Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/15/2010 08:30 AM House FINANCE
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 159 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 172 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 220 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 234 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 243 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 258 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 279 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 312 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 305 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 305(FIN)(title am)
"An Act providing that the tax rate applicable to the
production of oil as the average production tax value
of oil, gas produced in the Cook Inlet sedimentary
basin, and gas produced outside of the Cook Inlet
sedimentary basin and used in the state increases
above $30 shall be 0.4 percent multiplied by the
number that represents the difference between that
average monthly production tax value and $30, or the
sum of 25 percent and the product of 0.1 percent
multiplied by the number that represents the
difference between that average monthly production tax
value and $92.50, except that the total rate
determined in the calculation may not exceed 50
percent; providing for an increase in the rate of tax
on the production of gas as the average production tax
value on a BTU equivalent barrel basis of gas produced
outside of the Cook Inlet sedimentary basin and not
used in the state increases above $30; relating to
payments of the oil and gas production tax; relating
to availability of a portion of the money received
from the tax on oil and gas production for
appropriation to the community revenue sharing fund;
relating to the allocation of lease expenditures and
adjustments to lease expenditures; and providing for
an effective date."
9:02:15 AM
Representative Fairclough MOVED CS CS SB 305(FIN) 26-
LS1577\K, Bullock, 4/14/10 as a working document.
Co-Chair Hawker OBJECTED for discussion.
ROGER MARKS, PETROLEUM ECONOMIST, LEGISLATIVE BUDGET &
AUDIT, detailed the "Summary of Changes Between House
Resources CS and Finance Work Draft" (copy on file). He
listed the reasons as described on the list.
1. Timing window of moving between the one "bucket"
and two "bucket" regimes has been removed.
2. AS 43.55.011(g)(3): and (p)(3): This is a
technical change that adds clarity. It depicts
the detailed methodology for deriving the
progressivity factor so that it is clear the word
"average in the statute means weighted average.
3. AS 43.55.020(a): The section describing the
calculation of the monthly installment payments
has been repealed and reenacted. After all
previous changes a more succinct drafting was
crafted.
4. AS 55.161(a)(1) and (a)(2): This is an expansion
on the current section describing the calculation
of the annual and monthly production tax values.
Lease expenditures include expenditures allocated
under 160(f) (below) for the calendar year
incurred to explore land not under lease, or
explore or develop a lease before commencement of
sustained production.
5. AS. 43.55.160(f): This is a new section.
Expenditures to explore land not under lease, or
to explore or develop a lease before commencement
of production of oil or gas, are allocated
between oil and gas in the year the expenditure
is incurred. (Method of allocation is specified
in AS 43.55.165(h)[an amendment out of House
Resources] stating that for allocating costs
between oil and gas gross value should be used to
the maximum extent possible).
6. AS 43.55.(g): This is a new section that
clarifies that lease expenditures include
expenditures for producing or that are incurred
for exploration or development after the
commencement of sustained production, as well.
Representative Gara found it difficult to follow the bill
while using the "bucket explanation." He assumed that
decoupling would not be necessary until the state began
exporting gas. Mr. Marks clarified that if the bill passes
then the decoupling is effective immediately. He offered
another bucket analogy.
9:07:52 AM
Mr. Marks explained that the progressivity for the current
activity would be calculated together with Cook Inlet Gas,
North Slope Oil, and all other instate gas.
Representative Gara asked if the system would be similar to
the current one. Mr. Marks responded yes.
Mr. Marks continued to describe the technical changes.
Representative Gara asked if a deduction from gas taxes
would be appropriate when producing gas. Mr. Marks answered
yes.
Representative Gara asked if small field were found and
dedicated to a certain demand, would decoupling allow
deduction of gas costs from the gas tax. Mr. Marks
discussed allocation. Costs are allocated between oil and
gas pursuant to Section 165(h), as seen on page 15, Section
9. This amendment adopted by House Resources stated that
costs are allocated between oil and gas based on gross
value at the point of production. If the producer had gas
income, the cost for developing the gas would be allocated
between their gas and oil; expenditures could be offset
against the gas income.
Representative Gara commented that companies producing
small amounts of gas are not required to decouple. Mr.
Marks agreed that is correct.
Representative Gara asked to know the trigger enforcing
decoupling. Mr. Marks responded that a North Slope oil
producer selling a small amount of taxable gas to Alyeska
is considered an in-state gas sale. Those incomes and costs
are allocated in proportion to gross value at the point of
production.
Co-Chair Hawker clarified that Representative Gara was
seeking the trigger point export. Representative Gara
understood that companies producing small amounts of gas
would operate under current law.
Mr. Marks commented that current law and activities are
divided into segments. He listed the segments as North
Slope oil and in-state gas.
Representative Gara asked if in-state gas is taxed under
Alaska's Clear and Equitable Share (ACES). Mr. Marks
answered yes.
Representative Gara asked if export gas triggers the
decoupling rules. Mr. Marks responded correct.
9:17:00 AM
Mr. Marks continued with the technical changes.
Representative Kelly clarified that the mechanism does not
change for in-state gas. Mr. Marks answered that is
correct.
Representative Austerman asked if the new subsection for
Section 8 was discussed in both the Senate and Resource
Committees as an option. Mr. Marks responded no. The
subsection was an alternative way of addressing concern
regarding the deduction of cost in the future.
Co-Chair Hawker added that the three day window was a
creation of legislative legal. The approach presented was a
joint crafting by Department of Revenue (DOR) and the
sponsor.
Mr. Marks commented that the issue of cost recognition was
in statute and regulation. As long as status quo was in
place, the concern was alleviated.
9:20:06 AM
Mr. Marks continued with Page 7, Section 7, which are in
the current statue and describe how the production tax
values are derived for the different segments. Lease
expenditures should include those allocated by current
production for the calendar year for expenses for
exploration and development. Costs incurred can be deducted
against current production.
Representative Doogan asked if an oil and gas company
looking for gas can deduct costs against oil taxes until
gas development occurs. Mr. Marks explained that if a
company were looking for gas but had only oil production,
the gas seeking costs could be deducted against oil
production. Once both oil and gas are produced, the costs
are deducted against both in proportion to the gross value
of the oil and the gas.
Representative Doogan presented a scenario where a company
is exploring just for gas without oil production. Mr. Marks
explained that the company would take a credit of 25
percent of the expenditures.
9:23:13 AM
Mr. Marks explained that lease expenditures include
expenditures for producing and exploration before and after
the commencement of production.
Representative Austerman asked for identification of the
section discussed. Mr. Marks clarified Section 8, Page 14,
Section 43.55.160(g).
Co-Chair Hawker commented that an update for the
comprehensive sectional for the bill will be provided. Mr.
Marks agreed to provide the comprehensive sectional.
Representative Gara pointed out that the state will not
require decoupling until Alaska exports gas. Companies that
wish to produce gas for export understand the decoupling
rule.
Representative Gara asked where the decoupling trigger
point was stated in the statute. Mr. Marks replied Section
4, AS 43.55.011(p). The current statute includes a base tax
and progressivity for current activity in Section G. He
noted that Section P sets up progressivity tax for gas. He
mentioned Section 7, Page 9 which references gas produced
during a calendar year. He noted that the key phrase was
the bottom of Subsection f which explains that exported gas
that is subject to a distinct progressivity calculation.
Representative Gara highlighted that the section does not
define that the trigger point is for exported gas. He
understood the definition to read that in-state gas uses
ACES and out of state gas employs the decoupling process.
The issue of the commerce clause problem will be dealt with
when the state begins exporting gas.
Mr. Marks chose not to provide advice about constitutional
issues.
9:29:00 AM
Co-Chair Hawker removed his objection to adoption of the
work draft. The work draft was adopted.
Representative Fairclough communicated that her silence
does not mean that that she agrees with the statements made
about the inner-state commerce clause.
Representative Gara clarified that he did not know that an
inter-state commerce violation existed, but he realized
that the question existed.
SB 305 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
9:31:55 AM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| K version CE Workdraft.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
CS WORKDRAFT Kversion SB 305 SB 305 |
| Summary of Changes to SC workdraft K SB 305.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| sb13_2009 summary 3-9-09[1].pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 13 |
| SB 13 - Sponsor Statement 2-10-09 (H)FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 13 |
| SB 13 Sectional Summary 26-LS0076A (H)FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 13 |
| CS SB 83 (L&C) section analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| SB 83 Gov Transmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| Explanation of Changes between SB 83 and CSSB 83.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 83 |
| SB139 Sponsor Statement Revised.PDF |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 139 |
| SB 139 Data Health Care Professions Loan Repayment Program Concept Proposal.PDF |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 139 |
| SB 159 Sponsor Statement H FIN.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 159 |
| SB172 Sectional.PDF |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 172 |
| SB172 Sponsor Statement.PDF |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 172 |
| Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 174 |
| Changes to SB 220 in SB 220 FIN[1].pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 220 |
| Sectional on SB 220, version Y.doc |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 220 |
| Sponsor Statement for SB 220.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 220 |
| HCS CSSB 234 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 234 |
| Summary of Changes to HCS CSSB 234.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 234 |
| Sponsor Statement[1] SB 258.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 258 |
| Support Documents[1] SB258.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 258 |
| Sponsor Statement - SB 266.doc |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 266 |
| HCS for CS for SB 279_LC_ Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 279 |
| SB 279 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 279 |
| SB 279 Back-Up.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 279 |
| 2010 04 12 SB312 Port of Call Payments.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM SFIN 4/14/2010 9:00:00 AM |
SB 312 |
| SB 312 Sectional Analysis.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM SFIN 4/5/2010 10:00:00 AM |
SB 312 |
| SB 312 Sponsor Statement.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM SFIN 4/5/2010 10:00:00 AM |
SB 312 |
| SB 305 SECTIONAL for CS.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| SB305 sponsor statement.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| HCS CSSB305(RES)(title am)-REV-TAX-04-13-10 decoupling.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| 2010 04 15 Historical Rev Distribution 3Yrs.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 312 |
| 2010 03 02 D Wood Calculations FY2008_09.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
|
| SB 13 Support Letter.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 13 |
| SB 220 Amendments #2 3 4.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 220 |
| SB 305 Amendment Hawker.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| SB 172 Amendment #1 Hawker.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 172 |
| Sponsor Statement 243.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
|
| Corrected Sectional Analysis Sb 243 version P.docx |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 243 |
| H FIN Comments on SB 305 4-15-10 FINAL.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |
SB 305 |
| Qualifying For the AGIA Tax Inducement - H FIN 4-15-10.pdf |
HFIN 4/15/2010 8:30:00 AM |