Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/04/2011 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB142 | |
| HB121 | |
| HB142 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 4, 2011
1:32 p.m.
1:32:57 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Vice-chair Fairclough called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Mike Hawker (alternate)
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman; Representative Mike
Chenault; Representative Eric Feige; Representative Kurt
Olson; Tony Palmer, Vice President, Major Projects
Development, TransCanada; Curtis Thayer, Deputy
Commissioner, Commerce, Community and Economic Development;
Susan K. Bell, Commissioner, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development; Wanetta Ayers, Division
Director, Economic Development, Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development; Rodger Painter,
President, Alaska Shellfish Growers Association, Juneau;
Rick Harris, Executive Vice President, Sealaska
Corporation, Juneau; Paul Fuhs, PAC Alaska, Juneau; Joe
Balash, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Ken L. Larson, Prince William Sound Charter Boat
Association, Fairbanks; Patrick Bookey, Sr., Luck of the
Irish Charters, North Pole; Mark Stearns, Alaskan Wood
Moulding, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 121 LOAN FUNDS: CHARTERS/MARICULTURE/MICROLOAN
CSHB 121(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with three new
fiscal notes by the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development and one new
fiscal note by the House Finance Committee for
the Department of Commerce, Community, and
Economic Development.
HB 142 PRESUMPTION AGIA PROJECT IS UNECONOMICAL
HB 142 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
"An Act relating to the creation of a rebuttable
presumption that the project licensed under the Alaska
Gasline Inducement Act is uneconomic because of
insufficient firm transportation commitments during
the first open season."
1:34:09 PM
TONY PALMER, VICE PRESIDENT, MAJOR PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT,
TRANSCANADA, discussed that TransCanada did not support HB
142 and that he would provide a status report on
TransCanada's project. He detailed that four years earlier
the legislature had passed the Alaska Gasline Inducement
Act (AGIA). In the fall of 2007 the legislature had issued
a Request for Proposal (RFP) for companies to apply for a
license to advance the pipeline project in Alaska.
TransCanada had been selected to receive the license in the
fall of 2008. He explained that TransCanada had provided a
work plan and project schedule as required. The documents
had outlined TransCanada's obligations, the commitments the
company would take on, and certain benefits provided to the
company under the license. He relayed that questions had
arisen regarding what information TransCanada had provided
to the state. He explained that the company had provided a
significant amount of information on a regular basis. The
company had biweekly calls with the administration,
monitors conducted onsite progress reviews with the project
team on a monthly basis, and the administration published
detailed semi-annual progress reports that were available
to the public. He emphasized that a substantial amount of
information about the project had been made public
throughout the entire process.
Representative Doogan wondered whether "biweekly" meant
twice a week or every two weeks. Mr. Palmer replied that
the calls occurred every two weeks.
1:40:04 PM
Mr. Palmer addressed a PowerPoint presentation titled
"Alaska Pipeline Project" [APP]. He read from Page 3 titled
"Alaska Gasline Inducement Act":
The purpose of the chapter [AS 43.90.010] is to
encourage expedited construction of a natural gas
pipeline that:
· Facilitates commercialization of North Slope gas
resources in the state
· Promotes exploration and development of oil and
gas resources on the North Slope in the state
· Maximizes benefits to the people of the state
from the development of oil and gas resources in
the state
· Encourages oil and gas lessees and other persons
to commit to ship natural gas from the North
Slope to a gas pipeline system for transportation
to markets in this state or elsewhere
Mr. Palmer discussed that AGIA required pre-construction
work to proceed while commercial agreements were negotiated
(Page 4). He elaborated that despite the company's open
season the prior summer it would continue to advance
towards filing with FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission] in the fall of 2012. The timeline meant that
ongoing work was required prior to the conclusion of the
open season. The alternative would have been to pace the
construction in proportion to commercial progress, which
would have meant a delay in the work and the schedule
resulting in later revenues for the state; therefore,
TransCanada had filed an aggressive schedule and had met
the statutory target dates and was on track to meet its
FERC application date in the fall of 2012. The company had
contemplated having firm transportation commitments,
project financing, and regulatory approval for the project
in 2016. He addressed the "AGIA Commitments" that the
company had undertaken (Page 5). He explained that
ExxonMobil, the company's partner on the project, had a
"distinct firewall" between the partnership with
TransCanada, the advancement of the pipeline project, and
its producer entity that would be the potential shipper on
the project. He discussed that TransCanada had effective
communication with the state AGIA team and had taken on
opportunities for in-state gas access. The company was
committed to indicating a number of "off-take" points on
the project and had conducted an in-state gas study on the
potential demand of gas in the state. TransCanada had
received multiple bids when it held the first open season
in the history of the North Slope.
1:44:56 PM
Mr. Palmer relayed that in recognition that world gas
markets were becoming more competitive, TransCanada had
improved its offer to customers by $500 million per year
for every year that the project was in service relative to
the approved terms of the license. The company had lowered
its rate of return and had deferred the recovery of certain
components of its depreciation in order to make the project
more competitive. TransCanada was working towards an
October 2012 filing and had advanced initiatives to
maximize the use of Alaskan businesses and workers. He
communicated that to date the state had met its commitments
to TransCanada and ExxonMobil. TransCanada believed that
because of AGIA that an Alaskan gas pipeline project had
advanced further than ever before and was positioned for
ongoing progress.
Representative Gara wondered whether TransCanada had made a
reduction to the profit margin that it could make on the
transportation of natural gas set by FERC.
Mr. Palmer replied that the company had made a commitment
to the State of Alaska that included a variable rate of
return that would have been a 14 percent rate of return. He
communicated that TransCanada had lowered the rate of
return to 12 percent in its open season application, which
required FERC approval.
Representative Gara thought that a reduced rate of return
would decrease the tariff amount and would ultimately
reduce the price of gas to consumers. Mr. Palmer responded
that it would reduce tariffs and would improve economics
for the customers.
1:48:02 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered whether there had been more
than two bids received in the first open season on the
North Slope. Mr. Palmer responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Palmer relayed that TransCanada's license application
had identified 2014 as the end of the project development
phase, which provided up to six years for the acquisition
of firm transportation commitments (Page 6). He noted that
until a committee meeting earlier in the day that HB 142
had required TransCanada to have firm commitments by the
upcoming summer. He detailed that the decision to proceed
and final investment decision regarding the project was
expected to be made at the end of the development phase. At
that time the company would know whether it had regulatory
approval, firm transportation commitments, and financing,
all of which were required for a successful project. The
project's scope, magnitude, and financial risk required
multiple years to complete the work that was necessary for
shippers to make the decision to commit $100 billion in
transportation commitments. He stressed that the
legislature's approval of the license had ratified the
timeline. He acknowledged that TransCanada had projects
with shorter schedules; however, none of the other projects
were as complex or challenging as the one at hand.
Mr. Palmer read from Page 7 titled: "HB 142 Appears to
Violate AGIA License Agreement":
APP is opposed to HB 142:
· Effectively amends key provisions of AGIA License
Agreement
· Raises uncertainty of the state's support for
AGIA at a critical time
· Undercuts efforts to achieve alignment of all
parties necessary for successful project
HB 142 unilaterally would change the contract between
the state and the AGIA Licensee:
· AGIA presumes that the project is economic unless
the Licensee agrees or arbitrators rule that it
is not
o HB 142 reverses that key presumption
· AGIA mandates a viable work plan and timeline for
developing the project, but does not mandate a
specific deadline for securing firm
transportation commitments
o HB 142 imposes an arbitrary and non-viable
work plan and timeline by establishing a
specific deadline for firm transportation
commitments
Mr. Palmer explained that the company was in negotiation
with potential customers and that the bill presented
uncertainty that could harm the negotiations. He had heard
earlier in the day that the firm transportation commitment
requirement would be changed to require precedent
agreements by the upcoming summer. The bill also required
the company to have financing for the project; however, he
did not believe that anyone would seek financing for the
project three years in advance and that it was not possible
to secure financing without firm transportation agreements.
1:52:56 PM
Mr. Palmer continued to read reasons that TransCanada was
opposed to the legislation (Page 7):
· AGIA contains a defined process for joint
State/Licensee determination of whether the Project
is economic
o HB 142 alters that process by directing
commissioners to take action that is reserved
to their discretion under AGIA
Representative Hawker disagreed with some of the remarks
made by Mr. Palmer. He asked Mr. Palmer to point to a
specific area in the bill in which commissioners were
required to take action that was reserved to them under
AGIA.
Mr. Palmer replied that HB 142 directed the commissioners
to inform the legislature before August 1 whether they had
been told by July 15, 2011 if transportation commitments
had been disclosed and whether there were sufficient firm
transportation agreements to support the development of the
project. He relayed that the provision was not currently in
the AGIA statute.
Representative Hawker wondered how the progress report that
commissioners were to provide to the legislature would
require commissioners to take action reserved to their
discretion under AGIA. He wondered how the provision
violated AGIA. Mr. Palmer replied that the bill stated that
the project would be presumed uneconomic if TransCanada had
not provided evidence of firm transportation commitments by
July 15.
Representative Hawker wondered where the language mandated
the administration to execute actions reserved to its
discretion. He stressed that the rebuttable presumption
created a hypothetical that the legislature wanted a
response from the administration.
Mr. Palmer answered that to have the State of Alaska make a
statement to the public that the project was uneconomic
because TransCanada did not have firm transportation
commitments three years prior to the beginning of the
project was in contravention with the AGIA statute. He
cited language in the bill that "nothing in this section
precludes an agreement between the commissioners and the
licensee that the project is uneconomic," and explained
that it was never contemplated that the project was
uneconomic unless a "high-bar test" was applied per the
statute. He explained that the high-bar test was meant to
hold TransCanada and the state to their obligations. He
emphasized that that two and a half years after the company
received the license that there would be a rebuttable
presumption that the project was uneconomic due to a lack
of transportation commitments.
Representative Hawker wondered where a duty was imposed on
TransCanada in the legislation to provide firm
transportation commitments or a precedent agreement as was
written on Page 7 of the presentation. He reiterated that
the bill only established a dialogue between the
legislature and the administration if the commitments had
not occurred by July 15. He communicated that that there
was nothing in the legislation that violated the terms of
AGIA.
1:58:54 PM
Mr. Palmer responded that TransCanada had met its
obligation to continue to advance the project under AGIA.
He relayed that the company had never contemplated that the
state would propose legislation that would deem the project
uneconomic if firm transportation commitments had not been
made by the summer of 2011. He stated that it had always
been at the discretion of the commissioners and TransCanada
to take the approach if either party believed the project
was uneconomic. He believed that the bill appeared to
provide guidance to commissioners that had never been
discussed. He stated that if HB 142 passed and the
legislature had a sense that the project was presumed
uneconomic that it would be incumbent on the commissioners
to consider the presumption. The commissioners would be
required to walk through the terms of AGIA. He opined that
any party interested in entering a contract with the
legislature would look at the legislation as potentially
impacting its future.
Representative Hawker wondered whether Mr. Palmer disagreed
with legislative legal counsel that had testified to the
opposite earlier in the day. He thought that TransCanada
was offering an opinion and not a fact.
Mr. Palmer responded that he was not present to provide the
company's legal opinion. He was present to discuss what he
believed the bill would do from the perspective of a
businessman. TransCanada would examine the law to determine
its legal view if the legislation passed.
2:03:11 PM
Representative Gara asked whether the state would
jeopardize its chance of finding another partner on the
pipeline project if it breached the current contract with
TransCanada. He discussed that the project would be the
largest pipeline project in North American history. He
believed that the new date of July 15 for firm
transportation commitments changed the presumption that did
not exist in the original law and breached the contract the
state had signed. He recalled that legal counsel Don
Bullock had initially said it was not a breach, but he had
later said that it would be something for the courts to
decide.
Mr. Palmer responded that any business person would look to
the State of Alaska as the counter party to determine
whether it had honored its contracts. He believed that any
company that conducted due diligence on a counterparty
would examine the certainty of the counterparty and would
see whether that counterparty had changed the rules after
signing a contract in the past. It was something that the
company took very seriously and they were happy that the
state had taken the component very seriously up to that
point as well. He assured the committee that a change in
the rules made by the state would impact all future gasline
projects that involved working with a third party.
Representative Gara wondered whether the current timeline
for the project and firm commitments was normal for a
project of its size. He was concerned that the bill
jeopardized current and future gasline projects.
Mr. Palmer replied that it was not in a company's best
interest to have a longer than necessary development period
and the company had carefully examined the timeline when it
had submitted its application for the project. TransCanada
believed that the 2014 timeline was realistic and in
alignment with obtaining regulatory approval and financing
for the project. The project was extremely complex, large,
and challenging and the company had pursued it for more
than thirty years as had the state. TransCanada would meet
its obligations, but the success of the project relied on
the advancement of components from other involved parties.
2:09:31 PM
Representative Wilson wondered whether TransCanada had ever
changed the scope of a project based on the occurrence of
new developments. She did not think that the conversation
would have occurred if there an abundance of gas had not
been discovered in the Lower 48. Mr. Palmer replied that
the company had changed the scope of its projects based on
marketplace events.
Representative Wilson wondered whether the legislature
should not have concern about how the discovery of a
significant amount of gas in the Lower 48 may impact the
economic viability of the current project.
Mr. Palmer answered that TransCanada and its potential
customers regularly examined the decision to continue
forward with a project and it had the right to stop the
project if it determined the project was uneconomic. The
company was aware of what had occurred in the shale market
and of the change in some gas price forecasts. Assuming
TransCanada's transportation costs were accurate, the EIA
[U.S. Energy Information Administration] had forecasted
potential returns of $2.00 in the first five years of
service beginning in 2021. He explained that some forecasts
were less and some were over $3.00. He stated that it was
up to the customers to determine whether prices were
adequate. He had followed gas price forecasting for more
than 25 years and there was a very strong correlation
between the price forecast and the current price of gas.
One important factor that producers and customers
considered prior to committing gas to a project was what
they believed the gas price would be. An important factor
that did not involve TransCanada was related to how much of
the price would go to the producers account and how much
would go to the state's account. He believed that the state
and the producers were aware that the issue needed
resolution. Factors that needed resolution and that
potential customers examined when determining whether to
commit their gas were gas price, fiscal, Pt. Thompson
ownership, and the project financing terms. The federal
government had put forward legislation that proposed loan
guarantees for the project; however, there were currently
no interest rate or repayment plan regulations for the
guarantee. The company remained hopeful that the state and
producers would resolve the issues, the federal government
would establish regulations and improve a federal loan
guarantee, and that customers would believe that gas prices
would be high enough to make the project a success. He
emphasized that AGIA stipulated that the project was
economic and that TransCanada also believed in the
project's economic viability.
2:16:04 PM
Representative Wilson wondered whether it was possible that
the current issues may not be resolved and that the same
discussion would still be taking place in four to five
years. She was concerned that Alaska was the number one
group that needed the gas and while the state was hoping to
sell gas to the Lower 48 its residents were leaving because
of their lack of access to gas. She clarified her
understanding that TransCanada had not done anything wrong,
but that the market place had changed and the Lower 48 may
not have been as dependent on Alaska for gas.
Mr. Palmer replied it was possible that in two or three
years the project would not succeed. He emphasized that the
project would not succeed if it was stopped presently. He
elaborated that unfortunately the future would always be
uncertain until there were customers that had made firm
transportation commitments, regulatory approval had been
obtained, and financing was secured. He explained that the
factors were always required for a project to succeed.
Representative Wilson remarked that she was hopeful that
the Interior would always have access to diesel even if a
large gasline was not successful. Mr. Palmer believed that
any project, including an in-state gasline would face some
of the same challenges that a big gasline had. He listed
necessary factors for an instate gasline: fiscal resolution
in order for producers to commit their gas; the third party
hired to construct the line would need to have an
arrangement with the state and to know that the state would
to stick to the deal on a long-term basis; a 70 percent
debt loan would require proof of instate customers in order
to obtain financing; and, the state would need to convince
the equity sponsors to commit their equity to the project.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether the company was still
on schedule for the construction of the project in 2020.
Mr. Palmer replied in the affirmative. He reiterated that
there were a number of factors that needed to take place in
order to achieve the current timeline.
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered whether precedent agreements
had been in place for the project with the FERC agreement.
Mr. Palmer asked Vice-chair Fairclough to clarify the
question.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked why precedent agreements had
not been reached on the pipeline in the FERC agreement.
Mr. Palmer responded that when TransCanada had made its
open season filing it had specified that the open season
would be held from the end of April through the end of
July. The company then indicated that its goal was to
complete the negotiation of the project conditions by the
end of 2010. He relayed that TransCanada had not met the
goal, but that it had not been a statutory obligation under
AGIA. The company had not met the target date for a number
of reasons including: customers had requested changes to
the commercial arrangements, which the company was working
on; and, customers had stipulated that there must be
advancements in particular areas such as fiscal
arrangements and Pt. Thompson ownership.
2:22:44 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered whether the discussion
regarding changes in Alaska's fiscal policy helped or hurt
AGIA in firming up transportation commitments. She referred
to Mr. Palmer's statement that one of the customers'
requested changes could be related to Pt. Thompson. She
shared that the House had passed legislation to reduce oil
taxation policy. Mr. Palmer replied that customers on the
gas side of the business were looking to know what the gas
taxes would be for the gas they committed to the project.
He relayed that the company was not privy to additional
detail on the subject.
Representative Hawker wondered whether the company's
responsibilities or the administration's responsibilities
under AGIA were altered by the legislation. He communicated
that he appreciated Mr. Palmer's willingness to discuss
project economics; however, the bill was about the
administration's accountability to the legislature. Mr.
Palmer responded that from his perspective as a businessman
that the passage of the bill would amend provisions of the
license, would raise uncertainty of the state's support for
AGIA at a critical time, and would undercut efforts to
achieve the alignment of all parties that was necessary for
a successful project. He noted that he was not qualified to
provide a legal opinion.
Representative Hawker wondered whether the bill legally
altered the relationship between the state and the
TransCanada/ExxonMobil project. He wondered whether the
committee could get a legal opinion from the companies. Mr.
Palmer responded that TransCanada was not in a position to
provide their legal opinion on a piece of legislation. The
company would deal with facts and not a hypothetical
circumstance.
Representative Hawker believed that the bill was a fact and
that it was important to hear from TransCanada on whether
it believed its legal responsibilities would be altered as
a result of the bill.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that a press release had been
issued by TransCanada on the subject.
2:27:50 PM
Mr. Palmer read from Page 8 titled "AGIA Reimbursement
Process":
AGIA reimbursement process working as intended and
funding qualified activities
Qualified activities:
· Pursuing firm transportation commitments
· Securing financing
· Obtaining a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity from FERC
· Satisfying a requirement of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project
All expenditures submitted for reimbursement subject
to a due diligence review and audit
State reimbursement:
· As of 3Q of 2010: $50M reimbursed (additional
assessments pending)
· Forecasted reimbursement FY 2011: $125M
· Governor's proposed budget FY 2012: $160M
AGIA funding supporting real work to advance an Alaska
natural gas pipeline; TC [TransCanada] and EM
[ExxonMobil] committing their own funds in combination
with the state
Mr. Palmer clarified that the actual state reimbursement
that the company had received as of the end of March 2011
was $50 million and not the $136 million that had been
cited earlier in the day. He stressed that TransCanada and
ExxonMobil had spent $240 million on the project to date.
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered how much of TransCanada's
commitment was available for reimbursement under the terms.
Mr. Palmer responded that TransCanada had received $50
million and should receive a total of $100 million for
money incurred through the end of March 2011.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked whether the $100 million would
be paid towards the money that the sponsors had spent. Mr.
Palmer replied that after the sponsors received the total
payment of $100 million that they would have $140 million
remaining out of pocket.
Mr. Palmer read Page 9 titled "Path to Success":
Project exceptionally large, complex and important
2010 very productive for APP:
· Conducted first open season in North Slope
history
· Making good progress on multiple fronts
· Diligently conducting the work needed to advance
the project
· AGIA working as intended and commitments being
met
To succeed we must:
· Attract customers
· Obtain regulatory approvals
· Achieve project financing
· Secure and maintain the support and active
engagement of all key parties
Representative Hawker referred to a TransCanada press
release and the Annual U.S. Congressional Report on the
gasline progress that had stated that bids for significant
volumes of gas had been received. He wondered whether the
bids had contained sufficient volumes of gas that would
enable the company to advance the project. Mr. Palmer
replied that TransCanada was bound by confidentiality
agreements and could not divulge the actual volume. He
added that the company was still working to resolve the
conditions and that it was important for other parties to
do the same to have success on the project.
Representative Hawker asked whether the legislature and the
State of Alaska should not be concerned about whether
TransCanada had received sufficient commitments in its
initial open season. Mr. Palmer understood that Alaskans
and other bidders all wanted to know what the volumes were;
however, that was not the practice in the pipeline
industry. The company could not reveal the number of
commitments until they were secured in precedent
agreements. He noted that the confidentiality clause was
laid out in FERC rules.
Representative Hawker clarified that he was interested in
the magnitude of commitments and whether TransCanada had
received sufficient commitments to declare a successful
open season. He wondered whether TransCanada still believed
that the project had the potential to be as extremely
profitable as the legislature had been told three years
earlier during AGIA discussions. Mr. Palmer did not believe
that the cited testimony was his own.
Representative Hawker believed the testimony had been from
the administration. He wondered whether Mr. Palmer thought
that "the administration's assertion three years ago that
this project was wildly profitable under all
circumstances," was an accurate statement.
Mr. Palmer replied that he did not have a comment about the
administration's testimony. He relayed that TransCanada had
been careful in its testimony three years earlier and had
utilized the EIA gas price forecast as it had been
directed. He relayed that different parties would have
different responses when asked if the project was "wildly"
profitable or economic. Factors included how a party viewed
gas prices going forward, the arrangement with the State of
Alaska regarding gas taxes, the availability of Pt.
Thompson gas for the project, and the resolution of issues
between the pipeline company and potential customers.
2:38:26 PM
Mr. Palmer continued to answer a question from
Representative Hawker. He explained that the project would
be economic for a pipeline company if it could attract
credit worthy customers that were in a position to commit
their gas. He added that customers would decide separately
whether the project was economic for them.
Representative Hawker explained that the legislation sought
to ask the administration the questions that had been
illustrated by Mr. Palmer and to hold it accountable for
statements that it had made in the past.
Representative Doogan reminded the committee that the topic
had been voted on in the past and he encouraged new members
to go back and study the record.
Mr. Palmer continued on Page 10 titled "Progress: Use of
Alaska Resources," and explained that one of the
requirements under AGIA was that TransCanada use Alaska
resources. He relayed that the sponsors had completed the
milestone of one million work hours with no incidents.
There were approximately 115 TransCanada and ExxonMobil
employees working on the project across the continent. The
prior summer there had been 400 workers on the field and as
of the end of the first quarter 2011 a total of 40
companies and 470 Alaskans had worked on the project. He
highlighted that the sponsors continued to use Alaska
businesses and workers to advance the development of the
project.
2:42:14 PM
Mr. Palmer discussed Page 11 titled "Progress: Training
Alaskan Workers," that outlined the company's commitment to
the state to work on training Alaskans to work on the
project:
Working with the State of Alaska Department of Labor
and Workforce Development in their efforts to develop
and implement training programs for Alaskan workers:
· APP is active member of the Alaska Gas Pipeline
Training Plan Committee
o Participating with state, contractors, labor
organizations, University of Alaska and
others
o Implementing Alaska Gasline Strategic
Training Plan
· Initial focus: Identifying future APP workforce
needs and skills requirements
· Leading to development and implementation of
training plans
· APP donated large diameter pipe to Fairbanks
pipeline training school to aid in pipe handling
and welding training
Accomplishment: Taking the necessary steps to prepare
the Alaskan workforce for pipeline construction and
operations jobs
Mr. Palmer moved to Page 12 titled "Progress: Attracting
Customers":
APP's open season concluded on July 30, 2010
· Received conditional bids from major industry
players and other parties
· Conditions included proposed changes to APP's
commercial terms, as well as issues requiring
resolution between Shippers/Producers and the
State
APP has progressed negotiations with potential
Shippers following the close of the Open Season
· Good progress in addressing proposed amendments
to commercial terms
· APP continuing engagement with potential shippers
Mr. Palmer continued on Page 13 ("Progress: Attracting
Customers"):
The resolution of State and Shipper/Producer issues is
fundamental to progress APP and to underpin the
shippers' substantial investment
· Would be the largest privately financed
construction project in the history of North
America
· Issues will need to be concurrently advanced in
order to secure signed precedent agreements
Accomplishment: APP continuing to progress the
commercial process, but:
· Success will require all parties--including
Shippers/Producers, State, and APP--to actively
engage to realize a mutually beneficial outcome
2:45:06 PM
Mr. Palmer addressed Page 14 titled "Progress: Obtaining
Regulatory Approvals":
Advancing essential regulatory work for securing
permits:
· Aligning with regulators on path forward
· Completed extensive environmental field studies
in 2010 and initiating major program for 2011
o Archeology and cultural resources; wetlands
delineation; fish habitat surveys
· Actively engaging public along pipeline route:
o Met with 32 Alaska communities in 2010--
project updates and listening for their
issues; similar program in 2011
o Continuing communications with First Nations
in Yukon and British Columbia
· Progressing socioeconomic assessment
o Interviews with Alaskan community leaders on
potential impacts of large-diameter gas
pipeline
· Secured land access for field studies on public
land; progressing for private lands in 2011
Accomplishment: On schedule to complete the work
needed to submit FERC certificate application and
commence NPA compliance filings by Oct. 2012
Mr. Palmer added that there had been many more private
lands than had been expected. The company's due diligence
had found state records to be out of date and there were
many more private lands along the right-of-way, which meant
extra work and cost for the company.
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether Fairbanks had
been added to the list of communities where the sponsors
planned to hear commentary from residents. Mr. Palmer
responded that there was a meeting scheduled in Fairbanks
on April 26, 2011.
Mr. Palmer detailed that the sponsors had conducted the
range of work needed to secure financing for the project:
"Progress: Financing the Project" (Page 15):
· Developed preliminary finance plan, with input
from leading financial institutions, for open
season rate design
· On-going discussions with U.S. Department of
Energy on use of Federal Loan Guarantees (FLGs)
o Successful use of FLGs means lower financing
cost for the project
o Reduces rates to shippers; enhances economic
value to all stakeholders
· Collaborating with Senate Committee on Energy and
Natural
· Resources on amendments to 2004 statute
authorizing FLGs for AK gas pipeline project
o If passed by Congress, will increase FLGs
from $18B to $30B, and allow access to
Federal Financing Bank
Accomplishments: Developed preliminary finance plan
that supports open season negotiations through reduced
rates and enhanced value to all stakeholders;
positioned for further financing enhancements
Mr. Palmer noted that the sponsors had spoken with 13
domestic and international financial institutions in order
to advance discussions regarding a finance plan.
2:49:34 PM
Mr. Palmer pointed to Page 16 titled "Progress: Pipeline
Engineering & Technology":
Progressing pipeline engineering and technology work
in the lab and in the field:
· Advancing the project design
o Geotechnical design; hydraulic and
geothermal modeling; geo-hazard assessment;
materials engineering; pipeline design;
facilities engineering; construction and
logistics planning
· Conducting engineering field work in Alaska,
Yukon and British Columbia
o LiDAR [Light Detection and Ranging] and
aerial photo; routing; fault delineation;
watercourse crossing reconnaissance;
borehole and bulk soil sampling; borrow site
reconnaissance
· Permafrost studies--includes research program
with University of Alaska
Mr. Palmer stressed that all of the factors outlined on
Page 16 were critical to an accurate assessment of work
needed to ensure the advancement of a project.
Mr. Palmer read from Page 17 titled "Progress: Pipeline
Engineering & Technology":
Conducting full-scale testing of project pipe
(48"/X80)
· Objective is to validate models used to predict
pipe tensile and compressive strain capacity
· Test program is designed to simulate strains
caused by frost heave and thaw settlement
· Testing facility will be fully operational by May
2011
· Several mills providing pipe to be tested
Accomplishment: Conducting ongoing series of studies
and planning to advance design of pipeline facilities
in alignment with commercial and regulatory schedules
Mr. Palmer noted that the project pipe was standard size
and that all items listed on Page 17 were necessary for
project advancement.
Mr. Palmer directed attention to Page 18 titled "Progress:
Gas Treatment Plant":
· Optimization and development studies underway
in all areas of work
o Process planning; engineering; regulatory
requirements; project execution
o Studies have identified cost savings and
improvements in plant lay-out
· Conducting on-site evaluations of major North
American and Asian fabrication facilities to
review capabilities and further refine
construction planning
Accomplishment: Completed latest phase of studies
and planning to advance design of GTP [gas treatment
plant] facilities-in alignment with commercial and
regulatory schedules
Mr. Palmer communicated that the companies continued to do
the work listed in the presentation as the items were
necessary for any pipeline project.
Mr. Palmer concluded the presentation with Page 19 titled
"Next Steps":
All APP teams conducting the work needed to:
· Attract customers
o APP working diligently to resolve remaining
issues
o Essential that issues outside of APP's
control also be resolved
· Obtain regulatory approvals
o APP will submit FERC and major NPA filings
in 2012
· Achieve project financing
Project can only advance with support and active
engagement of all key parties
· Shippers/Producers
· State of Alaska
· U.S. and Canadian governments
· Communities along the pipeline route
Each party has a vital role in ensuring the effective
commercialization of Alaska's natural gas resources
2:53:30 PM
Representative Gara wondered how the AGIA requirements on
debt/equity ratio helped to keep transportation costs as
low as possible in order for the project to be economic for
producers. Mr. Palmer replied that the AGIA statute had a
very high debt requirement relative to other pipeline
projects and directed an applicant to have a minimum of 70
percent debt and 30 percent equity. He detailed that once
the project was through construction and service that
ExxonMobil had committed to 75 percent debt. He explained
that from a customer's standpoint that debt was preferable
as it was a much cheaper form of financing. Debt costs
could be five percent to seven percent and taxes were paid
on return on equity that was twelve percent which was
effectively compounded from the standpoint of a customer.
Representative Gara asked whether it was correct that the
higher the debt meant the lower the tariff rate that FERC
would approve. Mr. Palmer replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked whether the tariff rate would be
reduced and margin would be freed up for producers if the
state invested 20 percent to 40 percent into the pipeline
but only requested an 8 percent rate of return.
Mr. Palmer replied that customers would pay lower tolls if
an additional party took 30 percent ownership of the
project and required a lower rate of return. He discussed
that TransCanada and ExxonMobil had come down from a rate
of return expectancy of 14 percent to 12 percent.
Representative Gara wondered whether the rolled in rates
provision in AGIA made it more likely that independent
explorers would help contribute gas to the pipeline. He
explained that the provision required all shippers to share
the costs of an expansion that was needed by a new shipper.
The provision would be lost if the current project was
lost. He noted that BP and ConocoPhillips were opposed to
the requirement and thought that the new shipper should be
required to fund the expansion.
Mr. Palmer responded that the statute had a limit of 115
percent of the original tolls for roll in tolls.
Historically when tolls increased as a result of an
expansion a rolled in structure generally encouraged new
parties to commit their gas; whereas, current customers may
have held an alternate view.
3:00:17 PM
AT EASE
3:07:27 PM
RECONVENED
Vice-chair Fairclough OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
HB 142 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
[Note: HB 142 was heard again during the meeting and
appears later in the minutes.]
HOUSE BILL NO. 121
"An Act establishing the commercial charter fisheries
revolving loan fund, the mariculture revolving loan
fund, and the Alaska microloan revolving loan fund and
relating to those funds and loans from those funds;
and providing for an effective date."
3:08:50 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT CSHB 121(FIN) Work Draft
27-GH1728\X (Kane, 4/1/11).
Representative Doogan OBJECTED for purpose of discussion.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked for an explanation of the CS.
CURTIS THAYER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, discussed the changes that appeared
in the CS. He relayed that there was a title change that
deleted the language "relating to loans made to commercial
fisherman under the commercial fishing loan act for product
quality, improvements, and energy efficiency upgrades."
Section 1 on Page 1 had been deleted from the previous
version that would have allowed the Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development (DCCED) to give an
interest rate reduction to commercial fishing loan
borrowers if 50 percent of the loan was spent on product
produced or manufactured in Alaska. Language was inserted
on Page 3, Line 17 that required an applicant to provide a
document to the department from a state financial
institution that showed the applicant had been denied a
loan or that the loan was contingent upon the applicant
receiving a loan from the Alaska Microloan Revolving Loan
Fund. Page 3, Line 19 included new language related to the
"turndown" provision that an applicant had been denied a
loan for the same purpose or a loan from a financial
institution was contingent on an applicant receiving a loan
from the fund. He explained that there was a turndown
provision for the microloan that was mirrored by the
charter boat fisheries loan. The floor of the interest rate
had been increased from 3 percent to 6 percent for the
charter boat fishery program (Page 6, Lines 4 and 14). The
total balance of the outstanding charter fisheries loan had
been reduced from $300,000 to $200,000 (Page 4, Line 16).
Changes to the legislation had been made in consultation
with the industry to ensure that the program was not
competitive with other financial institutions. The goal was
to provide bridge funding between what the private sector
was and was not able to finance and to produce economic
development for the State of Alaska.
There being NO OBJECTION the CS was ADOPTED.
SUSAN K. BELL, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, underscored that the
legislation had resulted from extensive outreach to the
economic advisory council, trade organizations, Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporations,
community leaders, the financing community, and other. She
relayed that the goal was to help diversify the economy and
to facilitate job creation. The department had been made
aware of the need for increased access to capital in select
areas and industry sectors. The first of three major
components included the facilitation of year-round
mariculture industry development in coastal communities.
She discussed that out of 67 farms that only 25 were
currently producing (10 in Southeast and 15 in Southcentral
Alaska). The second component was to help commercial
charter operators in Southcentral and Southeast Alaska to
acquire charter halibut permits that were needed to comply
with new federal regulation. She emphasized that the
department anticipated over 500 permitees with over 800
applications. The department's objective was to encourage
Alaska ownership and to increase the economic benefits of
the communities where permit holders resided through a
recirculation of the earnings. The third component was to
spur small business development through the creation of a
microloan program. Alaska was one of the few states without
a microloan program and funds could be used for startup
business costs, working capital, inventory expansion, etc.
She communicated that the programs complimented the state's
small business loan programs and provided additional tools
to diversify the economy and to sustain economic growth.
Representative Costello wondered whether the legislation
would compete with the Alaska Commercial Fishing and
Agriculture Bank (CFAB).
WANETTA AYERS, DIVISION DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
responded that the CFAB lending practices were similar to
other private banking institutions and that there had been
turndowns for commercial fishing loans in some
circumstances. She detailed that borrowers that did not
qualify for a CFAB loan would be considered under the loans
in the legislation.
3:16:31 PM
Representative Wilson asked how many of the states with
microloan programs used private banks compared to state
financing. Ms. Ayers responded that the legislation was
modeled after the Small Business Administration (SBA)
Microloan Program and the loans were typically provided by
non-governmental organizations such as economic development
districts or non-profit community development corporations.
Representative Wilson asked whether the loans in the
legislation would be operated and funded by the State of
Alaska. Ms. Ayers replied in the affirmative.
Representative Doogan wondered where commercial charter
fishermen had previously obtained loans. Ms. Ayers replied
that the loan fund had been proposed to help fishermen due
to new federal requirements on limited entry permits. The
new requirement presented a barrier to entry that most of
the businesses had not faced in the past. She relayed that
although a business may qualify for an asset loan that it
was unlikely a business would qualify for private financing
on a permit because it was a new requirement.
Representative Doogan wondered how much a loan would cost.
Ms. Ayers replied that the department had heard that the
charter halibut permit for a "six pack" license would cost
up to $80,000.
Representative Guttenberg wondered where the interest of
the state would be met and whether the loan was
specifically intended to provide funding to people who had
been denied by another financial institution.
3:19:53 PM
Ms. Ayers responded that the state's interest in providing
a loan to a qualified borrower was satisfied by the
creation of a greater public good. She relayed that the
objective was to concentrate Alaskan ownership to ensure
that the economic benefits accrued from the activity would
remain in Alaska. She noted that there had been a
significant level of non-resident charter operations
ownership in Southcentral and Southeast Alaska in the past.
Representative Guttenberg wondered about the surety that
the debt would be repaid to the state and how the loan
requirements differed between the state loan and a private
institution loan. Ms. Ayers replied that a private lender
would generally have a lower risk tolerance; however, the
state would still require the loan to be sufficiently
collateralized to secure the loan value. She added that the
state typically had a higher risk tolerance and was able to
exercise more patience regarding repayment terms in order
to meet the public purpose objectives of the fund.
Representative Guttenberg was supportive of the goals. He
wondered about the history of repayment and default on
loans provided by the state. Ms. Ayers replied that the
default rate was very low and it was less than one percent
in the past fiscal year.
Representative Gara supported the legislation. He wondered
whether the standards in the loan program were similar
those in other loan programs. Ms. Ayers replied that the
same best practices that were used on other loans would be
used.
Representative Gara asked whether overall the state did not
lose money on the loan funds as a result of the low default
rate. Ms. Ayers replied in the affirmative. She explained
that in the past the state had offered extremely patient
terms under certain loan funds, such as the Fisheries
Enhancement Revolving Loan Fund, and tended to make loans
in the commercial fishing industry because historically
there had been a lack of private sector financing in the
area. The state had helped the fishing industry through
some very challenging times and had been able to make
modifications and work with borrowers to help them get
right-side up on their loans.
3:24:07 PM
Representative Gara reiterated his support for the bill. He
discussed that another revolving loan fund had been passed
the prior year to help small businesses become more energy
efficient; however, it was currently unfunded. He hoped
that legislators would consider funding the program because
private businesses in rural areas did not qualify for Power
Cost Equalization (PCE).
Co-Chair Stoltze mentioned the Agriculture Revolving Loan
Fund.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal notes.
Co-Chair Thomas thought the DCCED fiscal note related to
charter fisheries should be increased to $9 million. He
believed the permit for a license was between $80,000 and
$100,000 and in order to be in a position to provide loans
to those in need that it would be better to increase the
available funds. Commissioner Bell replied that the
department had looked to make sure the funds were viable at
different commercialization levels and explained that the
increase to $9 million would expand opportunities to more
people in need of financing.
Representative Doogan asked for an explanation on the
fiscal note notation that specified the capitalization had
been reduced from $5 million to $3 million based on
clarification of funding source. Ms. Ayers replied that a
new source of federal funding that the department had hoped
for was not available; therefore a lower capitalization had
been recommended. She added that the department would take
Co-Chair Thomas's recommendation into account regarding the
potential demand for the loan.
Representative Doogan asked whether the department had
decreased the amount from $5 million to $3 million because
they thought the amount was too high. Ms. Ayers replied
that the amount had been reduced because the federal
funding had not come through.
Representative Doogan asked about the reduction to $3
million.
Vice-chair Fairclough believed that the department had not
wanted to bring forward a fiscal note that was too large.
She clarified that Co-Chair Thomas had suggested raising
the amount to $9 million to increase access to more people.
Representative Doogan wanted to understand the methodology
in the number decrease that was reflected on the fiscal
note.
Representative Wilson asked whether the three fiscal notes
from DCCED totaled $8.5 million. Ms. Ayers replied in the
affirmative.
Representative Wilson asked whether there would be three
additional positions created. Ms. Ayers responded that the
department had requested one new position.
3:29:38 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered whether the fiscal note
dated 2/8/2011 that included funding for two full-time
positions in the amount of $169,000 had been replaced by a
fiscal note dated 3/29/2011 that included funding for one
full-time position in the amount of $78,000. Commissioner
Bell replied in the affirmative.
Vice-chair Fairclough informed the committee that there
should be a total of four fiscal notes. Three notes
included capital for different funds and one note included
funding for one full-time position. Funding for the full-
time position was $78,000 in FY 12 and $71,900 in FY 13
through FY 17.
Representative Wilson wondered how many fishing loans
currently existed. Ms. Ayers replied that currently there
was the Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund under which
a number of eligible purposes existed and the Fisheries
Enhancement Revolving Loan Fund that paid for the
Aquaculture Association hatchery Fisheries Enhancement
Program.
Representative Wilson asked whether there would be a total
of five separate funds that included the current funds and
those encompassed in the legislation. Ms. Ayers clarified
that there were three separate loan funds in the bill that
included the mariculture fund, the commercial charter fund,
and the microloan fund. She noted that the microloan fund
was not specific to fisheries.
Representative Wilson asked for verification that DCCED
currently administered other loan funds. Ms. Ayers replied
in the affirmative. She reiterated that other loans
included the Fisheries Enhancement Loan Fund and the
Commercial Fishing Revolving Loan Fund that helped users
with vessel financing, refinancing, limited entry permits,
quota share purchasing, commercial purposes, etc.
Representative Wilson surmised that there was currently no
federal funding available to help with the programs. Ms.
Ayers responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Stoltze supported the legislation. He stressed
that the loan fund helped fisherman in Southeast and
Southcentral Alaska that were faced with financial
difficulty as a result of an external federal government
action.
3:34:26 PM
Representative Doogan wondered whether it was a reaction to
the "two fish, one fish change".
Co-Chair Thomas replied that a permit system had been
created in Alaska that displaced a significant number of
charter fishermen. He explained that in some circumstances
lodges held permits for fishermen that they employed;
however, the fishermen were now required to hold an
individual permit. He opined that an increase to the base
$3 million in the fiscal note was important and that the
loan would help bring fishermen back. He discussed that the
state loan program had been in existence for a long time
and that the default percentage was very low. He relayed
that the state was able to sell a permit to another
fisherman if the current owner defaulted.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the proposed revision by
Co-Chair Thomas that would change the base amount on the
fiscal note related to the Charter Fisheries Revolving Loan
Fund from $3 million to $9 million.
Representative Wilson wondered why funding could not be met
through existing loans.
Co-Chair Thomas explained that the loan fund was a new
program.
Representative Gara communicated that the state's revolving
loan funds were well run and that they added jobs, improved
the economy, and dealt with distress in the state. He
thought that the increase was smart and did not cost the
state anything and in the event that the state faced a
worse fiscal situation the legislature could consider
reducing the amount at that time.
Representative Doogan wondered whether the increase would
be from $3 million to $9 million on the fiscal note labeled
"Allocation: Com Charter Fisheries (RLF)."
Vice-chair Fairclough responded in the affirmative. The
committee agreed on a revised fiscal note that would
increase the Charter Fisheries Revolving Loan Fund to $9
million.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal note that
capitalized the microloan fund at $2.5 million.
Representative Gara wondered whether the fiscal note was
sufficient to make a real impact on the community. Ms.
Ayers replied that the department believed it was
sufficient.
3:38:51 PM
Representative Gara remarked that the number seemed small.
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to the fiscal note that
capitalized shellfish mariculture at $3 million.
Representative Wilson asked how long the money would be
allocated for the mariculture loan before the department
would reassess whether other non-financial needs were more
prevalent. Ms. Ayers replied that DCCED monitored new loan
funds to determine how quickly the fund was subscribed and
would then make determinations. She highlighted that proper
outreach to potential users was important when a new fund
was available. There was at least one new loan fund that
the department was currently monitoring. New funds were
typically given several years before a serious
determination was made.
Representative Wilson wondered whether DCCED would provide
a report to the legislature and potentially recommend the
transfer of money from one program to another if the
department had determined that a loan was not working. She
noted that sometimes businesses were not successful for
non-financial reasons. She asked whether the department had
ever turned any loans back in. Ms. Ayers replied that she
would need to do research on turning back capital. She
believed that it was more likely that in cases such as
commercial fisheries that the fund had given back through
the successful funding of other activities.
Vice-chair Fairclough discussed the fiscal note that
included funding for one full-time position.
Representative Doogan asked for an explanation of the
$2,400 capital outlay item listed in FY 12. Ms. Ayers
responded that the allocation was related to office
equipment, furniture, and other items associated with the
creation of a new position.
Representative Doogan asked for information regarding the
microloan funding source that began with $5,300 in FY 12
and was reduced to $3,500 in FY 13 through FY 17. Ms. Ayers
replied that the incremental costs were allocated between
the two funds [Micro-Loan Fund and the Commercial Charter
Fisheries Fund] in the first year and was carried forward
in future years.
Representative Doogan wondered whether the full-time
position would be allocated to two different functions. Ms.
Ayers responded that he was essentially correct, but that
many individuals would be involved in the entire lending
process. She added that DCCED had allocated the costs
within the confines of the fiscal note.
3:43:46 PM
Representative Doogan wondered why the new position had not
been allocated to Mariculture Revolving Loan Fund as well.
Ms. Ayers responded that based on the potential volume of
loans DCCED believed it could accommodate the fund with
current staff.
Representative Edgmon wondered what interest rate each
program would offer if the programs took effect that day.
Commissioner Bell replied that the Commercial Charter
Fisheries Revolving Loan Fund would have a floor of 6
percent and a ceiling of 10.5 percent. The Shellfish
Mariculture Revolving Loan Fund would have a floor of 5
percent and a ceiling of 9 percent. The Microloan Revolving
Loan Fund would have a floor of 6 percent and a ceiling of
8 percent. She referred to the language "prime plus two" in
the bill that would currently have been 5.25 percent and
was close to market rates. The department had tried to
create programs that filled public purpose, that recognized
communication with the industry interested in utilizing the
loans, and to find an appropriate comfort level within the
banking community.
KEN L. LARSON, PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND CHARTER BOAT
ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), opposed the
bill in its present form. He had operated a charter boat in
Valdez beginning in 1984. He discussed that economic
development in Alaska was on a downhill slide and the
implementation of GHLs [Guideline Harvest Limit] and
charter halibut permits [CHP] had wiped out 35 percent to
40 percent of operators. He believed that the one fish 37
inch rule in Southeast was the "death knell" for charters
in the area. Operators in Southcentral had been told that
they would be limited to the one fish rule under the catch-
sharing plan the following summer. He discussed that Alaska
Department of Fish and Game figures indicated that non-
resident licenses had dropped 18 percent from 2006 to 2010
and the money generated from the area had dropped close to
12 percent. He stressed that the state had lost several
hundred million dollars since 2006 and that the decline had
continued to the Alaska tourism industry. He believed that
the state was establishing a double standard. He discussed
the CFAB loan program had been instituted when the IFQ's
for halibut long liners were put in place in 1995 and were
currently at a 3 percent to 4 percent loan rate. The
fisherman had been forced into a mold in a fishery where
they made up 10 percent to 15 percent of the total catch.
He wondered why the fisherman that wanted to purchase CHPs
could not be included in the CFAB program. He relayed that
it was difficult to obtain loans and that the state should
tap into the existing CFAB program instead of setting up a
new program.
3:50:32 PM
Representative Wilson asked whether Mr. Larson believed
that his recommendations would open up the bill for
utilization by a broader group of operators. Mr. Larson
responded that he thought it would help. He explained that
the problem was that many fishermen were looking for a boat
and a permit and that $100,000 would not come close to the
costs needed.
Representative Wilson remarked that the bill had been
changed to $200,000.
Vice-chair Fairclough explained that a CS had been adopted
and that one of the changes the Commercial Charter
Fisheries Revolving Loan Fund was an increase to $200,000.
Mr. Larson believed that the increase would help
significantly.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked Mr. Larson whether he
maintained his opposition to the bill. Mr. Larson opined
that the new program was unnecessary because it would
duplicate the current CFAB program.
Representative Doogan referenced Page 4, Lines 15-16 that
included the increase to $200,000.
Vice-chair Fairclough read from Page 4, Lines 15-16: "The
total balances outstanding on loans made to a borrower
under AS 16.10.805 may not exceed $200,000." Mr. Larson
asked about Page 3, Line 31 that included language that a
loan would not exceed $100,000.
Vice-chair Fairclough replied that the language was
referring to a different section of the code.
Mr. Larson queried whether the available amount was
$200,000 on a charter halibut permit, boat, or engine
upgrade.
Vice-chair Fairclough responded that the administration
would provide clarity at the end of the public hearing.
3:54:22 PM
PATRICK BOOKEY, SR., LUCK OF THE IRISH CHARTERS, NORTH POLE
(via teleconference), was opposed to the current form of
the legislation. He was a longtime Alaskan and worked as a
charter operator. He expressed that 35 percent of the
charter operators had been lost under the current charter
halibut permit and that operators were the smallest user
group. He was concerned that private boaters would still be
allowed two fish and that the implementation of the one
fish rule would put charter operators out of business. He
thought the language in the bill related to the amount
available under the loan was confusing. He was troubled by
the requirement that an operator must have a physical
license or residence in the state for 24 months in order to
qualify for the program. He thought the CFAB program was
better because the interest rates under the bill were no
better for new fishermen. He explained that his boat and
12-pack permit amounted to over $300,000 and that a buyer
would not receive enough funding under the proposed loan.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that Mr. Bookey had been
referring Page 3, Lines 22-25.
MARK STEARNS, ALASKAN WOOD MOULDING, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation. He
believed that the microloan program was broadly based and
would help a variety of business owners. He had known small
businesses that had been turned down for loans despite good
credit. He believed that the small program would help to
bridge the gap during challenging times. He thought the
bill was necessary and would be extremely helpful to small
businesses that created jobs and were the backbone of
Alaskan communities.
4:00:40 PM
RODGER PAINTER, PRESIDENT, ALASKA SHELLFISH GROWERS
ASSOCIATION, JUNEAU, spoke in favor of the bill. He thanked
the governor for introducing the legislation. He
appreciated a loan fund specifically for small businesses
because there was a tendency to focus on large scale
economic development. The mariculture loan addressed the
association's revenue lag from three to eight years. The
bill was structured recognize the problem and would
encourage the development of new shellfish farms in rural
Alaska.
RICK HARRIS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, SEALASKA
CORPORATION, JUNEAU, referred to written testimony that had
been provided (copy on file). The corporation was in
support of the legislation and was specifically interested
in the mariculture loan. He discussed that Southeast Alaska
had been experiencing large outmigration and high
unemployment. SEALASKA had reviewed Department of Labor
statistics from 1996-2034 that showed that Ketchikan would
lose 36 percent of its population, Prince of Wales would
lose 62 percent, Skagway would lose 56 percent, and
Wrangell would lose 56 percent. The corporation board of
directors had decided that they would begin rebuilding jobs
in rural communities one person at a time. He discussed the
corporation's subsidiary called Haa Aani that was focused
on economic development in Southeast. Southeast offered a
range of resources that were necessary for the mariculture;
however, there was no capital available for new businesses.
He discussed other items that were necessary for oyster
farmers. He believed that the bill would remove oyster
farmers' lack of financing, which represented their number
one obstacle. He hoped that the $3 million would be
available quickly in order to help put people to work.
4:07:31 PM
PAUL FUHS, PAC ALASKA, JUNEAU, supported the legislation.
He expressed that the bill provided good mid-level economic
development in necessary areas that represented substantial
revenue and supported numerous jobs throughout the year. He
shared a gooey duck with the committee and explained that
it took approximately six to seven years for the shellfish
to reach maturity: during the time businesses did not bring
in revenue and experienced costs such as leases on the
tidelands. Private banks would not provide financing;
therefore, a state loan program was necessary. He explained
that the reason for a new loan program was that existing
programs were fully subscribed. He noted that default rates
on state loans were historically very low. The farms needed
start-up capital and would then become self-sustaining.
Representative Gara wondered why gooey ducks were not for
sale in the supermarket. Mr. Fuhs replied that the primary
market was overseas and that most people in America did not
know how to cook them.
4:11:56 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Doogan asked for verification of the two
financial limits on the loan. The first was that the loan
could not exceed over $100,000 per year. The second limit
was that the loan could not total more than $200,000 per
year. Ms. Ayers responded in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked whether the department would
reevaluate the amount designated to the microloan program.
He thought that the allocation of $2.5 million was too low.
Commissioner Bell responded that DCCED had initially
thought that the program could have been supplemented with
federal funding. The department wanted to make sure it was
bringing forward loans that were viable and functional. The
loan was mirrored after the SBA program which designated
$35,000 per individual or $70,000 for two or more parties.
The department's research had indicated that the loan
activity was less than the amounts in many circumstances.
She explained that loans may be in the range of $15,000 to
$20,000 and that not all recipients would reach the cap.
Representative Wilson wondered why the interest rate for
the charter fisheries loan was 6 percent and why the state
could not use the other program that currently existed
[CFAB]. Ms. Ayers replied that CFAB could currently lend in
the categories addressed under the legislation. She
explained that an individual would not need to take
advantage of the loan under the bill if they were
successful in obtaining financing through CFAB.
Representative Wilson wondered why a person would not
utilize the CFAB program instead of the loan program
proposed under the legislation. Ms. Ayers responded that
she was not versed in the CFAB lending program; however,
she would have been surprised to find that CFAB was lending
below the current prime rate. She would need to verify the
information from the charter operators that testified
earlier in the meeting.
4:17:28 PM
Commissioner Bell notified the committee that DCCED had
consulted with CFAB and other private institutions and
there had been no objection to the introduction of the new
programs.
Representative Wilson requested verification on the current
CFAB interest rate. She communicated that she had no
objection to the loans, but wanted to make certain that the
loan money would be accessible. Ms. Ayers replied that she
would provide the information to the committee. She added
that Richard Yamada with the Alaska Charter Association had
been unable to stay to testify; however, he had testified
on the association's support of the bill in the past.
Representative Wilson expressed her concern that the 6
percent interest rate may have been too high for cash
strapped businesses. She agreed that the capital was
important. Ms. Ayers answered that the 6 percent floor had
been reached in consultation with the Alaska Banking
Association. She elaborated that the state did not want to
offer a rate that was significantly below market that would
disadvantage the private lenders.
Representative Wilson ascertained that the reason for the
loan program was to fill a niche that was not there;
however, the niche was only filled at an interest rate of 6
percent or above. Ms. Ayers answered the state was
operating as a lender of last resort and that private
banking institutions would not approve of such low interest
rates in a category that they would be likely to lend in.
The terms of the loan fund had been discussed and vetted
with the charter association, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association (NOAA), and with banking
organizations. The department was always on the lookout for
gaps that it could fill to ensure access to capital, to
facilitate new business entrants, and to increase resident
participation.
4:21:22 PM
Representative Costello wondered why there was a 24-month
residency requirement in order to qualify for the program.
Commissioner Bell responded that the residency requirement
was identical to those in existing revolving loan funds.
Co-Chair Thomas told a personal story about his son who had
received a boat and permit loan from the state after being
turned down by a bank.
Representative Gara wondered what harm there was in
offering lower interest rates to people who had been denied
a loan by a private bank. He found it troublesome that the
opinion of the private banks mattered.
Ms. Ayers replied that the department did not want a rate
that was unsupported by other market dynamics. The
department thought that a 6 percent loan was viable for
applicants that could meet the eligibility requirements.
She highlighted halibut charters in particular where the
state was dealing with a changing federal fisheries
management regime and a new barrier to entry. New entrants
would often be eligible for private financing on a boat,
but may need a state loan for the permit. The department
felt that there would be a good balance between the private
lenders and the state loan programs and that it was not a
situation in which the banking industry was dictating the
loan limits. All of the interest floors and ceilings listed
in the legislation were within the historical norms.
Representative Gara wondered why the state would impose a 6
percent floor if the program could be solvent at a lower
rate such as 4 percent. He believed that a bank's choice to
not offer a loan should not impact the interest rate that
the state offered.
Representative Doogan noted that the phrase "lender of last
resort" bothered him considerably. He relayed that the
presumption in the statement was that an applicant did not
qualify for a loan through any normal commercial standard
which put the state in a position of providing loans to
substandard borrowers. He thought the expectation that the
default number would be low was questionable. He opined
that the items in combination with the argument for a
relatively high interest floor did not sound like items
that would lead to a successful banking operation.
Commissioner Bell replied that the term sounded dramatic,
but it was a term that was commonly used in commercial and
public financing. She reminded the committee that the less
than 1 percent default rate was very low. The department
was had financing staff that reviewed loan applications and
collateral and were in contact with the borrowers regarding
their payments. She emphasized the professionalism of the
organization and that DCCED had looked for the need and
terms it could offer and prided itself on its increased
outreach and vetting. She stressed there were many reasons
a bank may not loan to a borrower that were not based on
borrower risk, including the makeup and weighting of a
bank's portfolio and lending limits.
4:28:42 PM
Co-Chair Thomas discussed that he had paid as high as 17
percent on a commercial fisheries related loan. He had seen
gillnet permits that had been bought at $150,000 to
$180,000 drop to $30,000. He explained that some had
defaulted but that the state rewrote the loans when
possible. He had seen people get into trouble through no
fault of their own and that people had bought permits that
were priced too high. He relayed that permits for sale were
popular and would be bought. He supported the loans under
the bill and did not think that 6 percent was unfair. He
told a personal story about fishing.
Representative Doogan was impressed by the testimony
regarding the default rates. He was interested to see how
the unique aspects of the bill would work out.
Representative Edgmon supported the legislation. He
provided perspective that the committee had passed a bill
that gave Alaska Industrial Development and Economic
Association (AIDEA) the authority to work with a public
sector partnership and allowed them to bond up to $400
million per year. He emphasized that the funding to AIDEA
had been large and that comparatively speaking the current
bill represented "small potatoes." He stressed that the
state had provided assistance to larger industry and that
the state's ability to provide small businesses better
terms than those offered by banks would help to provide
them with incentives.
Co-Chair Stoltze MOVED to report CS HB 121(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
CSHB 121(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with three new fiscal notes by the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
and one new fiscal note by the House Finance Committee for
the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development.
4:34:41 PM
AT EASE
4:42:41 PM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 142
"An Act relating to the creation of a rebuttable
presumption that the project licensed under the Alaska
Gasline Inducement Act is uneconomic because of
insufficient firm transportation commitments during
the first open season."
JOE BALASH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES (DNR), shared that HB 142 had raised questions
for the department and that DNR had requested a legal
analysis from the Department of Law and contract attorneys.
The legal report was confidential because it went to the
interpretation of a contract that was composed of the AGIA
statute, the request for proposal, the TransCanada
application, and the accompanying correspondence. It was
important to realize that any matters of interpretation of
the license or the way it operated could be open to future
litigation from the licensee or another party. He examined
the process that was available under the AGIA statute. The
licensee was performing and fulfilling its obligations to
the state in terms of developing the necessary regulatory
products as well as the engineering plans to support the
acquisition of a certificate of public convenience and
necessity. He emphasized that the cumulative process took
years to complete.
4:46:21 PM
Mr. Balash discussed that commercial negotiations between
private parties and potentially the state did not need to
be a prerequisite to engineering and regulatory work that
was also taking place. Under the AGIA process an open
season had been held and was successful in attracting bids.
He discussed that the current question related to whether
or not the bids would be converted into precedent
agreements between enough parties. He explained that the
precedent agreements would only cover the development phase
and not necessarily the construction phase of the project.
He elaborated that a precedent agreement was precedent to a
party entering into a firm transportation agreement that
would support the financing at a much later date once
regulatory approvals were in place. The group of scientists
and engineers was an "army unleashed" that was gathering
necessary information for the FERC certificate. The
department believed the process was going very well and it
had been pleased with the performance of the licensee and
partners. He expressed that DNR did not have significant
insight into the commercial negotiation that was taking
place between the parties. Private parties that had been in
discussions with the licensee had required TransCanada to
maintain certain privileges. The department had not pushed
too hard but wanted to see more progress.
Mr. Balash highlighted that DNR was concerned about the
development of a deadline by which the precedent agreements
would need to be satisfied before other items in the bill
kicked in. He detailed that one party's deadline could be
used by another party as leverage in the commercial
negotiation and could upset the commercial tension that had
existed. The second concern was related to the effect the
legislation could have on the state's reputation based on
the commitment it had made. He stressed that the department
would prefer to not cast any doubt on the assumption that
partners doing business with the state needed to be able to
count on the state's commitment.
4:50:33 PM
Mr. Balash delineated that the administration would
continue to provide information to the legislature and the
public. The department had provided the legislature with a
reimbursement report at the beginning of the legislative
session per the AGIA statute and voluntarily provided semi-
annual reports at the end of April and October of each
year. He communicated that the contents of the report could
be tailored to meet the needs of the legislature. The
department was prepared to work with the bill sponsors to
help alleviate its concerns and to meet the needs of the
legislature and the public.
Representative Wilson asked whether the department had
taken into consideration that the increased gas development
in the Lower 48 in recent years may negatively impact the
success of the project.
Mr. Balash replied that DNR had been monitoring the issues
and was cognizant of potential impacts to the viability of
the project. He explained that the department had
commissioned a study the previous fall to examine the
impact of shale gas supplies on an Alaska North Slope
project that had been posted on the AGIA coordinator's
website. The authors of the report were also available to
present to the legislature. He relayed that there were
uncertainties and questions that surrounded the regulation
of fracking and the long-term economic performance of shale
wells. There was an abundance of the shale resource;
however, it was unknown what costs were built into the
reports that were published by the promoters of the
resource. He emphasized that there were a number of factors
that determined the long-term viability of shale and that
drove the cost that shale could be produced economically.
Representative Wilson asked whether the department's
concern was related to the dates listed in the bill. She
viewed HB 142 as the legislature's due diligence as a
result of public questions related to market changes and
other. Mr. Balash replied that the dates were a source of
concern, but it was no problem for the administration to
provide certain information or reports by certain dates. He
expressed that it was possible to rework the language to
lessen the concerns of the administration.
4:55:47 PM
Representative Hawker asked where the bill laid out a
specific deadline for the establishment of the precedent
agreements. Mr. Balash responded that a precedent agreement
deadline was not specifically established, but the dates in
the bill triggered certain other actions or activities. The
administration wanted to be sensitive to how the dates
would affect the actions and considerations of the
commercial parties and it did not want one or more parties
to behave differently than they otherwise would.
Representative Hawker wondered whether the bill legally
mandated the administration to change its current action in
regards to the implementation of the AGIA legislation and
contract. He discussed the distinction between a legal
mandate and how the bill could cause a commercial party to
act in a different way. Mr. Balash responded with a
"qualified no". The qualification was related to the effect
of the creation of a presumption. He explained that the
presumption would be used by someone for some purpose,
which related to a significant matter under the AGIA terms
in Section 240 [AS 43.90.240]. He hoped for an opportunity
to craft language that would eliminate or ameliorate the
administration's concern on the issue.
4:59:19 PM
Representative Hawker was committed to working with the
administration to develop a balanced plan that would serve
the best interests of the public.
Representative Doogan asked about the administration's
position on the specific reasons that TransCanada did not
like the bill. Mr. Balash answered that he had not been
present during Mr. Palmer's testimony; however, there were
significant pieces that raised concerns with the
administration. He reiterated the administration's
willingness to work with sponsors on reducing or
eliminating its concerns and was more than prepared to
provide information.
Representative Doogan wondered whether the bill would cause
problems for the pipeline project and the administration if
it was not amended. Mr. Balash responded in the
affirmative. The administration was concerned about the
success of the project in regards to the commercial
negotiations that were taking place between the private
parties. He opined that the legislature should rely on
legislative legal counsel to determine whether it could
effectively direct the department to do anything regarding
the execution of the contract. Specific areas of concern
lay in the creation of a presumption and in the rebuttal of
a presumption based on a certain standard of evidence. He
shared that it was helpful that sponsors intended to
address firm transportation agreements in the bill with
precedent agreements, but there was also a reference to the
precedent agreements to transportation agreements that
either supported the development or construction of the
project, which was an area that the sponsor would try to
address.
Representative Doogan wondered whether the attorneys
representing each party would have to meet prior to any
further legislative action.
Vice-chair Fairclough conveyed her intent to ask the bill
sponsor to speak with the administration.
Vice-chair Fairclough RE-OPENED and CLOSED public
testimony.
5:06:22 PM
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether the
administration had asked for an attorney general opinion on
the legal ramifications of the legislation. Mr. Balash
replied that the administration had received an attorney
general opinion but was not at liberty to share the
analysis because it went to the interpretation of the
contract that could be subject to litigation at a future
date.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that the legislature could ask
for a legal analysis from Legislative Legal Services.
Representative Gara asked whether the administration would
oppose the bill as long as it included the language
"rebuttably presumed that the project is uneconomic," on
Page 1, Line 11. Mr. Balash responded that it was one of
the areas that concerned the administration. He noted that
the administration preferred to avoid armies of lawyers and
to keep armies of engineers and environmental scientists
working to advance the project. He hoped that an agreement
could be reached that would accomplish the goals of the
sponsors in getting information from the administration.
Representative Gara asked whether it was correct that there
had not been any disputes over the time during which
TransCanada had provided biweekly progress reports to the
administration. Mr. Balash responded in the affirmative.
The progress reports were provided via telephone by the
project leadership and the state gas team leadership. There
were monthly meetings with the technical teams in Houston,
Denver, and Calgary. The administration had been very
pleased with the teams' openness and willingness to talk
through the issues and to discuss what and why the teams
were doing what they were, and how it helped to move the
ball along.
Representative Gara requested that the committee hear from
Larry Persily at the next hearing on the legislation.
Vice-chair Fairclough passed on that the co-chairs had
determined that it would be necessary for him to get the
opinion from Mr. Persily outside of the committee meetings
and to distribute the information to the committee.
Representative Doogan noted that he had also requested that
the committee hear from Mr. Persily.
Representative Gara requested that Mr. Persily be allowed
to testify.
5:11:24 PM
Representative Costello asked whether the administration
had provided communication to the legislature at times
required by statute and semiannually in a report. She
believed that the bill was only asking for communication
from the administration to the legislature. Mr. Balash
replied that communication required by statute and the
semiannual report had been provided to the legislature as a
whole and did not include communications in subcommittee
meetings or responses to written correspondence or other.
He did not have an exhaustive list but would be happy to
provide it.
Representative Costello wondered whether the problem
centered on what the legislature may do with the
information and not on the act of the communication itself.
Mr. Balash disagreed. He noted that the legislature was a
co-equal branch of government.
Representative Costello asked for a characterization of the
information that had been communicated in the biweekly
reports. She asked whether the meetings included
information about the precedent agreement, engineering, the
open season, or other.
Mr. Balash replied that in the biweekly conversations the
administration was provided with a general overview and
information on specific segments including the
environmental regulatory and legal team, the GTP [gas
treatment plant] team, the pipe team, and occasionally from
the commercial team. He relayed that the updates were very
general. During the time that the project was going to
submit its open season terms to FERC the licensee had come
to the administration to determine whether they were
executing a project change under the terms of the license.
The licensee had improved the commercial terms in some
areas and changes in others that had resulted in an
economic improvement to the project, which was approved. He
relayed that different information was provided at
different times depending on what was taking place. He
communicated that the decision making process would
probably move more quickly if TransCanada was free to make
decisions on the pipeline side on its own. Both sides of
the partnership had to be in agreement prior to making any
changes on the pipe side of the negotiation and added a
layer of complexity to the negotiation process.
Representative Costello wondered whether the frustration of
the public and legislature was justified because
TransCanada had not met its self-imposed deadline to
provide them with communication and that the current bill
had been met with resistance due to what it could imply.
Mr. Balash replied that Alaskans had been frustrated for a
long time. He thought that in the current situation the
frustration that the public and the legislature felt was
coming out in the legislation. The way the bill was written
was causing concern for TransCanada and the administrators
of the contract. He opined that the current meeting had
helped to air the frustrations and concerns that ultimately
could be addressed in a version that would address the
frustration around communication.
5:18:34 PM
Representative Hawker asked how much more information was
known by the administration than by the public in reference
to Mr. Balash's testimony that there was not much
information provided on the biweekly calls. Mr. Balash
stressed that his earlier testimony related to "not much
information" related only to the commercial side of the
project. He clarified that the administration had received
a tremendous amount of information from the other segments
of the team that reported on a biweekly basis. The
information provided to the administration was general in
nature and was not "shipper specific." Due to
confidentiality agreements with shippers, TransCanada was
not able to share any specifics related to bids that had
been received.
Representative Hawker wondered how long the state should
wait before it questioned the outcome of the open season in
order to make the bill functional for the administration
and in the state's best interest.
Mr. Balash answered that the outcome of the open season
would depend on the reason a given action or inaction
occurred. The reason that a bid did not result in a
precedent agreement could be due to an outstanding
commercial issue related to how private parties would
divide up their proceeds, but it would be different if the
shippers were flat out not interested in the project. Based
on the overall construct of AGIA the administration had
much more patience if there was a waiting period due to the
negotiation of terms between private parties than a wait
due to no interest from shippers. He explained that it was
public knowledge that the administration was working to
settle the dispute over the Pt. Thompson acreage and it
could be a "key domino to fall" if it was resolved
successfully. He believed the Supreme Court had recently
communicated that the dispute needed to be resolved within
a certain number of days and would then proceed to a
hearing on the issue.
Representative Hawker wondered how long the state should
wait to find out what the issues really were so that it
could address them. He was troubled by the comment that the
state should not be concerned about a delay in
communication due to issues of a commercial nature between
TransCanada and potential shippers. He thought that had
been the situation for the past 30 years. He believed that
the whole issue was to "coerce action, to expedite action,
to incentivize action."
5:24:14 PM
Mr. Balash replied that the nature of the differences was
relevant and important. He discussed that whether the issue
should be used as a fuse for the continuation or
discontinuation of regulatory and engineering work was a
pivot point. There was some time that could be allowed for
negotiations on terms between companies. He believed that
the fundamental question was related to Page 2, Line 12 of
the bill that related to whether or not the economics were
still present for the project to advance. He opined that
the information that would best inform everyone was related
to the markets, the timing, and what the shippers thought
about the project. He believed that the information would
help the state to know whether it should continue spending
money to advance the project.
Representative Hawker wondered whether the legislation
presented a breach of the contract. He opined that the bill
did not impose a mandate for the establishment of a
precedent agreement or transportation commitment and that
concerns were more related to how commercial parties may
alter their behavior as a result of the bill. He expressed
that many legislative members believed that the state
should be concerned with the amount of time that it would
take for issues to be resolved.
Mr. Balash respectfully declined to answer the question
based on advice from legal counsel. He added that the
language on Page 1 related to creating a rebuttable
presumption begged the question for what purpose and to
what end.
Representative Hawker remarked that the committee could ask
counsel the question. He thought it was problematic.
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed to the indeterminate fiscal
note from the Department of Law.
HB 142 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
5:30:06 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 121 - Treasures of the Tidelands - WA.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM HRES 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| NCSL Revolving Loan briefing paper.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM HRES 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 - CCED - Letter of support - SWAMC.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM HRES 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 - Shellfish Production Stats - West Coast.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM HRES 3/16/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| CSHB 121 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 - Alaskan Shellfish Grower's Association - Support.pdf |
HFIN 3/30/2011 1:30:00 PM HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121-CCED-Letter of Support-Taco Loco.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB121-FN NEW CCED-DED-03-29-11(D).pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB121-FN NEW CCED-DED-03-25-11(B).pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB121-FN NEW CCED-DED-03-25-11(A).pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB121-FN NEW CCED-DED-02-15-11(C).pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB 121 CS WORK DRAFT version X 0040411.pdf |
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 121 |
| HB 142 Breach of Contract-Leg Legal.PDF |
HFIN 4/4/2011 1:30:00 PM |
HB 142 |