Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124

04/07/2018 02:00 PM House RESOURCES

Note: the audio and video recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
02:03:40 PM Start
02:04:07 PM HB331
03:55:10 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
-- Continued from 4/6/18 --
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
               HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                             
                         April 7, 2018                                                                                          
                           2:03 p.m.                                                                                            
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair                                                                                         
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair                                                                                             
Representative John Lincoln, Vice Chair                                                                                         
Representative Justin Parish                                                                                                    
Representative David Talerico                                                                                                   
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
Representative Harriet Drummond                                                                                                 
Representative Chris Birch                                                                                                      
Representative DeLena Johnson                                                                                                   
Representative George Rauscher                                                                                                  
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)                                                                                        
Representative Chris Tuck (alternate)                                                                                           
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
HOUSE BILL NO. 331                                                                                                              
"An  Act  establishing the  Alaska  Tax  Credit Certificate  Bond                                                               
Corporation; relating  to purchases  of tax  credit certificates;                                                               
relating   to  overriding   royalty   interest  agreements;   and                                                               
providing for an effective date."                                                                                               
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
BILL: HB 331                                                                                                                  
SHORT TITLE: TAX CREDIT CERT. BOND CORP; ROYALTIES                                                                              
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR                                                                                    
02/07/18       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/07/18       (H)       RES, FIN                                                                                               
03/30/18       (H)       RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
03/30/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
03/30/18       (H)       MINUTE(RES)                                                                                            
04/04/18       (H)       RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
04/04/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/04/18       (H)       MINUTE(RES)                                                                                            
04/06/18       (H)       RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
04/06/18       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
04/06/18       (H)       MINUTE(RES)                                                                                            
04/07/18       (H)       RES AT 2:00 PM BARNES 124                                                                              
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
KEN ALPER, Director                                                                                                             
Tax Division                                                                                                                    
Department of Revenue                                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION   STATEMENT:     Provided   a  PowerPoint   presentation                                                             
entitled, "State of  Alaska Department of Revenue HB 331:   Oil &                                                               
Gas  Tax  Credit  Bond Proposal,"  dated  3/30/18,  and  answered                                                         
MIKE BARNHILL, Deputy Commissioner                                                                                              
Office of the Commissioner                                                                                                      
Department of Revenue                                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions  during the hearing of HB
DEVEN MITCHELL, Executive Director                                                                                              
Alaska Municipal Bond Bank Authority                                                                                            
Department of Revenue                                                                                                           
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions  during the hearing of HB
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
2:03:40 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR,  following a recess from  4/6/18, called the                                                           
House Resources Standing Committee meeting  back to order at 2:03                                                               
p.m.   Representatives Tarr, Parish,  Talerico, and  Lincoln were                                                               
present  at the  call back  to order.   Representative  Josephson                                                               
arrived as the meeting was in progress.                                                                                         
          HB 331-TAX CREDIT CERT. BOND CORP; ROYALTIES                                                                      
2:04:07 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the  only order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE BILL  NO. 331, "An  Act establishing the Alaska  Tax Credit                                                               
Certificate  Bond  Corporation;  relating  to  purchases  of  tax                                                               
credit  certificates;  relating  to overriding  royalty  interest                                                               
agreements; and providing for an effective date."                                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  directed attention  to slide 14  and asked                                                               
whether  the   information  provided   on  the  slide   would  be                                                               
determined  by future  directors of  the [Tax  Credit Certificate                                                               
Bond  Corporation, the  commissioners of  DOR, the  Department of                                                               
Commerce, Community  & Economic  Development, and  the Department                                                               
of Administration].                                                                                                             
2:07:01 PM                                                                                                                    
KEN ALPER,  Director, Tax Division, Department  of Revenue (DOR),                                                               
explained the  structure of  the bonds related  to the  timing of                                                               
the  interest  and  principal  payment,  does  not  bear  on  the                                                               
calculation  of  the  buyout,  thus  all  of  the  math  used  to                                                               
determine what a credit holder  would receive from the state does                                                               
not matter because the lump sum  would be financed.  However, the                                                               
variable  on slide  14 is  the term  length of  the payback;  for                                                               
example,  five years  to ten  years does  not affect  the initial                                                               
amount of the  principal.  He confirmed  the [three commissioners                                                               
who are the  directors of the] proposed  bond [corporation] would                                                               
determine the best way to structure [the payment schedule].                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  surmised the  state would delegate  to the                                                               
[directors] the  authority to  - from  a general  obligation (GO)                                                               
fund - [make  payments] of between approximately  $13 million and                                                               
approximately  $130 million,  and "therefore  bind our  hands ...                                                               
relative to the amount  of the loan that we wish  to repay at any                                                               
given time ....                                                                                                                 
2:08:39 PM                                                                                                                    
MIKE BARNHILL,  Deputy Commissioner, Office of  the Commissioner,                                                               
DOR,  pointed  out [HB  331]  does  not  fall into  "the  general                                                               
obligation context."                                                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH   directed  attention  to   the  aggregate                                                               
payments from  the general  fund (GF), shown  on slide  14, which                                                               
range from $12.9  million in [fiscal year 2031 (FY  31)] to close                                                               
to  $130  million in  FY  23-FY  28.    He questioned  the  large                                                               
variance in the  state's debt obligation between FY 23  and FY 31                                                               
and asked, "Is it usual for  the state to delegate that degree of                                                               
MR.  BARNHILL  explained  the  four cohorts  shown  on  slide  14                                                               
represent separate  bond issuances that would  address tax credit                                                               
certificates as they  are submitted for payment.   The totals for                                                               
cohorts 2,  3, and 4 are  relatively small compared to  cohort 1,                                                               
which would be a large bond issued  [in 2018].  In fact, cohort 4                                                               
[$12.91  million  in FY  31]  would  pay  the last  tax  credits.                                                               
Because cohorts  2, 3,  and 4 are  relatively small,  the payment                                                               
schedules are  structured with balloon financing:   interest only                                                               
payments until at  the end of ten years a  balloon payment of the                                                               
principal  amount  becomes  due.     Mr.  Barnhill  said  balloon                                                               
financing is a  standard approach that is utilized  because it is                                                               
anticipated   the  state   cashflow  would   maintain  a   static                                                               
percentage  to  unrestricted  general   funds,  and  to  maintain                                                               
parity, balloon  financing is  the most prudent.   He  was unsure                                                               
how often balloon financing is  utilized in state obligations and                                                               
deferred to the state's debt manager.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  clarified his  question was how  often the                                                               
[legislature] has delegated to a  board the authority to obligate                                                               
future legislatures.                                                                                                            
2:13:39 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. BARNHILL  said there are  multiple authorizations  in statute                                                               
to  issue  bonds  such  as the  State  Bond  Committee,  Treasury                                                               
Division, DOR,  the Alaska Housing  Finance Corporation,  and the                                                               
Alaska Pension  Bond Obligation Corporation,  each of  which have                                                               
discretion  to set  the  terms of  the  bonds.   He  said he  was                                                               
unaware of  any large issuance  by the state that  was structured                                                               
with a  balloon payment after a  long term.  Further  [the cohort                                                               
4]  bond issuance  is "not  a large  bond issuance,  it's a  bond                                                               
issuance  for  something less  than  $15  million."   In  further                                                               
response  to Representative  Parish,  he confirmed  the cohort  3                                                               
bond issuance, with a $70 million  balloon payment, is also not a                                                               
large bond issuance.                                                                                                            
MR. ALPER further explained cohort 1  is the bond issuance to pay                                                               
$807 million  of known  and current tax  credits; payment  of the                                                               
subsequent cohorts was  modeled by DOR in multiple  ways in order                                                               
to establish  the present  value to the  state, when  compared to                                                               
the existing  statutory payment schedule, and  [the proposed bond                                                               
program]  is  a  moneymaker  for  the  state.    Furthermore,  he                                                               
cautioned bond  committees can  ask for certain  terms, but  in a                                                               
free market transaction, terms must be attractive to buyers.                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  TARR  asked Representative  Parish  if  the bill  needs                                                               
additional  prescriptive language  related to  the activities  of                                                               
the proposed bond corporation.                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH opined it is  up to the committee to decide                                                               
how  much latitude  to  grant the  bond  corporation, related  to                                                               
issuing  bonds for  an  amount  near $1  billion,  and urged  for                                                               
further restrictions on incurring state debt.                                                                                   
CO-CHAIR TARR  inquired as to why  three department commissioners                                                               
would  comprise  the board  of  directors  of the  proposed  bond                                                               
corporation,  which  differs  from  the  boards  of  other  state                                                               
MR. BARNHILL stated  the language of HB 331, Section  2, is based                                                               
on  statutes   creating  the   Alaska  Pension   Obligation  Bond                                                               
Corporation  and authorizing  the State  Bond Committee  to issue                                                               
debt.  By  drafting the bill in this manner,  DOR's intention was                                                               
to demonstrate  that the structure  within HB 331  has previously                                                               
been enacted into law.                                                                                                          
2:19:18 PM                                                                                                                    
DEVEN MITCHELL,  Executive Director,  Alaska Municipal  Bond Bank                                                               
Authority,  DOR, said  the structures  of both  the board  of the                                                               
Alaska Pension  Obligation Bond Corporation and  the proposed Tax                                                               
Credit Certificate  Bond Corporation  are designed  to administer                                                               
bonds issued for  the sole purpose of paying a  debt related to a                                                               
state activity; the  state is the obligor,  thus at-large members                                                               
are not necessary  as they are for  a board such as  the board of                                                               
directors of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation.                                                                            
REPRESENTATIVE   PARISH  questioned   why   the  Alaska   Pension                                                               
Obligation Bond Corporation failed to issue bonds.                                                                              
MR. MITCHELL  recalled there were legislative  concerns about the                                                               
transaction.   Although all the  aspects of the  transaction were                                                               
completed, "a decision was made  that due to legislative concerns                                                               
about  the transaction,  that we  should hold  off."   In further                                                               
response  to Representative  Parish, Mr.  Mitchell explained  the                                                               
Senate Finance Committee sent a  letter to the governor about its                                                               
concerns  in  this  matter,  which  raised  the  issue  with  the                                                               
underwriting   community,   and   the   governor   canceled   the                                                               
transaction [in the fall of 2016].                                                                                              
MR.  ALPER stated  the [legislation  creating the  Alaska Pension                                                               
Obligation  Bond  Corporation]  differs  from that  of  [HB  331]                                                               
because [issuance  of the] pension obligation  bonds was intended                                                               
to  address  the  unfunded pension  liability,  and  he  provided                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH said  it is  "a little  bit odd  to borrow                                                               
money to get out of debt ...."                                                                                                  
MR. MITCHELL, in further response  to Representative Parish, said                                                               
he did  could not summarize  the concerns within the  letter from                                                               
the Senate  Finance Committee, however,  the letter  is available                                                               
to the public.                                                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH   redirected  his  question,  as   to  the                                                               
specifics of said letter, to Mr. Barnhill and Mr. Alper.                                                                        
2:23:56 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. BARNHILL noted there are  philosophical differences about the                                                               
merits  of   pension  obligation  bonds  within   the  state  and                                                               
nationwide.   He  opined certain  legislators regard  the state's                                                               
pension obligation  as a "soft  liability."   However, nonpayment                                                               
transforms debt  into a "hard  liability" with debt  service that                                                               
must  be paid;  in  fact,  nonpayment of  debt  service on  bonds                                                               
issued by  a state  corporation would  have ramifications  to the                                                               
state's credit  rating.  Mr.  Barnhill further  described aspects                                                               
of pension  obligation bonds.   He affirmed  [HB 331]  differs in                                                               
that  there  is  no  ongoing liability,  but  instead  creates  a                                                               
mechanism so  the state can  make payments  to small oil  and gas                                                               
explorers  who  were  attracted  to Alaska  by  the  offering  of                                                               
cashable oil and  gas tax credits.  The state  has not fully paid                                                               
the credits  that have  accrued, resulting  in disruption  to the                                                               
industry, and this  form of financing can  provide some immediate                                                               
relief.     He  discussed  how   DOR  modeled   alternative  bond                                                               
2:27:54 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR observed [HB 331]  proposes a bond of approximately                                                               
$1  billion,  which is  much  larger  than the  previous  general                                                               
obligation (GO) bond issued in 2006.                                                                                            
MR.  BARNHILL said  the size  of the  proposed bond  issuance has                                                               
been determined  by the purpose  of the legislation, which  is to                                                               
pay off accrued tax credits estimated to be $800 million.                                                                       
MR. ALPER stressed there was  concern about the state's risk with                                                               
pension  obligation bonds  because  the value  of the  securities                                                               
bought by the  bond money can go down; however,  the bond program                                                               
proposed by  HB 331  does not  buy securities,  but pays  a fixed                                                               
obligation, thus there is not a comparable risk.                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  posed the scenario  in which the  bill was                                                               
enacted and the  companies holding credits accepted  the terms of                                                               
the  legislation:   the state  would still  have $184  million in                                                               
outstanding tax credits, through  the existing statutory program,                                                               
and  he  asked whether  the  state  would  pay tax  credits  both                                                               
through the  statutory program  and through  the tax  credit bond                                                               
MR. BARNHILL  opined if the  bill were enacted, the  $184 million                                                               
in  the  operating budget  [for  the  existing statutory  payment                                                               
program]  would be  reduced to  the first-year  debt service;  in                                                               
fact, the Alaska  State Senate put $184 million in  the budget in                                                               
order to  reflect existing  statute and  fund [AS  43.55.028. Oil                                                               
and Gas Tax Credit Fund].  He explained:                                                                                        
     [The  view of]  some  stakeholders  of the  legislature                                                                    
     [is]  that  the  budget   should  have  been  submitted                                                                    
     initially,  with   respect  to  existing   statute,  as                                                                    
     opposed to a  proposed bill.  So, the  way the governor                                                                    
     submitted  the   budget  in  December   reflected  debt                                                                    
     service on  a bill  that had  yet to  be enacted.   So,                                                                    
     what the Senate has done  is essentially put the budget                                                                    
     back to existing state law  and then it would change to                                                                    
     reflect that debt service if the bill were to pass.                                                                        
REPRESENTATIVE   PARISH  surmised   a  company   that  does   not                                                               
participate  in the  proposal would  have a  legitimate grievance                                                               
against the  state if repurchases  are not made according  to the                                                               
schedule in statute.                                                                                                            
2:33:21 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  ALPER  acknowledged  the possibility  a  company  would  not                                                               
participate and would  expect full access to  the money available                                                               
[in   the   existing  payment   program].      He  stated   DOR's                                                               
interpretation of existing statute:                                                                                             
     Our  interpretation  of the  tax  credit  fund and  how                                                                    
     money  is spent  from it  is we  would not  have to  do                                                                    
     that.  ... We  would look  at the  holder of  that $184                                                                    
     million  credit and  say,  "Where  would they  normally                                                                    
     have  been paid,  in the  absence  of this  bill?"   If                                                                    
     their credits  are further down the  chain enough, they                                                                    
     might not get anything in  FY 19, if they're toward the                                                                    
     front  they might  get some  proportional share  of the                                                                    
     [$184  million].    And  we would  intend  to  pay  any                                                                    
     individual that held  back at the same  rate, and along                                                                    
      the same formula, that they would have been paid had                                                                      
     the bill not passed.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  asked how  HB  331  would facilitate  the                                                               
department's interpretation.                                                                                                    
MR. ALPER stated  the language mandating DOR's  discretion is not                                                               
explicitly in  the bill; however,  elsewhere in  existing statute                                                               
it is  established that it  is discretionary for DOR  to purchase                                                               
tax credits.  He clarified:                                                                                                     
     It  is our  intent,  and I'm  happy to  say  it on  the                                                                    
     record, to,  to not allow  that sort of gaming  by only                                                                    
     making payments.   We  don't want  anyone to  be unduly                                                                    
     helped by  choosing to not participate  in the program.                                                                    
     And we would,  to the best of our  ability, endeavor to                                                                    
     interpret future purchases along those lines.                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE   PARISH  inquired   as   to   whether  a   future                                                               
administration could choose a different interpretation.                                                                         
MR. ALPER said yes.                                                                                                             
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  observed implicit in  HB 331 would  be the                                                               
legislature's expectation  that the  state would depart  from the                                                               
statutory payment schedule and reduce  the allocations to a level                                                               
proportionate  to  the number  of  credits  [for companies]  that                                                               
don't participate in the program.                                                                                               
2:36:08 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. ALPER agreed and suggested other  options could be to veto an                                                               
appropriation "down to that number,"  or simply "not spend all of                                                               
it, [and  DOR] ... holding some  back, perhaps to spend  the next                                                               
year."    In  further  response   to  Representative  Parish,  he                                                               
confirmed  the  third  alternative  would  be  an  administrative                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH posed  a scenario in which  one company has                                                               
[$184 million] in  credits, and the state  allocates $184 million                                                               
for the  statutory payment, and asked  whether the administration                                                               
could purchase said credits for full value.                                                                                     
MR. ALPER said yes.                                                                                                             
REPREPRESENTATIVE PARISH continued:                                                                                             
     If that  were to happen,  if we followed  the statutory                                                                    
     payment  schedule  and had  the  passage  of this  bill                                                                    
     removing   the   large    majority   of   the   credits                                                                    
     outstanding, then in the next  year we might, while the                                                                    
     statutory payment  schedule under the, the  pretend tax                                                                    
     rate  of 35  percent instead  of the  actual, including                                                                    
     the $8 per  barrel credit, would be enough  to wipe out                                                                    
     all  credits earned  next year.   And  credits, or  the                                                                    
     statutory  payment the  next year  would  be enough  to                                                                    
     wipe out all  credits claimed that year,  and so forth,                                                                    
     so forth.   So,  the, the  following three  cohorts, if                                                                    
     the  administration  decided  to follow  the  statutory                                                                    
     payment  schedule, well,  they'd have  no incentive  to                                                                    
     participate, would they?                                                                                                   
MR. ALPER  said yes.   If cohort 2 represents  approximately $100                                                               
million  worth  of  credits and  $100  million  is  appropriated,                                                               
companies may assume if they hold  back, they'll be paid in full;                                                               
however, he  opined that would  be "a profound unfairness"  and a                                                               
situation DOR would seek to prevent.   In fact, DOR would support                                                               
an  amendment   to  subparagraph  (k)  that   would  prevent  the                                                               
aforementioned situation.                                                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  suggested companies "retain all  of their,                                                               
their credits  but have  them sign  off the  value of  using them                                                               
against their  taxes and  say that they're  willing to  give this                                                               
portion  to the  state for  a, a  payment of  $1 or  zero dollars                                                               
even."   If  so, the  state could  justify leaving  companies "in                                                               
their place in line ... in  determining the order at which people                                                               
got repaid ...."  Representative Parish provided an example.                                                                    
2:41:14 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  ALPER  cautioned negotiations  in  this  regard would  begin                                                               
soon; the $100 million expected in  cohort 2 are credits that are                                                               
largely tied  to last  year's activity on  tax returns  that have                                                               
been  filed, and  the  credits  will be  issued  in July  [2018].                                                               
Further,  depending upon  the effective  date of  the bill,  some                                                               
cohort  2 credits  may be  included in  cohort 1  which, ideally,                                                               
could eliminate cohorts 3 and 4.   However, with 37 active credit                                                               
holders  who received  pro  rata  shares of  FY  18 funding,  and                                                               
others  who did  not, he  said he  was unsure  whether DOR  could                                                               
negotiate term changes with all the parties.                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  noted the state would  be negotiating term                                                               
changes with all 37 credit holders if HB 331 were enacted.                                                                      
MR.  ALPER said  yes;  however,  [HB 331]  does  not provide  for                                                               
negotiations, but  provides a  mathematical formula  to determine                                                               
offerings based on a party's credits.                                                                                           
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH posited  a situation  in which  there were                                                               
two companies  that each held $300  million in tax credits  for a                                                               
total value of $600 million:   company "A" agrees to participate,                                                               
takes  a  7 percent  discount  [referred  to  as a  haircut]  and                                                               
accepts  a  payment,  leaving  the state  with  $200  million  in                                                               
statutory  payments; company  ["B"] gets  $200 million  plus $100                                                               
million next year.                                                                                                              
MR.  ALPER  restated DOR's  intent  that,  in the  aforementioned                                                               
scenario, if  the amount appropriated  was $200 million,  each of                                                               
the companies would  get one-third, and the  second company would                                                               
also be  paid $100 million.   Although not explicit in  the bill,                                                               
this is  DOR's interpretation of  "how it  should be done  in the                                                               
name of fairness,  and again, if we  would like to find  a way to                                                               
get it  locked into statute,  I'm happy to  try to work  with you                                                               
for that."                                                                                                                      
2:45:44 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  TALERICO, from  his interpretation  of the  bill,                                                               
opined once  the state  offers a  certain bond  package, existing                                                               
statute would allow a particular  percentage of tax credits to be                                                               
paid; however, if  a company chooses a bond package,  and its tax                                                               
credit is  paid, the state's  tax credit liability  disappears to                                                               
whatever volume was paid off, and is  no longer a tax credit.  He                                                               
gave the following example:                                                                                                     
     We'll use  a billion dollars,  and half a  billion gets                                                                    
     paid  out  in  bonds,  our  previous  liability  was  a                                                                    
     billion dollars.   We have  a bond  financing liability                                                                    
     that we're dealing  with but, that, we  make that, that                                                                    
     annual payment on, but our  actual, legal definition of                                                                    
     a tax credit  liability has just been cut in  half.  Am                                                                    
     I mistaken there?   ...  I think that,  due to level of                                                                    
     participation.    There's seems  to  be  a concern  ...                                                                    
     because we've  got this statutory requirement,  and say                                                                    
     we had  to put  $150 million in  there, we're  going to                                                                    
     have  to do  that forever  until all  these people  are                                                                    
     paid off.   My argument  would actually be,  no, those,                                                                    
     those  people that  participate in  the bond  have been                                                                    
     removed, whatever  tax credit they had  is removed from                                                                    
     the tax credit liability ....                                                                                              
2:47:49 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  TARR  asked  Mr. Alper  to  respond  to  Representative                                                               
Talerico  within the  context of  House Bill  111 [passed  in the                                                               
Thirtieth   Alaska   State   Legislature];  she   expressed   her                                                               
understanding [AS 43.55.028.  Oil and Gas Tax  Credit Fund] would                                                               
exist until  all of the credits  were paid, and HB  331 would not                                                               
repeal the statutory payment formula.                                                                                           
MR.  ALPER stated  House Bill  111 provides  for a  repeal of  AS                                                               
43.55.028  one  year  after  the  last  tax  credit  is  claimed.                                                               
Although  HB  331  may  or   may  not  foreshorten  that  period,                                                               
appropriation of  the statutory formula  is fully up to  the will                                                               
of the legislature.  He remarked:                                                                                               
     If half the  credits left the field  one reasonable way                                                                    
     to approach that  ... [is to] figure  out the statutory                                                                    
     appropriation and  cut it in  half to address  the idea                                                                    
     that half  of the credits are  no longer in play.   ...                                                                    
     But again, there's  a lot of individual  will at stake,                                                                    
     because you're  talking about budgets  for legislatures                                                                    
     that haven't been elected yet.                                                                                             
MR.  BARNHILL added  DOR  has been  in contact  with  all 37  tax                                                               
credit  holders and  all  have been  provided  with estimates  of                                                               
their  tax  credits under  a  10  percent  discount rate  and  an                                                               
estimated 5.1 percent discount rate.   In response to an informal                                                               
poll,  at  this  point  no  tax credit  holder  has  declined  to                                                               
participate in the program, and DOR  expects most, if not all, to                                                               
participate, eventually.  Although the  final version of the bill                                                               
is  unknown,  he said  DOR  seeks  legislation to  eliminate  the                                                               
state's obligation in  a manner attractive to  tax credit holders                                                               
and tolerated by stakeholders.                                                                                                  
CO-CHAIR TARR  returned attention  to slide 10  which illustrated                                                               
payments to a credit holder due  $100 million in credits would be                                                               
paid over  four years;  however, a  company with  certificates in                                                               
the  amount of  $100 million  would  have the  expectation to  be                                                               
"first in, first out."                                                                                                          
2:52:06 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  ALPER acknowledged  slide 10  is a  stylized and  simplified                                                               
model of  no specific company;  he gave  an example of  a company                                                               
with $100  million in tax  credits, there are $400  million worth                                                               
of  [outstanding]  credits,  and   the  state  appropriates  $100                                                               
million per  year for four  years:  under the  existing statutory                                                               
formula,  the  company would  get  paid  its  pro rata  share  25                                                               
percent per year.   Instead, under the bond program,  as shown on                                                               
slide  14, the  payment  schedule would  actually  be a  six-year                                                               
plan; $89  million, paid in  FY 24, would  be less than  the full                                                               
year's appropriation  per the statutory  formula, but is  all the                                                               
state would  need given the known  amount.  He pointed  out slide                                                               
14 assumes  no credits  are sold to  major producers  even though                                                               
DOR believes $125  million in credits will be  sold to producers,                                                               
and that would reduce the  total outstanding to $821 million, and                                                               
other effects.   Mr. Alper stressed all of the  math presented is                                                               
preliminary and  presumptive of  certain possibilities;  in fact,                                                               
the  language of  the  bill  allows DOR  to  "lock  down all  the                                                               
numbers  in the  weeks  and days,  literally,  before the  actual                                                               
market transaction of selling the bonds goes through."                                                                          
CO-CHAIR TARR observed:                                                                                                         
     If you just  take the face value of  $100 million, with                                                                    
     a  10  percent  discount,  then you'd  be  getting  $90                                                                    
     million, but  if you allow  ... it  to go in  the other                                                                    
     direction, and  just apply the discount  on that annual                                                                    
     basis, as  you're continuing to reduce  the value, then                                                                    
     ... it's a few million  less.  ... [Conversely], if I'm                                                                    
     holding a $100 million certificate  today and I sign up                                                                    
     for  the  program as  it  begins,  because I'm  holding                                                                    
     certificates  from  two  prior  years,  possibly,  that                                                                    
     haven't  been  paid, that  I  would  only want  you  to                                                                    
     discount  ...  that, but  not  be  able to  apply  some                                                                    
     delayed ...  payment schedule to it  because, you know,                                                                    
     it further is going to reduce the value.                                                                                   
MR.  BARNHILL assured  the committee  every company  has received                                                               
the  pertinent  information illustrated  on  slide  10; from  his                                                               
discussions with the tax credit  holders, he advised the majority                                                               
of companies are  willing to accept a payment  "that seems fair."                                                               
[DOR] decided to  offer a 10 percent discount rate  because it is                                                               
a midpoint  between the state's  5 percent cost of  borrowing and                                                               
the average  cost of capital for  the companies, which is  in the                                                               
15-18 percent  range.  Mr.  Barnhill opined, "They're  not wildly                                                               
enthusiastic  about a  10 percent  discount rate,  or even  a 5.1                                                               
percent discount  rate, but  I think  at the end  of the  day, if                                                               
it's that or nothing, they'll be in."                                                                                           
CO-CHAIR  TARR   expressed  her  understanding  if,   instead  of                                                               
directing  money in  the budget  plan [to  pay tax  credits], the                                                               
state applies a discount rate  and borrows, the net present value                                                               
is greater.                                                                                                                     
MR.  ALPER mentioned  other informal  ideas, such  as negotiating                                                               
with individual  companies, and cautioned  the state  would still                                                               
need  to appropriate  money;  the bonding  proposal  is the  only                                                               
scenario that  avoids appropriating $200 million  to $300 million                                                               
during a fiscal crisis.                                                                                                         
2:57:35 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  returned attention  to slide 10  and asked                                                               
whether  four  years would  be  the  typical anticipated  payback                                                               
MR. BARNHILL said three to four years.                                                                                          
MR. ALPER  returned attention to  slide 14 and  explained credits                                                               
with a 2016  origin date - under normal circumstances  - would be                                                               
paid between  FY 19 and  FY 20, and  "the first small  portion of                                                               
the FY  21 money would  pay off the last  of them ...."   Credits                                                               
originating in 2017 would  be paid for with FY 21,  FY 22, and FY                                                               
23 money;  FY 23  and FY 24  money would pay  the remaining.   He                                                               
offered  to provide  the committee  with a  model to  show how  a                                                               
company  with  tax credits  originating  in  two different  years                                                               
would normally  be paid.   In further response  to Representative                                                               
Parish,  he said  he  would also  provide  the statutory  payment                                                               
schedule previously reported to the House Finance Committee.                                                                    
3:01:47 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  stated the statutory payment  schedule and                                                               
the proposed  payment schedules  differ from  "existing practice"                                                               
with regard to  term and rates, and the original  practice was to                                                               
pay full  face value every year,  which he opined was  a mistake.                                                               
He   returned  attention   to  the   aforementioned  hypothetical                                                               
situation he posed  with two companies, each of  which holds $300                                                               
million  in tax  credits [documentation  not provided].   In  the                                                               
foregoing scenario, the statutory  [payment] amount would be $200                                                               
million and,  if the bill were  enacted, the state could  pay one                                                               
company for  its existing  credits at a  7 percent  discount, and                                                               
the other company  could get full face value over  two years.  He                                                               
proposed  that if  a  company choose  to  participate, the  state                                                               
could  eliminate  one  tranche   of  its  payments  according  to                                                               
"current  statutory guidance."   Representative  Parish continued                                                               
with  further details  of this  hypothetical situation  and asked                                                               
Mr. Barnhill, "Do you follow?"                                                                                                  
3:06:01 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. BARNHILL  said he did  not.  However,  DOR would be  happy to                                                               
discuss ideas proposed by the  committee in this regard, and then                                                               
present its  response at a  subsequent hearing.  He  recalled the                                                               
months of  work necessary  to draft  HB 331,  which is  a complex                                                               
bill, and one that is guided by policy objectives.                                                                              
CO-CHAIR  TARR  questioned  whether   the  bill  addresses  DOR's                                                               
concern that companies could choose  from two options and thereby                                                               
obtain  near-term  cash now,  and  later  rely on  the  statutory                                                               
formula, which would not pay down all the debt.                                                                                 
3:08:07 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  BARNHILL  assured  the  committee  the  bill  addresses  the                                                               
hypothetical  related  to two  options  because  all parties  who                                                               
participate get  paid from the  $184 million allocated in  FY 19,                                                               
100  cents  on  the  dollar;   further,  the  bill  requires  all                                                               
participants to  include all  of their credits.   He  restated no                                                               
company  has  refused  to  participate at  this  point  in  time.                                                               
Although there  is no  reason not to  explore other  options, DOR                                                               
needs a full  understanding of each proposal  prior to responding                                                               
[to proposals offered by the committee].                                                                                        
MR.  ALPER added  there are  multiple  aspects of  the bill  that                                                               
intend to restrict the freedom  of companies to take advantage by                                                               
choosing not  to participate; furthermore,  DOR does not  wish to                                                               
discourage companies  from participating.   However,  he restated                                                               
his concern that  a future administration may  interpret the bill                                                               
differently, and  therefore, if the committee  seeks to constrain                                                               
participants -  by directing  DOR to  pay a pro  rata share  - an                                                               
amendment  could be  drafted  to  do so.    The department  fully                                                               
supports  the  goal of  preventing  one  company from  getting  a                                                               
financial advantage over another company by not participating.                                                                  
CO-CHAIR TARR  suggested Representatives Parish and  Talerico co-                                                               
draft an amendment.  She stated  her reluctance to support HB 331                                                               
instead  of   legislation  that  would  establish   a  three-year                                                               
timeline,  rather  than ten  years,  and  reviewed several  other                                                               
aspects of the  bill.   She  said her preference would  be to pay                                                               
the credits off sooner, through  a fiscal plan, although the bill                                                               
"may be the best option."                                                                                                       
MR. BARNHILL said if the  bill were enacted the legislature would                                                               
have the option to prepay the debt.                                                                                             
3:13:11 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. MITCHELL cautioned  typical municipal bonds are  issued for a                                                               
standard  ten-year par  call; if  the term  is shortened  to less                                                               
than  seven  years, a  penalty  must  be  paid, and  he  provided                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  LINCOLN, regarding  DOR's  interpretation of  the                                                               
statutory payment  schedule, asked  how long  the state  has used                                                               
the aforementioned interpretation to  pay credits, and how firmly                                                               
this precedent is established.                                                                                                  
MR.  ALPER said  the formula  was established  in 2007  by [House                                                               
Bill 2001,  Alaska's Clear and  Equitable Share (ACES)  passed in                                                               
the   Twenty-Fifth  Alaska   State   Legislature],  with   little                                                               
indication  of legislative  intent; more  importantly, under  the                                                               
ACES  tax structure,  there was  not as  much of  an impact  from                                                               
credits  used against  [tax] liability  and thereby  reducing tax                                                               
calculations.  However, beginning  in 2013, subsequent to passage                                                               
of [Senate  Bill 21,  More Alaska Production  Act, passed  in the                                                               
Twenty-Eighth Alaska  State Legislature], oil and  gas taxes were                                                               
greatly reduced by the credits,  which created "distortions," and                                                               
DOR's interpretation of the language  in the legislation was that                                                               
the  tax should  be  a percentage  of the  amount  levied by  [AS                                                               
43.55.011 Oil  and Gas  Production Tax.]   Therefore,  during the                                                               
2015 legislative  session, following  the collapse of  oil prices                                                               
and increasing state  deficits, and in response  to requests from                                                               
legislators, DOR's interpretation of  the statute resulted in $91                                                               
million for  a tax credit  appropriation.  However, in  2015, the                                                               
budget passed with an open  appropriation which was vetoed by the                                                               
governor to  $500 million; in  2016, $30  million - based  on the                                                               
funding formula - was placed  in the operating budget for funding                                                               
tax  credits;  in  2017,  $77  million was  agreed  upon  by  the                                                               
legislature.   He  advised between  2017 and  2018 -  because the                                                               
price of  oil rose - attention  was turned to the  formula and to                                                               
DOR's alternative  interpretation.   Mr. Alper  was unsure  as to                                                               
whether  the  alternative  formula calculation  was  contemplated                                                               
before this session.                                                                                                            
3:19:04 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LINCOLN inquired  as to  the expectations  of the                                                               
companies  that  chose  to  invest in  the  tax  credit  program,                                                               
related to the "minimum payment,"  when many investment decisions                                                               
were made  by companies during  2014-2016, prior to  awareness of                                                               
this issue.                                                                                                                     
MR.  ALPER,   speaking  from  industry's   perspective,  affirmed                                                               
industry's first  choice would  be for  full payment,  its second                                                               
choice would be a  plan to pay off $300 million  per year for the                                                               
next three years for the sake  of certainty, and its third choice                                                               
would be knowing that statutory  appropriations - as DOR has been                                                               
currently  calculating them  - are  coming.   Although buoyed  by                                                               
rising  oil  prices,  debate  over  two  interpretations  of  the                                                               
statutory  payment  schedule  give industry  substantial  anxiety                                                               
about  years  of  continued  debate  leading  to  unresolved  and                                                               
undependable appropriations; he  said the intent of HB  331 is to                                                               
forestall further argument.                                                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  LINCOLN  asked  whether   it  is  reasonable  for                                                               
industry to  expect more than  a minimum payment after  the state                                                               
marketed a  program which urged  exploration companies  to invest                                                               
in Alaska.                                                                                                                      
3:22:12 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  BARNHILL  advised the  statutory  formula  is based  on  the                                                               
highly volatile  price of oil,  thus industry's expectation  of a                                                               
legislative appropriation  should be tempered with  the knowledge                                                               
the price of oil is very  difficult to know.  However, industry's                                                               
expectations,  when based  on the  state's marketing  program and                                                               
previous funding  of tax credits,  are that "money would  be paid                                                               
sooner rather than later."   He cautioned the legal ramifications                                                               
of  various  statutory  interpretations  are  ultimately  unknown                                                               
because  for  many  years,  the legislature  paid  all  [the  tax                                                               
credits] when  presented, marketed  Mr. Moose, and  made promises                                                               
of cash.                                                                                                                        
CO-CHAIR TARR  restated her  interest in  a fiscal  plan, without                                                               
borrowing money.  She observed tax  credits in the amount of $807                                                               
million are outstanding  now, and an additional  $139 million are                                                               
expected in calendar year 2017 (slide 14).                                                                                      
3:26:23 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  ALPER said  correct; the  forecast  is $807  million, as  of                                                               
12/31  [2017].   Further,  as  provided  by  House Bill  111,  of                                                               
operating loss  credits earned in  calendar year 2017,  only one-                                                               
half are  eligible for cash  repurchase, and he gave  an example.                                                               
Thus, the  anticipated total of  [2017] credits is  one-half what                                                               
it would have been, and there  have been other reductions to cash                                                               
repurchase aspects of the tax credit program.                                                                                   
3:28:07 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR returned to the  $807 million forecast and surmised                                                               
with a buyout of the three  major [oil companies] of $125 million                                                               
at  a 10  percent discount  rate, the  state could  "whittle this                                                               
down," to  a manageable two-year  payout schedule.   She restated                                                               
she would  prefer to issue  bonds for capital  and infrastructure                                                               
improvements and not to borrow money.                                                                                           
MR. ALPER pointed out  the administration unsuccessfully proposed                                                               
a  revenue bill  that would  have raised  about $300  million per                                                               
year by assessing  a [new] statewide tax  of approximately $2,000                                                               
upon   every  working   person.     He   further  discussed   the                                                               
difficulties  the state  would have  to raise  $300 million,  and                                                               
restated industry's support for HB  331 is based on the certainty                                                               
companies would  be paid,  at a  discount, in  full.   In further                                                               
response to  Co-Chair Tarr,  he said, to  his knowledge,  DOR did                                                               
not evaluate whether  companies could be paid, first  with a lump                                                               
sum, and debt financing afterward for the remainder.                                                                            
CO-CHAIR  JOSEPHSON opined  the administration  seeks a  solution                                                               
[to pay tax credits]; although  there could be litigation in this                                                               
regard, in court, the statute  favors the state's position on the                                                               
equity  side  of  the  statute, even  though  industry  also  has                                                               
[valid]   arguments.     He  recalled   in   January  2016,   the                                                               
administration unsuccessfully sought a  1 percent increase in the                                                               
"gross floor,  which would have  brought in $50 million  ...." to                                                               
"pay all these down."   Co-Chair Josephson concluded industry has                                                               
made substantial cuts, and it is  logical for the state to do the                                                               
same, in an equal response to a crash in the oil economy.                                                                       
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  stated support  for the bill  with several                                                               
reservations.   He asked whether the  estimated statutory payment                                                               
schedule  (slide 14)  was  based on  [DOR's  Spring 2018  revenue                                                               
MR. BARNHILL said yes.                                                                                                          
3:35:14 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH  surmised  a  revenue  forecast  could  be                                                               
MR.  ALPER  said  the  payment  schedule  reflects  DOR's  median                                                               
forecast of the price of oil  for the coming year, and whether it                                                               
is above  or below  $60 [per  barrel].   Relatively fixed  is the                                                               
[statutory  payment  of]   $184  million,  and  in   FY  20,  the                                                               
[statutory  payment   of]  $168  million.     Subsequent  revenue                                                               
forecasts  in  fall 2018,  and  spring  2019,  will lead  to  new                                                               
calculations  based  on  the  expected price  of  oil  and  other                                                               
factors, although "there's  a lot of swing," and  he gave several                                                               
examples of forecasts  that were affected by  rising and lowering                                                               
oil prices.   He offered  to provide information from  the spring                                                               
revenue forecast to the committee.                                                                                              
CO-CHAIR TARR  returned attention to  [slide 10] and asked  for a                                                               
further review of the [two alternative discount] rates.                                                                         
MR. MITCHELL  explained 3.6  percent is the  estimated cost  of a                                                               
taxable transaction  with amortization of [payment  schedules] as                                                               
shown on slide 14.  An  additional 1.5 percent is embedded in the                                                               
bill to  maintain a 1.5  percent spread between the  state's cost                                                               
of capital and the [companies']  discount rate; therefore, as the                                                               
state's rate  increases or decreases,  the discount rate  for the                                                               
participating companies would also  adjust to the market, between                                                               
now and pricing.                                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TARR  noted  the  program   may  span  ten  years,  and                                                               
questioned if, in the event  interest rates rise, the 5.1 percent                                                               
rate would automatically increase, so  the state would maintain a                                                               
1.5 percent "cushion."                                                                                                          
3:39:35 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. MITCHELL  said yes,  and added the  3.6 interest  is somewhat                                                               
high;  in  fact, some  of  the  bonds  may  be eligible  for  tax                                                               
exemption, which would be favorable to the state.                                                                               
3:40:35 PM                                                                                                                    
CO-CHAIR  TARR  asked  whether the  1.5  percent  represents  the                                                               
administrative cost associated with the bonding process.                                                                        
MR. BARNHILL  clarified the  1.5 percent  is intended  to protect                                                               
the state's attempt  to achieve equivalency in  net present value                                                               
terms:  if interest rates  increase, the discount rate increases,                                                               
and the state is protected.  He remarked:                                                                                       
     If we  didn't have that  cushion in there, it  would be                                                                    
     much more  difficult for us  to sit before you  and say                                                                    
     that, "This is  all going to pencil out  in net present                                                                    
     value  terms that  are favorable  or equivalent  to the                                                                    
CO-CHAIR TARR  concluded the percentage of  cushion is arbitrary,                                                               
and a more conservative percentage would be 1.75.                                                                               
MR. BARNHILL  cautioned an increase  would be less  attractive to                                                               
MR. ALPER,  in further response  to Co-Chair Tarr, pointed  out a                                                               
company's commitment  would be made  within a period of  a couple                                                               
of  weeks and  would  be  for a  fixed  rate;  if interest  rates                                                               
increase within  said two-week  period, the  state could  lose [a                                                               
portion  of its  cushion], but  would never  "go negative."   The                                                               
bond  offer and  timing  are  part of  the  bill  in Section  10,                                                               
subsection (k).  Although the  3.6 interest rate is not specified                                                               
in  the  legislation,  subsection  (m)  defines  the  term  "true                                                               
interest  cost  plus 1.5  percent";  thus  the 1.5  [cushion]  is                                                               
established  in the  bill, and  the true  interest cost  would be                                                               
determined by market conditions.                                                                                                
CO-CHAIR  TARR  pointed out  a  cushion  is  not built  into  the                                                               
[alternative] 10 percent discount rate.                                                                                         
MR. APLER said no.                                                                                                              
MR. BARNHILL restated DOR's reasoning for  the bill was to find a                                                               
fair midpoint  between the  state's cost of  capital and  that of                                                               
small oil and gas companies.                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LINCOLN asked  for clarification  that the  bonds                                                               
are offered at a fixed rate over a certain term.                                                                                
MR. MITCHELL said, although not  a requirement in the bill, fixed                                                               
rate bonds have been modeled  and are the most conservative mode;                                                               
however, in  shorter term transactions,  the bill allows  for the                                                               
use  of variable  rates.   Returning  to the  issue  - raised  by                                                               
Representative  Parish -  concerning  the  latitude afforded  the                                                               
bond corporation within the bill  related to the structure of the                                                               
bonds,  he said  this latitude  is intentional  because the  bond                                                               
corporation must  respond to  market conditions;  therefore, this                                                               
function in state public corporations,  and for state revenue and                                                               
GO bonds, needs to be delegated to the executive branch.                                                                        
3:46:13 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  LINCOLN  cautioned  there   could  be  a  lot  of                                                               
variance in  interest rates  between cohorts  and thus  the state                                                               
could experience a much different outcome.                                                                                      
MR. MITCHELL  affirmed the bond  corporation would have  to issue                                                               
fixed rate  bonds or the  state would incur "interest  rate risk"                                                               
for  the life  of the  transaction.   [A variable  interest rate]                                                               
would only be  an option for participants who  were receiving the                                                               
10 percent discount rate and hadn't bought down their rate.                                                                     
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH added  the state  is also  exposed to  the                                                               
risk  of the  price of  oil  dropping, and  thereby lowering  the                                                               
state's net present value.                                                                                                      
MR. ALPER answered  if the bill were enacted and  the bonds sold,                                                               
that would lock  in the assumptions illustrated on  slide 14; for                                                               
example,  if the  price of  oil goes  down, the  payment schedule                                                               
would be extended and payments would  be delayed at a cost to the                                                               
state,  however, if  the  price goes  up,  the statutory  payment                                                               
would respond, and the state would make money.                                                                                  
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed attention to  the bill on page 13,                                                               
line 29, which read [in part][original punctuation provided]:                                                                   
      A discount rate based on the true interest cost plus                                                                      
     1.5 percent and is less than ten percent ....                                                                              
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH  asked why  the language includes,  "and is                                                               
less than 10 percent."                                                                                                          
3:50:02 PM                                                                                                                    
MR.  ALPER  explained 10  percent,  [on  page  13, line  29]  and                                                               
elsewhere  in the  bill,  describes the  base  rate available  to                                                               
everyone, and is there for drafting consistency.                                                                                
3:50:47 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH surmised, if  due to market conditions, the                                                               
true  interest  cost  to  the  state  became  9.99  percent,  the                                                               
incentive  to participate  at the  discount rate  could disappear                                                               
because  the  discount  rate  would  become  the  state's  actual                                                               
borrowing  cost.   He  suggested a  remedy  for this  possibility                                                               
would be  to specify the  "standard" rate  would be based  on the                                                               
true cost of interest, plus 5.5 percent.                                                                                        
MR. ALPER acknowledged there  is a risk to the state  - at the 10                                                               
percent discount rate  - if interest rates "spike,"  and in order                                                               
to protect  the state, the  interest rate would have  to "float."                                                               
He  advised a  dramatic swing  in interest  rates is  unlikely to                                                               
happen to  affect cohort  1, and  the impact on  cohorts 2,  3, 4                                                               
would be  much smaller.   He  directed attention  to the  bill on                                                               
page 14, line 3, which read:                                                                                                    
        AS 43.55.025, a discount rate based on the true                                                                         
     interest cost plus 1.5 percent and is                                                                                      
MR. ALPER said  the first reference [on page 13,  line 29] refers                                                               
to corporate  income tax  credits and  refinery credits,  and the                                                               
reference on page  14, line 3, is applicable to  the "other three                                                               
REPRESENTATIVE  PARISH asked  whether any  companies holding  tax                                                               
credits  have promised  to participate  [in the  tax credit  bond                                                               
3:53:48 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. BARNHILL said  yes, the majority of  companies have indicated                                                               
they would, in an informal and nonbinding sense.                                                                                
[HB 331 was held over.]                                                                                                         
3:55:10 PM                                                                                                                    
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:55 p.m.                                                                 

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB331 Transmittal Letter.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Version A.PDF HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Fiscal Note -DNR-DOG 1.29.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX 2.5.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Supporting Document - Presentation Credit Bonds for HRES 3.30.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Supporting Document - DOR.LAW 3.2.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Sectional Analysis 3.29.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM
HB 331
HB331 Supporting Document - Letter of Support 3.29.18.pdf HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 331
AOGA Testimony - HB 331 - 4.4.2018.pdf HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM
HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM
HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM
HB 331