Legislature(2009 - 2010)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/06/2010 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB162 | |
| SB208 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HB 162 | |||
| + | SB 208 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 230 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 203 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 208
"An Act requiring the Department of Natural Resources
to evaluate current incentives and recommend
additional incentives that would increase gas
exploration, development, and production in the Cook
Inlet sedimentary basin; and requiring the Department
of Natural Resources to evaluate the means by which
the department may explore for, purchase, and sell
natural gas from newly proved gas reserves in the Cook
Inlet sedimentary basin."
9:28:46 AM
SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, SPONSOR, introduced SB 208 to
the committee:
SB 208 calls on the departments of Natural Resources
and Revenue to complete two tasks by December 1 of
this year.
The first is to evaluate the effectiveness of existing
incentives designed to increase exploration for and
production of natural gas in Cook Inlet.
The second is to identify and evaluate additional
steps the legislature could take to increase
production of gas in Cook Inlet.
It is well known that reserves of natural gas in Cook
Inlet are declining.
You have probably all seen this chart - known as the
"waterfall chart" - which depicts a precipitous
decline in the known reserves of Cook Inlet gas.
The chart and testimony indicate that as early as
2012, homes and businesses in Southcentral Alaska
could be without sufficient supplies of natural gas.
Earlier this year, we received encouraging news about
this looming gas shortage when DNR completed a new
assessment of known, possible, and probably reserves
in the Inlet.
This review concluded that if sufficient investment in
Cook Inlet exploration were made, supplies could last
a great deal longer.
While the new assessment provides welcome news, the
challenge remains - What actions can and should the
state take to encourage producers to invest more in
the Inlet?
Which incentives are likely to work and which simply
transfer revenue from the state treasury to companies
which may already have sufficient incentive to drill,
given proper market conditions.
Are there steps the state can take other than lowering
tax rates or increasing credits which might have a
greater effect on private sector behavior?
This question is particularly compelling in light of
the very modest tax rates and generous tax credits
that producers in the Inlet already enjoy.
The legislature has already gone to lengths to
encourage more production in Cook Inlet. To what
extent are these incentives working?
This bill seeks to answer this question and others.
For example, what are other jurisdictions doing to
promote more investment?
If the small size of the market in Alaska is an
impediment to new exploration and production - which
we have heard - are there steps the state can take to
"enhance" the market to ensure that producers see a
return on their investment in a reasonable timeframe?
For instance, could the state commit to buying a
percentage of newly proven reserves upfront so
investors don't have to wait decades to reap the
benefits of their investment?
Earlier this session, you heard testimony that the
state already reimburses companies for 45-65% of their
exploration costs. Given this, how can the state
partner more effectively with industry to ensure that
the needs of Alaskans for a long-term, affordable and
reliable source of gas are met?
This bill calls for a quick analysis of these
questions.
It asks DNR and DOR to assess the effectiveness of
existing fiscal inducements, propose new incentives it
believes would be useful, and then look broadly at
what other strategies the state might employ to make
sure Alaskans down tumble over the cliff depicted in
DNR's "waterfall chart."
Most importantly, it calls for this work to be done
expeditiously - by December 1 - so that the
legislature can act swiftly next year once the
foundation for a more informed decision has been laid.
9:32:14 AM
KEVIN BANKS, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL & GAS, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, explained that a couple months ago, the
sponsor's staff asked if such a project was feasible and if
it could be implemented in a short time. The department's
first recommendation was to make the bill with an immediate
effective date. He informed the committee that there was a
firm already under contract by the department which might
be able to undertake this task. He suggested that Gaffney
Cline & Associates' contract could be modified to provide
the information needed.
9:34:34 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked if there is any need to change the
time constraint in order to meet the December 1 deadline.
Mr. Banks thought the immediate effective date, along with
using the existing contract, would work.
Co-Chair Stedman spoke of a concern about making good
public policy calls instead of reactionary calls regarding
the natural gas supply in the Railbelt. He said that there
are currently many bills that offer incentives, some of
which seem to be a little "detached" from a public policy
process, which would define the issue and target
governmental action to solve the problem of running out of
gas. He requested an opinion from Mr. Banks about finding a
solution in Cook Inlet.
Mr. Banks believed that most tax policy, with respect to
incentives, either by reducing tax or by providing a credit
is "like pushing a string". He further stated that there
are contractual relationships with lessees that somewhat
limit what the department can encourage producers to do.
This bill asks the department to use creative thinking
about whether the state can have a more active role in the
market place, in exploration, and in the development of
resources in the Cook Inlet. He maintained that it was
worth examining the state's role using a measured approach.
Co-Chair Stedman explained that Cook Inlet does not have a
tax structure like the North Slope does. The credits have
been increased and broadened in the past years. The
legislature ensured that Cook Inlet was not impacted by
ACES. There is no direct connection between the tax
structure in the Arctic and in Cook Inlet. He reported a
concern that the taxes in Cook Inlet were approaching zero.
He stressed that he is encouraged by this legislation.
9:38:51 AM
Mr. Banks said he would consider those comments as the
department moves forward on the study, if it is the will of
the legislature.
Senator Huggins complimented the sponsor for the
legislation. He questioned why it takes legislation to
produce common sense action. He asked what the department
would do if the bill did not exist. Mr. Banks reported on
actions taken in the past. The department has tried to make
sure the markets are sustained. There were discussions
about the sale of royalty-in-kind gas.
9:40:41 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the study would include
regulations and involve the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska. Mr. Banks thought the instructions were broad
enough to consider regulations. "The marketing of" allows
for the inclusion of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska's
involvement.
Co-Chair Stedman suggested looking at a broader view of
Cook Inlet. Mr. Banks agreed.
9:42:40 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted two fiscal notes; one by the
Department of Natural Resources for $200,000 in general
funds to hire outside consultants to complete the study,
and a zero fiscal note by the Department of Revenue.
Senator Wielechowski commented on the challenge of the
issue. He agreed with Senator Huggins' comments. He thought
the bill would help in the long term.
9:43:54 AM
SB 208 was heard and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| RDC Support of HB 162.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB 162 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB162SSE State Forest Briefing 1-24-10.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB0162A.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB162 SSE State Forest Map Packet 2-27-09.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB162 SAF State Chapter Support Letter.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| HB162 AFA Support Letter 2010.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |
| AG briefing.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 208 |
| SB 208 Sponsor Statement.doc |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 208 |
| Cook Inlet Supply and Demand.pub |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 208 |
| Cook Inlet Forecast Chart (exerpt).pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 208 |
| HB 162 Letters of support.pdf |
SFIN 4/6/2010 9:00:00 AM |
HB 162 |