Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
02/27/2012 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB289 | |
| HB9 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 289 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 289-NATURAL GAS STORAGE TAX CREDIT/REGULATION
1:07:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 289, "An Act relating to a gas storage
facility; relating to the tax credit for a gas storage facility;
relating to the powers and duties of the Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission; relating to the regulation of natural
gas storage as a utility; relating to the powers and duties of
the director of the division of lands and to lease fees for a
gas storage facility on state land; and providing for an
effective date." [Before the committee was the proposed
committee substitute (CS), Version I, labeled 27-LS1216\I,
Bullock, 2/20/12, adopted as the working document on 2/24/12.]
1:07:54 PM
JANE PIERSON, Staff, Representative Steve Thompson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Thompson, prime
sponsor, reviewed the provisions of Version I of HB 289. She
explained that Section 1 would create a new section under AS
38.05 to provide that above-ground liquefied natural gas storage
tank facilities sited on state lands can request an exemption
from rental payments. Section 2 would amend the definition of a
natural gas storage facility under AS 42.05.990(3). Section 3
would add a new section to AS 43.20 to create a credit for: a
liquefied natural gas storage facility of 1 million gallons or
more; expansion of an existing facility of 1 million gallons or
more; and capping of the credit at $15 million or 50 percent of
the development cost, whichever is less. This would be in
addition to any other credits in this chapter. Section 3 would
also provide that the storage facility must be regulated by the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska (RCA) and would establish how
credit payment shall be dispersed. It would set forth how a
person who has received a credit shall repay the credit if the
facility ceases commercial operations within nine calendars
years immediately following the calendar year in which the
facility commenced commercial operations. Additionally, the
terms liquefied natural gas storage facility, ceases commercial
operation, and commences commercial operation are defined in
Section 3.
1:09:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony after ascertaining that
no one from the public wished to speak.
CO-CHAIR SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 which on
page 3, lines 29 and 31, would delete "1,000,000" and insert
"50,000".
CO-CHAIR FEIGE objected for discussion purposes.
1:10:24 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON drew attention to two photographs in the
committee packet of small-scale liquefied natural gas (LNG)
receiving terminals in Norway, where small coastal vessels
deliver LNG to communities. He explained that one photo is of a
site that has three small storage tanks, each holding 200 cubic
meters, and the other photo is of an LNG tank that holds 2,000
cubic meters. For further reference, he noted that an e-mail
[from Hans R. Tveitaskog] accompanies the two pictures.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said he is offering Conceptual Amendment 1
because the legislature is trying to make competitive energy and
lower-cost natural gas available to more communities, but while
a one million gallon tank might work for the state's second
largest community it does not work for the other communities.
He explained that 200 cubic meters translates to just over
50,000 gallons, which would be more appropriate for serving
small communities. Whether LNG is delivered by vessel to
coastal towns or by truck, there needs to be enough capacity for
the community, and the aforementioned amounts have been proven
adequate for the situation in Norway.
1:13:09 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said his objection is related to why not more or
why not less than 50,000 gallons. He recalled that Golden
Valley Electric Association testified that 1 million gallons
would be two weeks supply for that utility. The purpose of the
tank is to provide a quantity that buffers any fluctuations in
either demand or delivery of the supply to the community. While
he allowed that 50,000 gallons may be adequate, he said the
smaller the number that can legitimately be made, the more
communities would be able to qualify for the tax credit and the
more distribution there could be throughout interior and coastal
Alaska. He recollected that Mr. Therriault of Golden Valley
Electric Association said 12.1 gallons of LNG equaled 1 thousand
cubic feet (MCF) of gas. He asked whether there is something
more regarding why 50,000 gallons was chosen, other than it
being the way Norway does it.
1:15:11 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded that if 50,000 gallons was not enough
for a particular community that community could plan for an
appropriate size. The bill would allow for both initial as well
as expansion, so the communities themselves would have to do a
cost-benefit analysis to determine the appropriate size. A
consideration is that it must be a regulated utility that
applies for this because it is supposed to be for distribution
systems for communities, which ensures that a project is not
done for an individual building or entity. For a comparison, he
related that the Talkeetna Lodge has two 5,000 gallon tanks that
are serviced by truck at regular intervals by Fairbanks Natural
Gas. He said the 50,000 was the best number he could come up
with, given there are small communities in Norway that have the
flexibility for tanks of 200 cubic meters to 2,000 cubic meters.
1:17:16 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked what size truck is used by Fairbanks
Natural Gas.
MS. PIERSON deferred to Mr. Therriault.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated she does not know if the amount
is right, but it needs to be dealt with to ensure that smaller
communities can be taken care of.
MS. PIERSON replied that if the bill moves on, she will work
with committee members to determine what that "magic number" is
for communities.
CO-CHAIR SEATON reiterated Co-Chair Feige's question about the
capacity of LNG tankers currently being used by Fairbanks
Natural Gas.
GENE THERRIAULT, Vice President, Natural Resource Development,
Golden Valley Electric Association (GVEA), said he believes the
current tankers used by Fairbanks Natural Gas are either 10,000
or 11,000 gallons. He added that the tanker size GVEA
anticipates using for running LNG from the North Slope is 13,500
gallons.
1:19:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON requested Mr. Therriault to comment on
Conceptual Amendment 1.
MR. THERRIAULT replied GVEA would not have a problem with
[50,000 gallons, given it is a policy call on how to balance
this. He explained that GVEA has reached out to potential users
around the highway system that it would like to serve as
customers under the premise that if the overall volume is raised
then everybody's per unit cost comes down. Therefore, if that
volume is the right size for those users on the highway then it
would be fine with GVEA.
1:21:05 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE suggested a tank size of 25,000 gallons, given
that the planned truck size is roughly 13,000 gallons. This
way, when half the volume in the storage tank is used there
would be enough room to receive the next truck.
CO-CHAIR SEATON responded that he has no basis for community
utilities using less than 200 cubic meters.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that [25,000 gallons] makes
sense to her.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER pointed out that if a smaller size is in
statute a community needing a larger volume would still be
covered, but not so with the reverse. She added that, in
practice, the key is the standard tank size so that the statute
is not for a volume that would require customized tanks,
although she did not personally know what a standard size would
be.
1:22:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON related that the standard size for LNG or
propane tanks is rail cars of about 30,000 [gallons] and further
noted that a larger tank size currently available for purchase
is 18,000 [gallons]. He therefore maintained that 30,000 and
18,000 [gallons] are common sizes.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said these would not be propane tanks, so they
are not currently manufactured. He did not think that the
committee's consideration should be for an off-the-shelf size.
In response to Co-Chair Feige, he pointed out that propane tanks
are low pressure tanks.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asserted that those are common sizes
because an odd size or very large size cannot be transported.
He agreed that the storage tanks would be custom made, but said
they would be built according to limitations of the road system.
1:24:48 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON stated he would be amenable to 25,000 gallons.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE said he would like more information because some
of these communities are relatively constrained and these tanks
all have a blast radius. The smaller the tank, the smaller the
blast radius, therefore the easier it would be to site these
tanks in the limited land available to villages. For example,
the coastlines limit where the tanks could be put and some
villages might not have enough land available to them should the
tank need to be sited well outside of town.
1:26:24 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 1 which would delete "50,000" and insert "25,000".
CO-CHAIR SEATON accepted the conceptual amendment as a friendly
amendment. There being no objection, Amendment 1 to Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1, as
amended, would on page 3, lines 29 and 31, delete "1,000,000"
and insert "25,000".
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1, as amended,
was adopted.
1:27:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 289, labeled 27-LS1216\I, Bullock,
2/21/12, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 289(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 9 Version U.pdf |
HRES 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| HB 9 Sectional, version U.pdf |
HRES 2/6/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/8/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| CSHB289 version I 2 21.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB289 version A.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| Explanation of Changes version A to Version I 2.22.12.docx |
HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HRES 2/24/2012 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| S.pdf |
HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |
| Memo 12-070.med.pdf |
HRES 2/27/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 9 |