04/02/2018 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB288 | |
| HB315 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 399 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 315 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 260 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 288 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 2, 2018
6:36 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative John Lincoln, Vice Chair
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Justin Parish
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative George Rauscher
Representative David Talerico
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mike Chenault (alternate)
Representative Chris Tuck (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 288
"An Act relating to the minimum tax imposed on oil and gas
produced from leases or properties that include land north of 68
degrees North latitude; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 315
"An Act relating to the confidentiality of certain records on
animals and crops; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 315(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 399
"An Act disallowing a federal tax credit as a credit against the
corporate net income tax; repealing a provision allowing the
exclusion of certain royalties accrued or received from foreign
corporations for purposes of the corporate net income tax;
repealing the reduced rate for the alternative tax on capital
gains for corporations; repealing an exemption from filing a
return under the corporate net income tax for a corporation
engaged in a contract under the Alaska Stranded Gas Development
Act; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 27
"An Act relating to chemicals that are of high concern for
children and to the manufacture and sale of products containing
certain flame retardant chemicals; relating to an interstate
chemicals clearinghouse; adding an unlawful act to the Alaska
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 260
"An Act relating to electronic possession of certain licenses,
tags, and identification cards issued by the Department of Fish
and Game; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 288
SHORT TITLE: OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION TAX
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
01/16/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/18 (H) RES, FIN
01/22/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
01/22/18 (H) Heard & Held
01/22/18 (H) MINUTE(RES)
01/26/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
01/26/18 (H) Heard & Held
01/26/18 (H) MINUTE(RES)
01/29/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
01/29/18 (H) Heard & Held
01/29/18 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/30/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/30/18 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/02/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 315
SHORT TITLE: CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/26/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/18 (H) JUD, RES
02/09/18 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/09/18 (H) Heard & Held
02/09/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/12/18 (H) JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120
02/12/18 (H) Moved HB 315 Out of Committee
02/12/18 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
02/14/18 (H) JUD RPT 3DP 2NR 1AM
02/14/18 (H) DP: KOPP, KREISS-TOMKINS, CLAMAN
02/14/18 (H) NR: LEDOUX, MILLETT
02/14/18 (H) AM: EASTMAN
03/02/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/02/18 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/16/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/16/18 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/18 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/21/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/21/18 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/23/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/23/18 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/26/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/26/18 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 3/27/18 at 6:30
pm--
03/27/18 (H) RES AT 6:30 PM BARNES 124
03/27/18 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
04/02/18 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented amendments and answered questions
during the hearing of HB 315.
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division(Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing of HB
315.
ROBERT GERLACH, VMD, State Veterinarian
Office of the State Veterinarian
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing of HB
315.
ACTION NARRATIVE
6:36:03 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. Representatives Tarr,
Johnson, Rauscher, Talerico, Lincoln, Drummond, Birch, and
Josephson were present at the call to order. Representative
Parish arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 288-OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION TAX
6:37:04 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 288, "An Act relating to the minimum tax
imposed on oil and gas produced from leases or properties that
include land north of 68 degrees North latitude; and providing
for an effective date."
6:37:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN moved to adopt the committee substitute
(CS) for HB 288, labeled 30-LS1155\D, Nauman, 3/27/18, as the
working document.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
6:37:29 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR passed the gavel to Co-Chair Josephson.
CO-CHAIR TARR provided a PowerPoint presentation entitled,
"House Bill 288 CS Version D Fairness in Oil Taxes." She began
her introduction of CS for HB 288, Version D, by reviewing
provisions of HB 288. The bill affects the oil and gas minimum
tax statute which is currently 4 percent of the gross value at
the point of production (GVPP); the original version of the bill
increased the minimum tax to 7 percent. She reminded the
committee the reason to propose this legislation is because
Alaska's effective tax rate is one of the lowest in the U.S. at
lower price levels (slide 1). Slide 2 illustrated the
difference in taxes collected at various minimum tax rates at an
oil price of $60 [per barrel]; for example, the current
severance tax collected by the state is approximately $2 per
barrel; at a minimum tax of 7 percent the state would collect
about $3.51. Co-Chair Tarr pointed out the proposed legislation
affects tax rates at lower oil prices, acknowledging that
industry seeks to react to higher or lower oil prices by
adjusting lease expenditures. Slide 3 listed three questions
related to the bill: how much profit per barrel; how many
barrels total; how much revenue to the state? Slide 4
illustrated various calculations based on the total production
of taxable barrels and royalty barrels, and she advised
production must rise over 100,000 new barrels per day to achieve
an increase in state revenue that would make a significant
impact on the state's financial situation. Slide 5 was a bar
graph that showed an estimated deficit of $2.7 billion, which
when adjusted to the [Tax Division, Department of Revenue,
Revenue Sources Book (RSB) Revenue Forecast: Spring 2018],
would be $2.3 billion. Slide 6 illustrated the current minimum
tax at oil prices from $25 to over $65 per barrel, and the
effects of changes made by HB 288 and CSHB 288, Version D. Co-
Chair Tarr observed an oil price of above $50 places industry in
a profit margin relative to "old spending," thus the proposed
increase impacts companies when they "have a little bit of
ability to make those adjustments."
6:43:32 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR continued to slide 7 that illustrated effective
severance tax rates paid by the industry in various [Lower 48]
states, and she acknowledged the difficulty in comparing Alaska
with other states due to its development costs. She returned
attention to slide 2 and noted Alaska's tax rate at $60 per
barrel oil prices, as a percentage of GVPP, is 4 percent;
however, tax as a percentage of production tax value (PTV) is
currently approximately 9 percent due to the net profit system.
Co-Chair Tarr directed attention to [Fiscal Note Identifier:
HB288-DOR-TAX-1-20-18, and a document entitled "Provisions in HB
288 with possible amendment ... Revised 3/27/18 by DOR, provided
in the committee packet]. She said the adjusted [fiscal note to
CSHB 288, Version D] indicated the total fiscal impact in FY 19
would be about $64 million; however, for later years, the impact
is similar to that of the original version of the bill. In
response to comments related to [the legislative working group,
which is a provision of House Bill 111, passed in the Thirtieth
Alaska State Legislature], she cautioned the working group may
not focus on increasing revenue but may seek to improve how the
tax system operates in order to enable the state to better
predict and understand oil and gas tax revenue. Further, Co-
Chair Tarr estimated the working group would not have a proposal
for a new tax structure in place before FY 22; she stressed the
importance of CSHB 288 is to address additional revenue for FY
19 through FY 21.
6:50:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said the proposed legislation is a bad
idea; he returned attention to slide 4 and pointed out the
royalty share is four times that of revenue from taxable
barrels. He expressed his concern a significant increase in the
taxable rate, and another change in the tax structure, would
adversely impact steady production on the North Slope. Further,
the bill would not encourage the investment that is needed to
sustain exploration; for example, a 100,000 barrel per day
increase would result in an increase in state revenue of $300
million. Representative Birch asked how the bill would
encourage or attract investment.
CO-CHAIR TARR said Alaska is a profitable jurisdiction for
Alaska businesses; in fact, BP reported Alaska businesses
garnered an annual profit of $118 million [letter/report/article
not provided]. She said the state must balance its competing
needs with other proposals that would benefit industry.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON recalled in 2013, when oil prices were
[higher], royalty barrel revenue was "sort of an afterthought,
in this calculus, and now they've become the dominant theme."
He questioned the projection of additional production shown on
slide 4.
6:54:08 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR acknowledged the most recent RSB does not predict
an increase [in production] and said she does not expect 100,000
barrels of new production "anytime soon."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for the basis of both the current
tax rate and the changes proposed in CSHB 288, Version D.
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled the tax rates originated from earlier
legislation: Senate Bill 21, [the More Alaska Production Act
passed in the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature] and House
Bill 2001, [Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES), passed in
the Twenty-Fifth Alaska State Legislature]. The minimum tax
structure established by ACES was 10 percent, which was lowered
to 4 percent in Senate Bill 21. However, at the time the
provisions of Senate Bill 21 were debated, oil prices were $110
per barrel thus there was not much discussion about the bill's
impact on state revenue at low oil prices over an extended
period of time. She characterized the impact of Senate Bill 21
as a "surprise." Co-Chair Tarr returned attention to slides 6
and 2 and provided a further explanation of how the minimum tax
rate is calculated and restated the intent of CSHB 288.
6:59:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed his concern about making
changes to "certain price points" instead of debating a change
to the tax structure system.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated the intent of the proposed legislation is
to not attempt a fundamental overhaul of oil and gas tax
statute; in fact, that is the purpose of the working group which
is a bipartisan and bicameral group that will consider
improvements to the tax structure. One of the important aspects
that will be reviewed is the per barrel tax credit which affects
the minimum tax as illustrated on slide 2.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned whether [oil and tax regime
legislative] consultants provided guidance for the proposed
legislation.
CO-CHAIR TARR said a consultant advised [HB 288] should be
changed to provide protection [for industry] in a low oil price
environment - when prices are $25 to $40 per barrel - as shown
on slide 6. She remarked:
... net profits means you get to deduct all of your
expenses before ... we consider any taxes but under a
net profit system in that price range, there's nothing
left to tax because the price is so low.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for further information related to
BP's financial position in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR TARR referred to a letter from BP
[letter/report/article not provided]. She said BP noted many
costs were not included [in the letter/report/article] related
to its profits, for example, operating the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System (TAPS). Co-Chair Tarr pointed out TAPS costs are
recouped by shipping tariffs and other deductions,
transportation costs are deducted, costs associated with
developing new projects are business decisions, and deductible
capital investment in Prudhoe Bay is necessary to produce oil.
She opined the proposed legislation is a stopgap measure to
address the state's situation over the next three years because
oil prices have not stabilized.
7:05:43 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON recalled in 2016, the administration proposed
an increase from 4 percent to 5 percent at a time when oil
prices were in the $40 to $55 range, which is consistent with
the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH returned attention to slide 7 and asked
whether the tax rates shown are based on GVPP.
CO-CHAIR TARR said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH surmised the effective tax rate paid by
industry [in Alaska] is around 4 percent.
CO-CHAIR TARR remarked:
... the minimum tax is a 4 percent tax at the gross
value of the point of production so, effectively, we
have a 4 percent gross tax right now.
CO-CHAIR TARR, in further response to Representative Parish,
said the [reduced taxes] are not entirely a result of the $8 per
barrel credit, but also because the per barrel credit is given
after deductions for transportation and lease expenditures, "and
then we apply the 35 percent tax rate so you reduce it by
essentially a third, and then you add the $8 per barrel credit,
so it's the order in which those things happen that makes that
per barrel credit have so much power to distort the math."
7:08:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked why Alaska's rates are low compared
with the tax rates of other states illustrated on slide 7.
CO-CHAIR TARR described some of Alaska's legislative history in
this regard. Turning to the issue of the stability [of Alaska's
tax policy], she cautioned Alaska could experience instability
from teacher strikes and a citizen's initiative in support of an
aggressive policy to increase oil and gas state revenue.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed her concern that the
committee's discussion of tax rates is driven by the state's
internal needs, rather than an external analysis of oil tax
policy in the world market. She cautioned against driving the
oil industry out of Alaska because the state cannot control its
spending and said she has read in the Wall Street Journal that
trade war worries are driving down the price of oil
internationally [document not provided]. Representative Johnson
restated her concerns about "stopgap, last-minute, tax policy
destabilization" late in the legislative session.
CO-CHAIR TARR observed HB 288 was introduced early in the
legislative session and the CS now proposed is in response to
present funding questions. She acknowledged the preceding
concerns and restated aspects of Alaska's present tax policy.
7:15:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH returned attention to slide 2 and pointed
out the state's royalty share is omitted. He said the 12.5
percent royalty share is a huge component and should not be set
aside or ignored; in fact, "you could have a, a great big high
tax and no production, and it doesn't matter." Representative
Birch opined the focus should be turned to production,
attracting investment to increase production, and exploration.
He restated royalty share is a very significant component that
is discounted and ignored too often.
CO-CHAIR TARR said, " ... a barrel is going to be a taxable
barrel or it's going to be a royalty barrel - one barrel is not
both things. So, [slide 2] is what's happening with taxable
barrels but that's why we've made sure to include [slide 4] so
folks can see the accompanying royalty barrels." She advised
one of the tasks for the working group would be to review other
jurisdictions because royalty rates are increasing on newer
leases. Other systems for the working group to consider are a
gross tax, an adjusted net profits tax, or that new leases, with
higher royalties, would negate debates about taxes.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH opined it is inaccurate to portray barrels
of oil as taxable barrels or royalty barrels. He said:
The barrels come out of the ground and there's an
allocation that for our royalty share and the taxable
component is ... they all come out of the ground at
the same time ... and I think it's fair to say that
that the more production you have the more royalty
revenue you have.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether there has been research to
determine the amount of a subsidy that would be required to lead
to an increase in production.
7:19:49 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR said according to DOR, the state has spent
approximately $6 billion on the tax credit program. She said
"some people" have buyer's remorse about the tax credit program
and referred to [House Bill 331, passed in the Thirtieth Alaska
State Legislature], the governor's [tax credit] repayment
program, which proposes a better rate for repayment if a company
reinvests in Alaska. In further response to Representative
Parish, she agreed it is unclear whether the tax credit program
is responsible for projects; in fact, one of the provisions of
Senate Bill 21 is the gross value reduction (GVR) on "new oil,"
and there was contention about whether GVR would apply to
projects that were new oil or that were already planned.
Further, House Bill 247 [passed in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State
Legislature] scaled back GVR by imposing a time limit. She
acknowledged decisions are made without enough information.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON observed the limitation on GVR oil was a
reform of Senate Bill 21.
CO-TARR agreed and pointed out the tax credit program was
repealed.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER gave several examples of infrastructure
that is only necessary during the winter season in Alaska and
that is provided by industry in an environmentally responsible
way. He cautioned against comparing the cost of oil and gas
extraction in Alaska to that of other states.
7:25:56 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR reminded the committee spending by industry falls
into two categories of lease expenditures, operating expenses
and capital expenses, thus some of the abovementioned
infrastructure costs would be included in capital expenditure
deductions. Also, because the winter season is shortening,
costs will rise as projects dependent upon ice roads and ice
platforms will be delayed. However, the state invested $10
million into the Arctic Strategic Transportation and Resources
(ASTAR) project, Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities, which seeks to develop a permanent road system; she
suggested investing in infrastructure instead of tax credits is
a better choice for the state.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said:
I just wanted to say that is probably why we fall in
where we do on this line [slide 7] of when you asked
why our percentage is the way it is - because of the
extra added cost.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded Alaska's [effective tax rate shown on
slide 7] is due to the state's hard minimum tax of 4 percent.
The chart [on slide 7] is not reflection of costs.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said Alaska could not afford a tax rate
equal to Wyoming's of 13.4 percent.
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled the original version of Senate Bill 21
provided for a 25 percent tax rate.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reviewed related topics from the previous
year such as: discussions about production; there was to be no
tax bill this session; there was increased production. In
January 2018, production was slightly down again. She said a
simple economic principle is that if a product is highly taxed,
there is less production. She suggested the proposal is
backwards, and to encourage production, the state should not
increase taxes as production goes up at higher prices.
Representative Johnson urged for more evaluation.
7:30:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO encouraged the committee to obtain a
production cost [analysis] for the various jurisdictions [listed
on slide 7]. He advised Alaska is in competition with the
Permian Basin in Wyoming; although Wyoming's effective tax rate
is 13.4 percent, the oil wells in the Permian Basin are within
70 miles of the refinery and the tankers, and Alaska's pipeline
[to marine transportation] is 800 miles long, which would
account for a difference in production cost. Representative
Talerico questioned whether the committee has access to a good
comparison [of production cost] that is sufficient to determine
an effective tax rate. Further, he related Northrim Bank
reported 2017 non-oil and gas construction spending in Alaska
was about $1.57 billion [document not provided]; however,
Representative Talerico said his constituents who work in the
oil industry reported even in a very low year, compared to 2013
and 2014, [in 2017] the industry spent $2.43 billion on oil and
gas construction projects throughout the state. He cautioned an
impact to [oil and gas industry spending] "goes well beyond the
oil and gas industry." He restated the importance of gathering
expense information and related his personal observations in
Texas and Wyoming. Additional information important to the
committee would be: spending by support services related
directly and indirectly to the industry, competitors'
construction spending, and industry reinvestment.
CO-CHAIR TARR said industry is not required to provide spending
plans or privileged tax information that would provide the
information needed to compile the [production cost] document
requested. She directed attention to the PowerPoint
presentation entitled, "Analysis of HB 288 Increase to Gross
Minimum Tax ...," dated 1/26/18 [previously provided in the
committee packet at the meeting of 1/26/18]. Slide 9 was a
revenue graph which illustrated minimum tax rates; slide 14
listed historical average tax rates; slide 18 indicated that the
effect of HB 288 on the [breakeven price] of oil would be $1.
7:36:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH remarked:
Earlier we had a presentation [document not provided]
from an oil and gas consultant regarding ... a
comparison if you will, . ... It's basically how much
the producers earn for $60 barrel of oil. This was a
basically by our legislative oil and gas consultant
... presentation in January. The west Texas shows
about a $31 ... producer earnings, it shows North
Slope at $12 and then new Alaska fields at [$1.50].
And I think that, you know, I'd be interested in how
the consultant ... we're using, how they would assess
this because this doesn't appear very attractive for
inducing new investment in my view ... and I'm
concerned that if we start, you know, cranking up ...
there's not a lot of room in here for .... And I
think even on the chart that you had there below $60,
under the prior tax regime ... we would have received
less than we're receiving today. ... [This]
represents the problem that we're up against here, is
that we have to make sure that we're doing the very
best we can to attract investment.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated information from DOR is that the production
tax value (PTV) [projected at an oil price of $60] would be
$23.35, and the tax would be [$8.17], which is all the
information that is available to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said, "This is based on the, our
legislative oil consultant and it's part of their oil and gas
"102 presentation ...." [document not provided].
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH expressed skepticism about trusting the
word of the oil and gas industry. He said industry
representatives successfully protect the interests of their
shareholders, and legislators must protect the interests of
[Alaskans]. He expressed his interest in knowing the effect of
Alaska's tax structure on industry's rate of investment and
production, and noted the proportion of nonresidents working on
the North Slope has never been higher. Representative Parish
restated his interest in obtaining "good data" on long-term
investment and productivity.
7:41:07 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opined it is difficult to glean the causal data
requested by Representative Parish because [oil] price has been
a dominant influence on industry investment; she acknowledged
oil and gas operations on the North Slope are expensive and more
difficult; however, its existing infrastructure was "paid for
many years ago." She observed DOR can provide a breakdown on
tax credits invested in projects that have - and have not - led
to new production, and extensively reviewed aspects of Alaska's
tax structure that she characterized as "mistakes."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON advised her constituents are greatly
affected by the oil industry thus she could not separate the
interests of the oil companies from that of the state; in fact,
for both of those interests "it goes hand-in-hand." She
supported the earlier request for a production forecast that
reflects "different things" and inquired as to whether an oil
and gas legislative consultant was available for testimony.
CO-CHAIR TARR said the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee
(JBUD) consultants are not available to testify on this
legislation; she related comments from an earlier private
conversation and offered to request authorization from JBUD
allowing the committee to ask questions of a legislative
consultant.
7:46:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stressed there are many unanswered
questions related to HB 288 and asked whether HB 288 was related
to [the administration's proposal to reimburse tax credits].
CO-CHAIR TARR said HB 288 and [the administration's proposal]
are two separate bills.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON opined the bill needs additional work.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH requested the committee execute an
agreement on the goals of an oil tax structure that would then
be submitted to a professional consultant with extensive
experience in the oil and gas industry, who could develop the
committee's goals into a long-standing tax structure.
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled a similar request in 2017 led to
[provisions in House Bill 111 that passed in the House but were
removed from the version passed by the Senate]. She said at
that time recommendations by the consultant were: delink tax
rates from oil prices; address the problems caused by where the
per barrel credit applies; reduce the base rate of 35 percent;
tax from PTV to retain a true net profits system; defer to
industry in a low-price environment; obtain much more
information to evaluate expenditures. Last year, one of the
unmet goals for House Bill 111 was to establish a tax system
that would be in place for five to ten years; however, due to
the amount of time needed to facilitate an overhaul of the tax
system, CS for HB 288 addresses only the minimum tax.
7:51:12 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON returned the gavel to Co-Chair Tarr.
7:53:20 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
There followed a short discussion on HB 315 and the committee
returned to HB 288.
7:53:33 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection to the motion to adopt the
committee substitute for HB 288. Without further objection,
Version D was adopted.
[HB 288 was held over.]
HB 315-CONFIDENTIALITY OF ANIMAL & CROP RECORDS
7:53:48 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 315, "An Act relating to the confidentiality of
certain records on animals and crops; and providing for an
effective date."
7:53:58 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled AM - 1,
2/14/18, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 2, line 7, following "law,":
Insert "(1)"
Page 2, line 11, following "public":
Insert ";
(2) the Department of Environmental
Conservation shall, at the request of the Department
of Natural Resources, disclose to the Department of
Natural Resources records necessary to implement
programs of the Department of Natural Resources
designed to increase consumer awareness and
consumption of Alaska agriculture products identified
by the "Alaska Grown" trademark; the Department of
Natural Resources shall maintain confidentiality of
the records disclosed under this paragraph"
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes.
7:54:33 PM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated that
Amendment 1, proposed at the request of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), would allow DEC to share with DNR
information from animal importation records held by the Office
of the State Veterinarian, Division of Environmental Health,
DEC; said information would allow the Division of Agriculture,
DNR, to verify the eligibility of Alaska meat producers who are
participating in the Alaska Grown program [administered by the
Division of Agriculture, DNR].
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON questioned whether the purpose of Amendment 1
would be to place this authority in the proper statute.
MS. CARPENTER said correct. Sharing the aforementioned
information would allow DNR to verify when, or if, an animal was
imported to confirm whether the animal or animals are eligible
for the certification.
CO-CHAIR TARR related her understanding that imported animals
have been sold as Alaska Grown, although they have not been
living in the state for 51 percent of their lifetime; Amendment
1 would protect the brand.
7:57:29 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON removed his objection to Amendment 1.
There followed a short discussion describing how Amendment 1
would be incorporated into the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether there would be testimony
from the Division of Agriculture, DNR, or Farm Bureau, Inc.,
regarding the amendment.
MS. CARPENTER restated the amendment was requested by DNR and is
supported by DNR.
CO-CHAIR TARR clarified the Division of Agriculture is a
division of DNR.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
7:59:44 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled AM - 2 to HB
315, 2/23/2015, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 1, line 11, following "individual;":
Insert "or"
Page 2, lines 5 - 6:
Delete"; or
(3) are trade secrets or proprietary business or
financial information"
Page 2, line 9:
Delete "any records that are"
Insert "information from a record"
Page 2, line 11, following "public":
Insert "and that disclosure of the information is
necessary to address a threat to the health
or safety of the animal, crop, or public"
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON objected for discussion purposes.
8:00:08 PM
MS. CARPENTER said Amendment 2 was requested by stakeholders who
are concerned about DNR releasing proprietary business
information or trade secrets; the amendment deletes language
specific to releasing business information. Also, Amendment 2
expands proposed [subsection] (b) to clarify only information
from records, and not actual records, may be disclosed in the
event of a public health risk.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON surmised in a public health event, [DNR and
/or DEC] would paraphrase or summarize the needed information.
MS. CARPENTER said correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH said lines 9 and 10 of Amendment 2 imply
there would be a redaction of records and asked for an estimate
of the staff hours needed to do so.
MS. CARPENTER said she was unsure; however, DEC is already in
the practice of redacting and summarizing information for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture and other entities thus no
additional staff hours would be required.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed attention to the bill on page 2,
lines 7-11, which read:
(b) Notwithstanding (a) of this section or any other
provision of law, the Department of Environmental
Conservation and the Department of Natural Resources
may disclose any records that are subject to this
section if the Department of Environmental
Conservation or the Department of Natural Resources
determines there is a threat to the health or safety
of an animal, a crop, or the public.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH directed attention to lines 13 and 14 of
Amendment 2 and asked whether the amendment brings any change to
the standard of proof by adding that the disclosure of the
information is necessary to address the threat.
MS. CARPENTER said the department seeks to further limit the
release of said disclosure to only "when necessary."
8:05:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether changing the language of the
bill on page 2, line 9, from "may" disclose to "shall" disclose
would allow the department to "better exercise the discretion
that already exists within this proposed legislation?"
MS. CARPENTER agreed. She said, "... it would further limit the
information that we would have to disclose ... [and] it would
raise the bar on what ... would be disclosed in the event of a
public health threat."
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH questioned the purpose of Amendment 2
because the language in the bill is already permissive, rather
than prescriptive.
CO-CHAIR TARR remarked:
As I understand it, is, what's being deleted, the
"trade secrets or proprietary business or financial
information," that's the part that stakeholders have
concerns about, and this is an attempt to eliminate
that concern, but also have the space to release the
records.
MS. CARPENTER said correct.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO pointed out section 1 of HB 315 does not
contain a reference to "the disclosure of necessary information"
and opined the intent of the amendment was to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked, "Could the state be taken to court
over the point of whether or not a piece of information was
actually necessary?"
MS. CARPENTER deferred to the Department of Law (DOL).
8:08:39 PM
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General,
Environmental Section, Civil Division(Anchorage), DOL, restated
Representative Parish's question.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH clarification his question.
MS. CURRIE opined any statute is subject to interpretation and
thus the state could be subject to a lawsuit; however, in this
regard, because the statute is centered on the discretion of the
Office of the State Veterinarian, the necessity of the
disclosure would be given discretion.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON surmised in a lawsuit that alleges a breach
in the release of information, the plaintiff would have to show
damages, which would be difficult.
MS. CURRIE said correct and added that damages would need to be
enough to support a lawsuit.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON directed attention to the bill on page 2,
line 11, [text previously provided] and questioned whether the
language "an animal" could mean any animal.
MS. CURRIE answered yes.
8:11:54 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON withdrew his objection to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH objected to Amendment 2. He opined the
amendment would leave the state exposed to additional liability.
Representative Parish removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked for discussion on HB 315, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked Dr. Gerlach if there were any
problems in terms of business or trade secrets for farmers
importing farm animals, or with the information that the Office
of the State Veterinarian would have to disclose.
8:13:53 PM
ROBERT GERLACH, VMD, State Veterinarian, Office of the State
Veterinarian, Division of Environmental Health, DEC, answered he
did not believe the amendments would affect the business of
livestock producers who import animals into the state.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO asked for clarification on how an animal
gets approved to be imported into the state, and whether
importation is approved solely by DEC or also by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
DR. GERLACH explained an animal traveling on land would need to
meet the Canadian requirements necessary to enter Canada, and
meet USDA requirements to leave the U.S., enter another country
and then reenter the U.S., in addition to Alaska's requirements.
If an animal is flown in, or travels to Alaska via the Alaska
Marine Highway System, the animal would need to meet state and
port regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO surmised a multitude of regulations must
be met for an animal transported via land-based transportation.
DR. GERLACH answered yes.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON asked whether it is legal to import domestic
animals that may have a disease.
DR. GERLACH answered no. The state relies on the veterinarian
at the source of origin to assess an animal; he acknowledged the
possibility an animal might not have symptoms of an illness but
is harboring a pathogen. If there is a concern, the state
relies on diagnostic testing. He reiterated all animals can
harbor certain pathogens and could transport them; it is not
possible to test for every known pathogen, so the state uses
testing regulations to address those of primary concern which
would pose a threat to the health and welfare of domestic
animals or wildlife in Alaska.
8:17:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked whether the actions of DEC, DNR, or
the public would be restricted in the presence of an infectious
disease.
DR. GERLACH advised if animals came into the state and were
discovered to have a disease acquired during transport, or
exhibited symptoms when they arrived, there would be no
restriction on the state's ability to respond in order to
prevent the threat of that disease to domestic stock or
wildlife, or to public health.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH further inquired as to whether the ability
of a member of the general public to inform themselves about
potential disease outbreaks would be constrained by this bill.
DR. GERLACH assured the committee there is no restriction upon
members of the general public; in fact, his office regularly
responds to concerns and provides information in this regard.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for clarification on the state's
response to a group of animals exhibiting symptoms of disease.
DR. GERLACH stated the state's response depends upon the
pathogen, its mechanism of transmission, and its threat to
domestic stock, wildlife, or public health; for example, an
animal exposed to tuberculosis would be quarantined and tested.
If there were a high degree of concern, the animal would be
returned to its source of origin or euthanized.
8:22:20 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON moved to report HB 315, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 315(RES) was
reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
8:23:46 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 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 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 |
| 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 |
| HB315 Transmittal Letter 2.9.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 ver A 2.9.18.PDF |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Fiscal Note DEC-EHL 2.9.18.PDF |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Supporting Document-Public Comment.pdf |
HJUD 2/9/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Additional Document-DEC Memo Regarding SB164 and Alaska Grown 2.12.18.pdf |
HJUD 2/12/2018 1:30:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 SB 164 |
| HB 315 Supporting Documents - Homer Swift Creek Ranch 2.8.2018.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB 315 Additional Documentation - DEC Letter re Alaska Grown 2.14.2018.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 |
HB 315 |
| HB315 Support, AK WSF Comments.pdf |
HRES 3/16/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/23/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| 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 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 - 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 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 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 315 amendment two - AM -2 - 2.23.18.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| HB 315 amendment one - AM -1 - 2.14.18.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 315 |
| 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 Resident Hunters AK Letter of Support.pdf |
HRES 3/21/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HTRA 2/20/2018 11:00:00 AM |
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 |
| HB288 Sponsor Statement 1.21.18.pdf |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB288 ver A 1.16.18.PDF |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 CS Version D 3.27.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 Summary of Changes Version A to Version D 3.29.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 Fiscal Analysis for Version D 3.27.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB288 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 1.20.18.pdf |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB288 Sectional Analysis 1.21.18.pdf |
HRES 1/22/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/13/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/14/2018 2:00:00 PM HRES 4/16/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB288 DOR Tax Presentation HRES 1-26-18.pdf |
HRES 1/26/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 Supporting Document - Oklahoma Legislature passes tax hikes for teacher pay. Washington Post 3.28.18.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2018 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |
| HB 288 CS Version D Slide Presentation 3.30.18.pdf |
HRES 4/2/2018 1:00:00 PM |
HB 288 |