Legislature(2025 - 2026)BUTROVICH 205
03/03/2025 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| SB92 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 92-CORP. INCOME TAX; OIL & GAS ENTITIES
3:50:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced the consideration of SENATE BILL NO. 92
"An Act establishing an income tax on certain entities producing
or transporting oil or gas in the state; and providing for an
effective date."
3:51:43 PM
SENATOR ROBERT YUNDT, District N, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, briefly introduced SB 92. He said the goal of SB
92 was to level the playing field and ensure that all oil and
gas companies that work in Alaska were taxed on the same level
playing field, whether they're a C corporation or an S
corporation. He emphasized that S corporations outside of oil
and gas [sector] who make less than 5 million a year would not
be included in SB 92.
3:53:00 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on SB 92.
3:53:50 PM
KARA MORIARTY, President, Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA),
Anchorage, Alaska, testified on behalf of AOGA in opposition to
SB 92. She explained that AOGA, a professional trade association
for oil and gas producers, required unanimous consensus of
members on tax matters. She said AOGA opposed SB 92 claiming
that it imposed a new discriminatory income tax on select firms.
She said SB 92 targeted pass-through entities in the oil and gas
sector with incomes exceeding $5 million, affecting a small
number of companies out of over 11,000 S corporations in Alaska.
She highlighted unintended consequences of SB 92, including
retroactivity, potential double taxation, and the impact on
business confidence and fiscal stability. She urged proper
modeling and analysis, noting the potential impacts of SB 92 to
Alaska tax policy and to the industry's ability to remain
competitive under additional pressure from stagnant oil prices
and reduced investments. She emphasized positive contributions
of the oil and gas industry to Alaska's economy, including
increased production and job creation, and urged the committee
to reject SB 92.
3:58:22 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked where AOGA anticipated double taxation under
SB 92.
3:58:40 PM
MS. MORIARTY noted the need for clarification and said analysis
and modeling of SB 92 would help identify those issues. She
suggested major corporations in Alaska may have private
subsidiaries and LLCs that would be subject to taxes under SB 92
in addition to the corporate income tax they already paid.
3:59:13 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL asked whether AOGA's concern would be removed if
double taxation was addressed.
MS. MORIARTY answered potentially.
3:59:32 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN noted AOGCC's unanimous decision by members to
oppose SB 92 and the perception that SB 92 targeted one or more
entities. He asked whether AOGCC membership took a position
regarding legislation that would apply to all S corporations in
Alaska rather than just one or two.
4:00:06 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL clarified that the question was for AOGA members,
not AOGCC.
SENATOR CLAMAN affirmed.
4:00:23 PM
MS. MORIARTY said there were currently 16 AOGA member companies
that all opposed SB 92. She said AOGA had not analyzed
legislation that would tax all 11,000 plus corporations in the
state and said such legislation had not been introduced to the
legislature.
4:01:06 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether AOGA found that C corporations were
currently experiencing double taxation.
4:01:28 PM
MS. MORIARTY said it was her understanding that C corporations
were paying taxes legally required by the corporate income tax
system.
4:01:45 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether it was Ms. Moriarty's
understanding that [British Petroleum] BP paid the corporate
income tax during the several decades they did business in
Alaska.
4:02:00 PM
MS. MORIARTY said it was her understanding that BP paid all
their legally required taxes in the state of Alaska.
4:02:08 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if it was also her understanding that
Exxon, Conoco and Santos paid corporate income taxes in Alaska.
4:02:15 PM
MS. MORIARTY said that it was her understanding that all AOGA's
member companies paid all their required taxes in the state of
Alaska. She recalled several years prior when there were
negative income taxes because prices were so low, sometimes
negative.
4:02:40 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for the rationale behind one of the
major producers not paying corporate income tax while all the
rest do. He asked why that one company should get preferential
treatment.
4:02:56 PM
MS. MORIARTY said it was fair to say that companies were
attracted to Alaska for a variety of reasons. She pointed out
that in 1980 Alaska chose not to have an income tax for
individuals as well as pass-through entities. She said Hilcorp
was a private company when they came to Alaska thirteen years
ago and they came to Alaska to invest millions and now billions
of dollars in Cook Inlet and the North Slope. She said the law
was in place at that time.
4:03:51 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether she recalled that when BPs
assets were being purchased [by Hilcorp], there were discussions
about the fact that, as an S corporation, Hilcorp would be
exempt from the taxes incurred by a C corporation. He said there
were calls for that to be fixed.
4:04:12 PM
MS. MORIARTY said she did recall that and referred to a recent
memo from the Department of Revenue, highlighting an increase in
production in Prudhoe Bay, a 45-year-old field, since Hilcorp's
arrival on the North Slope. She pointed to Hilcorp's track
record in Alaska - creating jobs and revitalizing Cook Inlet
which, she suggested, delayed the necessity for the legislature
to make a policy decision.
4:05:34 PM
SENATOR HUGHES emphasized the constitutional mandate to maximize
resource development benefits. She questioned whether the
concept of fair share in oil resource development should
encompass corporate taxes. She differentiated between corporate
tax, applicable to all industries, and the specific taxes
related to oil production. She noted that oil production tax and
royalty take are more significant revenue sources for the state
than the general corporate tax. She sought confirmation on
whether the fair share included corporate taxes or was limited
to oil-specific taxes.
4:06:50 PM
MS. MORIARTY answered that the concept of a fair share was
subjective, including in the context of corporate income tax.
She suggested that from an industry perspective, the government
take included:
• royalties paid to the state as the landowner
• production taxes
• corporate income taxes
• property taxes paid to local governments
MS. Moriarty highlighted local property taxes, noting that they
were crucial for communities like the Fairbanks North Star
Borough. She emphasized that the oil and gas industry viewed all
these taxes as part of the government's take, and that the
decision to include corporate income tax in determining the
maximum benefit to the people [of Alaska] was up to the
legislature.
4:08:52 PM
SENATOR HUGHES opined that maximum benefit included production
taxes and royalties, not corporate taxes. She concurred that
modeling for SB 92 was necessary. She asked whether it was
AOGA's view that increased taxes led to decreased investment,
decreased jobs and ultimately decreased production.
4:09:36 PM
MS. MORIARTY answered that, for any business, higher payments to
government leaves less capital for businesses to invest back
into themselves. She said this reduction in funds limits
expansion. She suggested that front-line contractors in Alaska
could offer further insight due to their direct exposure to
policy effects.
4:10:32 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL stated that SB 92 related to oil and gas companies
that are not organized as C corporations. She said these
companies typically have fewer than 100 shareholders and do not
have non-resident aliens as shareholders. She noted the
Department of Revenue (DOR), Tax Division's reluctance to name
the specific company or companies affected by SB 92 and asked if
AOGA would be willing to disclose whether there was only one
company that would be affected by SB 92 or if there were others
that could be impacted.
4:11:38 PM
MS. MORIARTY answered that two of AOGAs member companies were
registered as S corporations in the state of Alaska and that
they very well could have profits over $5 million.
4:12:09 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referred to recent lease expenditure
numbers provided by the Department of Revenue compared with
figures from 2015:
• In 2015, Prudhoe Bay had $773 million in capital expenditures,
which declined to $346.7 million in preliminary 2024 figures.
• Operating expenditures (OPEX) in 2015 were $2.5 billion, but
they dropped to $1.37 billion in 2020.
• The number of jobs in the oil industry at Prudhoe Bay declined
from over 15,000 in 2013 to approximately 8,000, representing
a roughly 50 percent reduction.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI concluded that tax cuts did not lead to
increased investment or job creation at Prudhoe Bay.
4:13:49 PM
MS. MORIARTY countered that the significant oil price crash in
2015 and 2016 led to a loss of jobs and increased efficiency
among operators. She highlighted the new operator on the North
Slope in Prudhoe Bay for their focus on driving costs to the
lowest levels and contributing to efficiency improvements. She
said that despite the economic downturn, production in Prudhoe
Bay surpassed forecasts, indicating improved efficiency and
higher production rates. She stated that the change in tax
policy in 2013 aimed to direct expenses towards production,
which is now evident in the increased efficiency and production
levels. She said contractors were busier currently than they
were in the pipeline days because of projects like the Pikka
project and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA), and
an uptick in business and drilling wells in Prudhoe versus
maintenance projects.
4:16:09 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted the failure of the initiative
referendum in 2014 and its subsequent impact on job losses and
investments. He said that despite oil prices remaining above $90
per barrel post-referendum, BP announced layoffs of around 400
to 475 employees. He emphasized the contradiction between
promised job creation and actual job cuts by BP.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI agreed with the concept of government take
as a comprehensive measure including corporate income tax and
acknowledged the difficulty of determining the optimal value or
benefit derived from natural resources. He asked whether [a
structure in which] some companies pay no tax in one component
[of government take] was achieving the maximum benefit [for the
state].
4:17:19 PM
MS. MORIARTY said [AOGA] companies were adhering to the current
policy and laws, which led to a significant return to the state
in increased royalties and production. She theorized this would
not have been the case considering the shift of Prudhoe Bay in
the BP portfolio. She reiterated that the current contractor may
not pay corporate income tax, but she said they have been good
for the state of Alaska regarding royalties, production for the
long term and extending the life of the field.
4:18:16 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI recollected the More Alaska Production Act,
which initially promised increased oil production to 1 million
barrels per day within a decade. He noted current output was
below 500,000 barrels daily and that recent growth was not on
state-owned lands, but in the federally owned lands in the
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA), where the state
offered $1 billion in tax incentives but does not receive any
royalties due to federal ownership.
4:19:04 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted that the memo under discussion from
Department of Revenue (DOR) was in response to questions from
the committee following the February 20, 2025 hearing of SB 92.
She said the memo was available to the public online.
4:19:40 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR noted that government structured tax incentives
or tax cuts to incentivize something and would not offer
incentives for something already in place. He noted the
observation that when Hilcorp came to Alaska, they were a
private corporation, and were aware Alaska didn't have a
corporate income tax on S corporations. He asked whether it was
Ms. Moriarty's assertion that had they expected to pay a
corporate income tax, Hilcorp would not have purchased BPS
assets.
4:20:14 PM
MS. MORIARTY said she was not suggesting that and said Hilcorp's
corporate status had not changed since they came to Alaska.
MS. MORIARTY recalled participating in debates regarding the
goal of producing a million barrels per day. She explained that
the sources of oil production for that goal included offshore
resources, oil from federal lands such as ANWR and NPRA, and
increased drilling in both new areas and existing fields.
4:21:33 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether Willow or Pikka were S
corporations.
4:21:55 PM
MS. MORIARTY said they were not.
4:22:00 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether those corporations which were
making by far the largest investments in the state, were paying
corporate income taxes.
4:22:06 PM
MS. MORIARTY said due to tax-payer confidentiality, she did not
know their corporate income tax returns looked like. She
reiterated that, to her knowledge, all AOGA member companies
filed taxes legally in the state of Alaska.
4:22:23 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked when Santos began making serious
investments in Alaska.
4:22:34 PM
MS. MORIARTY said the original parent company was OilSearch. She
did not recall the year they first picked up leases in Alaska.
4:22:54 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether Santos was a C corporation when
they entered the state and whether they were currently a C
corporation.
4:23:00 PM
MS. MORIARTY affirmed that, from her knowledge, they were.
4:23:36 PM
SENATOR MYERS posed a hypothetical situation in which a C
corporation had a wholly owned subsidiary which handled their
pipelines. He asked whether the corporation would be double
taxed on revenues that first passed through the pipeline-
owned/operated corporation under SB 92.
4:24:32 PM
MICHAEL WILLIAMS, Corporate Tax Manager, Tax Division,
Department of Revenue (DOR), Anchorage, Alaska, answered that,
double taxation would not necessarily result in the example
described. He explained that typically a group of corporations
operate as a C corporation and if they own a Limited Liability
Company (LLC) outright, or 100 percent, then the LLC will be
treated as a corporation as is the rest of the C corporation. He
offered an alternative to the hypothetical in which the LLC was
half owned by a C corporation and half owned by some other
entity for which the LLC was pass-through. In that situation he
said the LLC would become a taxable entity if it had more than
$5 million in income: half the income would attribute to the
owners of the LLC and the other half to the C corporation. So,
he said, for the C corporation there was the potential for
double taxation. He said DOR suggested ways to fix that in SB
92.
4:26:14 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL recognized Senator Merrick, Representative Burke
and Representative Bynam.
4:26:22 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony on SB 92.
4:26:47 PM
JERRY WEBRE, President, Little Red Services, Anchorage, Alaska,
introduced himself and said Little Red Services operated on the
North Slope and strongly opposed SB 92. He reported that
Hilcorp's production had increased significantly, from 17,000
barrels per day when BP sold the field to 50,000 barrels per
day, providing substantial resources to the state. He said
passing SB 92 could create higher energy costs, harm Alaskan
suppliers and jobs, and disincentivize further investment in
2025, as Hilcorp planned to invest $1 billion to increase
production on the North Slope and in Cook Inlet. He also said
Hilcorp planned to spend $200 million per year in Cook Inlet.
MR. WEBRE said given Alaska's need for economic growth and new
investment and the departure of so many oil and gas operators,
it was not the time to raise taxes on the industry. He said
proper modeling and analysis were needed to assess the full
impact on affected businesses. He said the Little Red Services
team urged the legislature to promote healthy relations with
producers and not discourage producers from investing in Alaska.
4:30:27 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for the source of the numbers
provided in the testimony:
• $1 billion planned investment by Hilcorp
• $200 million per year investment in Cook Inlet
• etc.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that the legislature did not have
access to that information and asked whether that data and its
source could be provided to the committee.
4:30:51 PM
MR. WEBRE said it was industry knowledge, gathered from working
in the business and talking with clients.
4:31:01 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for written documentation.
MR. WEBRE said he could not provide written documentation.
4:31:12 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL recognized Representative Coulombe.
4:31:37 PM
LESTER BLACK, Incoming President, Alaska Support Industry
Alliance, Anchorage, Alaska, introduced himself and said the
Alaska Support Industry Alliance, was a 46-year-old professional
trade organization with over 500 member companies and 35,000
employees in Alaska. He said the Alliance opposed SB 92, arguing
that targeting one company, Hilcorp, in one industry was not a
well-thought-out tax policy and could lead to uncertainty, which
is harmful to investment. He highlighted the negative impact of
retroactive tax changes, citing the exit of British Petroleum as
an example of how such policies can jeopardize future growth and
investment in Alaska. He pointed out that SB 92 would affect 125
Alaskan companies that work for Hilcorp, many of whom were
Alliance members, and asserted that smaller Alaskan companies
would be disproportionately impacted compared with larger
companies based outside Alaska.
Mr. Black observed support from the current administration in
Washington DC for significant growth in Alaska's resource
development. He acknowledged the effort to address budget
shortfalls in the short term but warned that unstable tax
policies could jeopardize Alaska's private sector, natural gas
supply, and future tax revenues. He urged against the passage of
SB 92.
4:34:48 PM
KELLY DROOP, Regional Manager, Pape Kenworth, Anchorage, Alaska,
testified in opposition to SB 92. In addition to her position at
Kenworth, Ms. Droop said she also served on the Resource
Development Council and the Alaska Support Industry Alliance.
She expressed concerns about SB 92's potential impact on
Alaska's private sector, oil and gas industry, and overall
business climate. She warned that altering tax policy post-
investment could deter future investments, jeopardizing
affordable energy and Alaska businesses. She urged the
legislature to maintain stability to foster growth and the tax
base rather than increasing tax rates after companies have made
investment decisions.
4:36:24 PM
KATIE CAPOZZI, President, Alaska Chamber of Commerce, Anchorage,
Alaska, introduced herself and testified against SB 92,
expressing strong opposition on behalf of the chamber, which
represented over 700 businesses and 58,000 workers. She said SB
92 conflicted with the chamber's policies to support the oil and
gas industry and to oppose new targeted taxes for any industry.
She argued that SB 92 could jeopardize one in six jobs in Alaska
and undermine the state's energy sector by discouraging
investment and production, potentially reducing state revenue in
the long term. She said SB 92 lacked independent economic
analysis and could set a precedent for taxing other S
corporations in other industries, such as fishing, banking and
medical care. She urged against the passage of SB 92.
4:39:14 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL noted testimony based on a perception that SB 92
targeted oil and gas producers and that taxation would be more
acceptable if it were more broadly applied. She noted Ms.
Capozzi's apparent concern that SB 92 would lead to broader
application [of corporate taxation] to other S corporations and
asked for clarification.
4:39:57 PM
MS. CAPOZZI noted that there had not been legislation
introducing taxes on all S corporations, but she acknowledged
that the Chamber was likely to oppose such measures. She said
that signaling to any potential future business investor that if
a business is successful and making money, that business might
be the next target for a change in the tax system does not
promote a positive investment climate in the state.
4:40:42 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted that the state had a $536 million
deficit between the current closing fiscal year and the next. He
asked whether the Chamber could offer any support for the
legislature as it worked to close the deficit.
4:41:10 PM
MS. CAPOZZI said the Chamber advocated for a sustainable fiscal
plan and emphasized the need for a functioning spending cap
before considering broad-based tax measures. She said a spending
cap was essential to ensure fiscal responsibility and prevent
excessive spending during deficits. Without this assurance, she
said the business community was hesitant to support broad-based
revenue measures.
4:42:06 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what spending cap level the Chamber
would support. He noted that to achieve a zero deficit would
require a spending cut of $350 million. He asked what sort of
broad-based measures the Chamber would support, for example a
sales tax or personal income tax.
4:42:35 PM
MS. CAPOZZI noted that spending caps were proposed every year
but did not get far enough to have hearings or to be vetted. She
said there had not been a proposal that allowed for analysis and
meaningful work toward a solution.
4:43:13 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether the Chamber would consider
supporting a sales tax or personal income tax as broad-based
measures.
4:43:22 PM
MS. CAPOZZI said that until there was a serious spending cap in
place, she did not anticipate Chamber proposals or support for
revenue measures.
4:43:40 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR noted past advocacy by the Chamber for a spending
cap. He asked whether the Chamber envisioned a spending cap that
included the [Permanent Fund Dividend] PFD or if the PFD would
be outside of the spending cap.
4:44:03 PM
MS. CAPOZZI said Chamber membership had differing opinions on
whether a spending cap would include the PFD. She argued that
the opportunity to have hearings on a spending cap would allow
for analysis and vetting of various options. She said the
Chamber did not have a position regarding whether the PFD would
be in or out [of a spending cap].
4:44:37 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted the claims that SB 92 was targeted on
the [oil and gas] industry. He observed that in 2013 the
legislature passed SB 21 and voters tried to repeal SB 21 in
2014. He recalled that the [the oil and gas] industry made a
series of promises during that time, that if the legislature
massively cut oil taxes, there would be more jobs, more
investment, more revenue for the state, a growing permanent fund
dividend and a million barrels of oil per day. He asserted that
[instead], the state has:
• 50 percent of the jobs
• 50 percent of the investment
• much less than 50 percent of the state revenue
• about 25 percent of the PFD
• less than 500,000 barrels [of oil] per day
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI maintained that SB 92 was not a target on
the industry. He said the oil and gas industry did not fulfill
the promises made [to the state] in exchange for massive tax
cuts.
4:46:04 PM
LEILA KIMBRELL, Executive Director, Resource Development Council
(RDC) for Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska, introduced and outlined the
RDC's representation of various industries including fishing,
tourism, timber, mining, and oil and gas. She emphasized RDC's
long-standing advocacy for a strong private sector, responsible
fiscal policies, and stable tax policies to encourage long-term
investment and economic expansion. She asserted that SB 92 does
not align with these principles, as it unfairly targets S
corporations in the oil and gas sector without considering other
sectors with similar income thresholds. She highlighted SB 92's
retroactive nature and suggested potential legal and
constitutional issues. She suggested SB 92 could negatively
impact future resource development and Alaska's competitiveness.
MS. KIMBRELL warned that SB 92 could lead to less investment,
development, production, and job opportunities, ultimately
reducing state revenue and threatening long-term economic
growth.
4:49:22 PM
SENATOR HUGHES noted RDC's representation of the mining
industry. She said support for SB 92 was in part based on the
non-renewable nature of oil and gas. She noted that mining also
involved non-renewable resources and that there were S
corporations in the mining industry. She asked whether RDC was
concerned that the mining industry [might be targeted] next.
4:50:13 PM
MS. KIMBRELL affirmed RDC's concern that a measure targeting one
industry for revenue could lead to future targeted revenue
attempts for other industries. She said it was important to
recognize the chilling message sent by SB 92 to investors in
other resource development industries such as mining.
4:50:57 PM
SENATOR HUGHES noted RDC's concerns regarding constitutionality.
She opined that SB 92 narrowly targets specific resource
development companies for the 9.4 percent corporate tax,
suggesting it may infringe on equal protection rights. She
observed that the current 9.5 percent corporate tax applies to
all C corporations, but SB 92 would apply only to S corporations
in resource development. She suggested that SB 92 should be
referred to the Judiciary Committee and to Department of Law
(DOL). She asked whether RDCs constitutionality concerns were
for the broader implications or were more focused on the single
company.
4:52:43 PM
MS. KIMBRELL acknowledged the complexity of thoroughly analyzing
a legislative bill and concurred with calls for rigorous
modeling [of SB 92]. She deferred the recommendation for
subsequent committee referral to the appropriate legislative
body.
4:53:35 PM
SENATOR HUGHES clarified that it was not her intention that SB
92 be applied to all S corporations to address questions of
equal protection.
4:54:21 PM
THOMAS WALSH, Managing Partner, Petrotechnical Resources of
Alaska, LLC (PRA), Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition to
SB 92. He stated that SB 92 targeted Hilcorp and would also
impact other independent explorers and smaller companies
exploring in Alaska, which could discourage investment in the
state. He highlighted Hilcorp's arrival in Alaska in 2012 when
Cook Inlet gas production was declining, and said their
investments delayed a gas supply crisis by 15 to 20 years. He
said Hilcorp's investments in Cook Inlet and the North Slope
were essential for maintaining gas supply and revitalizing oil
production from legacy fields. He argued that SB 92 would create
a major disincentive for independent operators to invest in
Alaska, which he said was not in the best interest of Alaskans.
MR. WALSH found it ironic that the proceeds of SB 92 would fund
energy projects, given Hilcorp's pivotal role in sustaining the
state's energy infrastructure.
4:57:38 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI commented regarding testimony charging SB
92 with targeting one specific company. He noted that the
committee asked Department of Revenue (DOR) which entities would
be impacted by SB 92 and DOR declined to specify.
4:58:09 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR noted that Mr. Walsh suggested SB 92 proceeds
would be spent on grid upgrades and explained that the
legislature could not designate [revenue] funds to any specific
spending. He said there was still hope for Federal grants [for
grid support]. He emphasized that education funding was his
highest priority.
4:58:52 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL explained that previous iterations of SB 92 did
indicate that revenue generated should fund energy projects.
4:59:09 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR apologized to Mr. Walsh and said he was not aware
of that history.
4:59:42 PM
CAROLINE STORM, Executive Director, Coalition for Education
Equity, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 92. She
emphasized the urgent need to address the chronically
underfunded school system in Alaska and pointed out that 20
students in Sleetmute were attending school in a condemned
building. She argued that the legislature must raise revenue to
meet its constitutional obligation to fund education and
maintenance projects. She urged the committee to pass SB 92 to
address these critical funding gaps.
5:01:02 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL kept public testimony on SB 92 open.
5:01:09 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 92 in committee.
5:01:44 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL discussed the cash credit program initiated in
2012, in which the State of Alaska provided cash payments to
companies that invested in drilling [oil and gas] wells. She
said the program resulted in significant financial strain, with
billions of dollars spent on cash credits the state could not
afford. She highlighted the unique challenge Alaska faces due to
the absence of a personal income tax since 1980 and said other
states without personal income tax have developed alternative
methods to tax companies, particularly S corporations and LLCs.
She emphasized the need to address this taxation issue to
stabilize the state's financial situation.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Jessie Chmielowski AOGCC Resume 2024_Redacted.pdf |
SRES 3/3/2025 3:30:00 PM |
|
| 3.3.25 DOR Response to SRES SB92 Questions.pdf |
SRES 3/3/2025 3:30:00 PM |
SB 92 |