Legislature(2007 - 2008)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/09/2007 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HB109 | |
HB133 | |
HB229 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | HB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | HB 229 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+= | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
= | HB 109 | ||
HOUSE BILL NO. 229 am "An Act authorizing the Alaska Railroad Corporation to participate in a project consisting of the acquisition, construction, improvement, maintenance, equipping, or operation of real and personal property, including facilities and equipment, for the Kenai gasification project and Port MacKenzie rail link, authorizing the corporation to issue bonds to finance all or a portion of the project, and identifying these as bonds for an essential public and governmental purpose; and providing for an effective date." This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. 10:14:39 AM LALANYA SNYDER, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, the bill's sponsor, explained the bill as follows. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Alaska Railroad Corporation to issue up to $2.9 billion in tax- exempt bonds to finance a portion of the Kenai Gasification project. The project will bring coal from Healy to Kenai where low emission coal gasification and electricity generation plants would be built next to the Agrium plant. The project will also generate electricity for South Central Alaska. It will generate excess carbon dioxide that could be used to improve oil recovery from the wells in Cook Inlet and continue to supply fertilizer to Alaska. Payment of debt service for facilities and equipment that would not be owned by the Railroad would be provided through a long term contract or other agreement between the Railroad and the project's owner or operator. Ms. Snyder advised the Committee that an amendment adopted on the House floor allowed the potential for the rail line to be extended to Port MacKenzie. If shipping the coal from Port MacKenzie instead of Anchorage was deemed infeasible, the line would only extend to Anchorage. The bond issuance amount was increased from $2.6 billion to $2.9 billion by the adoption of that amendment. 10:17:28 AM PATRICK GAMBLE, President and Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Railroad Corporation, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, testified via teleconference from an offnet location and announced that the Railroad had a twofold interest in this legislation. First, from an operational perspective, being able to increase the Railroad's ability to transport coal mined in Healy to an offload point where it would be available to the Agrium fertilizer plant would be a "good sound business" move. Mr. Gamble stated that "the "second component of our interest" pertained to the federal Alaska Railroad Transfer Act which provided the Railroad the "authority to issue tax free bonds on behalf of the State economic development, which is the mission of the Railroad." Mr. Gamble noted that while this bonding authority has been authorized in the past, it has never been utilized. Mr. Gamble specified that this proposal would provide "a general authorization to use our tax-free bonding capability as a financial tool in order to improve the business case for Agrium," if they deem the Railroad extension project to be a viable option. Even if authorized, the Railroad's Board of Directors would be required to approve each bond issuance. Mr. Gamble disclosed that, were the decision made to proceed with the project, "as a partner and financier, we would then expect to receive some sort of a fee for the ability to provide this financing." 10:19:49 AM Mr. Gamble communicated that, after careful consideration, the Alaska Railroad Corporation and its Board of Directors have concluded that the actions proposed in this bill would be "good business" for both the Railroad and the State. 10:20:08 AM Co-Chair Stedman asked the risk exposure the Railroad might experience from underwriting the bonds. 10:20:39 AM BILL O'LEARY, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Alaska Railroad Corporation, Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development, testified via teleconference from an offnet location to discuss the Railroad's risk exposure. The proposal currently specifies that some of the authorized amount be directed toward Railroad assets such as locomotives, hopper cars and other infrastructure improvements necessary to support this transportation initiative. The debt that would be issued for those assets would have recourse to the Railroad. Mr. O'Leary clarified, however, that the vast majority of the debt that would be authorized under this legislation would be recoursed to Agrium or whatever entity Agrium might joint venture or partner with as the operator of the facility. Mr. O'Leary stated that the current estimate for the non- Railroad debt is approximately $2.4 billion dollars. 10:22:33 AM Mr. O'Leary explained that the Railroad would be working with Agrium or the entity created for the project to develop a financial plan for selling the bonds. The standard bond issuance process would include a competitive selection process for choosing the numerous investment banking firms that would be required in a transaction of this size. Mr. O'Leary reiterated that the Board would be required to approve any debt issuance. 10:23:25 AM Co-Chair Stedman asked for further information about the action taken by the House that added $300 million to the scope of the project. 10:23:33 AM Mr. Gamble explained that the amendment adopted by the House pertained to the Port MacKenzie transportation component. While several transportation options were considered during the history of this legislation, two are "still in play". One involves improving an existing line to the Port of Anchorage and constructing a coal transfer facility which would transfer coal from a train to a covered coal pile. That coal would then be transferred onto a barge and transported to Nikiski. Mr. Gamble stated that the other, and "preferable", transportation option would include utilizing vast empty acreage at Port MacKenzie. This option "looks very attractive in the abstract". It would allow an efficient dock and offloading process to be "designed from scratch". Unfortunately, the rail line does not currently extend to Port MacKenzie. The $300 million added to the bill by the House would allow further review of this option, including a determination of whether having to extend the rail line 40 miles from Willow to Port MacKenzie might affect its viability. Mr. Gamble communicated that another key consideration is whether the Port MacKenzie rail line extension and port development could be "synchronized" with the timeline Agrium has identified for its plant expansion and "the transfer of its energy source" from gas to coal gasification. Mr. Gamble stressed that even though the Port of Anchorage is the known and available option, the Port MacKenzie option is considered the better choice both for Agrium and other interior resource development projects which could benefit from having access to this tidewater port. Mr. Gamble noted that the financing component of the bill does not specify how the debt service of the project would be structured. This would allow the financing team, once engaged, to begin the "long process" associated with designing the financing aspect of the project. Conducting a study on the Port MacKenzie transportation option would alleviate some of the questions that might arise during discussions with potential financing partners and buyers. The study would also "improve the chances of getting an environmental impact study (EIS) started" in regards to getting a rail line to the Port MacKenzie land. 10:28:02 AM Mr. Gamble concluded his remarks by specifying that the Railroad strongly supports further consideration of the Port MacKenzie option. 10:28:13 AM Co-Chair Stedman questioned the reason the $300 million was offered as a Floor amendment rather than being included in the original bill or adopted during the committee hearing process. Mr. Gamble credited this as being a timing issue. Even though the Port Mackenzie transportation option was one of the numerous transportation options originally considered, it did not materialize as a strong option until Agrium's plant and energy source projects and the project financing structure became more defined. 10:29:48 AM Co-Chair Hoffman asked that a copy of the Alaska Railroad Corporation's current financial statement be provided to the Committee. He also sought information about the Railroad's long- term expansion plans and other projects being considered. 10:30:36 AM Mr. Gamble affirmed that this information would be provided. The Railroad seeks local community participation when considering expansion plans and other projects. Status reports are also provided to the Legislature annually. Additional information would be provided upon request. Co-Chair Hoffman asked whether the Corporation has developed a list of long-range projects. If so, he would appreciate that information. Mr. Gamble affirmed that the information would be provided. One of the projects on the list is to move the existing rail line, which runs through the middle of Fairbanks, to a less congested area. Similar action is being considered for other communities including Wasilla. Co-Chair Hoffman asked whether the list is prioritized. Mr. Gamble responded in the negative. Co-Chair Hoffman asked "why not?" 10:32:12 AM Mr. Gamble expressed that the size and scale of each project, the length of time required to conduct a project EIS, and the need to identify a funding source makes it difficult to prioritize the list. Therefore, the Corporation advances work on projects "in parallel". Experience indicates that while one project might advance ahead of others today, in a year's time, it may lag behind. 10:32:58 AM Co-Chair Hoffman asked that action on the bill be delayed until the requested information could be reviewed. 10:33:07 AM Senator Thomas asked the anticipated timeline for this "big project"; specifically how the money would be allocated and when the Agrium plant might convert to coal gasification. 10:33:40 AM Mr. Gamble deferred to representatives from Agrium USA, Inc. 10:33:50 AM LISA PARKER, Government Relations Manager Agrium USA, Inc. testified via teleconference from an offnet location and communicated the expectation that the timeline "for bringing this project on line" would be 2011 or 2012. Specific "gates" have been identified. Once a gate is reached, the project would be re-evaluated and a determination made regarding whether to continue advancing the project. The next evaluation is scheduled for the summer of 2007. If the project is approved at that point, the next evaluation would be conducted a year later. 10:35:25 AM Co-Chair Stedman, who considered it "odd that we would have a $300 million Floor amendment", asked the Department of Revenue to further address this issue. Something of this "magnitude" should have been addressed during the committee process. 10:35:51 AM JERRY BURNETT, Legislative Liaison and Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department of Revenue, informed the Committee that the Department had not been involved in the discussions about the bill or about adding $300 million to it. Mr. Burnett advised, however, that the bill would not affect the State's debt capacity or credit rating, as the project would be funded with "pure non-recourse project financing conduit revenue bond type financing." The $300 million added by the Floor amendment would have recourse to the Railroad. 10:36:45 AM Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the Department had any interest in how the Railroad, which is considered "a separate entity from the State", operated. Mr. Burnett pointed out that the Railroad, as an independent corporation, "has specific authorization for their bonding" under the Railroad Transfer Act. They are able to utilize this type of bond structure "on their own." 10:37:29 AM Co-Chair Hoffman understood, however, that "the State of Alaska would be financially responsible" if the Corporation was unable to pay the bonds. Mr. Burnett replied that "the recourses would be against the assets of the Railroad. There is no moral obligation or other State credit support in this legislation." 10:38:13 AM Co-Chair Hoffman qualified this as the reason he requested a copy of the Railroad's financial reports. It is doubtful whether the Railroad's "assets are sellable or marketable to anyone else" or whether anyone else "would accept and operate the Railroad to pay off this large debt." Thus, "the next person in line will be the State of Alaska." Co-Chair Hoffman deemed this a "fiduciary responsibility" the Committee and the Department of Revenue should consider when discussing a project of this nature. He expected the Department to provide "a straight answer" when questioned about the issue. 10:39:18 AM Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. O'Leary to provide further clarification on the issuance of the bonds and the recourse in respect to the $2.3 million bonding authority and the $300 million component. 10:39:43 AM Mr. Gamble interjected to acknowledge that the issue was confusing. The bonding authority in the bill is a general authority in accordance with the Federal Transfer Act; it specifies that the Railroad's Board of Directors and the Legislature must approve any sale of bonds by the Alaska Railroad Corporation. However, the bonds could not be sold until the entity assuming the debt service was identified. Mr. Gamble reiterated that identifying the entity which would assume the debt service is not required at this stage of the game. The first step is to simply receive authorization from the Legislature to consider utilizing the Railroad's bonding ability. The most recent of several such authorizations was in respect to funding the Alaska Gas Pipeline. No one had been identified to assume debt service in that instance either. Mr. Gamble continued as follows. In this potential sale, there are three separate components: the Agrium component, the amendment component, and then the smaller component that the Railroad would have recourse to, that I think Mr. O'Leary referred to when he talked about us buying assets and then being responsible for the payment of funds that might be borrowed to buy assets. And in that sense, the recourse would be to the Railroad. The remainder, if it were chosen, and that has not yet been decided either, if the Railroad were chosen to actually do the financing, it would be conduit financing with no recourse to the Railroad. And also I might mention that these projects are not in competition with any other projects, whether they're current Railroad projects that are already on the books or ones that could be anticipated in the future. These financings are independent and because we're not capped, hum, we're not prioritizing nor are we precluding the option of continuing to work other large projects with other options for financing those projects as well. That is a strength of this tool that the State has, and one we're very interested in working with the State to use for continued economic development. With that as sort of an overview, Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I'll pass the more detailed portion of your question to Mr. O'Leary. 10:43:09 AM Co-Chair Stedman asked that Mr. O'Leary also address the non- recourse element associated with this issuance; specifically how the State or the Railroad might be affected "if Agrium was to go insolvent and default on their bonds." 10:43:40 AM Mr. O'Leary stressed that the portion of the bond issuance that would be recoursed to the Railroad was "the smallest piece of this proposed transaction." That debt would be recoursed to the assets owned by the Railroad if the Railroad was unable to pay their portion of the debt. Mr. O'Leary specified that the largest piece of the transaction relates to Agrium. Mr. O'Leary explained "that, by statute," bonds issued by the Alaska Railroad Corporation "cannot be backed by the full faith and credit of the State of Alaska. So, there is no recourse to the State." This would be expressly included in the documentation accompanying any such bonds. 10:45:00 AM Mr. O'Leary clarified that his references to Agrium in this discussion should be interpreted to represent either Agrium or a joint venture or partnership involving Agrium in regards to this project. The bonds sold to support this project "would have recourse only to the assets of that entity". There would be no recourse to either the Railroad or the State. Mr. O'Leary pointed out that if that entity fails to meet its debt service obligation, "the lenders would look to the assets of that entity." Mr. O'Leary noted that while the management of the Railroad must recommend and the Board of the Railroad must approve the sale of the bonds, "the marketplace" would have the "ultimate control on this." Prior to the sale of the bonds, "the marketplace would opine as to whether they believe that the project and this entity will be able to pay those bonds back." If the determination is positive, the bonds will sell; otherwise, they would not. 10:46:40 AM Co-Chair Stedman voiced disbelief that the marketplace could be so "efficient that once they decide to issue double A, triple A bonds, they never get downgraded and never go into default." Nonetheless, he understood that if there was a default on this issuance, it would not impact the Railroad's ability to issue bonds in the future. "It wouldn't affect their rating, wouldn't affect the State in any way. It would just be a $2.4 billion collapse all in the laps of Agrium." Mr. O'Leary stated that even though "this would not be a positive thing for the Railroad," there would be no "legal recourse to the Railroad's assets." The bonds would never be sold with the "Railroads' assets as the security or supporting it" simply because the Railroad's balance sheet and revenue streams could not "support something of this magnitude." 10:48:08 AM Co-Chair Hoffman pointed out that there have been [unspecified] bonds sold in the past that have not been repaid. This undermines one's confidence that bonds receiving the financial market's "seal of approval …are guaranteed to be paid back." Co-Chair Hoffman then questioned why the Legislature must approve the sale of these bonds if the State would not be held liable. Mr. O'Leary responded that Alaska Statutes require Legislative approval in order for the Alaska Railroad "to issue public debt". Co-Chair Hoffman declared that "there has to be a reason for that." He shared the belief that the Legislature has "a fiduciary responsibility for many of the corporations that are under us, even though we don't approve your budgets. You are a State corporation, and then by being a State corporation, I believe that the State of Alaska is ultimately responsible." Co-Chair Hoffman voiced that while this may be argued, in his opinion, the "corporation is owned by the State of Alaska" and therefore an entity that the Legislature could "decide to keep or decide to sell." Thus, were to Legislature to approve the sale of these bonds and there were a default, "the State of Alaska would be responsible. We do have a fiduciary responsibility to make sure that the State of Alaska is protected." 10:50:35 AM Senator Elton asked whether the $300 million added by the House amendment would solely support the construction of the spur line from Wasilla to Port Alexander or whether it would also provide finding to support the transfer facility "between the rail and marine link." 10:51:59 AM Mr. Gamble stated that "the $300 million is the all-in cost for the Railroad component". It would accommodate both the spur line and "the operational activities that would occur at the end of the spur line" at Port MacKenzie. This would include the off- loading and coal pile facilities as well as on-site maintenance. The local government would be providing the land and Agrium would be responsible for the barge loading and dock improvements "specific to the project." 10:52:47 AM Senator Elton asked that Agrium be provided an opportunity to discuss whether incorporating the Port MacKenzie spur into the project would increase their costs. Co-Chair Stedman stated that that information would be provided during the next hearing on the bill. 10:53:22 AM Senator Thomas understood that Agrium was considering switching its power source from gas to coal gasification because of the limited amount of gas available in South Central Alaska. Thus, he raised concern that this switch would be detrimental to further exploration and development of gas in Cook Inlet. It might also negatively affect consideration of running a spur gasline from the North Slope to the area. 10:54:17 AM Co-Chair Stedman ordered the bill HELD in Committee.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|