Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
05/03/2023 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Presentation: Alaska Gasline Development Corporation | |
| SB53 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
May 3, 2023
9:02 a.m.
9:02:51 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman, Co-Chair
Senator Donny Olson, Co-Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Senator Kelly Merrick
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Frank Richards, President, Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation; Nick Szymoniak, Business Ventures Manager,
Alaska Gasline Development Corporation; Ken Alper, Staff,
Senator Donny Olson; Senator Matt Claman, Sponsor; Dr.
Kristy Becker, Chief Clinical Officer, Alaska Psychiatric
Institute, Department of Family and Community Services;
John Skidmore, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division,
Department of Law; Nancy Meade, General Counsel, Alaska
Court System.
SUMMARY
SB 53 FIVE-YEAR INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENTS
SB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
PRESENTATION: ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Co-Chair Stedman discussed the agenda. He relayed that
after a presentation from the Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC), the committee would have a brief at-
ease before Co-Chair Olson would chair the committee as it
considered legislation.
^PRESENTATION: ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
9:04:23 AM
FRANK RICHARDS, PRESIDENT, ALASKA GASLINE DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, was grateful to present an update on the
activities of the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation
(AGDC) and the current status of the Alaska Liquified
Natural Gas (AK LNG) Project. He was mindful that the
public might not be familiar with all the terms and
acronyms and noted that there was a glossary at the end of
the presentation. He discussed a PowerPoint presentation
entitled "Alaska LNG Project Update" (copy on file).
Mr. Richards looked at slide 2, "AGDC":
The Alaska Gasline Development Corporation (AGDC)
•Independent, public corporation owned by the State of
Alaska (SOA)
•Created by the Alaska State Legislature
Mission
Maximize the benefit of Alaska's vast North Slope
natural gas resources through the development of
infrastructure necessary to move the gas to local and
international markets
Current Owner and Developer of the Alaska LNG Project
Transitioning project to private ownership under
qualified developers
Mr. Richards noted that AGDC was the 100 percent owner of
the AK LNG Project.
9:05:43 AM
Mr. Richards spoke to slide 3, "Alaska LNG Project":
The Alaska LNG Project is not the project you heard or
read about over the last 20 years.
Today's Project:
Cost competitive
Benefits the state
Transitions to the private sector
Environmentally friendly
Has all major permits and authorizations
Mr. Richards highlighted that AGDC would be looking to
monetize the asset of carbon dioxide with the utilization
of tax credits. He noted that the goal was to move the
project back into private sector leadership.
Mr. Richards referenced slide 4, "Alaska LNG: Gas for
Alaskans & Export":
North Slope Gas Supply
40 Tcf of natural gas stranded in Prudhoe Bay and
Point Thomson
•Equal to over 10 years' worth of Japan's total
consumption*
Arctic Carbon Capture (ACC) Plant
Located in Prudhoe Bay adjacent to existing gas
plants
Removes CO 2 from raw gas stream for permanent
sequestration
Natural Gas Pipeline
807 miles from Prudhoe Bay to Nikiski, following
TAPS and highway system
Provides gas to Alaskans and LNG facility
Alaska LNG Facility
20-MTPA LNG Facility
Converts natural gas to LNG for export to Asia
Mr. Richards expanded that there was a goal to unleash gas
assets at Point Thomson, increase gas condensate, and have
major gas sales from both Point Thomson and Prudhoe Bay.
The gas coming from the basins had to be conditioned, which
would be done via the Arctic Carbon Capture Project (ACCP),
where the value of the tax credits for sequestration would
be about $600 million per year. He noted that there were
offtake opportunities for communities, and an opportunity
to lower the cost of energy for Alaskans. He discussed the
terminus of the pipeline in Nikiski, and the liquification
before export.
9:10:11 AM
Senator Bishop asked if Mr. Richards could restate the
numbers regarding carbon sequestration credits.
Mr. Richards relayed that 45Q tax credits were $85 per ton
of CO2 captured and sequestered, which would equate to
about 7-plus million tons per year or about $600 million
annual revenue to the operator of the ACCP. He noted that a
recently passed bipartisan federal law extended the credits
to the 2030s. He noted that the revenue could be up to
$7.2 billion over a 12-year time frame.
Senator Bishop was curious as to how the plan would work
with the governors bill pertaining to carbon
sequestration. He wondered where the funds would be
directed.
Mr. Richards was happy to address the topic and thought
forthcoming slides would provide more information.
Co-Chair Olson considered that the $600 million in revenue
for carbon sequestration cited by Mr. Richards was more of
a tax credit than cash.
Mr. Richards explained that the way the tax code provisions
were written, the revenue came in for the first five years
as cash to the operator of the plant and tax credits in
subsequent years.
Mr. Richards turned to slide 5, "Alaska LNG Project":
"We are seeing key stakeholder alignment in ways we
have never seen before"
-Senator Dan Sullivan
Joint session of Alaska Legislature Feb. 6, 2023
Mr. Richards summarized that slide 5 represented a
reflection of United States Senator Dan Sullivans
appreciation of the AK LNG Project. He noted that Senator
Sullivan had been actively engaged in conversations with
the projects Asian allies. He had been in meetings with
governments of Japan and Korea. He noted that Senator Lisa
Murkowski and Representative Mary Peltola had also shown
support of the project.
9:13:44 AM
NICK SZYMONIAK, BUSINESS VENTURES MANAGER, ALASKA GASLINE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, addressed slide 6, "Strong
Economics":
Alaska LNG's Cost of Supply is Well Below
Market Prices
$6.55 cost of supply delivered to Asia is lower than
competing market prices*:
o Brent Linked: $9.00 ($75 Brent x 12%)
o U.S. Gulf Coast: $7.30 2.30 Henry Hub +
$5.00)
o JKM: $11.50 (spot price)
LNG will be sold at market prices, providing for
significant financial upside to Alaska LNG investors
and the State of Alaska
2023 update to account for recent construction
inflation, 45Q tax credits, and financial return
expectation
Mr. Szymoniak thought there was a common misperception that
the AK LNG Project was uneconomic or marginally economic.
He thought the project was the most economic LNG project in
North America, because of the low cost of supply (driven by
the low cost of gas on the North Slope) and the short
shipping distance to Asia. He noted that the market price
of the LNG would include a 12 percent return to investors
and a $1.25 price of natural gas on the North Slope. He
addressed Co-Chair Olson's question and explained that the
$600 million per year in 45Q tax credits would go to the
carbon capture plant operators, which would also reduce the
costs of supply. He noted that the model included a reduced
property tax for AK LNG, which he understood was not in
statute but had been discussed since the inception of the
project.
Mr. Richards added that the slide numbers were reflective
of 2023 dollars, and included construction costs and supply
chain with cost impacts from the inflationary market.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the project was all equity-
financed, or if there would be debt.
Mr. Szymoniak explained that the project assumed a 70/30
debt-equity structure, with 70 percent of the capital costs
assumed by debt and 30 percent with equity for all three
project components.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the projects price assumption
for gas. He commented on numerous prices for gas over the
years.
Mr. Szymoniak clarified that the numbers assumed a $1.25
gas purchase price. He mentioned fuel use combined for the
purposes of the presentation. He furthered that AGDC was in
discussions with producers and with LNG investors and
buyers to zero in on the price. He relayed that in the past
the price was indicative of what the producers had been
able to agree to in the past.
Mr. Szymoniak shared that there had been two prior gas
supply pricing agreements with BP and Exxon.
9:17:20 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought the only producer left from past
agreements was Exxon and mentioned new producer Hilcorp. He
asked if Conoco was included in the group.
Mr. Richards explained that what Mr. Szymoniak was
describing was a gas sales agreement, which would be
addressed later in the presentation. He noted that AGDC was
in discussion with all three producers and coming to terms
with the agreement. He acknowledged that it was a current
topic of discussion with producers.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if AGDC had an opinion on the loss
of oil production due to loss of field pressure over time.
Mr. Richards understood that producers were looking at
potential loss of liquids. He highlighted that information
had been offered to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission in 2014 when producers had requested the ability
to offtake gas from Prudhoe Bay. There was approximately
270 million barrels of oil as a potential loss of liquids
from the major gas sale. He understood that the producers
were looking at the full field model and what the potential
loss would be at the current time.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the testifiers would address the
payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) issue and property tax.
Mr. Richards explained that AGDC was engaging with the
Department of Revenue (DOR) on the topic of property tax
and referenced SB 138 [legislation passed in 2014 enabling
the state to take an equity share in the Alaska LNG
project]. He noted that the legislation had a provision for
a municipal advisory group to look at the issue around
PILT. The legislature had given the responsibility to DOR
and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) along with
the boroughs where there would be impacts from project
construction. He noted that it was an ongoing discussion
that would need to be expanded to include the boroughs.
Co-Chair Stedman asked Mr. Richards when he felt the
legislature should be looking at royalties-in-kind (RIK) or
royalties-in-value (RIV).
Mr. Richards relayed that the work that was necessary by
DNR was underway, and the agency had brought in consultants
to make a best interest finding. He hoped the matter would
be brought to the legislature for discussion. He continued
that AGDC's goal in terms of bringing in investors was to
initiate the next phase of work - front end engineering and
design (FEED) which he thought would be in the latter
part of the year. After the process was started, AGDC would
like to come back to the legislature with communications
from DNR as well as DOR to discuss the issues.
9:20:46 AM
Co-Chair Olson thought the North Slope Borough received
much of its revenue from property tax. He asked how the
project would affect the borough.
Mr. Richards relayed that currently the property tax for
oil and gas facilities was 20 mills. He understood 18 mills
went to the boroughs as revenue. The matter would be part
of the discussion with boroughs in order to determine the
proper rate for a payment in lieu of property tax values.
He considered mill rates for Texas, Louisiana, and foreign
jurisdictions. He thought the 20 mills was beyond what was
done in other areas. He mentioned rates of one to two
mills. He thought part of the discussion would be what was
equitable and fair for the state.
Co-Chair Olson thought there would be a reduction in
anticipated taxes for the North Slope Borough.
Mr. Richards clarified that he did not know what the
outcome of the conversations would be, but relayed that
from AGDCs perspective, the high rate of property tax
would be paid by Alaskans to ourselves. He mentioned an
appropriate amount to keep the project economic, to be
competitive, and to get lower cost energy for the state.
Co-Chair Olson assumed that Mr. Richards' reference to the
discussions included the North Slope Borough.
Mr. Richards affirmed that he had several conversations
with the borough administration.
Co-Chair Stedman assumed discussions would include the City
and Borough of Sitka and the City and Borough of Ketchikan.
Senator Bishop asked for Mr. Richards to discuss costs for
mitigation for wetlands disturbance.
Mr. Richards did not have the information to hand. He
relayed that AGDC had been given an Army Corps of Engineers
wetlands permit, along with mitigation aspects and
associated costs. He continued that AGDC had worked to keep
things at a modest level and to be able to utilize
mitigation outside the area of disturbance. He thought
certain parts of the state did not have mitigation
opportunities, and shared that the corps had been very
helpful. He agreed to provide further information at a
later time.
Senator Bishop asked if AGDC had all rights-of-way secured.
He wondered if AGDC was working well with Ahtna Native
Corporation, or if the rights-of-way were still in
negotiation.
Mr. Richards relayed that 93 percent of the pipeline and
facility rights-of-way granted through the federal
government (via the Bureau of Land Management, the National
Park Service, and Denali National Park) and through the
state DNR. The remaining 7 percent was made up of municipal
lands, including private lands such as AHTNA. He explained
that the project was going forward to negotiate and reach
an agreement with private landowners.
9:25:07 AM
Senator Wilson considered previous reports and
presentations regarding the AK LNG project, which had
produced very similar discussion regarding ongoing
conversations. He asked about the progress of
negotiations. He commented that it seemed as though the
states Congressional delegation was disappointed with the
level of progress. He considered permitting and thought he
was seeing the same review of progress as he had seen in
the past.
Mr. Richards referenced slide 11, which would address
Senator Wilsons question.
Co-Chair Stedman asked for Mr. Richards to continue with
the slide deck in order.
Co-Chair Stedman commented that when previously discussing
the cost of remediation, the figures were in billions
rather than hundreds of millions. He asked if the costs
were factored into the delivery supply.
Mr. Richards asked if Co-Chair Stedman was referring to the
cost at the end of the life of the project.
Co-Chair Stedman answered "no," and clarified he was asking
about the Army Corps of Engineers process and wetlands
issues.
Mr. Richards relayed that for wetlands mitigation the costs
were in tens of millions, which were factored into the
project cost.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the amount was closer to a
billion.
Mr. Richards stated that the cost was not that high.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how PILT was factored into the
numerics of property tax.
Mr. Szymoniak relayed that the cost-supply assumed a
reduced property tax (or PILT), and AGDC ran its economic
model at the full property tax level as well. He noted that
the full property tax level added about 10 percent to the
cost to supply LNG to Asia. He referenced the chart on the
right-hand side of slide 6, which showed the high capital
costs of the project. He thought the statutory property tax
had a disproportionate impact on the economics of the
project compared to other oil projects.
9:28:40 AM
Mr. Szymoniak displayed slide 7, "Lower Cost Energy for
Alaskans":
Low Cost Gas for Alaskans
The Alaska LNG in state price is estimated to be
between $4 --$5 per MMBtu
Significant reduction from current prices, saving
Alaskans hundreds of dollars per year*
Significant Energy Savings
Southcentral households can save up to $1,000 in
energy costs (more in the
Communities without access to natural gas will
benefit from Rural Energy Fund
Mr. Szymoniak referenced the chart on the right-hand side
of the slide. He pointed out Cook Inlet natural gas prices
at $8, while he expected delivering natural gas in areas of
the state for close to $4 to $5 per million BTU. He noted
that not all Alaskans had access to natural gas, and the
table converted to dollars per kilowatt or dollars per
gallon of heating fuel for comparison purposes.
Co-Chair Stedman asked to be reminded of the delivery of
LNG price in Anchorage or Fairbanks.
Mr. Szymoniak estimated between $4 and $5 per million BTU.
Co-Chair Stedman estimated the cost would be about $.02 per
kilowatt.
Mr. Szymoniak agreed.
Co-Chair Stedman discussed take-off points and past
discussions with TransCanada. He thought there had been a
challenge with infrastructure needed to gasify areas at
take-off points. He asked for thoughts on how AKLNG would
gasify Fairbanks or Anchorage. He asked about the cost of
the tariff between Fairbanks versus Anchorage, which was
close to the end of the pipe.
Mr. Richards relayed that the offtake points had been the
topic of heavy discussion with TransCanada and Exxon. At
the time there had been a limit of 4 or 5 offtake points.
From AGDC's perspective, offtake points from small or large
communities were not a significant number. He estimated
that an offtake point for a small community would cost
approximately $1 million, which had been estimated by
Enstar. He emphasized that it was AGDCs mission to provide
gas to Alaskans. He noted that Fairbanks was one of the
project's primary offtakes that had been granted in the
enabling legislation, however the spur line into Fairbanks
was part of the Alaska Stand Alone Project rather than the
AK LNG Project. He noted that the right-of-way had been
granted to AGDC, and AGDC had been in commercial discussion
with entities that would like to take on the project of
bringing gas to Fairbanks.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if residents of the Railbelt could
expect a cost $.03 per kilowatt.
9:33:02 AM
Mr. Szymoniak explained that a $5 per million BTU natural
gas price would not necessarily result in $.02 cent
kilowatt hour power generation. He explained that if a home
was heated with $.10 cent per kilowatt hour electricity, it
would be equivalent to $30 per million BTU natural gas. He
noted that there were additional costs to create
electricity from natural gas, including the power plant and
fuel losses. He clarified that the chart on the right-hand
side of the slide was a dollar per energy unit equivalency.
Co-Chair Stedman thought there would be quite a savings.
Mr. Szymoniak agreed that there would be significant
savings if one heated with low-cost natural gas as opposed
to electricity.
Senator Bishop mused that it had been quite a while since
the legislature had passed SB 138. He asked if the rate
structure on the tolling for the gas was distance-sensitive
or if Fairbanks pay for the full distance to Nikiski.
Co-Chair Stedman relayed that he had the same question.
Mr. Richards relayed that the rate structure being
discussed was a postage stamp rate.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the rate included Southeast
Alaska.
Mr. Richards relayed that Southeast did not have access to
the pipeline but would benefit from the Rural Energy Fund.
Co-Chair Stedman agreed that a community needed to be along
the backbone of the pipeline to have access.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked for a reminder on an amendment that
had pertained to rural energy. He mentioned the figure of
20 percent of royalties.
Mr. Richards reminded that committee members had the
insight to insert into SB 138 the opportunity for an energy
relief fund for communities that did not have access to
natural gas. The provision took 20 percent of royalties
paid to the state and designated for the Energy Relief
Fund. Communities could request appropriations to help with
energy costs. He thought the measure was a very forward-
looking aspect to ensure that communities not directly on
the pipeline could benefit from the project.
Co-Chair Hoffman commented that the fund had been a
brilliant concept.
9:36:01 AM
Senator Wilson asked about federal policy listed on slide 7
and referenced changes in the Lower 48 such as natural gas
policies and the ban of propane appliances. He asked if the
policies could have any impact on the projects ability to
deliver low-cost gas to Alaskans.
Mr. Richards referenced an article that indicated that the
state of New York had been the first to ban the use of
natural gas in appliances in homes. He was not aware of any
communities in the state that were looking to ban the
consumption of natural gas in home heating, appliances, or
power generation. He commented that the continental United
States had an abundance of natural gas, and actions coming
from the shale fracking meant there was more than enough
gas to meet the countrys needs as well as to export. He
did not think there would necessarily be an impact on the
market.
Senator Wilson clarified that his question was more related
to the shift in federal policy and oil and gas. He
referenced banks and negative effects on environmental,
social, and governance (ESG) ratings.
Mr. Richards relayed that he had recently seen the Biden
Administration reaffirm the authorization given by the
Department of Energy to export natural gas in LNG form to
non-trade countries. He did not think the administration
was trying to reduce export capacity. He discussed ESG
considerations and thought that the state and the project
had a great story to tell. He mentioned the regulatory
process, capturing and sequestering CO2, and mitigation to
wetlands. He thought that the Permanent Fund Dividend
program showed that Alaska was responsive to its people in
addition to being thoughtful and considerate of the
environment. He mentioned support from government and
investors from other countries (such as Japan and Korea)
that were working towards net-zero target goals. He thought
LNG would be a key commodity to replace coal production
that had increased since the Russian invasion of the
Ukraine.
Mr. Richards addressed the impact to the energy markets
from war in Ukraine. The prices of LNG had skyrocketed, as
well as the price of oil. He thought the situation had
brought keen interest in the AK LNG Project from Asian
markets and Asian governments.
9:40:15 AM
Mr. Szymoniak highlighted slide 8, "Alaska LNG: New State
Revenue," which showed DORs analysis of the projects
fiscal impacts on the state. He addressed the graph and
summarized that at a high level the project would produce a
net of about $700 million to $800 million per year in non-
inflation adjusted dollars for the first ten years. Once
the project was depreciated for tax purposes, the state
could expect over $1 billion per year in net fiscal impact.
Mr. Szymoniak considered the graph of annual state revenues
and highlighted the property taxes. In the analysis, DOR
had assumed the full 20 mill rate on oil and gas assets,
and the graph showed the share that went to the state. The
corporate income tax included both the tax on midstream
investors as well as the upstream tax. He pointed out a
dramatic increase around year 10, when the assets were
depreciated for tax purposes.
Mr. Szymoniak noted that the royalties and production tax
included both the royalties and production tax on natural
gas production as well as the increased condensate
production from Point Thomson. He cited that Point Thomson
was expected to go from 8,000 to 10,000 barrels of
condensate production per day to over 50,000 to 70,000
barrels of condensate per day. At Point Thomson the
revenues from condensate far outweighed the revenues from
gas production. The analysis assumed no liquid losses in
Prudhoe Bay associated with natural gas production. The
producers were working on the figures and as the numbers
were refined the fiscal analysis and price of natural gas
would be updated.
Co-Chair Stedman asked what the project was using for
costs.
Mr. Szymoniak wondered what costs Co-Chair Stedman referred
to.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the projects aggregate costs
of two plants and a pipeline.
Mr. Richards cited that the updated 2023 cost was
approximately $44 billion.
Co-Chair Stedman asked how the model would respond if the
costs escalated to $54 million or to $64 million.
Mr. Szymoniak relayed that the fiscal impact to the state
would likely not be dramatically impacted, however the
corporate income tax could be impacted in a couple of
different ways depending on how the cost overruns were
treated in the tolls. He continued that a possible higher
toll could result in higher corporate income taxes in the
future. The revenues to the state were not highly sensitive
to capital cost overruns.
Co-Chair Stedman considered the broader picture and the
overall cash flow, including the upstream north of Wellhead
1. He thought it was highly unlikely that a $10 billion
cost increase would not affect the project in multiple
ways. He thought it was important to understand the
possibility thoroughly and understand the states exposure.
Mr. Richards emphasized that the analysis on slide 8 was
done by DOR, rather than AGDCs model. He discussed the
goal of having the best understanding of the risks and
impacts.
9:44:38 AM
Co-Chair Stedman was interested in the net cash flow to the
state and breaking it down into units and looking at
different leverage positions and cost overruns. He thought
cost overruns were normally significant.
Senator Bishop commented that when the project was closer
to completion, he thought it would be prudent to have the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities present
on the cost and impacts to the state highway system.
Mr. Richards looked at slide 9, "Positive Climate Impact:
Alaska LNG can reduce GHG emissions by more than 77
million tonnes of CO 2 per year.
Alaska LNG can have one of the greatest GHG benefits
of any project in the world.
Mr. Richards addressed slide 10, "Major Permits and
Authorizations":
Completed
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Order
Department of Energy (DOE) Supplemental EIS and
Export Orders
•Land rights of way (ROW): about 93% of Project area
Approved Cultural Resources Management Plan
Arctic Carbon Capture Facility Air Permit
Liquefaction Facility Air Permit
Mr. Richards highlighted that the items listed as completed
on the slide were the major permits to significantly de-
risk the project.
Co-Chair Stedman considered slide 10 and asked when the
right-of-way permits would be complete. He asked about
potential costs for the remaining 7 percent of the permits,
and about the potential sensitivity of negotiations.
Mr. Richards relayed that standard project development
would include the right-of-way process and to the final
decision and beyond. He explained that AGDC had identified
landowners that needed to be talked to. The goal was to
have the land for the pipeline in place prior to
construction, within the next two years.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the project would have to have
the rights-of-way in place before the project reached the
property.
Mr. Richards agreed.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the process could get expensive.
9:48:13 AM
Co-Chair Hoffman observed that there were permits across
Cook Inlet listed on slide 10. He wondered if Nikiski was
the most feasible point for a plant, or rather on the other
side of the inlet.
Mr. Richards affirmed that the permitted site for the LNG
facility was Nikiski, Alaska. He recalled that when
ExxonMobile was leaving the project, it had done an
extensive review of opportunities for the LNG plant siting.
The siting had looked at 80 different cases, including
Prince William Sound, the Kenai Peninsula, Anchorage, the
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and in and around Cook Inlet.
The LNG site in Nikiski was deemed the preferred
alternative and was the site selection, and the site had
gone through the environmental process. If there was a
desire to move to another location, it would reopen the
environmental process again to restart a federal
environmental impact statement.
Co-Chair Hoffman asked if Nikiski was the most viable
economic location.
Mr. Richards answered "yes," and reasoned that the site had
delivered LNG for 45 years uninterrupted. He continued that
there was access for tankers that would not be disturbed by
ice. He cited that the site itself had ground that could
handle the equipment without ground movement. The impacts
for endangered species in Cook Inlet had been factored in
and mitigated through the environmental process. He thought
Nikiski was the best site.
Mr. Szymoniak advanced to slide 11, "Alaska LNG
Investment":
AGDC is seeking private investors to take Alaska LNG
through Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) and to
a Final Investment Decision (FID)
Goldman Sachs is under agreement to raise investment
capital for Alaska LNG
AGDC is targeting approximately $150M development
capital to get to FID
o 3rd Party FEED costs, project management,
legal/commercial, 8 Star Alaska overhead
o Investors will receive majority interest in 8
Star Alaska and Alaska LNG
•Capital Raise Process:
o Goldman Sachs has set out a structured capital
raise process and leading financial investment
engagement
o Goldman Sachs is only engaging with investors
with the financial strength and expertise to
advance the project
Alaska LNG CIM (Confidential Information Memorandum)
Developed by Goldman Sachs
Distributed to potential investors under
confidentiality agreements
Contains 60+ pages of detailed financial
projections, commercial status, and investment terms
Mr. Szymoniak thought the slide addressed Senator Wilson's
earlier question. He explained that all AK LNG Project
assets had been transitioned under an entity called Eight
Star Alaska, LLC, for which AGDC was looking for strategic
and financial investors. He added that AGDC was targeting
rd
the 3 quarter of 2023 for closing the investment.
9:52:03 AM
Senator Merrick was curious about specific requirements to
be considered for the project and asked if Alaskan
investors given priority over others.
Mr. Richards explained that Goldman Sachs process included
looking for entities that had developed LNG facilities in
the past that were under operation and had the financial
wherewithal to take on a major investment through the whole
process. He thought it would likely require a consortium of
entities to be able to accomplish the project. He
acknowledged the large capital output that would be
challenging for any individual company. He noted that
AGDCs conversation had largely been with large financial
institutions, U.S. Gulf Coast LNG developers, and
conglomerates from the countries of Japan, Korea, and
others.
Senator Merrick qualified that she wanted to make sure all
interested parties were included.
Co-Chair Stedman mentioned action by Mr. Richards
predecessor that included issuing stock to Alaskans outside
of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulations.
Mr. Richards relayed that the legislature had given AGDC
the responsibility of giving Alaskans the opportunity to
invest in the project, which he thought needed work with
the administration and legislature to accomplish.
Mr. Szymoniak looked at slide 12, "Equity Offer for
Investors":
AGDC is raising development capital to take Alaska LNG
to Final Investment Decision FID)
Alaska LNG is an attractive investment:
Best economics of any North America project
Have major federal and state permits and
authorizations
Beneficial equity terms
Local support
AGDC Equity Offer Highlights
Majority ownership and control of Alaska LNG in
exchange for:
• Funding development costs to FID
Commitment to move Alaska LNG forward on fast
timeline
• Preferential in state gas supply
• Opportunity for Alaska to invest
Mr. Szymoniak summarized that AGDC was selling a majority
75 percent interest in Eight Star Alaska, LLC, the entity
that owned the AK LNG Project, in exchange for $150 million
committed to moving the project to FID. He relayed that it
was an investment process that was typical for LNG
developers, in which a developer started a project and
brought in outside capital in exchange for equity as the
project developed. He cited that one difference with the AK
LNG Project was the prioritizing of investors that would
invest capital with commitment to move the move the project
forward and hit milestones for the benefit of Alaskans.
9:55:34 AM
Senator Wilson asked if AGDC could disclose where the
project was on the timeline of meeting the identified
goals.
Mr. Richards reiterated that the Goldman Sachs process of
engaging with entities was multi-stepped. He emphasized
that there were several entities that were doing extremely
high due diligence in the project.
Senator Wilson asked for Mr. Richards to quantify a
percentage of progress as a best guess.
Co-Chair Stedman thought Senator Wilson wanted to know if
any entities had written a check.
Mr. Richards relayed that he had not received a check.
Senator Bishop referenced the second bullet pertaining to
major federal permits and authorizations. He asked if the
project had received all the permits and authorizations.
Mr. Richards affirmed that the project had all the major
federal permits, and two of the main state permits. The
remainder of the state permits were tactical, and had a
short duration with a timeline. He explained that AGDC
would engage with the administration and the regulatory
agencies within the state when the project was in FEED.
Mr. Szymoniak showed slide 13, "Alaska LNG Execution
Strategy":
AGDC's Role: Transition to Private Investors
AGDC is seeking qualified partners and investors to
advance Alaska LNG to FID
AGDC created the project company 8 Star Alaska, LLC
(8 Star) to function as the parent company of the
project
AGDC is transitioning Alaska LNG assets under 8 Star
and is selling 75% equity ownership of the company to
investors in exchange for taking the project to FID
AGDC will retain a 25% carried interest in 8 Star
8 Star's Role: Manage Alaska LNG through FID
8 Star will be managed by private investors with AGDC
being a minority owner
8 Star will be the project manager and retain
oversight of all 3 aspects of the project through to
FID
8 Star ownership is likely to consist of one "lead
party" with other strategic partners owning minority
stakes
At FID, 8 Star will raise the construction capital
for each of the three project subcomponents
Mr. Szymoniak summarized that AGDC would be handing the AK
LNG project to private ownership while maintaining a
minority interest, with no obligation for the state to fund
the project further while having an opportunity for the
state to invest in up to 25 percent of the project.
Co-Chair Stedman asked about cost overruns and if it would
be the responsibility of the 75 percent ownership.
Mr. Szymoniak answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Stedman asked what kind of exposure the state
would be subject to if it owned 25 percent of the project
and things went awry.
Mr. Richards relayed that the opportunity for the state to
decide on continued ownership rights would be at the point
when the end of the FEED stage occurred. At that point
there would be more definition in cost, execution strategy,
and long lead-time items. The terms offered to investors
would carry the full cost of the FEED level of effort going
forward, with no further requirement for the state to put
in money.
Co-Chair Stedman asserted that FEED would not bankrupt
people.
10:00:02 AM
Senator Bishop wanted to ensure that the state would not
make it's RIK and RIV decision until after investment.
Mr. Richards relayed that the RIK and RIV discussion could
go on during FEED, ultimately coming to a conclusion so the
state would know the best value for the natural gas.
Mr. Szymoniak informed that the next two slides were taken
from the AK LNG Confidential Information Memorandum (CIM),
which was over 60 pages of detailed technical and financial
information. The document was used to share with investors
as part of the investment offering. He referenced slide 14,
"Simplified Alaska LNG Structure," which showed a flow
chart of 8 Star Alaska, LLC until FID, at which time
constructional capital would be raised for three sub-
projects. The state would maintain a 25 percent carried
interest in 8 Star Alaska, LLC and the right to invest in
up to 20% of the ACC, Pipeline, and LNG facility.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the document was confidential.
Mr. Szymoniak answered affirmatively.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the legislature's consultants had
access to the documents under a confidentiality agreement.
Mr. Richards answered affirmatively. He explained that the
bottom three LLC's on the slide were entities that would
want to invest and would have the opportunity and 8 Star
Alaska was carrying up to 25 percent for the state should
it elect to have ownership rights or not.
Co-Chair Stedman thought the committee might consider
requesting the Legislative Budget and Audit (LBA)Committee
to have consultants Gaffney Cline review some of the
forthcoming documents. He suggested that each member
consider the idea.
Mr. Richards relayed that AGDC had ongoing discussions with
Gaffney Cline and would welcome a look if the LBA
Committee desired.
Mr. Szymoniak turned to slide 15, "Investment Highlights,"
which was another excerpt from the CIM and showed a key
investment highlights.
10:03:24 AM
Mr. Richards considered slide 16, "Utility Supply
Agreement," and noted that the slide showed how AGDC was
working with utilities in Alaska to make sure that the
needs of Alaska and Alaskan utilities were met first. The
supply agreement was offered to the utilities that offered
preferential terms and a priority basis. He reminded that
AGDC was granted the responsibility to provide energy for
Alaskans, so it had reserved 500 million standing cubic
feet a day within the pipeline capacity of natural gas for
offtake in the state, which was 2.5 times of what was
currently consumed. He continued that AGDC wanted to ensure
that some of the offtake was available at preferential
terms to the utilities at the $4 to $5 level that would
provide cost savings to Alaskans.
Mr. Richards displayed slide 17, "Alaska Affordable Energy
for Rural Alaska":
• Required by Alaska Statute 37.05.610
• The purpose is to provide a source of funds for
appropriation to develop infrastructure to deliver
energy to areas of the state that do not have direct
access to the Alaska LNG pipeline
• The Alaska Affordable Energy Fund is to receive an
annual deposit of 20% of state royalty revenue after
paying into the Permanent Fund
Mr. Richards referenced comments from Co-Chair Hoffman, Co-
Chair Olson, and Senator Bishop about the Affordable Energy
Fund. He mentioned Senator Wilson's comments about ESG
concerns.
Mr. Szymoniak highlighted slide 18, "Gas Sales Agreement
Producers," and noted that AGDC was currently negotiating
gas supply precedent agreements and had offered terms to
producers. The gas supply agreements were preliminary but
binding, and included key terms such as price, volume,
term, and a commitment to buy and sell. He continued that
in AGDCs work with Goldman Sachs and talking to dozens of
investors over the previous year, almost every investor had
identified that prior to investing they would require the
preliminary gas supply precedent agreements with each of
the three producers. The requirement had been communicated
to the producers by Goldman Sachs directly, as well as
through meetings with the DNR commissioner and the DOA
commissioner. He relayed that there was a mixed level of
engagement with producers. He emphasized that it was
critical that the project get to full engagement from all
three producers in order to be successful in raising the
$150 million in development capital.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if any of the major producers were
involved for equity ownership.
Mr. Richards reminded that the conversations were
confidential, but shared that there was no hesitation for
investors of that caliber to come into the project.
Co-Chair Stedman thought it was a good sign if ExxonMobile
came to the table rather than just agreeing to sell the
projects gas. He mentioned the members caution.
Mr. Richards thought ExxonMobile was working on the project
through its own internal processes.
Co-Chair Stedman assured that ExxonMobile had much more
expertise than the state.
10:07:27 AM
Senator Merrick referenced slide 20, and wondered how the
state was paying Goldman Sachs, or if payment was
contingent upon successful contract negotiations.
Mr. Richards looked at slide 19, "LNG Sales Agreements,"
and mentioned the sales agreements through which AGDC was
marketing the gas. He noted that AGDC had not stopped
discussions with countries and entities that wanted to buy
AK LNG. He mentioned the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the
pull-back and nationalization of projects by Russian, and
some increased risk of supply. In addition to discussion
about as purchase, AGDC was talking to entities about
equity in the project. He discussed underlying agreements
that would underpin project financing.
Co-Chair Stedman reminded that several years ago,
consultants had broken down the major players in the
states oil and gas fields and how the state fit into the
producers global portfolios. He thought it had been very
clear that the state fit into ExxonMobiles global
portfolio through gas. He noted that Conoco had been in the
state for oil, and BP had been in production/harvest mode.
He mentioned ExxonMobiles holdings at Point Thomson, and
was interested in its movements with regard to the project.
10:09:55 AM
Mr. Richards addressed slide 20, "FY24 Operating Budget
Submittal":
FY24 Operating Budget Request
Personal Services $1,801.1
Travel $ 47.6
Services (contracts) $1,197.4
Commodities $ 40.0
Total $3,086.1
Additional Requests
1. Authorization to receive $4M federal receipts
2. $2.5M General Funds match
AGDC Submitted 2 Change Records
1. Moving $86.0 from services to personal services to
align with anticipated costs
2. Changing the Fund Source from AK LNG Fund to
General Funds
Mr. Richards discussed AGDCs operating budget request for
FY 24, and highlighted a reduction of about 70 percent from
FY 21 to FY 24. He mentioned a reduction in staff,
streamlined processes, and a reduction in overall
expenditures. He cited that it was the first year that AGDC
was asking for a GF appropriation. The AK LNG Fund, which
had been originally capitalized by the legislature, would
be bringing other funds.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if AGDC was funded in the current
budget or if it was short.
Mr. Richards thought that under the CS the fund source was
still the AK LNG Project without GF appropriation. He noted
that the additional request for the receipt authority for
$4 million of appropriation from Senator Lisa Murkowski was
in the budget, as was the $2.5 GF match for the federal
appropriation.
Co-Chair Stedman affirmed that Senator Murkowski and the
Alaska delegation had worked very hard on the issue and had
been informed that the state had the matching funds
available. He noted that the project had a multi-year
appropriation under Governor Sean Parnell and had not yet
requested funds. He relayed that the legislature would do
what it could to ensure that AGDC could operating on a
year-by-year basis.
Senator Merrick was curious about the state's contract with
Goldman Sachs and how the institution was being paid.
Mr. Richards explained that Goldman Sachs had been
providing the project with support and assistance in
bringing in private equity. He noted that AGDC was not
paying Goldman Sachs, but rather it was funded as part of
the capital raise from private developers.
Co-Chair Stedman did not think Goldman Sachs worked for
charity.
Mr. Richards affirmed that Goldman Sachs only wanted to
work on projects where there was opportunity going forward.
Mr. Richard advanced to slide 21, which showed contact
information for AGDC as well as information about the
corporations upcoming meeting and access to information
from previous board meetings.
Mr. Richards informed that the next board of directors
meeting would be held June 9, 2023, in Nikiski. He had
heard confirmation from the Senate President that Senator
Bishop and Senator Cathy Giessel would be liaisons between
the Senate and board of directors.
Co-Chair Stedman thanked the testifiers.
Co-Chair Stedman handed the gavel to Co-Chair Olson.
10:13:49 AM
AT EASE
10:21:18 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 53
"An Act relating to involuntary civil commitments."
10:21:22 AM
Co-Chair Olson relayed that the committee had first heard
SB 53 on April 19, 2023, and had taken public testimony at
the time. The committee had worked with the bill sponsor
and the affected agencies and had reached an agreement on
sections of the bill, especially to reduce the fiscal
notes. The committee would consider a Committee Substitute
(CS).
Senator Kiehl MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee substitute
for SB 53, Work Draft 33-LS0172\O (Dunmire, 5/2/23).
Co-Chair Olson OBJECTED for discussion.
10:22:13 AM
KEN ALPER, STAFF, SENATOR DONNY OLSON, explained that the
sponsor had worked with agencies on the CS. He discussed a
Summary of Changes document (copy on file):
1) Section 4 from version P is deleted in its
entirety. This section extended the competency
restoration period for a person found incompetent to
stand trail from one year to two years.
This change was to prevent extending the restoration
waitlist at Alaska Psychiatric Institute and will
reduce the fiscal note from the Department of Family
and Community Services.
Mr. Alper explained that removing the change was important
because it would have created more of a backlog at the
Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API), which he thought had
constituted a large portion of a fiscal note. He noted that
there were four fiscal notes for the bill that had added up
to a little less than $2.4 million. The largest note had
been from API at $1.2 million, and it was hoped that the
change would reduce or eliminate the note. He continued to
address the document:
2) Section 5 in version O, which was section 6 in
version P, is amended to add the words "before the
charges are dismissed."
This is to ensure that all individuals who meet the
bill's standard of dangerousness are seamlessly
transitioned to involuntary civil commitment
proceedings.
3) Section 7 in version O, which was Section 8 in
version P, is amended to clarify that victims of
dismissed criminal charges who receive notice under
this section are not entitled to attend the civil
commitment hearings if the respondent has elected to
have the hearing closed.
4) Adds a new Section 8, which was previously
subsection 6(e). Separating and clarifying this
language, which describes the procedure for providing
civil commitment records to the original criminal
prosecutor, was at the request of the Civil Division
of the Department of Law.
5) Adds a new subsection (b)(5) to Section 9, to
ensure that a longer period of commitment is necessary
to protect the public. This was added by request from
the Disability Law Center.
6) Rewrites Section 11 to clarify the procedures for
discharge from involuntary commitment. The
professional person in charge may discharge the
respondent after a court order terminating the
commitment, and after the prosecutor receives notice.
Also, the respondent may petition the court for early
discharge with evidence demonstrating that they are no
longer likely to cause serious harm. An early
discharge petition may only be filed once every 180
days, a change from once per year in the previous
version.
7) Adds a conforming new Section 13 to establish that
records releases to the Criminal Division, described
in Section 8 of the bill, are confidential.
10:26:42 AM
SENATOR MATT CLAMAN, SPONSOR, relayed that he was
supportive of all the changes presented in the CS, which he
had discussed with the co-chairs office and other
stakeholders.
Co-Chair Olson WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered. The CS for SB 53 was ADOPTED.
10:27:32 AM
DR. KRISTY BECKER, CHIEF CLINICAL OFFICER, ALASKA
PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE, DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
SERVICES, relayed that she was available to answer
questions about API and specifically about competency
restoration. She reminded that API was an 80-bed facility,
and there were 60 beds available for adult civil
commitments, as well as 10 available beds for competency
restoration. She shared that at present, API was piloting
two projects. Fiscal notes would include an outpatient
competency restoration program that would be designed for
approximately 10 defendants that were low-level
misdemeanants without crimes against people.
Ms. Becker explained that the hospital was also attempting
to open a jail-based restoration program in partnership
with the Department of Corrections (DOC), which would
likely start with 10 defendants before growing in the
future. For the program, clinicians would go into DOC and
provide restoration services to individuals that were
incarcerated and awaiting a bed in API. The individuals
would receive treatment as usual from DOC in terms of
mental health and medical needs.
Dr. Becker explained that API was hoping that the two
projects would reduce some of the pressure. She cited that
the waitlist for competency restoration was 40, and the
waitlist for admissions to the civil side of the hospital
was 14 with 2 in the community for a total of 16. She
encouraged members to consider the pressure that API was
facing as it had grown out of regulatory difficulties it
had experienced in 2018 and 2019. She noted that the
hospital was almost at full capacity. She thought there was
potential that some things in the bill could put pressure
on capacity but noted that the removal of the two-year
commitment period was significant in terms of zeroing the
fiscal notes and benefitting API.
10:30:20 AM
Senator Wilson asked if Dr. Becker felt that the current
version of the legislation would continue to lengthen the
time of people at API, thus creating the need for more beds
in outgoing years.
Dr. Becker relayed that the five-year commitment period did
have the potential (in a few cases) to lengthen the period
of stay for individuals by a lot. She relayed that there
were between 9 and 10 individuals that she referred to as
not competent, not restorable, and not safe to return to
the community. The individuals were currently committed on
rotating 180-day commitments. The longest-standing
individual to fit the criteria had been in the facility for
9 years. She affirmed that individuals that fit the
criteria were already committed for fairly lengthy periods
of time if needed.
Senator Wilson referenced the continual 180-day
opportunities to be re-committed. He asked if the practice
was improved by the legislation or if the process worked.
Dr. Becker relayed that at present she believed, along with
API's attorney, that the process worked. If individuals
became stabilized and could be released by the facility, it
was possible to do so. She had an appreciation for the
ongoing oversight and the process of checking in on the
cases while continuing to evaluate the need for ongoing
commitment. She thought the bill, with the five-year
period, would reduce some procedural issues because of the
lack of need for recurring legal processes, but she saw
value in the recurring oversight.
Senator Wilson commented that there had not been a clinical
perspective offered earlier. He apologized for the
oversight. He thought the CS would create a two-tier system
by which people could enter into a 6-month or 5-year
involuntary commitment. He wondered if Dr. Becker found any
inequity in the structure.
10:33:55 AM
Dr. Becker relayed that API initially committed individuals
for 72 hours without any criminal offense, after which a
determination was made if the commitment should be longer.
She acknowledged that there would be a two-tier system. She
relayed that clinically speaking, API would follow the law
however it was written. She qualified that committing
people for five-year or 180-day periods did create a
clinical complexity for the hospital because there was not
great programming for long-term stays. She mentioned long-
term effects of people committed to the hospital without a
two-tiered clinical program. She relayed that the hospital
was working on such a program and would continue to do so
in preparation for any individuals committed for a five-
year period.
Co-Chair Olson asked if Dr. Becker needed legislative
oversight to move to a two-tiered system, or if the
hospital could do it on its own.
Dr. Becker thought that API could eventually move to a two-
tier system on its own. She cited the difficulty of housing
at the physical plant, where short-term and long-term
commitments were residing in the same unit. She mentioned
regulatory guidelines, which were not consistent with long-
term stays. She pondered that the pertinent question was
how to marry the regulatory guidelines with the longer-term
stay patients.
Senator Wilson shared a fear that the bill as changed would
change the fiscal note as stated, considering the
complexities listed by Dr. Becker. He thought a person that
was under a five-year civil commitment would have less
rights than a person serving five years in a DOC facility.
He pondered potential civil lawsuits by having a two-tier
system. He shared concerns about lack of due process.
10:38:28 AM
JOHN SKIDMORE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW, relayed that he would highlight three
items in the proposed CS. He cited that the bill created an
obligation for prosecutors to file the initial petition for
a civil evaluation for an individual that had been charged
with a certain crime and found incompetent. He highlighted
that the new version of the bill expressly stated that the
petition must be filed and ruled on before charges were
dismissed. The determination of incompetence was a legal
determination by the court supported by the evaluation of
professionals. He continued that whether or not the courts
would ultimately say that a person was incompetent was not
known until the ruling.
Mr. Skidmore thought he would be remiss not to point out
that the vast majority (or 95 percent) of cases, the courts
would agree with API's assessment of incompetence. He
thought the remaining 5 percent highlighted the point that
it was incumbent upon prosecutors to anticipate, when
someone may be found incompetent, to file the petitions in
advance and have rulings on them. He highlighted the
responsibility that would fall on those in the criminal
division. He thought the requirement for the prosecutors to
engage in the conduct prior to the dismissal supported the
concept in the fiscal note.
10:42:00 AM
Co-Chair Olson asked how many of the five percent of cases
would be a detriment to society.
Mr. Skidmore clarified that the five percent of cases was
in reference to people that had received an evaluation from
API that had deemed them incompetent, and despite the
opinion the court had found the person competent and
continued with prosecution.
Co-Chair Olson asked if there was a difference between the
medical evaluation and the courts evaluation.
Mr. Skidmore answered yes.
Co-Chair Olson asked if Mr. Skidmore was saying there was
no detriment to society if the two competency findings were
different.
Mr. Skidmore did not believe there was a detriment to
society because in the instances in which a doctor had
found a person incompetent and the court did not concur,
the criminal conduct for which the person was charged was
being addressed by prosecution. He reminded that the bill
was contemplating whether or not the 90 to 95 percent of
people which the court found incompetent were automatically
released or whether there was a petition for them to be
evaluated should they be committed civilly.
10:43:45 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wanted to hear whether Mr. Skidmore
supported the CS or recommended changes.
Mr. Skidmore addressed a third provision of the proposed CS
pertaining to required victim notifications. He explained
that in the instances of a victim injured by a person, the
person that was harmed did not currently have any rights or
authority to know what happened to the perpetrator if the
criminal case was dismissed. The bill required provision of
notice to the victim as to the date and time of the
hearing, the outcome of the hearing, and whether or not the
person was committed or discharged. The bill did not
provide the ability to attend the hearings nor the ability
to find out more information about the perpetrator.
Mr. Skidmore felt that for a victim to have the ability to
attend the hearings of a perpetrator was a policy call for
the legislature. He explained that the CS it was made clear
that the bill was not meant to give the victim the right to
attend the hearing unless the person that caused the harm
agreed.
Mr. Skidmore relayed that the administration had not taken
an overall position on the bill nor the CS. He explained
that trying to close the gap between individuals having a
criminal case dismissed for incompetency and trying to
initiate a civil commitment was a concept supported by the
administration.
10:47:44 AM
Co-Chair Stedman pondered that the committee might hear
from the sponsor as to why the bill did not give more
rights to victims and victims families.
Co-Chair Olson referenced people in bush Alaska, many of
whom did not have public safety readily available. He
referenced incidents in Golovin in which people were
wounded. He asked what to tell the residents of his
district in terms of whether the bill would make people
safer.
Mr. Skidmore restated that he believed SB 53 took steps to
close the gap between criminal incompetence and civil
commitment. He thought it was an open question as to
whether all the gaps were filled.
Senator Bishop asked for Co-Chair Olson's intention with
regard to bill action.
Co-Chair Olson relayed that the committee would also
address the bill in the afternoon.
10:50:17 AM
NANCY MEADE, GENERAL COUNSEL, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, shared
that the Court System did not have a view on the bill. She
agreed with the criminal division that the bill made the
effort to address the gap that occurred when a criminal
defendant was found incompetent to stand trial and the case
was dismissed if the defendant was unable to be restored to
competency. She thought the bill would segue the defendant
directly into getting an evaluation for a mental commitment
to determine if the person should be held for an evaluation
and further mental commitments. She understood what the
sponsor was trying to accomplish in the bill by addressing
the gap. She considered that there were provisions, as Mr.
Skidmore had mentioned, about whether the victim in a
criminal case should have a right to attend the hearing
when the mental issues were being discussed. She noted that
there was a current statute that indicated a respondent
could choose whether to have a hearing open or closed. She
thought the matter needed to be clarified in the bill.
Co-Chair Olson thought SB 53 was significant and that it
was important to take whatever time was necessary to
discuss the bill.
10:53:06 AM
Ms. Meade discussed a provision in Section 4 and Section 5
that provided for moving a case (with a person accused of a
crime and thereafter found incompetent) that was about to
be dismissed into the mental commitment arena, and thought
it would be helpful and would fill a gap. She thought the
provision would probably be helpful to Alaskans. She
thought there were a few provisions that would take some
work on the part of the Court System. She estimated that
API would have about 100 more individuals to evaluate with
3-day short-term evaluations in order to see if they needed
to be held for a full mental commitment. She referenced Dr.
Beckers testimony about limited numbers of beds and
thought there could be logistical issues. She did not think
evaluation would create a significant issue but would
increase case load.
Ms. Meade thought the five-year commitment would take up
more beds at API, which judges would be aware of. She did
not anticipate very many people receiving a five-year
commitment and did not think it would be a significant pull
on the courts resources.
Co-Chair Olson relayed that the committee would consider
amendments to the bill at the afternoon meeting.
SB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Olson discussed the agenda for the afternoon
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
10:56:06 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:56 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 53 FCS IMH API 041723.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 LAW CJL 041423.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Sponsor Statement version P.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Sectional Analysis version P.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Research - KTUU Article 2.15.2022.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SHSS 2/21/2023 3:30:00 PM SJUD 3/10/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Supporting Document - Frequently Asked Questions 3.10.2023.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/10/2023 1:30:00 PM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Research - NCSL Involuntary Commitment Timeline Maximums 3.13.2023.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Research - NCSL Competency to Stand Trial General Overview 11.1.2022.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Research - CSG Competency Report 10.1.2020.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Research - Forensic Psychiatric Hospital Feasibility Study Draft Phase 1 Report 2.1.2019.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM SJUD 3/29/2023 1:30:00 PM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Summary of Changes 4.12.2023.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Testimony Received 4.12.2023.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| Sb 53 Support Dolphin.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Testimony Dahl.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Support Schenker.pdf |
SFIN 4/19/2023 1:30:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Public Testimony Wick.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Testimony Thompson.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Testimony Myers.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Amendment 1 Kiehl.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Summary of Changes version O.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 work draft version O.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| SB 53 Conceptual Amendment 2 Wilson.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
SB 53 |
| 050323 AGDC response to S FIN questions from May 3 meeting.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 050323 ESG report on Aalska LNG project 2023.pdf |
SFIN 5/3/2023 9:00:00 AM |