Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/26/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB138 | |
| Presentation: the Business Case Before the Legislature | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 138
"An Act relating to the purposes of the Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation to advance to develop a large-
diameter natural gas pipeline project, including
treatment and liquefaction facilities; establishing
the large-diameter natural gas pipeline project fund;
creating a subsidiary related to a large-diameter
natural gas pipeline project, including treatment and
liquefaction facilities; relating to the authority of
the commissioner of natural resources to negotiate
contracts related to North Slope natural gas projects,
to enter into confidentiality agreements in support of
contract negotiations and implementation, and to take
custody of gas delivered to the state under an
election to pay the oil and gas production tax in
kind; relating to the sale, exchange, or disposal of
gas delivered to the state under an election to pay
the oil and gas production tax in kind; relating to
the duties of the commissioner of revenue to direct
the disposition of revenues received from gas
delivered to the state in kind and to consult with the
commissioner of natural resources on the custody and
disposition of gas delivered to the state in kind;
relating to the authority of the commissioner of
natural resources to propose modifications to existing
state oil and gas leases; making certain information
provided to the Department of Natural Resources and
the Department of Revenue exempt from inspection as a
public record; making certain tax information related
to an election to pay the oil and gas production tax
in kind exempt from tax confidentiality provisions;
relating to establishing under the oil and gas
production tax a gross tax rate for gas after 2021;
making the alternate minimum tax on oil and gas
produced north of 68 degrees North latitude after 2021
apply only to oil; relating to apportionment factors
of the Alaska Net Income Tax Act; authorizing a
producer's election to pay the oil and gas production
tax in kind for certain gas and relating to the
authorization; relating to monthly installment
payments of the oil and gas production tax; relating
to interest payments on monthly installment payments
of the oil and gas production tax; relating to
settlements between producers and royalty owners for
oil and gas production tax; relating to annual
statements by producers and explorers; relating to
annual production tax values; relating to lease
expenditures; amending the definition of gross value
at the 'point of production' for gas for purposes of
the oil and gas production tax; adding definitions
related to natural gas terms; clarifying that credit
may not be taken against the in-kind levy of the oil
and gas production tax for gas for purposes of the
exploration incentive credit, the oil or gas producer
education credit, and the film production tax credit;
making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date."
9:15:45 AM
^PRESENTATION: THE BUSINESS CASE BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE
9:15:45 AM
Senator Dunleavy wondered who would be building the
pipeline.
DAVE VAN TUYL, REGIONAL MANAGER, BP EXPLORATION ALASKA
responded that the pipeline would be built by a host of
contractors and experts that build projects of the kind. He
related that the project would be managed by the Heads of
Agreement (HOA); the group would direct the numerous
individuals that would be active in the construction phase
of the project.
9:16:49 AM
Senator Dunleavy wondered if there was an entity that would
take sole the lead of the project.
9:17:12 AM
Mr. Van Tuyl replied that the current lead party was
ExxonMobil. He said that the necessary agreements that
would govern the construction of the line had yet to be
determined.
9:17:25 AM
Senator Dunleavy probed industry representatives on their
likes and dislikes concerning the HOA.
BILL MCMAHON, SENIOR COMMERCIAL ADVISOR, EXXONMOBIL replied
that ExxonMobil appreciated the breadth of participation
that was currently allowed to the corporation through the
HOA. He expressed pleasure in working with the parties
involved.
9:18:20 AM
Mr. McMahon stated that the members of the HOA had come
together in order to craft the agreement and that the
process had been constructive. He did not see that the
group would have trouble problem solving in the future.
9:19:03 AM
Mr. Van Tuyl announced that there were many reasons to like
the HOA. He stressed that the completion of the HOA was
proof that the entities involved would negotiate
successfully in the future. He noted that the entities
involved represented 98 percent of the known gas on the
North Slope. He lauded that the group contained entities
that had built successful Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) mega-
projects around the world; a preeminent North American
pipeline builder with whom industry had done business in
the past, and very importantly, the Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation (AGDC). He noted that the price tag
for the project was daunting and hoped that the project
would be delivered at a competitive cost to supply in the
world market.
9:21:49 AM
Senator Dunleavy wondered if it was anticipated that the
project would be the most expensive LNG project in history.
Mr. Van Tuyl replied that he hoped not. He noted that there
were other projects in the world of the similar magnitude,
but that the objective was to be able to deliver the
project at the lowest possible cost.
9:22:18 AM
PAT FLOOD, SUPERVISOR, NORTH SLOPE GAS DEVELOPMENT,
CONOCOPHILLIPS, announced that what ConocoPhilips
appreciated most about the HOA was the alignment that it
created. He felt that the HOA could create a new and
historic relationship between the oil and gas industry and
the state. He said that by finding a way to have aligned
interests, reduced disputes and reduced tensions could lead
to a new era. He echoed the previous speaker that the
cost of the project was intimidating. He believed that the
next step in the project was to determine ways to lower the
overall cost.
9:23:43 AM
TONY PALMER, VICE-PRESIDENT, TRANSCANADA ALASKA INTERESTS,
reiterated the previous statements by industry
representatives. He noted that the fact that the plan to
move over 3 billion cubic feet (bcf) per day off of the
North Slope dictated that a significant amount of money
would need to be spent on the project.
9:24:52 AM
DAN FAUSKE, PRESIDENT ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, (AGDC) appreciated all of the different voices
involved in the conversation pertaining to the project. He
felt it was important that AGDC never forget that the main
objective was to provide affordable gas to Alaskans while
cooperating on the development of a big gasline. He shared
that the HOA group had been congenial in understanding the
mission of AGDC, which did not necessarily equate to their
corporate mission. He reiterated that the members were
cognizant of AGDC's desire to help facilitate the project
and maintain the goal of providing gas to Alaskans.
9:26:10 AM
Senator Dunleavy asked for clarification regarding take-
offs versus straddle plants. He surmised that the straddle
plant would provide take-off for propane, which could then
be shipped throughout the state. He asked whether propane
could be done without a straddle plant.
9:27:17 AM
Mr. Fauske explained that "straddle plant" was a term used
by industry often when production was at a pressure of 2500
pounds per square inch (psi) in a 24 inch pipe, and were
hauling mostly liquids. He said that the straddle plant
that the corporation had envisioned was an approximately
$250 million structure; one located at Dunbar and another
at an end point. He said that the straddle plants had been
taken out of the plan due to their volatility.
9:29:42 AM
Mr. McMahon interjected that the project would take the gas
that currently existed at Prudhoe Bay, and potentially
Point Thomson, and bring it to a central location on the
North Slope. There the carbon dioxide and other impurities
would be removed and the gas would be brought down through
the state to an LNG plant with a minimum of 5 off-take
points that would be a "T" in the line with a valve. He
said that what would happen downstream of the valve would
need to be customized to the customers that would be taking
the gas. He stated that the first thought would be that the
pressure would need to be reduced to fit the needs of the
customer.
9:31:34 AM
Mr. Flood agreed with the previous two testifiers.
Mr. Van Tuyl also agreed with the previous testimony.
9:31:51 AM
Senator Hoffman queried the locations of the delivery
points. He likened the issue to the problem 30 years ago of
providing sufficient water services in rural Alaska; wells
were drilled and were the delivery point for each
community, which was better than what had been available
before, but still inaccessible to people living far outside
well communities. He expressed concern that the delivery
points for the project could be unusable to a vast majority
of Alaskans. He opined that the state was one of the most
resource rich in the world, yet residents paid the highest
energy costs. He stressed that the legislation should
explicitly state that Alaskans would directly benefit from
the gasline.
9:35:24 AM
Senator Dunleavy thought that the committee had two goals
to reach; to provide a large amount of gas in order to
lower the price at the pump and to lower energy costs for
Alaskans. He wondered whether the idea of propane would be
employed or could another dividend be given to Alaskans. He
reiterated the concern that a large pipeline could be built
that could bring in significant gas revenue, but without
cheap energy Alaskans would migrate out of state. He asked
whether there was a contingency plan in place in the event
that one of the partners dropped out in the early stages of
the project.
9:36:05 AM
Co-Chair Kelly felt that the bill did not answer the larger
questions concerning the specifics of the take-off points.
Mr. Fauske read directly from the HOA document:
To assist in addressing in-state gas demand, the
Alaska LNG Project would include at least five in-
state offtake points ("Offtake Point(s)"), with the
specific locations determined by the Administration in
consultation with AGDC. Any Party may deliver gas to
an Offtake Point. Any facilities taking gas from an
Offtake Point, including facilities associated with
odorization, reduction of gas pressure, or control of
gas heating value or gas quality, are not part of the
Alaska LNG Project and would need to be funded,
installed and maintained by third parties.
Mr. Fauske stated that the primary mission, from the
perspective of the AGDC, was to get gas to Alaskans. He
said that AGDC was exploring a variety of ways with people
from Donlin Creek LLC to get the gasline closer to Bethel.
He felt that until there was a pipe, with the energy source
in it, the discussion concerning how gas got to more people
was limited. He believed that getting the pipe within 100
miles of a community was better than 800 miles. He believed
that the project might not pencil out favorably due to the
small population of the state. He thought that the ability
did exist to get the resource closer so that entrepreneurs
could start factoring out ways to get the gas to residents.
9:39:21 AM
Senator Dunleavy restated his question concerning what
would happen if a party exited the project prematurely.
Mr. Van Tuyl responded that parties would endeavor to solve
the problem before an exit would be considered. He stressed
that maintaining the alignment between parties was crucial.
9:41:19 AM
Co-Chair Kelly wondered about the investment loss that
would be incurred if the project imploded. He said that if
the state wanted to do business then it would need to
assume the natural risk associated with doing so.
Mr. Fauske interjected that it would be unfortunate if the
state lost the investment it made, he highlighted that AGDC
would not leave the project hanging.
9:42:30 AM
Co-Chair Kelly noted that any money spent by the state
could provide valuable information for AGDC.
9:42:41 AM
Co-Chair Meyer wondered what about the project ExxonMobil
considered different or exciting when compared to other
projects.
Mr. McMahon responded that ExxonMobil was very excited
about this project due to the strong market and resource
base. He stressed that the company's Alaska assets were a
key part of their worldwide portfolio. It was believed that
the project had good fundamentals, with a proven resource
base and a good proximity to the market. He noted the
current investment the company had made in Point Thomson
for the initial production system would pre-position Point
Thomson for major gas sales. He said that the progress that
had been recently made on the project had prompted
management to transfer responsibility of the project from
ExxonMobil Production Company to ExxonMobil Development
Company, which is a global organization that executed mega-
projects around the world.
9:46:04 AM
Co-Chair Meyer asked how cost overruns would be avoided on
the project.
Mr. Van Tuyl pointed out to the committee that the gasline
would be a combination of mega-projects; several multi-
billion dollar projects combined. He stated that every
company involved would be very disciplined about project
management, evaluating costs and risk mitigation at every
step. He noted that the cost override for the corporation's
current project in Australia was due to a combination of
the labor market, materials, logistics, and the exchange
rate. He thought that some of the same challenges would be
found in the Alaska project, but steps could be taken to
ensure the project was a success.
9:49:22 AM
Co-Chair Kelly noted that all projects worldwide faced
challenges.
9:49:57 AM
Co-Chair Meyer understood that Mr. Fauske believed that
repealing SB 21 would be detrimental to the gasline project
moving forward.
Mr. Fauske replied in the affirmative. He stressed that oil
was the most important resource in Alaska. He felt that
producers would not participate in a gas pipeline project,
if the oil market was not attractive for the producers.
9:51:39 AM
Co-Chair Meyer agreed. He noted that there was more gas to
be discovered up north; if industry was not exploring for
oil the gas would not be discovered. He declared that oil
was king and would be for some time.
9:52:11 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if there were five off-take
points that were already identified.
Mr. Fauske responded that he could not speak to the large
pipe. He said that one point would be Fairbanks. He stated
that there had been conversations with communities along
the pipeline corridor. He assured the committee that ADGC's
Community Advisory Council was currently very engaged with
communities.
9:53:46 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough requested that it be very clearly
recorded how the off-take points would be determined. She
hoped work was being done with AEA on the development of
regional plans, as well as the best source of energy for
the particular areas where integration would take place.
She asserted that the gas should be deliverable to burner
tips, rather than making people travel in order to access
affordable gas.
9:54:41 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough queried the relationship that
TransCanada would have with the state; specifically, the
value of the debt to company shareholders and to the people
of Alaska.
TONY PALMER, VICE-PRESIDENT, TRANSCANADA ALASKA INTERESTS,
responded that TransCanada would finance its involvement in
the project either through its balance sheet, or through
non-recourse financing on a project basis; the course
TransCanada would take would be determined as the company
moved closer to a final investment decision. He stated that
the corporation carried a debt ratio of 60 percent, which
was lower than what was being proposed for the project; the
company's equity ratio was approximately 40 percent, rather
than the 25 percent proposed for the project. He noted that
the corporation had an A minus credit rating and would
protect that rating moving forward. He asserted that the
corporation was very confident that they would be able to
meet their financial obligations for the gasline project.
He furthered that the state should be allowed to collect
tax revenue from the project as a sovereign. He noted that
the proposed capital structure before the committee
reflected 75 percent debt and 25 percent equity, which was
more debt than most traditional pipeline projects. He said
that with a capital structure of 50 percent, or more debt,
had a 14 percent return on equity. TransCanada's proposal
of 75 percent debt and 12 percent return on equity resulted
in a weighted average cost of capital of 6.75 percent. He
concluded that TransCanada was comfortable with the risk
that it was bearing, relative to the reward.
10:02:08 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough queried the support of payment in
lieu of taxes in the HOA. She expressed concern that the
legislature might not support the elimination of local
property tax collection.
Mr. Flood responded that the HOA outlined two things that
would be done by the administration and local government;
impact payment to off-set project impacts and the payment
of property taxes on a unit throughput basis. He explained
that the project participants paid local property taxes
based on profit. He stated that the HOA was a roadmap for
planning. He stressed that there would be consultation with
local governments. He offered that there was not an
alternate solution, but a plan. He stressed that there
would be continual problem solving.
10:06:01 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough highlighted the concern that a local
community would value the asset differently than producers.
Mr. Fauske replied that for the As Soon As Possible (ASAP)
Project property taxes had been built into the tariff
model. He stated that he was not opposed to payment in lieu
of taxes (PILT). He said that the issue would need to be
discussed in depth with local governments.
10:08:50 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough contended that consultation alone was
not comforting from a sovereign perspective.
Mr. Van Tuyl interjected that PILT payments were important
because investors do not like uncertainty. He believed that
the more things could be defined, the easier it would be
for industry to make decisions. He noted that Article 9.3.1
of the HOA outlined the proposed property tax PILT:
9.3.1 Subject to consultation by the Administration
with local governments:
a. Payments in lieu of property tax ("PILT")
would be paid by the Alaska LNG Parties on each
component of the Alaska LNG Project. For the
Alaska LNG Project, the PILTs would be on a unit
rate per throughput basis (e.g., cents per
thousand cubic feet, etc.) and could be level or
escalating dollar payments for the Alaska LNG
Project components.
b. The Patties would establish a series of impact
payments to be paid by the
Alaska LNG Patties to help offset increased
service and other costs borne by the State and
local governments during construction of the
Alaska LNG Project.
Mr. Van Tuyl stated that in order for the project to be
successful it would need to work for all of the parties
involved. He understood that consultations would need to be
meaningful. He explained that the process that was outlined
in the HOA and in SB138 called fora negotiations to occur,
the fruits of which would be brought back before the
legislature.
10:12:28 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough referred the questions to ExxonMobil.
Mr. McMahon stated that given the value of property tax on
a project of this magnitude, the company expected to
discuss property tax in the project enabling agreements. He
furthered that when agreements were made on the impact
payments that needed to be made during construction, and if
a predictable and durable property tax could be formulated
that all parties supported, the contract would come back
before the legislature for ratification. He stated that he
looked forward to having meaningful consultations with the
administration.
10:14:04 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough stressed that the administration and
the legislature had an obligation to protect the best
interests of the residents of Alaska.
10:14:42 AM
Senator Bishop appreciated the industry concern for fiscal
certainty; however, it should be understood that Alaskan
residents want the same thing. He noted that this was only
the beginning of the process to bring the project to
fruition; more time would give all parties involved the
opportunity to understand further the project's economics.
He asked TransCanada to provide a 10 year history of the
company's completed pipeline construction projects, and to
specify whether they were on budget, under budget or over
budget.
Mr. Palmer agreed to provide the information at a later
date.
10:17:32 AM
Senator Olson probed for any backup plan to ensure that
investments into the project were protected. He noted that
the state was not in a financial position to assume a large
amount of risk.
Mr. Flood responded that the project was in its infancy. He
remarked LNG projects were generally backed by firm sales
and purchase agreements with buyers in Asia, who tended to
share some of the risk. He stated that the risk of LNG
projects tended to be in the level of return provided and
not in terms of an absolute cash loss. He said that the
project did not come with a guarantee. He stated that there
were ways to recognize and manage risk, but that there was
not guarantee.
10:20:15 AM
Senator Olson surmised that there was no back-up plan to
recover Alaska's investment.
Co-Chair Kelly understood that the project was going to be
entered into in stages and that every stage would bring the
possibility of contracts, or not, and that ultimately
before a significant investment was made by the state there
would be contracts in place. He said that the Plan B was
that the state should not get into a situation where a Plan
B would be necessary.
10:20:49 AM
Mr. Palmer commented that having long term sales contracts
where the buyer was taking on significant volume or price
risk was a Plan B. He pointed out to the committee that gas
pipelines generally went to a single location and that this
line was expected to ship overseas.
10:22:06 AM
Mr. Fauske explained that AGDC could be considered a Plan B
if a larger project failed to be built. Not in terms of the
amount of revenue that could be generated to the state's
treasury, but in terms of getting gas to Alaskans. He said
that time should be taken in the preliminary planning.
10:23:49 AM
AT EASE
10:25:58 AM
RECONVENED
10:26:13 AM
Senator Dunleavy wondered how a smaller line could be
economical for the state.
Mr. Fauske replied that AGDC's interests were slightly
different than the other corporations involved in the HOA.
He explained that the interests of the other corporations
were based on commercial activity and the best interest of
their shareholders. The Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation was to beat the price of imported LNG and bring
gas to Alaskans at the lowest possible cost.
10:28:33 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough pointed out that a partner could take
an off-ramp not solely based on economics. She said that
there could be a number of reasons that a partner might not
want to participate in the project anymore.
10:29:34 AM
Senator Olson reminded the committee of the financial
failure of the Goose Creek Correctional Facility. He
wondered whether this very expensive project was going to
pencil out.
Mr. Fauske responded that he was recently asked to focus
completely on the current project. He said that AGDC had
very clear goals for the project.
10:32:00 AM
Senator Olson remarked the perspective of AGDC was
credible. He felt that without a definitive plan to bring
the gas to the burner tip, rural Alaskans would not see any
benefit from the project. He requested a definitive plan to
bring the gas to the burner tip.
Mr. Fauske responded that the cost of doing nothing
exceeded the cost of the project. He clarified that the
costs in rural Alaska would only continue to increase and
that the opportunities to develop resources would become
limited. He felt that the costs to rural Alaska would not
be helped without this project. He stressed that, until the
source of energy was available, there would continue to be
difficulties. Once the source of energy was created, many
of those concerns of rural Alaskans would be resolved.
10:35:07 AM
Co-Chair Kelly felt that the anticipated revenues from the
project should be considered over getting gas to the burner
tip.
10:37:45 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that for the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System (TAPS) a fund had been created for
dismantlement and restoration, which had been carried
solely on the producers books. She asked if the fund was
housed on the producer's balance sheets. She asked what
TransCanada did typically in the area of dismantlement and
restoration; was there a designated fund, where was the
fund housed, and how big was the fund.
10:39:06 AM
Co-Chair Kelly felt that Vice-Chair Fairclough's question
did not speak to the legislation.
Vice-Chair Fairclough believed that her question should be
included in the conversation.
Co-Chair Kelly responded that reclamation was not a piece
of the MOA, or if it was, only in broad terms.
10:39:16 AM
Mr. Flood replied that it was not specifically addressed.
10:39:35 AM
Senator Hoffman remarked that getting gas to Alaskans was a
very high priority. He felt that the state's investment of
$9 billion to $17 billion in the project deserved greater
assurances that Alaska would benefit from the project. He
wanted more than only an opportunity for delivery to all
Alaskans. He asserted that Alaskans were not first hire for
the construction of TAPS, and hoped that they would be
treated better under this project and requested assurances
in writing. He asked how the project would fare if the
state decided not to be a partner.
10:43:04 AM
Mr. Van Tuyl responded that one of the critical bedrock
elements of the HOA was the idea of aligned interest across
the value chain for all parties involved. He stated that
the host government owned the gas resource and its royalty
share. The producers ability to pay the production tax
obligation as gas created the 20-25 percent ownership
outlined in the HOA. Taking a corresponding equity in the
project, the state had the resource ownership, aligned with
equity across the board. He said that this created an
advantage for the efficient execution of the project
because the parties would envision similar solutions to
potential problems. He said that not having that sort of
alignment could create a situation where parties are on
opposite sides of the table on every issue along the way,
which created inherent risk. He said that the total
cumulative revenues for the state could be $100 billion,
but a 1 percent dispute in valuation could be a billion
dollar or more value dispute. Alignment across the value
chain in the manner described in the HOA dispels future
issues and assists in the likelihood that mutually
agreeable commercial solutions would be found.
10:46:45 AM
Mr. McMahon furthered that reports from the state's
consultants had highlighted the advantage of the state's
participation in the project. He said that with state
participation, taking royalty in-kind and gas as tax, would
underpin the alignment under discussion.
10:47:30 AM
Co-Chair Kelly stated that Alaska's workforce was not ready
to contribute to the project. He felt that the state was
not ready for a project of this scale.
10:49:15 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough felt that there were still important
questions to be asked about the dismantlement and
restoration fund. She requested a response in writing from
the testifiers.
10:49:45 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked how producers would benefit
from the federal tax benefit that accompanied having Alaska
involved as a sovereign.
Mr. Flood did not understand that there would be any tax
benefit to the producers.
10:50:40 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked whether producer's federal
income tax would be reduced by having 20-25 percent of the
value of the project off the table in another government
entity.
Mr. McMahon stated that the way the project was envisioned
to be structured all of the benefits would flow to the
state. ExxonMobil would pay its federal income tax based on
its income from the project.
10:51:23 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered if the federal loan
guarantee to help support the project had expired.
Mr. Van Tuyl understood that under the Alaska Natural Gas
Pipeline Act of 2004, there were certain provisions made
available in loan guarantees for the project envisioned at
the time, which was a pipeline to the Lower 48. He was not
aware that the provision would be made available for the
ASAP project.
10:52:38 AM
Mr. Fauske offered to research the issue further to
determine whether the provision had reached a sunset date.
10:53:29 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wondered at what point would HOA
members apply for an export permit license, and the
anticipated wait time for a response from the federal
government.
Mr. McMahon responded that the project was currently
working on the components of the application.
10:55:11 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough explained that the permit application
typically lasted 18 months for processing. She noted that
Larry Persily, Federal Coordinator, Alaska Natural Gas
Transportation Projects had stated that there were multiple
projects in line for evaluation. She queried a timeframe
for approval of the permit by the Department of Energy
(DOE).
Mr. Flood pointed out to the committee that ConocoPhillips
currently had an export application in progress, which he
expected would happen in an expedited fashion. He said that
the project would be a unique proposition in front of DOE,
which he believed would be favorable. He relayed that if
the state was prepared and had "done its homework" the
export license would be secured in plenty of time.
10:56:40 AM
Co-Chair Kelly asked if the federal loan guarantee program
had been available solely for the pipeline to the Lower 48.
Mr. Fauske replied that he would research the amount, and
any restrictions that applied to the loan.
10:57:17 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough felt that if it was found that there
were limitations inside the federal guarantee a letter
should be written by the Senate to the federal delegation
to request the expansion. She believed that there was a
national interest in the revenue stream that would be
produced by the gasline.
SB 138 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSSB138(RES) Sectional Analysis Version O.pdf |
SFIN 2/26/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 138 |
| CSSB138(RES) Summary of Changes.pdf |
SFIN 2/26/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 138 |
| SB 138 Introduction.pdf |
SFIN 2/26/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 138 |
| 022614 SB138 Persily Response to Questions.doc |
SFIN 2/26/2014 9:00:00 AM |
SB 138 |