Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
02/02/2024 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 | |
| HB222 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 222-PERMANENT FUND/AIDEA FUND INVESTMENTS
1:03:31 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 222, "An Act relating to the Alaska permanent
fund and the income and investments of the fund; relating to the
permanent fund dividend; and providing for an effective date."
1:03:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JESSE SUMNER, Alaska State Legislature, as the
prime sponsor, presented HB 222. He spoke from the sponsor
statement [provided in the committee packet], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 222 addresses critical aspects related to the
Alaska Permanent Fund, its income, investments, and
the distribution of permanent fund dividends.
The proposed amendments to AS 37.13.120 seek to direct
the investment of fund assets towards achieving a 25
percent ownership share of a natural gas pipeline
originating on the North Slope. This investment is
intended to yield long-term benefits for the state and
its residents.
The amendments to AS 37.13.145 aim to provide
flexibility in appropriating funds for dividends,
ensuring fair distribution to eligible individuals and
allowing for adjustments based on available income.
Additionally, the bill includes provisions related to
the mental health trust fund and sets conditions for
its effective date based on the construction and
completion of a natural gas pipeline originating on
the North Slope.
Overall, this bill aims to optimize the management and
utilization of the Alaska Permanent Fund for the
benefit of the state and its citizens.
REPRSENTATIVE SUMNER added that HB 222 would allow a dividend
statute that could be followed without endangering the "owners
reserve account" while investing in that pipeline. The bill
would then provide for an ongoing statutory dividend that can be
complied with. Given the gas situation in Southcentral Alaska,
it is especially pressing [the legislature] consider this. As
provided in the effective date and conditionals language, the
bill would do absolutely nothing if the gas pipeline isn't
built. When companies engage in large capital projects or
expansion of business it is common for them to reduce or
eliminate their dividends to shareholders for a period so they
can grow and then return larger dividends in the future. In the
same way, the permanent fund can be invested and dividends
returned to Alaskans in the form of secure cheap gas as well as
cash dividends from the investment.
1:06:45 PM
REPRSENTATIVE SUMNER spoke from the sectional analysis [provided
in the committee packet] titled "HB222 Sectional Analysis
Version A," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1: This section adds a new subsection to AS
37.13.120, directing the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation to invest fund assets to achieve a 25
percent ownership share of a natural gas pipeline
originating on the North Slope.
Section 2: This section amends AS 37.13.145(b) to
allow the legislature to appropriate from the earnings
reserve account to the dividend fund an amount
necessary to distribute a dividend of up to $1,000 to
each eligible individual.
Section 3: This section further amends AS 37.13.145(b)
to allow the legislature to appropriate 50 percent of
the income available for distribution to the dividend
fund, instead of a fixed amount.
Section 4: Amends AS 37.13.145(c) to provide for the
appropriation from the earnings reserve account to the
principal of the fund in order to offset the effect of
inflation on the fund's principal.
Section 5: Amends AS 37.13.145(d) to specify that
income earned from specific sources related to the
Alaska Permanent Fund shall be deposited into the
Alaska capital income fund.
Section 6: Amends AS 37.13.300(b) to outline the
duties of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation
regarding the mental health trust fund.
Section 7: Amends AS 37.13.300(c) to specify that net
income from the mental health trust fund may not be
included in the computation of the amount available
for distribution or appropriation under certain
sections.
Section 8: Amends AS 43.23.025(a) to outline the
process for determining the value of each permanent
fund dividend for a given year.
Sections 9-11: These sections outline conditional
effects based on the construction and completion of a
natural gas pipeline originating on the North Slope.
Section 12: Specifies the effective date of the Act.
1:09:14 PM
Cody Rice, House Majority Staff, Alaska State Legislature,
provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "Gas Pipeline (HB
222)," dated 2/2/24. He related that his professional
background includes many years in oil and gas, including the
Division of Oil and Gas [Department of Natural Resources],
Department of Revenue Tax Division, Wood Mackenzie, and UBS. He
noted that a potential gas pipeline has been discussed since
about 1970, with almost every iteration discussing the question
of whether there would be State of Alaska equity participation.
MR. RICE began his presentation with slide 2, "Why Invest,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided with some
formatting changes]:
Rationale for equity investment in the Alaska gas
pipeline
• Today, proponents of state involvement cite three
main reasons for the state to participate in
ownership or financing of an Alaska Gas Pipeline
project:
• It would be a good investment with a healthy
rate of return and minimal risk.
• Alaska should control its own financial
destiny and development of its resources.
• State involvement would enhance the
project's feasibilitythat is, the pipeline
would stand a better chance of getting built
sooner if the state was a financial partner.
MR. RICE added that the state would have a seat at the table and
a say in the discussions and the commercial negotiations that
are made, including potentially accelerating a project as well
as the straight dollars that the project might make.
1:11:12 PM
MR. RICE spoke from slide 3, "State Equity Participation in the
Alaska Gas Pipeline," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided with some formatting changes]:
Wood Mackenzie Cost Estimates
1
• Wood Mackenzie Cost Estimates ($2019 Real):
• $9.2 Bn Gas Treatment Plant (GTP)
• $12.7 Bn Gas Pipeline
• $16.8 Bn Liquefaction/LNG
• Wood Mackenzie Cost Estimates ($2024 CPI [Consumer
Price Index] - adjusted):
• $11.2 Bn GTP
• $15.5 Bn Pipeline
• $20.5 Bn Liquefaction
• Assuming 70 [percent] debt funding, a 25 [percent]
equity stake in the $15.5 Bn pipeline would cost ~
$1.2 Bn in equity and ~ $235 MM [million]/yr in debt
2
service at 7.75 [percent] interest
1: Alaska LNG Competitiveness Analysis 2022
2: 30 [percent] equity in $15.5 Bn pipelines = $4.7
Bn; 25 [percent] share of $4.7 Bn = $1.2 Bn;
Outstanding debt on the State 25 [percent] share would
be ~ $2.7 Bn
MR. RICE allowed that the CPI is only one way of looking at what
today's costs might be and that the Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC) likely has its view on how these costs have
or haven't accelerated. He said the bill as proposed directs
the permanent fund to take a 25 percent equity stake in the
pipeline and that most scenarios look to some variation of 70
percent debt funding.
1:13:08 PM
MR. RICE displayed slide 4, "Returns on Equity," and addressed
whether this would be a reasonable investment for the state to
make. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for the permanent
fund from its inception in 1978 to 2023 is 9.24 percent, he
specified. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
regulated return on equity (ROE) for major gas pipelines ranges
from 10-14 percent, with the bias being towards the higher end
for larger more risky projects, which the Alaska LNG project
would be. The ROE from a 25 percent investment in the pipeline
portion of this project could reasonably be assumed to be
relatively in the ballpark of what the permanent fund has earned
on average over the last 30 plus years.
1:15:26 PM
MR. RICE moved to slide 5, "Portfolio Management," and discussed
how this would affect the permanent fund asset allocation. He
explained that the allowable investments are outlined in statute
[AS 37.13.120(c)], which specifies that Alaskan investments are
preferred over other investments assuming they have similar risk
and return profile [to other non-Alaskan opportunities]. While
this project could have a similar return profile, he stated, the
risk is a whole other question. Currently, Alaska constitutes
only $540 million, less that 1 percent, of the entire permanent
fund [portfolio]; a 25 percent equity in the Alaska gas pipeline
would move the Alaska portion of the permanent fund to just over
2 percent of the overall portfolio. This proposed investment
could also reasonably be included in two other investment
categories: 1) private equity [with a target of 16 percent of
the APFC portfolio], which currently is at $14.6 Bn [19
percent]; and 2) private income and infrastructure [with a
target of 9 percent of the APFC portfolio], which currently is
at $6.7 Bn [8.6 percent]. In both cases this would not wildly
swamp the current investments in those investment classes. Mr.
Rice surmised that the permanent fund professional investors
would have thoughts on this.
1:17:13 PM
MR. RICE concluded his PowerPoint presentation with slide 6,
"Summary," which read as follows [original punctuation provided
with some formatting changes]:
State equity participation in a gas pipeline has been
studied for >40 years by numerous consultants and
investment banks
25 [percent] share of the pipeline would likely cost
the State ~ $1.2 Bn in cash and ongoing debt service
of ~ $235 MM/yr at 7.75 [percent] interest
Regulated gas pipeline returns on equity are
comparable or higher (10 14 [percent]) than
historical average returns from APFC (9.2 [percent])
A 1 [percent] increase in returns on $1 Bn invested
over 30 years is ~ +$5.4 Bn undiscounted and ~ +$350MM
NPV
10
[Fiscal Year 2025] [Constitutional Budget Reserve
(CBR)] balance ~ $2.4Bn
[Fiscal Year 2025] [Earning Reserve Account (ERA)]
balance ~ $7.2Bn
1:18:33 PM
CHAIR MCKAY asked whether the diameter of the pipe for the
Alaska LNG project would be 44 inches.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER offered his belief that the envisioned
diameter would be 42 inches.
CHAIR MCKAY asked whether Mr. Rice is talking about a pipe of 42
inches diameter.
MR. RICE replied that the assumptions he presented are based on
the Wood Mackenzie study that was produced for AGDC, so it is
based on AGDC's assumptions. The pipe scenarios that have been
discussed over the years have varied, he added, but generally 42
inches is a reasonable estimate.
1:19:39 PM
CHAIR MCKAY said the sale price of the gas would be a key
variable in this. He inquired about the assumption used for the
sale price of the gas.
MR. RICE responded that he has assumed the price of gas that's
estimated in the Wood Mackenzie study because it seemed
reasonable to him. It's lower than the current weighted average
cost of gas in Cook Inlet or the prevailing value that is
published on the Department of Revenue Tax Division's web site,
which is based on the average of the contracts with the major
utilities which he believes is around $8 per metric million
British thermal units (MM BTU). He offered his belief that the
cost estimated in this study is $5.70-$6.70 delivered into
Southcentral.
1:20:36 PM
CHAIR MCKAY stated that under the Alaska LNG project, a good
portion of the gas would be exported, and gas would be available
for local consumption [from offtakes along the pipeline]. He
asked whether the pipeline would be terminated in Nikiski.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER answered that, as proposed, HB 222
references the definition of gas pipeline under AS 31.25.390,
which states "means the main natural gas pipeline from the
outlet flange of the gas treatment plant on the North Slope to
the inlet flange of the liquefied natural gas plant located in
the Southcentral region of the state, which shall have offtake
points along the pipeline for deliveries of gas in the state".
He said he assumes that would be in Nikiski unless there is a
change in the permits.
1:21:58 PM
CHAIR MCKAY inquired about the total cost in [CPI-adjusted]
dollars [for the GTP, the pipeline, and the liquefaction].
MR. RICE answered that it's a tough question because it's not
actually representative of the entire cost of the pipeline, but
the [total] cost displayed here is about $46-$47 billion.
CHAIR MCKAY stated that that is the last number he heard from
the Alaska LNG [project].
MR. RICE responded that that does not include owners' cost or
potential contingency for cost overruns, both of which can be a
substantial portion of this cost. Responding further to Chair
McKay, he confirmed that he is basing his economics on
approximately $46 billion.
1:23:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG asked whether the Wood Mackenzie model
that predicts a doubling of Alaska's LNG export by 2027
considers how the prices of LNG might change with all that
natural gas coming online.
MR. RICE confirmed that it does. He related that Wood Mackenzie
has a team which produces a complicated supply-demand model
based on LNG projects globally that the team expects to go
forward and has a forward forecast for pricing.
1:23:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG asked why a pipeline hasn't yet
happened after so many decades of discussion and what makes
right now and this scenario different.
MR. RICE replied that he thinks various projects have fallen by
the wayside for different reasons, but that the overarching
challenge to the project has been lack of commercial agreement,
the economics, and the unique size, scale, and scope of a
project like this.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER pointed out that until very recently the
project didn't have all permits nor authorization to blowdown
gas on the North Slope.
CHAIR MCKAY added that there have been many reasons for why
things didn't happen and that there have been different scopes
for this project, one which went from the North Slope to Chicago
and one that was worked on in the 1990s by Yukon Pacific.
1:25:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER recalled Mr. Rice's statement that HB 222
would do nothing unless the pipeline happened. He observed that
Section 1 of HB 222 would take effect in July 2024 regardless of
any other decisions or activity, and that Section 1 directs the
fund to invest fund assets to achieve a 25 percent ownership
share. He asked whether he is correct that that would have an
effect even if there is no construction or certification as
existing.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER confirmed that that is correct in that it
would have that direction for the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation. If there is not a project to invest in then the
APFC simply cannot invest, so it would have no effect if the
project doesn't happen. It does have the effect of saying that
[the state] has committed or is willing to commit these funds
for the pipeline. He noted that the contingent language in
Section 9 is a repealer if it doesn't happen in the next 10
years, and that Sections 10 and 11 have the conditional language
for if construction begins and when construction ends.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER observed that the language [in Section 1]
states that "the board shall invest" in "a natural gas
pipeline". He noted that there are several different [pipeline]
iterations and proposals and therefore suggested the language be
tightened up for what the board is exactly directed to do.
1:27:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS [in reference to slide 3] stated that CPI
is nothing compared to what has happened in the construction
industry in the last few years, such as supply challenges. She
said the slide doesn't have enough data on what the costs would
be now for the complete project. She further stated that other
data is needed, such as the state's cashflow over time depicted
in graphs and charts.
MR. RICE replied that this would be an equity investment over a
relatively short period before construction or at construction.
That equity investment would be around $1.2 billion depending on
actual inflation for these specific categories. While this
project is incredibly complex, of global scale, and requires the
generation of custom engineering estimates, CPI is a reasonable
place to start as a rough estimate. Regarding ongoing costs,
the $235 million a year in debt service would be a consistent
cost over the life of that loan, the same as how a mortgage
would remain consistent.
1:30:03 PM
CHAIR MCKAY asked whether it is relevant here that a current
legislature cannot bind a future legislature on spending money.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER answered that the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation can be directed by statute. As a separate
instrumentality of the state, APFC will follow statutory
direction unless direction is changed. So [passage of HB 222]
would not be binding a future legislature, it would be binding
the APFC.
CHAIR MCKAY surmised that if this legislature passed HB 222, the
th
34 Alaska State Legislature could repeal it.
th
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER concurred. The 34 Legislature could also
ignore the statutory provisions that are being introduced for
the dividend, he opined, which has happened over recent years.
CHAIR MCKAY stated he isn't trying to find reasons to not do
this, rather he is testing how it would work.
MR. RICE noted that the permanent fund investment allocation for
allowable investments has been changed by the legislature
multiple times since inception. In its original incarnation the
APFC was only allowed to invest in fixed income assets, which
are relatively safe but relatively low earning.
1:32:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether a legal [opinion] was
prepared for the bill and could it be shared with the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER confirmed that a legal [opinion] was
prepared. He said he would provide it to the committee.
CHAIR MCKAY surmised that the legal opinion said the bill's
provisions were okay.
1:33:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said his recollection of history is that
after debates about whether to invest in Alaska projects or to
seek the greatest return based on the prudent investor rule, the
decision was made to not invest in Alaska and to instead create
the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA)
to create jobs and finance projects to help the Alaska economy.
He requested the sponsor to address how that decision might be
impacted by HB 222.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER responded that Alaska has built few
structures since building the oil pipeline. While the "banana
republic resource export trap" has generated lots of revenue for
the state, he opined, Alaska's economy needs to be diversified.
He said he personally is more interested in the in-state gas
aspect of the gas pipeline to provide a cheap and reliable
source of energy that will help the state move up the value-
added chain and have other manufacturing potential. Just taking
a share of the resource and applying it to government spending
and to dividends, he further opined, will consume that surplus
without making those investments and will be regretted down the
line.
MR. RICE pointed out that current statutory authority provides
preference to Alaska investments assuming they have similar risk
and return profiles. So, he continued, the legislature has
previously decided that that should be a priority.
1:37:07 PM
CHAIR MCKAY asked how much [equity investment] for this project
would come from the private sector.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER replied that 75 percent of the equity
investment would be from the private sector. About 70 percent
debt financing is envisioned and of the remaining 30 percent of
the financing, 75 percent would be from the private sector and
25 percent would be from the APFC. This would still have to
pencil out in somebody's book in the private sector for this to
happen, he advised.
1:38:05 PM
CHAIR MCKAY concluded that permanent fund money would help
support the Alaska LNG project.
MR. RICE answered that that is a fair summary. Roughly 70
percent of the approximately $15.5 billion would be debt funded;
the state's obligation would be for [one-fourth] of the equity
and [one-fourth] of the debt.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER added that the APFC isn't being told it
can't invest in the rest of the project and isn't being directed
to invest in the entirety of the project. The APFC is being
directed to invest in just the natural gas pipeline portion.
1:39:07 PM
CHAIR MCKAY asked whether the APFC has ever invested in any
significant projects in Alaska before and, if so, whether there
is an example of that working out well.
MR. RICE replied that currently the Alaska permanent fund is
invested in Alaska at about $540 million. He said the Alaska
permanent fund is invested through various private equity
vehicles in several LNG projects and gas pipelines globally,
specifically through "subsidiaries of Blackstone." He offered
his belief that the Alaska permanent fund is invested through
various private equity funds in "the Pluto Project by Woodside"
and is a substantial investor in Spain's natural gas pipelines.
So, he continued, the Alaska permanent fund has experience and a
record of investing in public infrastructure projects and
specifically natural gas projects.
CHAIR MCKAY proffered that it isn't a bizarre idea that the APFC
should consider investing in [the Alaska LNG project].
1:40:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said it seems that every iteration of the
pipeline over the past 45 years has had a 25 percent ownership
for the state. He asked whether he is correct in understanding
that HB 222 would give the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation the
"ability" to invest in [a natural gas pipeline].
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER responded that he would describe it as a
"requirement" in HB 222 to invest in [a natural gas pipeline],
so it would be a fund source for this 25 percent of the project.
More certainty on funding a $1.2 billion project would help
advance the project, he opined, as compared to it being a
question of whether the state might invest up to 25 percent.
1:41:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked what is being done currently with
the gas that is produced along with the oil drilling on the
North Slope. He maintained that it is stranded gas because
there is no way to transport it from the North Slope
MR. RICE answered that describing North Slope gas as stranded is
accurate. He said the last time he checked, approximately 6
billion cubic feet (BCF) of gas per day was being reinjected
into the Prudhoe Bay reservoir for pressure maintenance, and
according to Representative Sumner it is a higher amount than
that. One challenge is that a gas offtake must be allowed by
the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC); Rule 9
must be modified to have a major gas sale. Functionally there
is more gas than would be needed for this pipeline for the 30-
year project, but it will take many reservoir engineers to
understand how that can be drawn down to ensure that the benefit
of both the oil and the gas is maximized.
CHAIR MCKAY noted that the AOGCC has approved offtake of gas
from the North Slope and most of the gas would come from Point
Thomson and Prudhoe Bay.
1:43:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS stated she appreciates the concept of the
state investing within itself, and that she realizes what is
trying to be done with HB 222 and other bills is to prove to
investors that Alaska and its resources are a good investment
risk. She asked whether the APFC would currently be able to
invest in this project without HB 222.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER offered his belief that the answer is yes.
CHAIR MCKAY invited Mr. Deven Mitchell to answer the question.
1:44:24 PM
DEVEN MITCHELL, Executive Director, Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation (APFC), Department of Revenue, answered that the
APFC has looked at HB 222 and many questions were raised as far
as the actual anticipated impact on the permanent fund and the
size and scope of what the envisioned project might be, of which
some questions were answered today. Regarding whether the APFC
would currently be able to invest in a project like this today,
he said the APFC has some statutory guidance as far as prudence
standards, so the APFC has diversification requirements and
concentration requirements that would preclude it from being
such a significant investor in any project. Other issues
associated with the Alaska natural gas project would also play
into that, such as where the project is from a development
perspective and the levels of risk that might currently exist.
He said APFC's chief investment officer is available to provide
the committee with greater guidance on the APFC's investment
making process when looking at its current oil and gas exposures
and the limits APFC looks at from a diversification perspective
and participating in those projects.
1:47:07 PM
CHAIR MCKAY asked whether Mr. Mitchell sees a problem with the
legislature passing a law that the governor signs directing the
APFC to invest in an Alaska gas pipeline.
MR. MITCHELL replied that if the APFC is directed by state law
to invest in a certain investment, that is what the APFC would
do and that is what it does right now.
CHAIR MCKAY asked whether the sponsor has thought about bonds to
also help boost this project.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER responded that he is simply providing one
mechanism here and welcomes debate on it. The source of the
funds could be many different things.
MR. RICE added that bonds of various types have been studied and
discussed and looked at by various consultants for this purpose.
1:48:51 PM
CHAIR MCKAY said he would like to have a guidance vote from the
people on whether they favor the state doing something like
this.
MR. RICE replied that when creating a 175-page document on this
some time ago, the Department of Revenue (DOR) surveyed folks
within the industry and general citizens. The general
population was unanimously in favor of state direct equity
participation in the gas pipeline and the industry was
unanimously opposed.
CHAIR MCKAY said it is interesting to hear that the industry was
unanimously opposed because he keeps hearing that industry wants
the state to show skin in the game.
MR. RICE responded that industry was unanimously opposed at that
point in time. However, he continued, he cannot speak to
today's potential investors because he hasn't had those
conversations and opinions have evolved over time.
1:50:45 PM
REPRESENATIVE BAKER requested clarification on why the bill
proposes to not utilize the Alaska Mental Health Trust.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER answered that HB 222 precludes the Alaska
Mental Health Trust because there are settlements involved, but
it would be a policy decision of whether that is wanted. There
may be some small difficulty with the Alaska Permanent Fund
Corporation in segregating those assets out, he advised, but he
thinks that is a surmountable administrative issue.
1:51:35 PM
MR. RICE, in response to Representative Mears, related that FERC
stands for Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He said FERC
has 100 percent jurisdiction over natural gas pipelines in the
U.S. under the [1938] Natural Gas Act (NGA). While this project
is relatively unique and more complicated [than other natural
gas pipelines], he advised, those would be the peers in the way
that the rate of return is determined and regulated by FERC.
1:52:48 PM
CHAIR MCKAY thanked the sponsor and testifiers for bring forth
HB 222. He said he personally appreciates any ideas and
proposals to help move Alaska's resource development industry
forward and to help monetize stranded assets.
[HB 222 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB222 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 2/2/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB222 Sectional Analysis Ver. A.pdf |
HRES 2/2/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB 222 Fiscal Note 1 - DCCED.pdf |
HRES 2/2/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB 222 Fiscal Note 2 - DOR.pdf |
HRES 2/2/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB 222 Presentation 2.2.24.pptx |
HRES 2/2/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB 222 - 2002 State Participation Plan.pdf |
HRES 2/2/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB 222 - 1978 State Participation Plan.pdf |
HRES 2/2/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 222 |
| HB 222 - 2022 Wood Mackenzie Analysis.pdf |
HRES 2/2/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 222 |