Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/10/2006 02:00 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB488 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 488 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 10, 2006
2:19 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Chenault called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:19:34 PM.
MEMBERS PRESENT
REPRESENTATIVES:
Representative Mike Chenault, Co-Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Vice-Chair
Representative Richard Foster
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Jim Holm
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mike Kelly
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Carl Moses
Representative Bruce Weyhrauch
SENATORS:
Senator Lyda Green; Senator Fred Dyson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Dan Dickinson, Consultant, Tax Division, Department of
Revenue; Daniel Johnston, Legislative Consultant, Daniel
Johnston & Co., Inc., New Hampshire; Patrick Foley, Manager
of Land and External Affairs, Pioneer Oil; John Zager,
General Manager, Chevron-Alaska; John Barnes, Production
Manager, Marathon Oil, Alaska; Mark Hanley, Manager, Public
Affairs, Anadarko-Alaska
SUMMARY
HB 488 An Act repealing the oil production tax and
gas production tax and providing for a
production tax on the net value of oil and
gas; relating to the relationship of the
production tax to other taxes; relating to
the dates tax payments and surcharges are due
under AS 43.55; relating to interest on
overpayments under AS 43.55; relating to the
treatment of oil and gas production tax in a
producer's settlement with the royalty owner;
relating to flared gas, and to oil and gas
used in the operation of a lease or property,
under AS 43.55; relating to the prevailing
value of oil or gas under AS 43.55; providing
for tax credits against the tax due under AS
43.55 for certain expenditures, losses, and
surcharges; relating to statements or other
information required to be filed with or
furnished to the Department of Revenue, and
relating to the penalty for failure to file
certain reports, under AS 43.55; relating to
the powers of the Department of Revenue, and
to the disclosure of certain information
required to be furnished to the Department of
Revenue, under AS 43.55; relating to criminal
penalties for violating conditions governing
access to and use of confidential information
relating to the oil and gas production tax;
relating to the deposit of money collected by
the Department of Revenue under AS 43.55;
relating to the calculation of the gross
value at the point of production of oil or
gas; relating to the determination of the net
value of taxable oil and gas for purposes of
a production tax on the net value of oil and
gas; relating to the definitions of 'gas,'
'oil,' and certain other terms for purposes
of AS 43.55; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date.
HB 488 was HEARD & HELD in Committee.
HOUSE BILL NO. 488
An Act repealing the oil production tax and gas
production tax and providing for a production tax on
the net value of oil and gas; relating to the
relationship of the production tax to other taxes;
relating to the dates tax payments and surcharges are
due under AS 43.55; relating to interest on
overpayments under AS 43.55; relating to the treatment
of oil and gas production tax in a producer's
settlement with the royalty owner; relating to flared
gas, and to oil and gas used in the operation of a
lease or property, under AS 43.55; relating to the
prevailing value of oil or gas under AS 43.55;
providing for tax credits against the tax due under AS
43.55 for certain expenditures, losses, and surcharges;
relating to statements or other information required to
be filed with or furnished to the Department of
Revenue, and relating to the penalty for failure to
file certain reports, under AS 43.55; relating to the
powers of the Department of Revenue, and to the
disclosure of certain information required to be
furnished to the Department of Revenue, under AS 43.55;
relating to criminal penalties for violating conditions
governing access to and use of confidential information
relating to the oil and gas production tax; relating to
the deposit of money collected by the Department of
Revenue under AS 43.55; relating to the calculation of
the gross value at the point of production of oil or
gas; relating to the determination of the net value of
taxable oil and gas for purposes of a production tax on
the net value of oil and gas; relating to the
definitions of 'gas,' 'oil,' and certain other terms
for purposes of AS 43.55; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date.
2:21:12 PM
Co-Chair Chenault explained the meeting's intent was to
offer a panel discussion with Cook Inlet leaseholders and
the Department of Natural Resource. The bill version before
the Committee is the House Finance substitute and a new
version will be forthcoming. He asked how the
implementation of the bill would affect business in that
area.
Question #1:
2:23:12 PM
· General: Legislators took an oath to maximize
the return on resources for the benefit of
Alaskans. What is the best proposal to
maximize that return, while at the same time
encouraging investment and exploration to
extend the production life of the oil & gas
resources?
JOHN BARNES, PRODUCTION MANAGER, MARATHON OIL, ALASKA,
clarified Marathon Oil ranks the Governor's proposed bill
stnd
1, the House Finance Committee (HFC) version 2 & the
rd
Senate Finance Committee (SFC) version 3. Each proposal
has strengths and weakness for the high cost/low price
environment of oil. He discussed severance tax, greater
activity and higher tax rates and that concern with all
three bills is the marginal investment being weighed
competitively with the Alaskan disadvantages. He
recommended that Cook Inlet adopt a 5/20 formula and that
any new committee substitute adopt the strength of all three
proposals.
2:25:40 PM
JOHN ZAGER, GENERAL MANAGER, CHEVRON-ALASKA, voiced support
for the proposal made by the Governor, providing a larger
benefit to the smaller producers. He stated that Chevron-
Alaska supports a 20/20 ratio and that there should be a
lower tax rate for both oil and gas. He admitted the Cook
Inlet area was different.
2:27:17 PM
Co-Chair Chenault commented Mr. Johnston was at a
disadvantage amongst representation from the oil companies.
2:27:58 PM
DANIEL JOHNSTON, LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANT, DANIEL JOHNSTON &
CO., INC., acknowledged that there is more work to be done
to make the Cook Inlet area safe. The area has been caught
in an attempt by the Legislature to create a system under a
variety of conditions. That is of concern and needs fixing.
2:28:53 PM
MARK HANLEY, MANAGER, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, ANADARKO-ALASKA,
reiterated support for the Governor's proposal, a truce made
between all companies. He acknowledged it will be a
challenge to come up with a proposal supported by everyone.
The original bill is critical for both large and small
players and that any changes to that bill, such as the 25%
tax rate, decrease exploration economics. The 25/20
proposal is not as attractive as the 20/20, particularly
given inability to use those credits for offsetting. He
mimicked previous comments regarding the order of
stnd
preference, the Governor's proposal 1, the HFC version 2
and lastly, the SFC version.
2:31:22 PM
PATRICK FOLEY, MANAGER OF LAND AND EXTERNAL AFFAIRS, PIONEER
OIL, concurred with his colleagues in ranking the preferred
versions of the bill. He stated that the Governor's bill
would make Alaska more competitive. A key element of that
proposal is the $73 million dollar standard deduction. For
a new investor, that exemption provides an opportunity to
defray many start-up costs. Both the House and Senate
versions offer a sunset before value can be derived.
2:32:57 PM
Co-Chair Chenault asked about the sunset length, set at
2016.
2:33:59 PM
Mr. Zager failed to see any logic of a sunset provision and
worried about future discrimination. He supported no
sunset.
2:34:52 PM
DAN DICKINSON, CONSULTANT, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, reminded members that a lot of work went into the
Governor's proposal and that the only sunset in the
Governor's bill is the look-back, offering a specific
transition provision. He encouraged more incentives.
2:35:56 PM
Representative Kelly inquired if the look-back provision had
been indefinitely extended. Mr. Dickinson responded that
the Administration was looking at it and that it could make
sense to include it for a short period. He recommended a
three-year sunset study consideration.
Mr. Hanley advised that development credits should not offer
a sunset, in particular for new developers. Regarding
exploration credits, a ten-year sunset might be appropriate.
Development sunset could exclude Alaska for some.
2:38:22 PM
Mr. Johnston agreed, noting that Alaskan weather window,
five-years anywhere else at best under ordinary
circumstances would be like two-years in Alaska. He was not
in support of the 10-year sunset provision.
Question #2:
· Progressivity: Substantial discussion has occurred
over the progressivity surcharges in the House and
Senate bills. Outstanding issues include inflation,
the slope and the cap. What do you consider a
reasonable way to address the issues?
Mr. Zager responded that gas would be tied to net profits.
Each company each month would have to calculate their
profits for that month and then taxed on that. He mentioned
net profits as regulated for inflation; the costs go down,
the State could receive a benefit. He urged consideration
of the Governor's proposal.
2:41:09 PM
Mr. Johnston commented on the fairness and economic logic,
in contradiction to having a progressive element governing a
severance tax as proposed. Theoretically, it would be more
consistent to base the progressive mechanism on profits per
barrel of oil and include progressive element based on the
rate as well, making tax based profits; a determination
could be based on profits as well. He thought that would be
a good idea and offered to help assist in that discussion.
2:42:21 PM
Representative Hawker added his endorsement to the idea,
thinking it could solve many issues still on the table.
[inaudible]
Representative Kerttula asked for further explanation.
[inaudible]
Mr. Zager explained that net profits could be calculated
using revenue, minus qualifying expenses, creating capital;
to achieve a net profit, multiplying it by 20% or 25%, which
provides the actual tax amount. If costs were high, the
profits would be more than double. If for some reason the
costs increased, the margin would remain the same for more
than 20-years. The formula ties the profit margin directly
to what taxes are paid. If oil prices double, there is good
rational to take the higher percentage of the profit, not
tied to the Western Texas Instrument (WTI). He addressed an
appropriate inflation factor.
Representative Kerttula asked where progressivity would come
in. Mr. Zager explained the number is determined by the
Department of Labor & Workforce Development. He added that
the number kicks off when the profit margins are at the
number determined by the legislation, escalating at 2%. The
same formula would be used. It would be most equitable to
tie it to actual profits.
2:47:37 PM
Representative Kerttula voiced concerned in not indicating
the profit. [inaudible]. Mr. Zager said that is the risk
in business and is a different issue.
Representative Kelly asked how that would compare and if a
net approach model could be accomplished. [inaudible]
Mr. Johnston responded that the issue discusses statistics,
determining the valuable, keeping costs down. The question
remains if companies get to keep any of the saved funds.
The only incentive to keep cost-bases down is the profit
based systems. Making it Petroleum Production Tax (PPT)
profit based would increase incentive for those companies
and was addressed during previous testimony. It will be
difficult to make that shift, seeing an increase of 2/10 for
every dollar. He maintained, it is important to know the
rate and the base for every levy.
Representative Kelly inquired the amount of effort and time
to determine that rate. Mr. Johnston said it was not as
previously described. There are three rate types:
· The world bank model,
· The R-factor - payoff, and
· The Price cap formula - windfall profit taxes.
He recommended crafting a new system to accommodate both
companies and the Administration.
2:52:32 PM
SENATOR LYDA GREEN asked if there were other sections of the
bill, needing balanced with the impact of a credit
calculation.
Mr. Dickinson explained that the specific concern would
arise during a year of loss, in the Governor's bill, 20% of
loss can be carried forward as a credit. The effect would
be the same as having a loss one month; it becomes a
question regarding the affect of the surcharge. It would be
a tradeoff and that the calculation would be independent of
that number.
2:55:04 PM
Mr. Zager added that it could be simplified with a policy
call of 20% capital credit as an additional incentive,
lowering the margin.
2:55:44 PM
Senator Green asked if there was an accepted process to
determine the net profit for the industry. Mr. Zager
pointed out that the Department of Revenue will work during
the next several months to determine a net profits process.
Mr. Dickinson added, currently, they work from a cash flow
model concept.
Question #3:
2:56:49 PM
· What do you think will be the result of PPT
regarding investment and how that would impact
production?
Mr. Barnes commented that a 20/20 tax structure would make
the incremental investments, especially in Cook Inlet, less
competitive. He noted that at worst, there would be a
decline in exploration with a subsequent decline in reserves
and production. Efforts to mitigate the lack of
profitability might be effective and that there are
considerations regarding alternatives that could benefit the
activity level, including credits for exploration. He
thought that drilling unproductive wells for investment
credits was not a solution but rather creating better
incentives.
Mr. Foley added that much depends on the structure of the
ultimate bill. The original proposal made by the
Administration seems moderate and fair; however, as it
becomes more complicated, the incentive decline. In the
Governor's bill even at the lower prices, there continues to
be industry protection.
Mr. Hanley stated that the Governor's original bill improved
exploration economics & that as the bill changes, industry
perspective changes. He pointed out that higher taxes do
not encourage investment.
3:01:57 PM
Mr. Zager referred to previous notes examining the program
under the 20/20 scenario. At that scenario, it lowers
overall investment. If taxes were lowered, it would improve
many projects. He stressed that credits are important,
noting a tradeoff between tax and capital credits.
3:03:24 PM
Mr. Johnston questioned how in raising oil prices could
affect the overall perspective. Mr. Zager conceded it
definitely changes the entire situation.
Mr. Johnston observed that the oil prices overrule the tax
structure. He speculated that if the prices are high, even
at the 25/20 structure, investment would remain high. He
noted that with current oil price assumptions, there is a
great deal of pessimism opposed to marketplace behavior. He
suggested that the marketplace viewed oil prices
differently.
He pointed out the "exuberance" expressed by oil companies
during previous testimony, concluding that if oil prices are
as high as predicted, the tax structure would not be the
issue.
3:06:00 PM
Mr. Zager added that the Legislature could control the tax
structure but not oil prices. He recommended exercising
"discipline" in establishing fiscal policies and thought
that speculation on long-term oil prices might be
inaccurate.
3:06:58 PM
Representative Kerttula observed that progressivity
provides an ability to react to the price and that Alaska is
a different field from the rest of the marketplace. Mr.
Zager agreed that individual areas should be treated
differently; however, the situation discussed is unique in
Cook Inlet.
Mr. Barnes said that the Cook Inlet fields are challenged at
operating margins. Mr. Dickinson observed that if the
margin was low, profits would be low. In Cook Inlet,
operating costs are high, which should be considered.
3:09:23 PM
Mr. Hanley referenced earlier comments by Mr. Johnston,
noting that many companies have indicated interest in the
State for oil economics. As the prices go up, the amount of
recoverable oil also increases. He referred to a chart by
EconOne, comparing the amount of exploration to
productivity. He thought that the North Slope provides more
opportunity for productivity. Raising the tax lowers the
size of economic minimum field for companies.
Mr. Hanley observed global discussions regarding
progressivity and that larger fields in a portfolio change
the economic prospects; however, such fields are remote. If
the State wants to dictate the amount a company can be
guaranteed per barrel that makes discussions more
productive. He pointed out the risks taken by companies at
lower barrel prices. Those rates are weighed against risk
and progressivity, different from existing fields and new
exploration. He suggested a break-even point would be $25
per barrel and that he did not see incentives for new
development.
3:14:53 PM
Co-Chair Meyer referred the EconOne presentation, which uses
the $40-$50 per barrel price range. He referred to a chart
reflecting the decline in tax rates, as well as increased
investment rates, showing a correlation. He pointed out
that Pioneer Oil is active both in Texas and Alaska,
observing the impact of timeline differences and permitting
productivity. He mentioned earlier discussion regarding
differences in the costs between the two areas, with Alaska
more costly. He asked the PPT intended rate to encourage
companies like Pioneer to compete with places like Texas.
3:17:53 PM
Mr. Foley referred to previous testimony, pointing out that
if Alaska wants to encourage companies like Pioneer to
invest, they need to make fiscal terms more attractive. He
compared the structure to Oklahoma, with severance rates
dramatically less than that being proposed. Co-Chair Meyer
suggested that a 20/20 rate would be more competitive to
other states.
Mr. Johnston voiced concern with the comments concluding
that lower taxes mean higher production, not compared to oil
prices. He agreed that Alaska presents some challenges
compared to other areas and that has always been true. He
pointed out that those present at the table have proved that
other circumstances obviously mitigate such challenges;
otherwise, there would be no exploration in Alaska.
Co-Chair Meyer advised that for many years, only the three
major producers existed in Alaska, noting that Shell Oil had
just returned after a 15-year hiatus. He encouraged
consideration of those factors.
3:22:11 PM
Mr. Zager interjected that the largest advantage to
exploring in Alaska is lack of competition and that the
access to land is easier.
Mr. Dickinson added that to "truly compare taxes" to
investment, it would be wise to include a larger sample
size.
3:23:22 PM
Representative Kelly referenced the 5/20 gap; he inquired if
smaller oil companies had requested other considerations
that were not brought forward in the Governor's bill.
3:24:55 PM
Mr. Barnes responded that the 5/20 was a complicated tax
bill. He noted that the 5% calibrated with the current
severance tax with intent to hold the 20% tax credit, a good
stimulus for Cook Inlet. He pointed out that the status quo
was not acceptable because there is not enough activity in
the Cook Inlet. He pointed out greater levels of activity
in the Lower 48. He stated the Governor's bill structure
was an attempt not to lose more ground.
3:26:20 PM
Mr. Barnes discussed the potential benefit of higher oil
prices, noting that companies would compete. He stated that
other places in the world are not as burdened with costs,
regulations and fiscal uncertainty. He stressed the need
for capital investment.
3:27:18 PM
Mr. Zager noted that his company operates 75% of their
production out of Cook Inlet and right now pays no severance
tax. If there is sufficient capital, they could generate
credits out of Cook Inlet, paying more in royalties.
3:28:29 PM
Representative Kelly concluded that smaller companies prefer
to be "left alone". Mr. Zagerresponded that putting PPT
into effect statewide would be the best policy for the State
since it increases activity in Cook Inlet and creates new
incentives in less productive areas.
3:29:51 PM
Mr. Dickinson interjected that Mr. Zager's comments
reflected the Administration's analysis. He noted that the
decision to invest would drive the tax structure in the
future, which is the intent.
3:30:42 PM
Representative Holm pointed out that there are fewer
companies in Alaska. He asked if changing the tax regime
would realistically increase the number of explorers and
investment dollars spent. He referenced earlier comments
that the price was as influential of a factor as is the tax
structure. He observed everyone's desire for more
production, but voiced concern that everything discussed
offers incentives to encourage further production.
3:32:22 PM
Mr. Zager advised that the oil companies follow patterns of
success. To attract other oil companies, there must be
success, an important component of taxation as is geology,
infrastructure and regulations. Changing the structure of
taxation does not guarantee success. He noted that the
success of companies like Pioneer, attract other companies.
He proposed that in five to ten years, there will be no
further grass-root exploration on the North Slope and
referenced new recovery technologies.
3:34:19 PM
Mr. Johnston thought several situations could overshadow tax
changes:
· A strong signal to the industry that a gas pipeline was
going in and making it clear to the industry that they
would have a fair and equal access to that pipeline.
· If Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) opens, it
could dwarf other considerations.
· High oil prices could drive exploration. (If prices
dropped below $25 or $30 per barrel, it would not
matter what tax structure was in place).
3:36:33 PM
Mr. Barnes pointed out that some small companies have come
and gone, with some investment in Cook Inlet. He thought
small operators could be enticed. He thought it could be
the "peak of new activity".
3:38:18 PM
Representative Hawker referred to economic differentials
between fields. He spoke to field operation differentials
and the definitions of the point of production and how that
affects someone working outside of the North Slope.
Mr. Hanley noted that the bill currently defines the "point
of production" for oil, at the point, which pipeline quality
crude enters the system. Gas has a different definition
relating to processing (separation of carbons) below
downstream from processing and still needs treatment.
Treatment is down-stream and processing is upstream. There
is a need for new treatment and processing facilities and
the treatment would not be eligible for credits, but would
be treated as transportation. He expressed concern with
that element and maintained that it should be the point
where it is ready to enter the pipeline. He argued that it
might be less economic than oil-10% gas, 12%-15% oil. There
are no run gas economics statistics yet and that those are
important numbers.
3:44:19 PM
Representative Hawker questioned why the Governor had
defined a "point of production" like that. Mr. Dickinson
responded that many downstream costs, the upstream is
utilized in the net. He spoke to the downstream and
upstream deduction and credit. The bill moved the point of
production downstream; otherwise, under current statute,
they would both be considered transportation costs. There
were no requests to change the status quo before the
legislation. The question remains how far downstream it
should be moved; it is a policy call. If gas is found in
the foothills, a facility would need to be built. The
question remains if Alaska can get a line and should they
provide a deduction.
3:48:50 PM
Representative Hawker summarized the difference between the
GDT and one operating in the foothills. He requested some
kind of differential for that exclusion.
3:49:31 PM
Vice Chair Stoltze questioned if the truce [with larger
companies] has taken certain items off the table [which
would benefit the smaller companies]. Mr. Hanley stated
that the issues center on the $73 million dollar allowance,
which is more valuable to the smaller companies. Larger
companies would benefit more from dismissing the $73 million
deduction. Generally, lower tax rates are better, but the
allowance is significant and that offsetting the tax
increases with credits, is more valuable to the larger
players.
3:52:39 PM
Mr. Dickinson explained that the Department of Revenue hoped
to encourage investment with the package through discussions
with producers, focusing on that effect. The Governor
included all the small players in those discussions. With
new investment, new players and exploration are important.
3:54:12 PM
Mr. Zager maintained that Cook Inlet producers are being
conservative and playing "defense" in that area.
3:54:57 PM
Mr. Foley interjected that the issues are not company size,
but rather, where they are in the investment life cycle.
Without investment considerations, the most leveraging
aspects would be credits & tax exemptions. On the other
hand, in the harvest mode, tax rate is critical. The
Governor's bill fits the intent of all companies. The
exemptions should not be discriminatory and there should be
no sunset or phase out. All companies should benefit
equally.
3:56:50 PM
Mr. Johnston agreed that the concerns differ according to
where a company is in their life cycle. He believed that
the structure proposed by the Administration is the best
intent for balancing it all. He voiced concern with the $73
million allowance and agreed that the sunset proposed would
be severe, but worried about no sunset also.
3:58:38 PM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired what the recommended effective date
was for a severance tax. Mr. Barnes spoke in support of an
effective date placed in front of the enactment of the bill.
3:59:59 PM
Mr. Dickinson advised that the Governor's bill set the date
st
at July 1. He pointed out that both House and Senate
versions offer a six-month period rule, based on current
rules.
4:00:43 PM
st
Mr. Zager commented that July 1 should be the earliest date
considered. Writing regulations could take time and affect
the date. However, moving the date too far forward could
give companies the opportunity to change their investment
behavior.
4:01:53 PM
Mr. Johnston said Alaskans might be paying for each day it
takes to enact the tax change; it could be as high as $1
million per day. To be fair, it could be addressed earlier
st
and he thought January 1 was reasonable.
4:03:24 PM
Mr. Hanley added that while incorporating a look-back, his
company could pay less due to satellites. Generally,
companies prefer the bill move into effect after it is
st
passed, July 1 or later.
4:04:57 PM
Mr. Foley commented that from a fairness perspective, it
would be best to make the effective date, the first quarter
after it becomes law. From the company's perspective, the
earlier the better because of transition capital spent.
4:06:18 PM
Representative Kelly asked if smaller companies were
adequately considered during the discussions. He referenced
the gas pipeline and the affect on utility prices.
4:08:24 PM
thth
Mr. Dickinson pointed out that the 4 through 6 largest
producers were present at the table and completely aware of
that position in those negotiations. He noted the
importance of meeting conflicting goals of production size.
He suggested that when considering Cook Inlet, legislators
should be aware of changes, such as tying exploration to
world prices and other complex issues. He warned that if
prices move to reflect world markets, it must affect the tax
structure. The smaller producers are less likely to support
the proposed new structure, but is not prohibitive.
4:10:57 PM
Representative Kelly reiterated his concern. Mr. Barnes
pointed out that the State is in a transition regarding Cook
Inlet gas. He noted the process of negotiating a contract,
and then receiving review and approval through the
regulatory commission. He noted that the attorney general
would advocate for lower prices to protect consumers,
although, energy producers argue for higher than world-
prices. He thought that having lower than world prices
could send a negative signal. He stressed that the price in
the Cook Inlet was still being determined.
4:13:30 PM
Co-Chair Chenault echoed concern about prices in Cook Inlet,
offering less volume than the North Slope. Cook Inlet
affects many Alaskans' lives.
4:14:15 PM
Mr. Foley provided a perspective of the small producer with
an unestablished production. He pointed out the advantage
of credits sold to other producers at a discount, asking
legislators to consider ways of enabling them to retain full
value of such credits.
4:15:17 PM
Mr. Johnston voiced support for that idea.
Co-Chair Chenault concluded discussion and testimony.
HB 488 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15 P.M.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|