Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
05/14/2025 01:00 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 | |
| SB29 | |
| SJR19 | |
| SJR17 | |
| SJR8 | |
| HB206 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 206 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 17 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 29 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SJR 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 206-OIL AND GAS DATA
3:03:29 PM
CO-CHAIR DIBERT announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 206, "An Act relating to disclosure of oil and
gas production tax information."
3:03:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 206 to the committee. She commented that
the most-asked question in the building is, "Where are we going
to get the money." She pointed out that the state is in a
business relationship with the oil industry, providing access to
resources owned by the people of Alaska in exchange for a share
of the proceeds. She explained that it has been over a decade
since the state comprehensively evaluated the terms, and in that
time a lot has changed including fluctuating oil prices,
companies changing hands, and two new big developments. She
pointed out that the president had targeted $50 per barrel oil
while the state's budget was based on $68 revenues. She stated
that it was time to revisit whether the policy environment is
achieving the goals set out, and, related to that, there is a
responsibility to make sure the tax system is working for
Alaska. She emphasized that both the oil industry and their
constituents depend on the Legislature. She described the
process her office used to craft the legislation.
3:06:11 PM
COREY ALT, staff, Representative Donna Mears, on behalf of
Representative Mears, prime sponsor, co-presented a PowerPoint
regarding HB 206 [hard copies in the committee packet]. He
presented slides 2 and 3, both titled "Our Responsibility,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
"The legislature shall provide for the utilization,
development, and conservation of all natural resources
belonging to the State, including land and waters, for
the maximum benefit of its people."
Article VIII, Sec. 2
Utilization and development requires balancing
competing priorities:
1. Providing a tax environment that incentivizes
robust and competitive development; and
2. Collecting taxes and royalties to provide the
benefits of our resources to all Alaskans.
The legislature facilitates a balance between the
needs of industry and the people of Alaska using tax
and royalty policy.
3:07:26 PM
MR. ALT described a seminar presented by oil and gas consultant
Rich Ruggiero regarding policy design for oil and gas taxes. An
important take-away was that, all numbers aside, a tax system
should be designed around what outcomes it is trying to produce.
He showed the 3, 4, and 5, titled "What's the problem?" which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• What resource development outcomes are we trying to
achieve with our tax system?
A competitive and dynamic development environment that
brings:
• Increased production
• Increased competition
• Increased investment
The Legislature is unable to judge the effectiveness
of its tax policies
• The resource development environment has
changed significantly since SB21 (2013) and the
assumptions made at the time are not today's reality.
• Does our tax system still meet its goals at $70
oil? $60?
• Would we know if it didn't?
What information do legislators need to know?
• Is Alaska an attractive place to invest? How does it
compare to other jurisdictions?
• How does our tax system impact different producers,
depending on their position in the market?
• Is the legislature fulfilling its obligation to
provide the maximum benefit to Alaskans?
• Has our system's effectiveness changed over time?
Legislators are currently prohibited from accessing
disaggregated information about producers that would
provide answers to these questions.
3:09:15 PM
MR. ALT pointed out that the legislature is unable to judge the
effectiveness of its tax system because the law prevents
legislators and the public from accessing that information. He
proceeded to slide 7 titled "Alaska's Unique Structure," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Alaska has a net tax systemcompanies are only taxed
on their profits.
• Most oil-producing statesTX, OK, WY, CO, NMhave a
gross tax system.
• Under a net tax, the public has a greater interest
in transparency because of the higher revenue
volatility inherent in the system.
3:10:50 PM
MR. ALT drew the committee's attention to the chart on
slide 7, which showed scenarios of production costs, taxes,
and profits and compared the taxes paid and the profits
under a gross tax system and a net tax system. He then
moved to slide 8, also titled "Alaska's Unique Structure,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Weakening Disclosures:
• In 2006, Alaska transitioned from a gross (ELF) to a
net tax under the Petroleum Profits Tax (PPT)
• It quickly became clear that the PPT system
lacked sufficient disclosure, both to the Department
of Revenue and the public
• ACES (2007) implemented the current statute to
address such concerns, requiring that data be
aggregated among 3 producers in a unit.
• In 2016, DOR published information on four
individual units. Today Prudhoe is the only one.
3:12:34 PM
MR. ALT explained that under Alaska's net tax system, volatility
was inherent in the system. As a result, the profitability of
oil producers is of much greater import to the state, and
disclosure of and access to the data is in the public's best
interest. He compared levels of disclosure, using Texas as an
example where tax returns of producers were public information
broken down by well and by month. By contrast, the Alaska
Department of Revenue only published total annual investments by
producers, and the information was not readily available to the
public. With the exception of Prudhoe Bay, it was not broken
down by unit or month.
3:14:20 PM
CO-CHAIR DIBERT asked Rep Mears if she had final comments.
3:14:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS explained that the purpose of introducing
HB 206 to the committee was to start this important discussion.
3:15:09 PM
[HB 206 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 206 Presentation.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 206 |
| HB 206 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 206 |
| HB 206 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2025 1:00:00 PM |
HB 206 |
| SJR 8 Sponsor Statement .pdf |
HRES 5/14/2025 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| SJR 8 supporting doc - Office Rent Subsidy for Offices of Foreign State Govts.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2025 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 8 |
| Draft HCSSJR 19 (RES) ver O.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2025 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 19 |
| SJR 19 summary of changes ver H to O.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2025 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 19 |
| SJR 17 Sponsor Statement version A 5.13.25.pdf |
HRES 5/14/2025 1:00:00 PM |
SJR 17 |