Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/02/2018 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 | |
| HB288 | |
| HB315 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 399 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 315 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 288 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 288-OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION TAX
6:37:04 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 288, "An Act relating to the minimum tax
imposed on oil and gas produced from leases or properties that
include land north of 68 degrees North latitude; and providing
for an effective date."
6:37:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 288, labeled 30-LS1155\D, Nauman, 3/27/18, as the
working document.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
6:37:29 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR passed the gavel to Co-Chair Josephson.
CO-CHAIR TARR provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled,
"House Bill 288 CS Version D Fairness in Oil Taxes." She began
her introduction of CS for HB 288, Version D, by reviewing
provisions of HB 288. The bill affects the oil and gas minimum
tax statute which is currently 4 percent of the gross value at
the point of production (GVPP); the original version of the bill
increased the minimum tax to 7 percent. She reminded the
committee the reason to propose this legislation is because
Alaska's effective tax rate is one of the lowest in the U.S. at
lower price levels (slide 1). Slide 2 illustrated the
difference in taxes collected at various minimum tax rates at an
oil price of $60 [per barrel]; for example, the current
severance tax collected by the state is approximately $2 per
barrel; at a minimum tax of 7 percent the state would collect
about $3.51. Co-Chair Tarr pointed out the proposed legislation
affects tax rates at lower oil prices, acknowledging that
industry seeks to react to higher or lower oil prices by
adjusting lease expenditures. Slide 3 listed three questions
related to the bill: how much profit per barrel; how many
barrels total; how much revenue to the state? Slide 4
illustrated various calculations based on the total production
of taxable barrels and royalty barrels, and she advised
production must rise over 100,000 new barrels per day to achieve
an increase in state revenue that would make a significant
impact on the state's financial situation. Slide 5 was a bar
graph that showed an estimated deficit of $2.7 billion, which
when adjusted to the [Tax Division, Department of Revenue,
Revenue Sources Book (RSB) Revenue Forecast: Spring 2018],
would be $2.3 billion. Slide 6 illustrated the current minimum
tax at oil prices from $25 to over $65 per barrel, and the
effects of changes made by HB 288 and CSHB 288, Version D. Co-
Chair Tarr observed an oil price of above $50 places industry in
a profit margin relative to "old spending," thus the proposed
increase impacts companies when they "have a little bit of
ability to make those adjustments."
6:43:32 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR continued to slide 7 that illustrated effective
severance tax rates paid by the industry in various [Lower 48]
states, and she acknowledged the difficulty in comparing Alaska
with other states due to its development costs. She returned
attention to slide 2 and noted Alaska's tax rate at $60 per
barrel oil prices, as a percentage of GVPP, is 4 percent;
however, tax as a percentage of production tax value (PTV) is
currently approximately 9 percent due to the net profit system.
Co-Chair Tarr directed attention to [Fiscal Note Identifier:
HB288-DOR-TAX-1-20-18, and a document entitled "Provisions in HB
288 with possible amendment ... Revised 3/27/18 by DOR, provided
in the committee packet]. She said the adjusted [fiscal note to
CSHB 288, Version D] indicated the total fiscal impact in FY 19
would be about $64 million; however, for later years, the impact
is similar to that of the original version of the bill. In
response to comments related to [the legislative working group,
which is a provision of House Bill 111, passed in the Thirtieth
Alaska State Legislature], she cautioned the working group may
not focus on increasing revenue but may seek to improve how the
tax system operates in order to enable the state to better
predict and understand oil and gas tax revenue. Further, Co-
Chair Tarr estimated the working group would not have a proposal
for a new tax structure in place before FY 22; she stressed the
importance of CSHB 288 is to address additional revenue for FY
19 through FY 21.
6:50:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said the proposed legislation is a bad
idea; he returned attention to slide 4 and pointed out the
royalty share is four times that of revenue from taxable
barrels. He expressed his concern a significant increase in the
taxable rate, and another change in the tax structure, would
adversely impact steady production on the North Slope. Further,
the bill would not encourage the investment that is needed to
sustain exploration; for example, a 100,000 barrel per day
increase would result in an increase in state revenue of $300
million. Representative Birch asked how the bill would
encourage or attract investment.
CO-CHAIR TARR said Alaska is a profitable jurisdiction for
Alaska businesses; in fact, BP reported Alaska businesses
garnered an annual profit of $118 million [letter/report/article
not provided]. She said the state must balance its competing
needs with other proposals that would benefit industry.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON recalled in 2013, when oil prices were
[higher], royalty barrel revenue was "sort of an afterthought,
in this calculus, and now they've become the dominant theme."
He questioned the projection of additional production shown on
slide 4.
6:54:08 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR acknowledged the most recent RSB does not predict
an increase [in production] and said she does not expect 100,000
barrels of new production "anytime soon."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for the basis of both the current
tax rate and the changes proposed in CSHB 288, Version D.
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled the tax rates originated from earlier
legislation: Senate Bill 21, [the More Alaska Production Act
passed in the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature] and House
Bill 2001, [Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES), passed in
the Twenty-Fifth Alaska State Legislature]. The minimum tax
structure established by ACES was 10 percent, which was lowered
to 4 percent in Senate Bill 21. However, at the time the
provisions of Senate Bill 21 were debated, oil prices were $110
per barrel thus there was not much discussion about the bill's
impact on state revenue at low oil prices over an extended
period of time. She characterized the impact of Senate Bill 21
as a "surprise." Co-Chair Tarr returned attention to slides 6
and 2 and provided a further explanation of how the minimum tax
rate is calculated and restated the intent of CSHB 288.
6:59:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed his concern about making
changes to "certain price points" instead of debating a change
to the tax structure system.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated the intent of the proposed legislation is
to not attempt a fundamental overhaul of oil and gas tax
statute; in fact, that is the purpose of the working group which
is a bipartisan and bicameral group that will consider
improvements to the tax structure. One of the important aspects
that will be reviewed is the per barrel tax credit which affects
the minimum tax as illustrated on slide 2.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned whether [oil and tax regime
legislative] consultants provided guidance for the proposed
legislation.
CO-CHAIR TARR said a consultant advised [HB 288] should be
changed to provide protection [for industry] in a low oil price
environment - when prices are $25 to $40 per barrel - as shown
on slide 6. She remarked:
... net profits means you get to deduct all of your
expenses before ... we consider any taxes but under a
net profit system in that price range, there's nothing
left to tax because the price is so low.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for further information related to
BP's financial position in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR TARR referred to a letter from BP
[letter/report/article not provided]. She said BP noted many
costs were not included [in the letter/report/article] related
to its profits, for example, operating the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS). Co-Chair Tarr pointed out TAPS costs are
recouped by shipping tariffs and other deductions,
transportation costs are deducted, costs associated with
developing new projects are business decisions, and deductible
capital investment in Prudhoe Bay is necessary to produce oil.
She opined the proposed legislation is a stopgap measure to
address the state's situation over the next three years because
oil prices have not stabilized.
7:05:43 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON recalled in 2016, the administration proposed
an increase from 4 percent to 5 percent at a time when oil
prices were in the $40 to $55 range, which is consistent with
the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH returned attention to slide 7 and asked
whether the tax rates shown are based on GVPP.
CO-CHAIR TARR said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH surmised the effective tax rate paid by
industry [in Alaska] is around 4 percent.
CO-CHAIR TARR remarked:
... the minimum tax is a 4 percent tax at the gross
value of the point of production so, effectively, we
have a 4 percent gross tax right now.
CO-CHAIR TARR, in further response to Representative Parish,
said the [reduced taxes] are not entirely a result of the $8 per
barrel credit, but also because the per barrel credit is given
after deductions for transportation and lease expenditures, "and
then we apply the 35 percent tax rate so you reduce it by
essentially a third, and then you add the $8 per barrel credit,
so it's the order in which those things happen that makes that
per barrel credit have so much power to distort the math."
7:08:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked why Alaska's rates are low compared
with the tax rates of other states illustrated on slide 7.
CO-CHAIR TARR described some of Alaska's legislative history in
this regard. Turning to the issue of the stability [of Alaska's
tax policy], she cautioned Alaska could experience instability
from teacher strikes and a citizen's initiative in support of an
aggressive policy to increase oil and gas state revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed her concern that the
committee's discussion of tax rates is driven by the state's
internal needs, rather than an external analysis of oil tax
policy in the world market. She cautioned against driving the
oil industry out of Alaska because the state cannot control its
spending and said she has read in the Wall Street Journal that
trade war worries are driving down the price of oil
internationally [document not provided]. Representative Johnson
restated her concerns about "stopgap, last-minute, tax policy
destabilization" late in the legislative session.
CO-CHAIR TARR observed HB 288 was introduced early in the
legislative session and the CS now proposed is in response to
present funding questions. She acknowledged the preceding
concerns and restated aspects of Alaska's present tax policy.
7:15:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH returned attention to slide 2 and pointed
out the state's royalty share is omitted. He said the 12.5
percent royalty share is a huge component and should not be set
aside or ignored; in fact, "you could have a, a great big high
tax and no production, and it doesn't matter." Representative
Birch opined the focus should be turned to production,
attracting investment to increase production, and exploration.
He restated royalty share is a very significant component that
is discounted and ignored too often.
CO-CHAIR TARR said, " ... a barrel is going to be a taxable
barrel or it's going to be a royalty barrel - one barrel is not
both things. So, [slide 2] is what's happening with taxable
barrels but that's why we've made sure to include [slide 4] so
folks can see the accompanying royalty barrels." She advised
one of the tasks for the working group would be to review other
jurisdictions because royalty rates are increasing on newer
leases. Other systems for the working group to consider are a
gross tax, an adjusted net profits tax, or that new leases, with
higher royalties, would negate debates about taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH opined it is inaccurate to portray barrels
of oil as taxable barrels or royalty barrels. He said:
The barrels come out of the ground and there's an
allocation that for our royalty share and the taxable
component is ... they all come out of the ground at
the same time ... and I think it's fair to say that
that the more production you have the more royalty
revenue you have.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether there has been research to
determine the amount of a subsidy that would be required to lead
to an increase in production.
7:19:49 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR said according to DOR, the state has spent
approximately $6 billion on the tax credit program. She said
"some people" have buyer's remorse about the tax credit program
and referred to [House Bill 331, passed in the Thirtieth Alaska
State Legislature], the governor's [tax credit] repayment
program, which proposes a better rate for repayment if a company
reinvests in Alaska. In further response to Representative
Parish, she agreed it is unclear whether the tax credit program
is responsible for projects; in fact, one of the provisions of
Senate Bill 21 is the gross value reduction (GVR) on "new oil,"
and there was contention about whether GVR would apply to
projects that were new oil or that were already planned.
Further, House Bill 247 [passed in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State
Legislature] scaled back GVR by imposing a time limit. She
acknowledged decisions are made without enough information.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON observed the limitation on GVR oil was a
reform of Senate Bill 21.
CO-TARR agreed and pointed out the tax credit program was
repealed.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER gave several examples of infrastructure
that is only necessary during the winter season in Alaska and
that is provided by industry in an environmentally responsible
way. He cautioned against comparing the cost of oil and gas
extraction in Alaska to that of other states.
7:25:56 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR reminded the committee spending by industry falls
into two categories of lease expenditures, operating expenses
and capital expenses, thus some of the abovementioned
infrastructure costs would be included in capital expenditure
deductions. Also, because the winter season is shortening,
costs will rise as projects dependent upon ice roads and ice
platforms will be delayed. However, the state invested $10
million into the Arctic Strategic Transportation and Resources
(ASTAR) project, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities, which seeks to develop a permanent road system; she
suggested investing in infrastructure instead of tax credits is
a better choice for the state.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said:
I just wanted to say that is probably why we fall in
where we do on this line [slide 7] of when you asked
why our percentage is the way it is - because of the
extra added cost.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded Alaska's [effective tax rate shown on
slide 7] is due to the state's hard minimum tax of 4 percent.
The chart [on slide 7] is not reflection of costs.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said Alaska could not afford a tax rate
equal to Wyoming's of 13.4 percent.
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled the original version of Senate Bill 21
provided for a 25 percent tax rate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reviewed related topics from the previous
year such as: discussions about production; there was to be no
tax bill this session; there was increased production. In
January 2018, production was slightly down again. She said a
simple economic principle is that if a product is highly taxed,
there is less production. She suggested the proposal is
backwards, and to encourage production, the state should not
increase taxes as production goes up at higher prices.
Representative Johnson urged for more evaluation.
7:30:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO encouraged the committee to obtain a
production cost [analysis] for the various jurisdictions [listed
on slide 7]. He advised Alaska is in competition with the
Permian Basin in Wyoming; although Wyoming's effective tax rate
is 13.4 percent, the oil wells in the Permian Basin are within
70 miles of the refinery and the tankers, and Alaska's pipeline
[to marine transportation] is 800 miles long, which would
account for a difference in production cost. Representative
Talerico questioned whether the committee has access to a good
comparison [of production cost] that is sufficient to determine
an effective tax rate. Further, he related Northrim Bank
reported 2017 non-oil and gas construction spending in Alaska
was about $1.57 billion [document not provided]; however,
Representative Talerico said his constituents who work in the
oil industry reported even in a very low year, compared to 2013
and 2014, [in 2017] the industry spent $2.43 billion on oil and
gas construction projects throughout the state. He cautioned an
impact to [oil and gas industry spending] "goes well beyond the
oil and gas industry." He restated the importance of gathering
expense information and related his personal observations in
Texas and Wyoming. Additional information important to the
committee would be: spending by support services related
directly and indirectly to the industry, competitors'
construction spending, and industry reinvestment.
CO-CHAIR TARR said industry is not required to provide spending
plans or privileged tax information that would provide the
information needed to compile the [production cost] document
requested. She directed attention to the PowerPoint
presentation entitled, "Analysis of HB 288 Increase to Gross
Minimum Tax ...," dated 1/26/18 [previously provided in the
committee packet at the meeting of 1/26/18]. Slide 9 was a
revenue graph which illustrated minimum tax rates; slide 14
listed historical average tax rates; slide 18 indicated that the
effect of HB 288 on the [breakeven price] of oil would be $1.
7:36:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH remarked:
Earlier we had a presentation [document not provided]
from an oil and gas consultant regarding ... a
comparison if you will, . ... It's basically how much
the producers earn for $60 barrel of oil. This was a
basically by our legislative oil and gas consultant
... presentation in January. The west Texas shows
about a $31 ... producer earnings, it shows North
Slope at $12 and then new Alaska fields at [$1.50].
And I think that, you know, I'd be interested in how
the consultant ... we're using, how they would assess
this because this doesn't appear very attractive for
inducing new investment in my view ... and I'm
concerned that if we start, you know, cranking up ...
there's not a lot of room in here for .... And I
think even on the chart that you had there below $60,
under the prior tax regime ... we would have received
less than we're receiving today. ... [This]
represents the problem that we're up against here, is
that we have to make sure that we're doing the very
best we can to attract investment.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated information from DOR is that the production
tax value (PTV) [projected at an oil price of $60] would be
$23.35, and the tax would be [$8.17], which is all the
information that is available to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said, "This is based on the, our
legislative oil consultant and it's part of their oil and gas
"102 presentation ...." [document not provided].
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH expressed skepticism about trusting the
word of the oil and gas industry. He said industry
representatives successfully protect the interests of their
shareholders, and legislators must protect the interests of
[Alaskans]. He expressed his interest in knowing the effect of
Alaska's tax structure on industry's rate of investment and
production, and noted the proportion of nonresidents working on
the North Slope has never been higher. Representative Parish
restated his interest in obtaining "good data" on long-term
investment and productivity.
7:41:07 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opined it is difficult to glean the causal data
requested by Representative Parish because [oil] price has been
a dominant influence on industry investment; she acknowledged
oil and gas operations on the North Slope are expensive and more
difficult; however, its existing infrastructure was "paid for
many years ago." She observed DOR can provide a breakdown on
tax credits invested in projects that have - and have not - led
to new production, and extensively reviewed aspects of Alaska's
tax structure that she characterized as "mistakes."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON advised her constituents are greatly
affected by the oil industry thus she could not separate the
interests of the oil companies from that of the state; in fact,
for both of those interests "it goes hand-in-hand." She
supported the earlier request for a production forecast that
reflects "different things" and inquired as to whether an oil
and gas legislative consultant was available for testimony.
CO-CHAIR TARR said the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee
(JBUD) consultants are not available to testify on this
legislation; she related comments from an earlier private
conversation and offered to request authorization from JBUD
allowing the committee to ask questions of a legislative
consultant.
7:46:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stressed there are many unanswered
questions related to HB 288 and asked whether HB 288 was related
to [the administration's proposal to reimburse tax credits].
CO-CHAIR TARR said HB 288 and [the administration's proposal]
are two separate bills.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined the bill needs additional work.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH requested the committee execute an
agreement on the goals of an oil tax structure that would then
be submitted to a professional consultant with extensive
experience in the oil and gas industry, who could develop the
committee's goals into a long-standing tax structure.
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled a similar request in 2017 led to
[provisions in House Bill 111 that passed in the House but were
removed from the version passed by the Senate]. She said at
that time recommendations by the consultant were: delink tax
rates from oil prices; address the problems caused by where the
per barrel credit applies; reduce the base rate of 35 percent;
tax from PTV to retain a true net profits system; defer to
industry in a low-price environment; obtain much more
information to evaluate expenditures. Last year, one of the
unmet goals for House Bill 111 was to establish a tax system
that would be in place for five to ten years; however, due to
the amount of time needed to facilitate an overhaul of the tax
system, CS for HB 288 addresses only the minimum tax.
7:51:12 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON returned the gavel to Co-Chair Tarr.
7:53:20 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
There followed a short discussion on HB 315 and the committee
returned to HB 288.
7:53:33 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection to the motion to adopt the
committee substitute for HB 288. Without further objection,
Version D was adopted.
[HB 288 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 399 Sponsor Statement 3.26.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 O 3.26.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Sectional Sectional Analysis ver O 3.26.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX 3.24.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX 3.27.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents DOR Letter 3.26.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents CIT Sector Report FY 2017 3.26.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Reduced Rate Capital Gains.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Foreign Royalty.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Federal Credits.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Additional Documents - Indirect Expenditure Report Stranded Gas.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB 399 Opposing Document - Letter in Opposition 3.28.18.pdf |
HRES 3/28/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 399 |
| HB315 Transmittal Letter 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 ver A 2.9.18.PDF |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Fiscal Note DEC-EHL 2.9.18.PDF |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Supporting Document-Public Comment.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Additional Document-DEC Memo Regarding SB164 and Alaska Grown 2.12.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 SB 164 |
| HB 315 Supporting Documents - Homer Swift Creek Ranch 2.8.2018.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB 315 Additional Documentation - DEC Letter re Alaska Grown 2.14.2018.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Support, AK WSF Comments.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB 27 Sponsor Statement 3.8.18.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Ver. D bill 3.8.18.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Version D Sectional Analysis 3.8.18.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Fiscal Note - LAW-CIV 3.16.18.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Fiscal Note DEC 3-2-18 HIGH-RISK CHEMICALS FOR CHILD EXPOSURE 3.8.18.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/19/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Amendment One - D.1 - Rep. Tarr 3.21.18.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 315 amendment two - AM -2 - 2.23.18.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB 315 amendment one - AM -1 - 2.14.18.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB260 Sponsor Statement 1.25.18.pdf |
HFSH 2/20/2018 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB260 ver A 1.25.18.pdf |
HFSH 2/20/2018 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB 260 Fiscal Note-DFG- 2.16.18.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB260 Resident Hunters AK Letter of Support.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/20/2018 11:00:00 AM |
HB 260 |
| HB 260 Supporting Document - Status of Electronic Fish Game licenses, mobile apps and websites in other states 3.15.18.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB 260 Amendment One - A.1 - Rep. Tarr 3.20.18.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB 260 Amendment Two - A.2 - Rep. Tarr 3.27.18.pdf |
HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 260 |
| HB288 Sponsor Statement 1.21.18.pdf |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB288 ver A 1.16.18.PDF |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 CS Version D 3.27.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 Summary of Changes Version A to Version D 3.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 Fiscal Analysis for Version D 3.27.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB288 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 1.20.18.pdf |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB288 Sectional Analysis 1.21.18.pdf |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB288 DOR Tax Presentation HRES 1-26-18.pdf |
HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 Supporting Document - Oklahoma Legislature passes tax hikes for teacher pay. Washington Post 3.28.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 CS Version D Slide Presentation 3.30.18.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |