Legislature(2007 - 2008)BUTROVICH 205
04/18/2007 05:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB104 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
April 18, 2007
5:53 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Hollis French, Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins, Vice Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Gene Therriault
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 104
"An Act relating to the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act;
establishing the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act matching
contribution fund; providing for an Alaska Gasline Inducement
Act coordinator; making conforming amendments; and providing for
an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 104
SHORT TITLE: NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PROJECT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/05/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/05/07 (S) RES, JUD, FIN
03/14/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/14/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/14/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/16/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/16/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/16/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/19/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/19/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/19/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/21/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/21/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/21/07 (S) RES AT 5:30 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/21/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/21/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/22/07 (S) RES AT 4:15 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
03/22/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/23/07 (S) RES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/23/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/23/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/24/07 (S) RES AT 1:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/24/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/24/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/24/07 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM SENATE FINANCE 532
03/24/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/24/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/26/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/26/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/26/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/27/07 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/27/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/27/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/28/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/28/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/28/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/07 (S) RES AT 5:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/29/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/29/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/30/07 (S) RES AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/30/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/30/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/31/07 (S) RES AT 12:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/31/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/31/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/01/07 (S) RES AT 11:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/01/07 (S) Moved CSSB 104(RES) Out of Committee
04/01/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/02/07 (S) RES RPT CS 6AM SAME TITLE
04/02/07 (S) AM: HUGGINS, GREEN, STEVENS, STEDMAN,
WIELECHOWSKI, WAGONER
04/02/07 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/02/07 (S) Moved Out of Committee 4/1/07
04/02/07 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/04/07 (S) JUD AT 2:45 PM BELTZ 211
04/04/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/04/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/11/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/11/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/11/07 (S) JUD AT 5:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/11/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/11/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/12/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/12/07 (S) Public Testimony 5:30 pm to 7:00 pm
04/13/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/13/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/13/07 (S) JUD AT 5:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/13/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/13/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/14/07 (S) JUD AT 10:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/14/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/14/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/15/07 (S) JUD AT 11:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
04/15/07 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/16/07 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/16/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/16/07 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
04/17/07 (S) JUD AT 3:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
04/17/07 (S) <Teleconference Listen Only>
04/18/07 (S) JUD AT 1:45 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/18/07 (S) JUD AT 5:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
DON BULLOCK, Attorney
Alaska Legal and Research Services Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Outlined changes in Version O CS for SB 104
PATRICK GALVIN, Commissioner
Department of Revenue
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions related to SB 104
MARCIA DAVIS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Revenue
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions related to SB 104
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR HOLLIS FRENCH reconvened the Senate Judiciary Standing
Committee meeting at 5:53:33 PM. All members were present.
SB 104-NATURAL GAS PIPELINE PROJECT
CHAIR FRENCH announced the committee is continuing to work its
way through an overview of the Judiciary committee substitute
(CS) for SB 104 and Version O has been adopted.
DAN BULLOCK said he was going to back up from where he stopped
this afternoon.
Page 21, line 27, and page 22, line 26, have similar provisions.
The Senate resources version had language that said if the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission doesn't have a rebuttable
presumption in effect, rolled-in rate treatment applies to the
cost of the expansion of the project and the person receiving
the inducement could participate in the hearing before FERC.
That language is deleted from Version O for both the royalty
inducement and the tax inducement. Effectively, the provision
dealt with who could argue before FERC; it didn't affect the
FERC decision.
5:54:56 PM
Page 24, line 5, adds the clarifying language "issued under this
chapter" following the word "license".
Page 24, lines 6-7, have language to require a constitutional
challenge to this chapter, in the court of the state of
competent jurisdiction so it directs the challenge to superior
court. He explained that in the 1960s K & L Distributors
investment credits case, the court said even though the
legislature put in language saying the decision was final and
not subject to appeal, the court would still consider the appeal
on a due process challenge.
CHAIR FRENCH recapped saying a person's due process rights can
only be restricted so far before the court steps in and
overrides the attempted restriction.
MR. BULLOCK continued to highlight changes in Version O.
Page 24, lines 24-28, relate to the commitment of the state not
to give the same benefits to a competing pipeline project that
are given to the license in this Act. The assurance applies to
giving inducements to producers that might use the other line as
well as benefits to the competing gas pipeline. There's still a
treble damage, but in Version O they are three times the amount
of the expenditures incurred and paid by the licensee that are
qualified under 43.90.110. Basically, it's a narrower group of
expenses that are tripled.
Page 25, lines 5-11, state that preferential royalty or tax
treatment doesn't include specific things outlined in
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C). This is so the normal
administration of tax and royalty programs and applying the law
isn't considered a preferential royalty or tax treatment even if
it might happen to benefit a competing line.
SENATOR THERRIAULT asked if that means that the agency could
continue doing things such as the Oooguruk royalty modification.
MR. BULLOCK said probably, but it could be arguable if the
purpose of the adjustment was to benefit the particular line.
Generally, if a law passes that the tax structure is changed,
that isn't prevented here.
5:58:47 PM
Subparagraph (B) talks about statutory change or changes in
regulations. Subparagraph (C) on line 10 of page 25, says "the
benefits of a large project permit coordinator authorized by a
law in effect on the effective date of this section." DNR has
large project permit coordinators that aren't clearly authorized
by a particular statute like the gas line coordinator created in
the AGIA bill even though they do have general authority to
manage how permits are considered. That's why the reference is a
bit vague, he said.
Page 25, lines 13-16, relate to the assignment of all or part of
a license, including rights and obligations. It requires the
commissioners to publish notice of a proposed assignment
including giving the legislature notice and providing at least
30 days for public review and comment.
Page 25, line 31, through page 26, line 4, relate to the
assignment of the voucher under 43.90.330. He suggested the
committee ask the administration to clarify whether the transfer
of the voucher is specifically between two utilities or if it
could be between a utility and the gas producer.
PATRICK GALVIN, Commissioner, Department of Revenue, explained
that the voucher could be transferred between two utilities, but
it wouldn't be of any value until it's transferred to a producer
who would use it for the royalty provisions. It has to be
somebody that will be paying the production tax, he said. The
voucher may be transferred between non-producer entities but
ultimately, the purpose of the voucher is to allow a non-lessee
to be able to participate in the inducement.
6:04:39 PM
CHAIR FRENCH posed a hypothetical situation. Calpine commits to
ship 1 bcf/day in the pipeline and receives a voucher that's
good for royalty in kind and a tax freeze that apply to 1
bcf/day. Calpine takes that voucher to BP and ConocoPhillips and
asks to buy .5 bcf/day from each. Now the voucher is split with
regard to those two producers so each producer has a royalty in
kind and royalty in value switching deal and a tax freeze deal
good for .5 bcf/day. He asked if, in this hypothetical,
subsection (d) on page 25, which talks about "a person receiving
a voucher" would be referring to Calpine.
MARCIA DAVIS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Revenue, said
subsection (d) was intended to address only the gas purchaser.
In the hypothetical, Calpine's voucher can only be assigned if
Calpine transfers the complete contract rights it has in the
pipeline to someone else or if Calpine is sold to another legal
entity. The provision was only intended to address the
assignment by the originator of the pipeline capacity
acquisition in the initial pipeline. It's non-transferable
amongst the producers and the duration is limited.
6:07:01 PM
CHAIR FRENCH asked if Calpine could sell the voucher to Shell
Oil.
MS. DAVIS said yes; Calpine could transfer the voucher to Shell
Oil or anyone as long as it transfers the entire capacity it
acquired at the initial binding open season. It can't be split.
"We didn't want to end up with people carving out pieces, so
just as a producer can only transfer the royalty and tax
benefits in connection with the sale of their entire North Slope
interest or the company sale itself, we wanted to have a similar
very large rope around this piece so that we didn't end up with
a huge administration problem of tracking it," she stated.
MR. BULLOCK raised the question of one gas buyer transferring
the voucher to another gas buyer.
MS. DAVIS explained that a lot of the detailed language in the
voucher section is being deferred until the bill is considered
in the next committee. "The only way a buyer of gas is going to
be able to transfer this to another buyer of gas is if they
actually transfer their entire capacity in the pipeline to
another buyer," she stated.
MR. BULLOCK said he was wondering if a utility in Fairbanks
could transfer the voucher to a utility in Anchorage or if this
simply addresses a transfer from a buyer to a gas producer.
MS. DAVIS explained that the state would only be focused on
Calpine. As part of the regulatory process, any time a Calpine
buys X volume of gas from Arco for a particular duration, that
information flows back to DNR and DOR so both agencies will know
who in entitled to the tax and royalty, in what amount and for
how long.
CHAIR FRENCH suggested a flow chart would be helpful.
6:10:54 PM
MR. BULLOCK continued to highlight changes in Version O.
Page 26, lines 8-11, is the provision for developing a program
for employment training related to the project. There is no
change, it's simply in a different location. The severability
provision was here originally and it's been moved to the
uncodified law.
Page 28, lines 5-6, relate to an exclusion from the procurement
code for certain contracts. The only change is to remove the
reference to abandonment to be consistent with the abandonment
section, which only focuses on whether or not something is
uneconomic.
Page 30, lines 9-27, are the three uncodified sections.
Section 5 says that as soon as practicable requests for
applications will be issued. It says the legislature has the
intent for it to happen within 90 days.
Section 6 is an intent section that asks the court to expedite
cases that are related to the project that would be licensed
under this Act.
Section 7 is the severability section that was formerly located
in codified law.
Recess from 6:13:19 PM to 6:15:18 PM.
CHAIR FRENCH reconvened the meeting and recapped the issues for
the committee to consider. The first is whether or not to
affirmatively include a sentence that says that if the bill is
not approved, the license may not be issued. He noted that
Senator Wielechowski has a concern about whether the phrase
"final administrative action" should be included in the bill or
not. There are some policy issues related to that being in or
out, he added.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Senator Wielechowski to state the idea of the
AOGCC.
6:16:10 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the suggested amendment stems from the
hearings yesterday regarding AOGCC. Everyone assumes there will
be enough gas offtake available, but it isn't a certainty. The
following is a contingency to provide a safety valve for all
parties, he stated.
Page 15, line 15, following "net present value of the
project":
Insert "are necessary as a result of AOGCC
rulings"
Page 15, line 19, following "and":
Insert "except for changes required as a
result of AOGCC rulings"
SENATOR HUGGINS asked what the administration thinks.
6:17:30 PM
MS. DAVIS said we're comfortable that 4.3 bcf/day to 4.5 bcf/day
is a reasonable design criteria for a pipeline off the North
Slope, but we all know that there's an uncertainty as to what
the gas offtake rate will be on the Slope over time. Inserting
the suggested language might make applicants more willing to
step up to the plate and commit to projects.
SENATOR HUGGINS said he wants to make sure this doesn't allow a
modification that would ultimately be of questionable value to
the state.
MS. DAVIS said there's still the requirement for approval by the
commissioners and there's also the economic backstop of whether
a project is uneconomic. We do have to have some comfort that a
company isn't going to spend millions of dollars on something
they think is not economic, she stated.
SENATOR HUGGINS mentioned the maximum benefit factor and said he
wants to make sure we can live with our measuring stick.
MS. DAVIS said the ultimate limiter is how much gas can come off
the North Slope and everyone will have to deal with that as a
commercial reality.
SENATOR HUGGINS said, "Or additional exploration."
MS. DAVIS agreed and said that would modify all projects.
MR. BULLOCK said his reading is that if the economics are headed
south, the first thing is to see if the project can continue
with a reasonable return to the state. If not, you'd look at
whether the project has become uneconomic, and after that you'd
go to the section on abandonment. "This gives you a chance to
stop and look at it and see where you are, see whether it can be
salvaged or successfully modified, and then you can continue
with the project."
6:22:31 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said the next item he's identified as a potential
amendment is on page 17. The question is whether to use the
national roster for all arbitrators that are being selected.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI relayed that there are probably very few
arbitrators that can do these kinds of cases and in his opinion
the entire national roster should be open. We pick an arbitrator
from the entire roster, the other side picks an arbitrator from
the entire roster, and then those two get together and pick the
third arbitrator from the entire roster. "I don't think we have
that right now so we would want to add some language that
clarifies that," he said.
CHAIR FRENCH said he's had the same general idea in mind from
the beginning.
CHAIR FRENCH highlighted the concern that any two arbitrators
that agree that the project is uneconomic, could put an end to
it. Although that might be the right decision, there should to
be a specific avenue of appeal if the arbitrators have abused
their discretion. "We need to at least have some guideline to
our court should they take up the question of whether that was
the correct decision." He said he'd prepare an amendment along
those lines.
6:24:58 PM
MR. BULLOCK said this would be similar to an appeal of an
administrative decision. The court would look at the decisions
that can be made within the discretion of the arbitration board
and the commissioners when they're going through all the
applications. They'll look at the decision that was made by the
panel and they'll look at the record to see if the evidence
supports the decision that was made. If there wasn't a
reasonable decision based on the evidence before them, that's an
abuse of discretion. "In other words, the court avoids second-
guessing a fact-finding decision unless they look at the record
that was made and say it's just so far out of line that it's
inconsistent with the evidence."
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that the arbitrators are held to the
same standard of review that the commissioners are held to when
they make their decisions.
MR. BULLOCK agreed.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he might disagree with Mr. Bullock
just a bit. Drawing on his own experience he advised that it's
virtually impossible to overturn an arbitration decision. He
suggested the committee might want to consider having it be a
substantial evidence decision so as to give the court some
leeway. He opined that if nothing is done, the courts will
administer this under an abuse of discretion, which is nearly
impossible to overturn. Maybe we want that, he said. Also, he
isn't sure that's actually the standard for commissioners. He
believes it's more a substantial evidence standard where they
look and ask what the substantial evidence is to support the
decision. We may want to give the court that right of appeal, he
said.
6:27:06 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE spoke in support of keeping the abuse of
discretion standard because it's a commercial contract and it's
a commercial situation. She expressed the view that parties will
be more comfortable to apply for a license if they know the
method by which the economic determinations will be made.
Changing that well-recognized standard might make parties leery.
Also, there needs to be some finality so that the arbitration
process means something, she stated.
CHAIR FRENCH described it as a tough policy call because it
could be either party that wants out. He said he agrees that
there does have to be finality.
MR. BULLOCK said Senator Wielechowski brings up a good point
because the court is flexible in this area. Sometimes it looks
like it's abuse of discretion and it's kind of like substantial
evidence so they use a combination. Normally the court reserves
the right to decide questions of law that don't require
expertise, but sometimes it's surprising what they consider
agency expertise and then defer to it compared to an issue on
which they would exercise their independent judgment.
6:29:03 PM
CHAIR FRENCH said the last item is the issue of whether the
legislature has the constitutional authority to require
legislative confirmation of the AGIA coordinator when it's not
the sort of post that requires legislative confirmation. He
asked Senator Therriault if he'd decided to offer an amendment.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he would. "We could set up legislative
confirmation of lots of governor appointments and we don't and
nor should we," he stated.
SENATOR McGUIRE said she doesn't disagree but it's splitting
hairs. As a matter of correcting the record she advised that
Drue Pearce was appointed by the president and confirmed by
Congress.
6:30:37 PM
CHAIR FRENCH summarized that the committee has identified five
issues. He said he'd prepare written amendments on items 1 and
4; he'd ask Senator Wielechowski to prepare written amendments
on issues 2 and 3; and he'd ask Senator Therriault to prepare a
written amendment on item 5. He asked members to have the
amendments in his office by 10:00 am to make an orderly exit
strategy possible.
6:31:19 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI mentioned that in an earlier hearing he had
requested a definition of a competing natural gas pipeline
project. He directed attention to the definition on page 25,
lines 2-4, and said he's still not satisfied. His worry relates
to precluding the potential for other projects for in-state gas.
He advised that he'd work on a definition.
SENATOR McGUIRE said she's equally troubled by the definition of
treble damages. She recently heard a presentation for an in-
state line to potentially take gas to her constituents. Who
knows whether that will be a reality, she said, but it can be
clearly envisioned and you certainly wouldn't want the state to
have to pay treble damages over something like that. Responding
to a question, she confirmed that it's the ENSTAR proposal.
CHAIR FRENCH acknowledged that Senator McGuire would be working
on an amendment.
SENATOR HUGGINS asked Chair French if he'd received
clarification on the question of "any project" versus "the
project" relating to the pipeline coordinator functions.
CHAIR FRENCH asked Mr. Bullock if he had received his memo on
that subject.
MR. BULLOCK said no.
CHAIR FRENCH recapped the question is whether there are
constitutional problems associated with having a pipeline
coordinator working on a single project. He asked him to compare
and contrast that to the federal coordinator who can work on any
project. I want to make sure there aren't any constitutional
impediments associated with assigning a state pipeline
coordinator to work on a single project, he said.
CHAIR FRENCH asked if there were other concerns or issues.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said he's likely to bring up the issue of the
length of the legislative approval process.
6:34:38 PM
SENATOR McGUIRE questioned whether she's the only member who had
concerns about treble damages and then she asked Ms. Davis to
explain why that amount was selected.
MS. DAVIS explained that the purpose was to pique the attention
of the applicants to let them know the state is serious. "In the
totality of it, we just felt 300 percent had the zing and had
the oomph that we needed to make sure that independents came
forward."
SENATOR McGUIRE asked if she believes that the ENSTAR project
would be deemed a non-competing project.
MS. DAVIS explained that the definition for a competing natural
gas pipeline project on page 25, lines 2-4, was developed with
the understanding that in-state gas usage would be perhaps 400
mcf over the next 20 years. It was designed to capture pipeline
pieces that truly wouldn't be competitive with a 3.5 to 4.5
bcf/day project so bullet lines and spur lines coming off a main
pipeline were reviewed. Without the qualifier, competing
pipeline projects were envisioned to be ones that actually
started in the same location and ended in the same location.
Because we have a comfort level that the major projects are
looking to go out of state, we don't see spurs or bullet lines
being competitive and affecting the economic considerations of
the big projects, she said. Acknowledging that she isn't
familiar with the SEMCO proposal, she asked what the forecast is
for volume carriage.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI recalled it was a "b."
MS. DAVIS asked if it envisions going to Valdez or if there's
any export aspect.
CHAIR FRENCH said there is to the LNG plant.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI clarified it's the LNG plant in Kenai.
MS. DAVIS said that's not actually in-state; it's in-state plus
an export component. "Once you go there I think it is
problematic to say that a project that is proposing to take gas
that is one 'b' now could be two 'b' after compression isn't a
competitive project." Carving out in-state usage is okay, but
going beyond that damages the concept of what is a competitive
pipeline.
CHAIR FRENCH suggested adding "an in-state" before "market" on
page 25, line 4.
MS. DAVIS said sure.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he doesn't see how that project really
competes. Potentially that project will ship gas to Asia whereas
all the projections here show shipping gas to western Canada or
western United States.
MS. DAVIS agreed. If one entity does a pipeline and another
entity wants to do a spur line and take it to Kenai and ship LNG
out, the only way that would be a competing pipeline project is
if the state selects a project that is taking its gas to Valdez
for LNG shipment. But if the state selects a project that moves
gas from the North Slope to Alberta and then Chicago, a project
taking gas to Kenai for LNG export to Asia wouldn't be
competitive because it doesn't lay in the same trough and it's
not taking gas to the same markets. Originally a competing
natural gas project was envisioned to ask if it's taking gas to
the same markets and the answer for LNG was no compared to
Alberta or Chicago. Then moving gas from the North Slope to
Fairbanks or Anchorage with off-take points was considered and
that's basically shipping gas in the same trough to the same
destinations. We don't want that to be considered competing, she
said, so the 500 mcf/day escape clause was inserted.
SENATOR HUGGINS commented that when you look at the unit of
measure by volume it doesn't matter where it goes. "If you need
Y volume and they're taking Y minus 2, then you run into the
same problem," he said.
MS. DAVIS agreed and said that's why the suggestion of making it
in-state mediates it to an extent. There isn't going to be a 3.5
bcf/day or 4 bcf/day pipeline project proposed for in-state, she
said. It'll be an out of state proposal so the spur line
delivering in-state gas will be excepted by this provision.
CHAIR FRENCH said he would assign that definition to himself.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair French adjourned the meeting at 6:42:36 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|