1991],                                                               
which  was critical  for determining  that it  is legal  to allow                                                               
such obligations.   He stated that the  Alaska State Constitution                                                               
prohibits dedication  of state revenues except  where required by                                                               
federal law, where dedication was  established prior to statehood                                                               
or through the  creation of statehood, or  for general obligation                                                               
funds.   He relayed that  it was determined that  the subject-to-                                                               
appropriation  clause and  the requirement  that the  legislature                                                               
annually consider  and make an  appropriation for the  payment of                                                               
the  obligations   excluded  it  from  the   limitations  of  the                                                               
constitution and  allowed the financial  structures to  be deemed                                                               
legal.    He suggested  that  the  Department  of Law  (DOL)  can                                                               
provide more detail.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
2:31:55 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER  referred to  slide 14, entitled  "Benefits of                                                               
Program" and relayed that the  chart on the slide demonstrates in                                                               
numerical formula  the repayment  [schedule] under  the different                                                               
scenarios.   He directed  attention to  the second  column, which                                                               
lists  the statutory  payments over  time.   He  referred to  the                                                               
columns  entitled Cohorts  1,2,3,  and 4  and  relayed that  they                                                               
represent the various  years of financing.  Cohort  1 consists of                                                               
the  $807 million  mentioned on  slide  11; the  chart shows  two                                                               
years  of interest  only at  about  $27 million  per year;  three                                                               
years  of increasing  interest  and  principle amortization;  and                                                               
five  years at  about $123  million per  year.   He continued  by                                                               
saying  that the  subsequent cohorts  -  2,3, and  4 -  represent                                                               
interest only payments for each  of the first nine years followed                                                               
by a bullet payment at the end to cover the outstanding amount.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER noted a couple  of interesting features of the                                                               
program.  The cost would be  relegated to future years, which was                                                               
done by  design and not  to avoid addressing the  [payment] issue                                                               
in the present.   He stated two  reasons for doing it  thus:  the                                                               
forecast  is  that   revenues  will  grow  over   time,  and  the                                                               
outstanding  deficit  to  the  state   will  decline;  and,  more                                                               
importantly,  the  opportunities  that  the  credit  holders  are                                                               
pursuing  will  not  produce  revenue until  some  point  in  the                                                               
future, therefore,  moving the payment  into the future  puts the                                                               
payment  and the  benefit more  in alignment  with the  period in                                                               
which the  payments will  be paid and  the benefits  of royalties                                                               
and tax revenues are realized by the state.                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER  FISHER relayed  that  the chart  shows  that in  the                                                               
first five years, the aggregate  payment is always less than what                                                               
the  statutory  payment  would have  been,  which  provides  some                                                               
budgeting flexibility to  the state for the next  couple of years                                                               
as it continues to work on  its fiscal plan.  He called attention                                                               
to the  bottom row of  the chart,  entitled "NPV5," to  point out                                                               
that the entire scheme assumes  that everyone qualifies for the 5                                                               
percent discount rate;  if the discount rate is  10 percent, then                                                               
the  amounts will  be  slightly  less for  the  state.   The  net                                                               
present value (NPV)  basis attempts to capture the  notion that a                                                               
dollar five  years from now  is worth  less today because  of the                                                               
potential  interest earned;  in  other words,  money  has a  time                                                               
value.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER  relayed that NPV  tries to put all  the money                                                               
streams into a  current dollar value so that a  comparison can be                                                               
made between the  different streams.  He said  that the statutory                                                               
payment formula has  an NPV of just under $810  million, as shown                                                               
at the  bottom of  the first column,  whereas the  payment stream                                                               
contemplated  and  shown  at  the  bottom  of  the  last  column,                                                               
entitled  "Aggregate Payment,"  shows an  NPV of  just over  $780                                                               
million.   He mentioned  that the difference  between the  two is                                                               
about $27 million in the state's favor.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER  FISHER related  that  the intent  was  not for  this                                                               
amount  to be  a big  gain to  the state  but to  balance several                                                               
competing interests  and be fair  to everyone.  He  insisted that                                                               
DOR wants  to assure  the legislature, as  well as  all Alaskans,                                                               
that  the discount  rate  that the  credit  holders accept  would                                                               
compensate  the state  and  Alaskans for  the  structure and  the                                                               
interest that the state incurs.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:36:48 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for  clarification as to the discount                                                               
rate used in the chart.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
MR. ALPER responded that the  assumption behind the table is that                                                               
all the credits  are sold at the lower discount  rate; hence, the                                                               
larger amount of bonding, the  larger payout to the taxpayer, and                                                               
more payments over time.   If several credit holders accepted the                                                               
10  percent  discount rate  and  didn't  offer  one of  the  four                                                               
additional benefits  to the state  [under Option 2],  the amounts                                                               
would  be smaller  and, therefore,  the state's  incremental gain                                                               
would be slightly more.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  asked for  the  amount  that next  year's                                                               
dollar is worth compared to this year's dollar.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. ALPER responded that the assumption  is that a dollar gains 5                                                               
percent per  year or roughly  the equivalent of the  state's cost                                                               
of capital.   He added that if the state  had $809.75 million and                                                               
set it aside  in a 5 percent interest earning  account, the state                                                               
could  pay that  $946 million  worth of  statutory appropriations                                                               
over time;  likewise, the state  could make the bond  payments by                                                               
setting aside  $783 million using  the same 5  percent investment                                                               
pool.                                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:38:06 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER  FISHER referred  to  slide 15,  entitled "Impact  on                                                               
debt capacity and  credit rating."  He said  that the obligations                                                               
are already  listed as debt  on the state's  Comprehensive Annual                                                               
Financial Report  (CAFR) - the state's  balance sheet; therefore,                                                               
because  one  form  of  obligation  would  be  converted  into  a                                                               
different form  of obligation, there  would be limited  impact on                                                               
the state's  credit rating.   He turned  to the numbers  on slide                                                               
16, also  entitled "Impact on  debt capacity and  credit rating,"                                                               
to  demonstrate the  impact of  the  state's existing  debt.   He                                                               
mentioned that  the 3.8 percent  for FY18 listed under  the third                                                               
column -  "State G.O. Debt  Service" - represents the  percent of                                                               
the  state's unrestricted  general funds  that are  GO bond  debt                                                               
service.   Also  listed on  the chart  are other  state supported                                                               
debts,   school   reimbursement,   and  the   Public   Employees'                                                               
Retirement   System   (PERS)/Teacher  Retirement   System   (TRS)                                                               
obligations,  which [for  FY18]  add up  to  17.5 percent,  shown                                                               
under   the   seventh   column,   entitled   "Subtotal:   Current                                                               
Obligations without Tax Credits."   Looking down that column, the                                                               
percentages grow  to just under  25 percent before  dropping back                                                               
down to about 20 percent.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER drew attention  to the eighth column, entitled                                                               
"Statutory  Payment of  Tax Credits,"  and  explained that  these                                                               
percentages represent  what the  tax credits  would be  under the                                                               
state's   current  obligations.     He   pointed  out   they  are                                                               
substantial  in the  next few  years.   In FY19  the tax  credits                                                               
would consume  just over  8 percent  of the  unrestricted general                                                               
funds  (UGF), bringing  the total  payment obligations  up to  31                                                               
percent.   He stated  that under the  proposed solution,  the tax                                                               
credit  debt service  payment, shown  in the  second to  the last                                                               
column, starts  low at just over  1 percent of UGF,  and grows to                                                               
over 4  percent and  levels off.   He  referred to  the far-right                                                               
column,  entitled "Total:  Current Obligations  with Credit  Bond                                                               
Payments," to point  out the more even distribution  over time of                                                               
the debt service as  a percent of the UGF.   He stated his belief                                                               
that this plan  represents a prudent method  of restructuring the                                                               
obligation:   it  would  level  the amount  over  time; it  would                                                               
provide some  opportunity for  the legislature  to level  out the                                                               
obligation and address priorities  that are currently pressing at                                                               
this  time;  and it  would  be  viewed  favorably by  the  credit                                                               
agencies.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
2:42:17 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  asked   for  alternate  calculations  for                                                               
slides 14  and 16 based on  the actual rate of  payment, not just                                                               
the hypothetical rate of payment.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER  asked for clarification  of what is  meant by                                                               
"alternative calculations."                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  responded that he  is looking for  the tax                                                               
credit  rate  payable according  to  the  co-chair of  the  House                                                               
Finance Committee (FIN) and the Legislative Finance Division.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER  FISHER,  responded  that  slide  14  represents  the                                                               
administration's  interpretation  of statute;  Legislative  Legal                                                               
and   Research  Services   has  indicated   that  the   statutory                                                               
interpretation is  ambiguous.  He  emphasized that  the statutory                                                               
interpretation is not something that  came about as an attempt to                                                               
justify the program:  it  has been the interpretation for several                                                               
years; it has been published  in the state's revenue sources book                                                               
for several  years; and it has  been debated on the  floor by the                                                               
members  of both  houses  and treated  as  the correct  statutory                                                               
interpretation.   He relayed that he  believes the interpretation                                                               
to be  correct and does  not believe it should  be reinterpreted.                                                               
He stated that he is concerned that consistency be maintained.                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
2:45:20 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
MR.  ALPER  relayed  that the  statutory  appropriation  language                                                               
discusses the  [AS 43.55.011] calculation; the  actual tax itself                                                               
is based  on 35 percent of  production tax value of  net profits,                                                               
which  is the  percentage  currently in  law.   He  said that  as                                                               
prices  have increased,  the  use  of the  per  barrel credit  to                                                               
offset them  has grown,  as seen in  the last  several forecasts.                                                               
He stated,  "The alternate appropriation that  the [FIN] co-chair                                                               
was using would  have subtracted the per barrel  credit from that                                                               
number to get  to the ... actual tax received  - the net received                                                               
- and take a  percentage of it."  He added that  even if that was                                                               
the legal  determination, which DOR  personnel do not  believe it                                                               
is -  it is the  position of DOR  that it  is not in  the state's                                                               
best  interest.   He said  that delaying  the payments  for 15-20                                                               
years  would   have  "seismic"   ramifications  inside   the  oil                                                               
industry.   He  opined that  the level  of uncertainty  - knowing                                                               
that they  would not  get paid  for over a  decade -  would drive                                                               
companies that  are currently  "on the edge"  over the  edge into                                                               
bankruptcy, which  would not be  in the  state's interest.    The                                                               
companies would then lose their  leases and the leases would find                                                               
their way  back to the major  producers.  He maintained  that the                                                               
intent of the program was to  diversify the North Slope and bring                                                               
new  players into  Alaska, and  having the  leases revert  to the                                                               
major producers would upend a decade of work by the state.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
MR. ALPER,  in response to  Representative Parish, said  that DOR                                                               
could do the calculation as  requested but stressed that doing so                                                               
would change "both sides of the  equation."  He referred to slide                                                               
14  and  offered the  hypothetical  of  smaller payments  over  a                                                               
longer  period.   He said  that  the proposed  legislation has  a                                                               
mechanism  to  calculate  the  payout   based  on  the  statutory                                                               
interpretation  of a  higher  payout; in  other  words, when  the                                                               
company expects to receive $25  million per year over four years,                                                               
that includes  the assumption  that the  larger formula  is being                                                               
used.   If  the alternate  formula were  used, that  same company                                                               
would get $10  million per year over 10 years.   Without the deep                                                               
compounding  rate,  a company,  instead  of  getting $87  or  $93                                                               
million,  might be  getting $40  or $30  million from  the state,                                                               
therefore, would  probably not participate in  the program, which                                                               
would cause  the program to fail.   Secondly, the state  would be                                                               
borrowing a smaller amount of money.   The payment amounts on the                                                               
last column on slide 14 would  be smaller because the state would                                                               
have borrowed less money; therefore,  there would be a difference                                                               
in the NPV5 amount in the  state's favor, but the amounts on both                                                               
the Statutory  Payment Schedule column and  the Aggregate Payment                                                               
column would be dramatically smaller.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:48:53 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER turned to slide  17, entitled "Conclusion: Oil                                                               
& Tax Credit  Solution," and said that the intent  of the program                                                               
was to  try to balance  several competing interests.   He offered                                                               
that firstly,  the goal  was to provide  an economic  stimulus to                                                               
the state's oil  industry, which has been the  hardest hit sector                                                               
with more  than 30 percent  reduction in employment.   He pointed                                                               
out that not  just the oil industry has suffered,  and as the oil                                                               
industry  improves, it  will have  a multiplier  effect on  other                                                               
dimensions within the  state economy.  He  maintained that within                                                               
the  framework of  providing a  stimulus, DOR  wanted to  take an                                                               
action  that  would  benefit  the  state in  the  short  term  by                                                               
reducing  the current  fiscal  year's budget;  it  would offer  a                                                               
discount  rate  to the  credit  holders,  which would  be  budget                                                               
neutral in the long term.   He continued by saying that secondly,                                                               
the proposal  would support  the small  producers, allow  them to                                                               
clean  up  their  balance  sheets,  attract  capital  from  other                                                               
sources,  invest  again, and  employ  Alaskans.   These  are  the                                                               
companies that the  state attracted by offering  credits in order                                                               
to diversify  and increase competition  in the oil industry.   He                                                               
stated that  lastly, the proposal  represents a  strong statement                                                               
from the  State of Alaska  that it intends to  be an oil  and gas                                                               
exploration  and production  partner.   The state  is offering  a                                                               
solution that  is mature  and sophisticated  - one  that balances                                                               
all the interests and in which all parties share in "the pain."                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
2:51:21 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opened public testimony on HB 331.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:51:58 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  RAUSCHER  asked  that the  "reputational  issues"                                                               
mentioned on slide 17 be addressed.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER FISHER  referred to the box  on the right of  slide 3                                                               
to point out that the state  had marketed the tax credit program.                                                               
He maintained that it is  appropriate to recognize that the state                                                               
had a statutory  framework, but also to recognize  that the state                                                               
made  statements  that  were intended  to  attract  companies  to                                                               
Alaska.   He added that  as the state  has deviated from  some of                                                               
the expectations, even though not  legal commitments, the state's                                                               
reputation does  suffer somewhat.   He emphasized that he  is not                                                               
suggesting  that the  state disadvantages  itself to  protect its                                                               
reputation.   The  proposed legislation  offers  a solution  that                                                               
balances the  cost burden.   He conjectured that the  state bears                                                               
the  least cost  in the  scenario,  because the  state's cost  is                                                               
covered by  the discount that  the credit holders  are accepting.                                                               
He maintained that  the state's credibility would  be enhanced by                                                               
the proposed program.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
2:54:10 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH   expressed  his  appreciation   for  DOR's                                                               
efforts.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
2:54:23 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  suggested that  a  direct  payoff to  the                                                               
lender is more favorable to the state.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
COMMISIONER  FISHER  responded  that  the goal  of  the  proposed                                                               
program  is not  to  maximize  the value  to  the  state, but  to                                                               
eliminate  companies' debts  in a  manner fair  to the  state and                                                               
fair  to the  credit holders.   He  mentioned that  the testimony                                                               
from ING  indicated that a  payoff such as  Representative Parish                                                               
suggests might  preserve ING's  financial standing;  however, ING                                                               
wants  to see  the companies  succeed and  wants to  continue its                                                               
lending relationships  with the  companies.   He conceded  that a                                                               
program could  have been designed  that would have resulted  in a                                                               
larger discount to  the state; however, he does  not believe that                                                               
a program  with, for  example, a 30  percent discount  would have                                                               
cleared  all  the  debts.    Many  credit  holders  have  already                                                               
indicated that  even the  10 percent  discount is  too high.   He                                                               
also  expressed  his belief  that  a  30 percent  discount  would                                                               
result  in  a  longer  recovery   time  for  companies,  delaying                                                               
production and  employment.   He reiterated  that the  intent was                                                               
not to  maximize the value to  the state but to  balance multiple                                                               
objectives, as shown on slide 3.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
2:57:27 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
KARA  MORIARTY, President/CEO,  Alaska  Oil  and Gas  Association                                                               
(AOGA),   paraphrased  from   the  following   written  testimony                                                               
[original punctuation provided]:                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     Co-Chair  Josephson,  Co-Chair  Tarr,  members  of  the                                                                    
     Committee, thank you for the  opportunity to testify on                                                                    
     House  Bill  331.  For  the record,  my  name  is  Kara                                                                    
     Moriarty and I  am the President/CEO of  the Alaska Oil                                                                    
     &  Gas Association,  commonly  referred  to as  "AOGA."                                                                    
     AOGA  is a  private trade  association that  represents                                                                    
     the  majority  of  oil and  gas  producers,  explorers,                                                                    
     refiners,  and transporters  of Alaska's  oil and  gas.                                                                    
     The  following testimony  reflects the  opinion of  our                                                                    
     membership.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     AOGA  supports an  expedited  resolution  this year  to                                                                    
     refund  the  earned  credits.  Companies  earned  these                                                                    
     credits by  investing hundreds  of millions  of dollars                                                                    
     to hire Alaskans for the  exploration and production of                                                                    
     oil. The delay  in the rebates has  damaged the state's                                                                    
     reputation  and   chilled  future   investment;  caused                                                                    
     projects to be shelved,  resulting in negative economic                                                                    
     impacts to  the state  and local communities;  and many                                                                    
     Alaskans  are now  out of  work, especially  within the                                                                    
     oil and gas industry.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     AOGA believes  the state  should honor  all outstanding                                                                    
     earned  tax  credits  in  full,  and  in  as  expedited                                                                    
     process  as   possible.  The  Governor's  bill   is  an                                                                    
     innovative approach  that seeks to refund  a portion of                                                                    
     the  earned credits  via bonding  to  raise the  money,                                                                    
     then  refunding  the credits  at  a  reduced rate.  The                                                                    
     Governor proposes to lower the  refunding rate to cover                                                                    
     the  state's  bond  finance costs.  AOGA  has  concerns                                                                    
     about the steep discount  rates and other provisions of                                                                    
     the bill.  But AOGA  is committed  to working  with the                                                                    
     administration and legislature  to finding an equitable                                                                    
     solution     it's  simply   too  important.  AOGA  does                                                                    
     applaud  the  administration   for  acknowledging  that                                                                    
     refunding these payments is a critical step this year.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     AOGA supports  an equitable plan  that will  refund the                                                                    
     entirety of the earned credits  this year: Let's send a                                                                    
     strong  signal to  investors that  Alaska  is open  for                                                                    
     business  and attract  much  needed  new investment  to                                                                    
     employ Alaskans,  produce more oil, and  drive Alaska's                                                                    
     economy forward. Thank you.                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
3:00:31 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
BARBARA  HUFF TUCKNESS,  Director,  Governmental and  Legislative                                                               
Affairs, Teamsters  Local 959, testified  in support of  HSB 331.                                                               
She  expressed her  belief that  the proposed  legislation is  an                                                               
innovative solution  providing certainty for those  operators who                                                               
are looking  to attract new  investment and  to the state  in the                                                               
current uncertain  financial times.   She  stated that  the state                                                               
would pay less  under the tax credit bond  proposal, putting less                                                               
strain on the state's current  fiscal crisis and providing "face-                                                               
saving" in  respect to the promises  that were made in  the past.                                                               
Her   organization  believes   that   the  proposed   legislation                                                               
represents  an important  message:   that Alaska  is true  to its                                                               
word even  in tough times.   She concluded by saying  that HB 331                                                               
would not  place an  undue burden on  the state's  fiscal budget,                                                               
would  support small  producers,  would  encourage investment  in                                                               
Alaska,  and would  provide an  opportunity for  new jobs  in the                                                               
state.   She opined  that HB  331 is  a win  for the  members she                                                               
represents, all Alaskans, the state, and the operators.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON relayed some housekeeping information.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
3:04:08 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
JOE MATHIS  testified in support  of HB 331.   He stated  that he                                                               
worked in the  resource development industry and is  the owner of                                                               
a small  business in the  Matanuska-Susitna (MAT_SU) Valley.   He                                                               
offered  two  reasons  for  supporting HB  331:    integrity  and                                                               
commitment.  He said that integrity  is defined as adherence to a                                                               
moral  and ethical  principle and  soundness of  moral character.                                                               
He stated that commitment follows  integrity.  He maintained that                                                               
in his  personal experience, one's  integrity and one's  word, or                                                               
commitment, is paramount.  He opined  that the state has lost the                                                               
respect  of the  financial and  business community  and needs  to                                                               
regain  faith  in  its  integrity   and  its  commitments.    The                                                               
legislature has a great opportunity  to repair the damage done to                                                               
its  integrity.   He said  that Alaska  is about  to embark  on a                                                               
major  trade  mission  with  a  potential  partner  and  overseas                                                               
investor.   He emphasized that  potential partners  and investors                                                               
will look for integrity.  He  maintained that in the national and                                                               
worldwide  financial communities,  Alaska  ranks dead  last as  a                                                               
place to do  business.  He stated  that he worked 28  years for a                                                               
company whose core values were:   honesty and integrity governing                                                               
its  activity, commitments  fulfilled,  and  people treated  with                                                               
dignity and  respect.  He  maintained that these core  values are                                                               
applicable to government as well.   He conceded that the proposed                                                               
legislation does not completely  fulfill its original commitment,                                                               
but it  does signal that  the state  wants to restore  and repair                                                               
its integrity and its commitment.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
3:07:39 PM                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON, after  ascertaining  no one  else wished  to                                                               
testify, closed public testimony.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
[HB 331 was held over.]                                                                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB331 Credit Bonds for HRES 4-2-18.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 331
HB331 Transmittal Letter.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Version A.PDF HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Fiscal Note -DNR-DOG 1.29.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX 2.5.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Supporting Document - DOR.LAW 3.2.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Sectional Analysis 3.29.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Supporting Document - Letter of Support 3.29.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 331
HRES BP Energy Outlook 2018 Presentation 4.4.18.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
Oil and Gas
HB 397 Version J 4.4.18.PDF HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 397
HB 397 Surcharge on Crude Oil Arctic Trans Sponsor Statement V-O 4.4.18.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 397
HB 397 Surcharge on Crude Oil Arctic Trans Draft CS Version O 4.4.18.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 397
HB 397 Surcharge on Crude Oil Arctic Trans - Sectional Analysis V-O 4.4.18.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 397
HB 397 Surcharge on Crude Oil Arctic Trans -Letter of Intent 4.4.18.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 397
HB 397 Fiscal Note - DOR-TAX 3.31.18.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 397
HB 27 Sponsor Statement 3.8.18.pdf HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Version A 1.18.17.PDF HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Ver. D bill 3.8.18.pdf HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Version D Sectional Analysis 3.8.18.pdf HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Fiscal Note DEC 3-2-18 HIGH-RISK CHEMICALS FOR CHILD EXPOSURE 3.8.18.pdf HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Fiscal Note - LAW-CIV 3.16.18.pdf HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 27 Amendment One - D.1 - Rep. Tarr 3.21.18.pdf HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 27
HB 399 Sponsor Statement 3.26.18.pdf HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB 399 O 3.26.18.pdf HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB 399 Sectional Sectional Analysis ver O 3.26.18.pdf HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB 399 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX 3.24.18.pdf HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB 399 Additional Documents DOR Letter 3.26.18.pdf HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB 399 Additional Documents CIT Sector Report FY 2017 3.26.18.pdf HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Reduced Rate Capital Gains.pdf HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Foreign Royalty.pdf HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Federal Credits.pdf HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Stranded Gas.pdf HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB 399 Opposing Document - Letter in Opposition 3.28.18.pdf HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB 399 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX 3.27.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 399
HB260 Sponsor Statement 1.25.18.pdf HFSH 2/20/2018 11:00:00 AM
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 260
HB260 ver A 1.25.18.pdf HFSH 2/20/2018 11:00:00 AM
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 260
HB 260 Fiscal Note-DFG- 2.16.18.pdf HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 260
HB260 Residential Hunters AK Letter of Support HB 260.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 260
HB 260 Supporting Document - Status of Electronic Fish Game licenses, mobile apps and websites in other states 3.15.18.pdf HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 260
HB 260 Amendment One - A.1 - Rep. Tarr 3.20.18.pdf HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 260
HB 260 Amendment Two - A.2 - Rep. Tarr 3.27.18.pdf HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 260
DNR HB397 4.4.18 Presentation.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 397
HB 397 Conditional Oil Surcharge Sponsor Statement 4.4.18.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 397
AOGA Testimony - HB 331 - 4.4.2018.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 331
HB 397 Sponsor Presentation 4.4.18.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 397