Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
05/06/2022 09:00 AM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| SB190 | |
| HB301 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 301 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 301-UTILITIES: RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD
9:22:35 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 301, "An Act relating to the establishment of
a renewable portfolio standard for regulated electric utilities;
and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 301(ENE).]
9:22:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB
301(ENE), labeled 32-GH2546\W.1, Klein, 5/3/22, which read:
Page 7, line 23:
Delete "alternative"
Insert "clean"
9:23:02 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for purposes of discussion.
9:23:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained Amendment 1 would change the
term "alternative" to "clean". Responding to Co-Chair Fields,
he confirmed that Amendment 1 is a technical cleanup because the
term "alternative" was missed when the draft came over from the
House Special Committee on Energy.
9:23:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON inquired about the definition of "clean".
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE responded that "clean" is defined under
the definition section [within Section 6 of CSHB 301(ENE)] where
all the sources of energy generation are listed.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS added that the House Special Committee on Energy
believed that "clean" was a better term and this straggling term
of "alternative" was missed in the cleanup of the bill. He
further noted that under the amendment by Representative Tuck in
that committee, the term "clean" included nuclear as well as
traditional energy generation.
9:24:14 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 1 to CSHB 301(ENE) was adopted.
9:24:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE moved to adopt Amendment 2 to CSHB
301(ENE), labeled 32-GH2546\W.2, Klein, 5/3/22, which read:
Page 8, line 28:
Delete "clean"
Insert "renewable"
Page 8, line 30:
Delete the first occurrence of "clean"
Insert "renewable"
Page 8, line 31:
Delete the first occurrence of "clean"
Insert "renewable"
Page 9, line 1:
Delete the first occurrence of "clean"
Insert "renewable"
9:24:25 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for purposes of discussion.
9:24:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE explained that Amendment 2 is further
cleanup in that it deletes "clean" and inserts "renewable" in
[four] occurrences. He requested Mr. Ryan Johnston to explain
Amendment 2 in more detail.
9:24:47 AM
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff, Representative Calvin Schrage, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Schrage, sponsor
of Amendment 2, explained that in the House Special Committee on
Energy an amendment by Representative Tuck changed
"alternative", but then a conceptual amendment changed back to
"clean". When that was done on the fly, he continued, "it left
'clean' in every area, but it has 'clean' and 'clean energy' in
those places, so we don't need four cleans, so changing it back
to 'renewable'." Also, he noted, that section of the bill does
not fall within the new clean energy statute, it falls within
the existing Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) statute, and because
AEA is still using its definitions of renewable and clean, it
makes the most sense to continue using "renewable" and "clean"
for the Alaska Energy authority.
9:25:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether removing "clean" would also
remove alternative ways of producing energy or securing the
intent that polluting types of things not be made.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded no.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY, regarding the use of renewable language
only, inquired about the utility systems that are producing
energy through, say, natural gas and scrubbing to not pollute
the environment.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied that Amendment 2 is a technical cleanup
because there are underlying AEA statutes that address renewable
energy, and that is all Amendment 2 cleans up. Under the bill,
he said, the clean energy standard is inclusive of nuclear and
what most people would consider renewable, including hydropower,
wind, tidal, and solar. Natural gas is not considered clean
energy because of its greenhouse impact, he explained.
MR. JOHNSTON drew attention to page 8 of the bill, [lines 28-
29], which state, "identifying progress developing clean and
clean energy resources". In Amendment 2, he clarified, only
[the first "clean"] would be replaced so that those lines would
state, "identifying progress developing renewable and clean
energy resources".
9:28:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested that a conceptual amendment may
be needed because in the language on line 28 removing "clean"
there is an "and".
MR. JOHNSTON answered that the amendment would delete "clean"
and insert "renewable" so the language [on lines 28-29] would
read, "developing renewable and clean energy".
9:29:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether the ability to scrub is
acknowledged.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied that that will be addressed in the next
amendment.
9:30:00 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection to Amendment 2. There
being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
9:30:11 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS explained that he will be offering Amendment 3,
which is an idea that came out of discussion in the House
Special Committee on Energy where Representative Kaufman
suggested that there should be a process to potentially change
what falls within the definition of clean energy resources. He
said he thinks one pending technological change that could play
out is carbon capturing sequestration, whether from gas or from
coal. Under Amendment 3, he said, AEA would report back to the
legislature and the legislature would have the authority to
change the definition of clean energy resources; AEA is being
asked to advise the legislature on it because AEA is the expert.
9:31:19 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment [3] to CSHB 301(ENE),
labeled 32-GH2546\W.3, Klein, 5/4/22, which read:
Page 7, following line 20:
Insert a new section to read:
"Sec. 42.05.925. Additional renewable energy
resources. Not less than once every five years, the
commission shall request a report from the Alaska
Energy Authority reviewing clean energy technologies,
and determine whether an available technology is an
approved renewable energy resource for purposes of
complying with the clean energy standard."
Page 7, line 21:
Delete "Sec. 42.05.925"
Insert "Sec. 42.05.930"
Delete "AS 42.05.900 - 42.05.925"
Insert "AS 42.05.900 - 42.05.930"
Page 8, line 4:
Delete "or"
Page 8, line 5, following "nuclear;":
Insert "or
(F) a resource that the commission approves under
AS 42.05.925;"
9:31:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN objected to Amendment 3.
9:31:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY thanked the maker of the amendment. He
said it needs to be recognized that technology evolves in many
different realms, even in operations that are using natural gas,
a classic example being the growing of vegetables in the Chena
Hot Springs hot house.
9:32:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN removed his objection to Amendment 3 and
thanked Co-Chair Fields for the concept in the amendment. There
being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS thanked Representative Kaufman for the idea for
Amendment 3.
9:33:03 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 4 to CSHB 301(ENE),
labeled 32-GH2546\W.4, Dunmire/Klein, 5/3/22, which read:
Page 3, line 27:
Delete "2030"
Insert "2027"
Page 8, line 11:
Delete "each 10-year period"
Insert "the period before December 31, 2027, the
period between December 31, 2027, and December 31,
2040, or the period between December 31, 2040 and
December 31, 2050, as"
9:33:06 AM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ objected for purposes of explanation.
9:33:08 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS explained Amendment 4 would move up by three
years the first deadline for the Clean Energy Standard. One
reason for that, he related, was the discussion by stakeholders
around potential ramp down of Cook Inlet gas production, which
motivated him to ramp up renewable energy generation and to more
quickly diversify Alaska's energy sources to provide consumers
with protection and options. Another factor in proposing to
move 2030 to 2027, he stated, is that under the bill the energy
generation doesn't have to be installed and operating by the
target date. A two-year time horizon goes beyond the target
date so a project could be approved in 2027 and deployed in
2029, he continued, and given that it made sense to move the
date to 2027. Many projects deployed under this bill will be
operational in 2029, he added.
9:34:20 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked whether the AEA has been contacted
as to whether moving down three years is a realistic goal.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied that he hasn't talked to AEA but has
shared this with the utilities. He said Amendment 3 was also
based on suggestion from previous testifiers. He noted that the
bill as introduced by the Dunleavy Administration had 2025 as
the first target, so 2027 meets in the middle. He invited Ms.
Julie Estey to speak to the dates.
9:35:13 AM
JULIE ESTEY, Director, External Affairs & Strategic Initiatives,
Matanuska Electric Association (MEA), responded that the
utilities have been consistent in wanting this first deadline to
offer some additional flexibility from the initial governor's
bill in recognition of regular project timelines that could
cause further delays. She said [the utilities] would prefer
that it remain 2030 in recognition of project timelines. In
working with renewable energy developers and developing
projects, she continued, [the utilities must go through]
permitting and land acquisition, and one current power producer
is running into increased costs of solar panels and financing
due to the global unrest. In consideration of the realities of
making this happen, [the utilities] would prefer that it remain
at 2030.
9:36:32 AM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ drew attention to subsection (d) on page 4 of
the bill, beginning on line 20, which states "if the capacity
will begin providing the clean electrical energy to the load-
serving entity not later than (1) two years after the end of the
compliance period". She said she interprets that to mean that
amending the year to 2027 for the first goal would result in not
having anything online [until] 2029. She asked whether Mr.
Chris Rose has the same reading or any concerns about the
[proposed date change].
9:37:33 AM
CHRIS ROSE, Executive Director, Renewable Energy Alaska Project
(REAP), answered that that is the way he would read it. The
original bill had 2025, he said, and he has concerns with moving
it to 2030. The Railbelt utilities are currently at about 20
percent, he stated, so it would be moving from 20 percent to 25
percent by 2027. He further noted that the original bill's
requirement of 30 percent has been moved down to 25 percent, so
the amount of electricity that must be renewable by 2027 has
already been reduced by 5 percent. As pointed out by Co-Chair
Fields, he continued, moving to 2027 would require that the
projects be in service and delivering electricity by 2029, which
is seven years away. He said there are many small projects that
the utilities could be undertaking right now that would move
toward that, plus there is waiver language in the bill that
would allow the utilities to make a case to the RCA if they felt
there was something that really prevented them from getting to
the 25 percent by 2027. He said REAP supports Amendment 3 to
move it to 2027.
9:39:00 AM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ requested Mr. Rose to talk about the waiver
language and how he thinks that that provides utilities the
flexibility they need.
MR. ROSE replied that there are multiple elements to the waiver
language that the utilities could bring to the RCA to say they
tried to do this but couldn't for these reasons. Some of those
reasons could be the ones that Ms. Estey brought up, such as
problems with supply chains or transmission. He said the new
electric reliability organization (ERO) will hopefully be
certificated by this fall and will begin doing its first
integrated resource plan sometime next year. That plan, he
specified, will develop lots of alternative portfolios that will
eventually be approved by the RCA. Wind and solar projects can
be built in two years or less, he advised. If the requirement
was to go this direction in 2025 there is four years, he said,
two years until 2027 and then an additional two years under the
provisions of the bill to get it built and the project done.
Emphasis on moving this direction needs to continue, he
stressed, particularly given the availability of Cook Inlet gas.
He said REAP supports this important amendment.
9:41:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN stated he finds merit in the arguments of
potential difficulty and that current supply chain issues will
only get worse, as will inflation. Given global and US issues
with respect to the economy, inflation, and stagnation, he said
he believes [the legislature] must tread carefully. He added
that he doesn't see anything wrong with the utilities leading
the target knowing that requirements are coming, but not having
to go through the processes described. He said he will
therefore object to Amendment 3 although he appreciates some of
the arguments for it.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY concurred with Representative Kaufman.
He said while flying over the Port of Seattle he saw a
diminished number of cargo containers in the port, and he has
heard that China is reducing [its exports]. The goal is
admirable, he said, but the timeline is too quick, so he agrees
with keeping it at 2030, plus the goal is not being diminished.
9:43:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN requested Ms. Estey's thoughts on this
subject.
MS. ESTEY offered a correction. She specified that by [the
utilities'] current calculations the Railbelt is around 15.3
percent renewable, so it would be a jump of 10 percent, which is
significant. She stated that the high capital-intensive utility
industry has a long lead time for developing a project. While
she hears Mr. Rose's point about going to the RCA with the
reasons [the utilities] can't meet this goal, she said the
preference is to set goals that are achievable. In establishing
this big policy, she argued, one of the worst things that could
happen would be to set it up for the utilities not to make that
first goal. Setting it to 2030 gives a longer line of sight and
takes in the realities of permitting, interconnection, and
transmission which take substantial time. For example, she
continued, MEA has now been going through a transmission line
process for a couple years and is looking at potential legal
challenges, so there are just significant realities. She
pointed out that under the bill's provisions the RCA will have
two years after the bill's passage to promulgate regulations,
meaning the regulations wouldn't be out until 2024 if the bill
is passed in 2022. As to the integrated resource plan, she
noted that it will be a year at best before all the pieces are
in place to start the integrated resource planning and then
another year or two after that. [The utilities] want the
timelines to be realistic and achievable, Ms. Estey stated. The
utilities are not trying to push back, she stressed, the
utilities are saying this isn't realistic.
9:46:10 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated he is tired of the utilities moving the
goalposts as he didn't hear any concerns yesterday when he told
Ms. Estey about this deadline. He said he previously heard
support from the utilities for compromising, and 2027 and 25
percent is a compromise. This is moving way slower on renewable
energy than almost any other set of utilities in the US has
moved, he asserted. Keeping it at 2030 is 10 years before
requiring a single kilowatt hour from renewable energy from
flowing into the grid which, he argued, is indefensible. The
governor put out a fairly aggressive target, he continued, and
he has worked in good faith to advance compromise.
9:47:11 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Schrage, Snyder,
Fields, and Spohnholz voted in favor of Amendment 4.
Representatives Kaufman, McCarty, and Nelson voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 4 to CSHB 301(ENE) was adopted by the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
9:47:59 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:47 a.m. to 9:48 p.m.
9:48:23 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 5 to CSHB 301(ENE),
labeled 32-GH2546\W.5, Klein, 5/4/22, which read:
Page 7, line 25, following "is":
Insert "generated from capacity built on or after
July 1, 2022, that generates electrical energy"
9:48:26 AM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ objected for purposes of explanation.
9:48:27 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS spoke to Amendment 5. He said the original bill
introduced by the administration had no renewable energy
credits. Renewable energy credits, he explained, provide
utilities with additional flexibility in terms of meeting the
goal because a rural community off the Railbelt could build
renewable energy generation where maybe the net savings to
consumers is greater and sell renewable energy credits to
Railbelt utilities. He related that in discussion in the House
Special Committee on Energy it wasn't clear when projects had to
be online to qualify for these renewable energy credits. Also
heard, he noted, was concern from utilities about requiring re-
litigation of the Bradley Lake Agreement, so in the interest of
not re-litigating the Bradley Lake Agreement and tariff issues,
Amendment 5 clarifies that renewable energy credits under this
bill would be for generation built on or after 7/1/2022. He
said this gives additional flexibility for utilities and gives
rural Alaska stake in the success of the bill.
9:49:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON offered his understanding that the credits
would be available to any company that has developed energy from
7/1/22 onward.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied yes, Amendment 5 is for projects going
forward, it clarifies that this is new generation. It would be
pointless to write a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that
would count all the existing hydropower in Southeast Alaska, he
explained. But, he said, if communities in Southeast Alaska or
Western Alaska want to build additional renewable capacity and
count that toward the RPS goal for the Railbelt under this bill,
then it is a win-win.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON inquired about the kind of projects that
energy producers might have online soon and whether they could
utilize this credit almost immediately.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS answered that several projects listed in the AEA
portfolio are funded under the Renewable Energy Fund, what is
called a waterfall, so it is the prioritized projects. He
invited Mr. Rose to detail some of the potential near-term
projects in rural Alaska that could qualify for renewable energy
credits under Amendment 5.
9:51:03 AM
MR. ROSE responded that the Renewable Energy Fund Advisory
Committee recently approved $14.9 million for projects. He said
he doesn't have a list of those projects, but some were
construction projects, of which many were feasibility on cost
and studies. He related that more than $600 million worth of
projects have moved forward since the Renewable Energy Fund was
developed in 2008. About 85 construction projects have been
developed through that fund, he continued, through both state
appropriations and matching funds from federal and local
entities. Many communities are working on projects right now,
he stated, because the technology continues to evolve and
because the very high electric rates in rural Alaska are
probably going to be much higher given oil prices. So, he
added, here is incredible incentive for those communities to
reduce their dependence on imported diesel for generation. Mr.
Rose said REAP believes there is going to be continued movement
on renewable energy across rural Alaska. He said he cannot
speak to future potential increases in hydroelectric generation
in Southeast Alaska, but it is a possibility.
9:52:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked whether the credits in Amendment 5
would fall on a project that is halfway built or would not be
producing electricity for a couple years for a rural community.
MR. ROSE replied that he doesn't have the language in front of
him, but he thinks that that is an important point. He
suggested it could be clarified that projects that were under
construction as of July 2022 could be eligible because it is
possible that some projects are currently underway.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that his intent is new projects, not
projects that are 98 percent completed.
9:53:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether Co-Chair Fields believes
the language in Amendment 5 is clear relative to his intent.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS answered that he thinks it is but will check
with Legislative Legal Services and if it isn't sufficiently
clear it can be cleaned up with an amendment on the floor.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN noted that he is okay with that.
9:54:13 AM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ removed her objection to Amendment 5. There
being no further objection, Amendment 5 was adopted.
9:54:24 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 6 to CSHB 301(ENE),
labeled 32-GH2546\W.6, Klein, 5/6/22, which read:
Page 4, line 17:
Delete "fine"
Insert "penalty"
Page 6, line 5:
Delete "fine"
Insert "penalty"
Page 6, line 7:
Delete "fine"
Insert "penalty"
Page 6, line 8, following "standard":
Insert "that must be invested by the load-serving
entity in clean energy generation"
Page 6, line 9:
Delete "fine"
Insert "penalty"
Page 7, line 2:
Delete "fine"
Insert "penalty"
Page 7, line 5:
Delete "fine"
Insert "penalty"
Page 7, line 9:
Delete "fine paid"
Insert "penalty incurred"
Page 7, line 12:
Delete "payment of the fine"
Insert "imposition of the penalty"
Page 7, following line 15:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(f) To satisfy a penalty imposed under this section,
a load-serving entity shall invest an amount equal to
the penalty in clean energy generation for the benefit
of the entity's customers."
9:54:25 AM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ objected for purposes of explanation.
9:54:26 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS explained that Amendment 6 is a suggestion from
the utilities that fines under the bill would be collected from
ratepayers because most utilities are cooperatives so there is
no other source of money. Additionally, he said, Amendment 6
cleans up the fine structure so that rather than having the fine
flow through the utility, then to the RCA, and back to the
utility, the fines would be changed to a penalty year. The
amendment, he continued, clarifies that any penalties under the
bill would be collected by the utility and reinvested in clean
energy generation to help meet the bill's intent. Amendment 6
does not change the amount of the fine, he related. He further
pointed out that the RCA's updated fiscal note is lower, in part
in recognition of Amendment 6 where the RCA will not be
collecting money. He stated that if there are any fines
implemented in this bill, consumers will be curious as to why
they are being fined, what the fine is going toward, and as a
consumer he would want to see that his cooperative, if fined,
would be reinvesting his dollars into renewable energy
generation. It is not a fine for the sake of a fine, he
stressed, it is a fine or penalty for the sake of meeting the
goals in this bill.
9:56:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON, regarding the last section of Amendment
6, asked whether the amendment sponsor would be open to having
the fine rebated back to the customer originally.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied that he thinks if that were done there
would be no meaningful penalty for utilities failing to meet the
requirements of the bill.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ interjected to indicate it might actually be
an incentive.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS continued his response with "unless we want to
have a personal penalty for the board members," but said he
doesn't want "to go there." He said he would prefer a fair
structure of having reasonable contents that will meet the goals
of the bill that don't personally penalize the people who work
for the utilities.
9:57:01 AM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ removed her objection to Amendment 6. There
being no further objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
9:57:10 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment 7 to CSHB 301(ENE),
labeled 32-GH2546\W.7, Klein, 5/4/22, which read:
Page 2, line 1, following the first occurrence of
"energy":
Insert "generated from capacity constructed on or
after July 1, 2022,"
9:57:11 AM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ objected for purposes of explanation.
9:57:12 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS noted that Amendment 7 accompanies Amendment 5.
He said a request from the utilities was to have a consistent
tariff up and down the Railbelt for dispatch of renewable energy
but that it be structured in a way that doesn't re-litigate the
Bradley Lake Agreement. The virtue of a flat tariff throughout
the Railbelt, he explained, is that even if renewable energy
generation is deployed in, say, Seward, that energy should be
able to be dispatched up to Chugach Electric Association, or
Matanuska Electric Association, or Golden Valley Electric
Association without pancaking tariffs that disincentivize the
production and dispatch of such energy. He noted that in terms
of the structure of the drafting it took two amendments to do
that Amendment 5 and Amendment 7.
9:58:14 AM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ removed her objection to Amendment 7. There
being no further objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.
9:58:23 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 9:58 a.m. to 10:22 a.m.
10:22:18 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that CSHB 301(ENE) was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 301 Amendment #7 W.7 - Fields 5.5.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/6/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 301 |
| HB 301 Amendment #5 W.5 - Fields 5.5.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/6/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 301 |
| HB 301 Amendment #4 W.4 - Fields 5.5.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/6/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 301 |
| HB 301 Amendment #3 W.3 - Fields 5.5.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/6/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 301 |
| HB 301 Amendment #2 W.2 - Schrage 5.3.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/6/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 301 |
| HB 301 Amendment #1 W.1 - Schrage 5.3.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/6/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 301 |
| HB 301 Letter of Support 5.2.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/6/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 301 |
| SB 190 Amendment #1 - Fields 4.29.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/6/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 190 |
| SB 190 Amendment # 1 Legal Opinion - Legislative Legal 5.5.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/6/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 190 |
| HB 301 Fiscal Note RCA-RCA 5.6.22.pdf |
HL&C 5/6/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 301 |