Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
02/29/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR32 | |
| HB328 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 328 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 29, 2012
2:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32
Urging the United States Congress to remove wood bison from
protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and to grant
control of wood bison in Alaska to the state.
- MOVED CSHJR 32(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 328
"An Act relating to the oil and gas corporate income tax;
relating to the credits against the oil and gas corporate income
tax; making conforming amendments; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 32
SHORT TITLE: REMOVE WOOD BISON FROM ENDANGERED LIST
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) DICK
02/01/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/12 (H) RES
02/29/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 328
SHORT TITLE: OIL AND GAS CORPORATE TAXES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SEATON
02/17/12 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/12 (H) RES, FIN
02/29/12 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff
Representative Alan Dick
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 32 on behalf of the prime
sponsor, Representative Dick.
MIKE MILLER, Executive Director
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center
Portage Glacier, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in regard to HJR 32.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director
Division of Wildlife Conservation
Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HJR 32.
ROBYNN WILSON, Corporate Income Tax Manager
Anchorage Office
Tax Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to HB 328.
DEBORAH VOGT
Haines, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 328, provided a
history on Alaska's oil and gas industry taxing methods.
ACTION NARRATIVE
2:03:06 PM
CO-CHAIR ERIC FEIGE called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:03 p.m. Representatives Herron,
Dick, Gardner, P. Wilson, Seaton, and Feige were present at the
call to order. Representatives Kawasaki, Munoz, and Foster
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 32-REMOVE WOOD BISON FROM ENDANGERED LIST
2:03:41 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 32, Urging the United States
Congress to remove wood bison from protection under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 and to grant control of wood
bison in Alaska to the state.
2:04:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK, prime sponsor of HJR 32, reminded members
that last year the committee heard HB 186, but that HJR 32 will
be the ultimate answer for both the state and the wood bison.
The people who will benefit the most are the people of the
Yukon. Many groups and individuals within the state and the
nation are concerned about the bison. His concern all along has
not been with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game or the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, but with special interest groups that
could potentially file suit in federal court. He drew attention
to the [e-mail] of support from Deputy Commissioner Craig
Fleener of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game.
2:06:06 PM
PAUL VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Alan Dick, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HJR 32 on behalf of Representative Dick,
prime sponsor. He said last year Representative Dick filed HB
186 in an effort to prevent the Alaska Department of Fish & Game
(ADF&G) from reintroducing wood bison into the state without
approval by the legislature. However, between then and now,
things have happened with regard to the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). Several states have spent years working to get gray
wolves removed from the list [of endangered species] - with one
court ruling in their favor and then the next ruling against
them. These states eventually they took their case to Congress.
Congress intervened, exempting the gray wolf from the Endangered
Species Act; further, Congress made its decision not subject to
review by the courts. From Representative Dick's perspective, a
similar action by Congress would remove problems with releasing
the wood bison into the wild without the restrictions that come
along with the Endangered Species Act, and would allow
management of the wood bison by ADF&G.
2:07:18 PM
MR. VERHAGEN said HJR 32 urges Congress to intervene on the
state's behalf by exempting wood bison from the ESA. He related
that in a recent letter to Representative Dick, the regional
director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Geoffrey
Haskett, takes issue with some of the statements made in HJR 32.
However, Representative Dick does not question that the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has spent years working with ADF&G in
an effort to reintroduce wood bison. He does not question that
the service wants the project to move forward, nor does he
question the service's diligence in ensuring that the agreements
reached between the service and ADF&G comply with the most
current interpretation of the Endangered Species Act. Rather,
Representative Dick sympathizes with the service as it tries to
keep up with the various rulings and is constantly chasing a
moving target - and that is the point that Representative Dick
is making. While the Endangered Species Act was created with
the best of intentions by people with sincere concern for the
environment, the contradictory rulings have bogged things down
to the point that it appears the biggest obstacle to the wood
bison's success in Alaska is the act itself. If wood bison were
to be treated the same as the plains bison, they would be
wandering the landscape and Alaska would not have worry about
locked up resources. Although passage of this resolution will
not change anything itself, it will serve to remind Congress
again that in more than a few instances the Endangered Species
Act itself has become its own worst enemy. It may also prompt
Congress to step in and resolve Alaska's wood bison problem. If
Congress were to also exempt all bison, including the plains
bison, then Alaska would not need to worry about recent lawsuits
that have been filed to include plains bison under the
protection of the act.
2:10:11 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee substitute
(CS), version 27-LS1234\E, Bullard, 2/24/12, as the working
document. There being no objection, Version E was before the
committee.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired how much it is costing per
year to keep the wood bison at the Wildlife Conservation Center
while the state waits for the federal government to get its
regulations in order.
MR. VERHAGEN understood the cost is $100,000 per year. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service recently granted the state $200,000
for the bison's care.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK added that ADF&G and the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) are working together to get the bison
out on the landscape and are looking for an island where the
wood bison could be temporarily released until they are taken
off the endangered species list.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:13:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether some of the changes made in
Version E were in response to the letter from Mr. Haskett of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
MR. VERHAGEN replied the changes that were made preceded receipt
of Mr. Haskett's letter, although some of the changes made were
suggested in that letter.
2:13:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired about the current status of the
"10(j) rule" that would designate wood bison in Alaska as a
nonessential experimental population. He commented that the
rule seems like it would be a way out, but has been talked about
for several years.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK responded the 10(j) exemption is still being
applied for, but the real question is the "4(d)" exemption that
speaks to whether the animals can actually be hunted once they
are reintroduced. The State of Alaska has said it will not
reintroduce the animals if they cannot be hunted at some point
in the future, so it is really the 4(d) exemption that is the
stalemate between ADF&G and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked where the state and service are in
their current negotiations for the hunting of the wood bison.
MR. VERHAGEN understood ADF&G has received approval from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service director on the hunting aspect,
but said work on the 10(j) portion is still ongoing.
2:15:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired whether there are any examples
of an endangered species being removed from the list by region.
MR. VERHAGEN answered that that is the only thing that has ever
happened. Congress removed the gray wolf in the area of Idaho
and Montana. He said he did not know if other examples have
occurred since then.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether the possibility has been
explored of removing the wood bison from the endangered species
list in Alaska only.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK replied that since the only wood bison in
the U.S. are in Alaska that thought did not cross his mind.
2:16:43 PM
MIKE MILLER, Executive Director, Alaska Wildlife Conservation
Center, offered his appreciation for the work toward some "can-
do options." Regarding removal of the wood bison through a
congressional act, he said Eddie Grasser is working on that
right now. Three weeks ago Mr. Grasser met with U.S. Senator
Lisa Murkowski and Congressman Don Young to discuss attaching
something to the U.S. budget. There is optimism for this
happening and it would be the best thing for everybody concerned
with the wood bison. He suggested that questions regarding the
10(j) rule be directed to Doug Vincent-Lang. Both ADF&G and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are trying to come up with
agreeable language, but it would be good to proceed with both
the 10(j) rule and the complete congressional delisting at the
same time.
2:18:19 PM
MR. MILLER, in regard to caring for the wood bison, said he
manages the 102 animals for the State of Alaska. The expense is
not all that monumental - Carlisle Transportation hauls the
1,000 bales of hay from the University of Alaska Fairbanks in
Palmer to the center and the U.S. Forest Service has provided
land for the bison under a 15 year lease. This leased area can
be expanded as there will be 40 calves this spring. He
encouraged everyone to continue a can-do attitude, explaining
that because the wood bison is on the endangered species list
these animals cannot go back to Canada and cannot be slaughtered
or sold. Therefore, finding a good end result is necessary
because these are living breathing things that will likely
outlive the people involved. He noted that Canada now has
6,000-8,000 wood bison and has reduced its status to that of
threatened. Resource development in Canada has been compatible
with the bison. Finding some sort of a resolution this
legislative session would be a great thing for the state of
Alaska, not only for the hunting and tourism opportunities, but
also for the return of an extinct animal to the landscape.
2:20:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired what the normal life span is
for a wood bison.
MR. MILLER responded that in the wild, because of hardships, 16
years would be an old bison. However, in captivity wood bison
can live up to 60 years and can calve into their 40s, with a
calf every year instead of every other year as in the wild. He
said putting the wood bison on an island would be abandoning
them, the problem would not go away, and it would only be a
short-term thing. He said he would like to discourage doing
that because he can find foundations that will provide the
$100,000 in cost so that there is no expense to the state.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK commented that ADF&G has been unable to find
an island that does not already have cattle, except one that is
way out in the Aleutians and the cost estimate for moving the
bison out there was $800,000, which would be incurred again for
moving the bison back.
2:22:50 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE closed public testimony on HJR 32 after
ascertaining that no one else wished to testify. He invited any
amendments.
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 which
would remove the second whereas clause from page 1, lines 8-10.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for purposes of discussion.
CO-CHAIR SEATON noted that the third paragraph of the [U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service] letter disagrees with the statement made
in lines 8-10 of the resolution. He did not think that this
whereas clause is necessary at all for accomplishing the goals
of the resolution, so he is offering this as a friendly
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he has no problem with the amendment.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE removed his objection.
2:24:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON directed attention to page 2, paragraph
2, of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter which addresses
the claim in HJR 32 that releasing wood bison in Alaska would
subject their habitat to restrictive provisions. The paragraph
also states that these "exaggerated statements about the ESA are
creating a negative and fearful environment that makes it more
difficult to achieve common ground." She pointed out that this
claim occurs in the resolution on page 2, lines 22-25, and asked
whether these lines should be deleted.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE commented that it depends on a person's point of
view on the Endangered Species Act.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI requested a response from ADF&G.
2:25:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reiterated her question for Doug
Vincent-Lang of ADF&G.
DOUG VINCENT-LANG, Acting Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), began by
providing some background on wood bison from the state's
perspective. He said the state is working with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service on the 10(j) rule and a rule that would
designate these animals as nonessential experimental. He added
that he thinks the agencies are fairly close to reaching some
type of agreement that those rules provide sufficient language
to assure that those animals are not affecting resource
development across the state. However, on the broader national
scale there is concern about the certainty of those rules being
able to withstand legal scrutiny, especially if challenges to
those rules are filed in courts outside of Alaska, in which are
ultimately defended by the U.S. Department of Justice and for
which the State of Alaska may not be a party in the settlement
of those lawsuits. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is right
that all intent is to use these rules to prevent undue
restrictions on designation of critical habitat or on jeopardy
findings on species that are out in the landscape. Getting to a
rule that assures that certainty will go a long ways towards
that end. However, that is only part of the question that the
state will still have to answer after that rule is published.
The state will again have to very closely look at how valid
those rules are or how firm those rules will be in terms of
withstanding judicial scrutiny, especially if those lawsuits are
filed outside of Alaska.
2:28:52 PM
MR. VINCENT-LANG further noted that there is recent evidence
that some of these rules may be renegotiated by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service to the states that have released
nonessential experimental populations in their landscapes. The
State of Alaska is working towards those rules with the hope
that those rules will provide the state with the certainty that
it will not be in the same position with wood bison that it is
with sea otters today, which is that the state introduces a
species and is then left with the uncertainty of how to manage
those into the future. From the state's point of view, the most
certainty that can be had before release of wood bison on the
landscape is to have an exemption for the species under the
Endangered Species Act similar to what was done with gray wolves
in Idaho and Montana. In those cases the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service was very much in agreement with the states as to the
need to delist those wolves, but it was the judicial system that
prevented it from happening. There is a certain amount of fear
out there regarding the certainty of those rules and regarding
what would happen if those rules were overturned in the future.
2:30:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired whether Mr. Vincent-Lang
believes this whereas clause should remain in the resolution.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied that that whereas reflects what he is
hearing at his desk - fear out on the landscape regarding the
certainty of those rules and what could happen if those were
overturned.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for some examples of ESA-listed
animals that have been [reintroduced] into the wild as
nonessential experimental.
MR. VINCENT-LANG responded that these include wolves in the
Lower 48, grizzly bears, and falcons, as well as some others.
He added that the state of Wyoming is now having trouble with
grizzly bears that were reintroduced under nonessential
experimental populations.
2:31:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ requested a detail of what nonessential
experimental means.
MR. VINCENT-LANG explained that when first passed by Congress
the Endangered Species Act did not have a provision for
nonessential experimental populations. As such, when the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and states were trying to reintroduce
species onto the landscape, the only way to do so was under the
full protection of the Endangered Species Act, which resulted in
immediately the carryover of that designation as well as the
designation of critical habitat. It therefore became very
difficult for states or federal agencies to go to private
landowners and others with the suggestion that these animals be
reintroduced on the landscape. So Congress amended the act with
a provision for designating animals being reintroduced into the
landscape as nonessential experimental to that species. As
such, special rules could be written associated with that
species to disallow the designation of critical habitat and
allow a taking of that species that would otherwise not be
allowed under existing Endangered Species Act statutes. It was
basically a way to say that if these animals were brought onto
the landscape they would still be categorized under the
Endangered Species Act, but that they could be treated
differently in terms of how they were regulated under the act.
2:33:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired whether an agreement with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has been negotiated to allow the
designation of nonessential experimental for these wood bison.
MR. VINCENT-LANG answered that the state is working with the
service towards getting a nonessential experimental population
designation and the associated regulations regarding what is an
allowable take for those wood bison on the landscape. The
allowable takes would be any take that is associated with a
resource development activity or an allowed take would be
hunting. That is one step in this process that would help the
state get towards the end, but before the state puts animals in
the landscape under that rule it would need to be assured that
the rule would withstand judicial scrutiny, especially if it was
filed outside the state of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ understood it is ADF&G's intent to get that
clarified and confirmed before any animals are reintroduced.
MR. VINCENT-LANG related that ADF&G has told the legislature and
the public that it will not introduce wood bison into the
landscape until everyone is convinced there is certainty to the
rules and that those rules would be defendable. None of that
would be necessary if Congress exempted wood bison from the
Endangered Species Act, as requested by HJR 32. He said that
from his point of view, conservation success is getting these
animals out on the landscape and the biggest reason this is not
happening is fear associated with the uncertainty about how the
Endangered Species Act will be implemented. Removing that fear
would go a long way towards getting these bison out on the
landscape quickly.
2:35:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether the grizzly bears that were
[reintroduced] as a nonessential species are allowed to be
hunted.
MR. VINCENT-LANG replied in some cases yes, but explained that
some of the problems being had with some of these species in the
Lower 48 that were nonessential experimental is that there were
also wild animals that were out in the landscape. As those
animals are mixing with the nonessential experimental animals it
becomes a very complex question. Fortunately, Alaska does not
have that issue right now.
REPRESENTATIVE DICK pointed out that the target of HJR 32 is not
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but the U.S. Congress. The
intent is to build a little sense of frustration into the
resolution so that Congressman Young can show this to his
colleagues. While sorry if someone at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service is offended, he said the state must be firm
enough to make its point clear. He reminded committee members
that the Donlin Creek Mine has $100 billion worth of gold and is
only 50 miles away from the proposed site of reintroduction.
Drawing attention to page 3, lines 10-12, of the resolution, he
said these lines say everything: "WHEREAS these facts serve to
demonstrate this point: The wood bison's status on the list of
species protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is
what most endangers them". If the wood bison could be put on
the landscape to roam free they would be able to multiply. His
point is that listing them as an endangered species in the act
makes them endangered because the state is afraid to put them
out there.
2:38:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HJR 32, version 27-LS1234\E, Bullard,
2/24/12, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHJR 32(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
The committee took an at-ease from 2:38 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.
HB 328-OIL AND GAS CORPORATE TAXES
2:41:40 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 328, "An Act relating to the oil and gas
corporate income tax; relating to the credits against the oil
and gas corporate income tax; making conforming amendments; and
providing for an effective date."
2:42:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON introduced HB 328 as the prime sponsor,
explaining that the bill would reinstate the oil and gas
corporate income tax regime that was Alaska law from 1978-1981.
It would require oil companies to pay their corporate income tax
on the profits made in Alaska, which is generally referred to as
separate accounting. It is a matter of equity. Alaska-only oil
companies pay their corporate income tax on Alaska profits while
international oil companies can write off their investments in
other countries against their Alaska corporate income tax.
Under HB 328, international oil companies would be treated like
other oil companies in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR SEATON specified that separate accounting was
established in 1975 and went into effect in 1978 because Alaska
felt that it was not getting the proper amount of its corporate
tax, which was 9.4 percent, and it was not being paid on the
profits made from Alaska. That was challenged in the 1980s. It
was upheld in the lower courts and appealed to the Alaska
Supreme Court where it was upheld on all grounds (slide 1 of the
Power Point presentation accompanying Co-Chair Seaton's
introduction of the bill). That ruling was then appealed to the
U.S. Supreme Court, which took the case and dismissed it saying
that there were no federal constitutional or federal statutory
problems that needed to be resolved by the court. The courts
have determined that separate accounting falls within the
state's legitimate taxing authority.
2:44:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related that during their tour of Norway, Alaska
legislators asked whether Norway does separate accounting so
that companies pay on their profits only in Norway. The answer
was yes, most regimes around the world do that. Some U.S.
states have two different sections of corporate income tax -
regular corporate income tax if separate accounting is used, in
which the company pays on its profits in that jurisdiction; or
"water's-edge" taxation where the company elects to pay tax
based on any profits and expenses in the U.S. and in which the
company pays an additional amount that is more than a 50 percent
increase in the taxes.
CO-CHAIR SEATON stated that when the petroleum production
profits tax (PPT) was developed, and later Alaska's Clear and
Equitable Share (ACES), it was critical to not have ring
fencing. Under ring fencing, a company going into a new area
must write off its expenditures in that area against the profits
made in that area. The Alaska State Legislature did not want
ring fencing because it wanted to stimulate investment in a
broad scope across Alaska. However, Alaska's current tax
[method] of worldwide apportionment does exactly that - it says
a company can invest in other places and if those are not as
profitable they can be used to reduce the corporate income taxes
to Alaska. For these reasons, Alaska needs to go back to
separate accounting.
2:46:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON directed attention to slide 2, saying it is from
one of the documents in the Alaska Supreme Court case and shows
the loss to the State of Alaska as being about $1.8 billion
during the four years [of 1978-1981]. He explained that at the
time, this $1.8 billion liability is what the previous
legislature was looking at, which was before the value in the
permanent fund that the state has now. Fearing that much
liability, the legislature decided to return to worldwide
apportionment until the court cleared things up. About $400
million of that $1.8 billion was interest on those years, so the
loss to the state was really about $1.4 billion.
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to a comparison presented in 2000 to the
House Special Committee on Oil & Gas by then Deputy Commissioner
of the Department of Revenue Daniel Dickinson (slide 3). In
this presentation Mr. Dickinson compared the actual oil and gas
income tax collected under worldwide apportionment for the years
[1982-1997] to estimated revenues under separate accounting.
The comparison shows the state collected $4.6 billion less under
worldwide apportionment than it would have under separate
accounting. He explained that this same numerical comparison is
shown graphically on slide 4, with the actual income tax for
each year shown by the bars on the left and the estimated
revenues under separate accounting shown by the bars on the
right. While there is a relationship that changes due to
different amounts of investments, expenses, and prices in each
year, he pointed out that Alaska's 9.4 percent tax rate on the
money that was earned in Alaska was the higher of the two
methods.
2:49:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON turned to the fiscal note for HB 328 (slide 5),
reading aloud the second sentence of the middle paragraph, which
states: "Preliminary estimates show that under separate
accounting, oil and gas corporations would have paid
approximately $250 million more during each of the last 5 fiscal
years in corporate income tax if this legislation had been in
effect." He said there are three different determinations - the
determination when separate accounting was in effect from 1975-
1981, the estimates from Dan Dickinson from 2000, and the
current estimate from the Department of Revenue - all of which
are in somewhat the same range of $200-$300 million per year.
CO-CHAIR SEATON reviewed the net U.S. exploration and production
income for ConocoPhillips [for the years 2000-2010 and comparing
the income from Alaska to the Lower 48] (slide 6). He explained
that ConocoPhillips, a good company, makes filings with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), so Legislative
Research Services was able to compile the comparison. He next
compared the global net exploration and production for
ConocoPhillips in Alaska, the Lower 48, and internationally
(slide 7). He noted that Alaska represents a significant amount
of income, but that amount is quite variable depending upon what
is happening in other parts of the world. Separate accounting
would not consider what is happening in other parts of the
world, so the corporate income tax would be paid on the profit
made in Alaska. In response to Co-Chair Feige, he stated that
in 2009 ConocoPhillips reported no profits in the Lower 48
(slide 6).
2:52:20 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON drew attention to an article in the May 2011
Petroleum News by Greg Garland of ConocoPhillips, senior vice
president for exploration and production in the Americas (slide
8). He related that in this article Mr. Garland states that the
Eagle Ford play [in South Texas] "offered $45 per barrel margins
last year, twice the average of ConocoPhillips' global
portfolio." Thus, Co-Chair Seaton continued, the average of
ConocoPhillips' global portfolio is $20-$25. However, in spring
2011, when oil price was at approximately $118 per barrel (slide
9), the Alaska margin was $43.50 per barrel, so Alaska margins
are well above the worldwide margins, which means Alaska is
diluting its margin with the less profitable worldwide margins.
He added that in another publication, the name of which he could
not recall, the chief economist for ConocoPhillips stated that
the company's cost of producing a barrel of oil is $15.48, so
another $4 or so would be added to the margin here.
2:54:12 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON addressed another graph in the committee packet
regarding competitiveness that depicts what the tax rate is, not
what the oil companies are paying. Federal tax is 35 percent
and Alaska state tax is 9.4 percent, but because of worldwide
apportionment Alaska is receiving less than 9.4 percent, as was
shown in the three analyses mentioned earlier. This means that
Alaska is actually more competitive than shown in those tables.
He added that when making a presentation to the full legislature
in Anchorage and to a committee meeting in Juneau, Pedro van
Meurs stated that Alaska should definitely have separate
accounting.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, regarding slide 8, inquired whether Co-Chair
Seaton is essentially arguing that for ConocoPhillips the profit
margins per barrel are essentially the same in Texas and Alaska.
CO-CHAIR SEATON replied that they are according to Greg Garland.
He reminded members that ConocoPhillips has testified a number
of times that it is very distinct between margin and profit. He
said the comparison he was trying to make is that Mr. Garland
stated that [the margin of $45 per barrel] is twice
ConocoPhillips' average global portfolio.
2:57:27 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE allowed that the Alaska margin of $43.50 depicted
on slide 9 is pretty close to the $45 margin on slide 8. He
noted that the article on the top left of slide 8 states that
ConocoPhillips plans to invest $2 billion in liquids-rich shale
plays, which sounds like the Eagle Ford area, yet the company is
only investing less than $1 billion in Alaska. He asked why
there is unequal investment if the margins are the same.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered that it is a situational risk in Alaska
because there is only one way to get the oil out of the state.
ConocoPhillips is currently getting 63 percent of its profits
out of this single pipeline, so if anything happens to that
pipeline there is no way to get that oil out. Additionally,
ConocoPhillips would also incur the expense of having to shut in
all of its wells plus the expense of getting the pipeline
running again. ConocoPhillips has been pretty much flat in
investing since 1996 as far as the number of wells it is
drilling on the North Slope, even though tax rates have been
totally different and even though prices have been totally
different. Risk factors are being looked at that cannot be
mitigated and the question is whether the corporate board would
look at that as a fiduciary responsibility if the company
further concentrated its profits coming from Alaska. For
example, 100 percent of the company's profits came from the
North Slope of Alaska in 2009, about 60 percent in 2010, and
63.6 percent in 2011. Therefore, it is a concentration thing
that does not relate necessarily to profit margin, but to
exposure. Co-Chair Seaton added that there is another question
on decisions, which is that the operating agreement on the North
Slope is such that if any one of the three companies decides not
to invest, that decision vetoes the project. So, it is unknown
whether it is ConocoPhillips because of that risk or one of the
other two major players that are not sanctioning an investment.
3:01:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK said he also saw that figure where
[ConocoPhillips] is receiving $20 a barrel for getting oil out
of the ground while it is only costing $15.48. Rounding off the
numbers, he calculated that at 600,000 barrels a day and a $4.52
discrepancy it comes up to a little less than $1 billion. What
struck him is that education is being scrutinized almost to the
point of hostility and yet there is this figure of $1 billion.
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded that [slide 9] says "typical company"
because the legislature has never been given the confidential
information of what the production costs are for each company.
Last month the chief economist for ConocoPhillips released the
information publicly that it was $15.48, which is why he is
saying to add another $4.50 to the figure on slide 9.
3:02:45 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked whether the bar graph on slide 6 is
depicting the income for ConocoPhillips.
CO-CHAIR SEATON confirmed it is the income and offered to
provide the figures in percentages if that was desired.
3:03:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired how much oil ConocoPhillips produces in
Alaska versus Texas and what price is received. He understood
that recently the Texas oil price was down to $80 per barrel
while Alaska North Slope crude was above $100. Significant
differences in quantity and price will influence the bar graphs,
he noted.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said Co-Chair Feige is correct. The question,
however, is whether the state wants things from other countries
or Texas to influence the corporate income tax that is paid in
Alaska or does the state want the companies to simply pay their
9.4 percent on the profits that are made in Alaska. The
worldwide apportionment works both ways - it can make things go
up and down because of what Alaska has and the argument can be
made that if Alaska keeps worldwide apportionment it can grab
profits that are made in Indonesia. However, all of the
[comparison] calculations with separate accounting show that
every single year Alaska has been reducing its corporate income
tax to basically subsidize other operations in other parts of
the world. No one is trying to do anything unfair, it is just
being said that if Alaska's corporate income tax rate for a
company like Great Bear Petroleum, which only has operations in
Alaska, is going to be 9.4 percent of its income in Alaska, is
it not then fair that BP, ConocoPhillips, or ExxonMobil pay 9.4
percent on the income that they make in Alaska. The question of
whether it is correct or not went through the trial courts,
Alaska Supreme Court, and U.S. Supreme Court, and it was
determined at several points that separate accounting much more
accurately reflects the corporate income tax on the profits in
the jurisdiction of Alaska.
3:05:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked what the real percentage is that
ConocoPhillips pays to Alaska.
CO-CHAIR SEATON replied it is difficult to answer because the
information is combined. On its 10-K filings, ConocoPhillips
reported 1 percent, but that was not a real 1 percent - that was
1 percent compared to its worldwide profit. ConocoPhillips
lumps all jurisdictions in the Americas together for its U.S.
report. When ConocoPhillips files in say, North Dakota, it is
unknown whether the company is paying that state's 5.15 percent
or paying water's-edge, which adds another 3.5 percent corporate
income tax. North Dakota has noticed that revenue is lost,
whether apportionment is jurisdictional to the U.S. water's-edge
or worldwide. Separate accounting simply does one thing -
corporate income tax is paid on the profit that is made only in
Alaska. He stressed that he is not saying any company has done
anything wrong; the State of Alaska creates the tax system and
people obey that system. If the state allows no ring fencing
around Alaska, if the state takes the same philosophy it did for
production tax to not ring fence new fields in the North Slope,
then the same thing applies here - the further the net is drawn,
the more washout there is. All three of the aforementioned
comparisons show that Alaska is losing income because it is
getting less than 9.4 percent.
3:08:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired whether all of the major companies
use the worldwide apportionment method.
CO-CHAIR SEATON answered the companies use it where they are
allowed to, but most jurisdictions do not allow it. That is
what was interesting about Norway - Alaska has all the same
players that are working in Norway and all of them pay separate
accounting in Norway. He said he does not blame the companies
for using worldwide apportionment where they are allowed to, but
who are Alaska legislators working for? The companies are
paying the correct amount of tax under the system in place in
Alaska. The question is whether that is the appropriate system
for Alaska or should Alaska go back to separate accounting. He
said HB 328 would reinstate the 1978 tax system that has already
gone through court and been approved all the way up to the
[U.S.] Supreme Court, so it has no state or federal issues.
3:10:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that the governor has another
bill and the Senate has yet another bill. She asked whether the
companies would be paying more or less than now if either of
those bills and HB 328 were put into law.
CO-CHAIR SEATON replied that the companies will have to testify
to that, but he thinks [HB 328] brings some balance. More than
anything, HB 328 says that the appropriate corporate income tax
should be paid in Alaska. The other bills deal with the
production tax, which is different than corporate income tax.
Basically there is a difference in which Alaska restricts what
can be deducted for lease expenditures, but allows instant
write-off on those. Corporate income tax generally follows the
depreciation rules of the federal income tax so there is a
longer write-off period, but there are more things that can be
written off than just direct lease expenditures. He reiterated
that both the 15-year look back done in 2000 by the Department
of Revenue and the fiscal note for HB 328 show that Alaska is
not receiving 9.4 percent of the corporate income in the state
of Alaska.
3:12:58 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE read aloud from page 2 of the fiscal note, first
paragraph, lines 4-8, [original punctuation provided]:
This bill would require Alaska oil and gas
corporations to calculate income tax for their oil and
gas producing and transportation companies based on
income earned solely in Alaska. If oil and gas
companies are also engaged in activities other than
oil and gas production and transportation, this bill
would require those companies to calculate and pay tax
on those other activities based on worldwide
combination and apportionment.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said this seems like Alaska would be picking and
choosing where it is asking companies to pay tax. He asked for
an explanation and suggested that the Department of Revenue also
speak to it.
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded this is not unusual. Whether under
worldwide apportionment or separate accounting in Alaska, the
tax deals only with oil and gas, not any other activities a
corporation might be involved in, which could be land leasing,
buildings, welding companies, or retail stores. Integrated oil
company means that the company has more than just oil and gas
production; for example, it could have refineries. Refineries
are different and are treated different in 10-K filings as well.
For example, in its 10-K filing, ConocoPhillips lists totally
separate lines for its manufacturing and refining businesses.
3:15:36 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said he understands the aforementioned, but that
HB 328 would essentially fence off Alaska. If a company owns
assets elsewhere, it seems that the income and expense from
those assets would be taxed on a worldwide basis, which would
not be in keeping with the theme of the bill. He asked why the
bill splits this out rather than fencing off Alaska as its own
taxable entity for all of it.
CO-CHAIR SEATON deferred to the Department of Revenue for an
exact explanation of why.
3:16:55 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked the Department of Revenue and whether the
aforementioned provision would make the accounting rather
complicated for all concerned.
ROBYNN WILSON, Corporate Income Tax Manager, Anchorage Office,
Tax Division, Department of Revenue (DOR), answered it may make
the accounting complicated for two reasons. First, under HB 328
there are three components that go together. The component
being referred to is "other business," which would be on a basis
under the Internal Revenue Code while the other two components
would be on a different basis; so, there may be intercompany
transactions that would be difficult to account for. Second,
within one actual corporation, meaning a separate legal entity
as opposed to a corporate group, these operations may be mixed
in the corporation's books, so extracting the piece that is
specifically production may be difficult.
3:18:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired whether these same companies
already do this exact thing in other jurisdictions.
MS. ROBYNN WILSON replied she is not currently aware of exactly
how separate accounting works in Norway. Within the U.S.,
states either tax on combination and apportionment, which is the
system Alaska is under, or states may tax based on a separate
company income. She offered to follow up on that if requested,
but said she is unaware of other jurisdictions that tax in the
mixture that HB 328 would provide.
3:19:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON observed that the fiscal note includes
four additional tax auditors under HB 328. She asked whether it
would be easier for the department if everything was under
separate accounting.
MS. ROBYNN WILSON responded that if everything was on separate
accounting there would still be the difficulties of intercompany
transactions. Also, where a company had multiple activities
within its corporate structure within its set of books, there
would still be the problem of extracting that separate
operation. Additionally, there are the bill's administrative
provisions about when the return is due and that the department
must calculate the taxable income and the tax and provide an
assessment within four months. Presumably on top of that, would
be Chapter 5 auditing responsibilities that would go on
afterwards. Add that to the responsibility of the public
disclosure provisions in the bill. Therefore, while it might
simplify it slightly, she did not think it would simplify it
materially.
3:22:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recalled the sponsor stating he wanted
to keep the separate accounting exactly how it was before
because the courts have already ruled that that method was okay.
CO-CHAIR SEATON confirmed this to be correct. Regulations have
already been written for separate accounting under this exact
same proposal, so writing the regulations would be much simpler
because they were already written for the four years that
separate accounting was in effect. He said the advice of the
legislative legal counsel was that this has already been solved
and the state would not need to worry nearly so much about
lawsuits if no changes were made to the former structure.
3:23:46 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE opened public testimony.
DEBORAH VOGT noted that she joined the attorney general's office
in 1978 and retired in 1999 from the Department of Revenue where
she was serving as deputy commissioner. Given she has been
retired for 10 years and the law being talked about was repealed
more than 30 years ago, she asked for forgiveness if the cobwebs
are a little thick. She said 1978 was the year the oil started
flowing, the year that separate accounting was enacted, and the
value of a barrel of oil was about $8. Not long after that the
oil industry sued over the separate accounting law. She said
she defended that law before the Alaska Supreme Court and the
U.S. Supreme Court, so can speak with some fluency.
MS. VOGT stated that, in a very simplistic manner, she will
provide a history about the law that was on the books before
separate accounting, the separate accounting law, and the law
the state has now. All three are methods of dividing the income
of a multi-jurisdictional taxpayer so that each taxing
jurisdiction knows how much of the overall income it can
attribute to its state for tax purposes. The analogy she likes
to use is "restaurant accounting," where six people have dinner
together at a total cost of $300. Each person's share of the
dinner bill can be determined in two different ways - the whole
bill could be divided by six, or the cost of each entrée could
be attributed to the specific person eating that entree. The
first method is formula apportionment and the second method is
separate accounting. They are two means to the same end, which
is to determine the appropriate share for one person in the case
of diners or one jurisdiction in the case of taxpayers.
3:26:21 PM
MS. VOGT said she thinks Alaska was the first state to adopt the
Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA), which
is the three-factor formula that is most commonly used and that
Alaska uses today for almost all corporate taxpayers. Encoded
in law as AS 43.19, it is the method of attribution for the tax
under AS 43.20. This standard three-factor formula includes
payroll, property, and sales. The amount of income that a
taxpayer earns is attributed to the state by averaging the
fraction of that taxpayer's property that is in the state, the
sales that are in the state, and the payroll that is in the
state, as compared to those factors worldwide. Returning to the
restaurant analogy, she noted that it does not matter whether
separate accounting or a formula is used if everybody has about
the same thing to eat. But it gets sticky if one person has a
bowl of soup and somebody else has a big steak. The three-
factor formula assumes that profitability is fairly uniform
throughout a business or group of businesses. Neither formula
apportionment nor separate accounting is perfect; both have
flaws and both have been upheld by the courts. Most states, as
did Alaska originally, adopt the three-factor formula because it
gets them out of the business of untangling corporate affairs
and establishing transfer values. For example, if a business
manufactures in one state and sells in another, a value for the
goods as they cross state lines has to be established, which can
be tricky. Tax authorities generally suspect that a business
will tell State A that all its profits are earned in State B,
while it tells State B the opposite.
3:28:39 PM
MS. VOGT related that when she was assigned to the separate
accounting litigation in the 1970s, she had the opportunity to
review in some detail the written record of the legislature's
four-year study of the corporate income tax as it applied to oil
companies. More than 60 hearings were held over that time
period, during which the legislature learned that there were
flaws with each of the three factors used in UDITPA as applied
to an oil production company. The payroll factor is under
state's income because oil production is not labor intensive and
is largely conducted through the use of subcontractors. At that
time, she understood that there were some federal income law
incentives to operate through subcontractors; however, whether
or not that is true, most of the business is done through
subcontractors and so the payroll factor is fairly low. The
property factor is flawed largely because traditional accounting
methods and SEC rules do not recognize the value of the oil in
the ground; put another way, discovery is not an accounting
event. Obviously, the reserves that an oil company owns can be
its greatest asset, but those reserves are not reflected on its
books. When that understated property is used as compared to
fully stated property like a refinery, the result is a sliding
of the income over to the jurisdiction with the better property
formula. For a while there was a move by the SEC to go to
reserve recognition accounting, but she understood that that was
unsuccessful. The sales factor is flawed because only a tiny
fraction of the oil produced is sold in the state, so the sales
factor is not very good at attributing income. Therefore, with
none of the factors accurately representing an oil producer's
actual business value, the legislature went to the separate
accounting method.
3:30:58 PM
MS. VOGT explained that, in a nutshell, the [separate
accounting] law established value at the point of production by
netting back the ultimate sales value to the wellhead by
deducting out the transportation costs. In the late 1970s and
early 1980s, the value of Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude was not
publically available, so there were huge disputes over this
amount. Value at the point of production, then, was gross
income from which were deducted the field costs, or the costs of
producing the oil. General overhead expenses under the old
separate accounting law were apportioned, so the old law
actually incorporated apportionment in two places - one was for
general overhead joint expenses and the other was for other
income that was not oil production or pipeline transportation
income.
MS. VOGT recounted that the oil industry filed suit against the
law, alleging that it violated the U.S. Constitution's Commerce
Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Contract Clause; industry
also alleged that it violated the State of Alaska's equal
protection laws. She noted that while separate accounting was
in effect the price of oil went from about $8 per barrel to $31,
a huge increase in those days, and therefore the revenue and the
litigation risk piled up fairly fast. In 1981, when the law was
repealed, it had collected about $2 billion. There was
obviously political pressure from the industry to repeal the
separate accounting law because it taxed so much revenue and
those who were around at that time may remember the "coup" in
1981, which many said was pushed largely by the desire to repeal
separate accounting.
3:33:03 PM
MS. VOGT pointed out that there were also legal issues with the
law at that time. In 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court had issued two
opinions involving the division of corporate income for tax
purposes: Exxon v. Wisconsin and Mobil v. Vermont. In both
those cases, the state taxed the multi-state oil industry
taxpayers using formula apportionment. The oil company
taxpayers each argued that they could prove - by separate
accounting or allocation - that they did not earn that much
income in the respective state. The Supreme Court, in upholding
those state statutes, used some fairly strong language
criticizing the flaws of separate accounting. This led some to
conclude that apportionment was constitutionally required, or
that separate accounting was constitutionally prohibited. That
is largely what led to the litigation fear over the act, and
while she personally did not put much credence in that theory,
it was not her $2 billion that was on the line. So, separate
accounting was repealed and for the oil industry the state
adopted what is now called modified apportionment. By the time
the litigation reached the Alaska Supreme Court, the Container
Corporation decision had come down, which really resolved the
litigation in the state's favor. The Container Corporation had
very clear language that both separate accounting and
apportionment were means to the same end and that they both had
flaws, that they both had advantages, and that neither one was
unconstitutional.
3:34:48 PM
MS. VOGT explained that in adopting the modified apportionment
formula Alaska uses today, the state was attempting to find and
use apportionment factors that were better at accurately
apportioning production and pipeline transportation income than
the old three-factor formula. The state adopted two different
formulas. The production formula has a two-factor formula that
includes a property factor and an extraction factor. The
property factor still does not include the value of the
reserves, but the extraction factor is the number of barrels
extracted in the state's jurisdiction versus the number
worldwide. Pipeline transportation is a two-factor formula that
includes property and tariffs, or sales. At the time those two
were adopted, it was her understanding that production income
would be apportioned by the two-factor formula and the pipeline
by the other two-factor formula, but right away the companies
started using all three factors together for all of their
income. She understood, however, that now it is not just the
practice, it is the law, because the attorney general's office
has issued an opinion stating that that is the correct way to do
it. The difficulty with that is that a tariff factor is being
used to apportion production income, which is pretty silly, and
an extraction factor is being used to apportion pipeline
transportation income, which is also pretty silly. So, the
result is the modified apportionment, which has never really
worked very well.
MS. VOGT added that during her time with the state, the
effective tax rate for oil and gas taxpayers was always
somewhere around 3 percent rather than the 9.4 percent on the
books. She further mentioned that while Alaska at one time used
the so-called worldwide apportionment for all taxpayers, it
abandoned that method years ago for water's-edge apportionment
for everyone but the oil and gas industry. At the request of
the oil and gas industry, the modified apportionment stayed
worldwide.
3:37:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON requested Ms. Vogt's opinion on what
would be the best for the State of Alaska to do.
MS. VOGT expressed discomfort at offering an opinion, but said
she has always felt that separate accounting more accurately
identifies the oil industry income than does any kind of
apportionment formula that has ever been figured out. However,
whether that should be adopted now, she could not say.
3:38:33 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON observed that for fiscal year 2013 the fiscal
note includes no expenses for the four additional auditors and
travel, but it includes [$253,900] for fiscal year 2014, and
[$522,900] for fiscal years 2015 and thereafter.
MS. ROBYNN WILSON confirmed that this is correct.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether the Department of Revenue would
consider an annual $500,000 investment with a $250 million
annual return to be a good cost-benefit ratio.
MS. ROBYNN WILSON replied she cannot speak to the cost-benefit
for that. She said the department is working on some revised
numbers that will be forthcoming.
CO-CHAIR SEATON maintained that that would be a much bigger
return than the state is getting on its investments in the
permanent fund or retirement system accounts and therefore it is
an effective and efficient use of state personnel.
3:40:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired how separate accounting would work
when expenses associated with the product are occurring over
more than one jurisdiction.
MS. ROBYNN WILSON qualified she was not with the state during
the administration of separate accounting, but said that in
looking at the bill as presented it is unclear how that would
work for multi-jurisdictional expenses. She thought it would
show up particularly with administration expense. If another
state apportioned it, that state would apportion the expenses as
well as the income.
CO-CHAIR SEATON pointed out that the courts specifically looked
at that and determined there were no significant issues. The
U.S. Supreme Court determined that separate accounting was
probably more accurate than apportionment formulas because
apportionment does not catch those things at all. It also
determined that separate accounting was not taxing profits that
were made in other jurisdictions. All transportation to the
market was allowed to be subtracted as a cost and profits made
at refineries were not collected back.
3:42:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether the Department of Revenue would be
able to pull up the regulations that were implemented for
separate accounting so that they could be re-used.
MS. ROBYNN WILSON agreed to look into the status of those
regulations.
3:43:54 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE understood that if enacted, HB 328 would disallow
the oil companies from writing off expenses incurred in other
parts of the world. He inquired whether he is correct in
understanding that this would result in increasing the corporate
tax rate and hence the money that oil companies in Alaska would
pay to the state.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said this is not exactly correct. Under
separate accounting, any expenses associated with production in
Alaska could be taken off the corporate income tax; any expenses
unaffiliated with Alaska could not be used to write down profits
made in Alaska.
3:45:09 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked how HB 328 would put more oil into the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS).
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded it would put more oil in TAPS because
it does not incentivize companies to invest in other parts of
the world. Instead, it incentivizes companies to invest in
Alaska because any expense in Alaska is then an expense that
reduces their profit in Alaska.
3:46:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON presumed that no oil company would like
this bill.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said he thinks Alaskan oil companies will see
the bill as fair because both they and their international
competitors would then be paying 9.4 percent tax. The state's
goal for a number of years has been to incentivize companies to
reinvest in Alaska, whether or not they are multi-nationals, as
well as to form oil companies in Alaska. He said he is very
happy that there are a number of oil companies that are located
only in Alaska and he thinks it unfair to tax those companies at
a higher rate than the international companies that are able to
dilute their Alaska profits.
[HB 328 was held over.]
3:48:12 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:48 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 32.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CSHJR 32 Version D.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 32 Hearing Request.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 32 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 32 Fiscal Note.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB0328A.PDF |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 328 |
| HB 328 Separate Accounting Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 328 |
| HB 328 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 328 |
| HB328 Fiscal Note DOR.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 328 |
| Alaska Margins Slide.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Legislative Research Report ConocoPhillips SEC 10K Filings.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Atlantic Richfield Co v. State.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| PFC Energy Regime Competitiveness Slide.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Separate Accounting Revenue Comparison.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Petroleum News May 8, 2011 Eagle Ford Could Nudge Alaska for COP.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| CSHJR32 Version E.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 32 Background Info List.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR 32 Comment - R. Rogers.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR32 Explanation of Changes.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR32 Introduction Testimony.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HJR32 Letter from USFWS Regional Director Haskett.pdf |
HRES 2/29/2012 1:00:00 PM |