Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/14/2014 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB287 | |
| SB138 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 287 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 287
"An Act approving and ratifying the sale of royalty
oil by the State of Alaska to Tesoro Corporation and
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company LLC; and
providing for an effective date."
8:43:12 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that amendment 1 was withdrawn and
amendment 3 was an amended version.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 28-
GH2862\A.11, Gardner/Nauman, 4/13/14 (copy on file), by
Representative Wilson and Representative Thompson.
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "relating to the determination of the royalty
received by the state on oil production refined or
processed in the state; providing tax credits for
qualified infrastructure expenditures for in-state
refineries;"
Page 1, following line 4:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Section 1. AS 38.05.180(cc) is amended to read:
(cc) The provisions of (aa), [AND] (ee), and (hh) of
this section do not prohibit the commissioner from
accepting any payment on a federal lease tendered by
the federal agency responsible for determination and
transmittal of the payment to the state under 30
U.S.C. 191 or otherwise due the state as the state's
royalty share of gas production or the state's royalty
share of oil production irrespective of the state's
acceptance of an amount that is different than the
amount due under the lease for purposes of determining
royalty share on oil and gas production under that
subsection.
* Sec. 2. AS 38.05.180 is amended by adding new
subsections to read:
(hh) Upon written request of a lessee of a lease
issued under this section or of a lessee of federal
land from which the state is entitled to receive a
share of the royalty on oil production, the
commissioner may enter into an agreement with the
lessee to accept, as a value for the state's royalty
share of oil production sold to an in-state refiner,
an amount that is not less than the price established
in a contract between the lessee and the in-state
refiner but not exceeding the amount that would
otherwise be due under the lease. This subsection
applies to a contract entered into after December 31,
2014. The commissioner shall respond to a request
received under this section within 90 days after the
receipt of the request by the department. The
commissioner may enter into an agreement under this
section if
(1) the commissioner issues a written finding that
(A) the agreement is in the best interest of the
state;
(B) the parties to the contract between the lessee
and the in-state refiner are not affiliated under (2)
of this subsection; and
(C) based on clear and convincing evidence,
(i) the contract price is not unreasonably low; and
(ii) the prospective reduction in royalty receipts
will be balanced by employment opportunities or other
tangible benefits to the state; and
(2) the primary function of the in-state refiner's
contracting with the lessee is to engage in the
manufacture of refined petroleum products in the
state, and the in-state refiner is not affiliated with
the lessee or with a subsequent purchaser of more than
10 percent of the in-state refiner's product; the
parties to a contract or purchase are affiliated if,
in the judgment of the commissioner, one of the
parties to the contract or purchase exercises
substantial influence over the policies and actions of
the other as evidenced by a relationship based on
common ownership or family interest or by action taken
in concert whether or not that influence is based on
stockholdings, stockholders, officers, or directors.
(ii) In (cc) and (hh) of this section,
(1) "in-state refiner" means a person engaged in the
manufacture of refined petroleum products in the
state;
(2) "price established in the contract between the
lessee and the in-state refiner" includes tax
reimbursement amounts, deliverability and other
charges, and other forms of consideration paid by the
in-state refiner, as appropriate, under the contract;
(3) "state's royalty share of oil production"
includes payments on federal leases made to the state
under 30 U.S.C. 191.
* Sec. 3. AS 43.20 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Sec. 43.20.053. Qualified in-state oil refinery
infrastructure expenditures tax credit. (a) A taxpayer
that owns an in-state oil refinery whose primary
function is the manufacturing and sale of refined
petroleum products to third parties in arm's length
transactions may apply a credit against the tax due
under this chapter for a qualified infrastructure
expenditure incurred in the state for a tax year
beginning after December 31, 2014, and before January
1, 2020. The total amount of credit a taxpayer may
receive under this section may not exceed the lesser
of 40 percent of qualified infrastructure expenditures
incurred in the state during the tax year or
$10,000,000 for each in-state refinery for which
qualified expenditures are incurred.
(b) A taxpayer applying the credit under this section
against a liability under this chapter shall claim the
credit on the taxpayer's return. A tax credit or
portion of a tax credit under this section may not be
used to reduce the taxpayer's tax liability under this
chapter below zero. Any unused tax credit or portion
of a tax credit under this section may be carried
forward to the five tax years immediately following
the tax year in which the qualified infrastructure
expenditures were incurred.
(c) An expenditure that is the basis of the credit
under this section may not be the basis for
(1) a deduction against the tax levied under this
chapter;
(2) a credit or deduction under another provision of
this title; or
(3) any federal credit claimed under this title.
(d) A person entitled to a tax credit under this
section that is greater than the person's tax
liability under this chapter may request a refund or
payment in the amount of the unused portion of the tax
credit.
(e) The department may use money available in the oil
and gas tax credit fund established in AS 43.55.028 to
make a refund or payment under (d) of this section in
whole or in part if the department finds that
(1) the claimant does not have an outstanding
liability to the state for unpaid delinquent taxes
under this title; and
(2) after application of all available tax credits,
the claimant's total tax liability under this chapter
for the calendar year in which the claim is made is
zero.
(f) A refund under this section does not bear
interest.
(g) The issuance of a refund under this section does
not limit the department's ability to later audit or
adjust the claim as provided in AS 43.05 if the
department determines that the taxpayer claiming the
credit was not entitled to the amount of the credit.
(h) In this section,
(1) "qualified infrastructure expenditure" means an
expenditure directly attributable to the in-state
purchase, installation, modification, adjustment, or
other alteration of tangible personal property for the
manufacture or transport of refined petroleum products
or petroleum-based feedstock;
(2) "refined petroleum products" means separate
marketable elements, compounds, or mixtures of oil in
liquid form, including gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, gas
oil, heating oil, and kerosene;
(3) "unpaid delinquent tax" means an amount of tax
for which the department has issued an assessment that
has not been paid and, if contested, has not been
finally resolved in the taxpayer's favor.
* Sec. 4. AS 43.55.028(a) is amended to read:
(a) The oil and gas tax credit fund is established as
a separate fund of the state. The purpose of the fund
is to purchase transferable tax credit certificates
issued under AS 43.55.023 and production tax credit
certificates issued under AS 43.55.025 and to pay
refunds and payments claimed under AS 43.20.046, [OR]
43.20.047, or 43.20.053.
* Sec. 5. AS 43.55.028(g) is amended to read:
(g) The department may adopt regulations to carry out
the purposes of this section, including standards and
procedures to allocate available money among
applications for purchases under this chapter and
claims for refunds and payments under AS 43.20.046,
[OR] 43.20.047, or 43.20.053 when the total amount of
the applications for purchase and claims for refund
exceed the amount of available money in the fund. The
regulations adopted by the department may not, when
allocating available money in the fund under this
section, distinguish an application for the purchase
of a credit certificate issued under former AS
43.55.023(m) or a claim for a refund or payment under
AS 43.20.046, [OR] 43.20.047, or 43.20.053."
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 6"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, following line 1:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 7. Sections 1 - 5 of this Act take effect
January 1, 2015."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "This"
Insert "Except as provided in sec. 7 of this Act,
this"
Representative Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion.
Representative Wilson explained that the amendment
addressed the removal of the instate refinery tax credit.
She pointed to page 3, line 1 of the amendment related to a
"qualified in-state oil refinery infrastructure
expenditures tax credit" for a tax year beginning after
December 31, 2014 and before January 1, 2020. She explained
that the total amount of credit a taxpayer may receive
could not exceed less than 40 percent of qualified
infrastructure expenditures.
8:45:09 AM
JOE BALASH, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
stated that he supported the amendment.
Representative Gara appreciated the amendment and the
problem. He wished to keep refineries in business. He
pointed out that Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company was
on record stating that they did not need the tax credit. He
pointed to page 4, line 6 and the issue of qualified
infrastructure expenditures. He noted that any
modifications made by the company would allow for
eligibility for the credit. He explained that $25 million
in expenditures allowed $10 million in credit from the
state. He opined that giving $50 million to a company that
did not need it was poor policy. He stated that he could
not support the amendment. He believed that the solution
was not tailored to the problem.
Representative Gara agreed with Co-Chair Austerman that a
tailored solution would include a low-interest loan from
the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority
(AIDEA) for those companies that would benefit from the
loan. He proposed the idea of waiving interest payments for
the initial four or five years for Petro Star. Another
suggestion was limiting the tax credit to financially
distressed companies.
8:50:18 AM
Co-Chair Austerman reiterated concern about the original
amendment creating a tax credit for the refineries. He
considered that proposed amendment a giveaway. He noted
that the new amendment removed the first part of the
original amendment. He expressed concern with page 3,
beginning on line 21. The portion of the bill stated that
without profit or tax liability, the state would provide
the credit anyway. He stated that the sponsor was aware of
his concerns. He believed that a true tax credit addressed
corporate taxes. He stated that he would offer an amendment
to the amendment.
8:52:44 AM
Representative Thompson understood the concern about
instate refineries. He mentioned the additional concern of
losing two refineries along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS) line. He pointed out that the two Alaskan
refineries contributed $335 million to the state for the
instate use of oil from the TAPS line. He did not know if
the $10 million would allow for continued viability of the
refineries. He noted that a refinery closure would lead to
a $335 million shortfall from the loss of revenues. The
additional implications included the potential for
skyrocketing electric bills in Fairbanks. He suggested that
Fairbanks would be included in the Power Cost Equalization
program (PCE), which would cost the state millions of
dollars. He anticipated that closure of the refineries
would mean a closure of Eielson Air Force Base because of
the lack of jet fuel leading to the loss of 1500 civilian
jobs. He noted that the rural areas north of Fairbanks
depended on fuel oil produced in the refineries. He stated
that the tax credits presented in the bill would not be
great enough to keep the refineries healthy. He expressed
support for the amendment, but lamented that it would not
be enough.
8:55:47 AM
Co-Chair Austerman MOVED amendment 2 to amendment 3.
Page 3, lines 21 through Page 4, line 4
Delete subsection (d), (e), (f), (g)
Renumber the sections accordingly
Representative Thompson OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Austerman discussed the amendment to amendment 3.
The deleted subsections were related to the refund and
payment.
Representative Wilson clarified that the proposed amendment
to the amendment would further complicate matters for the
targeted refinery. The amendment would force an Interior
refinery to compete with imports. She stated that the tax
credit was not unique. She opined that the state should
have acted one year ago. She stated that earlier
legislative actions might have prevented the closure of
Flint Hills Refinery. She mentioned that the credits
allowed did not always produce the expected results.
8:58:47 AM
Representative Wilson stated that the credits provided to
various entities provided uncertain returns. She noted that
the removal of the subsections would negate the potential
benefit of the tax credits.
8:59:49 AM
Representative Gara opined that the proposed solution did
not match the problem. He provided an example of attempting
to reform the foster care system in the same manner and
predicted that a similar proposal would be denied quickly.
He suggested seeking a remedy to fiscally solve the
problems. He supported the Eielson Air Force Base and
additional military equipment in Alaska. He stated that the
word "efficiency" did not appear in the bill. He noted that
the companies could spend the credit on anything without
specification or recommendation from the legislature. He
stated that there was no limitation to the amount of money
kept by executives. He suggested that AIDEA could arrive at
a better solution and he proposed a consultation. He
stressed that he represented the entire state and cared
about the Fairbanks area.
Representative Gara stated that the amendment to the
amendment was not in his best interest. He recognized the
efforts to narrow the fiscal spend on the legislation. He
considered the bill language sloppy.
9:03:55 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman asked for Commissioner Balash's opinion
about the effects of the amendment to the amendment. He
understood that the change would help the Petro Star
refineries with solutions regarding debt.
Commissioner Balash replied that the effect of amendment 2
to amendment 3 would delete subsections (d), (e), (f) and
(g) on lines 3 and 4. He spoke to subsections (e), (f) and
(g) that would allow a company without a robust tax
liability to take the tax credit earned following a
qualified investment and request a refund. The request
would be made to the Department of Revenue. The deletion of
the subsections would eliminate the opportunity leaving the
company with an unusable tax credit. He appreciated the
intent and noted that the credit was not optimal, but
necessary considering the seriousness of the circumstances
faced.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked the administration's position on the
amendment to the amendment.
Commissioner Balash replied that the administration opposed
the amendment to the amendment.
9:06:55 AM
Representative Thompson noted that a tax credit was an
indirect expenditure to the state. In order to receive the
$10 million, the entity must invest $25 million. After
three years the $30 million state investment could be
compared to $335 million in revenue from the refineries.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested elaboration of the $335 million
figure.
9:08:38 AM
Commissioner Balash replied that the ability to sell the
state's royalty in-kind to instate refineries over the last
three years resulted in $136 million to the treasury. He
added that the quality bank payments made in 2013 amounted
to approximately $100 million. The benefit achieved on the
royalty side was in excess of $20 million. He pointed out
the indirect effect on production tax value of 35 percent
of the remaining value or approximately $35 million. He
noted that the values were higher in 2012 and 2011 because
of the Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) tax
system. He stated that the estimate provided by
Representative Thompson was a little high as they included
progressivity calculations no longer available. He
estimated approximately $300 million in positive impact to
the treasury.
9:11:46 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze assumed that the public was not aware of
that information.
Representative Thompson asked what percentage of the
quality bank payment was allocated to the state.
Commissioner Balash replied that the state received a
direct benefit as a percentage based on royalties. The
state would receive 12.5 percent of the royalty if $100
million was paid by the refineries. He added that
production tax resulted in additional payments to the
treasury associated with the tax rate.
9:12:51 AM
Representative Munoz asked if the language in the original
amendment was consistent with other North Slope policy
credit opportunities.
Commissioner Balash replied yes. He noted that production
tax credits were handled similarly under the oil and gas
production tax system.
9:13:44 AM
Representative Holmes pointed out subsection (d) and her
prior concerns. She stated that the underlying amendment
was proposed to preserve the refineries' presence in the
future. She stated that tax credits should be written off
of tax liabilities. She appreciated the amendment to the
amendment, but she wished to help the refineries in the
short term. She worried that the refineries would not
continue to operate for the next five years if the
amendment to the amendment were to pass.
9:15:50 AM
Representative Gara discussed the quality bank. He
understood that Petro Star deemed the quality bank formula
unfair. He wondered if the state had intervened in such a
legal mater related to the refineries.
9:16:49 AM
Commissioner Balash replied that payers into the bank aided
recipients from the bank, using the quality bank formula.
He noted that the state was considered a recipient. If the
system worked perfectly, a refinery shut-down would lead to
higher oil prices. He was unprepared to comment on the
fairness of the quality bank. He noted that the state had
intervened on proceedings regarding the quality bank. The
goal of the administration was for a favorable ruling that
made an adjustment to the quality bank or to achieve a
settlement that would reduce the cost associated with the
quality bank payments.
9:20:02 AM
Co-Chair Austerman stated that the issue of tax credits was
philosophical to him, as it always had been. He understood
the refinery issue. He noted similar debates related to oil
taxes in the last three years. He had sympathy for the
refineries, but noted that the global market was at issue.
He stated that addressing the very serious issue at the end
of the session was unpalatable. He informed the committee
that amendment 3 allowed a lesser investment as the credit
would provide $10 million each year.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Austerman
OPPOSED: Thompson, Wilson, Costello, Edgmon, Guttenberg,
Holmes, Munoz, Neuman, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (2/9).
Amendment 3 was before the committee
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Wilson, Costello, Edgmon, Guttenberg, Holmes,
Munoz, Neuman, Thompson, Stoltze
OPPOSED: Gara, Austerman
The MOTION PASSED (9/2).
Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
9:24:27 AM
Representative Gara MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2.
Page 1, line 1, following "Act":
Insert "creating a loan program for certain in-state
oil refineries;"
Page 1, following line 4:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 44.88 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Article 9A. In-State Refiner Loan Program.
Sec. 44.88.800. In-state refiner loan program. (a) The
authority may make loans of up to $20,000,000 to a
person that owns an in-state oil refinery south of 68
degrees North latitude if the primary function is the
manufacturing and sale of refined petroleum products
to third parties in arm's length transactions. A loan
under this section may be used for working capital,
equipment, construction, or other commercial purposes.
A loan under this section may be made only if the
authority finds that
(1) the loan is required to maintain profitability of
the in-state refiner and the refinery would otherwise
be in financial distress; and
(2) the primary function of the in-state refiner is
to engage in the manufacture of refined petroleum
products in the state, and the in-state refiner is not
affiliated with the lessee or with a subsequent
purchaser of more than 10 percent of the in-state
refiner's product; the parties to a contract or
purchase are affiliated if, in the judgment of the
authority, one of the parties to the contract or
purchase exercises substantial influence over the
policies and actions of the other as evidenced by a
relationship based on common ownership or family
interest or by action taken in concert whether or not
that influence is based on stockholdings,
stockholders, officers, or directors.
(b) A loan made under this section
(1) may not exceed a term of 10 years; and
(2) may not bear interest exceeding the prime rate,
as defined by AS 44.88.599, plus two percentage
points.
(c) Repayment of a loan issued under this section may
begin as late as July 1, 2019, if the loan is secured
by sufficient collateral or a guarantor.
(d) The application for a loan under this section
must be received by the authority before December 31,
2015.
(e) The legislature may appropriate the money
required to make a loan issued under this section
prudent for the authority.
(f) The authority by regulation may establish other
conditions for loans under this section."
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
9:26:15 AM
Representative Gara reiterated his request for a
consultation from AIDEA about the important issue. He
stated that the amendment was drafted without AIDEA's help.
He noted that the committee members shared a goal of
protecting the financially distressed refineries. Amendment
2 stated that AIDEA shall offer low interest loans to
distressed refineries as seen on line 14, page 1. The loan
would extend to $20 million per year with an interest rate
of 2 percent. The loan would allow for a five-year
repayment holiday. He believed that the fiscal health of
the state would remain protected by the amendment. He noted
that Tesoro requested the underlying royalty renewal bill
as opposed to the tax credit. The amendment would allow the
loans to be accessed by the companies in need of help. The
general fund would reimburse AIDEA if the loan terms were
too generous. He stressed that AIDEA would be the ideal
drafter of an amendment to protect businesses in Alaska.
Amendment 2 would save the state $50 million over the last
version of the amendment, which allowed $50 million for
Tesoro.
9:30:58 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that Representative Gara could have
invited AIDEA to the conversation.
9:31:23 AM
Representative Wilson informed the committee that she had
contacted both AIDEA and Petro Star. She was told that a
loan was not available for a company that might not
succeed. She suggested that Tesoro could benefit from
upgrades. The loss of the refineries and their contribution
to the state would be greater than the money available for
use as tax credits. She stressed the critical nature of the
problem.
Co-Chair Stoltze requested committee protocol.
9:33:28 AM
Representative Wilson stressed that the amendment could
lead to the loss of two refineries in Alaska. She stated
that other businesses connected to the refineries would
suffer as well. She asked the administration's view of the
amendment.
9:34:43 AM
Representative Edgmon recalled testimony from Petro Star.
He understood that the amendment would not address the
financial situation encountered by Petro Star. He stated
that a broader public purpose was involved; support of the
refineries allowed them to continue functioning. He stated
that he was unprepared to support the amendment.
9:35:46 AM
Commissioner Balash replied that Representative Edgmon's
characterization of the situation was accurate. He stated
that the administration opposed amendment 2. He mentioned
the premise that low-interest loans were the answer. The
credit would reduce the cost of the investment for the
refinery. He noted that financing for the outlay would
reduce the cash expended up-front. He stressed that
financing that extended beyond two or three years was not
an option without the benefit of the investment credits.
9:38:26 AM
Vice-Chair Neuman stated that the refineries' business
plans depended on state credits for survival. He opined
that the closure of Flint Hills Refinery allowed more
business to competitors.
Commissioner Balash replied that he would agree with Vice-
Chair Neuman if costs remained the same. Unless more than
$3 million was created by the loss of the competitor, the
situation was worse for competitors without Flint Hills
Refinery operations.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about a revenue request. He
wondered if the state should refuse the $3 million.
9:41:04 AM
Commissioner Balash replied that the revenue requirement in
question was the amount of money required to operate the
two pipelines regulated by the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska for purposes of paying their costs. The total $4.5
million went to Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA)
for the cost incurred to construct and operate the
pipelines.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that there would not be a lengthy
debate on the final passage of the bill.
Representative Wilson clarified that Flint Hills Refinery
had closed their refinery yet continued to meet all
obligations related to jet fuel and gasoline. The customers
would continue to receive service through imports. The
other refineries were forced to compete with imports.
Co-Chair Austerman referred to a past discussion requesting
that AIDEA provide a recommendation. He agreed that the
issue was complex and help from AIDEA would be welcome. He
understood that the banking institutions would not help the
refineries because of past failures. He argued about the
lack of criteria attached to the tax credits. He felt that
the information requested from AIDEA should be available to
members making the decision.
9:44:57 AM
Representative Gara pointed out that Petro Star had ten
years to repay the money. He stated another requirement for
a Fortune 500 guarantor. Without the amendment, there was
no guarantee that the refinery would not accept the money
for five years and then disappear. He stated that a loan
would force the business model to work. The cash payment
would not provide the documentation necessary to allow the
state to monitor the use of the tax credit by the refinery.
9:47:47 AM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Costello, Gara, Austerman
OPPOSED: Edgmon, Guttenberg, Holmes, Munoz, Neuman,
Thompson, Wilson, Stoltze
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
9:49:23 AM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony.
9:49:43 AM
Representative Thompson MOVED to REPORT CSHB 287 (FIN) out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying forthcoming fiscal notes.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED. He objected to the
timing of the bill's hearing. He stated that the
comprehensive information regarding the refineries was
unavailable to the committee. He requested more
information. He believed that both Petro Star and AIDEA
should be present to further inform the committee.
Representative Guttenberg REMOVED his objection.
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that Representative Guttenberg
echoed many of his concerns.
Representative Gara OBJECTED for the purpose of solution.
He credited many experts in the state who might help the
legislature make the best decision. He objected to the fact
that AIDEA had not crafted a solution. He hoped that a
fiscally responsible solution would be crafted before the
bill hit the House Floor.
Representative Gara WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
9:55:28 AM
CSHB 287 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with no
recommendation and with one new indeterminate fiscal note
from the Department of Natural Resources and one new
indeterminate fiscal note from the Department of Revenue.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Am 1 to Am 3 to HB 287.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Replacement Amendment #2 GARA.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 Amendment #2 to Amendment #3 Austerman.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 287 |
| HB 287 New Fiscal Note CS FIN DNR.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2014 8:30:00 AM |
HB 287 |
| SB 138 3 10 14 Responses to Senate Finance_February 27 Hearing- Signed.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 138 |
| SB 138 3.10.14 AS 38.05.180(i)-exploration-incentive-credits.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 138 |
| SB 138 3.11.14 Response to Sen Olson_Municipal Taxation.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 138 |
| SB 138 HFIN Weissler Comments 4-14-14.pdf |
HFIN 4/14/2014 8:30:00 AM |
SB 138 |