Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/13/2017 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 | |
| HB111 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 111 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2017
1:47 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Dean Westlake, 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. 111
"An Act relating to the oil and gas production tax, tax
payments, and credits; relating to interest applicable to
delinquent oil and gas production tax; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 87
"An Act relating to participation in matters before the Board of
Fisheries and the Board of Game by the members of the respective
boards; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12
Opposing the United States Food and Drug Administration's
approval of AquaBounty AquAdvantage genetically engineered
salmon; and urging the United States Congress to enact
legislation that requires prominently labeling genetically
engineered products with the words "Genetically Modified" on the
product's packaging.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 32
"An Act relating to the labeling of food; relating to the
misbranding of food; requiring labeling of food produced with
genetic engineering; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 111
SHORT TITLE: OIL & GAS PRODUCTION TAX;PAYMENTS;CREDITS
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
02/08/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/17 (H) RES, FIN
02/08/17 (H) TALERICO OBJECTED TO INTRODUCTION
02/08/17 (H) INTRODUCTION RULED IN ORDER
02/08/17 (H) SUSTAINED RULING OF CHAIR Y23 N15 E2
02/08/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/08/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/13/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/13/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/17/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/17/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/20/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/20/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/20/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/22/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/22/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/22/17 (H) RES AT 6:30 PM BARNES 124
02/22/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/22/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/24/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/24/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/27/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/27/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/27/17 (H) RES AT 7:00 PM CAPITOL 106
02/27/17 (H) Heard & Held
02/27/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/01/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/01/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/01/17 (H) RES AT 6:00 PM BARNES 124
03/01/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/01/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/06/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/06/17 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
03/06/17 (H) RES AT 6:30 PM BARNES 124
03/06/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/06/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/08/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/08/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/08/17 (H) RES AT 6:00 PM BARNES 124
03/08/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/08/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/09/17 (H) RES AT 5:00 PM BARNES 124
03/09/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/10/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/10/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/10/17 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/11/17 (H) RES AT 12:00 AM BARNES 124
03/11/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/13/17 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ED KING, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information regarding a
forthcoming Department of Natural Resources fiscal note during
the hearing of HB 111.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:47:17 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:47 p.m. Representatives Tarr,
Birch, Parish, Talerico, Rauscher, Drummond, Johnson, Westlake,
and Josephson were present at the call to order.
HB 111-OIL & GAS PRODUCTION TAX;PAYMENTS;CREDITS
1:48:41 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 111, "An Act relating to the oil and gas
production tax, tax payments, and credits; relating to interest
applicable to delinquent oil and gas production tax; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was the
committee substitute (CS) for HB 111, Version 30-LS0450\N,
Nauman, 3/10/17, adopted as a working document during the
3/10/17 House Resources Standing Committee meeting.]
1:48:45 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR informed the committee that although the committee
substitute (CS) for HB 111, Version N, was reviewed at the
meeting on 3/10/17, two issues require further review, one of
which is how the concept of uplift is approached in the bill.
She recalled Richard Ruggiero, Managing Partner, Castle Gap
Advisors, Castle Gap Energy Partners, [consultant to the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee] had advised that because
the state is considering eliminating cash credits in favor of
[net operating loss (NOL)] deductions, uplift is a concept that
would level the playing field for non-producers. Currently,
producers generally use their losses within the year in which
they are earned because they have a tax liability, which enables
them to use 100 percent of their losses against their tax
liability. However, for non-producers, from exploration to the
start of production - which is an average of seven years - non-
producers just accumulate losses, thus the state is seeking to
"offer [non-producers] something that's attractive," she said.
CO-CHAIR TARR directed attention to a document entitled,
"Comparison of CSHB 111 with Rauscher Amendment N.1 and N.2,"
dated 3/9/17. She remarked:
With a 50 percent carry forward [of net operating
losses (NOLs), and] with the 8 percent interest ... by
year seven, those individuals have recovered ...
basically 85 percent of the cost. So, it's not [100
percent] but ... we have to keep in mind that what we
also offer is the GVR provision, and so these
individuals, who are not in production, after year
seven, not only will they get to carry forward all of
those losses, but then starting in year one, from when
they become producers, they also have the GVR
provision.
CO-CHAIR TARR cautioned that if the state is too generous, the
value [of state revenue] will be eroded; for example, [Amendment
N.1] allows 100 percent of the losses to go forward with 10
percent interest, which equates to giving 200 percent of the
value by year seven. That, plus GVR provisions and the per
barrel credit, would result in total erosion of value to the
state. She reminded the committee that Mr. Ruggiero had
recommended a bracketed tax based on profit, along with the
elimination of both the per barrel credit and the GVR
provisions. However, Version N does not eliminate the per
barrel credit or GVR, but has made modest modifications on the
per barrel credit. Further, she warned of "how all of these
sort of stack up against each other and so that is why we felt
like this is [an] appropriate way to apply this uplift, because
we're not, at the same time, doing away with the GVR provisions
that apply once they become a producer."
1:51:57 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, continuing to changes made in Version N to the
sliding scale of per barrel credit, directed attention to a
slide provided by the Tax Division, Department of Revenue (DOR),
entitled, "A Net Profits Tax is very Volatile to Price"
[included in the committee packet] that showed the current tax
rate is 35 percent, but the effective tax rate is much lower.
Version N recognizes that as oil price falls below $50, a 4
percent tax with a hard floor would ensure the state retains
some value, and as oil prices rise above $50, Version N
increases the minimum tax to 5 percent that would ensure some
value to the state when oil prices range from about $50 to $70
per barrel. She provided an example based on production of
500,000 barrels per day, wherein a 12.5 percent royalty share is
subtracted to arrive at 437,000 barrels, and that number is
multiplied by 365 days to equal 160 million barrels produced
annually. Based on this scenario the minimum tax, at 4 percent,
with an oil price of about $55, results in the state receiving
$1.80 per barrel:
· $55 less $10 for transportation = $45 gross value at point
of production (GVPP)
· $45 less $30.88 for lease expenditures = $14.12 for
production tax value (PTV)
· 35 percent tax on $14.12 = $4.94
· subtract $8 per barrel credit = minimum tax zone.
CO-CHAIR TARR opined the current tax of between 9-13 percent is
too low. Because oil prices are now consistently in the "mid-
price range," raising the minimum tax to 5 percent of production
tax value, although a modest change, is crucial at the mid-price
range per barrel; in fact, at an oil price of about $65, the
effective tax rate would be about 10-15 percent.
CO-CHAIR TARR, recalling suggestions from the consultant and
others, said, "One of the ways that we can be a little more
generous on the low side is if we take a little bit more on the
high side." She pointed out under the current tax system a per
barrel credit is available when oil prices are $160 per barrel
and above; however, oil prices have never exceeded $147 per
barrel, thus Version N lowers the "windfall" price to $120 per
barrel, and the state would collect higher revenues [because per
barrel credits would no longer apply] when oil prices are around
$120 and more. She urged the committee to compute the modeling
equations on their own, pointing out that the mathematics are
not complicated, and offered to provide modeling of lease
expenditures at varying price levels. Lease expenditures are
expected to increase with the price of oil as companies will
begin to recover from layoffs, and in fact, lease expenditures
have decreased from $53-$54 per barrel in 2015 to $40.12 in
2016.
CO-CHAIR TARR said an understanding of the economics of oilfield
operations provides a clear understanding of why a discovery
like Smith Bay will not be developed - until oil price per
barrel increases substantially to offset the cost of
development. She concluded that the changes made in Version N
are modest and address the current low oil price environment.
Further, although infrastructure depreciates, Version N allows
100 percent of the value of a loss to be carried forward,
without depreciation, thus there is generosity built into the
proposed legislation.
1:59:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to the recent Armstrong/Repsol
discovery and asked whether its announcement is a positive
indication of how the current tax policy is working. She said,
"Did that change your view on [HB 111] at all?"
CO-CHAIR TARR urged further discussion about the amount of loss
the proposed legislation allows to be carried forward and how
much of the value would be recovered. She stressed that [carry
forward losses] are allowed for the first seven years of
development, and GVR provisions extend further to seven years of
production, therefore, during the first fourteen years of work,
the state would be providing very attractive opportunities. And
so, if the state is more generous, announcements of new finds
will not generate "much of excitement for the state." The
consultant suggested if the state allows 100 percent carry
forward losses, it should eliminate GVR and per barrel credit
because without eliminating GVR and per barrel credit, the tax
system leads to "stackable credits"; for example, at Smith Bay,
stackable credits have meant that the state will cover 85
percent of the work conducted thus far at Smith Bay - a
generosity she opined the state can no longer afford. The
preapproval provision of the bill will also allow the state to
have a better handle on costs. Co-Chair Tarr stressed that the
proposed legislation does not change from a net profits system,
and will continue to recognize the recovery of costs through net
profits, as well as carry forward losses, GVR, and per barrel
credits, a system which she characterized as generosity on the
part of the state and/or opportunities for the industry. She
compared the find at Smith Bay, which is distant from existing
infrastructure, to the Point Thomson development, noting a
larger diameter pipeline transporting oil 124 miles to the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) would be prohibitive at an
oil price of $55 per barrel, and said, "If the state is going to
be sort of a co-investor by allowing these expenses to be
deducted, I think we want to be as strategic as possible [with]
the dollars that the state invests."
2:03:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, referred to [Version N, Section 26
subsection (n)] that directs the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to preapprove costs that will generate a carry forward
annual loss, and asked how that provision will work.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded that currently a plan of development and
a plan of production are submitted to DNR, albeit late in the
process of developing a project. The proposed bill directs DNR
to prepare draft regulations [for a preapproval process], on
which the public, stakeholders, and industry would have an
opportunity to comment. She acknowledged industry is well-
suited to participate in the adoption of said regulations.
Testimony by Mr. Ruggiero touted the benefit to all parties of
multiple and timely contacts with the governmental regime, in
order to offer incentives and provide oversight to ensure every
dollar is spent in a strategic manner.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER pointed out this is not a role DNR has
accepted in the past.
CO-CHAIR TARR reported that representatives of DNR have
expressed interest in having better oversight because the state
has no ability to "turn down the work once it has happened."
For example, if a project does not stay on schedule due to poor
management, the project may be delayed. If DNR participates
earlier in the development of a project, a delay may be avoided
and additional expenses - to the state as co-investor - avoided
also. Further, DNR may choose to prioritize nearer-term
projects over distant projects.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER suggested that the committee should have
an opportunity to question DNR directly on this provision;
furthermore, if DNR is going to accept this responsibility, then
an additional fiscal note from DNR may be warranted. He
cautioned there would be costs borne by DNR and the Department
of Revenue (DOR).
CO-CHAIR TARR said DOR would continue to receive tax payments
from industry, but the review process would be the
responsibility of DNR. She restated when the draft regulations
related to the review process go out for public comment, the
industry will have an opportunity to comment on how specific
companies are affected. Additional staffing at DNR was not
discussed, she recalled, and she agreed that it would be good to
have the department respond to Representative Rauscher's
question.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER further questioned whether DOR or DNR
has control over the allowable lease expenses.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded that currently, nobody has control over
allowable lease expenditures. In further response to
Representative Rauscher, she said Version N would direct DNR to
develop regulations and create a standard system of review for
all companies to follow. She suggested the review could be
informal or not, and guided by industry.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether a taxpayer would be
required to submit an annual lease expenditure estimate on
January 1, of each year, to get preapproval.
CO-CHAIR TARR said that has not been determined yet because the
bill directs DNR to develop regulations through the established
public process, which would involve industry participation.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER queried what the consequences would be
if the taxpayers erred in their estimates.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated the bill does not propose punitive action;
however, the provision may provide DNR the opportunity to
identify and correct overspending.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER predicted that auditing procedures may
be challenging, duplicative, and expensive.
CO-CHAIR TARR clarified that DOR is involved in a project "after
the spending has taken place," at taxpayer filing, and this
provision under discussion would provide an earlier and better
understanding of a project.
2:14:03 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:14 p.m. to 2:19 p.m.
2:19:34 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON commented that when Senate Bill 21 [passed in
the Twenty-Eighth Alaska State Legislature] was enacted there
was the belief that the legislation created a 4 percent hard
floor; in fact, that does not exist.
[Due to technical difficulties the remainder of Co-Chair
Josephson's comments were not recorded and the committee took an
at-ease from 2:20 p.m. to 2:34 p.m. to relocate to Room 106.]
2:34:17 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR called the House Resources Standing Committee back
to order.
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON recalled that in early February of last year
the legislature learned that the credits, particularly when
stacked - and in a low-price environment - could bring the
taxable value beneath zero, which was cause for concern.
Further, media accounts at the time suggested that this
consequence of Senate Bill 21 was neither well-understood by
all, nor had it been sufficiently vetted by either chamber in
2013. He acknowledged this concern was somewhat remedied in
House Bill 247 [passed in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State
Legislature]. The proposed provision directing DNR's
involvement [by preapproval of an oil and gas project] is in
response to the belief that the public is entitled to more
information about the investments Alaska has made. Although
under Version N, those investments would no longer be cash
investments, the public is still entitled to be informed because
deductions are taken against tax liability, and there are net
operating losses [both resulting in the reduction of state
revenue]. Co-Chair Josephson opined, due to the aforementioned
circumstances, preapproval by DNR is warranted. In addition,
when operators make a decision to invest in an oilfield, they
have already achieved their company's internal approval, and the
public is entitled to know and understand said investments
through their elected officials. This is particularly
appropriate to ensure against ring fencing, when a company uses
a single unprofitable location to make itself unprofitable in
toto.
2:37:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH posed the question of whether the proposed
legislation would attract investment and exploration in order to
put more oil in TAPS. He asserted that a [page from the fiscal
note, titled "Provisions in CSHB 111 (RES)\N and their Estimated
Fiscal Impact based on Fall 2016 Forecast ($millions) - Fall
2016 FC PRICE," revised 3/13/17 by DOR, included in the
committee packet] attached to [Version N] shows $190 million
added in expense to the industry by fiscal year 2020 (FY 20).
Furthermore, state royalty share has been "lost in the
discussion," and more information is also needed from DNR
related to Version N. Representative Birch noted [the recently
announced discovery in the Pikka and Horseshoe units by
Armstrong and Repsol that is projected to produce] 120,000
barrels per day, at a one-sixth royalty share, would yield about
20,000 barrels of oil per day for Alaska; at $50 per barrel,
this one discovery would bring the state about $1 million per
day - and between $300 million and $400 million per year - in
royalty. He cautioned against legislators dismissing royalty
share, but instead to do what they can to attract investment,
put oil in TAPS, and fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to
the favorable development of Alaska's resources. Representative
Birch said, "I think we need to take a real hard look at, if
adding another couple hundred million a year in cost is going to
attract the kind of investment that we need to realize our oil
and gas potential in this state."
2:39:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH declared that before he became an 85
percent investor, he would need to know the nature of the
investment and the likelihood of it paying off in the near or
distant future. He opined that under the current system,
legislators do not have that assurance or the necessary level of
oversight on their investments; in fact, subsidizing behavior at
85 percent skews behavior and encourages behaviors which may not
be economical or rational in the absence of a generous subsidy.
He expressed his hope that through the proposed legislation, DNR
would provide the needed oversight. Representative Parish
expressed his support for the bill, and reminded the committee
that the initial development of the North Slope oilfields was
not subsidized.
2:42:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO questioned accuracy of the 85 percent
figure mentioned by Representative Parish, except in regard to
the tax system currently in place in Cook Inlet, which will be
reduced by 50 percent on July 1, and eliminated completely on
July 1, 2018, as a result of House Bill 247; on the North Slope,
the state's level of investment does not reach 85 percent. He
stated his biggest concern is regarding throughput: in January
throughput was about 554,000 barrels per day, and in February,
was about 553,000 barrels per day. Even with low prices, this
year and last, Alaska has seen an increase in throughput, and
the trend is for throughput to continue to rise. He said, "...
I think [it's] really important that we've had this increased
throughput which, of course, is good for the coffers of the
State of Alaska, because we do ... well off of royalty, royalty
is a thing that ... we obviously felt that we needed and we've
always been able to collect, and the more throughput there is
the more oil there is for the State of Alaska." He turned to
the issue of tax credits, and said last year the legislature
recognized that Cook Inlet tax credits represented about $411
million of the total $648 million in tax credits, and since
Alaska's take from Cook Inlet is nothing like that from the
North Slope, the legislature addressed the Cook Inlet credits
through House Bill 247. The provisions of House Bill 247 affect
some companies adversely, yet it provides a transitional period
so that companies can adjust to the new provisions. He stressed
that although provisions in House Bill 247 have yet to take
effect, the legislature is discussing more changes to the tax
regime. Representative Talerico referred to a graph - presented
during testimony on other proposed legislation related to
production tax - which showed that an increase in production tax
would result in a $25 million deficit; however, projections for
House Bill 247 indicate that the following year there would be
production tax revenue in the amount of $110 million, increasing
to $136 million the next year [document not provided]. He
opined House Bill 247 has put Alaska on the right track for more
production and revenue - and industry agrees - as evidenced by
more production. He cautioned legislative actions that
unnecessarily decrease throughput would be a disservice to
Alaska. Throughput in TAPS is key, and he reiterated that House
Bill 247 should be allowed to take effect - the current system
will work. He observed that it is a matter of record that a few
more people oppose the proposed legislation than support it, and
restated his concerns about losing both increased production
through TAPS and the current [improved] investment climate.
2:46:55 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR agreed that Alaska wants to remain an attractive
place for investment and to increase the amount of oil flowing
into TAPS. She said Version N does not address Cook Inlet - in
part because House Bill 247 does so - but it would establish a
Cook Inlet working group to adjust the provisions of House Bill
247 that are related to oil tax, as more information becomes
available. Further, establishing the working group now would
ensure that the opportunity for recovering costs is addressed.
CO-CHAIR TARR, in response to Representative Birch's previous
comment on the aforementioned fiscal note, directed attention to
line D, under "Total Revenue Impact," which read "Budget impact
of no cash repurchase for net NOL credits earned after 1/1/18."
She said that the fiscal note shows that after 1/1/18, credits
owed by the state would not be paid by a check, but are "just
being shifted to the ... revenue side of things, when those
people become producers, and will have reduced revenue." Thus
the state's investment is "realized on the other side of the
equation." For example, the only benefit to the state was shown
on line 3 of the fiscal note, under "Description of Provision,"
which read "Minimum tax increased to 5% of GVPP at prices of $50
and above ...," and for FY 18 the benefit would be $20 million,
which is a reduction from the original version of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH returned attention to the aforementioned
fiscal note on the line "Total Fiscal Impact - (does not include
potential changes in investment)" and said the impact for FY 20
is $190 million. He asked if the $190 million signifies $190
million more [emphasis on "more"] that the state would take.
CO-CHAIR TARR answered that on the aforementioned fiscal note,
the amount for FY 20 on line "Total Revenue Impact" is added to
the amount for FY 20 on the line "Total Budget Impact": $60
million plus $130 million equals $190 million, therefore, the
substantial portion of the $190 million comes in "Total Budget
Impact." She continued as follows:
And so, a big portion of that ... where we save money
is by not writing the checks. So, we won't be writing
the checks; however, when they become producers ...,
it'll become reflected in reduced revenue to the
state, as is the case with the big three right now,
that, as taxpayers generally use their losses in the
same year that they were earned.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH pointed out the fiscal note shows an upward
trend to a total fiscal impact of $260 million in 2027. He
asked for confirmation that this would be additional revenue to
the state over and above existing revenue.
CO-CHAIR TARR answered, "Yes and no." She explained that the
revenue - new money coming into the state - is shown in the
upper portion of the fiscal note [Description of Provision]; the
bottom half [Total Revenue Impact] shows "the budget impact of
us not paying out money." She continued as follows:
It's just a little bit different, in that we're not
writing a check; we're saying: "Carry forward your
losses. Once you become a producer, that money will
be deducted from your taxes." So ... whenever those
companies become producers, we'll see that dollar
amount shown as a reduction in their tax liability to
the state. So, not new dollars coming in, but us not
paying dollars out.
CO-CHAIR TARR invited amendments for consideration.
2:52:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 30-
LS0450\N.3, Shutts/Nauman, 3/13/17, which read:
Page 1, lines 1 - 7:
Delete all material and insert:
""An Act relating to the interest applicable to
delinquent oil and gas production tax; relating to the
net operating loss credit against the oil and gas
production tax; relating to lease expenditures;
creating a credit against the oil and gas production
tax for certain exploration activity; and providing
for an effective date.""
Page 1, lines 9 - 13:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "Sec. 2"
Insert "Section 1"
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 2, line 27, through page 15, line 31:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 17, line 4, through page 19, line 17:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 19, lines 22 - 30:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 20, line 13, through page 23, line 31:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 24, line 24, through page 25, line 2:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) lease expenditures, as adjusted under
(m) of this section, that
(A) met the requirements of AS 43.55.160(e)
in the year that the lease expenditures were incurred;
(B) were deductible in the immediately
preceding 10 calendar years, not counting the year in
which the expenditure was incurred;
(C) have not been deducted in the
determination of the production tax value of oil and
gas under AS 43.55.160(a) in a previous calendar year;
(D) were not the basis of a credit under
this title; and
(E) were incurred to explore for, develop,
or produce an oil or gas deposit located north of 68
degrees North latitude."
Page 25, lines 3 - 23:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 6. AS 43.55.165 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(m) A loss carried forward under (a)(3) of this
section shall increase in value at a rate of 10
percent, compounded annually. An increase in value
under this subsection begins to accrue on January 1 of
the calendar year immediately following the calendar
year in which the loss was accrued and no longer
accrues on December 31 of the calendar year
immediately preceding the calendar year in which a
carried-forward annual loss is applied. The increase
in value accrued under this subsection has no value
except as applied in this section. An increase in
value may not accrue
(1) for a partial calendar year;
(2) for more than 10 calendar years,
consecutive or nonconsecutive; or
(3) on a loss carried forward by a producer
whose average amount of oil and gas produced a day and
taxable under AS 43.55.011(e) is more than 50,000 BTU
equivalent barrels during the calendar year that the
loss was accrued."
Page 25, line 24:
Delete "and 43.55.029 are"
Insert "is"
Page 25, line 25, through page 28, line 12:
Delete all material and insert:
"* Sec. 8. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICABILITY. (a) AS 43.55.023(b), as amended by
sec. 2 of this Act, applies to lease expenditures
incurred on or after the effective date of sec. 2 of
this Act.
(b) AS 43.55.165(a)(3) and 43.55.165(m), added
by secs. 5 and 6 of this Act, apply to a lease
expenditure incurred on or after the effective date of
secs. 5 and 6 of this Act."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 28, line 15:
Delete "Section 2"
Insert "Section 1"
Page 28, line 16:
Delete "Sections 1, 2, 28, and 33"
Insert "Sections 1 and 9"
Page 28, line 18:
Delete "sec. 34"
Insert "sec. 10"
2:52:16 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER spoke to Amendment 1. He reiterated
that there has been an increase in activity on the North Slope,
which has led to finds; there has also been an increase in
exploration. Further, there has been greater trust in the State
of Alaska by producers who are putting a considerable amount of
money into finding and extracting oil. A concern is that the
new trust and momentum could be lost. He said the proposed
bill, as written, is not friendly to producers, so Amendment 1
would delete "the lion's share of the bill," leaving the
sections that address dry hole credits and carry forward losses
- the former unchanged and the latter changed from 50 percent as
proposed in Version N to 100 percent. He recalled the state's
consultant, Rich Ruggiero, said that unless the state allows for
100 percent of the development costs to be recovered, Alaska
would be "at the bottom of the list globally, in this regard,"
and it would be irresponsible for the legislature to allow that
to happen. The amendment also changes uplift from 7 percent to
10 percent, extends the period of carry forwards and uplift from
seven to ten years, and leaves in place the portion of the
current tax structure that is working and that has resulted in
greater investment, major new discoveries, and increased
throughput in TAPS. Representative Rauscher said he did not
understand how 50 percent carry forward losses and 7 percent
uplift could equal a 100 percent return on loss, because he
calculated only 80 percent. He urged the committee to support
Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR TARR responded:
It is about 85 percent, and that's what the left-hand
column of the [comparison] shows that ... the reason
we used that amount for the uplift is that is linked
to the interest rate associated with delinquent taxes
that either the state would pay if the taxpayer
overpaid, or that we would charge if the taxpayer
underpaid, so for consistency purposes on that [the
sponsors set the interest rate].
CO-CHAIR TARR restated that Mr. Ruggiero had also suggested
eliminating the GVR and the per barrel credit. Considering all
three suggestions, she stated concern about "how many years ...
these opportunities can be in place." For example: after seven
years of carry forward losses, the taxpayer becomes a producer
and uses their accumulated losses against tax liability, along
with a GVR 20 percent reduction, and a $5 per barrel credit; by
the time all that is combined, much of the value is eroded,
which is the reason she cannot support Amendment 1.
2:57:53 PM
CO-CHAIR JOSEPHSON expressed concern that offering 100 percent
carry forward deductions "would be more impactful to the state
than current law." Further, if a dry hole credit were added,
along with uplift - particularly at 10 percent - the problem
would be compounded. He opined Amendment 1 would put the state
in a [fiscal] position more precarious than its current one.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH expressed his support of Amendment 1. He
said Mr. Ruggiero informed the committee that virtually every
business in the oil and gas industry is entitled - by its
governing regime - to recover its costs, and Amendment 1 "sets
that out," is reasonable, and "would encourage that option."
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated that businesses typically recover
costs by making a profit off of their product, which has been
done by the oil industry for a long time. He said he supported
providing a subsidy in the form of a write-off on industry's
taxes, providing a generous 8 percent rate of return for seven
years. However, a 100 percent carry forward loss deduction with
10 percent interest may encourage companies to drill a dry hole
and be confident that in seven years, their investment would
have doubled in the form of liabilities, thereby enabling them
to sell out to a larger company that is seeing a profit, and
transfer nearly twice the value of the initial investment to
that other company, resulting in a profit. He stated, "It's a
recipe for disaster and for really perverse market incentives.
We should not be interfering ... this intensely and setting us,
ourselves up for this level of failure. I do not support the
amendment."
3:01:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said she would feel better about moving
Version N out of committee if Amendment 1 is adopted, because
Amendment 1 at least attempts to change the bill in response to
the public testimony and the many concerns that have been
brought forth. She said she does not think the committee has
had time to address Version N, but she supports Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said:
... I understand where [the] Representative from
District 17 was going there, but I think each one
effect[s] different ... sections at different times;
they're really -- get a full grasp of what we're
saying there. And I don't know whether, you know, if
you're not really excited about 100 percent [of NOLs],
I think somewhere in between the 50 percent you're
leaving them short.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed his understanding that the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) allows people to use their costs
incurred, and he is not certain whether [the State of Alaska] is
letting [oil companies] use their entire costs. He said as a
result, he is not certain the companies will be incentivized to
"dig in, go forward, [and] spend money."
3:03:00 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Birch, Johnson,
Rauscher, and Talerico voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Drummond, Parish, Westlake, Josephson, and Tarr
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be adopted
by a vote of 4-5.
3:03:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 30-
LS0450\N.4, Shutts/Nauman, 3/13/17, which read:
Page 24, line 24, through page 25, line 23:
Delete all material and insert:
"(3) lease expenditures, as adjusted under
(m) of this section, that
(A) met the requirements of AS 43.55.160(e)
in the year that the lease expenditures were incurred;
(B) were deductible in the immediately
preceding 10 calendar years, not counting the year in
which the expenditure was incurred;
(C) have not been deducted in the
determination of the production tax value of oil and
gas under AS 43.55.160(a) in a previous calendar year;
(D) were not the basis of a credit under
this title; and
(E) were incurred to explore for, develop,
or produce an oil or gas deposit located north of 68
degrees North latitude.
* Sec. 26. AS 43.55.165 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(m) A loss carried forward under (a)(3) of this
section shall increase in value at a rate of 10
percent, compounded annually. An increase in value
under this subsection begins to accrue on January 1 of
the calendar year immediately following the calendar
year in which the loss was accrued and no longer
accrues on December 31 of the calendar year
immediately preceding the calendar year in which a
carried-forward annual loss is applied. The increase
in value accrued under this subsection has no value
except as applied in this section. An increase in
value may not accrue
(1) for a partial calendar year;
(2) for more than 10 calendar years,
consecutive or nonconsecutive; or
(3) on a loss carried forward by a producer
whose average amount of oil and gas produced a day and
taxable under AS 43.55.011(e) is more than 50,000 BTU
equivalent barrels during the calendar year that the
loss was accrued."
Page 27, line 23:
Delete "and (n)"
3:03:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected for the discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER spoke to Amendment 2. He maintained
that HB 111 would not incentivize producers whereas plans the
state has put in place in the past have inspired oil companies
to do business with the state. Furthermore, the changes
proposed by HB 111 are too severe, expect "a little bit too much
from our partners," and will make them leery about the future.
He observed that every year brings another change and
disappointment for the industry, yet companies continue to work
with the state; in fact, it is very important to keep the
companies as partners and to work hand-in-hand. Representative
Rauscher said Amendment 2 would increase the carry forward [loss
deduction] from 50 percent as proposed in Version N to 100
percent. He reiterated Mr. Ruggiero's caution that industry
should recover 100 percent of its development costs. He said
Amendment 2 would also change the uplift from 7 percent to 10
percent and would expand the life of the carry forward
deductions from seven years to ten years. He urged the
committee to support Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated support for Amendment 2. He said
Alaska is an expensive place in which to do business, and long
lead times created by permitting delays have affected even such
an established area as that in which ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc.
operates. He said he thinks Amendment 2 is "on track," and that
the state needs to provide the opportunity for oil and gas
exploration companies to recover their costs.
CO-CHAIR TARR said carrying forward losses is a typical feature
of an income tax, and she stressed that companies are able to
recover 100 percent of their carry forward losses on their
corporate income tax; furthermore, production tax is deducted
against corporate income tax, and corporate income tax is a
deduction against federal taxes. Thus there are several places
where losses are recovered, and Version N would make no
adjustments in that respect. One of the challenges of the
Alaska severance tax is that it is a combination of gross tax
and net profits tax, and behaves in some ways like a corporate
income tax. She opined that the combination of tax systems does
not work well and the state is overcommitted [by its obligations
to pay tax credits]. Because the accumulation of credits are
obligations the state cannot meet, and payments have been vetoed
by the governor, she expressed her view that the tax credit
program, "even if it's scaled back a little bit, but we always
meet that obligation, that would be beneficial to the industry,
more than having something that ... potentially is supposed to
be available, and then is not available." Co-Chair Tarr
cautioned that while the legislature has the power to make
appropriations, the governor will always have the ability to
veto any line items in the budget; therefore, if [the
legislature and governor] are not in alignment, then "that puts
the whole system at risk." She explained that she cannot
support [Amendment 2], because she does not want the legislature
"to be overcommitted to something that puts us in a position
where we have to react again." She stated the intent of Version
N is to provide more stability to the system.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said Amendment 2 would take care of
cashable credits, which he agrees need to be reevaluated. He
recalled previous testimony by the consultant and others has
consistently pointed out that tax systems must be revisited, and
characterized Co-Chair Tarr's remarks about not wanting [to
react again] as being an excuse. He stated his belief that
Amendment 2 is good, tame, not large-scale, and garners no
repeated analyzation or reaction, and he urged everyone to
support it.
[A roll call vote was taken, and was subsequently voided for
being incomplete.]
3:11:58 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:12 p.m. to 3:13 p.m.
3:13:18 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the roll call vote on Amendment 2,
taken before the at-ease, would be voided, because one member
had not been called.
3:13:25 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Talerico, Birch,
Johnson, and Rauscher voted in favor of Amendment 2.
Representatives Westlake, Drummond, Parish, Josephson, and Tarr
voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed to be adopted
by a vote of 4-5.
3:14:11 PM
ED KING, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner, DNR,
informed the committee the department needs additional time to
determine the fiscal impacts of [HB 111, Version N] on DNR. In
response to Co-Chair Tarr, he said he anticipated a forthcoming
positive fiscal note, because Version N would require of the
department tasks that are outside the scope of its normal
function, and would require the expansion of its accounting
section. In response to a question from Representative Birch
about the timing of the new information requested under Version
N, and how it would impact the oil and gas industry, he said it
is typical for a regulation packet to take about one year to be
implemented; therefore, he speculated there may be a period of
uncertainty that could "drive differences in behavior." He
proffered the question would be best asked of the industry.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH said he is keenly interested in the issue
and would like an assessment by [DNR] - as a leaseholder
"managing that relationship" - of the significant impacts of the
proposed legislation.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked for clarification concerning the amount of
time Mr. King thought the department would need to complete its
fiscal note.
MR. KING said staff at the Division of Oil and Gas, DNR, is
currently working on [a fiscal note] and making sure regulations
could be written in a way that would not impede the ability of
auditors in DOR to audit the tax returns after the preapproval
process happens through DNR. He anticipated the process will
take at least through today, and he said he would get a fiscal
note to the committee as soon as possible.
3:17:16 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:17 p.m. to 3:18 p.m.
3:18:46 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR said she would allow DNR to the end of the day to
work up some preliminary information [pertaining to a
forthcoming fiscal note].
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE surmised that [Version N] would increase
the workload of those in accounting, who are currently years
behind. He said, "I'd hate to set a precedent where we're doing
exactly the same thing, where ... we've made a ruling here, and
the State of Alaska, through no fault of industry, is years
behind on this thing." He asked if there is a way the
legislature can address this issue.
MR. KING said he was unsure; however, he did confirm that
[Version N] would require an accounting process different from
that which the department currently has in place, and it would
take time to implement such a process. He said DNR would seek
to combine efforts with DOR, and avoid duplications and overlap,
to meet the objectives of the proposed legislation; DNR is not
interested in expanding its [accounting] department unless
absolutely necessary.
CO-CHAIR TARR said she had not anticipated the challenge the
provision created in terms of a fiscal note from DNR, and
appreciated the opportunity to work through that provision of
the bill.
[HB 111 was held over.]
3:21:05 PM
ADJOURNMENT
The House Resources Standing Committee meeting was recessed at
3:21 p.m. to a call of the chair. [The meeting reconvened at
3:20 p.m. on 3/14/17].
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB087 Sponsor Statement ver R 3.10.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB111 Version N 3.10.17.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB 111- CS Ver N Comparison 3.10.17.pdf |
HRES 3/10/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Sponsor Statement 2.12.17.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/20/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Fiscal Note DOR-TAX 2.12.17.pdf |
HRES 2/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/22/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 2/24/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/27/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/1/2017 6:00:00 PM HRES 3/6/2017 6:30:00 PM HRES 3/8/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Opposing Document - Letters in Opposition 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Supporting Document - Letters in Support 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Supporting Document - Petition in Support 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Supporting Document - POM in Support 3.9.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Supporting Document - Letter in Support 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Opposition Document - Letter in Opposition from Kenai Chamber of Commerce 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Opposing Document - Letter in Opposition from Armstrong Energy, LLC 3.7.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB087 Fiscal Note DFG-BBS-01-31-2017.pdf |
HFSH 2/9/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Supporting Document BOF BOG Information.pdf |
HFSH 2/9/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support ATA.pdf |
HFSH 2/9/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support ver O SEAFA.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support SPC.pdf |
HFSH 2/14/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support CDFU.pdf |
HFSH 2/14/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Supporting Document Historic Bills.pdf |
HFSH 2/9/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 ver R H FSH CS 3.12.17.PDF |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Summary of Changes A to R 2.17.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Oppose RHAK.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HB087 Support Lynch.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HJR012 Fiscal Note LEG-SESS-02-23-17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Sponsor Statement 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Alaska Trollers Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Southeast Alaska Fishermen's Alliance 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Petersburg Vessel Owners Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - Southeast Alaska Seiners Association 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Support - United Southeast Alaska Gillnetters 2.27.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Alaska Dispatch News Article 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Reps. Young and Defazio 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document-Sen. Murkowski 2.22.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Presentation House Resources Committee 3.12.17.pdf |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 ver A 2.22.17.PDF |
HFSH 2/28/2017 10:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Version D (FSH) 3.12.17.PDF |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Letter of Support from SalmonState.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HB032 Supporting Document - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB032 version A 3.12.17.PDF |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB032 Fiscal Note - DEC 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - GMO Q & A 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - HB 92 - AK Trollers Association Letter of Support.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - HB 92 Consolidated Letters of Support 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - Info Graphic 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - Letter of Support for HB 92 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #2 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #3 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #4 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - News Article #5 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB32 Supporting Document - NY Times Article 3.12.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB087 UFA Letter in Support.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB087 UFA Letter in Support.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB111 Amendment to CS N.2 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Amendment to CS N.1 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 DOR Fiscal Note Back-Up for CSHB111(RES).pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB087 UFA Letter in Support 2.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB111 Amendments to CS N.4 - Amendment Two Rauscher 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB111 Amendment to CS N.3 -Amendment One - Rauscher 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 111 |
| HB087 Supporting Document APHA 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Letter of Support Nelson 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |
| HB032 Supporting Document - Letter of Support UFA 3.13.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/14/2017 3:00:00 PM HRES 3/15/2017 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/20/2017 7:00:00 PM HRES 3/22/2017 6:00:00 PM |
HB 32 |
| HB087 Support USAG.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 87 |
| HJR012 Supporting Document - Presentation House Fisheries Committee 2.28.17.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 12 |