Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
04/04/2018 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 | |
| HB331 | |
| HB27 | |
| HB399 | |
| HB260 | |
| HB397 | |
| Presentation(s): Bp Energy Outlook 2018 Edition | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 331 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 397 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 399 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 331-TAX CREDIT CERT. BOND CORP; ROYALTIES
1:37:59 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 331, "An Act establishing the Alaska Tax
Credit Certificate Bond Corporation; relating to purchases of
tax credit certificates; relating to overriding royalty interest
agreements; and providing for an effective date."
1:39:44 PM
THOMAS RYAN, Managing Director, Structured Finance Group, ING
Capital, LLC, recapped ING business interests in Alaska. The
company financed two large borrowers in Alaska and monetized
their tax credits in 2014 and 2015; the outstanding loans as of
2016 have now been in default because of the delays in the
monetization of the tax credits; and the transactions have been
transferred to the credit restructuring department. He
emphasized that ING has not foreclosed on the loans but stays
committed to the original transactions that proved liquidity to
the projects. He said that both projects are very close to
being profitable: one is generating cash; the other is expected
to generate cash next year. The company remains committed to
the two projects; it has not foreclosed and taken the tax
credits, even though it would be entitled to do under the terms
of the transaction.
MR. RYAN relayed that ING personnel recognize that circumstances
have changed; the fall in oil prices had a significant effect on
Alaska; and ING has been committed to remaining patient. He
offered that the company's request in the last two years has
been for some certainty and for restructuring of the debt. He
claimed that certainty in knowing how much the company will be
paid and when to expect the payment would allow for it to
restart the lending process. The company is very committed to
the state. The four largest sectors to which it lends are:
natural resources - metals and mining, infrastructure projects;
agriculture and fisheries; and telecommunications. He
maintained that HB 331 would create the certainty concerning the
future of the tax credit program that ING welcomes.
1:42:12 PM
PETER CLINTON, Managing Director, Credit Restructuring, ING
Capital, LLC, relayed that when the loans were made, they were
given serious underwriting considerations, and ING understood
[state] appropriation of the funds was one of the risks of the
transactions. He maintained that at the time ING made the loan
and at the time the state developed the programs, no one could
have foreseen that the price of oil would fall so far so rapidly
as it did, leaving numerous parts of the energy sector
throughout the U.S. in great distress. He stated that ING
invested about $2.5 billion in the exploration and production
(E&P) sector in Houston; that sector has seen 60-70 bankruptcies
of energy sector companies since the start of the energy crisis.
MR. CLINTON maintained that the difference between Houston and
Alaska is that in Houston, there was a predictable process for
how the effects [of the energy crisis] would play out, which
allowed for significant capital to be available as the energy
prices rebounded. The capital was available for investments and
acquisitions, both on the debt and equity sides. He maintained
that ING, which had 12 clients file for bankruptcy, still lends
to every one of those clients and still looks for new business
in that segment.
MR. CLINTON reiterated that those at ING understand that not
everything included in a contract plays out as intended, and
credit restructuring may be warranted. He reiterated that in
resolving situations such as described, ING looks for
predictability in future cash flows and participation in the
solution by all constituents affected by the situation. He said
that in the current situation, the entities impacted are the
state, the small E&P companies relying on the tax credits for
further investments, and ING, looking for repayment of loans.
He conceded that it is the nature of the business at ING that
not every penny that is lent out is repaid.
MR. CLINTON maintained that as ING personnel value
predictability, the proposed legislation would allow ING a
discounted payout in exchange for that predictability; it
represents a classic restructuring and it makes sense. He
offered that the alternative - paying out "to the formula" - is
not a viable option because it lacks dependability. It would be
subject to the political ramifications of state appropriations.
He opined that investors of the future will look for that kind
of predictability as well. He offered ING's support for the
proposed legislation and maintained that it is a good proposal
and should be given serious consideration.
1:47:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH related that he was initially skeptical of
the proposed legislation; however, after considering it in the
context of the rate of return and the borrowing rate of the
Alaska Permanent Fund, he maintained that he now considers the
proposal reasonable. He stated his belief that the Alaska State
Legislature has a duty and responsibility to settle its debts.
He opined that HB 331 offers a reasonable solution, provides
predictability, and gives closure to small operators who were
invited to Alaska to work but now find themselves in financial
constraints. He offered his support for HB 331.
1:48:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH requested to know the value of ING's
assets and debts.
1:48:42 PM
MR. RYAN responded that ING's total outstanding debts are about
$100 million, and it has $140 million in credits. He added that
if ING were to foreclose and sell its credits to a secondary
market, it would probably recoup its money, but there would be
nothing left for the projects. He maintained that as of now,
there is still value for the projects. The proposed legislation
would allow ING to recoup most of its money and leave
significant value for the projects themselves, which is
desperately needed to comply with the contracts.
1:49:30 PM
MR. CLINTON added that in addition to providing liquidity
directly, the proposal would "clean up" companies' balance
sheets in an audit opinion, allowing them go back out to the
capital markets. The capital markets are currently not
welcoming the companies due to the defaulted loans.
1:49:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for clarification that $140 million
in outstanding credits could cancel out the $100 million in
outstanding debt, if ING resold them.
MR. RYAN answered that the amount represents an aggregation so
cannot be described quite that way. He added that if ING sold
all the credits, the entire proceeds would pay off the loan,
more or less, and there would be nothing left. He stated that
since ING personnel have not been actively canvasing the
secondary market, it is difficult to say for sure.
1:50:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether at the time ING made the
loans, ING and the lawyers of the borrowers of the loans
contemplated the pertinent statute.
MR. RYAN responded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether it was reasonable to assume
than no party entered into the agreements with ignorance or
illusions regarding the responsibilities of the state.
MR. RYAN answered, that's right.
1:51:41 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked Mr. Clinton if he is at liberty to
reveal the penalties that the independents are incurring,
assuming the loans are in forbearance.
MR. CLINTON responded that the penalties are standard. He
clarified that the agreements are not in forbearance; initially
they were for the short term, but those have expired. He
explained that both loans are in default, can be called at any
time, and there is no existing agreement with either of the
borrowers. He offered that there is excellent communication
between ING and the borrowers; ING has communicated to the
borrowers its desire to "see this through" in a cooperative
manner and in a manner that will return some of the liquidity to
them. He added that the only penalty that the borrowers are
incurring today is the default interest rate - usually 2 percent
higher than would be charged on the loan - which is typical of
any transaction.
MR. CLINTON related that there are other remedies available to
ING, such as foreclosing on the certificates, which is an option
at any time. He explained that ING has not done that for
several reasons; first and foremost, ING has faith that the
situation will be and should be remedied by the legislature. He
stated that the spirit of the original agreement was that ING
was to be paid by the State of Alaska; to the extent that there
were excess tax credits, ING would return the money to the
investors. One of the investors currently is depending on these
funds for further investment; the money is not available to the
investor. Because of the uncertainty, the investor is unable to
access the additional equity and risks losing upwards of $350
million of equity that has been invested in the project. He
added that the project will continue with another investor;
however, that investor will not offer the money without
penalties to the existing investors.
MR. CLINTON reiterated that ING has not pursued the rights and
remedies available to it; if there was a very active secondary
market, it is possible ING might have pursued that option. He
said that ING prefers a solution that would allow it to continue
relationships with its clients. He maintained that just because
a company has financial issues, that doesn't mean it will
forever have financial issues. If one has faith in management
teams and faith in the projects, there is nothing wrong with
reexamining the opportunity to work with the company again.
1:55:36 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON offered that the 2 percent on some of the
accounts may date back to the summer of 2015.
MR. RYAN agreed that ING incorporated some extension periods to
cover eventualities such as appropriation delay; therefore, the
percent does not date back quite that far. He said that to be
clear, the real value for the risk for the projects is that
there are some credits that were not lent against and were
reserved by ING as extra collateral; ING would like to either
lend against [the credits] or release them back to the company.
He offered that the beauty of HB 331 is that there would be some
cash against those credits as well, which would be released
directly back to the company.
1:56:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for clarification: ING has lent
against $140 million in cashable tax credits, upon which
approximately $100 million has been loaned; ING has another set
of tax credit against which it has not needed to borrow.
MR. RYAN responded that the $140 million has two components:
the portion that ING lent against, which amounts to about 85
percent; and the portion that came after the appropriation
issues began, at which time ING stopped advancing against the
funds.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH commented, "That covers your risk."
MR. RYAN concurred.
MR. CLINTON added that as more time passes without any principle
reduction, the interest accrual "eats into it."
1:57:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked if given $100 million, ING would be
able to eliminate the companies' debts.
MR. RYAN answered that if the loan were paid off in exchange for
all the credits, ING would be satisfied; however, ING has a
philosophical obligation to the borrowers. He offered that ING
has worked hard with the borrowers to keep them solvent, and it
would not want to see their $40 million gone.
1:58:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that the [tax credit] program began
in 2011; it was not unreasonable to expect a full payment of the
tax credits. He mentioned that the payment occurred every year
for several years; the governor vetoed two successive years [of
payment] due to financial shortfalls. He said that it was
reasonable to expect predictability; the tax credits were fully
paid as obligated over five to six years.
MR. CLINTON responded that ING appreciated the credit and came
into the agreement with "eyes wide open." The personnel at ING
expected the credits to be paid off as they had been
historically and as had been promoted.
1:59:41 PM
SHELDON FISHER, Commissioner Designee, Department of Revenue
(DOR), continued the PowerPoint presentation entitled, "State of
Alaska Department of Revenue HB331: Oil & Gas Tax Credit Bond
Proposal" dated 3/30/18, which was begun during the hearing of
HB 331 on 3/30/18. He returned attention to slide 9, entitled
"Oil & Gas Tax Credit Background: The Challenge." He stated
that the revised estimated statutory payment for the spring
forecast was elevated slightly in fiscal year 2019 (FY 19); the
levels in the following years were lower and more consistent.
COMMISSIONER FISHER turned to slide 10, entitled "Proposed
Solution: Issue Bonds and use proceeds to pay off Tax Credits."
He related the example on the slide, involving the assumption
that the credit holder has $100 million in credits payable
equally over four years, or $25 million per year. He discussed
that the program would have two discount rates - 10 percent and
5.1 percent. He directed attention to the charts on the right
of the slide. Under the 10 percent discount rate, year one
shows no discount; there is a 10 percent annual discount for
future years; and the buyout offer is $87.17 million. The 5
percent scenario shows similar logic with a buyout offer of
$92.95 million. He explained that someone would agree to accept
$87 million for $100 million of debt because money has a time
value associated with it. The belief is that even at the 10 per
cent discount rate, the cost is lower compared with the weighted
average cost of capital (WACC); that is, the rate is lower than
the rate at which the credit holder could secure money from
other sources.
COMMISSIONER FISHER further explained the difference between the
two rates. All credit holders would be eligible to utilize the
10 percent rate. To achieve the 5 percent rate, the credit
holder would be required to make one of four commitments. The
first is agreeing to give the state an additional overriding
royalty interest, and the value of the royalty interest over
time would be structured to be equal to the difference between
the two discounts. In the example shown on slide 10, that
difference would be approximately $6 million; therefore, the
overriding royalty interest would have a present value of $6
million. The second option is committing to reinvest the money
in Alaska. The third is agreeing to waive confidentially
associated with seismic data as it relates to the credit. The
fourth involves certain refinery or gas storage credits, which
would allow the credit holder to qualify automatically for the
lower rate.
COMMISSIONER FISHER mentioned that the 5.1 percent is based on a
formula that is the true cost of interest, and in the current
example, that would be about 3.6 percent, or what DOR believed
to be the market rate for the debt at the time it goes to
market. It may turn out to be slightly higher or lower, but
this is the percentage chosen as a conservative estimate. An
additional 1.5 percent was added by DOR as a cushion, resulting
in 5.1 percent, which DOR represents as the state's borrowing
cost. He added that even under the state's borrowing cost in
the scenario demonstrated on the slide, the discount will pay
for the cost of interest. The 10 percent rate was chosen by DOR
arbitrarily; it was intended to be roughly the midpoint between
the state's borrowing cost of 5 percent and what DOR perceives
to be the market rate for the companies, which is a weighted
average cost of capital in the high- to mid-teens.
COMMISSIONER FISHER related that the important concept from the
state's perspective is that the state had a commitment to the
credit holders to pay them over time; under the proposed
legislation, the credit holders would accept a reduced payment
so that the state can commit to pay a bond holder over time.
Under either the 5 percent or the 10 percent discount rate, the
state is modestly better off. He maintained that the state's
goal is not to try to make money on this program but to create a
structure in which the state is neutral in the different
scenarios.
2:05:54 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON referred to the second bullet under the 10
percent rate on slide 10 - committing to reinvest the money in
Alaska. He offered that if the money is owed to ING, meeting
that condition would be difficult. He suggested that doing so
would depend on what was borrowed and how it was borrowed during
the exploration phase; it would be an individual exercise.
COMMISIONER FISHER conceded that much of the money likely would
be used to pay the debts; however, doing so would allow the
companies to "clean up" their balance sheets. The elimination
of outstanding debt would enable them to receive clean audits.
Consequently, they could access other sources of capital that
they would reinvest. It would not necessarily be the exact same
money coming back into the Alaska economy, but it would allow
the companies to attract money. He said that the way HB 331 is
structured, to qualify for that condition, the company would
have to present a plan satisfactory to DOR that evidences the
ability to reinvest the money over a three-year period.
2:07:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH referred to the commitments needed to
qualify for the lower rate and mentioned that the discount rate
would represent approximately a 7 percent reduction in the
asking price relative to the total base value of the credits.
He asked if the commitment to reinvesting in Alaska must be an
amount equivalent to the overall amount purchased.
COMMISIONER FISHER answered, "That is correct."
2:08:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH referred to the commitment regarding the
early waiver of confidential seismic data and asked whether a
company having one small shoot of low monetary value that is
about to expire could use it against any amount of credits to
reduce the rate.
2:08:47 PM
KEN ALPER, Director, Tax Division, Department of Revenue (DOR),
explained that seismic data goes to the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and becomes public after a ten-year period.
Currently DNR is going through the process of releasing seismic
data that it received nine and ten years ago. The credits that
are unpaid are all based on work that was done for the most part
in 2015 and 2016; there is nothing "ripe" for publication. The
companies would be authentically giving up nine- or ten-years'
worth of confidentiality in exchange for an incremental $6
million.
MR. ALPER mentioned that Representative Parish raised another
question not addressed by HB 331: What happens when a company
has some seismic credits and some non-seismic credits for
drilling an exploration well? He said that according to DOR's
interpretation, DOR would only allow the company to buy down the
discount rate for the seismic credits by giving up the seismic
data. Another commitment would have to be made for a lower rate
on the drilling credits, such as the reinvestment commitment.
2:10:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether that interpretation is
included explicitly in the proposed legislation.
MR. ALPER responded that it is a detail that would need to be
put into regulation; it is DOR's interpretation, and DOR would
support including information to clarify that point.
2:10:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for an explanation of the fourth
condition for a lower rate, as shown on the slide as "Have
Refinery or Gas Storage Credits".
MR. ALPER replied that most of the credits have been sunset
through legislation passed [in 2017 during the Thirtieth Alaska
State Legislature]. Several smaller programs had pre-existing
sunsets - in 2020 and 2021 - which represent credits not under
the oil and gas statutes but under the corporate income tax
statutes. The gas storage credit is a one-off; it has never
been used but was put into statute for the benefit of the
Interior Gas Utility (IGU). Once the main storage tank is built
in Fairbanks and if is completed before the deadline, there will
be a tax credit due from the state to contribute to the cost.
MR. ALPER mentioned that the impacted entities have nothing to
offer: they have no royalties to give; the projects are finite;
the credits are capped; and the dollar amount is fixed so that
there is a limit on what they earn. The work that has been done
to earn the refinery credits has already been put to economic
use by the State of Alaska. He gave as an example Petro Star
Inc., which built an asphalt plant as an addition to its
refinery in North Pole. Asphalt is now manufactured in Alaska,
and the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) and other large consumers of asphalt now can obtain
cheaper asphalt than that from the Lower 48. He offered that
the state decided to default these entities into the lower
discount rate because of the benefits they offer.
2:13:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether the credits are
transferable.
MR. ALPER expressed his belief that the credits could be sold to
a tax payer; however, he conceded that he was not sure if this
was true of refinery credits.
2:13:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH also asked if there is a threshold for how
many credits could be bought and used for a discount.
MR. ALPER agreed to research Representative Parish's two
questions. He added that in drafting the proposed legislation,
DOR contemplated many scenarios for "gaming" the system. He
gave as an example: when a company offers their credits into
the program, it must offer all of them; there is no ability to
pick and choose which credits it will offer. The concern was
that companies would hold out for a better buyout. He
reiterated that DOR does not want to create the opportunity to
game the system. He offered that DOR supports creating a
"bullet-proof" system to protect the state's interest.
2:14:59 PM
COMMISIONER FISHER referred to slide 11, a continuation of the
proposed solution, and explained the process as follows. The
first step would be to provide the credit holders with a
definitive statement of the proceeds that will be available
under the program and secure irrevocable commitments from them
to participate. He mentioned that this contact would occur a
couple weeks before the actual issuance of the bond. Staff at
DOR have already reached out to the credit holders twice - with
an estimate based on the fall forecast and updated estimate
based on the spring forecast; DOR has been in communication with
them regarding their interest and view of the program.
COMMISIONER FISHER relayed that if and when HB 331 passes and
once DOR receives the irrevocable commitment, it will determine
if a credit holder qualifies for the 10 percent discount or the
5 percent discount. He said that DOR will then go to market and
issue the bonds. He added that the reason for the irrevocable
commitment is that DOR does not want to borrow more money than
necessary in order to pay off the debt.
COMMISIONER FISHER referred to "Step 2: Issue Bonds" on slide
11 and reported that there is just over $800 million in
outstanding credits presently. For the purpose of the current
analysis, DOR assumed that no credits would be sold to the major
producers to offset taxes. He added that there is a possibility
that some credits may be sold to producers between now and when
this program is launched.
COMMISIONER FISHER stated that the resulting bond issuance would
be between $683 million and $738 million; DOR could be in the
market place as soon as August, if the proposed legislation
passes in May.
COMMISIONER FISHER related that DOR anticipates future issuances
for certificates issued between August 2019 and August 2021; the
additional issuances are expected to be between $130 million and
$180 million in the aggregate.
COMMISIONER FISHER referred to "Step 3" on slide 12, also a
continuation of the proposed solution. He relayed that the next
step would be to purchase the tax credits. He referred to
"Option 1" under Step 3 and said that the standard rate, for
which all credit holders would qualify, would be 10 percent. He
offered that this rate represents a balance between both the
state's and the credit holders' interests; it would cover the
cost of capital as well as the state's financing cost and offer
a modest benefit to the state. Under "Option 2," the credit
holders would qualify for a lower interest rate of just over 5
percent; that percentage is based on today's market of 3.62
percent true interest rate cost plus 1.5 percent. He added that
as the time of issuance approaches, the percentage rate may vary
and DOR would notify the credit holders based on the market
conditions at the time. He restated the four scenarios
qualifying a credit holder for the 5.12 percent rate, as listed
under Option 2 on slide 12.
2:19:07 PM
COMMISIONER FISHER referred to slide 13, also a continuation of
the proposed solution. He relayed that the state would issue
bonds, and the bonds would have a ten-year term for the first
issuance. He stated that the bonds would have a back-loaded
debt service, meaning that in the first two years DOR
anticipates interest only, years three to five increasing debt
service, and years six through ten a flat payment to fully pay
off the debt. He mentioned that future bond issuances would
consist of interest only in years one through nine and a balloon
payment in year ten. It is expected that the discount would
cover the cost of debt service.
2:19:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked what protections the bond holders
would have for being reimbursed by the state.
COMMISIONER FISHER replied that the bonds would be subject to
appropriation; each legislature would have the opportunity to
appropriate the money to repay the debt. He opined that there
is a general appreciation for the state's obligation to
incurring and repaying debt. He maintained there is a moral
obligation and a strong presumption for the state's repayment of
the debt. He added that the interest rate is a little higher
than one with a general obligation (GO) bond; it reflects a
modest amount of appropriation risk for these debts.
2:21:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked what the bond holder's recourse
would be if future legislatures failed to appropriate the money.
COMMISIONER FISHER deferred the question to his DOR colleague.
2:22:20 PM
DEVEN MITCHELL, Debt Manager, Treasury Division, Department of
Revenue (DOR), responded that there would be no ability for the
lenders to extract funds from the State of Alaska. He added
that this situation would be different than other subject-to-
appropriation commitments. He mentioned that the lease for the
controversial [Anchorage Legislative Information (LIO)] building
was subject to appropriation; however, that lease was not
authorized by law. The bond commitment would be authorized by
stand-alone law; therefore, would represent a different level of
commitment by the legislature. He said that the municipal bond
market is recognized as a form of commitment that has the
state's good word behind it; a failure to pay would result in a
downgrading of the state's GO bond credit rating; and the
state's ability to access the capital market would be
restricted.
2:23:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for the current bond rating and the
expected decline of that rating should the legislature decline
to repay the debt.
MR. MITCHELL replied that the state has had subject-to-
appropriation commitments for many years, and there have been
many tough times; however, there have always been
appropriations. He maintained that the expectation is that
there will be payment on these bonds. He emphasized that the
bonds will not be issued if there isn't an expectation of
payment. He said that the state's current credit rating is
"double a, double a, double a three" from Standard and Poor's
Financial Services LLC (S&P) and Moody's Investor Service
(Moody's) respectively. If there is a failure of repayment, one
might expect a significant downgrade of the three ratings to a
low A category. He stated that, more importantly, the state
would be locked out of the capital markets. He said that
examples of that are Puerto Rico and Detroit.
2:25:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked what the security was behind the
[Anchorage LIO] building and whether the security consisted of
the state's "good name" only.
MR. MITCHELL replied that the legislature entered an operating
lease agreement regarding that building. He stated that to
acquire real property, the statutes require stand-alone
legislation that identifies the anticipated expenditure to
acquire the real property, the estimated annual payment, and the
total payment for the acquisition. With that stand-alone
legislation, comes the authorization to pledge the state's
credit. In this case, the loan would include information about
the state's balance sheet, the state's forecast, and such; the
lease would be one into which the State of Alaska would enter on
a more regular basis on an operating level, and it wouldn't
carry the same credit commitment [as for the bonds.] He added
that there are several reasons why the lease failed, but that is
the reason from DOR's perspective.
2:26:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked what recourse the creditors had when
the lease failed.
MR. MITCHELL offered his belief that the creditors sued the
state. He added that he did not know the outcome. He said that
he recently read an article in the Anchorage Daily News (ADN)
about a bank in Florida now owning the building and Alaska no
longer having an interest in the building.
MR. MITCHELL offered that there are layers of commitments that
the state can make, and the credit commitment, as is being
discussed in the present hearing, is very different from the
example of the building in Anchorage or default due to non-
renewal of a lease.
2:28:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether the state has made such a
credit commitment in the past.
MR. MITCHELL replied yes. He said that the state has made many
credit commitments on a subject-to-appropriation basis through
law. He added that most recently in 2015, the Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium's (ANTHC's) residential housing
facility in Anchorage was funded through a certificate of
participation via a stand-alone law.
2:28:49 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON referred to the letter to Senator Cathy
Giessel from Mr. Mitchell and Assistant Attorney General Bill
Milks, dated 3/2/18 and included in the committee packet. He
asked for DOR's position on the appropriateness of the proposed
legislation considering Article 9, Section 8 and Section 11, of
the Alaska State Constitution.
MR. MITCHELL restated that the question for discussion is the
constitutionality of the use of certificate of participation of
lease revenue bonds or subject-to-appropriation commitments. He
referred to the case, Carr-Gottstein Properties v. State [1991],
which was critical for determining that it is legal to allow
such obligations. He stated that the Alaska State Constitution
prohibits dedication of state revenues except where required by
federal law, where dedication was established prior to statehood
or through the creation of statehood, or for general obligation
funds. He relayed that it was determined that the subject-to-
appropriation clause and the requirement that the legislature
annually consider and make an appropriation for the payment of
the obligations excluded it from the limitations of the
constitution and allowed the financial structures to be deemed
legal. He suggested that the Department of Law (DOL) can
provide more detail.
2:31:55 PM
COMMISIONER FISHER referred to slide 14, entitled "Benefits of
Program" and relayed that the chart on the slide demonstrates in
numerical formula the repayment [schedule] under the different
scenarios. He directed attention to the second column, which
lists the statutory payments over time. He referred to the
columns entitled Cohorts 1,2,3, and 4 and relayed that they
represent the various years of financing. Cohort 1 consists of
the $807 million mentioned on slide 11; the chart shows two
years of interest only at about $27 million per year; three
years of increasing interest and principle amortization; and
five years at about $123 million per year. He continued by
saying that the subsequent cohorts - 2,3, and 4 - represent
interest only payments for each of the first nine years followed
by a bullet payment at the end to cover the outstanding amount.
COMMISIONER FISHER noted a couple of interesting features of the
program. The cost would be relegated to future years, which was
done by design and not to avoid addressing the [payment] issue
in the present. He stated two reasons for doing it thus: the
forecast is that revenues will grow over time, and the
outstanding deficit to the state will decline; and, more
importantly, the opportunities that the credit holders are
pursuing will not produce revenue until some point in the
future, therefore, moving the payment into the future puts the
payment and the benefit more in alignment with the period in
which the payments will be paid and the benefits of royalties
and tax revenues are realized by the state.
COMMISIONER FISHER relayed that the chart shows that in the
first five years, the aggregate payment is always less than what
the statutory payment would have been, which provides some
budgeting flexibility to the state for the next couple of years
as it continues to work on its fiscal plan. He called attention
to the bottom row of the chart, entitled "NPV5," to point out
that the entire scheme assumes that everyone qualifies for the 5
percent discount rate; if the discount rate is 10 percent, then
the amounts will be slightly less for the state. The net
present value (NPV) basis attempts to capture the notion that a
dollar five years from now is worth less today because of the
potential interest earned; in other words, money has a time
value.
COMMISIONER FISHER relayed that NPV tries to put all the money
streams into a current dollar value so that a comparison can be
made between the different streams. He said that the statutory
payment formula has an NPV of just under $810 million, as shown
at the bottom of the first column, whereas the payment stream
contemplated and shown at the bottom of the last column,
entitled "Aggregate Payment," shows an NPV of just over $780
million. He mentioned that the difference between the two is
about $27 million in the state's favor.
COMMISIONER FISHER related that the intent was not for this
amount to be a big gain to the state but to balance several
competing interests and be fair to everyone. He insisted that
DOR wants to assure the legislature, as well as all Alaskans,
that the discount rate that the credit holders accept would
compensate the state and Alaskans for the structure and the
interest that the state incurs.
2:36:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for clarification as to the discount
rate used in the chart.
MR. ALPER responded that the assumption behind the table is that
all the credits are sold at the lower discount rate; hence, the
larger amount of bonding, the larger payout to the taxpayer, and
more payments over time. If several credit holders accepted the
10 percent discount rate and didn't offer one of the four
additional benefits to the state [under Option 2], the amounts
would be smaller and, therefore, the state's incremental gain
would be slightly more.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for the amount that next year's
dollar is worth compared to this year's dollar.
MR. ALPER responded that the assumption is that a dollar gains 5
percent per year or roughly the equivalent of the state's cost
of capital. He added that if the state had $809.75 million and
set it aside in a 5 percent interest earning account, the state
could pay that $946 million worth of statutory appropriations
over time; likewise, the state could make the bond payments by
setting aside $783 million using the same 5 percent investment
pool.
2:38:06 PM
COMMISIONER FISHER referred to slide 15, entitled "Impact on
debt capacity and credit rating." He said that the obligations
are already listed as debt on the state's Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report (CAFR) - the state's balance sheet; therefore,
because one form of obligation would be converted into a
different form of obligation, there would be limited impact on
the state's credit rating. He turned to the numbers on slide
16, also entitled "Impact on debt capacity and credit rating,"
to demonstrate the impact of the state's existing debt. He
mentioned that the 3.8 percent for FY18 listed under the third
column - "State G.O. Debt Service" - represents the percent of
the state's unrestricted general funds that are GO bond debt
service. Also listed on the chart are other state supported
debts, school reimbursement, and the Public Employees'
Retirement System (PERS)/Teacher Retirement System (TRS)
obligations, which [for FY18] add up to 17.5 percent, shown
under the seventh column, entitled "Subtotal: Current
Obligations without Tax Credits." Looking down that column, the
percentages grow to just under 25 percent before dropping back
down to about 20 percent.
COMMISIONER FISHER drew attention to the eighth column, entitled
"Statutory Payment of Tax Credits," and explained that these
percentages represent what the tax credits would be under the
state's current obligations. He pointed out they are
substantial in the next few years. In FY19 the tax credits
would consume just over 8 percent of the unrestricted general
funds (UGF), bringing the total payment obligations up to 31
percent. He stated that under the proposed solution, the tax
credit debt service payment, shown in the second to the last
column, starts low at just over 1 percent of UGF, and grows to
over 4 percent and levels off. He referred to the far-right
column, entitled "Total: Current Obligations with Credit Bond
Payments," to point out the more even distribution over time of
the debt service as a percent of the UGF. He stated his belief
that this plan represents a prudent method of restructuring the
obligation: it would level the amount over time; it would
provide some opportunity for the legislature to level out the
obligation and address priorities that are currently pressing at
this time; and it would be viewed favorably by the credit
agencies.
2:42:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked for alternate calculations for
slides 14 and 16 based on the actual rate of payment, not just
the hypothetical rate of payment.
COMMISIONER FISHER asked for clarification of what is meant by
"alternative calculations."
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH responded that he is looking for the tax
credit rate payable according to the co-chair of the House
Finance Committee (FIN) and the Legislative Finance Division.
COMMISIONER FISHER, responded that slide 14 represents the
administration's interpretation of statute; Legislative Legal
and Research Services has indicated that the statutory
interpretation is ambiguous. He emphasized that the statutory
interpretation is not something that came about as an attempt to
justify the program: it has been the interpretation for several
years; it has been published in the state's revenue sources book
for several years; and it has been debated on the floor by the
members of both houses and treated as the correct statutory
interpretation. He relayed that he believes the interpretation
to be correct and does not believe it should be reinterpreted.
He stated that he is concerned that consistency be maintained.
2:45:20 PM
MR. ALPER relayed that the statutory appropriation language
discusses the [AS 43.55.011] calculation; the actual tax itself
is based on 35 percent of production tax value of net profits,
which is the percentage currently in law. He said that as
prices have increased, the use of the per barrel credit to
offset them has grown, as seen in the last several forecasts.
He stated, "The alternate appropriation that the [FIN] co-chair
was using would have subtracted the per barrel credit from that
number to get to the ... actual tax received - the net received
- and take a percentage of it." He added that even if that was
the legal determination, which DOR personnel do not believe it
is - it is the position of DOR that it is not in the state's
best interest. He said that delaying the payments for 15-20
years would have "seismic" ramifications inside the oil
industry. He opined that the level of uncertainty - knowing
that they would not get paid for over a decade - would drive
companies that are currently "on the edge" over the edge into
bankruptcy, which would not be in the state's interest. The
companies would then lose their leases and the leases would find
their way back to the major producers. He maintained that the
intent of the program was to diversify the North Slope and bring
new players into Alaska, and having the leases revert to the
major producers would upend a decade of work by the state.
MR. ALPER, in response to Representative Parish, said that DOR
could do the calculation as requested but stressed that doing so
would change "both sides of the equation." He referred to slide
14 and offered the hypothetical of smaller payments over a
longer period. He said that the proposed legislation has a
mechanism to calculate the payout based on the statutory
interpretation of a higher payout; in other words, when the
company expects to receive $25 million per year over four years,
that includes the assumption that the larger formula is being
used. If the alternate formula were used, that same company
would get $10 million per year over 10 years. Without the deep
compounding rate, a company, instead of getting $87 or $93
million, might be getting $40 or $30 million from the state,
therefore, would probably not participate in the program, which
would cause the program to fail. Secondly, the state would be
borrowing a smaller amount of money. The payment amounts on the
last column on slide 14 would be smaller because the state would
have borrowed less money; therefore, there would be a difference
in the NPV5 amount in the state's favor, but the amounts on both
the Statutory Payment Schedule column and the Aggregate Payment
column would be dramatically smaller.
2:48:53 PM
COMMISIONER FISHER turned to slide 17, entitled "Conclusion: Oil
& Tax Credit Solution," and said that the intent of the program
was to try to balance several competing interests. He offered
that firstly, the goal was to provide an economic stimulus to
the state's oil industry, which has been the hardest hit sector
with more than 30 percent reduction in employment. He pointed
out that not just the oil industry has suffered, and as the oil
industry improves, it will have a multiplier effect on other
dimensions within the state economy. He maintained that within
the framework of providing a stimulus, DOR wanted to take an
action that would benefit the state in the short term by
reducing the current fiscal year's budget; it would offer a
discount rate to the credit holders, which would be budget
neutral in the long term. He continued by saying that secondly,
the proposal would support the small producers, allow them to
clean up their balance sheets, attract capital from other
sources, invest again, and employ Alaskans. These are the
companies that the state attracted by offering credits in order
to diversify and increase competition in the oil industry. He
stated that lastly, the proposal represents a strong statement
from the State of Alaska that it intends to be an oil and gas
exploration and production partner. The state is offering a
solution that is mature and sophisticated - one that balances
all the interests and in which all parties share in "the pain."
2:51:21 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON opened public testimony on HB 331.
2:51:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked that the "reputational issues"
mentioned on slide 17 be addressed.
COMMISIONER FISHER referred to the box on the right of slide 3
to point out that the state had marketed the tax credit program.
He maintained that it is appropriate to recognize that the state
had a statutory framework, but also to recognize that the state
made statements that were intended to attract companies to
Alaska. He added that as the state has deviated from some of
the expectations, even though not legal commitments, the state's
reputation does suffer somewhat. He emphasized that he is not
suggesting that the state disadvantages itself to protect its
reputation. The proposed legislation offers a solution that
balances the cost burden. He conjectured that the state bears
the least cost in the scenario, because the state's cost is
covered by the discount that the credit holders are accepting.
He maintained that the state's credibility would be enhanced by
the proposed program.
2:54:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed his appreciation for DOR's
efforts.
2:54:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH suggested that a direct payoff to the
lender is more favorable to the state.
COMMISIONER FISHER responded that the goal of the proposed
program is not to maximize the value to the state, but to
eliminate companies' debts in a manner fair to the state and
fair to the credit holders. He mentioned that the testimony
from ING indicated that a payoff such as Representative Parish
suggests might preserve ING's financial standing; however, ING
wants to see the companies succeed and wants to continue its
lending relationships with the companies. He conceded that a
program could have been designed that would have resulted in a
larger discount to the state; however, he does not believe that
a program with, for example, a 30 percent discount would have
cleared all the debts. Many credit holders have already
indicated that even the 10 percent discount is too high. He
also expressed his belief that a 30 percent discount would
result in a longer recovery time for companies, delaying
production and employment. He reiterated that the intent was
not to maximize the value to the state but to balance multiple
objectives, as shown on slide 3.
2:57:27 PM
KARA MORIARTY, President/CEO, Alaska Oil and Gas Association
(AOGA), paraphrased from the following written testimony
[original punctuation provided]:
Co-Chair Josephson, Co-Chair Tarr, members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
House Bill 331. For the record, my name is Kara
Moriarty and I am the President/CEO of the Alaska Oil
& Gas Association, commonly referred to as "AOGA."
AOGA is a private trade association that represents
the majority of oil and gas producers, explorers,
refiners, and transporters of Alaska's oil and gas.
The following testimony reflects the opinion of our
membership.
AOGA supports an expedited resolution this year to
refund the earned credits. Companies earned these
credits by investing hundreds of millions of dollars
to hire Alaskans for the exploration and production of
oil. The delay in the rebates has damaged the state's
reputation and chilled future investment; caused
projects to be shelved, resulting in negative economic
impacts to the state and local communities; and many
Alaskans are now out of work, especially within the
oil and gas industry.
AOGA believes the state should honor all outstanding
earned tax credits in full, and in as expedited
process as possible. The Governor's bill is an
innovative approach that seeks to refund a portion of
the earned credits via bonding to raise the money,
then refunding the credits at a reduced rate. The
Governor proposes to lower the refunding rate to cover
the state's bond finance costs. AOGA has concerns
about the steep discount rates and other provisions of
the bill. But AOGA is committed to working with the
administration and legislature to finding an equitable
solution it's simply too important. AOGA does
applaud the administration for acknowledging that
refunding these payments is a critical step this year.
AOGA supports an equitable plan that will refund the
entirety of the earned credits this year: Let's send a
strong signal to investors that Alaska is open for
business and attract much needed new investment to
employ Alaskans, produce more oil, and drive Alaska's
economy forward. Thank you.
3:00:31 PM
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director, Governmental and Legislative
Affairs, Teamsters Local 959, testified in support of HSB 331.
She expressed her belief that the proposed legislation is an
innovative solution providing certainty for those operators who
are looking to attract new investment and to the state in the
current uncertain financial times. She stated that the state
would pay less under the tax credit bond proposal, putting less
strain on the state's current fiscal crisis and providing "face-
saving" in respect to the promises that were made in the past.
Her organization believes that the proposed legislation
represents an important message: that Alaska is true to its
word even in tough times. She concluded by saying that HB 331
would not place an undue burden on the state's fiscal budget,
would support small producers, would encourage investment in
Alaska, and would provide an opportunity for new jobs in the
state. She opined that HB 331 is a win for the members she
represents, all Alaskans, the state, and the operators.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON relayed some housekeeping information.
3:04:08 PM
JOE MATHIS testified in support of HB 331. He stated that he
worked in the resource development industry and is the owner of
a small business in the Matanuska-Susitna (MAT_SU) Valley. He
offered two reasons for supporting HB 331: integrity and
commitment. He said that integrity is defined as adherence to a
moral and ethical principle and soundness of moral character.
He stated that commitment follows integrity. He maintained that
in his personal experience, one's integrity and one's word, or
commitment, is paramount. He opined that the state has lost the
respect of the financial and business community and needs to
regain faith in its integrity and its commitments. The
legislature has a great opportunity to repair the damage done to
its integrity. He said that Alaska is about to embark on a
major trade mission with a potential partner and overseas
investor. He emphasized that potential partners and investors
will look for integrity. He maintained that in the national and
worldwide financial communities, Alaska ranks dead last as a
place to do business. He stated that he worked 28 years for a
company whose core values were: honesty and integrity governing
its activity, commitments fulfilled, and people treated with
dignity and respect. He maintained that these core values are
applicable to government as well. He conceded that the proposed
legislation does not completely fulfill its original commitment,
but it does signal that the state wants to restore and repair
its integrity and its commitment.
3:07:39 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON, after ascertaining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
[HB 331 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB331 Credit Bonds for HRES 4-2-18.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Version A.PDF |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Fiscal Note -DNR-DOG 1.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Fiscal Note-DOR-TAX 2.5.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Supporting Document - DOR.LAW 3.2.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Sectional Analysis 3.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/10/2018 8:00:00 AM |
HB 331 |
| HB331 Supporting Document - Letter of Support 3.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 331 |
| HRES BP Energy Outlook 2018 Presentation 4.4.18.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
Oil and Gas |
| HB 397 Version J 4.4.18.PDF |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 397 |
| HB 397 Surcharge on Crude Oil Arctic Trans Sponsor Statement V-O 4.4.18.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 397 |
| HB 397 Surcharge on Crude Oil Arctic Trans Draft CS Version O 4.4.18.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 397 |
| HB 397 Surcharge on Crude Oil Arctic Trans - Sectional Analysis V-O 4.4.18.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 397 |
| HB 397 Surcharge on Crude Oil Arctic Trans -Letter of Intent 4.4.18.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 397 |
| HB 397 Fiscal Note - DOR-TAX 3.31.18.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 397 |
| 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 Version A 1.18.17.PDF |
HRES 3/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/19/2018 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 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 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 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 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 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 Residential Hunters AK Letter of Support HB 260.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
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 |
| DNR HB397 4.4.18 Presentation.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 397 |
| HB 397 Conditional Oil Surcharge Sponsor Statement 4.4.18.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 397 |
| AOGA Testimony - HB 331 - 4.4.2018.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/6/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/7/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/9/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 331 |
| HB 397 Sponsor Presentation 4.4.18.pdf |
HRES 4/4/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 397 |