Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/07/2018 01:00 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB299 | |
| HB322 | |
| HB268 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 322 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 158 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 268 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 322
"An Act relating to penalties for discharges of oil
and other pollution violations; relating to oil
discharge prevention and contingency plans for
commercial motor vehicles transporting crude oil; and
providing for an effective date."
2:09:06 PM
Co-Chair Foster indicated that the bill had been heard on
March 29, 2018. He asked the sponsor of the bill if he had
any comments before taking up amendments.
2:09:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, SPONSOR, referenced prior
committee discussion about the bill's purpose. He shared
the department's [Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC)] belief it was important to update penalty authority
at present in case it was needed; it was not possible to
"retroactively work our way out of that and look to 1977
and 1989 penalty schedules." Additionally, it was expensive
and time consuming for the department to deal with small
penalties without going through the legal system (under
current law). The bill would allow administrative
penalties. He continued it was easier for the department to
obtain cost recovery if the option was available. He
elaborated that the department noted, and the law
reflected, that penalties of an administrative nature were
available for food safety, public drinking water, and
monitoring of contaminates. The Environmental Protection
Agency required administrative penalty authority for all
programs where the state had taken primacy. He stated that
the idea was not novel. Relative to the types of spills, he
agreed with the Alaska Oil and Gas Association's (AOGA)
position that it was generally not the main offender. About
90 percent of the spills requiring DEC's intervention were
not related to the oil industry, but were related to
fishing boats, abandoned mines, and other incidences. The
bill was not designed to come after any one industry.
2:12:15 PM
Vice-Chair Gara thought it was an open question on whether
the state could retroactively adopt penalties.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 30-LS1015\U.2
(Nauman, 3/16/18) (copy on file) sponsored by
Representative Ortiz:
Page 2, line 27:
Delete "$20"
Insert "$40"
Page 2, line 30:
Delete "$5"
Insert "$10"
Page 3, line 1:
Delete "$2"
Insert "$4"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
Representative Ortiz explained that the amendment aligned
with the spirit of HB 322 in the sense it would update
penalties last changed in 1989. He did not believe the
increase fully accounted for inflation. The amendment's
purpose was to update the penalties.
Representative Wilson directed a question to DEC. She
stated the department had raised the penalties from $10 to
$20 and $2.50 per gallon to $5.00 per gallon. She asked why
the department had selected the numbers in the original
bill.
KRISTIN RYAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL SPILL PREVENTION
AND RESPONSE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (via
teleconference), explained that the numbers included in the
bill by Representative Josephson accounted for the cost of
inflation. She deferred to Representative Josephson for
further detail.
Representative Josephson replied that with exception to
Amendments 1 and 2 the bill contained an update reflecting
inflation. The figures in Section 2 of the bill (Amendment
1) doubled the existing out-of-date figures. The amendment
was to be consistent with other parts of the legislation
that increased to inflation.
Representative Wilson observed that the updated penalties
appeared to be four times the amount of the existing
penalties.
Representative Josephson responded that he would have to
check to see if the proposed numbers were four times the
existing amounts. The changes in Amendments 1 and 2 were
designed to be consistent with the increases in the rest of
the legislation.
2:16:12 PM
Representative Kawasaki referenced a presentation [by the
sponsor] from a previous bill hearing ["HB 322: The Spill
Bill" provided on March 29, 2018 (copy on file)]. He
pointed to Section 2, which specified the 2018 equivalent
value would be closer to $39.70. He asked why the sponsor
had decided to set the penalties at half of what inflation
would have been in Sections 2 and 3 of the bill.
Representative Josephson replied that the figures in the
bill reflected the will of the House Resources Committee.
He elaborated that the committee had chosen to update the
figures for inflation with the exception of the figures
included in Amendments 1 and 2. The amendments would give
the House Finance Committee an opportunity to weigh in.
Representative Wilson looked at page 5, lines 8 and 9 of
the bill. She noted the bill updated various penalty
thresholds from $500 to $1,000, $100,000 to $200,000, and
$10,000 to $25,000. She turned to page 6, lines 5 and 6 and
observed the same thing was happening. She believed the
initial numbers in the bill had to be close to inflation if
pages 5 and 6 reflected it.
Representative Josephson deferred to his staff.
TOM ATKINSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ADAM WOOL, replied that
the numbers had been adjusted for inflation in most of the
bill sections. He stated that often it had worked out to be
approximately double the current penalty. In some cases,
the daily penalty had been multiplied by 5. How the
penalties had been set throughout the bill varied. He
referenced Section 2 where the number veered from
inflation. He elaborated that the Section 2 penalties had
been set in December 1977; if the penalties were changed to
reflect inflation they would be four times the existing
numbers, which seemed extreme. The reasoning had been it
seemed more acceptable to double those penalties.
Representative Wilson remarked on a statement made that all
of the other penalties had been increased to reflect
inflation. She thought the numbers would be closer to four
times their existing amounts if the goal was to keep
everything the same [increase levels equally].
Representative Josephson answered that the penalties had
not all been created at the same time, meaning there were
different inflation rates.
2:19:54 PM
Representative Kawasaki pointed out that the presentation
previously given by the sponsor showed that original
penalties in Section 2 were adopted in 1977, the penalties
in Section 4 were adopted in 1989, the penalties in Section
6 were adopted in 1976, and the penalties in Section 8 were
adopted in 1984. He believed keeping things consistent by
inflation proofing the entire bill was accurate.
Vice-Chair Gara requested to be added as a cosponsor to the
amendment.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment
1.
IN FAVOR: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Wilson, Grenn, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 1 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 30-LS1015\U.3
(Nauman, 3/16/18) (copy on file) sponsored by
Representative Ortiz:
Page 4, line 7:
Delete "$1,000"
Insert "$2,000"
Delete "$200,000"
Insert $400.000"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
2:21:47 PM
Representative Ortiz explained the amendment was the same
as Amendment 1 but applied to a different section of the
bill.
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Ortiz, Gara, Seaton, Foster
OPPOSED: Grenn, Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
Amendment 2 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3, 30-LS1015\U.5
(Nauman, 4/2/18) (copy on file):
Page 3, line 10:
Delete "annually"
Insert ", every three years,"
Page 3, line 28:
Delete "annually"
Insert", every three years,"
Page 7, line 17:
Delete "annually"
Insert", every three years,"
Page 8, line 24:
Delete "annually"
Insert ",every three years,"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment aimed to increase
administrative efficiency and would mean the consumer price
index calculation would be computed every three years
instead of annually. He elaborated the change would mean
the number would not have to be updated annually in
publications. He believed a three-year inflation adjustment
was adequate.
Representative Wilson asked for verification the amendment
would still inflation proof for the years between the
three-year period. She surmised it would not necessarily
mean inflation proofing once.
Co-Chair Seaton confirmed the inflation would be
cumulative. The amendment merely removed administrative
burden.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 3 was ADOPTED.
2:22:44 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 4, 30-LS1015\U.6
(Nauman, 4/3/18) (copy on file):
Page 9, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"*Sec. 13. AS 46.03.900 is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(38) "produced water" means water that is the
byproduct of the exploration, extraction, development,
production, refining, processing, or disposal of
energy-related products;"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 9, line 29:
Delete "Section 15"
Insert "Section 16"
Page 9, line 30:
Delete "sec. 16"
insert "sec. 17"
Representative Wilson OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment. He stated that the
bill addressed penalties. Produced water volume was
included in the bill, but the term was not defined in
statute. He had worked with DEC, the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), and Legislative Legal Services to craft a
definition for produced water. He read the definition the
amendment proposed to include:
"produced water" means water that is the byproduct of
the exploration, extraction, development, production,
refining, processing, or disposal of energy-related
products
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from DEC.
KRISTIN RYAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL SPILL PREVENTION
AND RESPONSE, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (via
teleconference), shared that the committee had discussed
concerns about how produced water would be defined by the
department if the bill passed. Produced water was
associated with the exploration and production of oil. The
division found cleaning up produced water spills to be very
difficult and damage to the environment was significant;
therefore, DEC requested produced water to be a factor when
calculating penalties associated with spills.
Representative Pruitt stated they had discussed the issue
at a previous bill hearing. He asked for verification that
DEC had not taken into account penalties related to
produced water.
Ms. Ryan answered in the affirmative. The current statue
limited the department's ability to only calculate oil when
it considered the volume of a spill, for the sake of a
penalty.
Representative Pruitt asked how often Ms. Ryan anticipated
the issue would come into play. He asked how many produced
water spills the division knew about, but did not have the
ability to do anything about. He remarked that DEC made the
offender clean up produced water spills, but was unable to
issue a fine. He asked how many cases there would be where
the department missed out on being able to fine for the
offense.
Ms. Ryan answered that it was not possible to clean up a
produced water spill. Typically, the water was saline and
when it ran into tundra, plants were killed quickly. She
elaborated that the spills occurred in older fields on the
North Slope where more and more water came up as the oil
was pumped down. She noted when spills occurred it was
becoming more common for the volume to be more water than
oil. From DEC's perspective, the damage was as significant
to the environment. The fact that the spill could not be
cleaned up and that spills could occur in large volumes,
was the reason DEC proposed to include produced water in
its volume calculation for penalties. She added the request
was not unusual. She detailed that Oklahoma and Texas
included produced water in their penalty calculations. She
explained it was difficult for the spiller to calculate and
prove what portion of the spill was water and what portion
was oil. The amendment would simplify the calculation
process.
2:29:19 PM
Representative Pruitt did not believe there was a unanimous
agreement between the department and partners about the
damage from produced water. He asked for verification that
DEC's position was the water caused immediate damage and
killed tundra, while some industry individuals felt the
damage was not at the same level.
Ms. Ryan believed there were many opinions about the
effects of produced water versus oil. From the department's
perspective, it was easier to clean up oil than it was to
clean up salt water. She elaborated that salt water was
absorbed and oil tended to sit on the surface. The
department's view was the water damaged the environment.
Representative Pruitt stated there was a substantial amount
of wind on the North Slope and the wind pushed the salt
onto the tundra. He asked about the difference.
Ms. Ryan answered that salt water spray from the ocean
impacted a small amount of land near the shore. A spill of
produced water was inland and in the thousands of gallons
in an area of tundra that was not typically impacted by
ocean spray. She added that produced water salinity could
be much higher than ocean water salinity.
Representative Pruitt asked how many spills happened
annually and how many were off-pad.
Ms. Ryan would have to follow up with the information.
Representative Pruitt asked if a spill on-pad in a
contained environment was considered damaging to tundra.
Ms. Ryan responded that DEC was focused on spills that
caused damage to the environment. A spill on a pad was
captured in gravel and was not impacting the environment.
There were many spills on-pad, which the department did not
issue penalties for. Penalty language would apply for
spills off the pad.
Representative Pruitt highlighted Ms. Ryan's testimony
about thousands of gallons [of produced water]. He thought
there would be significantly more reporting of the spills
[if spills were at that level]. He thought Ms. Ryan was
making it sound like the problem was frequent. He was
trying to determine the frequency of the spills. He
wondered if there were bad actors. He thought the
discussion from the previous bill hearing was that people
would rather do something inappropriate because the
penalties were so low. He asked if the problem was
happening without abandon, which was the reason the
amendment was necessary.
2:34:10 PM
Ms. Ryan did not have the numbers on hand, but there were
several [produced water] spills per year (not more than
10). The spills were semi-frequent.
Vice-Chair Gara was comfortable with the amendment. He
believed the point of the legislation was to deter
individuals from taking less care. There was a history of
companies that had acted very responsibly and those that
had acted irresponsibly at times. He cited the Exxon Valdez
oil spill and Deepwater Horizon as spill examples in the
past. He reasoned that everyone did not always act as
desired, which was the reason for penalties.
Representative Kawasaki stated that the scope of Amendment
3 was limited to adding a definition of produced water. He
asked if the definition included in the amendment was
typical when defining produced water. He wondered if it was
inclusive or exclusive.
Co-Chair Seaton answered that a couple of different
suggestions had been provided including "water that is
brought to the surface as a byproduct of extraction and
hydrocarbons" and "produced water means extracted in the
development, extraction or disposal of energy related
products." He elaborated that Legislative Legal Services
had developed the definition as there was not one in
statute. The goal was to avoid confusion as to what
constituted produced water. His objective was to have the
ability to solve a problem and to avoid going to court to
determine what the definition of produced water was. The
amendment was limited to defining produced water and made
no changes to fines or fees.
2:36:35 PM
Ms. Ryan confirmed that the definition in the amendment was
consistent with what she had seen in other states. The
definition was an explanation that produced water was
related to the development, exploration, and production of
oil or other oil related products.
Representative Kawasaki surmised the definition was a
general concept of produced water that was inclusive and
similar to definitions in other states. He was trying to
ensure the definition was accurate. He added the amendment
was in context to Section 5 dealing with fines associated
with produced water. He believed it was appropriate for the
public, industry, legislators, and courts to understand
what was meant when the term produced water was used.
Representative Wilson WITHDREW her OBJECTION. There being
NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 4 was ADOPTED.
2:38:12 PM
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 5, 30-LS1015\U.4
(Nauman, 4/2/18) (copy on file):
Page 9, line 9, following "law.":
Insert "The person shall submit the oil spill response
plan to the department electronically."
Representative Pruitt OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Seaton explained the amendment would require oil
spill response plans to be submitted electronically. The
idea was for plans to be viewable by people in more than
one location. He elaborated that the process would be much
more efficient for responders and could save time in
cleanups when people knew exactly what the response plan
was including items that would be available on scene or on
board. For example, what a truck was hauling and who was
designated in their response plan as the responder in order
to avoid confusion.
Representative Wilson clarified that the oil spill response
plans were submitted to DEC for the record and were
approved by a separate entity. She surmised the purpose was
to let people know what would take place in the event of a
spill.
Co-Chair Seaton answered in the affirmative. The intent was
for plans required of companies to be available for
cleanup. The amendment did not require anything else to be
done. Updating plans would also be much more convenient and
everyone would be apprised of the current plan.
Representative Pruitt WITHDREW his OBJECTION. He did not
believe DEC needed all of the plans; however, he believed
if the state was going to make companies submit plans it
was better to have them submitted electronically. He noted
his concern there would be numerous documents that were not
needed. He elaborated that the department had not known of
the federal requirement until recently. He thought it
showed either the failure of the department or that the
issue had been managed in the past without needing [the
spill plan]. He thought the documents would sit in an
electronic file that may not be needed.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 5 was ADOPTED.
2:42:13 PM
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the fiscal note from DEC. The
amendment reflected a cost of $10,800 in FY 19 and an
ongoing expense of $2,700 in outyears from the Oil and
Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund.
The note also reflected the gain in revenue of $74,700 in
FY 20 up to $80,100 in FY 24.
Representative Wilson asked if the inflation calculation
would cost $2,700.
Ms. Ryan replied in the negative. The only cost associated
with doing the inflation adjustments was the publishing of
the regulations, which would be on a three-year cycle
(based on an amendment that passed).
Representative Wilson asked for verification it would cost
$2,700 to update for inflation every three years. The note
included language that regulations would need to be
reviewed annually, which would be changed to every three
years based on an amendment that passed. She did not
understand the cost.
Ms. Ryan answered that it would not cost that much to do
the inflation regulations. She believed the language
implied the overall cost of doing regulation changes for
updating penalties over several cycles.
Representative Wilson assumed the $10,800 was for the
initial regulation in FY 19. She wondered if other
regulations had to be done annually because of a federal
government requirement. She asked if the cost was
associated with something the department already did that
had nothing to do with the legislation.
2:44:45 PM
Ms. Ryan answered that the bill assumed DEC would update
regulations every year, but it had been changed to every
three years. She believed the cost in the fiscal note would
be slightly reduced due to the change.
Representative Wilson stated the only thing the bill
required every three years was inflation. She asked if
there was some other regulation update requirement the
department would have to update every three years.
Ms. Ryan answered in the negative.
Representative Wilson remarked that calculators were pretty
inexpensive.
Co-Chair Foster relayed there may be a new fiscal note
forthcoming with more revenue.
Vice-Chair Gara clarified that the cost reflected in the
fiscal note was not for someone using a calculator, but for
the RSA [Reimbursable Services Agreement] with the
Department of Law to address the regulations. There was
also a cost when regulations went to public notice. He did
not see anything in the fiscal note attributing the cost to
someone calculating the inflationary effect.
Representative Wilson pointed to language on page 2 of the
fiscal note specifying that regulations would need to be
reviewed annually to reflect inflation.
2:46:17 PM
Vice-Chair Gara countered that it was not what the full
sentence said.
Representative Wilson read the sentence on page 2 of the
fiscal note:
Contractual costs reflect estimated RSA with the
Department of Law for consultation and legal review
during the development of new regulations as well as
required public notice in Anchorage, Juneau, and
Fairbanks. Regulations would need to be reviewed
annually to reflect inflation.
Representative Wilson stated the fiscal note included
$2,700 in FY 20 through FY 24 associated with the work.
Co-Chair Foster asked Ms. Ryan to provide a written
response with clarification.
Ms. Ryan agreed.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 322(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED. Stated there was opposition
to the bill from the Alaska Trucking Association and AOGA.
She did not believe the committee had addressed the
entities' concerns. Conversely, she thought the bill added
additional things for the trucking industry to do.
Representative Thompson corrected the motion to move the
bill.
Co-Chair Seaton restated his motion.
Representative Wilson OBJECTED.
2:49:09 PM
Representative Kawasaki supported the updates dealing with
inflation. He remarked there had been myriad inflation
changes since 1976, 1984, and 1989. He had concern about
the policy dealing with resource issues. He appreciated
clarity on the definition of produced water. He had a bit
of trouble with some of the other policy issues dealing
with punitive administration fees in Sections 1 and 6.
Additionally, he had overriding concerns about how a
penalty deters or changes bad behavior. He did not know
that it had proven to be the case. He appreciated the
sponsor bringing the bill forward and wanted to see it move
forward. He believed the bill was ready for a more thorough
debate on the House floor.
Vice-Chair Gara stated that he had worked with some of the
penalties when he had worked on the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
There had been a debate at the time on whether to just use
the penalties, which had been inadequate. He elaborated
that the state would not have received the $1 billion
settlement if it had merely imposed the per gallon penalty.
Additionally, in a big case there were resources to try to
prove damages, but in a smaller case, trying to assess the
value of a bird, 100 pink salmon, or other, was very
difficult. He stated that the penalties were especially
important in those cases, meaning someone did not have to
go through the vast expense of measuring the value of the
harm. He believed penalties were important. He reasoned the
state might as well throw out the penalties in criminal and
administrative law and driving violations if the belief was
they were ineffective. He stressed there would be a cost if
the state was not careful, especially at the expense of
fishing streams and waters, which were a hallmark of the
state. He noted the state had always bragged to the federal
government that Alaska did things right - that oil was
produced in a way that protected those things. He believed
the bill was important.
Representative Pruitt opposed the legislation. He thought
the bill seemed to try to force certain actions as if they
were not already being done. He referenced a letter from
AOGA (copy on file) indicating the millions of dollars per
year put into ensuring industry did everything possible to
prevent spills. He pointed to the Alyeska Pipeline Service
Company with over 200 drills and $100 million annually
spent on prevention and readiness. He recalled Alaska Clean
Seas had specific equipment on the North Slope costing
hundreds of thousands of dollars. He stressed that industry
was already doing the things the bill aimed to force
industry to do. He pointed to a report from the Division of
Spill Prevention and Response showing the number of spills
and volume had declined. He emphasized that many people
working in the oil industry did not want to see damage done
to the environment and were doing everything they could to
prevent it. He was concerned the bill was aiming to attack
a group of people as if they were bad actors. He did not
believe the group was filled with bad actors.
Alternatively, he believed the group was trying to put the
investment, time, and energy into protecting the
environment.
Representative Pruitt understood a conversation about
penalty fees, but he did not support multiplying them by
four. He discussed that the state had been going after the
cruise ship industry - the penalties had been added in 2006
and would be increased beyond inflation under the bill. He
believed the bill was wrapped in punitive policy as opposed
to considering what the state was doing to partner with
industry to protect the environment. He believed the focus
should be on partnering with industry/groups instead of
pitting people against each other.
2:55:41 PM
Representative Guttenberg highlighted a recent occurrence
as an example. He elaborated that someone had not checked
their [truck] load and had taken out a bridge. He recalled
that one woman waiting in traffic had a baby. He questioned
how all of the people waiting in traffic felt about the
company not following procedures. He supported the bill and
was happy there had not been a recent accident that would
single out one company in Alaska. He referenced Ms. Ryan's
testimony there was an Alyeska issue that was basically
sabotage that Alyeska had nothing to do with - the company
was not fined, and it participated in the cleanup. However,
there had been instances where companies were bad actors.
He noted the incidents occurred much less than in the past.
When considering the punitive aspect, he asked members to
consider how the individuals waiting in traffic for hours
felt about the situation. He continued that if the truck
had not taken out a bridge there would not have been a
problem; however, one bad apple could cause significant
damage that could hurt many people.
Co-Chair Seaton made it clear that he did not believe they
were being overly burdensome on industry by adjusting for
inflation. The goal from 1977 to present was not to
continually reduce the penalties. He believed it was
prudent to adjust for inflation. The passed amendments
merely brought penalties up to account for inflation
because the years the given penalties were established were
15 years earlier than the penalties in other bill sections
(1977 versus 1985 and 1989). He did not believe prior
legislatures that had set the penalties had been
overburdensome at the time. He reiterated his belief that
adjusting the fines for inflation was the right thing to
do.
2:58:54 PM
Representative Wilson MAINTAINED her OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara, Grenn, Foster, Seaton
OPPOSED: Pruitt, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson
Representative Ortiz was absent from the vote.
The MOTION PASSED (6/4).
There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 322(FIN) was
REPORTED out of committee with four "do pass"
recommendations, four "do not pass" recommendations, and
two "amend" recommendations; and with one new fiscal impact
note from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
3:00:26 PM
AT EASE
3:01:07 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 322 - Amendment packet.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 322 |
| HB 299 - Letter of Intent.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB 316 Support 4-6-18.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB 322 Support 4-6-18.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 322 |
| HB 322 - DEC Response to H FIN re HB322.pdf |
HFIN 4/7/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 322 |