Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/12/2014 08:00 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB138 | |
| Public Testimony | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 349 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 12, 2014
8:05 a.m.
8:05:06 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Don Etheridge, Alaska AFL-CIO, Juneau; Barbara Huff
Tuckness, Director, Teamsters Local 959; Larry DeVilbiss,
Mayor, Mat-Su Borough; Lisa Weissler, Self, Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Luke Hopkins, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough; Rich
Seifert, Self, Fairbanks; Merrick Pierce, Member, Alaska
Gasline Port Authority Board; Don Leistikow, Self,
Fairbanks; Lynn Willis, Self, Eagle River; Rachel Petro,
President and CEO, Alaska Chamber of Commerce, Anchorage;
Brother Tom Patmor, Self, Clam Gulch; Amy Nibert, ABC of
Alaska, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
CSSB 138(FIN) am
GAS PIPELINE; AGDC; OIL & GAS PROD. TAX
CSSB 138(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee
for further consideration.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 138(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the purposes, powers, and duties
of the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation;
relating to an in-state natural gas pipeline, an
Alaska liquefied natural gas project, and associated
funds; requiring state agencies and other entities to
expedite reviews and actions related to natural gas
pipelines and projects; relating to the authorities
and duties of the commissioner of natural resources
relating to a North Slope natural gas project, oil and
gas and gas only leases, and royalty gas and other gas
received by the state including gas received as
payment for the production tax on gas; relating to the
tax on oil and gas production, on oil production, and
on gas production; relating to the duties of the
commissioner of revenue relating to a North Slope
natural gas project and gas received as payment for
tax; relating to confidential information and public
record status of information provided to or in the
custody of the Department of Natural Resources and the
Department of Revenue; relating to apportionment
factors of the Alaska Net Income Tax Act; amending the
definition of gross value at the 'point of production'
for gas for purposes of the oil and gas production
tax; clarifying that the exploration incentive credit,
the oil or gas producer education credit, and the film
production tax credit may not be taken against the gas
production tax paid in gas; relating to the oil or gas
producer education credit; requesting the governor to
establish an interim advisory board to advise the
governor on municipal involvement in a North Slope
natural gas project; relating to the development of a
plan by the Alaska Energy Authority for developing
infrastructure to deliver affordable energy to areas
of the state that will not have direct access to a
North Slope natural gas pipeline and a recommendation
of a funding source for energy infrastructure
development; establishing the Alaska affordable energy
fund; requiring the commissioner of revenue to develop
a plan and suggest legislation for municipalities,
regional corporations, and residents of the state to
acquire ownership interests in a North Slope natural
gas pipeline project; making conforming amendments;
and providing for an effective date."
8:05:15 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that the committee would hear
public testimony during the meeting.
^PUBLIC TESTIMONY
8:06:34 AM
LUKE HOPKINS, MAYOR, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH (via
teleconference), discussed a group of mayors wanting
amendments to the bill. He spoke in support of an amendment
related to the anticipated future PILT [payment in lieu of
taxes] agreement and how it pertained to existing oil and
gas taxes. He thanked the House Resources Committee for its
work on the amendment. He asked the House Finance Committee
to retain the language that was important for
municipalities to maintain the property tax revenue stream.
He referred to letters provided to the legislature from
various mayors across the state. He asked the committee
look at the municipal advisory group (similar to the
Stranded Gas Act advisory group) that worked to present a
multitude of resolutions, positions, and actions. He
believed Representative Steve Thompson had chaired the
group. He relayed that the governor had met with a group of
mayors to discuss action under an administrative order
proposed by the group. He acknowledged that procedures
outlining how the committee would arrive at decisions
needed to be established. He asked the committee to
maintain the structure. He thanked the committee for its
time.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the bill sections Mayor
Hopkins was speaking to. Mayor Hopkins responded that he
did not have the section in front of him. Co-Chair Stoltze
asked Mayor Hopkins to send the committee an email with the
section information.
Representative Thompson appreciated Mayor Hopkins'
testimony.
8:12:15 AM
RICH SEIFERT, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
against the legislation. He relayed that he served on the
Fairbanks North Star Borough Budget Advisory Committee. He
believed the bill represented another giveaway to oil
companies that oil producers would eventually bankrupt the
state. He spoke to the complexity of the bill and the
intent to revisit leases and the existing tax structure. He
did not understand why it was currently happening. He
stated that everyone was complaining that the industry did
not have fiscal certainty. He opined that the bill
eliminated any fiscal certainty for the state and its
communities. He referred to the constitutional incentive to
provide the best return to the state through the
development of its resources. He questioned the legality of
the bill related to the constitutional mandate due to the
drastic tax adjustment and the open-ended adjustment of
future taxes. He questioned the establishment of the board
on pages 58 and 59 of the legislation. He noted that one of
the duties pertained to the state's tax structure on rates
of oil and gas produced south and north of 68 degrees
latitude. He urged the committee to closely examine the
bill for its legality and to consider the dire consequences
that could occur with its passage; it was not a legacy he
would want his name attached to.
8:15:23 AM
MERRICK PIERCE, MEMBER, ALASKA GASLINE PORT AUTHORITY BOARD
(via teleconference), testified in opposition to the bill.
He asked the committee to consider whether the Parnell
Administration was displaying basic competence. He relayed
that under the current administration the air quality
problem in Fairbanks had worsened, the Air Force had tried
to pull out for the second time, the refineries wanted to
shut down, and the construction of new homes in the area
was down significantly. He stated that Fairbanks was
currently an "economic basket case." He referred to the
"boondoggle" paint job at the governor's mansion; the
governor had picked the much more expensive contractor to
do the job and the contractor had later been fined by the
Environmental Protection Agency. He wondered how the
governor could be trusted with the complexity of the
legislation. He stated that realistically Alaska would
deplete the Statutory Budget Reserve and Constitutional
Budget Reserve in approximately five years. He stressed
that it was critically important for the state to have a
new source of revenue from the gas pipeline; otherwise the
state's economy would collapse due to the magnitude of the
multi-billion dollar deficits with only one source of
revenue from the oil pipeline. He stated that the governor
had never articulated the Hartwick's Rule fundamental
principle resource economics. The rule pertained to
investing in infrastructure to bring in new revenue to
offset declines in revenue from finite revenue resources.
He asserted that it was up to the legislature to come up
with an accurate solution. He believed the governor was out
of line in his thinking that the state should allow
transnational corporations with LNG projects that compete
with Alaska to determine when, if, and where the state got
a project. He used a business analogy with the governor as
the CEO. He believed the governor's plan under SB 138 would
allow the competition to decide when and if the state would
get a project.
Mr. Pierce outlined steps he believed were critical for the
legislature to take. First, he asserted that the state had
to be in control of the project timing, which meant it
needed to be a majority equity owner of at least 51
percent. Second, the state should not produce its own
gasline. He spoke to fraudulent tariffs related to Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) and keeping competition off
the North Slope. Third, he believed the legislature needed
to meet with the customers related to the timing and
ownership interests. He stressed that failure would occur
if the customers were ignored. He elaborated that customers
wanted gas in 2019 and the governor's plan called for gas
in 2022. He opined that the timeframe almost guaranteed
customers would go to Canada. He recommended that the
legislature conduct hearings to understand "how badly
Parnell has mismanaged AGIA" [Alaska Gasline Inducement
Act]. He questioned what the state owed for the $300
million that was spent. He wondered why the governor had
not met with companies wanting to advance the pipeline. He
stated that ExxonMobil had never been responsive. He
stressed the importance of understanding the issue prior to
moving forward with legislation. He believed it was
insanity to give away oil or tax property tax. He referred
to a Wood MacKenzie analysis showing that if properly
built, the gas pipeline would bring in $400 billion in new
revenue over the first 30 years of operation. However, he
was concerned about language in the bill that property
taxes would increase because the TAPS pipeline would not be
valued at fair value. He emphasized the importance of
hearing from the markets on the timing, ownership models,
btu [British Thermal Unit] content of the gas, and to
understand the competition. He provided various examples of
competing LNG projects. He advised hearing from others who
had successfully built gasline projects. He stated that it
was not difficult to build a gas transmission pipeline;
there were 305,000 miles of gas pipelines across the U.S.
He provided an example of a pipeline success story. He
thanked the committee for its time.
8:21:05 AM
DON LEISTIKOW, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in opposition to the bill. He had grown increasingly
concerned over the past couple of decades. He stated that
the past couple of years had been difficult to understand
the administration's position on several oil and gas
related bills. He was concerned about the financial aspects
of SB 138. He detailed that it was difficult to see any
controls on the conditions that he believed would be a
blank check to oil companies and gas producers. He had
heard testimony pertaining to the reasons for SB 21 [oil
and gas taxation passed in 2013]. He stated that SB 138 was
offering all of the remaining items that had not been given
away under SB 21. He spoke from the perspective of a
nonpartisan voter. He could not understand why the bill was
gift wrapped in the current way. He believed specifics of
the legislation were opaque. He did not believe the
approach was helpful to the citizens of Fairbanks or
Alaska. He wanted the legislature to take a more serious
look at the bill to remove the blank check aspect. He
believed the bill should be shelved.
8:23:55 AM
LYNN WILLIS, SELF, EAGLE RIVER (via teleconference), was
concerned about a reliable and affordable supply of gas. He
reminded the committee that Dan Fauske with the Alaska
Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC) had stated that once
the cost of the Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP) exceeded
the cost of importing LNG he would consider himself to be
on a fool's errand. He stated the legislature should not
pass the bill if it did not understand the legislation. He
questioned what mechanism would be available to deal with
contract offers if the opportunity to evoke clear
legislative intent was closed. He believed the legislature
had probably hired the best consultants to evaluate the
proposal, but he thought the same could be said for AGIA.
He spoke to the loss of over $300 million under AGIA plus
an additional $130 million owed by the state. He spoke to
expenditures on the Cook Inlet supply contracts through
2018. He discussed costs spent on the AGDC ASAP, which he
believed may be abandoned for the Alaska LNG project. He
noted that AGIA was continuing to restrict volume on AGDC
ASAP. He reasoned that the state would not consolidate its
natural gas demands in the Railbelt region if it pursued
trucking LNG into Fairbanks. He believed the state would be
competing with its own Cook Inlet gas producers. He
stressed that state funds were being used to pay for three
pipeline projects simultaneously (i.e. AGIA, ASAP, and
Alaska LNG). He questioned why the legislature was not
asking how long ago the AGIA project to Alberta had become
uneconomical. He wondered who was conducting and reviewing
depletion studies that may support release of North Slope
gas to ensure maximum oil production while allowing the
project. He believed the legislation may become law before
all of the questions were answered. He advised the
committee that the legislature should be cautious in
deliberations due to the state's deficit. He reminded the
committee that the state was a sovereign and not an
investment bank. He referred to prior testimony by Dr.
Scott Goldsmith, Institute of Social and Economic Research,
University of Alaska Anchorage. He relayed that Mr.
Goldsmith had indicated to the Senate Finance Committee
that the state was drawing down its cash reserves at the
rate of $7 million per day. The state needed to learn as
much as possible prior to passing legislation.
8:27:34 AM
RACHEL PETRO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALASKA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), discussed the
chamber membership. She stated that the announcement in
January [2014] on the Heads of Agreement (HOA) between
Alaska businesses and the state was welcome news. The
chamber believed that the best way for Alaskans to develop
their gas resources was to have the state participate as a
business partner in an Alaska gas project. The chamber
supported the principles in the HOA and SB 138 including
state participation in an Alaska gas project, the state
taking a percentage gas share of royalties and gas
production tax, participation in the project at the same
percentage of the gas share, and establishing a clear
process to move a project forward. She spoke to identifying
the necessary tools to confidentially develop the various
project enabling arrangements and contracts. The chamber
believed in the establishment of a public process that
would provide for legislative oversight, review, and
approval. She did not see any deal killers in the recent
CS. The chamber appreciated all of the vetting on the bill.
The chamber wanted to see continued vetting and to keep the
alignment between business partners and momentum moving
forward toward access to Alaska's gas.
Co-Chair Stoltze remarked on chamber support.
8:30:14 AM
DON ETHERIDGE, ALASKA AFL-CIO, JUNEAU, spoke in support of
the legislation and the letter of intent that was traveling
with the bill. The group believed the bill represented the
best option to determine whether the state's gasline was a
workable deal. The group was in favor of the local hire and
training provisions included in the letter of intent. He
reasoned that when money was spent on construction, the
workers would bring money back into the state. He stated
that Alaskan workers would spend the money in Alaska. The
group supported the first step of the project. He noted
that the legislature would have another opportunity to
withdraw from the project.
Co-Chair Stoltze wondered if the Mr. Etheridge believed the
state was settling on the deal. Mr. Etheridge replied that
the state had the best deal at present with the people at
the table. He had faith in the administration and believed
it was on top of the situation.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that Angela Rodell, Commissioner,
Department of Revenue, Joe Balash, Commissioner, Department
of Natural Resources, and Michael Pawlowski, Deputy
Commissioner, Strategic Finance, Department of Revenue were
all present in the committee room.
8:33:12 AM
BROTHER TOM PATMOR, SELF, CLAM GULCH (via teleconference),
was maddened when oil companies or their contractors got
away with things while the government had its back turned.
He noted that whenever legislators traveled to visit the
North Slope their itineraries were planned ahead of time by
oil companies; government officials were shown only what
the companies wanted them to see. He had witnessed an
explosion on a gas pad and an x-ray truck burned to the
ground. He noted that the occurrences were newsworthy, but
they were not reported. He relayed that the state fire
marshal had no record of the two events. He spoke to the
lack of security around the buildings at Alyeska. He
believed ExxonMobil had promised 23 times that it would
take action at Point Thomson before it did anything. He
remarked that the committee would be horrified by some of
the things he had seen during his 25 years of work on the
North Slope. He had personally been involved in the killing
of many bears around Prudhoe Bay. He was bothered by the
practice and was willing to testify to the occurrences
under oath. He suggested that the mafia in Las Vegas may be
a better partner than an oil company. He did not believe
oil companies could be trusted.
Representative Guttenberg thanked Mr. Patmor for his
testimony.
8:36:18 AM
AMY NIBERT, PRESIDENT and CEO, ABC OF ALASKA, ANCHORAGE
(via teleconference), spoke in support of the legislation.
The organization represented over 150 contractors in
Alaska.
8:36:57 AM
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, DIRECTOR, TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959,
relayed that the group had over 1,000 members working on
the North Slope. She stressed that if SB 21 had not passed
the prior year that some of the employees would not have
jobs on the North Slope. She hoped that everyone continued
to look at Alaska's future. She believed the state had a
future. She represented the working people of Alaska. She
supported the letter of intent accompanying the bill, but
she did not know if people had seen it. She stressed the
importance of vocational training. She relayed that there
had been over 25,000 Teamsters working on the last
pipeline; the workers had not all come from Alaska. The
group was working hard to train Alaskan workers. She stated
that oil companies were making contributions to help ensure
that the state had trained workers. She believed there
would be around three project labor agreements. She stated
that if the state was going to put money into pipeline
construction, the legislature needed to make sure there was
control over the costs. She noted that it was a "company
thing" and not a "union thing." She stated that the best
thing companies could do would be to ensure project labor
agreements were in place. She believed the project labor
agreements would benefit Alaska. She was concerned that
there was nothing about Alaskan workers in the bill. She
wondered who would represent the unrepresented people. The
Teamsters tried to make sure the unorganized workers were
protected. She asked the committee to do something about
Alaskan-hire. She believed members would support it. The
Teamsters had a good relationship with the producers. She
relayed that her boss met with industry representatives
every couple of weeks to discuss different jobs. There was
a significant amount of work coming on line in the upcoming
summer. She acknowledged that SB 21 had impacted the
state's budget, but it was a positive move. She pointed to
the importance of long-term planning. She emphasized that
the state needed a seat at the table during negotiation.
She stressed the large scale of the project and believed it
was the largest in the nation if not, in the world.
8:42:25 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze thanked Ms. Huff Tuckness for her
leadership running elections with the Teamsters'
membership. He appreciated her stand for workers.
Representative Gara wondered how a project labor agreement
would increase the chances of Alaska hire.
Ms. Huff Tuckness replied that negotiations with unions
occurred through project labor agreements. Applicable
unions included the Teamsters, pipe fitters, operating
engineers, and laborers local in Fairbanks. Through the
negotiations with subcontractors the unions were allowed to
bring existing employees through the Teamsters' different
hiring halls. She noted that the pipeline training offices
were large. She remarked that much of the financial
assistance had come from the House Finance Committee. She
relayed that the project labor agreement brought everyone
together; the organization's hiring provisions included an
Alaska resident requirement. She believed the commitment to
hiring Alaskans based on qualifications was important.
8:45:20 AM
Representative Holmes thanked Ms. Huff Tuckness for her
work. She referred to the letter of intent and asked for
further detail on items Ms. Huff Tuckness would like
included in the legislation.
Ms. Huff Tuckness responded that there was nothing in the
current bill related to the hire of Alaskan workers. She
stressed that training was needed and should be going to
Alaskans. She relayed that under Article 11 in the Heads of
Agreement, the letter of intent language had been taken
out. She read letter of intent language:
It is the intent of the Alaska State Legislature that
the Alaska LNG project honor the commitments, as
copied below, made in "Article 11: Alaska Hire and
Content", agreed to in the Heads of Agreement by and
among the administration of the State of Alaska,
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, TransCanada
Alaska Development Inc., ExxonMobil Alaska Production
Inc., ConocoPhillips, Alaska Inc., and BP Exploration
(Alaska) Inc. through construction of the project.
For the Alaska LNG Project, the Alaska LNG Parties
will, within the constraints of law:
a. Employ Alaska residents and contract with Alaska
businesses to the extent they are qualified,
available, ready, willing and cost competitive;
Ms. Huff Tuckness stressed that the Teamsters believed item
a. was extremely important for Alaskan businesses. The
organization had many employers that worked with the
industry as subs on the slope. She continued to read the
letter of intent:
b. Use, as far as practicable, job centers and
associated services operated by the State
Department of Labor and Workforce Development;
c. Participate with the State Department of Labor
and Workforce Development to update the training
plan for an LNG export project including main
operations;
d. Advertise for available positions locally and
use, as far as practicable, Alaska job service
organizations to notify the Alaska public; and
e. Work with the State Department of Labor and
Workforce Development and other organizations to
provide training.
11.2 Prior to construction, the Alaska LNG Parties
commit to negotiate in good faith project labor
agreements for the Alaska LNG Project.
Ms. Huff Tuckness relayed that she had been unable to
locate the letter of intent traveling with the legislation.
The organization was supportive of the letter of intent,
but she believed Alaskan workers deserved to have language
included in the bill. She stressed the large size of the
project; she believed the Alaskan workforce would be proud
to be a part of the project.
8:49:33 AM
LARRY DEVILBISS, MAYOR, MAT-SU BOROUGH, expressed support
for the project. He observed that the project had gone
through many changes in the process. He spoke to the
borough's primary concern. He had met with a project
manager who had indicated 98 percent completion on right-
of-way, but could not disclose any of the information. The
borough believed that Cook Inlet was the logical location;
it also believed that using Port MacKenzie as a terminus
location would save significant money. He believed the
decision had been made. Additionally, he believed the
borough should stay out of the economics. The project
manager had relayed that there had been more difficulty
getting across the Big Susitna River than Cook Inlet. He
was concerned that if the pipeline route traveled down the
west side of the Big Susitna River, it would have a major
impact on the gas value to Mat-Su. He had not been able to
determine who was representing the state's interest in the
specific project phase (i.e. alignment and other). He asked
the committee to look into and be aware of the issue. The
borough was the second largest municipality in the state
and was headed towards becoming the largest. He stated that
if the gas was further away from Mat-Su markets it would
minimize the value of an anchor tenant at its own port. He
gave the committee kudos for helping the project along.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that department staff were available
to meet with Mayor Devilbiss during his visit.
8:53:17 AM
LISA WEISSLER, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke against the legislation.
She was a former oil and gas attorney; she had worked on
AGIA and had been a legislative staffer. She provided
further detail about her professional background. She
referred to a committee hearing in which Co-Chair Stoltze
asked if the project was a good deal for the state. She
believed the answer was no. She opined that the state was
making commitments too soon, with too little project
information, which could result in greater risk and fewer
rewards to the state. She asserted that the state could
lose billions of dollars in upfront investment costs if the
pipeline was not built. She believed the producers were the
ones getting a good deal. She pointed to the Heads of
Agreement and relayed that producers would get 100 percent
ownership and control of their portion of the project with
very few obligations to the state. Additionally, the state
would share upfront costs in risks and would give up its
right to switch between royalty in-kind and royalty in-
value. She elaborated that the producers would decide
whether conditions to move forward were acceptable and when
to request for the state to take its production tax as gas.
She continued that the cost of gas infrastructure was
deductible from the state's oil tax; according to the Heads
of Agreement the state gas tax would be structured to allow
producers to book the gas reserves. She discussed that the
state would pay the transportation marketing costs for the
state royalty and tax gas. She noted that the state could
potentially be paying the producers to market its gas
(currently the producers provided the service under their
existing leases).
Ms. Weissler communicated that the state would have a
minority vote on management decisions and producers would
control gas production. She shared that the property tax
for communities would be based on through-put rather than
property value. Additionally, there was no regulation of
the pipeline tariff, no requirement to provide instate gas,
no requirement to pay for expansions, and no requirement to
provide pipeline access to third-party producers. Most
significantly, the project would be the end of AGIA and the
assurance that there would be a pipeline with favorable
terms for the state; she noted that producers had never
liked the requirement. She stressed that the issues she had
listed were only the beginning. She referred to prior
testimony from producers that they wanted the flexibility
to negotiate new oil tax; they had stated that SB 21 had
been a good start. She had heard consultants state that the
legislation only set the groundwork and that changes could
be made. She referred to a document from the departments
that outlined agreements that would be negotiated with the
passage of SB 138. She remarked the contracts and
agreements were piecemeal; some required legislative
approval, while others did not. She pointed to the
precedent agreement where the shippers and pipeline owners
were free to negotiate how shipping would occur (i.e. who
would bear risks, cost overruns, what occurred in the event
of a pipeline shutdown, and other). She observed that the
Memorandum of Understanding already stated that the state
would pay if production stopped; the precedent agreement
would be negotiated during the upcoming summer and would
not be back before the legislature for approval.
Ms. Weissler underscored that the bill did not just lay the
groundwork; it provided authority to move forward on some
very significant agreements that would be difficult to get
out of. She opined that the bill needed to clarify which
contracts were subject to legislative approval and when.
She asked that the legislation include a best interest
finding and determination requirement. Additionally, she
believed the bill should define the contracts. She asked
that the administration put out a best interest finding and
determination that explained why the project was in the
state's best interest and factors used to determine the
conclusion. She stated that the best interest finding had
been used for the Stranded Gas fiscal contract and AGIA.
The most recent version of the bill included a requirement
for the proposed contract to be put out 90 days prior to
its delivery to the legislature. She did not believe the
provision was sufficient. She stated that there needed to
be something more concrete for the public to look at. She
believed it was reasonable and that it was the public's
right. She had written a proposed amendment modeled after
the Stranded Gas Development Act. She stated that the
bottom line was that the bill was not a good deal for the
state. She believed the bill set the state down a path that
would come back to haunt it. She urged the committee to
vote against the legislation.
9:00:55 AM
Representative Wilson asked for the testimony in writing.
Ms. Weissler agreed.
9:02:04 AM
AT EASE
9:35:15 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there was anyone signed up to
testify.
9:35:40 AM
AT EASE
11:00:57 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze asked if there was anyone signed up to
testify.
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
CSSB 138(FIN) am was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
11:02:07 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:02 a.m.