Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
02/10/2009 03:00 PM House ENERGY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Work Session: Pathway to Energy Committees' Comprehensive Statewide Energy Plan | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
JOINT MEETING
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
February 10, 2009
3:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
Representative Charisse Millett, Co-Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Jay Ramras
Representative Pete Petersen
Representative Chris Tuck
SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
Senator Lesil McGuire, Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Albert Kookesh
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
All members present
SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
Senator Bert Stedman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Work Session: "Pathway to Energy Committees'
Comprehensive Statewide Energy Plan"
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
KATE MARKS, Energy Program Director
National Conference of State Legislatures
Denver, Colorado
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a presentation titled
Developing an Energy Strategy.
CHRIS ROSE, Executive Director
Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a presentation titled Energy
for Alaskans.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:06:32 PM
CHAIR LESIL MCGUIRE called the joint meeting of the
House Special Committee on Energy and the Senate
Special Committee on Energy to order at 3:06 p.m.
Present at the call to order from the House Special
Committee on Energy were Representatives Dahlstrom,
Johansen, Petersen, Tuck, Millett, and Edgmon.
Representative Ramras arrived as the meeting was in
progress. Present at the call to order from the Senate
Special Committee on Energy were Senators Hoffman,
Kookesh, Wielechowski, and McGuire.
^Work Session: Pathway to Energy Committees'
Comprehensive Statewide Energy Plan
3:07:06 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced that the only order of business
would be a work session: Pathway to Energy Committees'
Comprehensive Statewide Energy Plan. She introduced
the presenters, and noted that the presentations today
are the first of many opportunities for the energy
committees to gather information and develop statewide
energy policies. Chair McGuire observed that the
energy committees are reflective of the majority of the
regions of the state and are uniquely suited to
determine what type of energy policy is effective for
each region. She assured members that all ideas will
be considered by the joint committee.
3:09:46 PM
KATE MARKS, Energy Program Director, National
Conference of State Legislatures, introduced a
PowerPoint presentation that was an overview of energy
policies developed in other states over the last five
years. She informed the committee that the National
Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) is a bi-
partisan organization for legislators and staff from
all fifty states and the territories, and explained
that the presentation covers the process that was
followed in each state by the "task force" developing
energy policy. The topics addressed by each task force
include: petroleum, natural gas, coal, fuel diversity,
transportation, economic development, coal bed methane,
electricity reliability, security, transmission, net
energy balance, imports versus exports, energy
efficiency and conservation, wind, biomass, ethanol,
solar, oil, and electric utilities. The critical first
step is to establish objectives; the objectives should
be broad and reflect the reason behind the development
of an energy policy. Goals and objectives should also
include a "metric" in order to gauge the success as
goals are reached.
3:13:20 PM
MS. MARKS began with the State of Kansas and advised
that the Kansas Energy Council was established by the
governor in 2004. The council adopted an annual
process to develop policy recommendations on topics of
high priority. These topics were published each year
and are available on-line for review by the public.
She further explained that the Kansas Energy Council
began with 13 members and was expanded later to 34
members, including representatives from all of the
different relevant entities in the state. Four key
points in the planning process were: the frequency of
meetings; the diversity of the council; short- and
long-term goals; and the consideration of all energy
issues. The Kansas Energy Council established focus
committees for issues such as greenhouse gases,
electricity, biomass, and energy efficiency, as well as
goals and missions. The council's accomplishments
include legislation related to ethanol, efficiency, and
electricity transmission, and the development of a
transmission authority. In addition, a wind generation
study came from the council's direction and Kansas
became the seventh state to exceed 1,000 megawatts of
electricity generated from wind power. Ms. Marks
pointed out that the wind generation working group's
three goals were: to make wind generated electricity
competitive; to address transmission of power and the
federal tax credits thereof; and to look at community
development and wind [technology] manufacturing in
Kansas. Unfortunately, the governor of Kansas
disbanded the council, although members felt their work
was successful; in fact, the legislature has formed an
energy committee and the wind and renewable resource
task force remains active.
3:18:08 PM
MS. MARKS displayed a quote from Representative Tanya
Pullin of Kentucky who said, "We're doing this for the
next generation, not the next election." She relayed
that after years of inaction, Kentucky's energy
committee created a task force comprised of seven
members including the secretaries of finance,
education, economic development, natural resources,
commerce, and the senate and house energy committees.
The task force put public engagement at the forefront
of its policy and quickly formed a "guiding policy"
that resulted in executive orders and proposed
legislation. In 2005, a permanent office of energy
policy was established in the commerce department that
will oversee the implementation of the comprehensive
energy strategy.
3:21:48 PM
MS. MARKS offered that Oregon and Colorado are
potential models for how to establish a state agency to
oversee and administer energy-related tasks. She
turned to the situation in North Carolina, where an
out-dated energy plan was re-worked by a working group
comprised of representatives appointed by the governor,
four legislators, and five department heads. After
nine days of expert sessions, including testimony from
over 25 stakeholders and 300 members of the public, the
working group drafted a set of recommended policies and
programs. The recommendations resulted in 93 measures
that became part of the energy plan and required action
by the governor, the general assembly, the utilities
commission, and other agencies. In addition, North
Carolina used its university system as an energy
consultancy and its energy office to keep a matrix of
accomplishments.
MS. MARKS described the procedures in California and
said that Senate Bill 1389 outlines the California
Energy Commission's (CEC's) requirement to create an
Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) every two years.
The report is developed by the CEC with direction from
state organizations and is reviewed and approved by the
governor and the legislature at set intervals.
3:25:53 PM
MS. MARKS, in response to Chair McGuire, said that the
report is prepared every two years and updated in the
year following. She continued her presentation and
said that in 2006, Idaho's legislature established by
concurrent resolution an interim committee of energy,
environment, and technology. The committee's
objectives were: to ensure a reliable, low-cost energy
supply; to protect the environment; and to promote
economic growth. The committee collected testimony
from stakeholders and members of the public and
developed broad support for its recommendations. Each
of the recommended findings and actions held consensus
support and recognized the need for increased
conservation and diversity, while maintaining access to
conventional resources for energy suppliers.
3:28:17 PM
MS. MARKS stated there are similarities between all of
the states' approaches to an energy policy. The first
general principle is the development of a non-specific
guiding policy that allows flexibility and that uses
legislation or executive orders to address specifics.
Next, she advised adopting specific goals that the
recommendations in the policy will help to achieve.
Instituting an entity for analysis is vital to ensure
the state has current information on energy-related
issues. Furthermore, the policy must include "teeth,"
such as regulations and permits, and she gave several
samples from various states.
3:29:50 PM
MS. MARKS presented the last slide that listed the
general process beginning with an overview of energy
statistics and trends; the involvement of state
government leadership; consultation with national,
state, and local organizations and experts; and the
involvement of the public. She observed that most task
forces are bi-partisan and have issued a report with
their recommendations. Lastly, she stressed the
importance of tracking the progress of the task force
and keeping within a time-frame for review and updates.
Ms. Marks concluded her presentation with an offer from
NCSL to serve as a resource to the committee and to all
legislators.
3:31:57 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN noted that Alaska is sparsely populated
except for a large concentration of residents in
Southcentral. For the most part, many utilities have a
vast knowledge about what is needed to produce energy.
However, different areas of the state rely on different
sources of energy. He asked whether other states
address a similar diversity and how to coordinate "so
that we can get a more uniform and lower cost of energy
for Alaska."
3:33:07 PM
MS. MARKS opined Idaho is a good example for Alaska for
three reasons. Idaho developed a policy that garnered
public support and included the utilities in the
process. Also, the policy considered new resources,
but recognized a limit to their cost and required cost
benefit analyses.
3:34:23 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN further asked whether other energy
producing states have utilized their resources to lower
costs to residents.
3:35:00 PM
MS. MARKS offered to research this question.
3:35:07 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked how many states have an energy
policy that is codified in law.
3:35:28 PM
MS. MARKS estimated that more than one-half of the
states have an energy policy due to rising energy
costs, the concern about climate change, and the
development of new and alternative technology for the
extraction of resources. She advised that a long-term,
long-standing plan has become a priority for many
states. Regarding codification, she was unsure of the
percentage, but stated that most policies are in
statute and offered to provide further details.
3:36:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON first observed that developing an
energy plan requires participation from an array of
resources beyond the legislature or the executive
branch. Secondly, the term "energy plan" encompasses
the areas of cost, environment, economics, efficiency,
tax policy, and more.
3:38:03 PM
MS. MARKS stated that comprehensive energy policies
highlight the importance of this issue. In response to
Representative Edgmon, she said that the initial steps
to develop an energy policy can come from any level of
government. In some states, the legislature has taken
the leadership role; in others, direction has come from
the governor or state agencies. In any case, it is
critical to get approval from each level to ensure that
"everyone understands their role in what they need to
do, to make ... these recommendations happen."
3:40:00 PM
CHRIS ROSE, Executive Director, Renewable Energy Alaska
Project (REAP), informed the committee that his
presentation was a "SWOT" analysis that contained the
basic business analysis of the strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities, and threats to the development of an
energy policy. As introduction, he said that the
Renewable Energy Alaska Project (REAP) is a coalition
of 61 organizations around the state including
utilities, businesses, environmental groups, consumer
groups, Alaska Native organizations, and energy
agencies. Its goal is to increase the production of
renewable energy in Alaska. Mr. Rose listed the
strengths for Alaska beginning with its vast renewable
energy (RE) resources that are stably priced, clean,
local, and inexhaustible; reserves of natural gas; and
other fossil fuels. Also, there are economic strengths
such as the Alaska Permanent Fund and [the influx of]
federal stimulus money. Further strengths are the
excellent staff at the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
and at Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC); the
AEA "Alaska Energy" Report; the Cold Climate Housing
and Resource Center (CCHRC) Report; the legislative
commitments through the Renewable Energy Grant Fund and
Weatherization Rebate Programs; and many motivated
people and communities.
3:44:48 PM
MR. ROSE turned to weaknesses and began with the
state's heavy dependence on natural gas and diesel to
generate heat and electricity. With this dependence
come the risks of increasing prices on the world market
and the cost of future penalties for carbon. Other
weakness are: energy agencies are decentralized and
understaffed; there is limited research and
development; there is a lack of coordinated job
training for energy related jobs; many renewable and
fossil resources are stranded; populations are small;
and distances for the transmission of energy are great.
3:48:17 PM
MR. ROSE continued to explain that further weaknesses
are the six small Railbelt utilities that are not
mandated to do integrated planning for power generation
and transmission.
3:50:08 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked how other states have addressed the
distance issue.
3:50:22 PM
MR. ROSE responded that, besides Nebraska and Iowa,
other states do not have a utilities "co-op" system.
Furthermore, Nebraska and Iowa are not as isolated as
Alaska. He expressed his understanding that the
governor is introducing a bill to consolidate the
Railbelt utilities; for now, however, the current
situation limits financing capabilities and prevents
individual utilities from developing a big
[infrastructure] project.
3:51:34 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE pointed out an analogy between the
aforementioned situation and the lack of integration
between the state's energy agencies.
3:52:32 PM
MR. ROSE presented more weaknesses that have to do with
energy efficiency: inefficient housing and building
stock; no statewide codes; no baseline data; no public
education programs; no statewide efficiency goals; and
efficiency is not rewarded through regulation. In
addition, there is no consistent funding, no mechanism
in place to reach the 50 percent renewable energy goal,
and a weak regulatory commission, the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska (RCA).
3:54:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked whether the existing state
agencies are sufficient, but are not aligned in a way
that supports the AEA with financing and regulatory
assistance in rural areas.
3:55:10 PM
MR. ROSE agreed that there is informal coordination
between agencies; however, programs are duplicated and
it is very hard for the public to know "who is doing
what." He said that he does not get too many questions
about regulatory policy, except for PCE. Mr. Rose then
discussed opportunities and suggested that the first is
to strengthen AEA as it is seriously understaffed. Now
is also a good time to do things differently by
creating a unified power producer in the Railbelt and
to begin regulatory reforms with a focus on energy
efficiency.
3:58:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT suggested AEA suffers from a
lack of authority.
3:58:52 PM
MR. ROSE explained that AEA is not a department but a
corporation connected to the Alaska Industrial
Development & Export Authority (AIDEA), Department of
Commerce, Community & Economic Development (DCCED). He
gave some of the history of the agency; in fact, AEA
and AIDEA share the same board of directors. Returning
to the topic of opportunities, Mr. Rose listed the
following ideas: create a funding pool for performance
contracting; leverage the Alaska Permanent Fund for
"blended value" investing; expand the power project
loan fund; diversify and strengthen the economy by
developing and perfecting small scale technology;
strengthen the University of Alaska energy curriculum
and research and development efforts; expand efficiency
programs and improve job training for contractors;
retrofit all public buildings over time; and support
public energy efficiency and conservation education
programs.
4:04:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked whether revision of the
Uniform Building Code is necessary prior to the
regulation of energy efficiency standards.
4:05:06 PM
MR. ROSE cautioned that there will be some resistance
to new building codes for new residential construction;
however, there will be less "push back" for commercial
and retrofit buildings. Furthermore, as energy
efficiency becomes an important selling feature,
builders will be more receptive to regulation.
4:06:19 PM
MR. ROSE relayed the following additional
opportunities: encourage electric transportation,
particularly in cities like Sitka and Juneau; encourage
electric heat; remain an "energy exporter" in the
future by exporting excess electricity through power
lines and hydrogen by tanker; increase competitiveness
and improve the investment climate by producing
renewable energy; and preserve communities and cultures
by producing renewable energy.
4:09:54 PM
MR. ROSE then listed the following threats: delaying
action; competing solutions such as the Susitna Hydro
Project versus the [AGIA or Denali-The Alaska Gas
Pipeline Project] gas pipeline; and uncoordinated
efforts.
4:10:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT observed that competing projects
are not a threat, but the way to determine the best and
most economical project.
4:11:19 PM
MR. ROSE clarified that competing projects are a threat
when they are analyzed independently in isolation.
4:11:56 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE agreed and added that the state needs the
ability to follow its policy and balance the projects
so all regions benefit. She cautioned against looking
at individual projects in an uncoordinated way instead
of looking "from 35,000 feet" to determine what makes
sense for the state. Chair McGuire understood
Representative Millett's concern; however, competing
projects must be recognized as fitting together.
MR. ROSE warned that there are not enough engineers in
the U.S. to build the gas line and the Susitna Hydro
Project at the same time. In response to Chair
McGuire, he said that competing hydro electric projects
raise technical integration issues such as the balance
of resources and the staging or phasing of projects.
At this time, the AEA is beginning its integrated
resources plan (IRP) to look at the six Railbelt
utilities. He is deeply concerned that the utilities
may reject the IRP. He stressed that uncoordinated
efforts are a big issue and tie into the overall
problem of "getting everybody working on the same
page." Mr. Rose returned to the listing of threats
that included: entrenchment, meaning all parties have
business to protect and may stall the process; an
inordinate focus on fossil fuels; declining oil
revenues; competition from around the world, especially
Iceland and Norway; ignoring heating and transportation
with a myopic focus on electricity; the costs of
climate change and the future price on carbon; and
Alaska's food supply. Regarding Alaska's food supply,
Mr. Rose informed the committee that the average food
in the Lower 48 moves 1,500 miles to reach the
consumer. In Alaska, the average is 5,000 miles to get
to the consumer. This situation makes Alaskans super
dependent on transportation systems for food and as
food is energy, it must be intricately connected to
energy policy. For example, how to protect farm land
and protect resources to grow food.
4:19:49 PM
MR. ROSE displayed the next slide titled Why Policy
Now? He explained that Alaska needs affordable energy
to prosper even though the price of fossil fuel will
continue to increase. More importantly, the decision
to build a power plant carries economic implications
for 20 to 100 years. In the Lower 48, a state can sell
its excess energy via power lines to neighboring
states; however, Alaska will be stuck with the power
plants it builds and it must make careful decisions
over the next five to six years. Mr. Rose said that
the time is ripe for policy creation and regulatory and
structural reform. His last slide projected Iceland's
vision of a fully hydrogen-driven economy by 2050. He
pointed out that 93 percent of Icelanders support this
vision and the nation currently uses nearly 100 percent
renewable electricity and heat. He concluded that, in
order to meet its goals and objectives, Alaska needs a
long-term vision for where it wants to be in 50 years.
4:22:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN reminded the committee that
there is a proposal in Southeast to connect its hydro
grid with British Columbia, Canada.
4:23:40 PM
MR. ROSE stated that he was aware of the proposed
British Columbia intertie. He questioned whether
Alaska's excess hydro or tidal power should be sold out
on the national grid, eventually to California, or
first used to provide affordable transportation and
heat for Southeast residents first. There will be
trade-offs between selling the power for a high profit
and using it for the needs of local residents. The
sale of electricity is unlike the constitutional
mandate that forces the sale of oil and gas for the
highest price, he opined.
4:24:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN surmised that in 50 years, it
will be advantageous for Southeast to run its excess
electricity out to the national grid. He asked whether
there was a downside to this connection.
4:25:25 PM
MR. ROSE said he was unsure. He assumed there was no
downside if you serve the needs of the Southeast
residents first.
4:25:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM concurred with Mr. Rose's
comment about food as energy, and encouraged respect
for farmers and the land.
4:27:05 PM
MR. ROSE acknowledged that soil is a finite resource in
Alaska.
4:27:29 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE expressed her desire to learn about the
"carbon foot printing" of food.
4:27:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON reflected on Alaska's large-scale
industry and its tremendous use of power for extractive
resources; in fact, this use of energy may be viewed as
a threat in a SWOT analysis. On the other hand, there
is also opportunity for public-private sector
partnerships and he gave examples of the oil and gas
industries' support for its neighbors in Noatak and
Kivalina.
4:29:02 PM
MR. ROSE agreed and added that industry will be in a
position to move industrial development north as the
Arctic becomes ice-free.
4:29:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS told the committee that replacing
the transmission line grid in most small rural
communities and villages would save more energy than
installing new wind towers would generate.
4:31:09 PM
MR. ROSE agreed. He said that AEA specifically looks
at the ability of the transmission grid to integrate
power and assigns low technical feasibility scores to
old transmission grids.
4:31:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS then referred to two basic
problems with wind power generation. The first problem
is funding and the other is the cost of building the
transmission lines. Unless an entity is able to take
advantage of federal subsidies, wind generation is not
economically feasible. He said that in his personal
experience with alternative energy generation in
Fairbanks, it is only economic because of the federal
tax credits and deductions; in fact, profits from the
sale of kilowatts back to the utility will not pay for
the capital expenses. He asked whether the renewable
energy projects contemplated in the Northwest Arctic
region should be constructed by state and municipal
governments that would not qualify for federal
subsidies and tax credits, or by private entities that
would qualify. Representative Ramras remarked:
... it's a $15,000 million project if it's
built by the City of Nome, it's $7.5 or $8
million if it's built by the Bering Straits
Native Corporation, and that's a fact, because
of the nature of the subsidies and the credits
that come with it. And yet it creates a really
important policy question for us, I think, in
which kind of entity are we going to reach out
to if we're really trying to maximize energy
and we're always sensitive to the kilowatt cost
that's going to be paid by the consumer ... .
4:35:21 PM
MR. ROSE concurred that federal subsidies are helpful
for renewable energy development. The federal
production tax credit (PTC) was passed by Congress to
level the playing field between [RE] and the heavy
subsidies for oil and gas, nuclear [energy], and coal.
More recently, Congress developed another program
available to non-profits called Clean Renewable Energy
Bonds (CREBs); in fact, Kodiak Electric Association,
Inc., received $5 million to $6 million worth of
financing at zero percent interest. This is one way
that the federal government is trying to deal with the
fact that only entities with a tax burden can benefit
from PTC. He also agreed that there are many ways to
use partnerships on major projects. For instance, the
Fire Island [wind farm] project is a partnership of
private businesses. Mr. Rose acknowledged legislators'
concern that providing grant money to independent power
producers is without a guaranty that there will be an
eventual benefit to the consumer. An imperfect
solution to this problem would be to have the RCA set
the tariffs. Moreover, private companies may not be
willing to build new infrastructure in villages,
leaving the local tribal government or the state with
the responsibility. However, private enterprise and
competition can play a bigger role in the Railbelt,
similar to what is happening in Canada.
4:39:03 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE advised that proposed legislation
granting geothermal tax incentives has been expanded to
include earned tax credits for co-ops and publicly
traded entities. This legislation is supported by many
public entities in Alaska.
4:39:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS recommended the committees hear
from the Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)
about their involvement in the Sustainable Natural
Alternative Power (SNAP) program. He pointed out the
SNAP program is applicable to small commercial and
residential uses because it creates a pool of money
from like-minded contributors that is divided among
producers of "green" kilowatts. Representative Ramras
strongly advocated for a presentation on this program.
4:41:57 PM
MR. ROSE affirmed that the SNAP program has been
successful for GVEA; furthermore, the Homer Electric
Association Inc., and the Matanuska Electric
Association Inc., are interested in participating. He
said if the Railbelt consolidates its utilities, the
region could be like Demark, Germany, Spain, and
Ontario, Canada, where tariffs are set at a rate above
market for the use of resources that the governments
want to incentivize. Individuals can sell power into
the grid and the higher rate is spread among all users
of the system. This has resulted in the high use of
solar power in Germany; in fact, Germany has become a
major manufacturer of solar panels. He opined that
consolidation of the Railbelt utilities could have the
same result in Alaska.
4:44:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked how much money is
available in AEA's Power Project Loan Fund, what the
qualifications for a loan are, and whether the fund
should be increased.
4:44:39 PM
MR. ROSE responded that there is about $10 million in
the revolving fund and almost all energy power projects
are eligible. In further response to Representative
Petersen, he advised that a village utility could get a
loan to build a wind farm, except there is not enough
money to go around.
4:45:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled his visit to Kotzebue
where the residents proved energy efficiency is better
than energy production by weatherizing homes.
Conserving energy benefits every family and business.
Furthermore, he agreed that Alaska should work toward
sustaining itself regarding food and energy; perhaps
with hydroponic agriculture and other creative and
innovative ideas.
4:47:48 PM
MR. ROSE encouraged the committee to go to Chena Hot
Springs to see tomatoes growing in the cold and dark of
February. This is an example of taking advantage of
excess energy.
4:48:12 PM
CHAIR MCGUIRE told the history of Iceland that led to
the development of sustainable geothermal energy and
hydroponic food production there. She then
acknowledged the attendance by telephone of: Steve
Haagenson, Executive Director, AEA; Karsten Rodvik,
External Affairs Director, AEA; Eric Lidji of Petroleum
News; and Gwen Holdman, University of Alaska.
4:49:51 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee,
the joint meeting of the House Special Committee on
Energy and the Senate Special Committee on Energy
meeting was adjourned at 4:49 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Alaska State Energy Policy Final.pdf |
HENE 2/10/2009 3:00:00 PM |
|
| NCSL and FERC RPS documents.TIF |
HENE 2/10/2009 3:00:00 PM |
|
| Rose REAP 02102009.pdf |
HENE 2/10/2009 3:00:00 PM |