01/27/2020 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB27 | |
| Presentation(s): Petroleum Fiscal Policy | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 27, 2020
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Sara Rasmussen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 27
"An Act relating to the manufacture, sale, distribution, and
labeling of child-related products containing certain flame
retardant chemicals; relating to an interstate chemicals
clearinghouse; adding unlawful acts to the Alaska Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Act; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PRESENTATION(S): PETROLEUM FISCAL POLICY
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 27
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) RES, L&C
04/03/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/03/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/03/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/05/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/05/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/05/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
01/24/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
01/24/20 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
01/27/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KARLA HART, Staff
Representative Geran Tarr
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Tarr, sponsor,
introduced HB 27.
RICH RUGGIERO, Chief Executive Officer
IN3NERGY
Houston, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation related
to petroleum fiscal policy, dated 1/27/20.
CHRISTINA RUGGIERO, Managing Member
IN3NERGY
Houston, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question during the PowerPoint
presentation related to petroleum fiscal policy, dated 1/27/20.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:29 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Tuck,
Hannan, Talerico, Spohnholz, Rauscher, Rasmussen, Hopkins,
Lincoln, and Tarr were present at the call to order. Also in
attendance was Senator Bishop.
HB 27-REGULATION OF FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS
1:04:16 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 27, "An Act relating to the manufacture, sale,
distribution, and labeling of child-related products containing
certain flame retardant chemicals; relating to an interstate
chemicals clearinghouse; adding unlawful acts to the Alaska
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act; and
providing for an effective date."
1:04:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 27, labeled 31-LS0198\S, Bannister, 4/30/19,
[Version S] as the working document.
1:04:49 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN objected for discussion purposes.
1:05:10 PM
KARLA HART, Staff, Representative Geran Tarr, Alaska State
Legislature, paraphrased from a prepared statement on proposed
HB 27, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Flame retardants are throughout our homes and offices.
In keyboards, furnishings, mattresses, electronics,
and toys. Loosely bound in plastics and foam, they are
spread as dust. The dust is inhaled and ingested.
Children playing on the floor ingest a
disproportionate amount as their little hands capture
dust that is transferred to their mouths. When you eat
finger food while at your keyboard or in your car, you
are almost certainly eating microscopic particles of
flame retardants with your chips or fruit. These
toxins go into your bloodstream.
Evidence suggests exposure to flame retardants and
PFAs before birth may impair children's cognitive and
behavioral development. I shared a Neuroscience News
article from January 14 with you on Tuesday. Their
summary: "Exposure to flame retardants and pesticides
resulted in more than a million cases of intellectual
disability in children between 2001 and 2016. However,
adverse outcomes from exposure to mercury and lead
fell significantly during the same period." Mercury
and lead harm decreased because of restriction placed
into law.
While we cannot (and should not) experiment on humans
to isolate risks and dangers in a rigorous scientific
manner, studies on animals have disturbing findings.
Perinatal exposure (for humans perinatal is the 20 to
th
28 weeks of gestation up to a month after birth) in
rats and mice permanently reprograms liver metabolism,
often leading later in life to insulin resistance and
non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. There are far more
studies than I have time to read or list. I'm happy to
get information to you in response to specific
questions.
Widespread use of smoke detectors, improved building
codes, fire safe cigarettes, and a reduction in indoor
smoking all happened in the same timeframe as the
introduction of flame retardants beginning in the late
1970s. While the chemical industry would like to take
credit for reductions in fire deaths, there is strong
evidence that is not where credit is due.
Why have are firefighters so keen to ban flame
retardants? Firefighters experience their colleagues
battling and succumbing to cancers that are directly
linked to breathing smoke from burning flame
retardants. Individual firefighters across the state
and the Alaska Fire Chief's Association have written
letters of support for HB 27. Retired Anchorage
firefighter Carol Bacon testified before you last
April. She has a rare blood cancer and is one of many
Anchorage firefighters who have been diagnosed with
cancer. Senator Lisa Murkowski sponsored the Cancer
Registry Act in response to the cancer death of
Anchorage firefighter Andy Mullen, whose death was
linked with exposure to toxins from burning electrical
wires. Right here at home our firsts responders are
getting sick.
Last spring you heard from Dr. Vytenis Babrauskas, a
leading global expert on fire protection engineering.
His 14-page resume of professional accomplishments and
scientific publications was shared and is on BASIS. He
summarized: "The plethora of harm and the lack of
benefits make conclusions quite obvious. We should
not be putting flame retardant chemicals into
consumer goods that end up in the household and are
likely to adversely affect your children.
Last spring the Anchorage Assembly unanimously adopted
a municipal ban on flame retardants, which went into
effect on January 1 of this year. HB 27 is the ninth
flame retardant bill before the Alaska legislature
since 2008. The chemical industry launched aggressive
and dishonest campaigns in state houses across the
country, including Alaska, to stop these bills until
being exposed by Chicago Tribune in 2012. A doctor who
had testified in Alaska and other states lost his
license for lying on the record. State legislatures
and local governments are taking action over the past
decade plus because the federal government is not.
Industry claims that federal rulemaking is in the
works and a better solution than a fragmented system
of laws. This is true; however, until there is federal
rulemaking, which may be never, you have the
opportunity to reduce the harm to Alaskans throughout
the state by adopting a law that is quite similar to
that of Anchorage's. In Alaska, we spend more time
indoors and are at higher risk for exposure, as our
our kids. We need to be leaders!
Alaskans' support for passing a flame-retardant bill
is wide and strong. You'll find letters from the
Governor's Council on Disabilities and Special
Education, the Cancer Action Network in Alaska, the
Alaska School Nurses Association, Scan Home, an
Anchorage furniture dealer, the Alaska Children's
Trust, the Learning Disabilities Association of
Alaska, the Alaska Public Interest Research Group. In
2011-12, the supporting letters have included a
resolution from the Alaska Federation of Natives, the
Alaska Nurses Association, the Alaska Mental Health
Trust, the Alaska Professional Firefighters
Association, the ARC of Anchorage, the Association of
Village Council Presidents, and the Alaska Inter-
Tribal council. Alaskans who are in the know, know
that exposure to flame retardants is harmful. A fall
off in letters of support is a sign of fatigue with
the failure of legislatures to adopt protections,
session after session.
We have the household equivalent of a canary in a coal
mine if only we had been paying attention. House cats.
In 1972 feline hyperthyroidism didn't exist. In 1979
the first five cases of feline hyperthyroidism were
presented at a veterinary conference in Seattle. By
1980 one in 200 cats were being diagnosed with feline
hyperthyroidism. Various studies of blood levels and
contact implicate flame retardants. I'll pause to let
you consider what you think the rate is today?. None,
1972. 1 in 200 1980. ??.. It is estimated that one in
10 house cats are now afflicted.
In the interest of respecting your time, and because a
more substantive version of this bill has been heard
twice before by this committee, we have not brought
expert testimony. Pam Miller with Alaska Community
Action on Toxics is online needed. The bill goes from
here to Labor and Commerce where three members of this
committee also serve and can continue the work.
There are safe, affordable alternatives that exist to
provide protections from fire while not inadvertently
causing a plethora of far reaching and permanent harms
to children, firefighters, and all other Alaskans.
You've received letters from industry representatives
with specific technical concerns. We have been
responsive to those concerns and drafted amendments. I
will share them with offices with the goal of
addressing concerns and moving the bill forward.
1:12:35 PM
MS. HART introduced the changes to the proposed committee
substitute, Version S, [Included in members' packets] which
read:
The CS makes changes to 1) clarify that the act
includes upholstered furniture used in all homes, not
just those with children, 2) removes any labeling
requirement, and 3) addresses reupholstered furniture
in a manner consistent with the recently passed
Anchorage law.
Page 2, line 17 The title is changed to clarify that
the Act includes upholstered furniture and child-
related products.
Line 20-21 changes "consumer product" to
"covered product."
Line 25-26 (b) of Ver A re resale is now
addressed in Sec. 18.31.620
Page 3, Sec. 18.31.620 is changed.
The labeling requirement in version U is removed
from the bill. The section now more clearly addresses
exemptions, including reupholstered furniture.
Page 3, Sec. 18.31.630 Removes the penalty for
violation of labeling.
Page 3-4, Definitions (2) "consumer product" is
changed to "child-related product," detachable car
seats are removed, the word upholstered is dropped
from furniture.
MS. HART added that a proposed amendment had been prepared to
address a concern by the industry for car seats. She continued
with the discussion for the changes in the proposed CS.
New (3) defines "covered product" to include all
upholstered furniture used in the home and child-
related products.
New (4) defines reupholstered furniture (in
alignment with Anchorage law).
New (5) defines upholstered furniture (in
alignment with Anchorage law)
1:14:07 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR added that the effective date for the proposed
bill would be amended to a later date to allow some lag time for
retailers to respond to the changes.
1:14:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN acknowledged that, as she was not an
expert on flame retardants, she had forwarded a letter of
opposition from the American Chemistry Council, dated January
23, 2020, [Included in members' packets] to a family member who
was a firefighter, for their thoughts. He had replied that
fires now burn hotter than ever and with light weight
construction there was less time for response. She expressed
her concern for the protection of flame retardants versus the
potential for negative consequences. She asked for in put from
other committee members.
1:16:27 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, in reference to the letter from the American
Chemistry Council, shared examples of some changes, which
included: these chemicals had been removed from children's
clothing; cigarettes were now self-extinguishing; and, there was
greater enforcement on the use of fire alarms. She shared that
a challenge for the use of the flame retardants was that
although they provided a little delay, this was not a
significant amount of time. She pointed out that there was
strong support from the Alaska firefighting community, and the
Alaska Fire Chief Association, to push for removal of these
chemicals with replacement by safer alternatives. She pointed
to the significant improvement to the number of available
products, adding that "almost half the country that have passed
some kind of legislation with these restrictions." She pointed
out that, in response, the retailers and the manufacturers were
making new products. She noted that once California consumers
lead the way, the rest of the West Coast would follow. She
expressed her hope to provide a transition time for retailers
and inspire new product development.
1:19:49 PM
MS. HART offered to provide information on the amount of time
[for combustion], adding that closed bedroom doors "can be life-
saving."
1:20:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN expressed her concern at the number of
homes, especially rental homes, without smoke alarms, even as
there was a code for "one in every bedroom and then one in any
living space."
1:21:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how the Anchorage ordinance was
aligned and differed with the proposed legislation. She asked
if there were any Alaska based manufacturers impacted by the
proposed legislation.
1:22:23 PM
MS. HART explained that snow machines would not be covered by
the proposed legislation unless used as household furnishings.
She stated that her office had not been contacted by anyone
involved with manufacturing. She said that the proposed bill
did not align perfectly with the Anchorage ordinance, noting
that neither ordinance had "teeth" as there was no money for
enforcement. She declared that it did "encourage and
incentivize the industry to work at a national level to get one
unified law that would cover all jurisdictions across the
country without having to deal with a lot of different laws."
She referenced proposals for national laws dating back to 2008
without any "near giving birth anywhere." She opined that "not
being perfectly aligned is actually part of what makes this help
to provide better protections in the future." She listed the
most critical points of differentiation between the proposed
legislation and the Anchorage ordinance, which included: the
proposed legislation prohibits toys with flame retardants; the
proposed legislation prohibits electronics, which included the
casings on cell phones and computers; and an amendment had been
drafted to align with the Anchorage ordinance to exempt the
child restraint systems.
1:25:19 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR directed attention to the proposed HB 27, page 3,
line 22, "participation in the interstate chemical
clearinghouse," which referenced work with other states to
develop national policy. She declared that it would be better
to have a consistent national policy. She shared that proposed
amendments had been drafted to address the four specific
concerns, including the electronics and toys, and that the House
Resources Standing Committee could decide whether to adopt these
for more comprehensive legislation.
1:26:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN pointed out that should the proposed
legislation pass, the Anchorage ordinance which did not cover
toys and electronics would be moot for the distribution of any
manufactured goods that contained fire retardants. She noted
that there was a local Juneau manufacturer of all wood toys.
She asked if there were concerns for the interstate economics of
technology, musing that, as there was no money for enforcement,
it would be a moot point.
1:28:16 PM
MS. HART pointed out that San Francisco, California, had enacted
"quite a rigorous ban" which included electronics [containing
fire retardants], although the State of California had not. She
acknowledged that, as the boundaries of the city were "very
porous" it was not a long journey to buy something.
1:28:47 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR shared that she generally watched California, as
that population demanded sufficient availability of a new
product at an affordable price.
1:29:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ noted that states could impact policy
at higher levels as states were often incubators for policies
"that could then move up to the federal level," even though
Alaska was a small market in terms of buying power. She asked
about the length of time that flame retardants would delay
incineration.
1:30:39 PM
MS. HART replied that the delay was about 30 seconds, and she
directed attention to a video igniting furniture with and
without flame retardants in a laboratory setting. She
questioned whether this would allow enough time to escape a
burning building. She pointed out that, as the foam in
furniture was made from petroleum products, "so they'd burn
pretty well," flame retardant was included on the barrier to
slow the burn.
1:31:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether the time would be any
different in a room with most of the furniture treated with a
fire retardant.
MS. HART replied that she would get back to her with an answer.
1:32:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if there was a direct link between
household pets and thyroid problems.
1:32:57 PM
MS. HART replied that it was not ethical or legal to do studies
on humans. She explained that house cats spent considerable
time on the floor and grooming, so dust would collect on the fur
and then be groomed into their system. She reported that
initially there was not a link between flame retardants and
hyperthyroidism. As studies were being done, it was realized
that there was a disproportionate amount of flame retardants in
cats with hyperthyroidism. Further tracking offered a link
between these, as serious health effects were showing up more
often and a strong correlation was suggested.
1:35:05 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR asked that any proposed amendments be submitted by
January 28.
1:36:28 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN removed his objection. There being no further
objection, the proposed CS, Version S, was adopted as the
working draft.
[HB 27 was held over.]
^PRESENTATION(S): PETROLEUM FISCAL POLICY
PRESENTATION(S): PETROLEUM FISCAL POLICY
1:36:39 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would
be a presentation related to petroleum fiscal policy.
1:37:53 PM
RICH RUGGIERO, CEO, IN3NERGY, presented a PowerPoint from
IN3NERGY and directed attention to slide 2, "Week Goals and
Recap." He reported that the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee had stated a "scope of work to come up and provide
foundational training on petroleum fiscal systems." He shared
that he had come to share training, and, although he was full of
opinions, these opinions were not with respect to any bills,
pending bills, initiatives, or regulations. He reported that
they had presented two courses over five hours, and this brief
presentation would offer the highlights of that training. He
relayed that, through the course of the training, they attempted
to answer any questions "about fair share, and how do we
compete, and how do we compare." He stated that "the majority
of the capital in the world is spent with people that have a
greater government take than Alaska and, as committee, as
legislators, and the rest, you should be asking why." He
declared that he would also present on why the money was being
spent in places other than Alaska.
1:41:32 PM
MR. RUGGIERO, in response to Representative Rauscher, said that
he would not step out of his lane in these discussions. He
reported that this basic class, "Oil and Gas 101," had been
offered four times, while "Oil and Gas 102" had been offered
twice. He estimated that 100 people had attended each of the
different courses. He directed attention to slide 4, "Oil and
Gas 101," and paraphrased the slide, which read:
Oil and gas terms and jargon are extensive but
important to building knowledge and preventing false
assumptions and misunderstandings
?Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary
https://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com
? Each source of hydrocarbons are finite
? Each barrel of crude oil and cubic foot of natural
gas are not created or valued equally
? Their value, and the associated costs to produce
them, are dependent on quality specifications and
location
? These variations result in price premiums or
discounts relative to global marker crudes or reginal
natural gas hubs
? Conventional and unconventional reservoirs require
different technology and extraction methods, and have
varied production profiles
? Oil companies and governments work together in
countries across the globe to produce and market
hydrocarbons
MR. RUGGIERO declared that it was important to understand real
meanings versus assumptions, and he directed attention to the
glossary. He explained that the term "state take" was a common
term used by petroleum fiscal systems to refer to the central
government. He pointed to the distinction between a "resource"
and a "reserve," explaining that a reserve needed to be
discovered, to be commercial, and to be approved by a company in
order to go forward with the development and production of the
resource. He further explained that one of the variables in
determining the value of oil was API, which ranged from a low
number for a heavy, thick, crude oil to a high number for oil
flowing like water. He declared that it was important in
comparison of profitability to other oil regimes to understand
the quality difference from the marker crude, adding that this
was also true for natural gas. He pointed out that the oil
price was based on a global market, while natural gas price was
based on the supply and demand in a regional market. He added
that there were different expenses to move different qualities
of gas and crude oil. He noted that, as the market price was
already set, the cost to get to the market was subtracted from
that market price to arrive at the profit.
MR. RUGGIERO shared that, in 1978, the known proven global
reserves had projected to be less than 20 years of oil. He
reported that, from 1998 to 2018, global oil reserves had
increased by 51 percent, with production of approximately 600
million barrels and the addition of reserves of 1.2 trillion
barrels. He pointed out that the Alaska share was "but a thin
sliver now in the U.S." Hence, the prominence of Alaska as a
resource owner had changed drastically with greater discovery
and production elsewhere. He stated that, as competition
changed over time, it was necessary to offer, through the fiscal
system, the right level of incentives to attract the necessary
capital to meet the state's goals. He directed attention to
slide 5, "Oil and Gas 101," and paraphrased the slide, which
read:
? From 1998 to 2018 global reserves increased roughly
50%. Alaska's share has declined
? The intent of a fiscal system is to provide economic
and other terms that will attract sufficient capital
for the prudent development and production of a
country's mineral wealth
There is no single ideal or optimum fiscal structure
? Government drivers are unique
? Each hydrocarbon development and production project
tends to have unique characteristics and circumstances
? Alaska utilizes a fiscal system comprised of royalty
(gross tax) and a petroleum tax based on net revenues
1:50:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referenced the aging oil fields globally
and asked if there was a trend toward a specific fiscal regime.
1:51:29 PM
MR. RUGGIERO, in response, stated that 30 years ago there were
not very many strong national oil companies; however, in the
last few decades, those countries with national oil companies
had educated themselves and believed themselves capable of
running some of these aging oil fields under risk-service
contracts in which the state retained ownership of the base, and
a contract was offered to incentivize a company to increase the
production.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked if this trend existed outside the
state-owned oil companies.
MR. RUGGIERO said that he was only aware of this with national
oil companies.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked if there was detailed information
on the trend of Alaska's decline.
1:53:30 PM
MR. RUGGIERO, in response to Representative Rasmussen, said that
he did not have the information. He moved on and paraphrased
slide 6, "Oil and Gas 102," which read:
The role of the government is to ensure the optimal
development of its natural resources for the near-term
and long-term benefit of its people
? The more durable fiscal systems today are those
designed to respond to inevitable change as well as
the up and down cycles of the energy industry and
geopolitical events
? Policy design should start with a set of agreed
goals, which tend to be unique for each government
? Fiscal regime design recognizes that government's
own the majority of hydrocarbons in the ground and oil
and gas companies provide the necessary capital,
trained personnel and technology
MR. RUGGIERO explained that stable did not mean "everything
stops," but instead, being able to move with changes as the
changes occur. He offered his belief that this was different
for oil versus other industries. He stated that it was
important to recognize what goal was intended for a fiscal
system and explained that any of the past fiscal oil legislation
could only be viewed as successful or unsuccessful against the
goals to which they had been set up to achieve. He offered a
recommendation that legislators first get agreement as to what
was the intended goal. He pointed out that, although almost all
the hydrocarbons in the ground, the upstream, were owned by
governments, the midstream and downstream facilities were
predominantly owned by the private sector and most of these
facilities were low risk and low reward, as the information was
known ahead. However, as the upstream ownership of the oil was
dealing with unknowns for quantity, cost of facilities, and
fiscal systems, there was significantly more risk.
1:58:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN mused that although Senate Bill 21 had met
its legislative goal, the public perception had been for 1
million more barrels of oil per year. She asked for expansion
on these perceptions.
2:00:20 PM
MR. RUGGIERO, in response, offered his belief that the goals of
ACES (Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share) were achieved at that
time, noting that there had been a list of five goals agreed
upon by the Alaska State Legislature. One of the goals had been
to incentivize new players to get new oil flowing into the
pipeline, and the tax credits included in ACES brought extensive
drilling with many discoveries. He acknowledged that, as the
price of oil had crashed when it came time to pay those
incentives, the amount of revenue to the State of Alaska did not
meet the goals. He pointed out that the time cycle for oil
development in Alaska was at least 10 years, much longer than
the time necessary in the Lower 48, so success could not be
measured in short time frames. He noted that, as there were a
series of steps: exploration, discovery, and development into
production, it was necessary to ensure everything was now in
place to move through development into production.
2:03:00 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR referenced the second point on slide 6 and
reflected on the fiscal system problems with ACES and Senate
Bill 21. She expressed her hope that lessons could be learned
from these experiences to craft a fiscal system that would not
fail under one price circumstance. She declared that would
allow for a more durable system.
2:04:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked if the time cycle was related to
implementation for a specific policy.
MR. RUGGIERO, in response, listed the process for an oil company
which entailed the ten-year cycle: study an area, purchase the
rights for exploration in that area, drill a well in the area,
experience a discovery, create a development plan, and move into
production. He acknowledged that these actions happened much
more quickly in the lands of the Lower 48, except for the Gulf
of Mexico.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked if there was consideration during
this timeframe for impacts of policy changes.
MR. RUGGIERO allowed that any great disruption in the ten-year
cycle to the fiscal system created a much greater risk to the
business. He paraphrased slide 7, "Oil and Gas 102," which
read:
? The use of a single aspect of a fiscal system, such
as headline tax rates or government take, are not an
effective way to measure competitiveness or the
attractiveness for capital spending
? Within the concession and contract structures there
are numerous tools and methods for designing fiscal
policy that significantly impact the attractiveness of
a regime
? Most of those tools impact the timing of cash flows
to a company, and time plays an important role in a
regime's attractiveness
? Insight was provided into how oil companies tend to
evaluate project economics and make investment
decisions
MR. RUGGIERO pointed out that there was not one ideal fiscal
system, and that no two fiscal regimes could be compared with
the use of a single metric, even if that metric was the overall
government take. He stated that there were many tools used to
create contracts which could be used in multiple ways to create
hundreds of variations for a petroleum fiscal system and could
be made to economically look similar to any other model. He
noted that concession agreements tended to be put in places
where it was believed that the central government was more
stable in case any disputes needed to be resolved and any
judgement carried out, and the law was enshrined within the
contract. He pointed out that oil companies used their own
analysis, which included many aspects not included in the Alaska
analysis. He stated that the economic analysis would include
every dollar of expected expenditure and every dollar of
revenue, when it came in and how it came in. He shared that the
only reference to the fiscal system by the oil companies would
be an assessment of the risk factor for how long the fiscal
system would stay in place during the life of the project.
2:10:39 PM
MR. RUGGIERO shared slide 8, "Caution: The Flaw of Averages,"
which read:
? All too often regimes are described, compared or,
even worse, modelled using average values
MR. RUGGIERO explained that there could be either a wide range
of values or a tight distribution of values in any fiscal
system, and even though both could have the same average, each
of these fiscal systems could be very different. He cautioned
against reliance on averages.
MR. RUGGIERO paraphrased slide 10, "Change is the Only Constant,
which read:
? The Petroleum industry has continually undergone
change, thus it's important to balance preparing for
the future while addressing the present in a global
market, where no single region, player, or component
is isolated from another, and where governments design
fiscal policy that is responsive to a complex and
sophisticated business environment in a global
competition for oil company investment dollars
? In other words, when putting together petroleum
fiscal policy you must assume an unpredictable future
that can range from much better than hoped to much
worse than feared
? The more durable fiscal systems today are those set
up to respond to inevitable change as well as the up
and down cycles of the energy industry and
geopolitical events
MR. RUGGIERO pointed out that the design of a fiscal system
which centered on "at this price, I've got this profit level,"
would have a problem as time passed. He offered an example of
gross tax based on the cost structure fixed price points for
profit.
2:13:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked if there were tax regimes not as
price dependent as Alaska.
MR. RUGGIERO explained that the most responsive systems used
five or six different methodologies for the determination of
profitability, with an increase to the government share as the
profits increased.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked if this was similar to the
progressivity in Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share.
MR. RUGGIERO explained that progressivity tended to change with
the net price of the barrel to cost which was different than net
profitability. He said that ACES was a representation of the
margin of profit on a barrel of oil that day or that month.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked if there were other governments
who had kept a 10-year policy in place without substantial
changes.
MR. RUGGIERO explained that this required a breakdown of
contract regimes and license regimes. The contract regimes did
not change for the life of the contract unless both parties
wanted to change, which usually reflected a change in the
economics from the time of approval. Licensing regimes
reflected different philosophies on change, and he offered an
example from the United Kingdom, which had relaxed its taxes and
removed royalties when prices went down and increased the
government share when prices went up. He pointed out that
change could be stable when in tune with the profitability of
the industry at the time.
2:17:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked if Senate Bill 21 was a system
designed to be similar to that of the United Kingdom in order to
keep production relatively stable.
MR. RUGGIERO offered his belief that Senate Bill 21 was not
designed to keep production stable but was designed to
incentivize investment to change production. He added that
stable could be growth as old fields declined.
CO-CHAIR TARR shared that there could be a more appropriate
place to tax which reflected profitability because in a net
profit system all expenses had been accounted for.
MR. RUGGIERO expressed his agreement.
2:18:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how wide a progressivity in the
fiscal policy was necessary to measure profitability. She asked
if there was a standard recommendation or did it include the
spectrum of worldwide investment.
2:19:49 PM
MR. RUGGIERO replied that the type of system depended on the
type of ringfence. He stated that the profitability metrics and
tools he referenced were usually used over the life of the
project, not per barrel as that was a "point in time" and not
indicative of the whole.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if this profitability could
extrapolate to that specific project and not with regard to
other projects by the same company.
MR. RUGGIERO explained that normally a fiscal regime does not
look outside itself, therefore, review of an Alaska project
would not look outside Alaska. He said it was then a choice
whether to separate individual Alaska projects, including new
projects from old projects, and there were many options for this
separation. He pointed out that the fiscal system was in line
with the ringfence. He declared that you cannot go outside your
fiscal regime.
MR. RUGGIERO directed attention to slide 11, "Attracting
Investment Capital," which depicted all the countries changing
their fiscal regime from January 2001 to January 2016. He noted
that it was necessary when comparing regimes to determine
whether that regime had changed.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted that the graph clearly showed that the
change in fiscal regime with an increase to government take
clearly followed the increase in price per barrel.
MR. RUGGIERO pointed to the three plots for Alaska on the graph.
2:23:52 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR asked if any other countries on the graph were as
reliant on the revenue from oil and gas as Alaska. She
suggested that it would be easier to be more nimble with the oil
and gas tax policy in Alaska if there was not such a heavy
reliance on revenue.
MR. RUGGIERO suggested that this could be asked from several
different perspectives. He shared an example of the United
Kingdom dropping royalty and oil taxes because of the importance
for domestic supply. He pointed out that many of the countries
on the graph had a different driver for change, even as they
operated in the same world, with the same pricing, and with the
same oil companies.
2:25:51 PM
CHRISTINA RUGGIERO, Managing Member, IN3NERGY, pointed out that
each of the points on the graph told a story, and that it was
necessary to find the reason to determine the change, whether to
incentivize exploration or production or to open to foreign
investment. She added that some of these contracts could be
ending and would not be extended. She reminded that, as each of
these changes had factors, it was necessary to determine the
goals and the drivers prior to making a comparison.
2:27:16 PM
MR. RUGGIERO paraphrased slide 12, "Addressing Change in Fiscal
Design," which read:
? To prepare for unexpected change, any policy and
design goals should be tested against several possible
future scenarios in order to provide a resilient
investment climate
? For example: ? Continued demand growth - business as
usual
? Move to Green leveling off of demand followed by
slow decline in demand
? Accelerated Green- quick development and adoption of
hydrocarbon alternatives, sharp decline in demand of
fossil fuels
? By testing various policy alternatives against a
range of possible future end states, a preferred
pathway forward can be set
MR. RUGGIERO reminded the committee, when making a change or
introducing a new fiscal policy, to keep in mind the goals to
achieve while viewing it across some agreed future scenarios.
Then, when it is approved, it would have some resilience as it
would have been previously analyzed for the future scenarios
with the agreed upon set of goals. He shared slide 13, "Example
on How Needs Drive Policy," as a graph depicting one example for
a big oil price drop in eight different regions for the reserves
to production ratios in each region. As these countries then
changed the fiscal system to incentivize exploration, this was
quickly turned into actual development and production of
reserves. He referenced the British Petroleum Statistical
Review as excellent for industry data and the trends over
different time periods.
2:31:41 PM
MR. RUGGIERO shared slide 15, "Capital Spent in High Take
Countries," which read:
? The concept of cost recovery is a globally accepted
standard, applied various ways throughout fiscal
systems. The most important parameters are:
? Which costs can be deducted and/or recovered?
? When can the deductions/recovery take place?
? Before or after tax is due?
? Non-deductibility or exclusion of costs (such as
disallowance of some or all NOLs) significantly hurts
economics and increases risk, thus creating a
deterrence for producers to invest
? Global standard is to deduct and recover 100% of
costs, such as exploration, development, production,
administration and services
? Usual minor exclusions are financing interest,
excess corporate overhead, penalties, entertainment,
and donations
MR. RUGGIERO said that the debate over NOLs (net operating loss)
as a giveaway was often heard relative to discussions about
Alaska. He stated that NOLs were simply businesses recovering
their costs. He shared an example of putting money into two
different banks, with one bank charging tax on the money
invested, while the other charged tax on the money earned. He
pointed out that no one wanted to pay tax on the money invested,
only on the money earned. He compared NOLs to the money
invested, on which no business wanted to pay tax.
MR. RUGGIERO discussed whether costs should be allowed or not
allowed, noting that assorted regimes handled what costs were
allowed this differently. He listed excessive overhead,
environmental penalties, and financing as costs not usually
allowed to be deducted and recovered without paying tax. He
pointed to slide 16, "Sharing Benefits," which listed countries
and the corresponding government take. He reported that many
areas had significant investment with a higher take than Alaska.
He offered his belief that there was something other than
government take which determined where to invest.
2:35:21 PM
MR. RUGGIERO addressed slide 17, "Capital Spent in High Take
Countries," which read:
? Simple example comparing 3 regimes with these key
differentiators
? Tax rates
? Disallowed costs
? Uplift
Regime A Regime B Regime C
Allowed Costs 90 115 115
Disallowed Costs 25 0 0
Uplift % 0 0 10%
Uplift Years 0 0 3
Royalty 15% 0 0
Net Tax 45% 75% 85%
MR. RUGGIERO defined: tax rates as gross or net tax; disallowed
costs as those costs the oil company experienced and had to pay
but could not deduct or recover hence the associated revenue was
taxed; and, uplift as the interest on the unrecovered cost to
account for that time value of money. He reported that the
tighter the ringfence around revenue to recover cost, the more
likely there would be for an associated uplift to compensate for
the time value. He moved on to slide 18, "Capital Spent in High
Take Countries," which compared the percentage of government
take for the three regimes to the final producer share for each.
He reported the revenue as the same for each regime, then
deducted the royalty, the allowed costs, and the uplift, if
offered, for each regime. This resulted in different taxable
incomes for each regime. When the net tax was deducted from the
taxable income, the result was the gross profit. From the gross
profit, the disallowed costs were deducted, and any non-taxed
uplift was added to reach the final producer share. He noted
that, in this example, the country with the highest government
take also had the highest producer profit. He reported that a
longer-term cash flow profile on a real project with similar
numbers would have similar differences in the return to the
producer.
2:39:40 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR explained that under the current statute the NOLs
could be carried forward for up to seven years, instead of
allowing the uplift. She mused that any recovery of costs that
was unused after the seventh year was then depreciated by 10
percent annually. She acknowledged that this was related to the
time value of money.
MR. RUGGIERO explained that this created a negative uplift and
ultimately became a tax on parts of the investment.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the current Alaska fiscal
regime offered all the net operating losses as other fiscal
regimes. She asked for examples of NOLs that Alaska did not
allow but were allowed by other fiscal regimes.
MR. RUGGIERO clarified that there were costs incurred that were
not allowed to be deducted through the fiscal system and were
not specific to NOLs.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for examples from other regimes for
what was allowed that was not allowed in Alaska.
MR. RUGGIERO replied that many regimes created accounts when
revenues were high to handle the costs for abandonment at the
end of the field life. If abandonment was not deductible in a
fiscal regime, there could be billions of dollars of abandonment
costs with nothing to write them off against.
MR. RUGGIERO shared slide 19, "Fiscal Regime Tool Kit," which
read:
? So how does the simple math of Revenue Costs =
Taxable Profit become complex?
? Fiscal systems are modified using one of many
different "tools" to achieve a subset of goals and to
prevent another subset of unwanted outcomes
? Each of these tools can be deployed in a variety of
ways
? While high-level fiscal structures have not changed
much, variations on how to handle constituent parts
continue to be developed
? Regimes and fiscal systems that share benefits that
align with oil company investment decision-making
metrics, timing and processes can be expected to
attract the most investment dollars
MR. RUGGIERO offered his belief that the design of fiscal
regimes was half science and half art. The art was for what was
attempted to be accomplished, and what sequence of tools would
achieve those goals and attract the capital for development. He
noted that many of the pieces built into fiscal regimes did not
appear in the most common ranking of government take. He moved
on to slide 20, "Fiscal Regime Tool Kit Items," which read:
? Bonuses ? Bid Fees ? Annual Fees ? Royalty ? Cost
Oil & Caps ? Profit Oil & Split ? Rate ? Reserves ? R
Factor ? IRR ? Combination ? Delta Oil/Gas ? Work
Program Abandonment Bank ? Income Tax ? Capital
Gains Tax ? Petroleum Tax ? Property Tax ? Excise
Duties ? Import Duties ? Ringfencing ? Data Transfer ?
Facility Transfer ? Local Market ? Local Content ?
Training
MR. RUGGIERO offered an example of the huge bonuses paid for the
Gulf of Mexico leases and the billion-dollar bonuses for the
Angola blocks. He compared the $5 cost per acre of land for
drilling 30 years ago to the current cost for the right to drill
of up to $25,000 per acre. He noted that occasionally an
individual shale well could be burdened with up to $4 million of
acquisition costs just for the right to drill. He reported that
much of this was not plotted on the metric charts. He directed
attention to the Profit Oil & Split, noting that each of these
represented the profitability of the project as a whole and not
the profit on a barrel for the day, the month, or the year. He
reported that countries had benefits from specific and targeted
investment by the oil companies that did not show up as part of
the government take.
2:47:42 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR shared that data transfer was a benefit to the
State of Alaska, as revenue could be generated when it was sold.
She acknowledged that there had not been any goal setting with
the changes to the fiscal system in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked for a definition to the term "delta
oil/gas" on slide 20.
2:49:30 PM
MR. RUGGIERO explained that this meant different for oil and
different for gas as most regimes had a combination of oil and
gas together. He directed attention to slide 21, "Fiscal Regime
Tool Kit Items," which listed other oil company economic
impacts, and read:
? Capital Expense ? Uplift ? NOLs ? Inv Credits ?
Depreciation Schedule ? Recovery ? Period Recovery
Caps ? Allowed / Disallowed ? Operating Expense ? Sole
Source vs Bidding ? Affiliates ? Allowed / Disallowed
? Overhead ? Abandonment ? Other ? Liability ?
Environmental ? Insurance ? Employee costs ? Marketing
? Ultimate sale point ? Unit valuation point ? Allowed
expenses ? Affiliated sales
MR. RUGGIERO opined that the top item that drove companies to
invest was time: the sooner costs could be recouped, the better
the economics and the less risk with the project. He stated
that time played an equal or greater role than the government
rate of take. He added that liability environmental insurance
was also very important to getting approval for a project as it
could otherwise carry a monetary risk that far exceeded what was
willing to be taken. He reported that some governments accepted
full liability unless there was pure gross negligence or willful
misconduct. He shared that the Iraq government had indemnified
the companies for land mines during the post war development.
2:52:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ referenced the timing for government
take and asked how to help companies successfully recover their
investment early without changing the total government take.
MR. RUGGIERO shared an example he had offered during the
workshop of the same project under four regimes.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked what specific levers were used to
speed up the recovery of the front-end investment.
MR. RUGGIERO referred again to the earlier workshop training,
and stated that, in Alaska, the capital charges could be a write
off as soon as there was the revenue. He explained that many
regimes used a form of depreciation to recover those charges
over three to ten years. Alaska was in the top 10 percent of
regimes which allowed that to be written off immediately. He
stated that it was an incentive to allow monies to move across
project boundaries, so that a new project could be written off
against an existing project, which offered a significant time
enhancement. However, if that was ringfenced to stand alone, it
would discourage investment. He listed the period of recovery
and the allowable amount to recover each year as things to deal
with.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN referred to slide 18 and asked if the cash flow
and the NPV for the government had been modeled. He asked for
further explanation to the government take for 85 percent.
2:56:27 PM
MR. RUGGIERO, in response, explained that government take was
the total profit over the life of the project. He stated that
others would add a marginal dollar to the chart, which would
reflect the split after all the costs had been recovered. He
declared that it was very important to understand what each
number represented in any comparisons of government take charts.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked to clarify that, on slide 18, the 85
percent was for total cash not adjusted for time.
MR. RUGGIERO expressed his agreement, noting that the 85 percent
was "just a straight cash flow split." He moved on to slide 22,
"Oil Company Decision Making," which read:
? It is not uncommon for producers to create a set of
economic standards and project evaluation guidelines
and require that all term projects be evaluated in a
consistent manner
? Parameters that are typically established as part of
a "corporate" standard include:
? Multi-Year Price Forecast
? Multi-Year Foreign Exchange Rates
? Multi-Year Inflation
? Discount Rates
? Overhead Allocation
? Required Sensitivities
? Risk Analysis Methodology
? Hurdle Rates for Project Approval
MR. RUGGIERO said that the larger companies tended to publish a
set of standards that had to be used for every project, in order
to compare projects. Therefore, they could have price
forecasts, cost forecasts, and inflationary forecasts that were
very different from the Department of Revenue. He pointed out
that, when determining fair share, it was necessary to recognize
whether what was being left for the producer was enough to allow
approval of the project. He directed attention to slide 23, "The
Project "Hockey Stick,"" which depicted a graph reflecting the
cumulative cash position, similar to the shape of a hockey
stick. During the investment without revenue, the cash was
negative, but once the revenue begins, the period of positive
cash flow begins, and so begins the cost recovery mode. He
emphasized that during positive cash flow, it was necessary to
define whether this was before payback, the point when cash in
equals cash out, or after. He shared that each company would
have certain expectations for the final cost of capital to
determine whether to make the investment.
3:01:47 PM
MR. RUGGIERO shared slide 25, "Fiscal Regime Tool Kit," and the
basic construct that revenue minus cost equals profit. He
explained that, in Alaska, there was an attempt to have the
revenue, minus any costs to market, to whatever border the
contract had established, at which point the royalty and the
allowed costs were deducted to achieve the taxable value. Once
any tax was assessed, the remainder was the profit for the oil
company. Moving on to slide 26, "Alaska Fiscal Regime High
Level View," he paraphrased the slide, which read:
? What causes concession based fiscal regimes to go
from simple to complex?
? Usually it is a perception of achieving a big
marginal gain or preventing a potential loss; i.e.
plugging a loophole
? Putting Alaska in perspective:
? At 500,000 bpd you get roughly 182,000,000 barrels
per year
? Thus $1 per barrel change in revenues or costs
represents a change of $182,000,000 per year
? Consequently, governments like Alaska closely
scrutinize revenues and costs and make incremental
changes to laws and regulations to ensure they are
creating the highest possible taxable value
MR. RUGGIERO pointed out that plugging the loopholes, over time,
created a very complex system, which would then require many
modifications when there was a need to make any significant
changes. He paraphrased slide 27, "Fiscal Regime Tool Kit,"
which read:
? How does Alaska make sure the right value ends up
back at the lease?
? Market Sales Revenue
? Actual price and revenues if arms-length sale to a
third party
? If non arms-length sale to an affiliate, the price
and revenues are to be agreed between the company and
the State of Alaska
? Large integrated oil companies tend to keep things
in house
? Less Costs to Market
? Shipping
? TAPS
? Same issues on affiliated transactions versus third
party transactions
? Additional issues with the perceived fairness of
rates set by non-AK regulatory bodies
MR. RUGGIERO added that affiliated transactions were usually
monitored closely, which raised the questioned for a definition
of affiliate. He raised the question for whether the affiliate
was controlled by the oil company and to what percentage and
noted that often the regime would create the definition and
delineate the rules for each definition. He pointed to disputes
over the number of barrels of oil, as the number of barrels at
the refinery was often less than the number of barrels out of
the well. He raised the question for whether those lost barrels
belonged to the government or the oil company, hence which party
suffered the loss. He stated that the fiscal system in Alaska
defined how to arrive at the price, what was deductible, and how
the barrels would be counted.
3:05:28 PM
MR. RUGGIERO presented slide 28, "Fiscal Regime Tool Kit." He
reported that when the number of barrels was multiplied by the
price, the allowed transportation was deducted, then the gross
value at the point of production (GVPP) was ascertained. He
added, "then we start get interesting." He said that if the
field qualified as a GVR (gross value reduction) field, there
was a GVR deduction on the claimed revenue which would start a
reduction of the ultimate tax paid. After this, royalty would
be deducted on the land and water, which would be deducted from
the state royalty. He stated, "in Alaska, all royalty is not
equal. It may be of the same total dollar amount but whose
pocket it goes into varies depending on where that oil's
produced."
CO-CHAIR TARR shared that most of the restricted dollars were
going into the permanent fund.
MR. RUGGIERO reiterated that the GVR and royalty were subtracted
from the GVPP, and then the costs of the operations were
subtracted. He reminded the committee that not all the costs
were deductible. He explained that the term "direct" usually
applied to what was happening in the field, whereas "overhead"
applied to costs elsewhere. He pointed out that a deduction on
equipment was not allowed until it was present in the field in
Alaska. He reported that some fiscal regimes allowed the costs
to be deducted as they were spent, whereas other fiscal regimes
only allowed the deduction when the equipment was present. He
pointed out that this was an example of the timing element for
carrying the investment. He added that any carry forward net
operating losses would also be deducted.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the equipment had to be
present in the field and operational before deduction or just on
site even if it was never operated. She shared an example of a
Shell Oil drilling platform brought to Alaska but never used.
MR. RUGGIERO replied that there was a presumption of operation,
even though there was always the possibility of the unknown. He
moved on and paraphrased slides 29, 30, 31 and 32, "Fiscal
Regime Tool Kit." He said that, after the eligible deductions,
one arrived at the production tax value (PTV), and at this
point, would deduct the tax. He stated that it was necessary to
do two tax calculations: (1) for gross tax on the GVPP,
multiplied by the appropriate gross tax rate; and (2) for net
tax, multiplied by 35 percent, with application of the
appropriate credits. The producer was then obligated to pay the
greater of the gross tax payable or the net tax payable. He
pointed out that differential interests and different activity
in the different fields on the North Slope resulted in different
taxes. He explained that the oil company profit was subject to
the appropriate Alaska and federal income tax before it was
placed into the oil company bank account.
3:12:21 PM
MR. RUGGIERO paraphrased slide 33, which read:
? Driver: Every $1 per barrel represents $182,000,000
per year
? Through the years, with numerous modifications, the
simple concessionary design has become quite complex
in Alaska
? Fiscal system complexity leads to:
? Greater number of regulations
? Greater costs to administer
? Greater need for regular auditing
Greater likelihood to end up in some form of
dispute; and
? Unintended consequences when changes are attempted
MR. RUGGIERO directed attention to the unintended consequences
resulting from many moving parts, offering an example of House
Bill 111.
3:12:54 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN shared that it was necessary to keep in mind
the industry perspective as the government take for a project
that did not happen was zero.
3:14:26 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:14 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| IN3NERGY Presentation to HRES 01.27.20.pdf |
HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM |
Oil and Gas |
| HB 27 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Bill Version U 1.11.19.PDF |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Bill Version U 1.11.19Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 CS Version S 1.21.20.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Explanation of Changes Ver U to Ver S 01.21.20.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 DEC Fiscal Note 01.17.20.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 DOL Fiscal Note 01.17.20.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Combined Letters and Emails in Support 1.21.20.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letters of Support from Firefighters 4.2.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Opposing Document - Letters of Opposition Combined 01.23.20.pdf |
HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Flame Retardants - NIH Fact Sheet July 2016.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Staff Response to Member Questions 1.29.20.pdf |
HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |