Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
01/27/2014 08:00 AM House ENERGY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation(s): Institute of the North | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
January 27, 2014
8:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Doug Isaacson, Co-Chair
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Pete Higgins
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative Benjamin Nageak
Representative Andy Josephson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Charisse Millett, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): INSTITUTE OF THE NORTH
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director
Institute of the North
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a review of "2013 Energy
Projects" sponsored by Institute of the North.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:02:40 AM
CO-CHAIR DOUG ISAACSON called the House Special Committee on
Energy meeting to order at 8:02 a.m. Representatives Hughes,
Nageak, Josephson, Higgins, and Isaacson were present at the
call to order. Representative Foster arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
^PRESENTATION(S): INSTITUTE OF THE NORTH
PRESENTATION(S): INSTITUTE OF THE NORTH
8:03:41 AM
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON announced that the only order of business
would be a presentation by Nils Andreassen, Executive Director,
Institute of the North, entitled, "Review of 2013 Energy
Projects." Prior to the presentation, Co-Chair Isaacson
provided the committee with a memorandum dated 1/27/14, in which
he discussed the focus of the energy committee. Co-Chair
Isaacson explained that there are many interesting opportunities
related to the subject of energy, and his hope is that the
energy committee would focus its attention on the impediments to
bringing the lowest delivered [energy] cost to Alaskans in every
region, and stressed that energy must be cheap enough to attract
private investment, bring new jobs, and stabilize communities.
He directed attention to two tables in the memorandum which
listed six separate and overlapping functions within consumer
energy and thirteen state agencies involved in the energy
sector. In addition, hundreds of service providers and
organizations are involved in the energy field. Co-Chair
Isaacson cautioned that focus requires saying no to a lot of
interesting opportunities. He said, "I'm hoping that - as you
have expressed it to us - that we concentrate on moving forward
the issues that will bring the lowest delivered cost to every
region of Alaska, and get our economy going." Finally, he noted
that he participated in both the 2013 Arctic Energy Summit held
in Iceland and the Alaska Dialogue held in Seward.
8:07:25 AM
NILS ANDREASSEN, Executive Director, Institute of the North (the
Institute), informed the committee the Institute is "Alaska's
Arctic Think-And-Do Tank" and that he would review two recent
events sponsored by the Institute, the Alaska Dialogue and the
Arctic Energy Summit. The mission of the Institute is: To
inform public policy and cultivate an engaged citizenry,
consistent with our focus on the North and belief that commonly-
owned resources should be managed and developed for community
and individual prosperity. He stressed the importance of
Alaska's domestic energy production, generation, transmission,
and use. Further, the Institute values the Arctic as a commons
with the management of its resources for the benefit of people -
which is consistent with the state's constitution - and focuses
on responsible energy and infrastructure development in order to
facilitate sustainable communities. In fact, the goal of energy
and infrastructure development is [to foster] healthy,
prosperous, and resilient people, and to elevate the voices of
northern peoples between local communities, state agencies, and
national and international entities. The Institute convenes and
facilitates civic discourse by bringing people together, and
through this engagement and active participation informs public
policy through outreach and education. He opined that the work
of the Institute results in a meaningful product and tangible
recommendations of findings, and sustains a broad network of
stakeholders within the state and around the Arctic. The
process also gathers research for broader awareness and
accessibility. Mr. Andreassen said the theme of the Arctic
Energy Summit was richness, responsibility, and resilience. The
theme of the Alaska Dialogue was how the state can make
effective investment decisions regarding energy development. At
the energy summit, participants were encouraged to think of
three levels of government - national, indigenous, and sub-
national - because in each of the eight Arctic nations, these
three levels of government have an integral role in developing
energy projects and fostering sustainable communities.
8:12:06 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked for the source of the Institute's
funding.
MR. ANDREASSEN answered that the Institute was founded by former
Governor Wally Hickel almost twenty years ago, and is governed
by an active board of directors and Chair Drew Pearce. The
statewide board of fifteen members meets regularly to set the
agenda and goals. Funding sources are diverse, from fees and
corporate sponsorships collected for events, to grants, past
state support, and federal contracts for projects. Returning to
his presentation on the topic of governance, attendees at the
energy summit were encouraged to think "beyond stakeholders to
rights holders" as local communities, tribes, states, and
nations have rights as well as responsibilities when energy
resources are developed. Stakeholders may have an interest in
an issue affecting energy, but others have specific rights and
responsibilities. Also covered at the summit were the three
themes of responsibility, richness, and resilience, which act to
provide cohesion around the topics addressed that ranged from
the project development of tidal, wind, and diesel, to policy
discussions about government subsidies influencing
infrastructure development. He assured the committee that all
eight Arctic nations recognize that energy development is not
risk free; however, there is a common commitment to risk
mitigation in that northern peoples are concerned, but capable.
Much of the risk mitigation is based on having the necessary
response abilities that are provided by having infrastructure in
place for response operations. Finally, northern peoples
recognize their responsibility to community, culture, and the
environment.
8:16:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK suggested that traditional knowledge
should be one of the aspects of risk mitigation. He then
inquired as to the indicators under discussion.
MR. ANDREASSEN agreed that risk mitigation should employ Western
science and local and traditional knowledge. In fact, everyone
is needed to ensure a safe environment. The development of
indicators may be a subject for the next summit; indicators are
ways healthy communities, strong culture, and a safe and healthy
environment can be measured. Nations are working to measure
their progress in meeting their responsibilities in those areas.
He continued to explain that almost all Arctic nations are
endowed with similar rich resources, and attendees at the energy
summit looked at richness supplied from three sources,
renewables, non-renewables, and efficiency and conservation. At
the same time, nations have rich environments and social and
cultural structures.
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK asked whether conservation and efficiency
includes retrofitting existing structures and existing power
plants.
8:19:13 AM
MR. ANDREASSEN said yes, along with more efficient public and
private buildings, demand management, and reductions in the use
of energy through engineering solutions.
8:19:56 AM
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON pointed out the issues were defined at both of
the events with a consensus approach by many participants. He
noted that the information presented is more of a summary from
the events than something [determined by] the Institute.
MR. ANDREASSEN agreed. He described the process in Iceland that
involved two hundred people from eight countries and resulted in
key issues brought forward by the participants at the end of the
session. In fact, one of the topics that emerged from the
energy summit was that there is wealth, and that richness plus
responsibility equals resilience. Resilience is the ability to
respond and adapt to change, and the capacity of a system to
"bounce back." Thus, if a system is responsible in resource
development to peoples and communities, all those affected are
more able to adapt to change. Resilience is also asset-
dependent, but is impacted by the scale and the rate of change,
and is time-sensitive, in that waiting to be responsible weakens
resilience. Mr. Andreassen stressed that resilient communities
depend on resilient energy systems. He described a resilient
energy system as one that takes advantage of renewables, non-
renewables, and efficiency and conservation methods. In Alaska,
there are fundamental challenges facing the state such as
declining oil production, decreased state revenue, high energy
costs, and significant fiscal hurdles into the next decade.
Therefore, looking at systems in Iceland and other northern
partners is to search for best practices, and to look at new and
innovative policies that have derived maximum benefit from
resources for residents. For example, in Norway the nation has
taken an equity interest in project development to support its
export of non-renewable oil and gas; renewable energy is
retained for domestic use. Similarly, Iceland owns the
infrastructure needed for the transmission of energy around the
country, providing affordable energy to its residents and low-
cost power to attract large industry and speed its recovery from
an economic "meltdown."
8:26:15 AM
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON noted that Iceland priced energy for industry
at approximately 2-4 cents and at approximately 8-10 cents for
residents. He asked Mr. Andreassen to elaborate.
MR. ANDREASSEN opined that Iceland's focus is to attract
industry, and its competitive advantage is having low-cost
energy. Energy-intensive industries from China, Brazil, and
other countries have built manufacturing plants in Iceland based
on affordable energy; in fact, it is cost effective to smelt
aluminum in Iceland with raw materials barged from Brazil.
Because Iceland has attracted these anchor tenants, local
regions have reversed unemployment trends and nearby communities
have benefited. Utilizing a 10-year plan, local economies are
improving region by region.
8:28:41 AM
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON reiterated two points: 1. this was a decades-
long process that garnered broad support; 2. instead of shipping
resources overseas for manufacturing, raw materials were
imported for refining and value-added manufacturing. He pointed
out that raw materials for processing were shipped to Iceland
from the opposite end of the globe; this scenario can be seen as
a model for Alaska.
MR. ANDREASSEN acknowledged that Iceland is well-located near
the European market, but most important was its ability to
deliver low-cost energy. He displayed slide 9 entitled, "Energy
Costs Vary" from a PowerPoint presentation entitled "Review of
2013 Energy Projects." The slide showed various electricity
prices and heating costs in Alaska. Slide 10 entitled, "High
Energy Costs," compared average energy costs in Alaska with
those of the Lower 48, and he concluded that Alaska cannot
compete. However, Mr. Andreassen suggested that this situation
can be turned around by thinking of low-cost energy as a part of
Alaska's competitiveness equation, and setting new goals for
actually changing things. The challenge is to plan right now
because in the next 10 years, Alaska will possibly face a fiscal
crisis and will operate in a new era of fiscal constraint;
therefore, there will be a decreasing ability to address the
huge need for energy infrastructure and development. He turned
to outcomes from the Alaska Dialogue event, where the Institute
brought seventy-five leaders from around the state to Seward for
three days. At the event, attendees looked at challenges facing
the state and at successful case studies of policy development
in the state and around the world. Challenges were divided by
production, generation, distribution, and utilization.
Production entailed getting a resource from the ground or air;
generation was the power; distribution was bringing the power
from generation to the consumer; utilization was the use of the
power by the consumer. Production challenges were identified
such as access, permitting, market conditions, infrastructure
deficits, and regional differences were identified, as were
common themes such as balkanized systems, lack of capacity,
regulatory uncertainty, and the need for affordable power. Mr.
Andreassen acknowledged that insufficient time was spent on
solutions, but some solutions offered were more integrated
operations and management, micro-grids, and partnering with
extractive industries for rural energy solutions. Generation
challenges included security of supply, cost of systems that
need innovation and regional planning, and economies of scale.
8:35:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK referred back to production challenges and
asked about the cost of the solutions offered. The problem of
high costs always arises in discussions about [solutions for]
some areas of the state. He recalled that oil from existing
fields in Prudhoe Bay is refined on a small scale to produce
fuel for local vehicles, and it is also sold to local villages
and delivered in the winter by Rolligons. Other fields in rural
areas have oil and gas, but it is not produced because there is
no transportation to other markets. He asked whether other
rural fields on Native land can be subsidized to produce oil and
[refine] gas as is done in Prudhoe Bay.
8:38:11 AM
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON said Representative Nageak's question is
relevant to the Interior Energy Plan [Senate Bill 23 passed in
the First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature] because the
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) has
approved MWH Americas, Inc. to build a liquefaction plant so
that liquefied natural gas (LNG) can be moved off of the North
Slope. He opined if LNG can be transported to Fairbanks it can
also be made available to Native communities.
8:38:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK stressed he was referring to the need in
rural Alaska for diesel fuel and automotive gas. He said it is
150 miles to where he lives but by the time oil travels the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System [TAPS], is shipped out, and comes
back refined, the cost is very high. He asked, "Why can't we
work with those landowners and the people ... to produce [on a
small scale]." Representative Nageak suggested commissioning a
study to determine the possibility of locally refining fuel for
heating and transportation as is done in Prudhoe Bay.
MR. ANDREASSEN said Representative Nageak has presented a good
example of anchor tenants who are able to create an economy of
scale and leverage a resource on behalf of nearby communities.
He encouraged the state - when planning for the future - to
evaluate the opportunities for extractive industries where the
state's return on investment could mean that industry could
support greater economies of scale.
8:41:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked Mr. Andreassen to recommend specific
actions the state can take to address the challenges discussed
during his presentation.
8:42:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS commented that most residents know that
the state needs to invest and build infrastructure. In fact,
many are tired of rhetoric and studies, but desire specific
recommendations from the Institute to the governor on where to
invest.
8:43:22 AM
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON opined that the intent of the presentation is
to reveal the synergy within the state, including the Arctic, on
how to prioritize the needed investments.
8:43:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK added that working with federal and state
agencies for permitting is a problem because of duplication.
When projects are discussed, permitting always causes
frustrating delays, more so in Alaska than in other parts of the
nation.
8:44:30 AM
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON agreed and urged the committee to create the
prioritization needed this session to guide the legislative
process, perhaps with bill action or through a resolution.
MR. ANDREASSEN advised the committee to recognize that the
challenges and solutions presented were garnered from "general
brainstorming among the group in the room." He agreed with
Representative Higgins that many challenges are already known
and in some cases, solutions have been offered too. He returned
the committee's focus "on how do we do that prioritization."
Attendees at the Alaska Dialogue expressed support for regional
planning, which is already in motion through the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA), and he urged that continued support for that
planning process should be one of the priorities. Turning to
the discussion on distribution/transmission, he related this
topic has some of the same challenges as generation and
production, and the key solution is to establish anchor tenants
from the private sector through a public-private business
partnership to create economies of scale within regions and
communities. On the topic of utilization, he acknowledged that
there is work underway in the state for energy efficiency,
weatherization, and conservation efforts through AEA and others.
However, much work is left to do which is depending on
leadership from the state to provide infrastructure.
8:47:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked Mr. Andreassen to explain the
purpose behind the "no renewable land use designation" and the
meaning of the "STWD" acronym [both on slide 15].
MR. ANDREASSEN was unsure and will provide that information at a
later date.
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON said STWD stands for statewide.
8:48:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK expressed his interest in the same
question, particularly in regard to land owned by the federal
government. He related that some federal land existed "without
our knowledge" and residents need to know their rights on
federal land. He expressed his frustration that agencies are
"usurping the power of the federal government ... and Congress
on both sides, on both houses, when ... [agencies] can
unilaterally set parameters on what you can and can't do on
state or federal lands, when it is the purview of the
legislative body to do those things ...."
8:50:22 AM
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON encouraged the committee to define the
particular issues that the legislature can address in this
session. He agreed with "the grand idea of it" but stressed the
importance of giving legislators and the administration
direction on how to move the process of getting affordable
energy to residents.
8:50:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK acknowledged that presenters who are
experienced in these issues for many years have good ideas under
the present system; unfortunately, most of the land [under
discussion] is owned by the federal government and it is
frustrating for the local residents when agencies - not the
legislative bodies - place great restrictions on what can happen
within the state. He advised it is [the Alaska State
Legislature's] responsibility and within its power to put these
agencies on notice through resolutions that problems within the
system of the federal government prevent the state from acting
on these lands.
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON reminded the committee the Institute's
presentation is a report that will help the committee focus on
its task this session.
8:52:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES restated her interest in the solutions
proposed by the presentation, so that the energy committee can
increase its understanding and prioritize solutions that are
appropriate for the state to advance.
8:53:40 AM
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON noted that utilization and transmission are
topics that will be discussed by the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA) on 1/31/14. He also requested that Mr. Andreassen
present at a later date a more thorough view of the solutions
suggested by the Institute.
MR. ANDREASSEN, in response to Representative Hughes, explained
that the proposed solutions were not developed further at the
Alaska Dialogue, but he can come back to the committee with
appropriate speakers to advise on "the short list of the
solutions that were suggested." Returning attention to the 2010
plan, state policy, and state strategy, he said four points came
from the effort to establish a state energy policy. At that
time, the state wished to: establish an energy policy; develop
strategic goals; adopt a plan to achieve the goals; implement
programs and projects consistent with the goals. Mr. Andreassen
observed that the Institute and its attendees at the Alaska
Dialogue believe only the first point has been accomplished.
The current problem statement is: To what extent is Alaska
achieving affordability, ensuring projects efficacy and stable
funding for projects in the long-term, while practicing fiscal
constraint? The state energy policy is AS 44.99.115 Declaration
of state energy policy. The policy set very broad goals
recognizing the importance of the issue, that outside factors
affect the affordability of energy, and that the state is
challenged by distance and geography. Another worthy goal set
by the policy is obtaining an energy portfolio of 50 percent
renewable energy.
8:57:09 AM
MR. ANDREASSEN opined the challenge ahead is to determine how to
reach the goals of the policy. At the Alaska Dialogue, it was
suggested that the policy be neither too complex nor too simple.
In addition, eight case studies were analyzed for elements of
policy, implementation, and programs/projects. On policy, case
studies revealed that successful policies ensured certainty,
empowered the market, allowed open access, and had clear vision
and missions. On implementation, the studies revealed that
infrastructure is crucial, building for industry first works,
and a micro-grid infrastructure is equally important to deliver
benefits to residents. In addition, there was most often a
strong consensus about the process among the people affected, as
there was in Iceland and in Canada. With this type of broad
support, projects were found to move forward in a matter of
months. Finally, analyses of successful programs/projects found
them to be inclusive, had public and private involvement, were
statewide, depended upon the right information, and held
technical credibility. As a matter of fact, the projects
reviewed were found to be catalysts and foundations for bigger
efforts. Thus the Alaska Dialogue articulated seven desired
qualities of policy and ten goals that the policy should
achieve. Mr. Andreassen concluded that the foregoing strategy
is a good direction for the state to pursue. In review, the
energy policy should: be driven by vision and strategy; create
and support regulatory clarity; have broad stakeholder buy-in;
be able to be evaluated against measurable indicators; adapt and
evolve based on results of evaluation; establish a loading order
or prioritization method; include clear strategy or work plan
for implementation. He urged the committee to reflect on the
state's current energy policy and its achievements.
9:02:40 AM
MR. ANDREASSEN then provided a list of what the energy policy
should achieve: economic development/growth/sustainability;
stability and predictability; equity/fairness;
innovation/entrepreneurism; affordability; stewardship;
transparency and accountability. He advised the committee that
a strategy and implementation plan is the next step to be taken.
Further, the Alaska Dialogue attendees developed a short list of
indicators for how to measure the impact of the policy, the most
important being price, because affordability was a key indicator
in Iceland and other places. Slide 27 displayed the equation
for energy price: fuel plus capital and operation costs over
demand. Demand is one aspect that is not talked about enough
because demand is an important factor for anchor tenants and
economies of scale, along with how to structure projects that
are consistent with the demand of a region or community.
9:04:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether the present energy policy is
missing some of the desired elements.
MR. ANDREASSEN responded that great work and effort went into
establishing the current policy; however, the Institute has
heard that it is not effective and is not achieving its purpose.
Slide 28 entitled "Key Takeaways," listed criteria met and not
met by the current policy. He agreed that the policy is driven
by vision and strategy, but further development on strategy and
regulatory clarity is needed as evidenced by comments from the
Alaska Dialogue. The existing policy has stakeholder buy-in,
but is lacking in the ability to measure progress, evaluate
success, and prioritize project development. Mr. Andreassen
acknowledged that good economic development has come from the
existing policy and it strives to achieve stability and
predictability. Regarding equity, he said the AEA process has
been used to fairly assess communities. There was good work
done on the energy policy and instead of reevaluating the policy
it is more important to develop a strategy and implementation
plan to address the criteria still in question. He concluded
that the current policy is aspirational and does not provide
sufficient direction, with the exception of AEA, which does have
a clear direction on how it should approach projects. In fact,
AEA is communicating the work that it and other state agencies
are doing. The remaining challenge is that the policy should be
affecting every level of decision-making and not just one
agency. For example, he questioned whether the state energy
policy influences either decisions made by the executive branch,
or legislative capital projects and spending. Mr. Andreassen
said the existing policy lacks the following: criteria to
decide and judge efficacy; a strategy to prioritize how to spend
limited money in a way that produces results; a system to manage
projects and expenditures to ensure the completion of the
state's stated goals. Although there are many great ideas to
solve the state's energy problems, there is no way to evaluate
and choose from the solutions offered. He recommended adding
legislative oversight [on energy issues] and completing an
evaluation of assets and liabilities, and then closed by saying,
"and I don't know that we need more studies, but we do need some
work to determine the strategy and implementation aspect of
this."
9:11:18 AM
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON noted that Mr. Andreassen will be in Juneau
all next week.
9:11:54 AM
MR. ANDREASSEN offered to contact individual legislators to
answer questions.
9:12:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER observed that the Institute is involved in
Arctic issues such as the oil and gas reserves located there and
future shipping through the Northwest Passage. He expressed his
interest in more information on the role the Arctic will have in
terms of bringing lower cost energy to Alaska, or how to utilize
shipping through the Arctic to bring raw materials to Alaska for
refining and for use by value-added industry.
9:13:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HIGGINS said, "... we've touched on a lot of
subjects here ... and what can this committee do? And I'd
rather like to see us do something, than just do rhetoric this
whole session." He further urged for a resolution to get
federal lands designated back to state land, in support of the
[Roads to Resources Initiative proposed by Governor Parnell in
2011].
9:14:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK returned discussion to the creation of
industry on corporate land. Most Native corporations and
corporate land are near residential areas; for instance, 25
miles from Barrow there is a known finding of oil and gas, but
development is not feasible at this time because of the lack of
transportation. He urged for the legislature to create an
incentive so production can begin on corporate land, such as
refining oil on a small scale to supply the villages on the
coast of Alaska and along the river systems. Representative
Nageak assured the committee this is possible, and within the
twelve Native regional corporations there is interest to find a
way to develop their resources to take care of the needs of
local communities now.
9:16:49 AM
CO-CHAIR ISAACSON called attention to the [Alaska Royalty Oil
and Gas Development Advisory Board, established in AS 38.06.020]
and advised that the committee needs to be directive in terms of
what this advisory board is supposed to do. He said the board
does not meet frequently thus is pressed for time. Further, in
order to determine and evaluate priorities, he recommended using
the Fairbanks Metropolitan Area Transportation System (FMATS) -
which has a technical and an executive side - as a model for a
consumer energy commission to help the committee "get through
the gridlock." This is a successful model built on a federal
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) model and is
responsible for moving the gridlock of projects in the Interior.
9:18:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK recommended that the energy committee
become a standing committee so its actions would carry more
weight.
9:18:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said "... I'd rather try to do something
and fail, than do nothing and succeed."
9:20:46 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Energy meeting was adjourned at 9:20 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| PRESENTATION - Outcomes from the Alaska Dialogue and AES combined.pptx |
HENE 1/27/2014 8:00:00 AM |
House Energy Committee - Institute of the North PowerPoint Presentation (01-27-14) |
| Meeting Agenda- House Energy Committee 28th AK Legislature (01-27-14).pdf |
HENE 1/27/2014 8:00:00 AM |