Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
05/09/2025 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB180 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 180 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 9, 2025
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Matt Claman
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator Shelley Hughes (via teleconference)
Senator Robert Myers
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Ky Holland
Representative Donna Mears
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 180
"An Act relating to the regulation of liquefied natural gas
import facilities by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 180
SHORT TITLE: LNG IMPORT FACILITIES
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
04/22/25 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/22/25 (S) RES, L&C
04/25/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/25/25 (S) Heard & Held
04/25/25 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/30/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/30/25 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
05/05/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
05/05/25 (S) Heard & Held
05/05/25 (S) MINUTE(RES)
05/09/25 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
INTIMAYO HARBISON, Staff
Senator Cathy Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a brief overview of SB 180.
STEVE COLT, Research Professor
Energy Economics and Policy
Alaska Center for Energy and Power
University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a presentation on SB 180.
STEVE DEVRIES, Commissioner
Regulatory Commission of Alaska
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 180.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:33:12 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Present at the call to order were
Senators Myers, Claman, Kawasaki and Chair Giessel. Senators
Dunbar and Hughes (via teleconference) arrived thereafter.
SB 180-LNG IMPORT FACILITIES
3:33:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 180
"An Act relating to the regulation of liquefied natural gas
import facilities by the Regulatory Commission of Alaska."
3:34:19 PM
INTIMAYO HARBISON, Staff, Senator Cathy Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that SB 180 would repeal AS 42.05.711(v),
which exempts the import of natural gas from regulation by the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA).
3:34:43 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced invited testimony on SB 180.
3:35:29 PM
STEVE COLT, Research Professor, Energy Economics and Policy,
Alaska Center for Energy and Power, University of Alaska
Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, said he would offer ideas and
facts related to SB 180.
3:35:54 PM
MR. COLT said his presentation considers SB 180 from the
position of a well-informed consumer. To that end, he examined
how this legislation fits into the larger ecosystem's potential
transition from Cook Inlet gas to significant reliance on
liquified natural gas (LNG). He implied that SB 180 is
deceptively simple. He advanced to slide 2:
[Original punctuation provided.]
This bill repeals AS 42.05.711(v)
It repeals an exemption to 42.05
Chapter 05. Alaska Public Utilities Regulatory Act.
Secs. 42.05.010 42.05.131. Establishment of Public
Utilities Commission. [Repealed, Section 5 ch 113 SLA
1970; Section 24 ch 25 SLA 1999.]
Sec. 42.05.141. General powers and duties of the
commission.
a) The Regulatory Commission of Alaska may do all
things necessary or proper to carry out the
purposes and exercise the powers expressly
granted or reasonably implied in this chapter,
including
1) regulate every public utility engaged or
proposing to engage in a utility business inside
the state, except to the extent exempted by AS
42.05.711;
What are these exemptions?
MR. COLT commented that AS 42.05 gives RCA sweeping powers
unless otherwise circumscribed. He noted the list of exemptions
in AS 42.05.711. He reiterated that AS 42.05.711(v) is one
exemption to a broad mandate and turned his consideration to the
other exemptions in AS 42.05.711.
3:38:23 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR joined the meeting.
3:38:29 PM
MR. COLT advanced to slide 3:
[Original punctuation provided.]
What are these exemptions in 42.05.711?
a) Water, gas or petroleum products by tank, wagon,
or similar conveyance
b) Public utilities owned and operated by a
political subdivision of the state
c) Owners of stock in a utility
d) God Squad provision"The commission may exempt a
utility, a class of utilities, or a utility
service from all or a portion of this chapter if
the commission finds that the exemption is in the
public interest."
e) Any electric or telephone utility
f) Electric or telephone utility <500k revenue is
NOT exempt, but can try...
g) Non-electric, non-telephone <150k is NOT exempt,
but can try...
h) A cooperative organized under AS 10.25 may elect
to be exempt [from rate regulation?] [but not
from sec 221-281]
i) Trash utilities <300k revenue (but may opt in)
j) Waste heat sales
k) Cable TV exempt, can opt in
l) No double jeopardy at the hands of local govt:(l)
A person, utility, joint action agency?that is
exempt from regulation under (a), (d) (k), (o),
or (r) of this section is not subject to
regulation by a municipality
m) Municipal waste pickup
n) North slope gas pipelines
o) A joint action agency established under AS
42.45.310 (SEAPA?)
p) Regional solid waste management authority
3:39:50 PM
MR. COLT advanced to slide 4:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Exemptions in 42.05.711, continued
(q) North Slope gas storage?.
(r) Fire Island Wind(?): A plant or facility that
generates electricity entirely from renewable energy
resources, and also:
(s) An in-state natural gas pipeline subject to AS
42.08
(t) A utility that provides telecommunications
partially exempt? BUT
(u) Exception to exemption (t): RCA does regulate
rates charged to prisoners
And finally,
(v) A liquefied natural gas import facility under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission is exempt from this chapter.
SB 180 repeals this subsection (v)
3:39:48 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL clarified that the list on slides 3-4 are all of
the exceptions from RCA regulation. She asked Mr. Colt to
confirm this understanding.
3:40:09 PM
MR. COLT confirmed this understanding; however, he pointed out
that there are many types of exemptions, including partial and
total exemptions. He directed attention exemption (h), which is
the potential exemption from economic regulation that a
cooperative can achieve through an election. He briefly
discussed this exemption, noting that the exemption requires an
election. In addition, there is a caveat related to rate
regulation. He said the exemptions are not blanket exemptions,
although some are close.
3:41:25 PM
MR. COLT directed attention to subsection (v) on slide 4. He
pointed out that SB 180 would repeal this exemption. He
explained that the exemption refers to the facility, rather than
the sale of gas from the facility. He stated that this
distinction is a point of interest in the discussion of SB 180.
3:42:40 PM
MR. COLT said he is asking, "what problem is SB 180 trying to
solve." He advanced to slide 5:
[Original punctuation provided.]
So What? Can't we just live with retaining this
exemption?
? RCA addressed this at length in Order 5 of U-25-
004, after asking several parties for their
considered opinions.
? RCA asserted that it retains jurisdiction over
gas sales from the import facility to be built by
Glenfarne, (also over stranded Enstar costs if
the project is not built).
? RCA found Enstar's analogy persuasive:
Enstar: "Ultimately, these costs are no
different from a Commission jurisdiction
standpoint than ENSTAR's costs to negotiate
and enter into a gas sales agreement with an
unregulated (by the Commission) Cook Inlet
gas producer. Like an LNG import terminal,
the Commission does not have jurisdiction
over the siting or construction of Cook
Inlet producers' platforms and pipelines,
but it does have jurisdiction to regulate
ENSTAR as a utility-offtaker of those
facilities?any necessary gas purchase
agreements or terminal use agreements, are
all firmly within this Commission's
jurisdiction."
? RCA: "We find ENSTAR's analogy to our current
jurisdictional boundaries for our review of Cook
Inlet gas supply contracts useful." (Order 5, p.
34)
3:45:04 PM
MR. COLT added that, since preparing the slides, Chugach
Electric weighed in and concurred that RCA maintains
jurisdiction over any requests by ENSTAR to recover costs
associated with receiving gas from an LNG terminal. He clarified
that there is not unanimity on the question. He said Chugach
Electric is adamant that there is a "good division of the field
between Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and RCA."
3:47:21 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL pointed out that in Order 5 of U-25-004, JL
Properties, Inc. asserted that RCA did not have jurisdiction
over Cook Inlet gas sales contracts. She stated that is
illustrative of the confusion created by AS 42.05.711(v).
3:47:59 PM
MR. COLT concurred. He expressed hope that his testimony would
not be interpreted as alignment with one party over another. He
indicated that he is not taking a position. However, he agreed
that JL Properties, Inc. made a persuasive case that there is
confusion regarding this issue.
3:48:32 PM
MR. COLT advanced to slide 6:
[Original punctuation provided.]
RCA said, we're OK with the exemption, because gas
from the terminal would be like gas from a well. RCA
also said repeal of the exemption would clarify this
jurisdiction over costs of gas from the facility.
So far, so good. But - the U-25-004 situation is only
one scenario, a scenario now underway.
We identified two other scenarios that may merit
consideration.
3:50:43 PM
MR. COLT advanced to slide 7:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Scenario A:
If the exemption is NOT repealed, what if Enstar, not
Glenfarne, builds an LNG import facility. (Or
Chugach.)
What if they supply gas to themselves without any gas
sales contract. Would this exemption insulate them
from RCA scrutiny of the rates emanating from this gas
supply?
That is maybe one risk of not repealing.
MR. COLT said that, as a ratepayer, he feels reassured that RCA
is actively safeguarding his interests via its approval of sales
contracts or sales arrangements. He expressed confidence that
RCA would protect ratepayers such as himself from paying too
much for gas, regardless of where it comes from. He briefly
discussed hypothetical scenario A, in which the operator of the
terminal is also the user of the gas. He indicated that this
scenario could result in a problem (clouding the issue and
harming the ratepayer) if the legislature does not repeal AS
42.05.711(v).
3:53:36 PM
SENATOR MYERS asked for confirmation of his understanding that,
in scenario A on slide 7, while RCA would not be able to examine
the contracts, RCA would retain consumer rate regulation
authority.
3:54:04 PM
MR. COLT noted that RCA is better suited to answer this
question. He then replied yes; however, he added that
determinations classified as fait accompli are difficult for RCA
to undo once a rate case is under consideration. He deferred the
question to RCA.
3:55:22 PM
STEVE DEVRIES, Commissioner, Regulatory Commission of Alaska,
Anchorage, Alaska, stated that AS 42.05.441(c) and AS
42.05.511(c) both govern how RCA governs affiliated
transactions. He explained that RCA closely scrutinizes those
transactions to ensure they are realistically cost-based without
any unfair dealings as the costs are passed through to
ratepayers. He directed his attention to potential adverse
implications of scenario A. He stated that any adverse
implications would be proportional to the overall impact [of AS
42.05.711(v)] on the capabilities of RCA to review the rates
charged for a gas sales agreement or terminal use agreement.
This is due to the interplay between FERC jurisdiction and RCA
jurisdiction.
3:57:00 PM
COMMISSIONER DEVRIES said the potential for harm that exists due
to AS 42.05.711(v) applies to the entirety of the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska's (RCA) review authority for gas sales
agreements. This includes scenario A from slide 7. He commented
that Mr. Colt's presentation is thoughtful and thorough. He went
on to explain the potential issue related to AS 42.05.711(v). He
stated that RCA has determined the extent of its jurisdiction
vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of FERC. He emphasized that FERC has
exclusive jurisdiction over the siting, construction, expansion,
and operation of a liquified natural gas (LNG) import facility.
He contrasted this with the jurisdiction of RCA to review rates
passed through to ratepayers. However, he emphasized that the
courts - not RCA - are the ultimate arbiters of the jurisdiction
of RCA. If this self-determined jurisdiction is challenged, a
significant lynchpin in that argument would be AS 42.05.711(v).
He stated that SB 180 (which removes the exemption in AS
42.05.711(v)) would help to remove the uncertainty related to
the jurisdiction of RCA.
3:59:26 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether RCA has formally endorsed SB 180.
3:59:34 PM
COMMISSIONER DEVRIES replied no.
4:00:10 PM
MR. COLT advanced to slide 8:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Scenario B:
If the exemption IS repealed, might a Glenfarne be
subject to being declared a public utility?
RCA appealed to statutory guidance and to legislative
history of House Bill 50 when it declined RAPA's
suggestion to exercise jurisdiction over the LNG
facility under the "Hinshaw Amendment" to the Natural
Gas Act. (Order 5 p. 31)
MR. COLT surmised that the exemption in AS 42.05.711(v) was
added because it was desirable for someone. He posed scenario B
to consider whether repealing the exemption would allow RCA
greater regulatory reach, thus potentially resulting in a
negative impact on the utilities. He explained that this
scenario considers whether there is a potential for RCA to
overregulate if the exemption is removed.
4:02:38 PM
MR. COLT continued to discuss scenario B on slide 8. He
explained that RCA previously declined an offer from the
Regulatory Affairs and Public Advocacy Section (RAPA) to
exercise additional regulatory authority. At that time, RCA
appealed to statutory guidance and legislative history related
to the jurisdiction of RCA to support its decision.
4:04:00 PM
SENATOR HUGHES joined the meeting via teleconference.
4:04:19 PM
MR. COLT advanced to slide 9 and provided a brief overview of
the history of House Bill 50:
[Original punctuation provided.]
House Bill 50 history: Senate Resources added
companion language to the exemption
SCS CS House Bill 50(RES) by Senate Resources
(5/6/2024):
(p) For rate-making purposes, the commission shall
consider the investment of a public utility in a
liquefied natural gas import or export facility as
utility property, even if the liquefied natural gas
import or export facility is exempt from regulation by
the commission. In this subsection,
Senate Finance took it out:
5-12-24, Amendment 4 to Work Draft T. Per Senate
Finance Minutes, "Senator Bishop relayed that he had
problems with the amendment. He asked that members pay
close attention to the topic going forward. He
expressed concern that the price of imported LNG would
be higher than expected and that ratepayers would bear
the burden.
MR. COLT said that the Senate Resources Standing Committee added
language to House Bill 50 that would expand the authority of RCA
with respect to LNG import or export facility. This language was
later removed by the Senate Finance Committee. He posed the
question of whether the removal of the language in House Bill
50, combined with the removal of the language in AS
42.05.711(v), would allow RCA to over-regulate.
4:07:21 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL referred to slide 9, item (p) and could not recall
adding that specific language. However, she stated that she
understands the intent of that language. She emphasized that the
ratemaking done by RCA is key for ensuring the protection of the
public. She expressed appreciation that Mr. Colt included
Senator Bishop's comment on slide 9. She asked whether slide 10
would clarify the conclusion of scenario B.
4:08:28 PM
MR. COLT indicated that slide 10 does not provide a conclusion
but rather brings forward an additional question related to the
legislature's policymaking duty. He advanced to slide 10:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Back to Scenario B: If the exemption IS repealed,
might a Glenfarne be subject to being declared a
public utility, or directly regulated by RCA?
RCA: "Not only does this subsection's express language
appear to clearly bar our assumption of jurisdiction,
but the legislative history underlying its enactment
reinforces this conclusion.127 Therefore, if we were
to assert LNG facility oversight under the Hinshaw
Amendment which RAPA suggests is possible, we would be
disregarding the jurisdictional side boards imposed on
us by the legislature. We decline to do so." (Order 5
U-25-004, p. 31)
Were this guidance changed, might current or future
RCA choose or be pressured to assert this
jurisdiction?
4:10:54 PM
COMISSIONER DEVRIES suggested that it could be helpful to
consider the question from the jurisdictional level. Under
federal law, FERC has exclusive jurisdiction with respect to
siting, operations, permitting, construction, and expansion for
LNG facilities. He noted that there is one exception in that
law, which is known as the Hinshaw amendment. He explained that
the Hinshaw amendment applies to inter-state commerce and does
not apply to foreign commerce. Alaska's imported LNG is foreign
commerce; therefore, the flexibility - to the extent that it
exists - for FERC to delegate or permit a state commission to
exercise jurisdictional oversight over the siting, construction,
operation, etc. of an LNG facility would not apply [in Alaska].
4:12:33 PM
SENATOR MYERS shared his understanding that the federal
government regulates both foreign and inter-state commerce. He
asked why FERC would not have authority in this situation. He
offered two examples involving LNG import and export between
Alaska and Canada to illustrate his question.
4:13:03 PM
COMMISSIONER DEVRIES replied that FERC authority would apply in
the examples posed by Senator Myers. He clarified that situation
B (slides 9-10) is also foreign commerce and FERC authority
would apply. He explained that FERC would have regulatory
authority over citing, construction, etc. of the facility
itself. He further clarified that RCA does not assert that it
has legal or constitutional authority (or jurisdiction) to
insert itself into the regulatory jurisdiction of FERC. He said
U.S.C. Art VI.C2 (Supremacy Clause) would bar Alaska's
commission from exercising any regulatory commission over a FERC
jurisdictional property (notwithstanding any state law that
gives RCA the jurisdiction to do so).
4:14:22 PM
MR. COLT shared his understanding that the Hinshaw amendment
applies to situations in which Alaska receives LNG via inter-
state commerce (e.g. from Oregon). He asked if this
understanding is correct.
4:15:16 PM
COMMISSIONER DEVRIES replied that the Jones Act requires LNG to
arrive from a US flag LNG tanker, of which there are none. He
expressed uncertainty regarding whether scenario B could occur -
unless there are US flag tankers currently under construction.
He is not aware of any tankers currently under construction,
although he opined it is a good idea. Given this information, he
expressed uncertainty with the plausibility of scenario B.
However, he stated that if scenario B were to occur, the Hinshaw
amendment could theoretically provide FERC the jurisdictional
authority under interstate commerce. In that case, FERC could
allow RCA to exercise authority. He stated that this would give
RCA additional concern regarding the continued existence of the
exemption in AS 42.05.711(v). He explained that this could
potentially fuel an argument that RCA lacks the ability to
exercise regulatory authority (despite FERC extending that
authority to RCA).
4:17:12 PM
MR. COLT advanced to slide 11:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Summary
In our view, SB 180:
? Removes a broad exemption from a broad [chapter]
? Removing the exemption helps clarify that RCA has
jurisdiction over prices/rates for LNG supplied
by a 3d-party facility to a regulated utility
? Hence, removing the exemption might also help the
RCA deal with the case where Enstar, Chugach,
etc. is the Builder and self-supplies.
? Removes sideboards that RCA currently defers to,
which might enable (or force?) RCA to regulate
LNG facilities, potentially conflicting with
FERC.
4:20:11 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked for clarification of the fourth point on
slide 11. She asked whether removing - or leaving - AS
42.05.711(v) would remove sideboards.
4:20:21 PM
MR. COLT returned to slide 10 and paraphrased the quote from
RCA:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Back to Scenario B: If the exemption IS repealed,
might a Glenfarne be subject to being declared a
public utility, or directly regulated by RCA?
RCA: "Not only does this subsection's express language
appear to clearly bar our assumption of jurisdiction,
but the legislative history underlying its enactment
reinforces this conclusion. 127 Therefore, if we were
to assert LNG facility oversight under the Hinshaw
Amendment which RAPA suggests is possible, we would be
disregarding the jurisdictional side boards imposed on
us by the legislature. We decline to do so." (Order 5
U-25-004, p. 31)
Were this guidance changed, might current or future
RCA choose or be pressured to assert this
jurisdiction?
MR. COLT offered his understanding that there are two
sideboards. The first is the legislative history of House Bill
50, which removed language that would have given RCA an
affirmative ability to regard LNG import facilities as utility
property. He stated that this would have made a direct
connection between the facility and the rates. He said that the
removal of that language placed one sideboard on RCA. The second
sideboard is the continuing existence of AS 42.05.711(v). He
explained that this exemption ensures that RCA does not have
regulatory authority over LNG facilities.
4:22:17 PM
SENATOR MYERS suggested a hypothetical scenario C. He stated
that there is a proposal for Harvest to purchase the current
Marathon plant and convert it to an import facility. He noted
that Enstar would not be involved in the deal but would
presumably be a customer. He asked if there is any significant
difference between the scenarios considered by Mr. Colt and
scenario C. He pointed out that the latter scenario does not
already involve a regulated natural gas utility.
4:23:16 PM
MR. COLT replied that, given very brief consideration, scenario
C seems less problematic as Enstar would be purchasing LNG from
the facility. He referenced a comment from RCA which proposed
that purchasing gas from an import terminal is analogous to
purchasing gas from a gas well. He surmised that scenario C is
akin to this. He suggested that representatives from RCA would
be able to provide a more knowledgeable response.
4:24:59 PM
COMMISSIONER DEVRIES also responded to scenario C as proposed by
Senator Myers. He said the jurisdictional landscape is no
different. He reiterated that FERC has exclusive jurisdiction
over the facilities (i.e. citing, construction, operation,
etc.). RCA maintains authority to review gas sales agreements
and/or terminal use agreements presented to RCA by the utilities
using those facilities for the purposes of preserving capacity
or obtaining gas supplies. He opined that the jurisdictional
authority would not change as a result of changing facilities.
4:26:13 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what the consequences would be if the
legislature does not repeal AS 42.05.711(v). He asked if that
would be sufficient for someone to make the argument that the
legislature does not want RCA to regulate LNG facilities.
4:27:19 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL echoed Commissioner Devries' comments that RCA
does not regulate LNG facilities. She clarified that AS
42.05.711(v) has created confusion regarding whether RCA has
jurisdiction over LNG sales. She deferred to Commissioner
Devries for further comment.
4:27:50 PM
COMMISSIONER DEVRIES replied that, if the exemption is not
repealed, RCA believes it still retains the jurisdiction to
review LNG sale agreements and terminal use agreements
(regardless of what facility houses those agreements). He
reiterated that RCA is not the ultimate arbiter of its
jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of FERC. He explained that the
continued existence of the exemption in AS 42.05.711(v) provides
ammunition for an argument that could be made regarding the
jurisdiction of RCA. He asserted that the exemption could be the
lynchpin in that argument. Repealing the exemption removes the
force behind the argument (which could be made to a court) that
RCA lacks the jurisdiction to review gas sale agreements and
terminal sale agreements.
4:29:20 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL said that Commissioner Devries' answer was the
reason for SB 180. She briefly discussed several instances of
confusion that illustrate the need for clarification. She
suggested further discussions of subsection (p), which was part
of House Bill 50 and which the Senate Finance Committee removed.
4:30:37 PM
MR. COLT expressed appreciation for the learning opportunity, as
well as for the willingness of RCA to participate in the
discussion. He stated that, as a ratepayer and consumer, he
appreciates the Senate Resources Standing Committee's ongoing
attempts to place consumer protection front and center during
the industry's transition.
4:31:18 PM
SENATOR MYERS turned the discussion to Fairbanks gas. He
explained that Harvest Alaska is building an LNG facility on the
North Slope. That gas would be trucked to Fairbanks and placed
in the Interior Gas Utility system (which is owned by the
Fairbanks North Star Borough). He asked whether RCA is involved
in regulating that system.
4:32:08 PM
COMMISSIONER DEVRIES shared his understanding that the utility
responsible for obtaining the gas for Fairbanks is not
economically regulated.
4:32:22 PM
Chair Giessel thanked the presenters and industry
representatives for being present and available for questions.
4:32:59 PM
[CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 180 in committee.]
4:33:13 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 4:33 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 180 ACEP Colt Testimony.pdf |
SRES 5/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |
| SB 180 RCA Supporting Document.pdf |
SRES 5/9/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 180 |