Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/19/1993 08:00 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 19, 1993
8:00 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Williams, Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Pat Carney
Representative Joe Green
Representative Eldon Mulder
Representative John Davies
Representative Jeannette James
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Finkelstein
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Mark Hanley
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation: Bruce Twomley, Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission
CONFIRMATION RECOMMENDED
*HB 116 "An Act directing the commissioner of natural
resources to accept, under certain circumstances,
the contract price agreed to between a lessee of
federal land and a gas or electric utility as the
value of the federal government's royalty share
from natural gas production when royalty is
payable to the state under applicable federal law;
and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
(* first public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
Bruce Twomley, Chairman
Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
8800 Glacier Highway, Suite 109
Juneau, Alaska 99801-8079
Phone: 789-6160
Position Statement: Provided information and answered
questions related to his confirmation
Representative Mark Hanley
Alaska House of Representatives
Room 511, State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-4939
Position Statement: Prime Sponsor, HB 116
Kent Boyd, Deputy Director
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Oil and Gas
P.O. Box 107034
Anchorage, 99510-0734
Phone: 762-2547
Position Statement: Testified on HB 116
Bill Van Dyke, Lease Administrator
Division of Oil and Gas
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 107034
Anchorage, 99510-0734
Phone: 762-2547
Position Statement: Testified on HB 116
John Tillinghast, Attorney
Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot
One Sealaska Plaza, Suite 301
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 586-2890
Position Statement: Testified on HB 116
Raga Elim, Special Assistant
Department of Natural Resources
400 Willoughby Ave.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Phone: 465-2400
Position Statement: Explained the DNR's position on HB 116
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 116
SHORT TITLE: STATE SHARE OF FEDERAL GAS ROYALTIES
BILL VERSION: CSHB 116(FIN)(TITLE AM)
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY,Phillips,Larson,Green,
Parnell,Navarre
TITLE: "An Act amending the manner of determining the
royalty received by the state on gas production, and
directing the commissioner of natural resources to accept,
under certain circumstances, the contract price agreed to
between a lessee of federal land and a gas or electric
utility as the value of the federal government's royalty
share from natural gas production on federal land from which
the state is entitled under applicable federal law to
receive a share of the royalty on gas production; and
providing for an effective date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/03/93 213 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/03/93 214 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
02/19/93 (H) RES AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-21, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by
Chairman Bill Williams at 8:07 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives Williams, Hudson, Bunde,
Carney, Green, and Mulder. Members absent at the call were
Representatives Davies, Finkelstein and James.
CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS announced the committee's first item
of business would be consideration of Bruce Twomley's
confirmation to the Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission
(CFEC), followed by consideration of HB 116. He said Mr.
Twomley, chairman of the CFEC, had been reappointed to the
CFEC. Mr. Twomley's resume and a summary of the agency and
its functions were before the committee members.
Number 010
BRUCE TWOMLEY, CHAIRMAN, CFEC, addressed the committee,
telling them he had served on the CFEC for roughly ten
years, and asked that members review his qualifications for
reappointment to the CFEC.
Number 016
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted Representative Davies had joined the
meeting.
Number 024
REPRESENTATIVE ELDON MULDER asked for a review of the
highlights of Mr. Twomley's experience on the CFEC.
Number 028
MR. TWOMLEY reviewed his history on the CFEC, and said he
was first recruited for the CFEC in 1982, and appointed
chairman in 1983. He explained that the CFEC had three
members, and any action required the agreement of at least
two of the three. He also praised the CFEC's staff, and
noted that prior to 1983, the panel of commissioners served
mostly as administrative law judges deciding individual
fishermen's cases. In 1983, the commissioners attended the
National Judicial College's training program for
administrative law judges. As a result of that training,
the CFEC revised its procedures for adjudicating cases,
thereby streamlining the process.
MR. TWOMLEY said the CFEC acts on about 100 cases per year,
and in ten years at that rate, only one case had been
reversed in court, and only ten cases have been appealed.
He mentioned prior to 1983, 150 appeals had been filed.
Number 097
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN requested an explanation of how the
CFEC had been able to both streamline the process and deal
with cases in more detail.
Number 105
MR. TWOMLEY explained that hearing officers had more
authority to make final decisions. A 60-day deadline for
appeal or reconsideration by the commissioners had been
self-imposed. He described the process for individuals
applying for a limited entry permit, and said the CFEC
looked closely at the individual's need and fishing history.
Number 156
VICE CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON asked what percentage of the
CFEC's operating costs came from recipients of the services
and what percent from general funds.
Number 167
MR. TWOMLEY answered that the CFEC was wholely funded by its
own program receipts. Specifically, the funds came from
fees charged to fishermen for the renewal of their permits
based on the economic value of their fishery. The agency's
budget approximated $2.4 million, and the CFEC brought in
about $6 million in fees annually, he advised.
Number 175
VICE CHAIR HUDSON raised the question of permits leaving the
state, and asked whether the CFEC could take an activist
role in stemming the outflow. He used Bristol Bay as an
example, where approximately 70% of the value of the
fisheries was going outside the state. He asked whether
current law allowed the commissioners to be activists in
keeping fish values in Alaska.
Number 199
MR. TWOMLEY answered that the CFEC had taken on the role of
being activists for Alaska. He said the CFEC published the
transfer figures annually. In terms of permits leaving the
state, he said the situation had remained fairly stable, at
about 78% of permits being held by Alaskans. The greater
problem was with permits leaving rural areas for urban
areas. The problem varied from place to place and from time
to time. He said ideas that have been used successfully
have been presented at various workshops throughout the
state.
Number 249
VICE CHAIR HUDSON offered praise for the CFEC's work, and
asked about individual fishing quotas (IFQs), and whether
Mr. Twomley could foresee the CFEC becoming involved in the
administration of IFQs.
Number 254
MR. TWOMLEY did not anticipate being involved in the
administration of IFQs, since that was separate from the
CFEC. He pointed out IFQs were before the North Pacific
Fisheries Management Council which dealt with federally
managed fisheries. He said the state's research capacity
was sometimes used, but that was the only involvement in IFQ
issues. He added the state's limited entry system was
intended for the salmon fishery, and the system broke down
when there was departure from that model. The current
process might not be the best form of limiting entry into
other fisheries, he conceded.
Number 292
VICE CHAIR HUDSON wondered if it would be in Alaska's best
interests to manage the IFQs with some form of limited entry
program.
Number 299
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE expressed concern that with the
limited entry system, the state had created a "crap shoot"
that allowed a few people to get wealthy. He suggested if
fisheries were controlled with limited entry, the program
should be modified to offset that result, and asked Mr.
Twomley to comment on that.
Number 315
MR. TWOMLEY responded that for its purpose, the CFEC was
doing what it was set up to do. He said there has been
concern about the scallop fishery, where large outside
interests were planning to enter the fishery in a big way,
threatening Alaskans in the fishery. He suggested there
might be a need to limit that fishery, perhaps by limiting
vessels instead of people.
Number 355
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reiterated his question about permits
as transferable personal property creating wealth for a few
individuals.
Number 363
MR. TWOMLEY answered that the CFEC took its direction from
the legislature, which could change the statutes, and felt
the CFEC could certainly manage such a program. He
explained when the legislature created the program with free
transferability of permits, it had in mind that Alaska
fishermen and their families could keep a stake in fishing.
The transferability also created less work and cost for the
state, he said, than if the permits had to be brought back
in to the CFEC to be reissued. That would involve high
administration costs, he added. The percentage of permits
staying within the state, he said, was fairly high, which
might be a result of the transferability.
Number 412
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE expressed dissatisfaction with the
state's involvement in keeping permits out of the hands of
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He said the limited
entry permit was comparable to a business license, and no
other business was protected by the state. He was appalled
at the number of permit holders not paying taxes, a figure
he estimated at approximately 40%.
MR. TWOMLEY addressed the IRS problems, and pointed out the
statutes that originally made the permits exempt from
creditors. He said there was no attempt by the state to
shield fishermen from their tax liabilities. The underlying
issue, he said, was that the state has created a notion of a
limited entry permit, which created a "cash value" that
could be seized by the IRS. He added it was unique for a
tax collector or any other creditor to have the right to
take away a tool of trade, especially in a position where
taking away the asset could put the debtor out of business
forever.
MR. TWOMLEY suggested the cyclical nature of fishing itself
contributed to the problem. He gave an example of a fishing
family that had planned to pay taxes for 1990 with earnings
from the 1991 fishery. The fishery bottomed out that year,
and they were unable to pay, and became two years behind.
The IRS, he added, was unwilling to negotiate a payment plan
and threatened to seize the permit and sell it to satisfy
the tax obligations.
Number 440
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted Representative James had joined the
meeting.
Number 468
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE reiterated his preference that the
state stay out of the tax problems of permit holders.
Number 479
REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES commented that her experience
as an accountant led her to wonder whether the tax problems
experienced by fishers were mostly income tax, or involved
other kinds of taxes.
Number 488
MR. TWOMLEY could not answer that question, though he
believed income taxes were the greatest problem. He added
unemployment taxes were not as great a problem, since crew
members were considered independent contractors for
employment tax purposes.
Number 500
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained the IRS had phases of
focussing on specific groups, and asked whether the IRS was
indeed targeting the fishing industry.
MR. TWOMLEY confirmed the IRS had beefed up its resources in
Alaska and had targeted the fishing industry. He said this
was because it was a big target with easy access to records.
Number 508
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Mr. Twomley how many permits were
sold each year.
MR. TWOMLEY answered that about 1,000 permits were
transferred every year.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked how this reconciled with people who
had applied for permits through the CFEC and did not receive
them.
Number 520
MR. TWOMLEY explained how applicants were ranked according
to need and other criteria. The maximum number of permits
was established by statute. He said the system was designed
to protect those in the fishery and those who were the most
dependent. If an individual demonstrated extreme hardship
when they did not receive a permit in the first issuance,
the CFEC could break the maximum permit number. Usually,
those people were left to get a permit through the transfer
process. He mentioned loan programs to help accomplish
that.
Number 532
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for the total number of permits.
MR. TWOMLEY answered that more than 13,000 entry permits
existed, with 1,000 being transferred each year.
Number 530
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked for clarification on the criteria
for deciding the number of permits to be issued each year.
MR. TWOMLEY explained there were no short-term mechanisms
for adjusting the number of outstanding permits; that was
determined by the marketplace, and the CFEC determined
original issuance based on statutory criteria.
Number 579
VICE CHAIR HUDSON made a MOTION to APPROVE the confirmation
of Bruce Twomley to the CFEC, asking for individual
recommendations and unanimous consent.
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the
motion. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED and the
confirmation was recommended.
Number 555
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the committee would take a brief
at ease before taking up HB 116.
HB 116: STATE SHARE OF FEDERAL GAS ROYALTIES
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS reconvened the meeting at 8:45 a.m, and
announced there would be testimony by teleconference on
HB 116. He explained that the bill's sponsor would make a
presentation, and added that this meeting would be for
initial testimony on the bill, which he did not plan to move
from the committee at this meeting.
Number 562
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HANLEY, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 116,
described the background behind the bill. In the 1960's he
said, there were fields developed in Cook Inlet that had
both federal and state leases for natural gas. He explained
that at that time there was no market for natural gas. He
said Chugach Electric signed a long-term contract as a basis
for investments for the future. They built gas-powered
turbines near the fields and ran transmission lines. Over
time, he explained, other markets developed and other
contracts were signed for higher prices.
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY said the state came in and issued a
notice to lessees in 1985, saying after that point they
would no longer accept the contract price as the basis for
state royalties. He continued his explanation, and said in
response to the state's action, the utility felt they had
signed an "arm's length deal." He said after 25 years, the
utility got a good deal on its lease. The legislature in
1985 introduced legislation that said on state leases to
utilities, the "arm's length" contract price would be
accepted by the state for royalty valuations. However, that
law did not address federal leases, from which the state got
90% royalties.
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY noted the Mineral Management Service
had accepted the contract price of the gas as their value.
The state appealed that decision, Representative Hanley
said, claiming the federal government was not collecting
enough money. He noted the time frame went back to 1984 to
1987. He explained that this situation created a problem
for utilities, who would have to charge current and future
customers to make up for royalties owed from 1984 to 1987.
He explained that HB 116 made state and federal leases the
same as far as the lease price. If the federal government
decided to go with something other than the contract price,
this law would not affect that. This kept the state from
going to the federal government and saying they should
collect more, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY told the committee he worked with the
Department of Natural Resources' (DNR's) Division of Oil and
Gas, on HB 116. He said an amendment had been suggested,
which was before the committee. The main purpose was to
establish the same standards for federal leases that were
established for the state in 1985.
Number 670
REPRESENTATIVE PAT CARNEY asked the state's position on
HB 116.
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY responded that the state had someone
available to testify by teleconference. He added that he
had been trying to get a fiscal note and position paper on
HB 116 from the state.
Number 675
KENT BOYD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS, DNR,
testified by teleconference from Anchorage. He told the
committee that with him was Bill Van Dyke, Petroleum Manager
for the Division. Regarding a position paper and fiscal
note, Mr. Boyd said they had been sent to Juneau the
previous day (February 18, 1993).
BILL VAN DYKE, PETROLEUM MANAGER, DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS,
DNR, said the fiscal note was difficult to pin down to an
exact number. Anticipated principal and interest from
royalties could be $10.4 million, but he cautioned there was
no way to tell if that was the amount that would be agreed
upon by the parties.
Number 696
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said the committee would continue hearing
testimony from Representative Hanley, with an opportunity
for committee members to ask questions.
Number 701
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY asked if the amount of anticipated
income was retroactive.
TAPE 93-21, SIDE B
Number 000
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY answered that the problem right now
was that the federal government believed the contract price
was the price on which royalties were based and, therefore,
no monies were owed. He said the state was appealing that
decision. On the question of whether there was any subsidy,
he said he did not see it as one.
Number 018
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the fiscal note to HB 116 had
been received by the DNR, and would be delivered to the
committee shortly.
Number 050
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he had been employed in the past
both as a seller of gas from the Beluga Field, and as a
member of the board of Chugach Electric. When dealing with
a commodity, he said contracts were negotiated at arms
length, and adhered to. He said for the state to come in at
a subsequent date, asking to negate a contract that was
established as a way to help the fledgling state get
revenue, would impact current utility rate payers and was
absolutely unfair. He described a process in utilities
where at the end of a twenty year period, there was a credit
to rate payers if there had been a profit. He also pointed
out any money the utility ended up owing to the state would
come out of the pocket of current rate payers, so it would
in fact penalize a few Alaskans for the benefit of the
state.
Number 114
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE raised the hypothetical question of
whether the state would be acting to return $10.4 million if
it felt royalties had been overpaid over the years since the
original contract.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a MOTION to ADOPT the DNR's
amendment.
Number 154
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there was any opposition to
adopting the amendment. Hearing none, the MOTION CARRIED
and the amendment was adopted.
Number 157
VICE CHAIR HUDSON commented that the federal government was
not asking for any back-payment on the lease royalties.
Number 162
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY responded that the way HB 116 was
written, the federal government would have to determine that
back-payments were due, and would have to ask for it, then
the state would be entitled to its 90% share.
Number 176
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON echoed the comments of Representative
Green, and noted the position paper showed the
administration recognized that the courts might not see the
wisdom of collecting back payments from people who were not
utility customers during the time period in question.
Regarding the position paper, he did not see the
administration's position clearly stated. Specifically, he
referred to a portion of the fiscal note in support of the
area pricing theory on median value pricing theory, and said
the amount might or might not be sustained. He questioned
the ambiguity of the language.
Number 204
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the administration's perspective
would be presented when Kent Boyd and Bill Van Dyke
testified after the questions for Representative Hanley were
complete.
Number 212
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked when the current contract would
expire, and regarding the tentative $10.4 million windfall,
he asked if that had been included in the state's budget for
1993.
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY responded that the money had not been
budgeted, largely because the federal government had already
ruled they would accept the contract price. Representative
Hanley deferred the question about contract dates to Mr.
John Tillinghast.
Number 233
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES was concerned with the state's methods
of doing business.
Number 244
JOHN TILLINGHAST, an ATTORNEY representing CHUGACH ELECTRIC
ASSOCIATION, said HB 116 was intended to plug a loophole in
a 1986 law that was supposed to have resolved this
controversy. When the DNR announced in 1985 that they would
no longer accept the contract price, Chugach and the Beluga
producers went to the legislature and said the state was
proposing a plan that would result in taking money from
individual Alaskans, and also that this was not a royalty
assessment, but a tax. The utilities need financial
certainty, he said, to engage in planning and to set rates.
Chugach had entered into the Beluga venture on the
assumption that they would be paying under the long-term
price, he added.
MR. TILLINGHAST added the DNR had been strong supporters of
the 1986 legislation. The only place the issue came up in
1986, was in reference to the state leases. No one thought
about the federal leases at that time, and about a year and
a half ago, he said, the federal government audited the
Beluga leases for the 1980's. Assuming the Alaska Public
Utilities Commission allowed Chugach to make a retroactive
assessment, he said, the consumers who use Chugach directly
and also the consumers of its wholesale customers, would
suffer a surcharge of approximately $50 per household.
MR. TILLINGHAST said commercial customers were likely to see
an average of $300 to $400 per business surcharge, although
some would have more. One of the larger customers he
mentioned was the State of Alaska's Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, who would have a
surcharge of over $100,000. He then returned to the
question about the expiration dates of contracts. He said
the long- term contracts were re-negotiated in 1988, and
provided for prices that graduated over the coming years.
In 1993, he said prices were generally 75 cents per thousand
cubic feet, rising to $1.32 to $1.65 per thousand cubic feet
by 1998. The differential between the contract price and
the market price would shrink as the years go by, he said,
which was why the controversy centered on the retroactive
period that Representative Hanley mentioned, he explained.
Number 315
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked about the current market price
for natural gas.
MR. TILLINGHAST answered that Representative Mulder would
have to ask the state that question, because the state's
methodology for computing the "market price" was by finding
the price at or below which a majority of Cook Inlet gas was
sold. The problem with the methodology, he explained, was
that Cook Inlet gas was sold under many different
circumstances. Chugach's methodology, he added, was that
the market price was the price a willing buyer would pay to
a willing seller under the particular circumstances of their
positions.
Number 335
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to contracts between two
utilities, and the difference in the contracts seemed to be
in the aggressiveness of the negotiator. He said that could
sometimes be misleading in looking at the market as a whole.
MR. TILLINGHAST asked Representative Green if he had been
referring to ENSTAR.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN confirmed that he had.
MR. TILLINGHAST said when Chugach entered into its long-term
contract in the 1960's, there was no alternative market.
The state at that time had the choice of getting royalties
on the Chugach price or getting no royalties at all.
Number 362
MR. BOYD of the Division of Oil and Gas again testified by
teleconference regarding the state's position on HB 116. He
said the DNR wanted to carry out the wishes of the
legislature. They have pursued the course of collecting
what they believed were royalties due to the state, he
added.
MR. VAN DYKE told the committee that with respect to the
state leases, HB 116 did not follow the same approach that
was taken in 1986. As written today, he said the federal
leases would be treated differently than some of the state
leases were treated from 1985 forward. He said the state
collected about 75 cents per thousand cubic feet from 1985
forward. The contract price during that period was from 21
cents. Even though the statutes were amended in 1986, the
statutes were not exercised by Chugach until 1989, when
their contract was renegotiated. The state, he said, did
not accept the 21 cent contract value during that time
period. The contract price might not always represent
value, he explained, and mentioned the collection of
royalties for oil was based on valuation.
Number 427
VICE CHAIR HUDSON left the meeting at 9:22 a.m.
Number 430
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN took exception to the analogy to oil
costs and negotiation of value. He said with the oil
royalties, the cost of transportation and cleaning was
considered, and that was not at issue with the gas
situation. He said it was not customary with gas contracts,
to base a contract on the actual sales price per mcf
(thousand cubic feet) at the time of sale. Federal leases
have always maintained the sale price was based on contract
price, he said, not on a renegotiated price. He asked what
delta was used to determine the differential when the state
got the utility to change the price for the 1985/86 gas, and
as a basis for the $10.4 million figure.
MR. BOYD explained the methodology used, which was an
average price calculated each month, and said that averaged
about $1.50 during the months that served as a basis for the
calculation.
Number 463
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commended the zealousness of the DNR in
trying to generate some revenue for the state, but suggested
some of that be curtailed when the money came out of one
pocket and went into another.
Number 474
REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY clarified HB 116 did not set a new
precedent. The higher price referred to earlier was a
negotiated settlement, he said, and Chugach settled the
lawsuit for 75 cents a thousand cubic feet because they did
not know if the law was going to pass. He commented that
the legislature made a policy call back in 1986, that the
contract price, as long as it was an arm's length deal, was
the value that would be used for that particular type of
resource sales to the utilities. The federal government has
generally been using the contract price, and might not be
receiving the same price the state got on similar leases.
He concluded by saying he hoped HB 116 did not go
retrospective.
Number 520
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there more questions or
discussions on the issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that if the fair price to be
paid for the gas was the average price, then he presumed
there would soon be a recommendation by the DNR to reimburse
ENSTAR because they have paid considerably higher than
average.
Number 529
RAGA ELIM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DNR, understood the federal
government at one time, in 1985, did not accept the contract
price in a sale on the Kenai. He commented that in that
case, another way to determine fair value had been sought.
It was the DNR's position that the situation in the Beluga
field paralleled that. He agreed there was an odd dynamic
at work, with the state going to the federal government and
telling them they did not get the right value. Their
motivations might be different because they only got 10% and
the state got 90%, he added.
Number 553
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there was an adjustment in the
10-90 split in 1985.
MR. ELIM confirmed the same percentages prevailed at that
time.
Number 602
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he had asked to emphasize that the
10% share had not been the justification in the past for the
federal government to fail to aggressively pursue royalties
owed them.
MR. ELIM said the DNR's position was that the federal
government ought to be consistent; since they pursued the
royalties aggressively in the past, they should do so now as
well.
Number 666
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked whether anyone else wanted to
comment on HB 116. No one came forward, and he concluded
with the comment that it was not the intention of the chair
to move the bill today. He thanked those who testified.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced the tour of the A-J Mine planned
for Saturday, February 20, 1993, had been preempted by a
majority caucus meeting. He announced further that the next
meeting, on Monday, February 22, would be for the purpose of
confirming appointees to the Big Game Commercial Services
Board and the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
In response to a question from Representative Green on when
HB 116 would be moved, Chairman Williams responded that it
would probably be the following week.
REPRESENTATIVE CARNEY suggested the committee would like to
have a time certain for reconsideration of HB 116.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House
Resources Committee, Chairman Williams adjourned the meeting
at 9:35 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|