Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
03/10/2014 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| 344 | |
| HB334 | |
| HJR30 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 334 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 344 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 351 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 334-OIL & GAS TRANSFERABLE TAX CREDIT CERT.
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 334, "An Act relating to the qualified
oil and gas service industry expenditure credit; and relating to
a credit against oil and gas exploration, production, and
pipeline transportation property taxes."
1:08:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LANCE PRUITT, Alaska State Legislature, stated
that he will speak to the work draft for HB 334, Version U
[labeled 28-LS1407\U, Nauman, 3/4/14 and not yet before the
committee]. Relating the reason for his introducing HB 334, he
said he visited the [Alaska Ship and Dry Dock, Inc. shipyard] in
Ketchikan this past summer. During this visit he discovered the
shipyard facility could not use a tax credit the legislature
passed last year [to AS 43.20.049]. He explained that the tax
credit requires the party must be a taxpayer to qualify, but a
government entity, the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority (AIDEA) owns the actual yard. He discussed this with
Mike Pawlowski, Department of Revenue (DOR), who suggested a
possible remedy for an entity that is not a state taxpayer
without providing a blanket exemption. After some discussion,
he developed the work draft [Version U]. It would apply a
credit to the state property tax on the asset by the owner. The
owner could take a credit over five years, although the credit
cannot reduce the tax to less than zero. It would also include
an option for a municipality to use the credit. He described a
scenario that illustrated how Seward's Ship Dry Dock [and Ship's
Chandlery] might also be interested in the tax credit. He
stated the goal of HB 334 is to ensure that as many Alaskans as
possible have an opportunity to participate in what he viewed as
the "renaissance" from SB 21 and bring manufacturing back home
to Alaska.
1:13:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 334, Version U, labeled 28-LS1407\U,
Nauman, 3/4/14, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version U was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON remarked that [SB 21] acknowledges that
North Slope companies often order equipment to be built in the
Lower 48 or another country. The goal of [SB 21] was to provide
an incentive that would provide jobs for Alaskans and that if
the product was produced in Alaska, the company could obtain a
tax credit.
1:15:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER related his understanding that HB 334
would allow a transferable tax credit for improvements to the
tangible personal property under AS 43.20.049 to be applied
against taxes under AS 43.56. He asked the reason to allow the
tax credit to property tax since the broader interpretation
would allow the tax credit against corporate income tax,
production tax, or property tax liabilities.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT deferred to the bill drafter.
EMILY NAUMAN, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, replied
the question raised by Representative Hawker is completely a
policy call.
1:16:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER, referring to the difference between the
original version of the bill and Version U, said that the
original version of HB 334 limited the tax credit to the initial
purchaser of the tangible personal property. He offered his
belief that Version U broadens this substantially by allowing
the tax credit to be traded freely on the open market
DIRK CRAFT, Staff, Representative Lance Pruitt, Alaska State
Legislature, stated that the initial language was more limiting.
He explained that Version U was broadened to make it applicable
to anyone associated with the property. He related his
understanding that the tax credit is still limited to anyone
associated with the property.
1:17:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER questioned whether that allowance is in
the [bill]. He read from AS 43.20.052 (a), as follows:
A person that is entitled to take a credit under AS
43.20.049 that wishes to transfer the unused credit to
another person may apply to the department for a
transferable tax credit certificate.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER said that any restriction to "another
person" would not exist.
MR. CRAFT replied correct.
1:18:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further clarification on the
reason to allow the credit to be applied to property tax
liability instead of limiting the tax credit to corporate income
tax liability. He didn't think the language in the bill would
limit the tax credit to the construction.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT answered that the genesis for allowing tax
credits against the property tax liability was to avoid creating
a tax credit similar to the film tax credit that could be
applied by someone without an existing tax liability. He
related a scenario to illustrate how a company might build
something yet not have a tax liability. This would allow not
only the major investors but also the service industry to
benefit. These parties may own the asset but not have a tax yet
Version U would allow them to apply tax credits to their
personal property tax liability.
1:21:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seems like the tax credit is so
broadly applied that it doesn't limit the tax credit to the
party who owns the asset. The tax credits could apply to
someone who builds something but if the company doesn't have any
corporate tax liability, the tax credit could be transferred to
anyone who has a property tax liability. Further, it doesn't
seem to be limited just to oil and gas properties. He asked if
the tax credit will be limited to oil and gas properties or if
it will include other properties as well.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT answered that the intent was to apply the
tax credit to the oil and gas industry, although it is a policy
call if the committee wants to go beyond the industry. The bill
evolved due to recognition of some limitations to the tax
credit. He hoped that companies in places like Southeast Alaska
and Seward could participate in the oil development that occurs
in other parts of the state.
1:22:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER understood that, as written, Version U
would allow the tax credit to be applied against taxes levied
under AS 43.56. He said the title of the chapter is oil and gas
exploration, production, and pipeline transportation property
taxes, which provides a broad scope for the industry since it
includes pipeline transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed.
1:23:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON understood the tax credit could be used by
someone building modules, but it will have to be transferred to
the oil companies or to someone with pipeline taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT replied yes. He explained that Vigor
Industrial and Alaska Ship and Dry Dock, Inc. do not have any
tax liability to the state. Thus, the bill would make the tax
credits transferable to any company producing their products.
1:25:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI understood that an oil and gas
corporation that is making money under AS 43.20 would have a
transferable tax credit that could be purchased by a company in
the same field to apply towards the company's property tax
liability.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT believed it would be applicable.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI surmised that a North Slope oil and gas
company could go to a Fairbanks or Anchorage company and use the
tax credit to reduce property taxes for their related
facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT acknowledged that he raises a good point
that a company in Fairbanks might be able to reduce its property
tax liability.
1:26:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled that often small companies cannot
use the tax credit, unless they are oil and gas companies, so
the parties must transfer these credits. He wondered how this
would stimulate in-state manufacturing if the parties must
transfer their tax credits - probably at a discount - to gain
any benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT suggested Vigor Industrial, Inc. may be
able to address the question.
1:29:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that the
company will obtain a discount by having the product made in
Alaska, which could encourage manufacturing in Alaska. It will
provide the indirect benefit by creating manufacturing jobs in
Alaska even though it might not directly benefit the
manufacturer.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered her understanding that the tax
credit would only apply to oil and gas property taxes due to the
state and not to municipal tax liabilities.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT said yes, but said the goal is to allow an
option to use the tax credits for municipal property taxes.
1:31:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related a scenario to illustrate the tax credit
limitations for an oil and gas company when contracting with a
manufacturer to produce something for a North Slope project.
The oil and gas company would be limited to no more than $10
million in tax credits in any year, although the company can
hold the tax credits in up to five successive tax years.
However, under Version U, the question is whether the tax credit
is transferrable and if an oil and gas company can transfer tax
credits in excess of $10 million to another company to use.
1:33:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for clarification on the language in
Version U that allows an option for taxpayers in other
communities to use the tax credit.
MR. CRAFT replied that the option is under discussion but is not
yet in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT agreed. He acknowledged that is the
intent, but the bill is a work in progress.
1:34:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 2 of the fiscal note that
states the department cannot determine the amount of tax credits
that may be claimed by taxpayers as the department currently has
no information about the amount of this type of activity in the
state. She wondered whether the department could provide a
general idea of the impact since this could amount to millions
of dollars in tax credits.
MATT FONDER, Director, Tax Division, Department of Revenue
(DOR), responded that Representative Tarr's question is
difficult to answer. He explained that the manufacturing credit
under discussion was adopted under SB 21, which has not yet been
in effect for a full year so the department doesn't have any
solid information on the proposed tax credit.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT remarked that currently the state hasn't
been looking in-state for manufacturing, especially in terms of
maritime oil and gas development. He said if the state allows
someone to manufacture offshore platforms or other equipment in
the state, it could then potentially impact the state's
revenues.
1:37:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER recalled prior discussions during the
legislative process on SB 21, about who would be qualified to
take the corporate income tax credit. It was envisioned the
credit would seldom be used. He further recalled conversations
about limiting the applicability of the front-loaded tax credits
that had unbalanced the tax system. He wondered if this bill
would change the intent of SB 21. He proffered that HB 334
would substantially increase applicability of this tax credit,
but seems to go against the philosophy for development of SB 21.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT remarked that he didn't necessarily
disagree. He introduced HB 334 since some areas of the state
currently cannot participate in the development of the state's
oil and gas resources. Certainly, it's important not to burden
the state in the capacity the state had under Alaska's Clear and
Equitable Share (ACES), but this seemed to create a way for
people to potentially use this tax credit, even if it only
allows a few people in Southeast Alaska to participate in oil
and gas development in Alaska. Additionally, it would allow the
state to use the shipyard, one of its assets, on a larger scale.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER absolutely agreed. One reason he liked
the original version of HB 334 is that he envisioned a
participant in the North Slope might have a corporate income tax
liability. However, taking the corporate income tax and making
it transferable to property taxes also creates some complexities
due to the interplay between state and local property taxes. He
suggested that the sponsor may wish to ensure the bill targets
the parties it intends to benefit in the most efficient way.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT answered "duly noted."
1:43:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI shared some of the concerns mentioned in
terms of local taxation issues. He asked for further
clarification on what constitutes a modification.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT deferred to the DOR.
1:44:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said his reading of this is that the oil
service industry could build a pipeline from the west side of
Cook Inlet to the Tesoro Refinery to use the tax credit. He
asked for further clarification on whether this bill would mean
10 percent of the pipeline would be eligible.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT answered no; the intent is not any work
that is done, but whether the asset is manufactured or modified
at the facility in-state, pointing out a pipeline wouldn't be
manufactured in-state.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he will go back and review the
constraints on SB 21 expenditure credits. He was unsure whether
a service industry would qualify for tax credits if a gas
treatment plant was built on the North Slope.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER clarified the credits relate only to
tangible personal property.
1:46:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON recalled the purpose of SB 21 was to
apply against corporate income tax. He recalled the goal was to
encourage companies to become corporations, which could increase
the tax rolls. However, he wondered if this would run afoul of
the interstate commerce if the state offers a discount beyond a
normal discount for in-state purchase.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON suggested there could be optional
language inserted to avoid problems with interstate commerce
since she didn't currently see that language in the bill.
1:48:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, recalling the state couldn't go above a
certain number for local hire, wondered whether the threshold
was at 10 or 15 percent or 50 percent before the state would
have issues with federal interstate commerce. He said he would
be curious how that relates to projects.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT deferred to the legislative attorney. In
terms of encouraging companies to become corporations and pay
corporate income tax, he suggested the bill was another way to
allow LLCs to benefit. He did not see a way for companies like
Vigor Alaska to qualify for tax credits which is the reason he
was looking towards using tax credits to offset personal
property taxes.
1:50:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER opened public testimony on HB 334.
1:50:51 PM
FRED KIGA, Senior Vice President, Vigor Alaska, Vigor
Industrial, Inc., testified in support of HB 334 and thanked
members for considering the concept embodied in HB 334. He said
that Vigor reviewed SB 21 last year in terms of ways to enhance
tangible personal property for oil and gas development and
production. Over a six-month period, Vigor held discussions
with Mike Pawlowski of DOR to consider a variety of ways to
frame tax credits designed to enhance employment for Alaskans
and economic development in Alaska. Ultimately, using a
property tax credit under AS 43.56 seemed to be the way to
develop that concept. He acknowledged that "it's somewhat
squishy" when considering the production income tax credit and
whether companies have tax nexus for purposes of using it.
MR. KIGA said parties with tangible property are generally
subject to the state property taxes. In terms of out-of-state
oil and gas companies, the provisions of AS 43.56 provide a
credit against expenses going forward. From the 10,000 foot
level, this concept could help oil and gas companies evaluate
the economic cost of whether to invest or use an in-state
manufacturer to create an asset. He stated this as the goal of
HB 334 and the direction he hoped the legislature would take.
1:53:55 PM
DOUG WARD, Director, Shipyard Development, Vigor Alaska, Vigor
Industrial, Inc. (Vigor), stated he has been associated with the
Ketchikan Shipyard for over twenty years. He lauded the pride
and joy that young workers have in building ships in Alaska. He
highlighted some challenges his company faces as a shipbuilder
in Alaska. He offered his belief that Alaska has one of the most
modern shipbuilding factories in North America due to the
partnership that exists between AIDEA, the community of
Ketchikan, and industry. Certainly, that's true in Ketchikan,
given the size of the Ketchikan shipyard. This facility not
only focuses on the best practice for facility design and
infrastructure, but also on the human workforce development
plan. As of 2013, the company employs 161 productive workers,
of which 13 percent are women. The shipyard project began as an
economic development project through AIDEA. It initially was a
DOT&PF maintenance facility, but ship building and repairs began
once AIDEA took it over.
1:55:42 PM
MR. WARD advised that the shipbuilding component provides year-
round stability for the workforce and a stable economic base for
seasonal boat repairs. He detailed shipbuilding at the
facilities, such that the shipyard built two airport ferries for
the Ketchikan airport, a marine fueling station for the Olympics
in Vancouver, the Susitna ferry, and an ice-strength twin-hull
vessel destined for service in Cook Inlet, which may ultimately
operate on the North Slope serving the oil and gas industry due
to the ice-breaking capabilities. Additionally, the shipyard
has completed building a longliner destined for the Bering Sea.
MR. WARD said as Vigor looks forward, HB 334 could accelerate
the state's return on its investment in the shipyard. He stated
that an influx of businesses are moving to Ketchikan, noting
that two naval architecture firms recently opened offices in
Ketchikan. Additionally, two international marine electronics
firms are looking to open shops in Ketchikan. However, the
vendor base is lacking in Alaska as compared to the Gulf of
Mexico or Puget Sound. He emphasized that Vigor believes HB 334
will help to move the company to participate in the oil and gas
industry sooner and it will encourage additional customers to do
business in Alaska, such as marine operators who buy ships and
operate vessels. Further, HB 334 could be valuable to those
types of customers, he said. Vigor has also been looking at the
Seward shipyard since Cook Inlet has begun taking off.
1:58:18 PM
MR. WARD anticipated that HB 334 could help small liquefied
natural gas (LNG) projects in the future. He clarified that it
could potentially reduce costs by 20-30 percent in the
distribution of the small LNG projects by using marine transport
to move products throughout the state, which in turn could
stimulate more manufacturing in Southeast Alaska. Since these
assets are expensive and time-consuming to build, HB 334 could
be a useful financing tool for shipbuilding in Alaska.
1:59:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR recapped that current projects wouldn't
qualify but this bill might encourage more activity to occur.
MR. WARD answered absolutely. Currently the oil and gas
industry defaults to the Gulf of Mexico, with nearly 60 years of
oil and gas experience. He characterized the Gulf of Mexico
area as a very mature industry with competitive shipyards. As
the state works towards building industrial activity, it faces
obstacles in Alaska, such as great distances between population
bases, the lack of a vendor base, more onerous environmental
regulations than in the Gulf of Mexico, and higher labor rates.
He surmised that the workers are paid 40 percent more in
Southeast Alaska than in the Gulf of Mexico region. Thus, these
types of tax credits could help encourage people to use Alaska
manufacturers in the future, noting, of course, that the
activity would need to meet the definition of modification or
manufacturing as defined by the DOR.
2:01:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR understood some physical limitations could
exclude Alaska from being involved in some of the projects. She
asked for further clarification on Alaska's shipyard size
limitations.
MR. WARD responded that those with manufacturing capacity in the
state need to be selective on projects as the industry moves
into the oil and gas arena. For example, the Ketchikan shipyard
is limited to building an optimal 250-foot vessel, although the
shipyard could accommodate a 500-foot vessel. Considerations
companies will make will be to assess services available in any
community and what the facility is designed to build. He
anticipated significant opportunities in shipbuilding in the
next 10-20 years. Once Alaska reaches the vendor base and
scale, the state could be looking at larger projects, he said.
2:03:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE inquired what types of projects does the
shipyard envision manufacturing and how would these projects fit
under the definition of qualified oil and gas service industry
expenditures [under HB 334].
MR. WARD said representatives of ExxonMobil Corporation, Inc.
will visit the shipyard in the near future to discuss projects
for Point Thomson. One opportunity could be to manufacture
1,000 gallon double-walled storage tanks. Additionally, on the
main transportation side, small LNG carriers - cryogenic ships -
are being developed in Norway to distribute gas to small
communities. He suggested a series of barges with cryogenic
containers could be dropped off in coastal communities on a
monthly basis. He anticipated that Vigor will also consider
articulated tug and barge setups, potentially performing some
work at liquefaction plants or re-liquefaction plants, as well
as providing the marine transportation component of distributing
gas in the state.
MR. KIGA added that as oil and gas exploration develops on the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, the likelihood exists that some of
the supply vessels that accompany the drill rigs could stop for
service at Ketchikan or Seward shipyards. He acknowledged this
assumes the activity will meet the definition of modifications
or manufacturing under the existing statutes. If so, these
activities could also qualify for the tax credits.
2:05:51 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked for the size of the small LNG carriers.
MR. WARD anticipated that the ship sizes range from 250 to 650
foot LNG carriers, although he was unsure of the exact capacity.
He characterized them as being relatively small LNG carriers and
within his company's range to build in Ketchikan.
2:07:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER thanked the committee for furnishing a
copy of AS 43.20.049. He said that this statute allows a
taxpayer to apply a credit against the tax due under this
chapter, which relates to corporation income tax, against a
qualified oil and gas service industry expenditure incurred in
the state. He said the definition of "qualified oil and gas
service industry expenditure" means an expenditure directly
attributable to an in-state manufacture or in-state modification
of tangible personal property used in the exploration for,
development of, or production of oil or gas deposits, but does
not include components or equipment used for or in the process
of that manufacturing or modification.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER questioned layering this tax credit. He
related a scenario to illustrate the point that not only does an
oil and gas operator incur expenditures with vendors, but those
vendors are doing business with other vendors, who in turn are
conducting business with yet other vendors. He wondered whether
the language in SB 21 or HB 334 clearly states that the intent
is to offer one tax credit against tangible personal property.
Although this question might be considered rhetorical, he would
like the record to be clear that HB 334 intends to offer one tax
credit to a single tangible personal property. He suggested
that the language in HB 334 might need to be clarified.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Revenue (DOR), offered to discuss the underlying
statute. First, the nexus to the definition of tangible
personal property used in the exploration for, development of,
or production of oil or gas was written specifically because
it's a nexus to the property tax statute. He said that AS 43.56
levies oil and gas property taxes at a statewide level on
tangible personal property used so it was the manufacture of
something that was going to create a tax base in the state to
begin with. Secondly, he referred to the language in AS
43.20.049(c), which prevents the expenditure from being used for
a deduction against the tax levied under this chapter or a
credit or deduction under another provision of this title. In
Representative Hawker's example of an exploration company, with
the "loss carry forward" which he reminded the committee
retained in SB 21 for the benefit of new entrants, along with
the exploration credits "on the books, at least in middle earth
for a little while," the use of that expenditure for a producer
or explorer is more valuable as a deduction or qualifying
expenditure for one of the other credits in this chapter. He
summarized that this was the limiting utility in the way the
underlying statute was drafted. This narrowly would apply to a
group that really is a corporate income taxpayer who might be
the service company working with the producer or explorer. He
offered a willingness to continue to work with the committee to
develop "sideboards" on the language. However, the limiting
factor in the development of the credit was to recognize that
the expenditures are more valuable in other places in statute,
he said.
2:12:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER appreciated the relative value of an
individual expenditure. He said that someone claiming the tax
credit will be limited to a one-time credit; however, a person
contracting with the company couldn't also claim the credit. He
suggested that at some point it will be necessary to fine tune
who actually is eligible for tax credit.
MR. PAWLOWSKI answered correct.
2:13:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER returned to [AS 43.20.049] (c), which
read:
An expenditure that is the basis of the credit under
this section may not be the basis for
(1) a deduction against the tax levied under this
chapter;
(2) a credit or deduction under another provision of
this title; or
(3) any federal credit claimed under this title.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER asked to parse through the language noting
subsection (c) relates to the corporate income tax, but
paragraph (1) clarifies that the taxpayer can't take a credit
and deduction at the same time. However, paragraph (2) would
preclude using the credit under AS 43.20.049 (c) as the basis
for a credit or deduction under another provision of this title.
He questioned whether a specific exemption is necessary in order
to allow the expenditure to be applied to AS 43.56. He pointed
out that the language in AS 43.20.049 (c) may have embedded a
prohibition against what HB 334 is doing.
MR. PAWLOWSKI responded by acknowledging that SB 21 was narrowly
crafted last year and the decision to broaden the capability is
something the department must carefully think through.
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER commented on how difficult it can be to
interpret statutes over time.
2:16:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said if an oil company orders something
built for them, but the ten percent tax credit can't be used as
a deduction for anything else, it would have absolutely no
relative value. He asked for an example of how the tax credit
[under AS 43.20.049] could be applied. Certainly an oil company
wouldn't give away a 25 percent tax credit to manufacture
something for the field to subsequently receive a 10 percent tax
credit.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated the as introduced included language
that limited the transfer to the initial purchaser of the
tangible personal property, but Version U doesn't contain that
language. She asked whether the committee should consider
including that provision.
2:17:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER held public testimony open on HB 334.
[HB 334 was held over].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB334 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB334 Ver U Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB334 Version A.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB334 Version U Work Draft.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB334-DOR-TAX-03-07-14.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB351 AQRC Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Charles Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Frontiersman Article.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Gilmore Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Map.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Smith Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Superior Court SOP v. DNR.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Supreme Court SOP v. DNR Appeal.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Supreme Court SOP v. DNR.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351 Version A.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HB351-DNR-PKS-3-07-14.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HJR30 Coons Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 EIS ExecSum.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 KCA Press Release.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 KCG Letter to Sec Jewell.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Map.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Press Release 2.13.14.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Sen Murkowski letter to President Obama.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30 Version A.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HJR30-LEG-SESS-03-04-14.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |
| HB334 AS43.20.049.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 334 |
| HB351 Schmid Email.xps |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HB 351 |
| HJR30 Sen Murkowski HRES Testimony.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 30 |