Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/01/2017 06:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 111-OIL & GAS PRODUCTION TAX;PAYMENTS;CREDITS
6:01:56 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to the oil and gas
production tax, tax payments, and credits; relating to interest
applicable to delinquent oil and gas production tax; and
providing for an effective date."
6:02:07 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR made announcements regarding public testimony.
6:02:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH shared his concern that testifiers have had
extended waits in the past. He suggested that the chair keep
testifiers apprised of the agenda and estimated times.
CO-CHAIR TARR listed communities from which testifiers were
calling.
6:04:49 PM
JIM PLAQUET stated he is a 43-year member of the International
Union of Operating Engineers and a longtime resident of Alaska.
He told the committee that it is time for Alaskans to come to
grip with the environment of future declining oil production.
He opined that HB 111 goes too far, would raise the basic oil
tax rate, and hurt investment in Alaska, when the state needs to
be attracting investment. He stated that Alaskans should be
looking for ways to make the development of Alaska's oil more
economical, rather than seeking ways to thwart future
development. He said Alaska should be open and ready for
business as well as be willing to provide a regulatory and tax
climate in which the industry can reinvest in Alaska. He
declared that [Senate] Bill 21 [passed in the Twenty-Eighth
Alaska State Legislature] made Alaska more competitive and a
more attractive place to invest. Alaska saw no production
decline in 2014, only a slight dip in 2015, and production
increase in 2016 - which he noted was the first increase in 14
years. He shared his optimism that as long as Alaska makes the
production of oil economically attractive, industry would
aggressively pursue development of new and older fields on the
North Slope. In fact, the question legislators should be asking
in Juneau is not how much tax revenue the state could get, but
how much future investment could the state attract.
6:07:12 PM
CAROLINE PETERSON stated her belief that although the taxes in
HB 111 would provide shortsighted relief, in the long term HB
111 would be severely damaging to Alaska because the United
States does not depend on Alaska's oil. She said oil companies
would not be penalized but would instead follow the money. She
opined that HB 111 would be a disincentive for the oil industry
from investing in Alaska, and Alaska's reality is that the
economy depends on the oil industry. She argued that while it
seems just and fair to target the oil companies with their
seemingly deep pockets, the harm would not fall on the
companies, but instead on Alaskans. She noted that each oil
company job supports 20 other jobs in the state economy and
concluded that HB 111 would force oil companies out of Alaska
and destroy the state's economy.
6:08:50 PM
DAVID OTNESS opined that since Senate Bill 21 passed, disaster
has befallen Alaska. He recalled four years ago [the oil
industry] promised one million barrels of production per day;
however, shortly after Senate Bill 21 passed, BP laid off 200
employees. He said the investments that have been made are not
new investments, but were already online before Senate Bill 21.
Alaska is constantly being taken advantage of compared to other
places in the world where the industry must work under more
difficult circumstances. Mr. Otness inquired as to the actual
numbers regarding oil tax credits and whether they make
financial sense for the state or just for the companies
receiving benefits. He urged for the committee to assess the
results of Senate Bill 21.
6:11:38 PM
BILL WARREN said he has been an Alaska resident for 65 years and
worked on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) as a welder.
He expressed support for HB 111 with one caveat: a net system
does not work. He explained that Alaska has tried the tax
systems of Senate Bill 21 and Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share
(ACES) [passed in the Twenty-Fifth Alaska State Legislature] but
remains confused and insecure because the state doesn't get the
needed information from the oil companies to be confident.
However, oil producers run on confidentiality and secrets, and
[regimes] with "open data" have more clarity. He stated that he
is in favor of a gross barrel tax, which is simpler, although
there would still be "heavy lifting." Mr. Warren reminded the
committee explorers are the risk-takers and the producers are
the investors and pointed out Alaska has 2.5 times more resource
than Texas. He urged legislators to think big instead of small
and complete their work.
6:13:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked Mr. Warren to repeat the last
sentence of his testimony.
6:13:45 PM
MR. WARREN said the legislature should work on oil, an income
tax, cuts, and the [Alaska] Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD).
6:14:03 PM
KELLY DROOP said she is a lifelong Alaskan. Her family has
benefitted from the oil industry and what it has afforded
Alaska, including the elimination of a state income tax and
significantly improved infrastructure, and is opposed to HB 111.
She opined that production must be incentivized in order to
attract the investment and significant capital dollars it takes
to maintain and increase production on the North Slope. Senate
Bill 21 not only benefited oil and gas contractors with
increased opportunities, but also helped other businesses. She
advised against continuing to change the rules on industry; in
fact, HB 111 discourages investment, would have serious long-
term implications for state funding, and does not address the
state's budget deficit. Ms. Droop urged the committee to find
another way to cut costs and preserve opportunities for
Alaskans.
6:15:44 PM
MIKE MILLIGAN stated he worked on TAPS and has followed the
issue of oil taxes for over 30 years. He referred to a chart
found in the committee packet that shows the percentage of
private [oil] industry worldwide [chart not provided]. Mr.
Milligan related 75 percent of worldwide oil production comes
from state-owned facilities. He stressed oil companies have
never indicated where they would go if taxes are increased in
Alaska; further, he questioned where else in the world private
industry controls transportation as private oil operators
control access to TAPS and make it difficult for any other
operators to begin operations. He urged the committee to ask
the oil industry where it would go if Alaska's oil industry
collapsed.
6:18:25 PM
MARK MORRIS stated Alaska is approaching either 30 more years of
prosperity or a long lackluster recovery once oil prices
rebound. Mr. Morris said he was raised in Juneau and he and his
family operate an engineering firm which was reduced from ten
fulltime employees to one fulltime and two part-time employees
at the time of the crash in oil prices. According to
economists, every job created by a source outside of a community
creates five to nine new jobs within a community; further, like
so many other Alaskans, his firm and family are waiting for the
price of oil to rebound and trying to survive until then because
capital budgets, both state and local, are down. He asked the
committee to picture hundreds of Alaska families, like his, just
hanging on waiting for the price of oil to rebound, and
cautioned that HB 111 would take away any hope of a prosperous
future; in fact, when the oil industry sees increased taxes and
reduced or eliminated oil tax credits they simply take their
billions of dollars elsewhere to develop someone else's oil.
Speaking from his personal experience, he said private oil
corporations have ongoing projects all over the world involving
foreign governments. He stated that [former] Governor Jay
Hammond and the Alaska State Legislature foresaw a boon in
prosperity followed by fluctuating oil prices and created the
Alaska Permanent Fund and the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend
(PFD). He urged the committee to use the rainy day fund during
the current crisis instead of costing Alaskans their jobs.
6:21:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked Mr. Morris which high school his
sons attended.
[Due to technical difficulties, the following portion of the
recording contains intermittent breaks in the audio recording.]
MR. MORRIS [indisc.] but his boys play for Thunder Mountain High
School.
6:21:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked Mr. Morris whether he was aware of
discussion in the House Finance Committee about other revenue
sources besides the [Alaska] Permanent Fund.
MR. MORRIS answered yes. He opined it is unfair to suggest
imposing an income tax when Alaska has already established a
rainy day fund in the amount of $55 billion. He urged for a
return to leadership similar to what was provided by former
President Reagan during times of "terrible trouble." (Indisc.)
Americans were joining hands across the political aisle, and
across social and economic lines, while interest rates were sky
high for four years (indisc.) because he had the vision for a
bright future for America. Alaska needs leadership that can
explain to its citizens the need to forfeit the PFD program
instead of losing more jobs. Mr. Morris shared that he is
looking for work outside of Alaska because his firm is in danger
of closing. [Indisc.]
6:23:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked Mr. Morris if he supports giving
up [Alaska] Permanent Fund Dividends for a few years.
MR. MORRIS responded absolutely.
6:24:13 PM
ALEXANDER GUDSCHINSKY said he is a lifelong Alaskan and stated
his support for the elimination of oil tax credits. Although
tax credits support investment, the state has only paid a
limited amount because if all of the tax credits that are owed
were paid, there would be no money for roads and schools. He
said that oil tax credits are a good idea, but if Alaska doesn't
have the capital to pay them the credits should not continue.
6:26:07 PM
BILL JEFFRESS shared that he has spent over 40 years in resource
development and is currently in the mining industry. He pointed
out all resource development relies on a stable regulatory and
tax system. He noted that taxes have changed seven times in the
past twelve years and voters said Senate Bill 21 should be given
a chance to work, which it has. After job losses in the state,
the oil industry is "just holding on," and because resource
industries rely on out-of-state investors, HB 111 is the worst
message the state could send to industry. Mr. Jeffress advised
the mining industry relies on exploration dollars and investment
capital to bring new projects online in a similar manner to the
oil industry, and the message would spread across all resource
industries that Alaska is not a stable environment to support
industry in the long-term.
6:28:28 PM
DEBORAH LIMACHER said she has been an Alaska resident for 41
years. She expressed her opposition to tax credits for oil and
gas exploration, and her support for HB 111 and other
legislation proposed to lower tax credits for tax and oil
exploration. She questioned what it would take for Alaska to
stop its dependence on revenue sourced from gas and oil. Ms.
Limacher advised that many countries are turning to alternative
energy sources and the days of oil are waning; in fact, Texas
has created more jobs and revenue from wind generation than from
oil production, and she suggested HB 111 should include
incentives for alternative energy exploration. Speaking as an
Alaskan and thereby an owner of the state's oil and gas, she
said, "Leave it in the ground." Until the time of alternative
energy comes, she urged increased taxes from the oil industry to
protect the state from bankruptcy. Her experience has been
companies come to the state, destroy their operations, declare
bankruptcy, and leave, which leads to an uncertain future for
the local residents.
6:31:30 PM
DANIEL PATE shared that he is a lifelong Alaskan with a career
in the oil and gas industry. He said he is opposed to HB 111
and wants to see the oil industry flourish. His grandparents
and parents worked in the oilfields and he would like to see the
industry continue for future generations.
6:33:07 PM
JIM UDELHOVEN, CEO, Udelhoven Operating Companies, informed the
committee that two years ago his firm employed 800 employees,
two months ago that number dropped to 400 employees, and as of
this week he has 299 employees. Following the recent severe
recession, oil prices have now stabilized at the national level,
and the state can move forward with optimism if HB 111 is
opposed. Increased taxes at this time would slow exploration;
in fact, developing "new oil" will bring in more revenue than
raising taxes on existing production. Mr. Udelhoven reported
the oil industry seeks a stable tax structure which would ensure
further investment in Alaska. He noted that the industry has
increased production in the past few years, even during the
recession, and with stable oil prices the existing tax system
would prove successful. He restated his strong opposition to HB
111.
6:35:50 PM
DAVE HANSON expressed his support for reductions in the oil tax
credits program brought forth in HB 111; however, he said he
does not support the tax increase from 4 percent to 5 percent,
noting the following three points: 1. Reducing oil industry tax
credits does not indicate opposition to the oil industry just
like reducing the capital budget did not indicate opposition to
the construction industry, but although there has been a long,
mutually beneficial business partnership with the state,
subsidies must be decreased; 2. Alaska can no longer afford the
oil tax credit program, as the oil industry's contribution to
the state's revenue has been reduced from 85 percent to 26
percent and there have been cuts to all areas of state
government; 3. Subsidies must be reduced to control the state's
existing debt to the industry which is over $900 million. The
passage of HB 111 would reduce payments and debt accumulation by
$200 million annually over the long haul, which is the
equivalent of paying the 5 percent income tax proposed by the
governor.
6:38:30 PM
JAKE JACOBSEN stated he is a 50-year Alaska resident
representing himself and family members. He opined HB 111 is
too timid and the committee's goals should be to revise Senate
Bill 21, stop the oil tax credits, simplify the system, make the
system more transparent, hire aggressive auditors, and assess
the tax on barrels going down the line per day - on the gross.
He discounted threats that the oil companies would leave because
oil companies cannot afford to leave Alaska. Also, Mr. Jacobsen
spoke against efforts to "seize the PFD," as gas and oil are
held in common for all Alaskans, but a PFD is private property.
He expressed his support for both an income tax and a sales tax.
6:40:10 PM
ROBIN SOLFISBURG stated her support for HB 111 and said
increasing the tax rate on oil and curtailing Alaska's system of
giving money to the oil industry should be first on the list of
solutions to Alaska's financial problems. She encouraged the
committee to stand for Alaska, and not oil companies; schools,
public safety, and dividends are equally - if not more -
important than oil company tax subsidies.
6:41:23 PM
JOSH HALL said he is a lifelong Alaska resident of the Kenai
Peninsula and informed the committee that careers in the oil
industry have deeply impacted him and his family. He stated his
opposition to HB 111, noting that his experience in the industry
is the basis for his belief that HB 111 would make planning for
future projects difficult, and increasing the oil and gas tax
would make further exploration and growth difficult for the
industry.
6:42:49 PM
CATHY DUXBURY stated her opposition to HB 111. She observed
legislators repeatedly seek to increase taxes on the industry
that supplies most of the revenue and jobs for the state. The
company she works for has recently made many cuts including cuts
to charitable donations, pay, and the number of employees. Ms.
Duxbury said she is optimistic when she hears of new finds, but
then state raises taxes again, which will be the seventh
increase in the past twelve years and the third increase in
three years. She suggested that if the legislature spent half
the amount of time trying to figure out ways to attract
investment and get more oil down the pipeline as it does trying
to figure out ways to raise taxes, the state would not have the
problems that it does.
6:45:15 PM
CYNTHIA HENRY said she has operated a retail family business for
over 35 years that is not oil industry related, but is dependent
on Alaska's economy. She expressed her opposition to HB 111,
noting the challenge to the state government's financial
position is due to low oil prices and lower throughput in the
pipeline. However, new oilfields have been announced and last
year throughput increased after years of decline. Further, the
price of oil is inching up, thus she and others are cautiously
optimistic. The structure of Senate Bill 21 is working and she
warned that it would be a big mistake to raise oil taxes which
would lead to less investment, less production, fewer jobs, and
a deepening recession. Ms. Henry urged the committee to vote no
on HB 111.
6:47:11 PM
ROGER BURGGRAF said he has been a resident of Alaska for over 64
years and worked on the pipeline and in other resource
industries. He stated his opposition to HB 111 because it does
nothing to encourage oil companies to invest time or money to
get more oil in TAPS, but encourages the oil industry to invest
elsewhere. He recognized the need to diversify Alaska's
economy, however, there is no upcoming industry to replace lost
oil revenue. Mr. Burggraf said he has submitted written
testimony for the committee's review, and further observed 71
percent of all profits derived from oil produced in Alaska goes
to state and/or federal governments and only 21 percent is
retained by the oil companies. He urged that HB 111 not get
passed.
6:50:24 PM
CHRISTINE RESLER (ph) said that she works in the oil and gas
industry and is very opposed to HB 111. Ms. Resler stated the
importance to Alaska's economy to remain competitive, noting
that it is more expensive for oil and gas companies to produce
in Alaska than many other places around the world, thus keeping
Alaska competitive should be a key focus. She cautioned that
there clearly are other places for oil companies to go, and even
a couple of dollars per barrel could mean the difference between
development and no development of some of the recently
discovered oil reserves in Alaska. She urged Alaskans to gain a
perspective of how the state compares to the rest of the world,
and the implications to Alaska's government and economy if oil
production becomes uneconomic.
6:51:55 PM
BRUNI WARRICK (ph) stated her opposition to HB 111, noting
raising taxes would make Alaska less competitive for investment
dollars and would result in lower production, fewer jobs, and
ultimately less value to the state. She opined the state is
already taking a hit from the [Alaska] Permanent Fund, and
restated her strong opposition to HB 111.
6:53:01 PM
ERIC TREIDER said two years ago an economist predicted the state
would owe oil producers more in the form of tax credits than
what was received in production taxes, and he questioned the
prediction because he couldn't believe lawmakers would "craft
such a terrible bill." However, HB 111 is an effort to make
corrections. He recognized that many testifiers have shared
concern that HB 111 would prompt oil producers to leave Alaska,
and remarked:
During the debate over Senate Bill 21, Dr. Scott
Goldsmith was unable to identify any state or country
that offers more competitive profit opportunities to
oil companies than Alaska. Not long ago BP signed a
contract with Iraq which obligated them to produce 2.9
million barrels of oil per day in return for cost plus
$4 million per day. Now you're considering a bill
that would cut BP's, ConocoPhillips', and Exxon's
share of Alaskans' profits to reimbursement of all
costs plus 27 percent. ... Had we Alaskans had Iraq's
deal ... and we placed the additional revenue in the
permanent fund, our dividends would have grown to
$10,000 per citizen per year and Alaska would be in a
position to fund government for the next hundred years
from the permanent fund earnings. ... I would ask
the legislators to take deep breath and reflect for a
few minutes on who really needs the help the most ...
here in Alaska or the folks in Houston and London.
6:55:49 PM
GRETCHEN NELSON said she is a 35-year resident and expressed her
support for HB 111, which has a number of provisions of benefit
to the state. She urged for the resolution of the oil tax
credit issue and said the state needs to stop paying oil
companies for their work in the state. Further, Senate Bill 21
may need to be revised. The bill would be a step toward a
solution to the state's fiscal problems along with an income
tax, some budget cuts, and restructuring the [Alaska] Permanent
Fund. Ms. Nelson asked the committee to support HB 111.
6:57:59 PM
BILL REINER expressed his opposition to HB 111, and said the oil
tax credits should be stopped before the state is bankrupt. He
pointed out the oil and gas tax credits were designed to best
function at [oil] prices of around $100 per barrel, however, HB
111 continues the credits to 2020, which is not acceptable.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Mr. Reiner to clarify why he opposed HB 111.
MR. REINER said HB 111 does not go far enough and delays
diversification of the economy to a later date.
7:00:49 PM
KATIE CAPOZZI said she understands the challenges before the
legislature to solve the state's fiscal crisis; however, turning
to the industry that has largely funded the state's government
and provided well-paying jobs and the state's savings, and
increasing taxes on that industry - which is experiencing an
economic downturn - for the second time in as many years, is
perilous and shortsighted. The oil and gas industry has made
thousands of layoffs in the past two years affecting Alaskan
friends, neighbors, and colleagues. Ms. Capozzi stated her
opposition to HB 111.
7:02:12 PM
KATIE KENNEDY stated her strong opposition to all tax credits;
in fact, Alaskans did fine before the oil companies came. She
said [Hilcorp's pipeline] has been leaking gas for six weeks and
has been allowed to utilize infrastructure in Cook Inlet that
was built in the '50s. Ms. Kennedy said officials from
BlueCrest told her it could continue operations without tax
credits, so they need to do that. She questioned the wisdom of
using fracking techniques in an area of seismic activity, and
urged the state to be progressive and leave the oil and gas in
the ground to be the state's "true" savings account. Tax
credits are a giveaway and, because of profits, the "big three"
in the oil industry will never pull out of Alaska, thus the
state should not continue giving tax credits. She recalled that
other industries, such as commercial fishing, have had to adjust
to changes, and suggested the state should focus on renewable
sources of energy such as geothermal and tidal energy. Ms.
Kennedy expressed her opposition to HB 111 because all oil and
gas tax credits should be eliminated.
[Due to intermittent technical difficulties some discussion and
testimony were lost.]
CO-CHAIR TARR [indisc.]
MS. KENNEDY opined that it is ridiculous to allow legislators
who work for industry to vote on bills [regarding oil and gas
tax credits].
7:06:40 PM
JAMES SQUYRES stated his opposition to refundable oil and gas
tax credits and questioned why the program is still in existence
knowing the governor's intention to veto the amounts paid to the
statutory minimum. He recommended a "streamlined" bill to
address the refundable credits without any additional tax
changes. Mr. Squyres opined the "refundable gas tax program"
has been de facto shut down for some time, but the state will
still have to pay 100 cents on the dollar whether tax credit
holders wait for refunds, or transfer their credits to major oil
companies. He restated it is better to address the refundable
oil and gas tax credits without changes to tax rates or to the
"good effects of SB 21," and expressed his opposition to HB 111.
7:09:16 PM
DONALD BULLOCK informed the committee he was familiar with the
state's history of production tax due to his work in the
Department of Revenue during hearings on the Economic Limit
Factor (ELF) formula [passed in the Tenth Alaska State
Legislature and modified in 2005] that was applied to the Milne
Point Unit, resulting in the two-year shutdown of Milne Point in
the late '80s. Mr. Bullock said HB 111 was rushed, and there
are some basic concepts missing, as well as significant errors,
one of which provides for no minimum tax after 2021. He
cautioned that every credit and every allowed deduction is an
investment of state money, whether in refundable credits paid or
credits deducted from future tax revenue. Both credits and
investments are very important; in fact, the wellhead value at
Prudhoe Bay, which is the gross value at the point of
production, is the netback from the sales price, therefore,
Alaska has the lowest wellhead value in the country. Further,
[hydrocarbon] is a non-renewable resource, unlike farm equipment
or seed, and easily accessible oil has mostly been found, thus
"new oil" will require more investment. For example, the jack-
up rig credit in Cook Inlet was expensive for the state, but it
brought results, and on the North Slope producers must start
looking at deeper wells, new areas, and heavier oil that costs
more to produce and has less market value. Mr. Bullock stated
his opposition to HB 111 because the bill does not take all the
aforementioned factors into consideration and, along with an
increase in the gross tax and a reduction to the credits, it is
a new scheme for taxes since the Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT)
[passed in the Twenty-Fourth Alaska State Legislature] was
enacted in 2006. The minimum tax already rejects any lease
expenditures, and he said he is in favor of applying credits
against the minimum tax because legitimate credits will lead to
more production. Mr. Bullock cautioned that TAPS does have a
minimum throughput and was almost lost when Pump Station 1 went
down a few years ago. Further, with the loss of the refinery in
Fairbanks, there is no longer an increase of heat as the oil is
transported in the coldest part of the pipeline. He advised the
committee to slow down, look at the big picture, and at the
resource being taxed. Regarding the "it's our oil mantra," he
pointed out lessees have the right to all the oil they produce
except for royalty due the state: production taxes are the same
as taxes imposed by a municipality, although in the case of
natural resources, there may be impacts that continue after the
resource is gone.
7:14:15 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON noted that some components of HB 111 were
heard in over 25 hearings last year, and asked Mr. Bullock to
clarify whether he thought the bill was rushed.
7:14:45 PM
MR. BULLOCK recalled industry has testified that whether the
current tax system is working is unknown at this time, thus the
sponsors of the legislation are "approaching it with one hand
behind your back and the other hand over one of your eyes."
Furthermore, the tax system has been changed; tax stability is
important to taxpayers and also to the state, particularly when
revenues are low and a predicable source of revenue is needed.
Without complete understanding of the existing tax system,
changes should be approached carefully. Mr. Bullock restated
his opposition to HB 111.
7:15:48 PM
BEN MOHR stated that one of the reasons for his opposition to HB
111 is due to the number of changes to the tax credit system in
recent years; companies who have potential plays need as much
certainty as possible to build out programs and plan
appropriately, and although taxes are inevitable, the taxes
should be a constant - not as a variable - in order for industry
to make good business decisions. In addition, Alaska's tax
credit program has little credibility because the credits are
not getting paid as originally promised. Finally, the oil and
gas industry has no more to give and he said he supported asking
Alaskans to pitch in, diversify Alaska's revenue sources, and
make "smart cuts" to government spending.
7:18:16 PM
CEAL SMITH, spokesperson, Alaska Climate Caucus and the Alaska
Center for Climate and Energy Policy, shared that she supports
HB 111. She said for the first time the state is paying more
out than it is taking in from the oil and gas industry, which is
unsustainable. Neither ACES nor Senate Bill 21 were adequate
for Alaska to get its fair share; in fact, Alaska's production
tax is among the lowest in the world. In addition, Ms. Smith
supported the increase of the tax rate from 4 percent to 5
percent. She referred to previous testimony that Alaska's
deficit is largely due to reduced oil production taxes, not
reduced oil prices, and if the state were to receive roughly a
one-third profit share, the deficit problem would be reduced by
50-75 percent. Ms. Smith turned to the "taboo" issue of climate
change, and advised Alaska is warming two to three times faster
than the rest of the country, which is alarming and not
understood by scientists. She reiterated that Alaska needs to
stop paying oil companies to take Alaska's oil, and the oil
industry needs to pay its fair share and costs to mitigate
demands from climate change.
7:21:57 PM
AMY CHRISTIANSEN said she has been an Alaska resident for 31
years and opined Alaska's reliance on oil as its sole source of
income to pay for government and schools is a tragedy. She said
the state is not going to be able to cut its way out of the
current fiscal situation by cuts to education, public safety,
and the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities.
Furthermore, the state is paying oil companies oil tax credits
to "frack off the coast of Cook Inlet." She pointed out that
even after giving the big oil companies what they wanted in
Senate Bill [21] they still laid off employees because gas is
cheaper [to produce] in Iraq than it will ever be in Alaska.
The oil and gas in the ground now belongs to future generations
and is basically Alaska's savings account. She recalled former
Governor Hammond was smart and Norway modeled Alaska's Permanent
Fund with better results. She urged the committee to be bold
and diversify, noting that the oil industry will not spend time
extracting oil in Alaska during periods of low oil prices. Ms.
Christiansen stated that although she supports HB 111 because
any decrease in oil tax credits is good, she does not feel the
bill goes far enough.
CO-CHAIR TARR encouraged the public to send written testimony to
the committee.
7:26:11 PM
DANIELLE REDMOND shared with the committee the following: 1.
fixing the oil and gas tax structure is crucial, Senate Bill 21
needs to be fixed, and tax credits should be reduced or
eliminated before changes are made to the [Alaska] Permanent
Fund Dividend; 2. she supports an income tax over a sales tax
because an income tax taxes workers from out-of-state, whereas a
sales tax disproportionately affects low-income and working
families; 3. she supports HB 111 and any effort to remedy the
oil and gas tax credit structure; 4. climate change is an issue
that is not being addressed but is directly relevant to oil and
gas tax subsidies. Speaking as a parent, Ms. Redmond urged the
committee to consider the impact of subsidies on the future as
relates to the unknown expense of climate change.
7:28:31 PM
HARRY K. BROWER JR., Mayor, North Slope Borough. Mayor Brower's
testimony was read by Dan Fauske, Director, Governmental and
External Affairs, North Slope Borough, as follows:
First, I want to begin by stating that it is my
privilege to serve the people of the North Slope
Borough as their mayor. We are a unified and a
resilient people. We value family and love and
respect our children and elders, like many of you. We
are also people that survive and thrive in changing
times. We as a people who live across the entire
North Slope have witnessed dramatic changes over the
last 44 years when oil was first discovered in Prudhoe
Bay it started a chain of events that had tremendous
impacts to our region. Because of the visionary
leadership of the people who walked before us we have
opportunities to better the lives of all the people
that call the North Slope Borough their home. That
has been the primary focus of my administration since
I was sworn into office. The borough's economy
continues to be strong, however the borough's fiscal
stability should never be taken for granted. Our
economy is predominantly based on oil and gas
development that means it depends on global markets
and economic conditions, the oil industries investment
development options around the world, state and
federal policy, and the success of exploration
activities on the North Slope. Many of these things
are beyond our control but historically what's been
good for the borough, is good for the state. With the
state's economic pressures and fiscal deficit the
borough will be forced to make tough economic and
financial decisions to fill the gap in providing key
essential services to our region that were previously
funded by our state. The proposed policy and rates in
HB 111 will further limit the borough's resources and
the state's to providing such services for North Slope
communities and communities as a whole. Simply
raising taxes on our state and region's most important
industry during a time of low oil prices is not a wise
policy. Oil companies across the North Slope,
including service and support companies, have already
laid off thousands of their work force and postponed
project development due to low prices. By increasing
taxes the state runs the risk of seeing more job
losses, less investment, and less production. The
current oil tax policy has made significant difference
in the level of activity in our borough. It increased
investment, employment, and encouraged exploration
development across the North Slope. Like the state,
the North Slope Borough has a direct stake in a
vibrant oil industry. When industry is confident in
the future and its partner, the State of Alaska, they
make investments. These investments lead to our jobs
for our residents, expand our tax base, and provide us
with the financial opportunities to provide the same
services taken for granted by our fellow citizens in
more populated areas. The reality is when changes are
made to oil and gas taxes our people, our borough, and
our Native corporations are the first to feel the
impacts. We do not believe that HB 111 will bring
more jobs, encourage more investment, or lead to more
oil flowing down the pipeline. Instead let's work to
fix our economic problems by keeping our state
economic engine at maximum capacity. If some tweaks
to our existing tax structure need to be made, then
let's work together to find solutions that work for
the state and industry. No ... disrespect to the good
Alaskans who drafted this bill, but in our opinion
it's an overreaction that could have major long term
impacts. We are all partners in our state's economy.
It is our hope that we can all work together as
Alaskans to solve the challenges we face so we can
build a sustainable future for generations to come.
7:33:30 PM
BOBBY REDDELL (ph), spokesperson, Udelhoven Oilfield System
Services, informed the committee HB 111 would discourage new
exploration while jeopardizing progress made under the current
tax policy. The oil industry needs a stable, predictable, and
competitive tax policy to make investment decisions for the
future. If Alaska continues to shift its tax structure
depending on the government's deficit, businesses would find
other locations in which to operate. Udelhoven Oilfield System
Services has approximately 300 employees in Alaska who depend on
the oil and gas industry, and HB 111 would have a negative
impact on those employees and put their jobs at risk.
7:34:51 PM
CARL PORTMAN stated he is a lifelong Alaskan who worked on TAPS
while he was in college. Like others, he expressed his concern
about the state's current fiscal situation, noting that Alaska's
economic lifeblood is TAPS, but it is now running at three-
quarters empty. He said he does not support raising taxes on
the oil industry and suggested the best approach to raising new
revenue from the oil industry is to increase North Slope
production; in fact, higher taxes would have a direct negative
impact on future industry investment in Alaska, and therefore on
future production. Mr. Portman said at today's low oil prices,
approximately 67 percent of Alaska's revenue comes from the oil
industry through various taxes and royalty. He pointed out that
clearly the industry continues to pay the majority of Alaska's
bills and pay more than its fair share. Further, with several
multibillion barrel oil fields now on the horizon, Alaska could
be on the cusp of an oil renaissance on the North Slope. Alaska
has the resources in place to grow production, increase TAPS
throughput, and grow the state revenue stream. In order to pull
Alaska's economy out of a worsening recession, a major injection
of capital is needed to bring new prospects online, however, HB
111 would do nothing to attract the investment required to
develop new fields and grow the state's revenue over the long
term. Given the urgent need for new industry investment, Mr.
Portman said he does not support HB 111, and he concluded that
higher taxes on the industry would make matters worse for both
the public and private sectors.
7:37:13 PM
KEITH SILVER said that he is opposed to HB 111, which is the
seventh oil tax law change in twelve years and the third since
2013. Furthermore, the bill does not take into account that
under the current oil and gas tax credit scheme, several new
multibillion barrel oilfields have been announced. He pointed
out that in 2016, TAPS had an increase in throughput, which
positively benefited the state budget. In addition, the
decisions to sanction the recent discoveries were determined
under the current tax and credit law, so changes could cause oil
companies to pack up and leave, and some have. Mr. Silver
informed the committee that Alaska is already the most expensive
place to develop an oilfield and constant fiscal uncertainty
makes Alaska an unattractive place to do business. The current
oil tax system is balanced and sets a higher minimum floor than
previous tax systems, while setting a stable and predictable
rate when oil prices rise again; in fact, at current prices
Alaska's oil tax policy has brought hundreds of millions more
dollars in tax revenue to the state than it would have under the
previous system. An annual industry investment of $3 billion to
$4 billion is needed to keep production levels stable on the
North Slope; in addition, production stability also requires a
durable and competitive tax policy that funds Alaska projects.
[Indisc.] Mr. Silver advised that not changing the tax system
for seven years would allow the state to fully analyze what
needs to be fixed, what still works, and what would
significantly decrease fiscal uncertainty.
7:40:00 PM
LYNN C. JOHNSON, Chairman, Dowland-Bach Corporation, stated his
company has been in business for 42 years and manufactures
control and instrumentation systems. He said the current
slowdown has limited his company's manufacturing entities to 32
hours per week. The bill is flawed because it discourages
investment in Alaska, and instead the state needs to encourage
additional investment in facilities and infrastructure to
prolong oilfield life and facilitate exploration. As previously
stated, HB 111 would be the seventh major tax change in twelve
years. He pointed out that a lot of Alaskans think that they
are not affected by the oil and gas industry, but the Anchorage
real estate market is starting to feel the effects through
decreases in property assessments by 6-7 percent from 2016. Mr.
Johnson cautioned now is not the time to raise minimum
production taxes from 4 percent to 5 percent, or to modify net
operating loss (NOL) credits and carry-forward credits. He
questioned whether lawmakers have compared transportation costs
in a "post-fracking world," and concluded HB 111 is a bad
business decision for Alaska.
7:42:09 PM
CHARLES UNDERWOOD spoke in opposition to HB 111. He opined that
Alaska needs to ensure it has a stable fiscal tax regime, and
the change that would take place under HB 111 would not do so.
7:42:54 PM
JEANINE ST. JOHN, spokesperson, Lynden Incorporated (Lynden),
stated her company's opposition to HB 111. She said Lynden is
an Alaska multimodal transportation company that brings goods in
and out of Alaska by road, air, and sea. Lynden provides
logistics and transportation for all of Alaska's resource
industries - fisheries, mining, construction, and oil and gas -
and employs over 700 Alaskans providing service to Alaska for
over 60 years. She stated that Lynden wants to make sure the
Alaska economy stays healthy, as the livelihood of its employees
and business is dependent upon it. She pointed out that
decisions made this year would determine the future of Alaska's
economy. Ms. St. John urged the legislature not to change the
fundamental oil tax structure while deliberating on fixing the
fiscal situation and concurrently adjusting oil taxes. She
observed the changes in HB 111 cannot be classified as an
adjustment to cashable tax credits, but are instead tax
increases proving Alaska's investment instability, and would
drive down investment, even though there may be additional
revenue to the state in the short-term. Ms. St. John said
Lynden has employees all over the state and HB 111 would be a
deterrent for good jobs for Alaska's workforce.
7:46:04 PM
MICHAEL JESPERSON expressed his opposition to HB 111, noting
that the proposed 25 percent increase in minimum tax is a huge
increase, and the seventh tax increase in twelve years is
ridiculous. He pointed out that by the time a business
determines whether a tax policy is profitable for the company,
the state changes it, and businesses cannot operate in that type
of environment. Mr. Jesperson said the existing system should
be given a chance to work; the best way to fix Alaska's fiscal
problems would be to put Alaskans to work and put more oil in
the pipeline. He opined recent discoveries will provide an
opportunity to put more oil into the pipeline, and if so, the
price of oil per barrel doesn't matter.
7:48:44 PM
ROGER JENKINS asked the committee not to change horses in mid-
stream, because no one thought the price of oil would "tank"
again. He opined the process to refuel the pipeline has begun,
and if the flow into TAPS is too low it will be torn down and
North Slope production will cease. Mr. Jenkins said additional
subsidies and time will be required for production from Smith
Bay, Armstrong, Greater Mooses Tooth, and Willow, thus HB 111 is
the wrong bill at the wrong time.
7:50:15 PM
JOHN SONIN said he is a 17-year resident of Juneau. He said HB
111 is complicated but the big picture is that the state needs
to get its priorities straight - Alaskans before profits. He
stated that Alaska is currently jeopardizing the lives of
children, for profits, by cutting teacher positions and wages.
In response to Co-Chair Tarr, he said he is for reneging on the
tax credits which are destroying the economy.
7:53:03 PM
SANDRA LEMKE said she is a 40-year resident of Alaska and worked
for ARCO and now ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc. (ConocoPhillips)
for almost 30 years. She said she supports the geosciences,
geophysicists, and reservoir engineers, and opined Alaska needs
a predictable fiscal framework for industry while it searches
for new sources of oil. Ms. Lemke expressed her opposition to
HB 111, specifically to the increase in taxes and not the tax
credits, because she agreed with a previous speaker that the two
issues should be addressed in separate bills. Furthermore, the
state should "step back" and let the new discoveries on the
North Slope stabilize, so industry can evaluate and rebuild
geoscience teams. She urged that the committee not pass HB 111.
7:55:06 PM
BEN MULLIGAN, Deputy Director, Alaska Chamber, emphasized that
Alaska needs stability in its tax structure right now, and so
Alaska Chamber opposes HB 111. [Additional written testimony
was found in the committee packet.]
7:55:55 PM
WESTON HOWE said he is a lifelong Alaskan with a leadership role
in Alaska's natural resource economy. He stated his opposition
to HB 111 because the bill does not encourage investment from
producers and others in order to support Alaska's oil and gas
industry and economy for the next 30 years.
7:57:06 PM
JOE RINTALA, Construction Business Agent, Teamsters Union Local
959, said that he represents members working on the North Slope,
TAPS, and the Valdez Marine Terminal. The Teamsters Union
represents members working throughout the state, and negotiates
with its employers for good wages and benefits. Mr. Rintala
informed the committee the union appreciates legislation
introduced to address the budget shortfall, and understands the
need to balance the budget. Further, the union supports
adjustments to the [Alaska] Permanent Fund and new revenue
resources to assist in obtaining Alaska's goal, but does not
support HB 111. Teamsters Local 959 has members working on the
GMT 1/CD-6 project for ConocoPhillips, a new drill site west of
CD-5. Nanook, one of the largest contractors on the North
Slope, has been awarded contracts to build an eight-mile gravel
road, ice roads, a ten-acre gravel pad for the future drill
site, and other projects. Work at GMT 1 alone has created over
200 jobs for Alaskan Teamsters and countless jobs for other
unions, businesses, and vendors. He said that ConocoPhillips
kept its commitment to the project, in spite of the decline in
oil prices. In addition, Armstrong Oil and ConocoPhillips have
made "huge investments in the North Slope." Stability in the
oil industry is important regarding investments; investment
leads to new development, and that leads to new jobs. Mr.
Rintala urged the committee to consider the impact of current
and future production, especially in times of low oil prices,
and noted that the Teamsters Union supported Senate Bill 21 - as
did the majority of the public - which resulted in new
investments by industry, putting Alaskans to work.
8:00:26 PM
DAVID SCOTT said he is a 68-year resident of Alaska and has
worked in the oil and gas industry for over 30 years. He said
he supports HB 111 because it is time to bring the oil and gas
industry to the table to discuss problems created by Senate Bill
21. He expressed his support for HB 111.
8:01:11 PM
JOHNNY GRIFFIN said he is a 20-year Anchorage resident and has
worked in the oil and gas industry for many years. The industry
has provided a good life for him and his family, and because HB
111 is bad for Alaska and Alaska families, he is opposed to the
bill.
8:02:33 PM
JACK KVASNIKOFF said he is a lifelong Alaskan and his personal
experience is that when oil and gas companies are profitable
there are more jobs. He said he is strongly opposed to HB 111.
8:03:30 PM
ALICIA SIIRA, Deputy Director, Alaska Miners Association (AMA),
informed the committee AMA is a nonprofit membership
organization established in 1939 to represent the mining
industry throughout Alaska. Its membership is composed of over
1,500 members including prospectors, geologists, engineers,
suction dredge miners, small family mines, junior mining
companies, major mining companies, as well as oil and gas and
mining support service companies. Although AMA's mission is to
promote responsible mineral development, its testimony today is
in opposition to HB 111 because a healthy oil and gas industry
is crucial to a healthy mining industry, and is also good for
Alaska. The Alaska Miners Association produces an annual Issues
of Concern document that for the last several years has
contained a provision pertaining to the oil and gas industry
which demonstrates AMA's belief that it is vital for Alaska to
have oil and gas policy that incentivizes the industry's
continued investment in the state. However, HB 111 is not that
kind of policy, but is the seventh change in twelve years and
creates new punitive changes to the oil and gas tax structure
that would result in less investment, less production, fewer
jobs, and a deepening recession. Her organization encourages
the committee to focus on the larger issue of a sustainable
budget using spending reductions, [Alaska] Permanent Fund
earnings, and new revenue from broad-based taxes - not from
increased taxes on existing taxpayers who are already a
significant part of the revenue base.
8:05:38 PM
ANNE SENECA, Regional Director, Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA),
CEA-Alaska, informed the committee CEA is a nationwide consumer
advocacy organization representing families, farmers, truckers,
manufacturers, small businesses, and energy providers.
Advocating for a competitive market and stable energy prices are
two goals of CEA, and HB 111 would destroy opportunities Alaska
could offer the Lower 48. A 25 percent tax increase on Alaska's
minimum petroleum production would likely result in the
reduction of Alaska's global competitiveness, U.S. energy
production, Alaska employment and income opportunities, and
state revenue, all of which would adversely affect Alaskans.
Ms. Seneca advised Alaska needs a healthy business climate and
in 2016, there was the first uptick in production in 14 years as
a result of oil tax reform in 2013; however, raising taxes could
jeopardize recent gains made in Alaska's oil industry. Alaska
cannot expect to tax away the industry's incentives to invest
and still expect to have a stable economy. She strongly
encouraged the committee to not support HB 111 because it would
do nothing to increase production or provide a stable economic
environment in Alaska.
8:07:50 PM
KATE BLAIR, Government and Public Affairs Manager, Tesoro
Corporation, informed the committee Tesoro Corporation (Tesoro)
is a Fortune 100 company and an independent refiner and marketer
of petroleum products. Tesoro, through its subsidiaries,
operates seven refineries across the western U.S. and has a
total capacity of 895,000 barrels, and also holds ownership
interest in Tesoro Logistics. Tesoro has a proud Alaska legacy,
beginning with its first refinery in Nikiski, which has a crude
capacity of 72,000 barrels per day. Tesoro's assets also
include a 69-mile common carrier pipeline that transports
products from the Nikiski refinery to the Ted Stevens Anchorage
International Airport and to the Port of Anchorage, where
refined products such as jet fuel, gasoline, and ultra-low
sulfur diesel are stored and then transported throughout the
state. Ms. Blair pointed out the existence of in-state
refineries has helped the growth of the international air cargo
business and Anchorage is one of the top five air cargo airports
in the world. Because the Kenai refinery is also able to meet
most of the state's demand for gasoline, the majority of the
gasoline consumed in Alaska has been refined in Alaska. Tesoro
Alaska's refinery and logistics operations employ about 250
people in Nikiski and Anchorage, and maintain a greater than 97
percent Alaska-hire rate. As an independent refiner, logistics,
and marketing company, Tesoro does not pay production taxes in
the state and thus does not take a stance on what oil taxes
should be; however, in-state oil production matters, and any
loss of production - from the North Slope or Cook Inlet - would
affect the in-state refinery and potentially make Tesoro's
economics more challenging because Tesoro relies on access to
in-state crude through production in Cook Inlet and on the North
Slope. At its peak, the Cook Inlet basin produced more than
200,000 barrels per day and in 2016, Cook Inlet produced just
16,500 barrels per day; Tesoro refines every drop of oil that
comes out of the Cook Inlet basin and purchases additional North
Slope crude for refinement in Nikiski. Earlier this year,
Tesoro entered a royalty oil contract with the state allowing it
to purchase 20,000-25,000 barrels of Alaska North Slope (ANS)
royalty share oil - which will benefit the state by $45 million-
$65 million dollars. The Cook Inlet Recovery Act [passed in the
Twenty-Sixth Alaska State Legislature] and Senate Bill 21 have
resulted in a stable local supply of crude, but supply must
still be supplemented by imported light sweet crude from foreign
and domestic sources; importing additional crude along with the
high cost of energy in an energy-intensive refining process may
make local refining a less economical option and lead to
increased importation of refined products, which would
ultimately affect the stable local supply of transportation
fuels within Alaska. Ms. Blair urged the committee to consider
how modifications to oil and gas tax credits will affect
production and in-state manufacturing.
8:12:11 PM
BILL CORBUS said he served as the commissioner of DOR from 2003-
2007. He noted his testimony is a summary of written testimony
submitted by KEEP Alaska Competitive (KEEP), an organization
composed of a variety of businesses, groups, and individuals,
whose mission is to encourage a vibrant Alaska resource
industry. He added that KEEP does not accept funding from the
oil industry. Mr. Corbus said KEEP's position is that HB 111 is
the wrong approach; it increases oil taxes at low prices when
industry is losing millions, or is not making enough profit to
support investing $4 billion-$6 billion a year. This is in
contrast with Senate Bill 21, which is characterized by
"stability over time." In the past, Alaska was a predictable
partner in both high- and low-price environments and the focus
was long-range rather than short-term. In 2013, KEEP supported
[Senate Bill] 21 in order to turn from a punitive tax system and
to change incentives to invest and produce oil, not simply spend
money. The aforementioned legislation attracted independents
which resulted in several large discoveries which, if developed,
will provide significant revenues for the state; however, HB 111
would reverse Senate Bill 21 as well as provisions in ACES and
in other legislation for cashable NOL credits. Mr. Corbus said
KEEP recognizes the state does not have the resources to cash
out tax credits when prices are low, but this does not mean that
credits and NOLs should not be allowed against production taxes
when prices are high. Further, KEEP believes the primary focus
should be on fixing the current fiscal problem using the
[Alaska] Permanent Fund realized earnings, cutting costs, and
utilizing reasonable broad-based revenue solutions that would
not kill investments.
8:16:00 PM
MARLEANNA HALL, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
for Alaska, Inc. (RDC), informed the committee RDC is a
statewide trade association comprised of individuals and
companies from Alaska's oil and gas, mining, fishing, tourism,
and timber industries. The members of RDC believe the best
approach to grow the economy and generate new revenue would be
to produce more oil, attract more tourists, harvest more fish
and timber, and mine more minerals. Regarding HB 111, she said
that raising taxes on companies that are in negative cash flow
is not a sound fiscal policy. Increasing taxes on Alaska's oil
industry would not increase throughput for TAPS, encourage the
development of new prospects, nor would it solve Alaska's fiscal
crisis. In fact, higher taxes in the current low price
commodity environment would likely deter investment and lead to
lower state revenue and a weaker private sector. Further, HB
111 would jeopardize recent gains such as the first oil
production increase in 14 years, billions of dollars of
investments since 2013, and optimism about recent multibillion
barrel discoveries on the North Slope. Ms. Hall said if HB 111
is enacted, production decline rates of six percent or more
annually might reappear, and Alaska could end up with a much
smaller economy; however, incentivizing the industry will cause
it to drill more and create more wealth, jobs, and activity.
The passage of Senate Bill 21 in 2013 brought new exploration,
jobs, and continued investment in Alaska. The members of RDC
are not asking for a tax decrease during the current low
commodity price environment, as is being considered in other
states and countries, but do request that the committee do no
harm to Alaska's largest industry. She urged the committee to
reject HB 111.
8:18:42 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that HB 111 was held over with public
testimony open.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB111 Supporting Document - Letters in Support 3.1.17.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Opposing Document - Letters in Opposition 3.1.17.pdf |
HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 ver O 2.8.17.PDF |
HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 2.12.17.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Sectional Analysis 2.12.17.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Sponsor Statement 2.12.17.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |